Should Tip.it limit/censor what people can say?

[Everyonedies]

My question/ thought is should Tip. limit/censor what people post after runescape is updated on the general discussion post made about each update??

 

Personally when i read through the update post 1/3 of the posts is people saying the same thing they say after every update, the same complaints, the same whining and little or no information about what specific part of the update they dont enjoy playing or why it is that after trying the new update they disagree with it. There is a certain person who i completely ignore her posts because they are never constructive and are mostly baseless complaints before she even tries what it is she is complaining about. This then leads to someone posting something along the lines of "stop whining" which then leads the 5-6 posts being sent back and forth on why person X isnt whining and why person Y feels they are.(to me i dont care i dont need to be bothered with those posts clogging up what could be valued information about the new update. I think Tip.It is mature enough that if asked by tip.it staff not to post pointless "this sucks posts", "stop whining posts"" and "im not whining posts" the people that make these posts would stop, but if they dont i dont see much reason why they shouldn't be removed from the update posts. What is everyone else's ideas on this subject?

 

Edit. I just wanted to add that this topic wasn't started by this latest update thread, i have been meaning to post this for a while.

Edit. #2 I think i should have said should tip.it ask people not to post and i shouldn't have used censor at all.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

My question/ thought is should Tip.It limit/censor what people post after runescape is updated on the general discussion post made about each update??

 

Personally when i read through the update post 1/3 of the posts is people saying the same thing they say after every update, the same complaints, the same whining and little or no information about what specific part of the update they dont enjoy playing or why it is that after trying the new update they disagree with it. There is a certain person who i completely ignore her posts because they are never constructive and are mostly baseless complaints before she even tries what it is she is complaining about. This then leads to someone posting something along the lines of "stop whining" which then leads the 5-6 posts being sent back and forth on why person X isnt whining and why person Y feels they are.(to me i dont care i dont need to be bothered with those posts clogging up what could be valued information about the new update. I think Tip.It is mature enough that if asked by tip.it staff not to post pointless "this sucks posts", "stop whining posts"" and "im not whining posts" the people that make these posts would stop, but if they dont i dont see much reason why they shouldn't be removed from the update posts. What is everyone else's ideas on this subject?

 

Clearly the person he is talking about is Racheya. :P

 

But no, tip.it shouldn't. We all have our opinions. We shouldn't be limited to saying our opinions because someonw with a similar opinion already said theirs.

 

-edit- And funnily enough, my "whining" today was about that I *wasn't* able to play any of the content. :rolleyes:

[Everyonedies]

What im talking about is freeing up the update posts so that the new information isnt burried with complaints and counter complaints. Suggestions and rants have their own areas and new topics about your opinion on updates can be created and everyone can voice there opions about the updates there Freeing the update post to be informative about the contents of the update.

[Guthorm]

I thought the point of having the thread is to promote discussion, feedback and information included. Mods should not cenor posts just because they dislike them, they should cenor them if they are spamming/offensive/etc etc, as long as the posts are within the range, I see no problem for somebody to voice his/her dissent.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

What im talking about is freeing up the update posts so that the new information isnt burried with complaints and counter complaints. Suggestions and rants have their own areas and new topics about your opinion on updates can be created and everyone can voice there opions about the updates there Freeing the update post to be informative about the contents of the update.

 

Truth be told, I agree with you that I'd like to see other threads about that, but the Mods also either close/merge those topics with the existing ones about the update. They typically only want one thread about one subject.

[Kiriyama]

If they start limiting what people can say, then a good majority of the users will leave, and even less people will join.

 

I, for one, would leave if we weren't allowed to post our opinions, as long as they are not flamebait.

[Everyonedies]

What im talking about is freeing up the update posts so that the new information isnt burried with complaints and counter complaints. Suggestions and rants have their own areas and new topics about your opinion on updates can be created and everyone can voice there opions about the updates there Freeing the update post to be informative about the contents of the update.

 

Turth be told, I agree with you that I'd like to see other threads about that, but the Mods also either close/merge those topics with the existing ones about the update. They typically only want one thread about one subject.

Ahh ok so its more like a tip.it policy to contain all subject matter about one subject in one place or thread? Can any tip.it mod confirm this?

[Racheya]

What im talking about is freeing up the update posts so that the new information isnt burried with complaints and counter complaints. Suggestions and rants have their own areas and new topics about your opinion on updates can be created and everyone can voice there opions about the updates there Freeing the update post to be informative about the contents of the update.

 

Turth be told, I agree with you that I'd like to see other threads about that, but the Mods also either close/merge those topics with the existing ones about the update. They typically only want one thread about one subject.

Ahh ok so its more like a tip.it policy to contain all subject matter about one subject in one place or thread? Can any tip.it mod confirm this?

I can say that yes, we do prefer to keep things organised. If you have 3 threads about one topic then you have people posting the same thing three times or thinking they posted in one thread but actually it was a different one. It also keeps the forums tidier.

 

As to if we should stop people from voicing opinions no - definitely not. We want people to be able to express themselves and their opinions no matter what they are - of course we don't let people be offensive ect, but people's opinions on say, an update, shouldn't be censored just because people don't like them. In fact having people who disagree with your point of view can be good. If you can evaluate your own opinion compared to another person's, justify and explain your reasoning, it does well for you. If someone posts something you disagree with in the future don't ignore it - question it, ask why they think this then tell them why they're wrong - or you might even realise they're right! I don't think the sort of censorship you mean should be anywhere, nevermind our forums.

 

Also this would be better in forum updates/suggestions so I'm moving it there :)

[Me_Hate_Libs]

Yeah, but how come whenever I say upgrayedd it is censored and replaced with upgrade? That kinda sucks and seems to be leveled solely at me since I was the only one who used that phrase.

[Everyonedies]

Racheya i guess what my question to you would be should tip.it have 2 posts made for each update one solely to be informative about the new update and the second post created for people to voice their opion about the new update.

 

My reasoning for this would be the informative post could be used by guide makers/ wiki-updaters/ people soley interested in information about the new update to quickly gather up the imformation about the new update.

 

While the second post is created to give an arena to everyone that wants to voice their opion about the update why its good why its bad why its needed or not.

[Racheya]

I suppose that would be an interesting idea. While I disagree with the idea of having more than one thread I can see the usefulness it might bring for people who are just interested in the facts, such as Crew who want information for guides. For smaller updates it might not be needed - but I imagine big updates like when say, the new skill comes out, something like that would probably be needed. Though crew have forums for submitting information so... I'm kinda on the fence.

[Everyonedies]

Nudge, Nudge I think it would be good. Just look at page 8 of the 22-Feb-2010 - Impetuous Impulses Improvements update thread they are arguing about the fire cape change to ice wyrms i mean come its a different update entirely and there is thread filled with rants and praise for the change.

 

edit. you said "Though crew have forums for submitting information" any chance i could have access with read only ability? Although i don't often update runescape wiki or write guides, i do like to get just the pure information side of updates

[Racheya]

Well what I mean is the updates and corrections forum. Any of the 'actual' information that they get are put up on the guides on the website.

[tortilliachp]

off-topic posts should simply be deleted. That is what moderation means.

 

non-constructive posts, be they opinions or not, are spam and should be deleted. Only posts that are part of a discussion, belong in this forum. Moaning about a topic without giving a reason is by this definition spam.

 

I feel moderators can show a harder line in moderating, the tip.it community would benefit, and show greater maturity.

[Rainy_Day]

I think so long as posting is contructive and related to the topic at hand, there's no need for us to limit. If people post nonsense like "agreed" and "+1", or simply post something not related to the topic at all, then we should remove them and do remove them. It is considered nothing more than spam.

[Laikrob]

I think so long as posting is contructive and related to the topic at hand, there's no need for us to limit. If people post nonsense like "agreed" and "+1", or simply post something not related to the topic at all, then we should remove them and do remove them. It is considered nothing more than spam.

To add to that, feel free to use the "Report post" function and help us catch posts like that. We can't read through all topics, and even when we do, we sometimes automatically skip and don't notice spammy posts because they are... spammy and add nothing. Just like regular users do, since we are that aswell as moderators. :)

[obfuscator]

You know, the staff could go all nazi-mod and delete anything and everything, but then people leave. The internet is about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and as long as someone isn't being offensive, who has the right to control what they say?

[Everyonedies]

You know, the staff could go all nazi-mod and delete anything and everything, but then people leave. The internet is about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and as long as someone isn't being offensive, who has the right to control what they say?

As my thought process evolved on the topic i should have never put in censor but used only limit and im only talking about the update threads not any other threads. Look at page 8 and part of page 9 of the 22-Feb-2010 - Impetuous Impulses Improvements update thread its full of arguing about the fire cape change with icewryms. What im saying or lobbying for at this point is for 2 update threads for each update one for information only about the new update and another where people can voice their opinions or anything else about the update that isnt informative. Maybe after 3 or 4 days the two topics can be merged into 1 or maybe just left has 2 topics idk.

[obfuscator]

You know, the staff could go all nazi-mod and delete anything and everything, but then people leave. The internet is about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and as long as someone isn't being offensive, who has the right to control what they say?

As my thought process evolved on the topic i should have never put in censor but used only limit and im only talking about the update threads not any other threads. Look at page 8 and part of page 9 of the 22-Feb-2010 - Impetuous Impulses Improvements update thread its full of arguing about the fire cape change with icewryms. What im saying or lobbying for at this point is for 2 update threads for each update one for information only about the new update and another where people can voice their opinions or anything else about the update that isnt informative. Maybe after 3 or 4 days the two topics can be merged into 1 or maybe just left has 2 topics idk.

It's not that hard to find...and while I agree that it can be annoying it's simply impractical and unfair to restrict people's discussion as long as it's relevant.

[tortilliachp]

You know, the staff could go all nazi-mod and delete anything and everything, but then people leave. The internet is about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and as long as someone isn't being offensive, who has the right to control what they say?

 

hi y-guy!

 

ot: having the right to say something doesn't mean you should, and it certainly doesn't mean a community should be obliged to endure your bemoanings. Even with a right to free speech, this right must be executed with reason, respect and humility. A national right to free speech does not guarantee a right to publication, which is what posting on open boards on the internet consists of. Because I can moan and groan freely in private, does not entitle me to anything on public forums.

 

I can guarantee you that the tip.it community will not regain the sophistication, activity, vibrance and friendly community since its foundation through 2004 without more rigorous moderation.

 

defending free speech as a right is good, that does not mean the public should endure the destructive use of it. Because you have a right to burn flags, make hateful religious cartoons or bemoan every update does not mean tip.it should publish those views or endorse those actions.

 

the right to free speech must be used selectively, and foums mods are obligated to make a selection that promotes constructive contributions thus constructive development of this community.

If the destructive moaners leave, the rest of the community is better off, and new users are more likely to stay.

[stonewall337]

I will agree with MHL, editing Upgrayed (Sorry, not trying to evade censor if that isn't changed) seems like some mods personal vendetta against MHL.

[Vulxai]

I disagree wholeheartedly against any limitations of freedom of speech. Being a soldier, I don't enjoy knowing that I signed up to risk my life for the rights that we now enjoy, and watching them being stripped away from us. It makes Soldiers feel like our job isn't for nothing, at least every single Soldier I know anyways.

[Rainy_Day]

I disagree wholeheartedly against any limitations of freedom of speech. Being a soldier, I don't enjoy knowing that I signed up to risk my life for the rights that we now enjoy, and watching them being stripped away from us. It makes Soldiers feel like our job isn't for nothing, at least every single Soldier I know anyways.

No limits on free speech can mean that people are allowed to say some pretty offensive things. There should always be limits when things get over the top/extreme (such as people preaching racial hate in real life, or religious extremism).

 

As for the censor, stonewall337, staff will never have a personal vendetta against any member (we're all impartial, and if a user offends a direct mod, it will always be another moderator who deals with them anyway). If it were censored/replaced with something else, I'm sure there is a just reason for it. :-)

[Earth_Poet]

You know, the staff could go all nazi-mod and delete anything and everything, but then people leave. The internet is about freedom of speech, freedom of information, and as long as someone isn't being offensive, who has the right to control what they say?

 

hi y-guy!

 

ot: having the right to say something doesn't mean you should, and it certainly doesn't mean a community should be obliged to endure your bemoanings. Even with a right to free speech, this right must be executed with reason, respect and humility. A national right to free speech does not guarantee a right to publication, which is what posting on open boards on the internet consists of. Because I can moan and groan freely in private, does not entitle me to anything on public forums.

 

I can guarantee you that the tip.it community will not regain the sophistication, activity, vibrance and friendly community since its foundation through 2004 without more rigorous moderation.

 

defending free speech as a right is good, that does not mean the public should endure the destructive use of it. Because you have a right to burn flags, make hateful religious cartoons or bemoan every update does not mean tip.it should publish those views or endorse those actions.

 

the right to free speech must be used selectively, and foums mods are obligated to make a selection that promotes constructive contributions thus constructive development of this community.

If the destructive moaners leave, the rest of the community is better off, and new users are more likely to stay.

 

By that same logic, we should censor any posts that praise an update or display their excitement for a future update. Why only attack negative comments?

 

How can you legitimately associate a poster on Tip.It who complains about a recent update to offensive speech. Does it put you under that much duress to read it? Are these posters looking to incite a crime? These are the REAL responsibilities that come with free speech, and you are overreaching in your comparisons.

 

Oh, and that right to free speech does extend to publications...since that's all part of the free speech thing ya know (Journalism 1101). Where it ends here though is at the discretion of the owners of Tip.It.

[tortilliachp]

 

 

By that same logic, we should censor any posts that praise an update or display their excitement for a future update. Why only attack negative comments?

 

How can you legitimately associate a poster on Tip.It who complains about a recent update to offensive speech. Does it put you under that much duress to read it? Are these posters looking to incite a crime? These are the REAL responsibilities that come with free speech, and you are overreaching in your comparisons.

 

Oh, and that right to free speech does extend to publications...since that's all part of the free speech thing ya know (Journalism 1101). Where it ends here though is at the discretion of the owners of Tip.It.

 

-yes, content-less praise is spam.

 

My comparisons were with the extremities of free speech, as it is there the boundries are neutrally descernable. I personally believe the boundries of publication lie where there is a utilitarian purpose for a post, other than "using my right". This logic emnates partially from the existance of moral boundries more absolute, thus my comparisons function as a basis for further presicion in where the boundries lie (in my opinion at least). They were not intended as direct comparsions, and as an intelligent reader, i think you understood that.

 

yes, there are real responsibilities that come with free speech. Especially so, when concerning publication: you have an ethical and moral responsibility to ensure that the content of what you publish has meaning for others. If everyone were to excersise their right of free speech every time they had a strong opinion on something, the asides of monologue would stifle all dialogue. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to excersise our right when it is important, and has effect.

 

Now every publication has editors. The editors have a responsibility to ensure that their publication serves a purpose. Thus, our editors, the moderators, are responsible for moderating the forums such that posts are useful to other people. Yes, this is at the discretion of tip.it, but there are arguably some standards that are universal. There are arguably posts that are spam, many of these only posting an opinion, with no attempt at dialogue.

 

It is the responsibility of the moderators to ensure that the forums serve a purpose, and cater to a constructive community.