Banned for sarcasm

Echoing a post on Grimwell:

So, a friend of mine just posted this on the official SWG forums.

maxtheuser:
Title: I am so thankful.

Subject: That there has not been a negative reaction to this recent nerf. SOE obviously did a wonderful job with this publish, and should be commended. Gamespot should right an article about how well done this mini-publish was.

I logged into the forums expecting to see pages of protest threads. Instead I saw only one. Sure, the title keeps changing, as does the original poster, but there's only one Wink This shows that the Devs did a wonderful job with this publish, and it is obviously what the playerbase wants. I mean, I don't anyone really wants to get past cl45 anyway.

Kudos Devs! 3 cheers for the Devs!
--

He's referring to the fact that two repeatable quests have apparently been made unrepeatable and in fact, the only reliable way to level in SWG is now to use quests from the premium content released in their last expansion.

Anyway. One minute later....

There is no dissent, there is only the Force....

I don't know the details of the issue in the game and what was changed in the "mini-publish", so I don't know if it's well founded or not. But I've still heard similar complaints since the release of the NGE about the difficulty to level up if you don't own the last expansion.

This appears to me as a valid concern. I'm above the parts and when I read that message I don't think "ban this idiot". Instead I think: "Well, what he says makes sense. I would like to know the reasons behind the change and what the devs think about the whole issue".

Banned for sarcasm? Come on, this is ridicule. I'm not defending in any way who posted that complaint, it could have been expressed in a much better way and have a more specific title, but it's still within what should be tolerated on a message board. The possibility to express disagreement and ask clarifications. That looks as a valid concern, it needs to be answered, not moderated.

Moderation rules should be flexible, even if they may bring to misunderstandings. You have to let the players express their malcontent, even if it isn't within the standards of "politeness" you would like to see. I find ridicule that "sarcasm" is passable of a ban on a message board. Sarcasm comes from "satire". What about banning "parody" as well? These are fundamental forms of expression. They are essential.

I'll say it again, that post looks like a valid argument of discussion. It wasn't so constructive but it expresses a malcontent that looks founded and deserves to be taken into consideration. I consider "trolling" an act that is disruptive for the discussion, that tries to derail it just for a laugh or to delegitimize who is writing. A way to avoid the discussion, to kill it, to negate it, to flood it with noise. That post doesn't do anything like this, it just expresses a malcontent in a not so constructive way, but still understandable and acceptable, from my point of view. Not only the poster shouldn't have been banned, but the thread shouldn't even get locked. It brought up a problem, not in the best way possible, but still trying to expose a valid concern that should be examined instead of suppressed.

But what I find incredible is that SOE has a policy to make sarcasm outlaw. It's impossible to not see it as a way to suppress valid forms of expression. A way to impose authority and not let you express any sort of individuality.

Answer the polls instead.

Re: Banned for sarcasm

I just checked the "game play" forum over at SWG and 3/4 of the posts on the first page have been "moved" by moderators.

It seems if the moderators didn't crack down on rants, whines, complaints, sarcasm, trolls, and other delusions of grandeur, the forums would be nothing but. I would normally feel sorry for people who are stuck working for a crap company, but in this one case, I'm not.

Re: Banned for sarcasm

Good article Abalieno. My reply is on my blog:

The Bannings will continue until morale improves.

Re: Banned for sarcasm

The problem with official forums operated by a game's publisher / developer nowadays is that those companies do not want a place for players to discuss the game. They want a place that they can point potential investors / customers to and say "See? Our existing players like our product!". Along with this comes selective moderation, backed up by a catch-all rule like "trolling" to remove the "bad" ones and a "we cant view / moderate all threads" excuse to leave other, more positive ones (that might violate other rules nevertheless) on the boards.
It doesn't matter if a post is against community guidelines or not, what does matter is if a post casts a positive or negative light on the product.

What the companies haven't realized is that they cannot silence negative posts. If they are banned from the official forums, they will be posted in popular 3rd-party-forums. A direct effect of this is that the official boards will be filled up by a false image of the product (overly positive, setting up potential buyers for a huge letdown, which cant be good for long-term player retention), while the 3rd-party-boards will be filled up by a false image of the product, also (overly negative, scaring off customers who frequent those boards).

I dont think it is healthy for a business to try to "control" customer opinion by selective moderation therefore. A far better option in terms of community building would be to actually address the negative posts and discuss the issues players have with the game. Of course, this directly leads up to a discussion about how much influence players should have in the design of a game, and how much reporting and reasoning the designers should have to do to the players. Seeing that a lot of negative posts complain about seemingly unneeded changes, publicly disclosing the reason for those changes would go a long way in my opinion.

In the end, selective moderation is just an expression of the overall attitude of "if you dont like how the game evolves, you always have the option to cancel your subscription" - an attitude which is always very risky for a business, because customers are not as easily replaceable for a company as a game is replaceable for a customer (granted, this depends on the actual game, but it generally holds true for all "mainstream" games).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.