This is why I've tended to keep quiet up until now. The reality of the situation is that I legitimately have looked up to @garry for a long while with his "why not?" mentality when it comes to a lot of things. I really hate the thought of being grating but I also feel like I have to say something especially if I want to support something I really care about. And I also think that if things were to come down to polls, the people in charge right now might be surprised to find that there is a lot that people do like and it isn't just flat out negativity. It all boils down to communication - specifically what is being communicated - at the end of the day. I think everyone is frustrated about the same things, and everybody wants this to work out, but there's only a few people controlling the wheel and a lot of other people who want to give directions. I, myself, don't want to see this place go. I also don't want people to feel attacked and I personally don't want to attack in the first place. Thanks for listening to how I feel about it and my hope is you understand what my intent was.
Notifications are broken again for me!
Anyone else?
I want to apologize for any crass behavior I've displayed during conversations about the forums. Like Hezzy, I've been exhausted the past weeks after work, and it's no good reason to let out anger on anyone.
That said, I still hold to complaints on attitude of both staff, including Hezzy, and Garry. Especially when it comes to feedback and criticism.
Currently the forums are pretty good in terms of functionality, it's just attitude that needs correction. Proper communication needs to be done, even a simple "ill talk more about it when i get time" helps a lot when forumgoers become a seething mob.
Garry needs to grow a thicker skin, as him shaking up the forums like he does steps on the older userbase's toes. He should expect people to be frustrated, even moreso when he plays some criticism off as people being dicks. This starts a cycle of dickotry larger than Dixon, smellier than cheese.
I understand he has his hands full with a lot of projects, but he made that choice with the forums, so as we should temper our expectations, so should he.
Otherwise, I'm grateful for a lot of the work done to freshen up the forums. I've lurked since 07-08, and been a member since 09+. I care for the community and only want it to grow, and I hope that at the end the forums will be accessible enough to do so.
Can we please finally get clarification on this stupid rule?
Treat others how you wish to be treated.
This is literally just the biggest free pass for mods to make decisions on personal judgement instead of an actual set of consistent rules.
Here is the last example I saw of it.
So one of my main problems with the forums so far is performance, specifically scrolling
I've found out that scrolling only lags if my mouse is over the central column, aka it seems to be all the icons popping up as you scroll that cause it to lag, whereas if you leave the mouse over the background I don't get any lag at all and its completely smooth
Any chance for a fix for this? Would make it run a lot smoother
It's pretty straight forward. What it says on the tin. The guy was flaming the other guy which clearly wasn't acceptable.
What kind of set up do you have?
On the tin it says “how you want to be treated”. Unless you’re in the minds of every user that sounds like a pretty subjective rule since every user has a different tolerance for these things.
wouldnt it be easier to, you know, just list actual rules like “no flaming” instead of hiding them behind a subjective mess?
You could do PUBG or Fortnite? But those wouldn't really need a sub forum more like a trashbin.
I guess Halo could work? Or Rainbow Six Siege
Halo is a bit dated, unless the new one is coming out soon?
I think Siege already has a forum
dumb idea, but make the ratings you get float up from the bottom of the screen as you get them
that way if you make a really funny post in sh the forums become almost unusable until the ratings calm down
my understanding of the oauth flow is if you only have one account signed in on chrome, google automatically sends it through
this probably isn't resolvable from the FP side
Enough with this nonsense, this isn't an answer. For it to "clearly unacceptable" it needs to be stated as such. If it was "clearly unacceptable" you wouldn't have people constantly asking for clarifications. You keep expecting people to follow a set of rules that's only clear in your head and for some reason you keep refusing to openly state them.
I never cared about spoilers, so I guess I'm not going to get banned for spoiling stuff? Are you going to ask people what their moral compass says every time they do something that's bad in your subjective interpretation?
I think this isn't quite as straight forward as you might think. Some of us are a little more abrasive and inflammatory than others but are also aware of that fact and more willing to give others more leeway because of it. There were a number of times on the old site where someone outright insulted me and I just brushed it off and never bothered to report it. But that's also something not everyone is tolerant of either.
Things like spoilers which it seems are still bannable under this rule apparently, there's been quite a few people over the years who see absolutely nothing wrong with not tagging spoilers. This has been the subject of debate in the unpopular opinions thread on many occasions because of that.
So in those examples treating others how you want to be treated is still in violation of what gets enforced on the site which can be confusing for people. It's too subjective.
hey how come i cant post in the refugee camp anymore
said it before but merging some of the lesser active games discussion child forums under things like "ubisoft", "bethesda", or "nintendo" would help to remove a good portion of child forum clutter in my opinion.
I'll speak to garry about re-writing the rules to give specific examples such as spoilers etc. General forum etiquette applies, people should observe how other people act before posting. Generally flaming is not allowed. In all my time at FP I don't think I've ever had a long drawn out conversation about what constitutes flaming.
Garry is adamant about not doing this apparently, Hezzy has brought it up to him directly and it's a no-go
You could just grab this off the OP and it would already be far better than what we have now, even without a hard rule set. Slap a "moderators may enforce at their discretion" on it and you're golden.
This gives guidelines about what flies and what doesn't, with some flexibility. The current rule 1 means nothing.
It's not so much that flaming is hard to recognize, it's more-so that the rule sidesteps that whole definition. "If I don't care about being flamed, I can flame others" is a valid interpretation.
If it really is about flaming, just make it "no flaming" instead of wishy-washy language. If people start asking questions about what that means (and, knowing FP, I'm sure someone will), you'd have a point, but right now the rule is just weird.
that explains why i am freed from my prison
If you're looking for guidelines/sources to back what you'd tell Garry, SomethingAwful's rules are pretty clear and well written on this and other subject in my opinion.
Did latest threads on the index just break
Came in here to say that. The only one appearing for me atm is one by Garry,
If this is the case it should be spelled out in the rules. This just feels like facepunch from about 4 or 5 years ago where we had unspoken rules that weren’t in the rules page but you still got banned for them. Why not make it clear what is and isn’t tolerable? It’s to the benefit of everyone.
“Because you just want rules so you can catch others breaking them” - garry 2018
No, it says:
Treat others how you would wish to be treated
Then it also says these are not bannable:
Stating a contrary opinion
Disagreeing with another poster
Posting without "effort", or any other subjective shit like "shitposting"
I really shouldn't have to go into detail about how the first rule is completely subjective, and completely countered by the following 3 rules I quoted. It's been explained in this thread and the multiple others that have been locked.
As it stands, the rule isn't "Treat others how you would wish to be treated", it's "Don't post things that would trigger a mod"
This is the problem. There are rules in your head and there are rules on the rules page. When they don't match people get angry, debates are ran in circles, and threads are locked.
The current rules say only to treat others how you wish to be treated. If someone wants to start a heated cat fight with another poster because they think their idea is back-asswards, then they can as long as it's not illegal.
And generally, you would be right. But that's not the case now that you guys decided to go with this laissez-faire rules approach.
Then it should be all the more prevalent how silly this current rule setup/enforcement we have is.
If rule 1 meant what it said skoinks wouldn't have been banned for snapping back at crapt
his blood is on your hands hezzy, we won't forget his sacrifice. F
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion - v. Please Don't Call Hezzy A Cunt
