Do we need AoEZone?

[Umdeuter]

to them toxicity only counts when its against famous ppl - admins, streamers, casters, pros, etc.

yep, I do think it's much more problematic to throw accusations towards people who are not around to defend themselves compared to trash talking someone's opinion into his face where he can react however he wants.

anyway, I only made fun of Myth because he's Myth and I had tons of discussions before with him to the point where I am 100% sure it doesn't make any sense to argue him because he will just keep repeating his point and ignore any other view. otherwise, I wouldn't post something like that. (even though I am able to differentiate between trash talk and toxicity.)

 

[vince]

the lack of self awareness is amusing

"the downfall of aoezone is bc streamers cant take criticism and wants things moderated to control the narrative"

*someone criticizes above poster*

"this is outrageous and the mods should do something about it. I should be allowed to express any opinion I want any way I want without any kind of criticism as long as I don't namecall."

 

[IYIyTh]

yep, I do think it's much more problematic to throw accusations towards people who are not around to defend themselves compared to trash talking someone's opinion into his face where he can react however he wants.

anyway, I only made fun of Myth because he's Myth and I had tons of discussions before with him to the point where I am 100% sure it doesn't make any sense to argue him because he will just keep repeating his point and ignore any other view. otherwise, I wouldn't post something like that. (even though I am able to differentiate between trash talk and toxicity.)

I found your lack of "counter-argument," and admission of hurling an insult instead of offering a rebuttal confusing since we are mostly in agreement.

Interesting perspective that if you believe you simply can't agree with someone, that you should be entitled to insult them (granted, you should probably make sure you're not in agreement otherwise it just seems/looks unnecessary/frankly odd.) Not sure that is a solid basis for an improved forum environment.

The idea that respect is only for a certain class or type of person(s) rather than everyone is a bit misplaced I'm afraid. I think you either have it for everyone or no one, and I think most agree that the lack of moderation hasn't been ideal (re: no one). However, this idea that one can't discuss a celebrity using racial/homophobic slur(s) is one such scenario where I believe some strive to provide a "cloak of invisibility," for people they consider their idols.

I believe those saying those events should not be discussed are very wrong, and you are very much correct that I will never agree that one should simply "respect," someone because they are good at a 20...almost 30 year old video game and look the other way when they say/do something abhorrent.

The idea that one should also just "forget," these types of things occur and "move on," is also a bit silly when bringing them up when they inevitably occur again (and again.) I am unmoved that an individual should care about the ramifications of another person's individual personal choices or business decisions have on their public relations. I do not believe the public owes individuals "get out of jail free cards," by providing deference when they do wrong or make controversial decisions, and especially not squelching making light of it.

Very few people care that a player goes on an explative or racial epithet laden tirade in a game. But if that person is a pillar of the community or a top player and/or organizer -- people will care because they are (like it or not, matters not,) held to a higher standard. That is the cost of celebrity.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

yep, I do think it's much more problematic to throw accusations towards people who are not around to defend themselves compared to trash talking someone's opinion into his face where he can react however he wants.

anyway, I only made fun of Myth because he's Myth and I had tons of discussions before with him to the point where I am 100% sure it doesn't make any sense to argue him because he will just keep repeating his point and ignore any other view. otherwise, I wouldn't post something like that. (even though I am able to differentiate between trash talk and toxicity.)

But you suggested that all these people left here because of the criticism, meaning that they were at one point around to defend themselves?

Also it's funny that you mention Myth being unwilling to change his mind as justification for making fun of him without apparently ever considering a similar dynamic might be at play for all those horrid people being toxic against the developers of DE.

 

[Umdeuter]

What the hell are you guys talking about

 

[Rayne]

But you suggested that all these people left here because of the criticism, meaning that they were at one point around to defend themselves?

It’s not that easy for any known person to ‘defend’ themselves tbh. Seems easy for emotions to enter the picture at some point which causes problems (it’s been seen more or less on here). Defending oneself but at the cost of reputation? Probably not worth it after awhile. Too much silence though, self-betrayal among other things like fans having more questions in their head. Reminds me of how Johnny Depp saying when someone becomes famous, every action has to be calculated.

 

[-R-]

 

[lecracheursagacite]

View attachment 204944

idgi

 

[otw_Da]

I dislike discord and will try to avoid reddit whenever I can. So I'm glad in terms of AoE I can inform myself on this website.

 

[IYIyTh]

idgi

Just another example of a non-contributing post/flame bait meant to derail discourse. Many great examples in this thread. I guess in that way a contribution to the discussion on what kind of posts should see moderation in the future.

 

[vince]

criticizing pros/streamers = acceptable

criticizing those who criticize pros/streamers = unacceptable

is this what we want aoezone to be known for?

 

[pumukel]

is this what we want aoezone to be known for?

no

 

[IYIyTh]

no

Perhaps you can expound since I believe this is the only staff input into this thread.

Will the moderation staff only be concerned about the perceived treatment of celebrities or all members of this forum? Does the moderation seek to identify criticism vis clear (and in many cases well documented targeted,) harassment, off-topic thread derailment, spam/memes, obvious flame-baiting, etc.

 

[pumukel]

Perhaps you can expound since I believe this is the only staff input into this thread.

Saying "no" to vince's question means: I - as a private person, I'm not speaking in representation of any staff here - I do not want AoEZone to be known for the acceptance of criticizing pros/streamers while dismissing the critique of those criticizing. There is either critical discourse for all and everything or there is none. (And I'd prefer an AoEZone known for being a beautiful, varied place, where occasional critiques of people's deeds are reasonably argued for with mindful use of language.) This is a purely normative statement about how I like things to be. I didn't read much of AoEZone in the last years. So I don't know how AoEZone actually is compared to this statement.

Will the moderation staff only be concerned about the perceived treatment of celebrities or all members of this forum? Does the moderation seek to identify criticism vis clear (and in many cases well documented targeted,) harassment, off-topic thread derailment, spam/memes, obvious flame-baiting, etc.

For these specific questions about possible future intentions of possible future staff, I refer you to

When it comes to a moderation policy, that will be an ongoing and evolving thing and we hope to release an updated policy in the coming weeks. As I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the long history of AoEZone and the previous issues with modding, we are starting with some discovery work. What we're currently doing is gathering examples of what has been moderated, and what hasn't been moderated but maybe should have been, and will use those in our policy as examples (without showing the original poster's username) of content that will be modded. We definitely believe everyone can have their own passionate opinions and have constructive criticism, but there should also be a level of civil, mutual respect when it comes to engaging with one another. And if someone does have a post get modded, they should be able to at least receive an explanation as to why, whether they agree with it or not. And again, this will have to be a flexible, evolving policy and if anyone has any suggestions feel free to send them over.

As a side note, we clearly see the value to the overall Ages community (not just AoEZone) that the pros and casters provide. Thousands of people around the world get daily enjoyment from following and engaging with their content, and that brings new people into the game as well as brings old players back to the game. We would rather have the pros/casters feel comfortable and find value engaging on AoEZone and not have a few bad apples ruin everyone's experience.

 

[IYIyTh]

I think that entirely depends on what you are calling criticism. I would challenge you to read the responses over the past several pages and identify well reasoned discussion on moderation vis mud slinging/harassment. On one hand you have a discussion with well reasoned examples, on the other you have harassment with no examples -- just mud slinging, image spam, personal insults, etc. I think most are in agreement changes are needed, but I think the idea you (privately, and thanks for that clarification,) suggest is more or less a continuance of previous policy.

I don't believe you should be entitled to follow a user around the forum, upload spam (posts or images,) -- derail conversations and commit otherwise obvious forum violations because they were or are critical towards a popular figure of the community.

It is fair to question the line between criticism and harassment (for all,), but not without considering the impact of celebrity on the objectivity towards treatement of others. Being in the limelight of a "sport," opens oneself up to criticism for personal actions, choices, or even competitive aoe2 play. It also makes otherwise rational people support, excuse, or defend popular players irrational or perhaps even inappropriate behavior. That is the nature of celebrity.

I do not feel an aoe2 user should not be able to bring up a player having exhibited appalling behavior through documented use of racial slurs in the context of them repeating such an error without expectation of harassment from others who think the issue overblown or not important.

Similarly, I don't believe topics should be moderated for discussing statistics such as the propensity for an aoe2 player to "choke," in a tournament series. While that player might reasonably be upset by seeing that discussion, I don't feel they are owed those topics being closed. I don't think business decisions made by popular streamers need to be sanctified and criticism of their words or actions squelched. The discussion, comparison, criticism of the players and casters -so long as reasonably civilly done -- should be protected at all costs and is what drives interest in the scene and forum activity.

Aoe2 fans will want to discuss celebrities for any number of reasons, and so long as it's kept directed at the player or caster personality vis the person offline -no different than one would comment on a player of any professional sport -- it should not be discouraged.

Conversely, I don't think criticizing a celebrity (say for using a racial slur for example,) entitles "fans," or otherwise to simply follow a user around the forum, harassing them for "being critical,"... committing forum violations and intentionally disrupting otherwise civil discourse with low-effort trolling.

I think it is too simple to say "everyone can be critical or no one," especially when celebrity tends to trump reason and objectivity. Thus the need for a well reasoned policy to moderate all forum violations and elaborate on what is kosher vis not -- for everyone.

 

[_5_]

Ah, another lengthy and enlightening post from our resident expert in the art of derailing discussions. Bravo! I must admit, your ability to turn a concise point into a convoluted monologue is truly a skill worth admiring.

My verbose friend, it's not a matter of "everyone can be critical or no one." It's about finding a balance between meaningful dialogue and mind-numbing babble. And your passion for indulging in the latter knows no bounds. So, by all means, continue your valiant quest to champion unnecessary verbosity.

Farewell, dear forum wanderer, and may your posts forever bewilder and befuddle those who dare to seek understanding. Remember, in the realm of Age of Empires, conquering kingdoms is a breeze compared to conquering your never-ending tangents. Happy posting!

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Ah, another lengthy and enlightening post from our resident expert in the art of derailing discussions. Bravo! I must admit, your ability to turn a concise point into a convoluted monologue is truly a skill worth admiring.

My verbose friend, it's not a matter of "everyone can be critical or no one." It's about finding a balance between meaningful dialogue and mind-numbing babble. And your passion for indulging in the latter knows no bounds. So, by all means, continue your valiant quest to champion unnecessary verbosity.

Farewell, dear forum wanderer, and may your posts forever bewilder and befuddle those who dare to seek understanding. Remember, in the realm of Age of Empires, conquering kingdoms is a breeze compared to conquering your never-ending tangents. Happy posting!

This is really excessive.

 

[vince]

This is really excessive.

as are 8 paragraph posts filled with passive aggressive hypocritical baloney

 

[lecracheursagacite]

as are 8 paragraph posts filled with passive aggressive hypocritical baloney

It'd be more constructive if people validated the good points while ignoring the rest and gently reminding him to focus his thoughts more concisely. Obviously though I know healthy dialogue is something the AoE2 community struggles with quite heavily.

 

[Rayne]

It'd be more constructive if people validated the good points while ignoring the rest and gently reminding him to focus his thoughts more concisely. Obviously though I know healthy dialogue is something the AoE2 community struggles with quite heavily.

Not that I’m trying to jump in on some Myth hate, but people have been constructive and it fails. Like vince’s post:

a good start would be to show legitimate respect.

presenting incomplete stories, making assumptions, imputing motives, and constantly making passive aggressive comments is far from respectful, and all things you have a history of being guilty of

act innocent all you want, most people here see right through it, even if you cant see it yourself.

Probably most constructive post I’ve seen in awhile on Myth. It’s hard to swallow for sure. There’s not one ounce of disrespect or mockery there in my eyes. Also, that post was ignored.

People aren’t poking fun at Myth or confronting him for no reason. Same way he’s ended up on ignore lists (yes, I’ve seen some users say he’s added to it). It means something has gone wrong and I say that in a respectful way.

 

[IYIyTh]

Not that I’m trying to jump in on some Myth hate, but people have been constructive and it fails. Like vince’s post:

People aren’t poking fun at Myth or confronting him for no reason. Same way he’s ended up on ignore lists (yes, I’ve seen some users say he’s added to it).

The post in question offers a false premise, just as his most recent reply. "Passive aggressive hypocri...".... all things that do not exist in this thread. I would challenge you to find them if you disagree.

Keep in mind, setting aside the question of the post on its own --his first post was an outright insult that you did not mention. Given that context, I don't think it's unreasonable to not engage with a hostile person, or suggest that the user is not intending to be constructive.

How can one say there is no "disrespect or mockery," or ill intent given the preceding post? I think more likely you are sympathetic to the idea that "I have it coming," rather than wanting to understand and address how small quibbles and forum violations --left unaddressed--quickly turn into unnecessary conflagrations.

I think you may owe me an apology, or at least acknowledgement that perhaps ignoring obvious goading should be acknowledged as a positive vis the alternative.

Do we need AoEZone?

It would have been toxic if I did not acknowledge my error in response to robo's clarification, explain why I didn't realize what had happened so he could understand I was not intentionally disregarding alternative evidence, and express my happiness that this is what had happened rather than...

www.aoezone.net

Having failed to bait a reaponse, he continues the line of unwarranted attack while a mostly otherwise productive discussion begins to become derailed.

I have chosen to allow moderation to deal with such posts and users as having to address them simply suggets there is something to them (and is frankly neither positive for the forum nor worth my time.)

For those who prefer shorter text and vulgar unmoderated discussion -- I recommend twitter.

 

[Rayne]

The post in question offers a false premise, just as his most recent reply. "Passive aggressive hypocri...".... all things that do not exist in this thread.

Keep in mind, his first post was an outright insult that you did not mention.

Do we need AoEZone?

It would have been toxic if I did not acknowledge my error in response to robo's clarification, explain why I didn't realize what had happened so he could understand I was not intentionally disregarding alternative evidence, and express my happiness that this is what had happened rather than...

www.aoezone.net

Having failed to get enough "likes," he continues the lin of unwarranted attack.

I have chosen to allow moderation to deal with such posts as having to address them simply suggets there is something to them, as opposed to what they are -- intentional inflammatory posts that serve no purpose other than to get a rise.

I think vince is referring to your first 3 paragraphs on the note of being passive aggressive. I doubt he’s intentionally following you around, these forums aren’t exactly near the same 10 years ago or thereabouts. The only real “active” topics past week are about 3: this one, owner’s, and the changelog you made. It’s a much smaller world.

Emotions aren’t a fixed state Myth. The post I quoted doesn’t have anything truly negative for me, the following one has a rather light touch of sarcasm at the end. Doesn’t mean the above post suddenly carries the most negative meaning. Stuff like this is why I try not to read too much into static messages. Too many people try to be something similar to a psychology detective online and they’ll be wrong often imo.

If I have actually offended you and you really want my apology, I don’t mind giving you it. I’m sorry.

 

[IYIyTh]

The first post is an insult attached to another users insult. I feel as if I can't be held accountable for discounting the merits of any number of future posts unless compelling given the sequence and context of greater interaction with the user in question, whom I have had alerted moderation to posts that were removed from this board before that were "below board."

I think in the context of a thread being a huddle or room for discussion I agree you could and even should set aside previous poor behavior, but -- once you enter the room and loudly declare not wanting to constructively participate -- feel there is no harm in simply ignoring what I very much perceive to be (a continuance of) flame bait and goading.

I would hope other users consider doing the same rather than respond in kind.

I'll address your greater point later -- unfortunately a busy weekend!

 

[Progeusz]

It'd be more constructive if people validated the good points while ignoring the rest and gently reminding him to focus his thoughts more concisely.

Naive. You're acting as if it was first time. What you're suggesting has been proven pointless dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past. A lot of people attempted debating with Myth at various points in their lives. All of them eventually realized it makes absolutely no sense to ever engage in a discussion with that individual if you hold opposing view to him.
Myth will never address main point. He will keep meandering around it, writing multiple paragraphs full of vague insinuations, passive aggressive remarks and sprinkling strawman all around the place instead of arguing what's important. All while acting high and mighty thinking he's above everyone else, utterly oblivious of his own flaws and usually hypocrisy too. He keeps clamoring for increased moderation, being respectful etc. without realizing that he's among the worst offenders in the entire forum and if things he calls for were truly implemented, he would possibly be the first on the chopping block.

What's more, I don't remember him ever even attempting to change his approach.

Myth does raise good point every now and then and i usually react to those posts positively (for example his post about how aoezone is needed as a platform earlier in the thread) but fact is, majority of what spills out from him is exactly as vince described.

 

[kalpit00]

I should probably not even place myself in this debate as that is what any normal person with common sense will do but since I love aoe2 and its community here's my 2 cents :

Touch grass and don't invest 100% of your time in debating with a random stranger over the internet