| Appropriate Posting |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
purerogue3
Known Hero
|
posted September 06, 2025 06:11 PM |
|
|
Maybe HC is making the transition from feudal to communistic dictatorship - codifying the right-to-rule.
A few hundread peasants can be quelled by a few knights (and retainers), but once you get into huge numbers you have to call yourself Chairman and get idealistic.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted September 06, 2025 06:22 PM |
|
|
Nah, we already tried it for a while.
It didn't last.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
purerogue3
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2025 06:42 PM |
|
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2025 10:04 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:18, 07 Sep 2025.
|
Valeriy said:
It is important to highlight that the actions taken and request made in this instance were concerned with a general trend in a member’s posting, not with a single isolated incident.
As others have pointed out we do not have perfect “policing”. Moderators are human and they are volunteers. Imagine being stopped by a traffic cop and telling him “But officer, there were three other people whom I saw speeding last week! You can’t charge me with a speeding offence without charging them too!” To this point - focus on your own actions and on what impact these actions have on the forum. If you speed often, you are much more likely to be caught and focused on. And if you want someone else to be prosecuted then report it to a moderator as a separate matter.
When it comes to the Code of Conduct, historically we have had some individuals who were good at borderlining. They were able to undermine and provoke others quite consistently but with words that did not in themselves trigger the COC rules. Eventually we had to crack down on them and act on the essence of the rules and the overall trend of their behaviour rather than applying specific rules to specific words in a specific post. That’s how Rule 6 came to be.
Asking people to think about how they post on HC is not new. From reading the Code of Conduct you will see that the rules stated therein are inherently not free speech. Free speech is the freedom to say anything. That’s why it’s called the Code of Conduct. Members are required to conduct themselves here according to this code as a condition of their membership.
HC is also not a democracy. HC is not a public space. HC is not funded by fees or taxes. HC is a private venue with an owner and volunteers who are looking after it and making it available to anyone for free. There is a Code of Conduct and some related requests from the owner and volunteer order keepers from time to time. The “price” of admission is low - a requirement to think before writing - which is generally a good habit to cultivate in any case.
To put everyone at rest, HC has always been a dictatorship. We never held elections. The self-appointed leadership chooses the volunteers who look after the peace and order. I would say it’s a relatively benevolent dictatorship and the order keepers tend to be good people who volunteer because they care about this place. Generally we strive for lofty ideals in how we run this place, but within reason and fundamentally on our own volition.
So it is not fruitful to project the outer world structures onto HC. If you do, please also stipulate a plan for how you are going to pay taxes that fund the associated rights. Otherwise you are essentially coming to a hobby club for free and complaining a lot when being asked to phrase your disagreements a little nicer.
I like this anecdote for how it communicates your point of view while also leaving enough room for me to maybe use it, tweak and expand on it to more accurately get across mine. I will only attempt that to show things in contrasts and potentially better present how I understand the situation, so please bear with me a little. Imagine being stopped by a traffic cop and having to say:
HCer: "But officer, I wasn't even speeding, just like I've never sped before and wasn't stopped for it.", to which the officer replies:
Officer: "Yes, you were very good at borderlining, but that adds up under a general trend of almost breaking the rules, so you will get a ticket.
HCer: "Is that at all the case now? It all feels sudden and rather extreme."
Officer: "Well, fair enough, you won't get a ticket this time. You get a formal warning. One that adds to keep in mind that there are "developers" out there with interest in this road, and while your driving (posting) here is one thing, your honking at them (criticism) is another and for that matter it is too negative. They are an asset for this road, and you aren't being constructive so please honk a little nicer."
HCer: "Officer, I only honked at them for ignoring signs and recklessly driving (the franchise into the ground  ) like I'd do for anybody in that context. That may be valuable feedback that can help them, and isn't that the point? Why is honking now something to be afraid of and protected from and why are they an exception?
Officer: "They are not an exception. The highlight is to emphasize just how equal they are to everyone else around here." (Corribus' point)
HCer: "That doesn't quite follow naturally? Why mention them specifically? This seems like a new rule, officer, based on preferential treatment of one group."
Officer: "Of course not, it's always been that way. This is only further clarification of the rules we had in place."
HCer: Officer... I've been driving on this road for more than 10 years. This has never been the way, nor does it make sense.
Does this add more clarity to where I'm coming from? I will explain what I mean with the coloring: The green part is the issue that got resolved in the penalty thread, and the red part is the one pertaining to this thread. The conversation about a moderator's mistake is concluded, we can leave that aside. The conversation here is about the essence behind this ruling, and how it impacts appropriate posting. In my opinion, there is a clear difference between what was up until now and what we're asked going forward. Like others mentioned, it sound like abating criticism, not on the merit of its justification, but preferentially and due to it's tone and negative character. If this is at all the case, I would like to understand if it's implied that negativity in itself is offensive, or if the bar is so much higher for accepted speech that we need to become academic on a forum. I cannot see the benefit either way.
Corribus said:
mvassilev said:
Developers as individuals are people, developers as a company are not.
The US Supreme Court, as but one example, generally disagrees with you. Corporations also have the right to sue individuals for libel and defamation, a right that is (with certain exceptions) generally not conferred upon politicians or other public representatives of the state.
JollyJoker said:
I'd say that game developers are people of public interest as well
By "people of public interest" I mean "public officials" - politicians and their appointees who, by virtual of their elected or appointed office, do not benefit legally from the same level of protection against libel, slander, and defamation because they are representatives of "the State". Certain other public figures I would (as the law does) also lump into this category, which are, loosely, those who have achieved "widespread fame".
Rank and file game developers do not fall into either of these categories. They deserve the same protections from harassment and defamation as you or I do. A game developer in a leadership position that gives well-attended public lectures or presentations or widely accessible online videos about game design decisions might qualify if their fame is significant enough, but I tend to consider things on a case-by-case basis so in a general sense, no, I don't agree with you.
Corribus, I think that by going to this sort of legal extent you're only managing to miss the finer point that JJ and Mvass are trying to make here, on top of weakening your case. The framework we have here on HC is not that of a legal battleground for real life events. HC is not an public institution or a business venture. The rules for posting here are not the law. The people commenting do not represent HC in any capacity, and their criticism cannot be reasonably held as made on behalf of the website. When we are here discussing in reference to people (be they nations, companies, groups or individuals), their actions, their creations, their motives and whatever else in relation to that, we are not making accusations of wrongdoing with respect to the law, nor are we questioning their legality. We are posting opinions with little to no bearing on real life events and people. If what you're suggesting here is that this rule is meant to deflect only the type of criticism that can be interpreted as libel, harassment or defamation in any legal capacity and to any legal extent, then you will have to answer these two questions: One, how is that HC's problem and not the HCers' individually? And two, how is a warning or penalty appropriately addressing it? Because if something was really endangering HC legally, the only appropriate answer to that would be tearing the whole thing down immediately. But since we're also talking about degrees of severity, maybe this is just about the CoC rules? Yes, it is, and there's no point in arguing about it in any other way.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 09, 2025 07:16 AM |
|
|
Geny said:
P.S. Val's post really brings be back to simpler times, when it was known that HC is a dictatorship, mods are drunk on power and the whole thing is run on favoritism (from which I benefitted greatly  ). Good times.
Amen brother!
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
| |
|
|
