I know. But they’re not the only ones. And I can repeat that patiently for as long as it’s necessary, until it sinks in. They’re not the only ones complaining about fairness.
Sure, there are toxic complainers here, but they’re not the only ones. I used to think they were probably the majority, for two reasons: 1) the toxic complainers were, as it usually goes, the loudest ones, and 2) I gave Funcom the benefit of the doubt they deserved.
Thing is, we can’t really know whether the toxic complainers are the majority or not, because they’re the loudest and they will eventually get any thread either locked down or derailed. Plus, the non-toxic participants are averse to sharing their evidence publicly, because that can also get the thread locked and de-listed.
So if we can’t know whether they’re the majority, we have two options:
- Keep trying to improve things.
- Assume the worst and lock everything down.
Personally, I prefer option 1, but I would have settled for option 2 if Funcom ever decided to implement it by putting their foot down and moderating the living crap out of these forums “until the morale improves”.
Fortunately, Funcom seems to have chosen option 1, which is why we’re now having clarifications and feedback discussions on this topic. Attempting to derail that effort because “complainers will never stop complaining” is really not helping anyone.
No, we’re not validating their toxic playstyle. We’re asking questions we want answered, because they’re important questions and because those questions deserve a better answer than “trust Funcom”.
Speaking of which, “trust Funcom” works both ways: by saying that asking Funcom to answer reasonable questions will somehow validate toxic playstyles, you’re saying you don’t trust Funcom to answer those questions without changing their stance to allow those toxic playstyles to go unpunished.
I choose to believe that Funcom staff are professional enough to sift through all the noise and address the real issues here 
When those of us who are asking in good faith are out of reasonable questions.
This is not some hypothetical, academic “what if” scenario, there are real questions waiting to be answered. I trust people like @JJDancer and @Ulyssi, to name only two, to ask questions like that, because they don’t have a track record of arguing in bad faith. It’s as simple as that.
And it’s also not too complicated to see when someone is behaving the way you and @Taemien pointed out. I’m not going to name any names or even quote any of that, because doing so would provoke outrage that would derail the thread further, but most of us are wise to those tricks and I’ll hope Funcom community managers can see through them too.
While I appreciate that you shared your story to illustrate your point, I kind of wonder what the point was, because you deliberately ignored my point.
The questions are there. They look reasonable to me, they were asked by people who have a track record of arguing respectfully and in good faith, and I would also like to know answers to them.
So are you going to explain what’s actually wrong with that, or are you just going to keep repeating that there are other people who want to take advantage of that somehow? Because I’m aware that people like that exist and of their motivations, and I trust Funcom to keep banning them even if they take the effort to explain the rules a bit more to the rest of us.
Yeah, it’s the same principle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they decide to do so, then that’s up to them. Until they do, I’m neither going to ask them to, nor am I going to agree with anyone who tries to stop them from improving the situation for those of us who play on officials.
