Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sting_Auer]

Imagine this: You are on a gaming forum. This game is pretty good, could use some work, and the devs are skilled but not entirely professional.

There are a number of users that do nothing but create threads and post about how crappy the devs are, how bad the game is becoming, and do nothing but rant without stating valid reasons why or suggesting ways to improve.

Would it be fair to create a rule that states “No rants allowed. Anyone ranting, insulting the developers, or complaining about the game without giving suggestions to improve will be banned.”?

In my opinion, this would be completely fair. Complaints without reasoning are not constructive in any way and do nothing but slander the game developers and drive people away.

Discuss?

[Moghjubar]

This is more or less every gaming forum everywhere.  As a mod of such a forum, I really am loathe to sift thru and ban anyone and decide what would constitute rants/etc.  I believe theres a line, but I prefer to work off of reports, etc and make decisions from there.  Of course, many things are just right out though, even without said rule. 

Of course, there is a definite case for being incredibly strict:  a clean forum with only constructive posts and GOOD bug reports/complaints is something a game developer might actually WANT to read.  Otherwise, it would get to anyone eventually, and cause the "you shouldn't read your forums" effect where the developer ends up only getting filtered information from a few people.

[kaijyuu]

There are a million variables and hard fast rules will stifle good feedback. Too many equate "unconstructive criticism" with "criticism I don't want to hear." Constructive criticism simply states why; nothing more, nothing less.


If you want my rule suggestions, I'd say a rule against vitriol. You can rip a game to shreds without spouting a single personal attack against the creator (and frankly that's exactly the criticism most developers need to hear). It would also apply to member/member debates; too many people out there defend their sacred cow or spout fanatical hate. Those going into defensive mode about the game are just as bad as those relentlessly attacking it.



Oh, and as a side note: suggestions are usually useless. The players don't design the game, any more than literature readers write the book. There's the rare moment of brilliance among the fanbase, but again; rare. When giving feedback, focus on problems, not solutions, unless you're a teacher being paid to point the way. Same end result as giving suggestions (problem fixed) without getting your heart set on a single method.

[lordnincompoop]

Imagine this: You are on a gaming forum. This game is pretty good, could use some work, and the devs are skilled but not entirely professional.

There are a number of users that do nothing but create threads and post about how crappy the devs are, how bad the game is becoming, and do nothing but rant without stating valid reasons why or suggesting ways to improve.

Would it be fair to create a rule that states “No rants allowed. Anyone ranting, insulting the developers, or complaining about the game without giving suggestions to improve will be banned.”?

In my opinion, this would be completely fair. Complaints without reasoning are not constructive in any way and do nothing but slander the game developers and drive people away.

Discuss?

As-is, your rule is neither fair nor very usable. Sweeping zero-tolerance rules tend to be, as a rule of thumb, overly harsh in most cases - especially in cases such as these where the stated criteria for triggering the rule are very vague. "Anyone ranting, insulting the developers, or complaining about the game" is a very broad statement and may implicate constructive, useful or otherwise  unobjectionable posts (especially with the bit about complaints). "Giving suggestions to improve" doesn't to enough to redeem it. Additionally, with such vague terms, you are relying heavily on the moderator's judgement - which can be biased, clouded, blinded, and affected by emotions and relationships, and should therefore be relied upon as little as possible.


The primary issue lies in defining what a "rant" is, and honestly, without a clear-cut definition that can be relied upon, rules like that are of limited use and often just spark more argument.

[Flying Dice]

If you want my rule suggestions, I'd say a rule against vitriol. You can rip a game to shreds without spouting a single personal attack against the creator (and frankly that's exactly the criticism most developers need to hear). It would also apply to member/member debates; too many people out there defend their sacred cow or spout fanatical hate. Those going into defensive mode about the game are just as bad as those relentlessly attacking it.

This. No restrictions results in the devs not wanting to sift through the abuse; heavy restrictions prevent useful criticism from reaching the devs. So long as a poster is calm, their points can be reasonably addressed, regardless of their validity. Someone who is ranting and raving is going to be ignored even if they're pointing out a significant issue.

[IronyOwl]

Imagine this: You are on a gaming forum. This game is pretty good, could use some work, and the devs are skilled but not entirely professional.

I find it fairly troublesome that you begin with this premise. Would this supposed rule be less fair if the game was bad?

There are a number of users that do nothing but create threads and post about how crappy the devs are, how bad the game is becoming, and do nothing but rant without stating valid reasons why or suggesting ways to improve.

Define "nothing but" and "valid."

Suggesting ways to improve is also a terrible metric for usefulness. It's very easy to provide useful feedback on what doesn't work without explaining what would, or worthless feedback on what would be "better" that doesn't in any way help.

Would it be fair to create a rule that states “No rants allowed. Anyone ranting, insulting the developers, or complaining about the game without giving suggestions to improve will be banned.”?

Define "ranting," "insulting," and "complaining." And as mentioned above, providing suggestions is an utterly worthless distinction.

In my opinion, this would be completely fair. Complaints without reasoning are not constructive in any way and do nothing but slander the game developers and drive people away.

In my opinion, it takes some truly colossal negativity to get normal users to the point where they avoid your game or forum because they just don't want to deal with it, and even moreso for them to assume the game or developers really are bad as a result. If you're worried about people being driven away or your good name being slandered by a handful of malcontents, odds are you've got much, much deeper problems.

I would also point out that complaints without reason can indeed be useful; feedback is feedback, and while "it sucks" is not massively insightful, it does tell you something.

Finally, I'd argue that overly defensive or draconian moderation can do far more damage to a game, forum, or developer's following, and do it at more cost to the moderators, than even constant complaining. The latter makes it a place you don't want to go because everyone's a twit; the former makes it a place you want to actively avoid because the guy in charge is a twit.

[Seriyu]

In general it seems like it's wiser, just in general, with the vast majority of rules, to judge it on a by case basis. If it becomes a huge issue, then you can instate a wide spanning rule to take care of all of it, but not a moment sooner.

[Sting_Auer]

Thanks for all the discussion, everyone!

The reason I'm asking is because I am working on a game, and, to be completely blunt, I don't want the forums for it (after they are made) to end up similar to the Minecraft forums. I don't want several threads being made every day or two saying that the developers suck, the game used to be awesome, making personal attacks against the developers, etc. without giving any calm or constructive feedback, and instead using several paragraph long posts stating "the developer is fat and lazy, greedy, and is a crappy programmer"

[miauw62]

Only non-constructive rants should be removed, but that would require an entire post of how to be constructive and most people wont read it and post anyway...

But i disagree with the thing about 'suggestions being useless'. Suggestions are generally a great place for devs to be inspired, in my opinion. But then i agree again, because in big fanbases its hard to filter out the good suggestions, but the forums should certainly be read by devs. There are many old but very good suggestions in the minecraft suggestion forum, but those are buried under loads of crappy suggestions. The oceancraft suggestion would be a example of a good one, it was just made nearly perfect by everybody contributing a bit.

[ChairmanPoo]

Suggestion: Just don't read the offending posts, and remove them only after they become long flamewars.

[ggamer]

The problem I see here is that you might come across a yahtzee style post completely tearing a game to shreds, but also leaving some constructive criticism behind, and you might ban that person for posting it.

That's what gives bad reputation.

Edit:
Basically this.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's why you don't do it. I think OP's overly worried about criticism.

[nenjin]

I'm in agreement. Notice what kind of thread it takes before Toady completely nukes it or prunes offending posts out. He's locked but left up pretty scathing criticisms of both himself and DF.

IMO, when you open a forum, you're implicitly agreeing to accept most kinds of feedback, even the feedback that is basically a personal attack. To act otherwise, like you're somehow entitled to only get 1 kind of feedback, is like walking into a crowded room, asking people for their opinions and then telling the people you disagree with to shut up. You can't seek feedback if you're not willing to be honest about receiving it.

That doesn't mean you have to take all criticism people throw at you. If someone is on your game forum calling you a fag or saying you're an immature basement dweller or whatever, that's not feedback.

But too often "rants" get no respect even though they come from a legitimate place and are a direct window into people's opinion of your product. Just take a look at the Diablo 3 thread to see an example of that in action, where people are unable or unwilling to take negative criticism.

[Frumple]

Just keep a fairly strict "No ad hominim" rule. That's a fair amount of what b12 does, from what I've seen, and seems like a fairly effective moderation tool. Attacking ideas or positions is mostly fine, but keep attacking the people involved out of it, etc. It's not a very hard rule to keep to, nor is kicking out its violators something that's likely to damage the community much, if at all.

Rule #1: Keep things civil.
Rule #2: Keep things safe for work.
Rule #3: Keep things legal.

Done.

[Sting_Auer]

Oh, I'm not worried about criticism at all. I gladly accept criticism.

What I don't want is for the forums for my game to eventually become a steaming pile of screaming idiots complaining about every single thing that I do, and insulting me as a developer. making suggestions or pointing out flaws is fine; making long rants complaining that the game just sucks/the devs are horrible/standard issue butthurt complaining is not okay.


NINJA'D:

That's mostly what I'm talking about. I completely accept criticism, but only if it is presented calmly and constructively. Just saying "this sucks" or "I don't like this" isn't okay.
\


double ninja:

Thanks for that Frumple, I like that idea