KylieDog said:
Mr Khan said:
KylieDog said:
To remove bias, this rule needs apply in reverse. No more "This game is amazing" posts without full explanations why, or ban.
Opinions should not be treated differently.
|
Question: which one is more likely to get a negative response, all else equal? "Sonic Generations rules!" or "Monster Hunter sucks dog cock!"
The ethical rules with which we assign "bannable" criteria are deontological.
|
@ bold: Irrelevant.
As Carl said, content is king, a post stating "This game is shit" and a post stating "This game is amazing" are both equal in content, or lack there of. For one to be acceptable so must the other, and the same if one is not, then both are not.
If you are suggesting because one statement will get a negative response it should not be allowed while the other is, then you are trying to control discussion of the forum by making it harder for one group to voice their opinion even when speaking from a more authoritative role, controlling discussion is not the mod teams job.
Secondly, if comments that will garner a negative response are unacceptable then you should be removing any and all negative discussion, criticism, general remarks and news articles from the forum, as a post stating "This game is shit" and a post stating the same only with a bunch of reasons following will likely see the latter bring about even more of a negative response than the former, due to there being more points which are attacked by the statement, despite complying with the 'content is king' rule.
Since I doubt the mod team is intending to be controlling or willing to ban any and all negative discussion the only logical outcomes are to allow posts stating "This game is shit" or extend the content rule to posts such as "This game is amazing".
|
"Content is King" works in tandem with the principle i cited. A content-less but positive comment does nothing to really advance conversation, but it isn't hurting anything, either. A content-less negative comment will actively degrade the quality of conversation as people react to it, and so is actionable. A well-thought-out critique of explaining exactly what makes Monster Hunter an inferior experience, however, has something to contribute as it moves the discussion forward, but even that way is fraught with peril, as we've seen from verbose users who wrote voluminous posts but were employing various argumentative fallacies and had to be removed (see: mazty, ninjablade). You can express negative opinions, but you have to tread cautiously in terms of how the presentation of your opinions effects the flow of discussion. There are a lot of critical threads out here, like Spemanig's recent bit calling out Nintendo for not using voice acting in the Zelda games, critical threads that stay in bounds and yet express negative opinions, so we're not narrowing the scope of what can be expressed here.
In any event, the real criterion for moderating everything except avatar and sig violations is: "Don't be a dick."
