Epic

Apple trolling doesn't bother me as an apple fan. I enjoy the meltdowns and I am gonna enjoy them next week when apple releases the numbers.

However, the smartphone market is gaining lots of people's interest everywhere and VGC is no exception, so I think you should make sure the mobile section stay civil to attract more users and get some discussions going.

To summarise your post, "I was banned for breaking the rules, but other people aren't!"

You have no right to complain unless you report every post you see that you consider to be trolling. We can't see every post made in this entire forum.

Porcupine_I said: ...should EA trolling be moderated? nah, the forums would be empty

Yes, but I've never really seen EA trolling.

Note that attacking EA for awful business decisions is not trolling.

This thread asks should we change our policy based on a few 20 or so people's opinions that all vary. No, it should be changed for me. Less bans, no Apple bans, Square, Bethesda, Bioware, or EA because last time I checked someone is trolling something and the only way people get consistently banned is if they consistently troll and are never friendly to anyone.

We ban everything we see that breaks the rules.

We don't see everything. We try, but there will always be something that slips through the cracks.

Your post was trolling and flamebaiting, and I think the rewritten rules (which should be up soon) show that more clearly than these current ones. But:

"Explain and justify your opinions. If you have nothing to add to a topic, then go to another topic and post in there instead"

"do not create threads, posts or signatures just to bait people of a specific fan group."

I edited my post to add some rule quotes:

"Explain and justify your opinions. If you have nothing to add to a topic, then go to another topic and post in there instead"

"do not create threads, posts or signatures just to bait people of a specific fan group."

Trolling doesn't necessarily have a specific target. Trolling is posting with intention to get a rise out of other people, or in modern usage, a form of flaming that focuses on attacking platforms and games rather than people.

Whatever. You take things to heart too much. So I'll stop.

Edit: (Sorry for the bump.)

It's inconsistent…very inconsistent

I was banned for an offence I personally don’t see as being ban-worthy, but it’s not my opinion that matters, it’s the opinion of the mod team that matters. That’s fine and all, but when they don’t use the same rules for everyone, then something’s clearly wrong and action needs to be taken.

For example, I was banned for saying “over-sensitive fanboy” and “grow-up.”

A little side-note: the “over-sensitive fanboy” part was taking out of context. The entire sentence is as follows: “You made an interesting point about Microsoft leaving out some games, but the moment you bring up this conspiracy theory crap, you look like an over-sensitive fanboy.” Notice I said “look” like an over-sensitive fanboy.” I never said he is an over-sensitive fanboy. I said he looked liked one, and only when he brings up unwarranted conspiracy theories. This seems like a reasonable inference, correct? If someone brings up unwarranted conspiracy theories, then of course, they look like an oversensitive fanboy.

That doesn’t seem ban worthy to me, but again, it’s the mod’s opinion that matters, and I can’t argue against it. If they think it’s ban-worthy, then I can accept that. As for the “grow up” comment, it was just that. I said “grow up.” Apparently this is a ban-worthy. In this specific context, when someone is bringing up conspiracy theories, then I think it’s fair to say “grow-up.” But again, what the mods say goes.

I was banned for the “over-sensitive fanboy” and “grow up” comment because a mod said, and I’m quoting this, it “adds nothing to the thread or discussion at hand.” Fair enough, my comments didn’t add anything to the thread. That’s a fair ban. But…there were plenty of others comments in the very same thread that didn’t add anything to the thread. The fact that those comments weren’t addressed is an issue that I think needs to be addressed.

Now, before I mention those comments, let me give you a little context to the thread that I’m referring to. The thread was based on a Microsoft PR statement that revealed that the Halo franchise had sold 43 million. This conflicted with VGChart’s estimation of the Halo franchise, which we had at 45 million. The assumption from a lot of people was that the series was overtracked. Of course, this was just an inference. It could be wrong, but it was definitely reasonable with the given information. I’d assume that it’s reasonable to assume the series was overtracked, or at least to discuss the possibility. Now of course, this is fine and there’s no reason to get upset over this, but that’s not the case for some people. Let’s look at the comments that a few people posted.

It’s a peaceful enough discussion. We’re discussing the possibility that the game could be overtracked (which, again, is a reasonable assumption). It’s fair enough, but then BenVtigger comes in saying this:

“MS isn’t counting something.

We pretty much know exactly what Halo 1-3 sold through various NPDs and MS comments. Reach is not overtracked by millions of units. These figures do not include digital sales as Reach was bundled digitally over 1 million times last holiday.”

At this point, his comment is fair. He raises some good points. Microsoft could be deliberately leaving out some games and/or Microsoft could be excluding digital sales. Both are good points (albeit unlikely imo) and have the potential to spark the discussion even further. In fact, I was going to reply to him to give my opinion on his ideas, but later in the post, he says this:

“So basically all you people arguing the answer is simply we don’t know what the 43 million is. Sony fans are trying to attack the number to make them feel better and MS fans are getting defensive. The fact of the matter is that really again we have no idea what it’s sold. Though I will say this is now the 2nd time that MS has released numbers that make the physical copy of Reach look overtracked so that may be a part of it.”

Clearly, this post “adds nothing to the thread or discussion at hand.” In fact, this post was a blatant insult to those engaging in a decent discussion. This post not only “adds nothing to the discussion,” which should be ban-worthy in and of itself (based on the rule that warranted my own ban), but it also perpetuates the childish and irrational “Sony fans versus Microsoft fans” mentality. When I saw the post, I didn’t reply. I saw that he couldn’t enter the discussion maturely and that his ideas weren’t worth taking seriously. I just reported the post and assumed the mods would correct it. You would think the mods would recognize such a discussion-discouraging post, especially considering I reported him. Surprisingly enough, no action was taken. What makes matters worse is the fact that just a few moments later, he makes another, equally ban-worthy post: (again, I’m defining ban-worthy using the rule that warranted my own ban)

“Excellent post and I totally agree. The problem though is that for some people they feel a personal investment in the numbers. Why I don’t really know but they do. So for certain Sony fans this is a prime time to attack and for MS fans it’s time to get on the defensive.

Either way the arguments dumb. I mean who really cares if it’s 43 or 45 million. Either way it’s a hugely successful franchise and is making hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s a success any way you slice it”

Wow! This poster (again) makes a post that “adds nothing to the thread or discussion at hand.” He didn’t do it twice, but he did it two times. That should guarantee a ban, right? After all, I violated a rule once and was banned. He violated that same rule in the same thread twice. So he should be banned too, right? Apparently the mods disagree. So, that leaves the obvious question: Why wasn’t he banned as well? His post added nothing to the thread or discussion. Moreover, his post attacked the discussion at hand, and tried to shift it from an honest discussion of numbers to “Sony fans attacking Microsoft.” Clearly, his post not only “adds nothing to the thread or discussion at hand” but it pretty much attacks the discussion that was already taking place. Some people might even take the post as flaming and/or insulting. Yet, he is not moderated for this? Hmmm…smells like inconsistency to me.

Let’s look again at why I was banned. My post was in a reply to BenVtigger’s attacks on the discussion. I told him that he was bringing up unwarranted conspiracy theories (I was correct) and that he looked like an over-sensitive fanboy (which I still think is true, given the unwarranted conspiracy theories). And I told him to grow up. If you tell me that those two posts were ban-worthy, then that’s fine. I disagree, but that’s fine. I won’t have anything to say about that, but if you tell me that my posts were ban-worthy, yet BenVtigger’s posts weren’t, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed. There is no reason for banning me and not banning BenVtigger as well. BenVtigger was flaming/insulting and I called him out for it. You can ban me, fine. But if you ban me, then at least have the decency to also ban the person whose posts were twice as bad as mine.

I’m expecting the classic “Mods can’t be everywhere. We can’t see every offence.” But this excuse simply is not good enough in this case. As I said earlier, I reported his post, so there’s no reason why any competent moderator should have missed his post. Especially considering the fact that my moderated post actually quoted BenVtigger’s post. So don’t tell me you didn’t see his post. You saw the post and you made the conclusion that my post was ban-worthy and his was not ban-worthy. I want to know why.

I want to know why someone who enters a perfectly peaceful thread and says, “Sony fans are trying to attack the number to make them feel better and MS fans are getting defensive” and “So for certain Sony fans this is a prime time to attack and for MS fans it’s time to get on the defensive” Is not banned, even after being reported. Yet, when another person tells him to stop his conspiracy theories by telling him that he “looks like an over-sensitive fanboy” and that he needs to “grow up,” that person is banned. Where’s the logic behind that reasoning? What makes the first person innocent?

For a mod team that’s so dedicated to increasing discussion and eliminating posts which discourage discussion, you would think they would ban hostile posts that inject this console-war mentality into threads. Situations like this cannot go unaddressed if the mods truly want to be fair. Moderations have to be consistent. Otherwise, you will have times where people weigh the chances of them being banned, and when coming across situations like this, they will conclude, “with this site’s inconsistent banning, maybe I will be banned, maybe I won’t be banned.” And thus there will be a lot more violations as people gamble with the possibility of being banned since they know they have a fair chance at leaving unscathed. Consistency is essential for a fairly governed community.

Remember that time you got banned for trolling me but the mod spelt my name as 'man-pear-big' in the ban description and then they unbanned you in order to avoid the shame of their atrocious spelling mistake? Good times.