I feel its more the opposite. If you don't have clear guidelines then the conversation can tend to get choked, especially here as some people can be passionate about their causes. A clear example of this is the 'exclusive' clarification. Now that there is a definition people don't have to waste time arguing over semantics.

For the site to grow and prosper from this point it would be great to develop a level of more open industry participation in the site. A lot of people come to this site to get an inside look into the goings on in the industry and Brett always benefits from any insider tips he can get. To get that kind of industry participation we need to treat everyone in the industry with respect and not just the big 3.

With a greater level of respect we can create a more mature level of conversation and we can see a wider variety of people voice their opinions whom may have otherwise been drowned out or scared away. Im not advocating this because I don't want a favourite developer of mine to be dissed, im advocating this because I feel its something which would really help the site grow.

@Khuutie this was to you too.

You may have some point. GAF does very well in spite of having much more strictly regulated conversations...

The big problem I see with this, Squill, is that once you go down the road of quelling topics -- like bringing up personal issues with consoles, or developers, or whatnot -- you also remove the basic substance that makes the forums interesting.

If no one argued over opinions, and everyone found all consoles pleasant, and decided not to comment on the failings of said consoles, or developers, etc., then all of a sudden they can't make any interesting statements about future console sales, or game sales, etc. either.

Every opinion that becomes a ban rule makes interesting reasoning, and hence interesting posts, less so. Universally stating that all such harsh opinions are untrue, or unworthy to be included in the forum discussion, is too much control in an environment that thrives on freedom.

Wait, then I can't throw random insults against Lair! No fun...

na the is no way of clearing up something as subjective as this.

Good luck though ;)

But Apple is overpriced, under-suported trash! XP

I think its pathetic that people do attack developers for going console exclusive.

I wouldn't mind seeing the rules changed to protect developers. The only problem is that some camps get away with bloody murder anyway so it probably wouldn't change much if they did make this rule.

I'm all for raising the level of discourse on this site. Frankly I'm surprised that what is being talked about in this thread isn't already covered by general forum etiqutte. Trash talking (errr writiing) for inflammatory purposes should be a bannable offence regardless of the object of such talk (writing), be it person, business, game, gaming platform, body part, whatever.

What is important here isn't so much that mods should be banning people who are being unreasonably insulting. But that they need to be reasonly discerning in how they serve out the bans/warnings so that legitimate criticism, including reasonably hard hitting criticism isn't lumped in with trash-talking trolls.

If I say X company or Y game sucks a big weenie, and then proceed to justify that opinion with reasonable explanation I shouldn't be banned for using a forthright opening remark. If I just say the game/company have heads shaped like male genitalia and offer no decent argument to support my statement then I should be banned, or warned at the very least.

If that isn't already a general modding policy on this site then I support this thread. If this is already covered by general modding criteria then I don't think getting more specific in the rulez is necessary. If it seems the mods aren't applying the current site rules/policies well on the matters raised by this thread then that is an enforcement issue not a rules issue. I don't think you necessarily improve enforcement by making more rules.

Edit. Or to put it more briefly: I support the ideal / intent of this thread, but I'm not certain about the proposed action.

Judgements about banning shouldn't be based on "rules" -- every single case needs to be evaluated individually. Laws/rules are a crutch for large communities which can't afford to think about and judge such things personally.

Wouldn't an unexplained "Valve games suck balls" or any other comment of similar tenor fall under the "substance" rule (5)? Which I also think should be much more heavily enforced and could cover a lot of cases.