Shattered Kingdoms

That would be right, if he could play solo. Since players are needed for this game to stay alive, then it makes it "our" in a loose term.

Still this topic got derailed, and I am still expecting an official answer. Or a lock. I would still get an answer.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Finney too.

Sincerely,
The N00b.

I think the IMMs just finished hammering the last nail in SK's coffin. Am I allowed to say that?

If that wording is too strong under the new rules, feel free to edit it and replace it with "In my humble opinion, these new forum rules may or may not end up hurting the game instead of helping it, but then again it is possible that I am wrong, and I would like to stress that I am in no way insinuating that anyone made a mistake or is less than perfect."

Im trying to work out why so many people seem to think that the inability to make personal attack other people on the forums is a bad thing. If you keep your conversation reasonable it should pass all filters. The vast majority of people playing SK are adults asking us to act like them is not unreasonable. Even if it means biting your tongue every now and then and rethinking the wording of your forum post.

The problem is that the admins took several major enforcement actions almost simultaneously, combined with unclear communication of what's allowed. (For example, by suggesting the admins didn't take the best approach, am I therefore "condescending"?)

Shifting culture is hard, so I'm not objecting to breaking out some heavy tools. But one of those tools should be a clear picture of the great forums we're going to have. Legalistic policy language can't provide that.

QTF.

Something I often find is missing from SK is the desired goal changes are made to reach. A good example of this is the recent change to all of the equipment and the posts related to them. The post made in announcements is a good start towards communication between Imms and players. I feel it would have been better had it been made closer to the start of the item changes. Then updated as it reached this stage.

Just popping in to say I agree with Baldric. I was disappointed to see there is no longer a relatively uncensored portion of the SK forums. I also found the post about Syn's ban to be in bad taste.

These rules were not designed to stop criticism or questioning of or disagreement with the staff or other players. You are encouraged to make posts that explain your position clearly, calmly and without malicious intent. You are discouraged, however, from making attacks against people – staff and players alike. That's the crux of the issue, long and short. There was a level of toxicity that precluded reasonable discussion in many cases. To suggest that the staff is doing this because we have gotten our collective feelings hurt is to dismiss that the vitriol that has been allowed to be sprayed around the forum is detrimental to this community – the existing players in regard to their level of camaraderie, as well as any future players who may stumble across the game in the future.

Condescension has nothing to do with the message you wish to convey but the manner in which you do so. I'm pretty sure each one of us knows when we're posting from a place of condesension. It's at those times we should take a deep breath, perhaps lean on the delete button and rethink the way we want to express our opinions. In addition to the players being held to these standards, the staff is expected to meet them as well. That means the recent scenarios in which players and staff have spiraled into snipping at each other should no longer be an issue. We are attempting to wipe the slate clean and make the forums a nice place to be instead of one that is avoided or that drives people away (and, despite the fact that we won't trot out names and give specific examples and point fingers at specific offenders, has happened with some frequency). This community is incredibly small, and if we can't play nicely with each other, then we don't stand a chance as a game.

The challenge I'm experiencing is that all of these terms (condescension, insinuation, attacks) are all subjective. Their definitions define that they are perceptions of a viewer rather than intents of the subject.

Do I use the golden rule and not do what I would feel falls under those terms?

Discussion here just got as difficult as dealing with sensitivity training in a professional environment. In those professional environments, the de facto strategy is to limit communication.

Nowhere is there even the implication you're not allowed to say that. Not a single place. The implication is you have to express that and communicate it without being...

This is not an ethereal witch-hunt,and this is not 1984. I understand you may be frustrated, disappointed or what-not, but the rules are simple and the definitions are clear and unambiguous. You're being asked to share this sandbox with others. Recent history has proven that we need to illuminate how to do this. Nearly everybody already abides by the rules as they stand now - this isn't some drastic paradigm shift by which all must suddenly reconsider their style.

So long as a human is in a position to interpret, that interpretation will be subjective. Until you have robots responding, you knew ahead of time a certain level of subjectivity would be involved. If you need help determining what the rule means, please see the clear definitions above. Condescension and insinuation were actively and clearly defined to avoid subjectivity to the extent it can be done with a human still in a position of interpretation.


The answer is very clearly no - is asking a disagreeing with an endeavor a behavior of patronizing superiority? Use the words we've given you and you'll find the answer you're looking for. Everything is as crystal clear as can be possibly made, and if it's not, please let us know and we will make pains to clarify them as much as we can.

Just like any game you play is 'yours.' He's taken the efforts he sees necessary to reign in the damage done by these forums, which are quantifiable and significant. This is the nature of playing in someone else's sandbox, and people figuratively peeing in it with regularity.

And this is why there's some confusion. How much we have to worry about our language depends on your intent for the forums. I suggest this intent is something you want to over-communicate, to help bring the playerbase on-board.

Here's an example of how far "condescending" can be taken. Both Meissa and you wrote helpful and polite posts. But you could nitpick a statement like "I'm pretty sure each one of us knows when we're posting from a place of condescension," and call it an insult to the intelligence of those saying it's not clear.

I don't think there's the slightest intent to take it that far. I see this as about dragging the forums out of mud like "Of course you're doing it out of bad motive XXX," and "You're such a newb for saying such a thing." But if "condescending" is a broad enough policy word to give you discretion, then it's too fuzzy to fully communicate what you want the forums to be.