Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Learux

Question about moderation.

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,283
[RKLES]
Members
964 posts

What are you guys afraid off? 

I would like an explanation, why are topics unfavorable to WG either get deleted or locked?

Fair question, right?

Screenshot anyone?

 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
1 hour ago, Learux said:

We have mods censoring these forum's like the old USSR.

What are you guys afraid off? 

I would like an explanation, why are topics unfavorable to WG either get deleted or locked?

Fair question, right?

Screenshot anyone?

 

Maybe because none of you CV haters have nothing new to bring to the table.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,966
Alpha Tester
6,521 posts
3,306 battles

Because free speech only applies to your political opinions. Sketchy as it may seem, WG is within their rights to take down whatever thread they so choose.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,053
[PVE]
Members
7,243 posts
23,105 battles
23 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

Because free speech only applies to your political opinions. Sketchy as it may seem, WG is within their rights to take down whatever thread they so choose.

WG is Russian...free speech doesn't even apply in their politics (not a political statement or judgement on them... just stating the fact they ain't running off of our constitution).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
395 posts
7,174 battles
3 hours ago, Learux said:

We have mods censoring these forum's like the old USSR.

What are you guys afraid off? 

I would like an explanation, why are topics unfavorable to WG either get deleted or locked?

Fair question, right?

Screenshot anyone?

 

:cap_like:Because they can :cap_look: look what's happening now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,622
[KWF]
Members
5,200 posts
6,659 battles

WG forums, WG rules :Smile_hiding:.

There are other platforms if you want to express your dissent more freely.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
515
[A-D-F]
Members
1,290 posts
12,046 battles
11 hours ago, Crucis said:

Maybe because none of you CV haters have nothing new to bring to the table.

Et tu, Brutus. What are you bringing to the table?

If you continue to point at "CV haters" and cry foul; the good Falstaff would have a word with you, sir.

Forgive the large parentheticals, but I felt sure some wit would pick nits otherwise. -and still they may.

.

 

CV haters may not have 'brought anything new to the table" because the situation largely remains unchanged.

Trading large alpha strikes & straight up deletion for largely unstoppable DOT (damage over time), doesn't make a lot of difference.

The primary imbalance remains.

The game was based on concealment values(admittedly somewhat arbitrary in themselves, but there has to be some value to playing a cruiser or DD, or no one would) 

of surface ships. Any (even fantastical) representation of how they work, is going to break the model of concealment as implemented. 

How many times these very points have been discussed (with varying levels of civility and truthyness) I do not know. 

Certainly quite a number of times. 

 Without changing how CV's interact with their environment, via a larger map or some other means of imposing time-criticality choices on CV-drivers their implementation is doomed to remain imbalanced. 

This is a fundamental flaw that Spreadsheet can ignore, but that doesn't make it go away. 

I know this argument(to use the civil discourse term) will likely fall on many a deaf ear, but it is not an irrational one where CV critics are just acting out some Hulk-smash reaction.

That WG and their staunch proponents (please note the use of polite terms, thank you very much) continue on their insistence that CV's can be workably implemented makes no sense.

Their stubbornness is commendable, but it flies(literally & figuratively) in  the face of the fact that they're ignoring the core issue of concealment & how CV's destroy it's original functionality in the game. 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
1 hour ago, Curly__san said:

Et tu, Brutus. What are you bringing to the table?

1. I don't think that you're using the phrase "Et tu, Brute" properly.  It basically means "And you're a traitor too, Brutus???"

2. I don't think that I need to bring anything to the table.  I think that CVs are generally fine.  So, I hardly have anything that needs defending.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,224
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,252 posts
14,677 battles
17 hours ago, Learux said:

What are you guys afraid off? 

I would like an explanation, why are topics unfavorable to WG either get deleted or locked?

Fair question, right?

Screenshot anyone?

 

We don't moderate because we "dont like" something, we LITERALLY moderate based off violations.

Context and Subject DO NOT MATTER! If you follow the rules posted below and are CIVIL and CONSTRUCTIVE, we don't do anything.

That is the problem though, a lot of people don't understand what a civil conversation is.

-Hapa

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
515
[A-D-F]
Members
1,290 posts
12,046 battles
23 hours ago, Crucis said:

1. I don't think that you're using the phrase "Et tu, Brute" properly.  It basically means "And you're a traitor too, Brutus???"

2. I don't think that I need to bring anything to the table.  I think that CVs are generally fine.  So, I hardly have anything that needs defending.

" I don't think" is literally the opening phrase of both your points.

See? Other people can take things out of context too!

You most likely have the ability to process the intended meaning, but it suits your purpose to take the literal meaning as an avenue to dismiss.

Fine by me. Attempting rational discourse was apparently an even lower percentage endeavor than I'd estimated. 

On 12/11/2020 at 10:50 AM, Curly__san said:

but I felt sure some wit would pick nits otherwise. -and still they may.

^ I got that part right; just not the particular nits you would pick. 

Enjoy the meal, as thin as it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
1 hour ago, Curly__san said:

" I don't think" is literally the opening phrase of both your points.

See? Other people can take things out of context too!

You most likely have the ability to process the intended meaning, but it suits your purpose to take the literal meaning as an avenue to dismiss.

Fine by me. Attempting rational discourse was apparently an even lower percentage endeavor than I'd estimated. 

^ I got that part right; just not the particular nits you would pick. 

Enjoy the meal, as thin as it is.

 

Sorry, dude, but I know of no other meaning for "Et tu, Brute".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×