Ka-pi96 said:
Aeolus451 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Aeolus451 said:
I disagree with Burek's recent ban. I just wanted to get that out in the open just so others know. |
Why do you disagree?
|
Because the post by itself was not an attack on MS, any fanbase or person. By itself, it wasn't baiting. People should be punished because of a post that breaks the rules by itself then their posting history should only play a part in the severity of their punishment.
Posting history shouldn't make it easier for someone to get punished regardless if their posts actually break any rules or not. It simply makes it to where if someone shows any bias, they'll just be walking on thinner ice over time. They get banned more easily and for longer lengths of time.
|
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/forum-rules.php#content
-
Flamebait and Trolling. Posts or signatures slamming a particular platform without basis - be it a specific console, macs, windows, or anything similar - will not be tolerated. This applies to specific games as well as consoles.
-
Consider that:
-
You cannot create threads, posts, signatures, etc. just to bait people of a specific fan group. Bait threads will be locked and you will be moderated for them. If you spend a lot of time making hit-and-run negative threads or posts about a specific platform, you will also be moderated at the discretion of the moderators
Bolded the important parts.
No the post wasn't an 'attack' on anybody. However, by saying that Microsoft won't bother talking about the Xbox at all at E3, it was clearly an attempt to bait Xbox fans. Some even took the bait further showing it as a flamebait post.
Post history absolutely should matter for moderations. He could have just posted that he hopes to see plenty of PC stuff there as well and not said what he expects specifically leaving out Xbox. His history is why that is a problem, it isn't the first time he's said (or in this case implied) negative things about Xbox so there is a clear pattern there. Someone who has a pattern of anti-Xbox posts is likely intending to troll or bait people. If however he had been someone that has shown he likes Xbox previously and occasionally makes a joke or two about it then that post shouldn't be moderated as the intent is just to have a bit of a laugh.
|
It's why I mentioned post history before and why I disagree with using it in that way. A post that by itself doesn't breaks the rules suddenly breaks the rules because that user has a history of criitizing a particular brand or showing bias. Do you know how easily it would be to say someone is trolling, flaming or baiting others with using post history like that? There's plenty of flaws in this.
There's a lot of alt usage in the forum on this site, that's far more toxic to the community and discussion in general than someone who skirts the rules. I see a lot of profiles that have under 50 posts and been here for 5 years. Is that a way to get around building up a negative post history or just to attack a user or brand?
In my opinion, post history should be used to determine the scale of a punishment. It also stunts discussion amoung people with differing opinions in fear of building a post history or bias.
