Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

LOTRO official forums: some "defenders" can see posts before they are posted?


Darmokk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't get too hung up on the signature link thing.

Disallowing links to competing or otherwise hostile sites is standard procedure even on reasonable forums. I would put something that isn't a link such a "member of lotrocommunity" (as text, not link).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was removed because it was self-admitted by the thread starter that it was created for an intent to cause discontent...they made the post with the sole purpose to prove a point in that it will be locked, and if it wasn't locked, deleted...

Wanted to clear the air now on this little tidbit that I somehow missed, since I am the OP in that thread.

I absolutely DID NOT create the thread on the official forums to seed any sort of discontent. I stated that I went in knowing that the thread would be locked or deleted because of the fact that just about any negative feedback (about Turbine or the Mods) posted there gets destroyed very quickly. It was my prediction of how I believed the mods would react to my post. Just because the prediction was correct doesn't mean I posted there just to start a fight and get it deleted.

I posted there in the hopes that some people, however few, would see my plea and choose to figure things out for themselves how things are being done over there. I made my first post here on these forums soon after I made that thread. I also made the thread because I have had enough of their heavy handed censorship and their somewhat fascist policies on dealing with constructive criticism posted by paying customers lately. My friend and kin leader was perma-banned with absolutely no reasoning, and they have flat out refused to admit their mistake and reinstate his community account. I have just had enough, and I'm not the type of person to sit by and not say anything about it. I was expressing my opinions, that are based on experiences and facts I know to be true, about how things are over there atm and more or less calling for improvement on the part of Turbine's Community Team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've added the link back to my signature and if they decided to give me an infraction or warning I'll let you know what they said.

I wonder if they realize that by removing the sigs (which do not violate the CoC in any way...), is only going to make things WORSE?

Nah...

They'd have to stop for a moment and realize that THEY are causing the spiral by their endless big brother tactics.

All they'd have to do is STOP, and it would all die down and go away.

But they won't. There's a disconnect somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the standard drum beat is to label this forum full of cranks and crackpots with no sense of proportion or justification for our beliefs. That some of us may still support the game because the game is still fun even with all the issues, while remaining highly critical of the corporate half of that company, is perhaps too much of a distinction for them to handle, because it lends more credibility to us, that we can both enjoy the game but wish the management would do a better job of actually serving their customers and keeping their promises, and not solely bow to those holding their leash.

Who said that disgruntled customers would stop using a product they paid for that works, even if poorly at times, yet wouldn't tell the retailer/manufacturer their issues and expect them to be dealt with, instead of selectively monitored, threatened, redacted (To make ready for publication; edit or revise), or outright silenced? Can you imagine what might happen to a car dealership if they tried to do this? Or a realtor? Financial suicide if that became public knowledge. In some cases it's not even legal to do that in a public arena, but due to the unique business atmosphere of an online company, it's quite possible to massage and control the message, even if such activities skirt constitutional guarantees by the thin margins of mere semantics (Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language, ie, intent).

They may provide the board because their physical company is not accessible to all their customers and use it for PR and marketing, particularly those living in other countries. So the board is their public facing (online version of brick and mortar) and should really be where all customers can go to bitch, whine, complain, praise, suggest, or otherwise comment on the product they pay for or the treatment they receive while making complaints, or even, should they wish, picket (create thread for others to support or not), or post damaging information (whistle-blower) they have discovered in attempts to get them to clean up their act. It is ONLY the fact that they are currently 'outside' the jurisdiction due to the framework of laws not catching up with them as far as American freedom of speech that they can do this so far, or because no one has attempted to point out what I just did in a courtroom, that by providing the forum, they are making that the place for customers to attempt public discussion about them, making it the store front of their company for all customers, not just those that live a block away, and should fall under the provision of the first amendment, regardless of what they really would like to do.

Because once people have attempted tickets, PM's, and phone calls, what other recourse do they have? Other than bending over and taking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Deleted" is a perfectly fine word describing what happens to a thread that disappears.

The discussion about the word has only been brought up to lower the signal to noise ratio of this thread. Don't fall for it.

I was sympathetic to DarkCntry until he tried diverting the conversation by claiming the thread wasn't deleted. As far as the forum users are concerned the thread is no longer there, it was deleted from the viewable forum. Just stick to the issue at hand.

Telling people to come to this forum is most likely why it was deleted as opposed to just locked. Attacking one of their biggest cheerleaders is what got it deleted when it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personnaly credit it to a forum bug. I know I've seen dozens of quotes that were posted BEFORE the original post, mostly within the same minute. Up to now I thought they were just storing the time not precisely enough, but maybe they have a problem with the autosave function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would entertain the possibility of a bug much more if I could see the thing one more time. Readonly (closed) is entirely sufficient. Some things that some of us here remember take chips off the bug theory and it would be good to rule out selective memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personnaly credit it to a forum bug. I know I've seen dozens of quotes that were posted BEFORE the original post, mostly within the same minute. Up to now I thought they were just storing the time not precisely enough, but maybe they have a problem with the autosave function.

Yeah, back when they took down the forums with the security breach, they managed to develop some problem where posts weren't appearing in teh correct order. That we could understand. What Jackalope is saying is that he deleted a lot of his post (maybe all of it) before posting it... and yet it was still seen and replied to.

Which is truly creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, back when they took down the forums with the security breach, they managed to develop some problem where posts weren't appearing in teh correct order. That we could understand. What Jackalope is saying is that he deleted a lot of his post (maybe all of it) before posting it... and yet it was still seen and replied to.

Which is truly creepy.

He also said that the quote function wasn't used. Which raises the question why. A copy'n'paste of the replied-to content from something other than a post is a possible explanation.

That's why I'd like to see the thread again. Maybe we have selective memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was sympathetic to DarkCntry until he tried diverting the conversation by claiming the thread wasn't deleted. As far as the forum users are concerned the thread is no longer there, it was deleted from the viewable forum. Just stick to the issue at hand.

Telling people to come to this forum is most likely why it was deleted as opposed to just locked. Attacking one of their biggest cheerleaders is what got it deleted when it did.

I wouldn't call what I did an attack, it was a simple question from an honestly curious person (me). If it was perceived as an attack, that simply lends credence to the possibility that he was monitoring my pre-post. Because until I did that, the thread hadn't been touched at all. Even counting the post about a page earlier that did bring up Tachy that I hadn't even seen due to the speed of the posters could loosely be construed as discussing moderation, a thread closing offence at minimum. The moderators must have been watching the thread closely to crash it when they did. If anything before that had deemed the thread worthy of being closed they would have done it long before my question even came up. And then having Henry get locked out when he did after researching to determine what was happening, well, maybe coincidence, maybe not. I lean towards not. But ultimately it's still conjecture without a smoking gun. And I'm sure that's never going to be found even if there is one. I still hope it's just some very, very odd arrangement of occurrences, but then again, we know the history of that forum. Add to that that having my thoughts copied to their server prior to my passing them on intentionally could be considered invasive without prior warning that such was occurring. Of course, it being their forum, you could argue we have no right to privacy in that regard.

Just an ugly situation all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that disgruntled customers would stop using a product they paid for that works, even if poorly at times, yet wouldn't tell the retailer/manufacturer their issues and expect them to be dealt with, instead of selectively monitored, threatened, redacted (To make ready for publication; edit or revise), or outright silenced? Can you imagine what might happen to a car dealership if they tried to do this? Or a realtor? Financial suicide if that became public knowledge. In some cases it's not even legal to do that in a public arena, but due to the unique business atmosphere of an online company, it's quite possible to massage and control the message, even if such activities skirt constitutional guarantees by the thin margins of mere semantics (Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language, ie, intent).

They may provide the board because their physical company is not accessible to all their customers and use it for PR and marketing, particularly those living in other countries. So the board is their public facing (online version of brick and mortar) and should really be where all customers can go to bitch, whine, complain, praise, suggest, or otherwise comment on the product they pay for or the treatment they receive while making complaints, or even, should they wish, picket (create thread for others to support or not), or post damaging information (whistle-blower) they have discovered in attempts to get them to clean up their act. It is ONLY the fact that they are currently 'outside' the jurisdiction due to the framework of laws not catching up with them as far as American freedom of speech that they can do this so far, or because no one has attempted to point out what I just did in a courtroom, that by providing the forum, they are making that the place for customers to attempt public discussion about them, making it the store front of their company for all customers, not just those that live a block away, and should fall under the provision of the first amendment, regardless of what they really would like to do.

Because once people have attempted tickets, PM's, and phone calls, what other recourse do they have? Other than bending over and taking it.

Why in the hell do people always have to bring up the Constitution when talking about private enterprises?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Read it. It deals with GOVERNMENT censorship. NO corporation has ANY responsibility to provide you a place to air your stupid conspiracy theories and your insulting and demeaning vitriol. They have the RIGHT to allow and DISallow ANYTHING they want on their site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think I was insulting or demeaning. Maybe it's a theory, but I am polite about it. And not being a citizen of the US, I am sure I don't fall into any of that anyway. But you make an interesting point. When the corporations are practically jerking the strings of your elected officials, that makes them the government, even if proxy. So governments don't enforce the rights of citizens to speak freely when it goes against what a corporation may want, under the premise that the government isn't making the rules, the corporation is. Out of our hands, sorry.

You do have a point though, and Turbine probably does have the right to silence anyone at anytime for any reason. Even made up ones. Maybe citizens should try to have their elected officials change that so that if someone is going to do business in your country, they can't stomp all over your rights when they feel like it because they aren't 'the government'. This is the sort of thing that the Occupy movements are showing now, that some citizens are in direct opposition to the people jerking the strings of power, and we all can see the lengths to which they'll go to try to silence dissent. Blocking out a customer from speaking his mind, especially factually, is no different than jailing a political prisoner or exiling them to a foreign land so that the people he wishes to speak to are out of reach. Maybe that's an over the top comparison, but it does have the ring of truth to it. If that is offensive to some, maybe it's because it hits a little too close to home.

I will add this too, found it digging for business/first amendment, free speech:

Legally, there is a big difference between an employee of the government (e.g., a policeman) and an employee of a private corporation. First Amendment rights only restrict the government. Courts have consistently enforced a rigid rule that private corporations do not need to respect freedom of speech for their employees. One might wonder if better law would be for all organizations, including corporations, to respect certain civil liberties of people. When the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, large corporations were more one hundred years in the future. The concern in 1791 was excessive power by government, not by corporations.

I think the case can easily be made that corporations are curtailing rights, and should be reigned in. Most law assigns the status of legal entity to a corporation to insulate the people in control from lawsuits, and yet, this legal entity can restrict your rights, and break the law, things most private citizens have no right to do, and the people who actually make those decisions are for the most part protected unless it all comes out into the open, and by the way, this aspect of law was lobbied by corporations to the government. In hindsight, that was the dumbest thing they ever could have agreed to do, or at least, that is what citizens should be thinking, the government has been getting paid ever since.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that is wrong on the official forum is that the forum manipulation that happens in practice follows rules differently from those stated.

People understand that vendor-owned forums, even if the general public can post, are cleaned of unwanted material.

However, first stating one set of rules that are used for this kind of cleaning and then doing it under different rules can be considered false advertising. It is deceiving the public, and at the end of the deception is sales. That is false advertising in a legally relevant manner.

Likewise it would deceive the public, namely existing customers, if some apparent member of the forum are directly manipulating content based on directions from the owning company, but disguising them as regular members. If they then manipulate the forum in a matter facilitating more sales that is also false advertising.

And it doesn't matter whether the people are employees or get other encouragements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think I was insulting or demeaning. Maybe it's a theory, but I am polite about it. And not being a citizen of the US, I am sure I don't fall into any of that anyway. But you make an interesting point. When the corporations are practically jerking the strings of your elected officials, that makes them the government, even if proxy. So governments don't enforce the rights of citizens to speak freely when it goes against what a corporation may want, under the premise that the government isn't making the rules, the corporation is. Out of our hands, sorry.

You do have a point though, and Turbine probably does have the right to silence anyone at anytime for any reason. Even made up ones. Maybe citizens should try to have their elected officials change that so that if someone is going to do business in your country, they can't stomp all over your rights when they feel like it because they aren't 'the government'. This is the sort of thing that the Occupy movements are showing now, that some citizens are in direct opposition to the people jerking the strings of power, and we all can see the lengths to which they'll go to try to silence dissent. Blocking out a customer from speaking his mind, especially factually, is no different than jailing a political prisoner or exiling them to a foreign land so that the people he wishes to speak to are out of reach. Maybe that's an over the top comparison, but it does have the ring of truth to it. If that is offensive to some, maybe it's because it hits a little too close to home.

I will add this too, found it digging for business/first amendment, free speech:

Legally, there is a big difference between an employee of the government (e.g., a policeman) and an employee of a private corporation. First Amendment rights only restrict the government. Courts have consistently enforced a rigid rule that private corporations do not need to respect freedom of speech for their employees. One might wonder if better law would be for all organizations, including corporations, to respect certain civil liberties of people. When the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, large corporations were more one hundred years in the future. The concern in 1791 was excessive power by government, not by corporations.

I think the case can easily be made that corporations are curtailing rights, and should be reigned in. Most law assigns the status of legal entity to a corporation to insulate the people in control from lawsuits, and yet, this legal entity can restrict your rights, and break the law, things most private citizens have no right to do, and the people who actually make those decisions are for the most part protected unless it all comes out into the open, and by the way, this aspect of law was lobbied by corporations to the government. In hindsight, that was the dumbest thing they ever could have agreed to do, or at least, that is what citizens should be thinking, the government has been getting paid ever since.

If there is anything this country does NOT need more of, it is more government intrusion into the private sector. The government should regulate itself and stick to that. It has enough trouble doing that as it is. That's exactly what got the U.S. into the mess that it's in now. Deregulation caused the housing market bubble and caused a collapse when the banks were forced to give out home loans to people that they knew had no business owning a home. Once those people went into foreclosure, well, it wasn't pretty as we all know. Likewise, Government over-regulation can cause similar, if not worse, issues.

In general, a business needs to be allowed to regulate itself. Most companies, no matter how large, should answer to one power and one power alone. The power of the consumer. If you aren't satisfied with the service that a business offers then stop using it and stop buying their products, it is as simple as that. It speaks loud enough to a company when they stop being profitable due to poor services, and I can assure you, they will figure out the reasons why all by themselves, and if they don't then they will suffer the consequences.

Do I enjoy the fact that Turbine has started to censor their primary medium of feedback into little more than a PR device and a Marketing Tool? The answer is no, but I respect their right to do so and I certainly don't want the government to come in and force them to allow my voice to be heard on their doorstep. That leads to it's own set of problems that IMO are entirely worse than the ones we are experiencing now.

They should desire my feedback for the right reasons. For the sake of improving their services and product to better meet the needs and wants of their consumers. That is how a company stays profitable in the long term, not by strong arming the government into submission.

Also, Lets please not turn this discussion any further towards politics and focus on the topic at hand. Turning the discussion into a philosophical debate about government involvement in business will not help us in the situation at hand. We are better off dealing with the issue with the means that are currently available to us not speculating how much better off we would be "if" things were "this way" or "that way."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you wish, but I see this as a symptom of a larger issue, not merely a string of single incidents in one company.

Well just think about it from their perspective, and I am not defending their behavior of late, but just think about the fact that there are some really unreasonable people in this world. People that will not stop at "polite" or "within reason." If I had some tool telling lies about my company and badmouthing me on my own private property then I would want my right to shut it down so that I could keep it from negatively effecting my business. If gov't came in and said "FREE SPEECH FOR ALL" then he would stay and potentially make me less profitable.

It's all about balance. I know from my perspective as a potential customer, that if I see community feedback in the form of polite and reasoned argument, and I see the company DEALING with it and being open and reasonable about it, (You know, actually listening to it's customers) then that is a great Plus for me as a potential customer. It provides me incentive to purchase knowing that my ideas and thoughts will be heard and that my problems will be considered and potentially delt with. If I go in knowing that they have to do that cause the gov't told them to, it isn't an incentive any longer. A company that is motivated to behave that way on their own without being forced is a much better company IMO. They are a company that actual cares about it's customer base, instead of just being forced to appear that way by Uncle Sam.

The problem with Turbine right now is that they have LOST that balance. For whatever reason, they have decided that they would rather not "deal" with us anymore and just handle it themselves. Which they have every right to do, but with that comes the consequences. They will lose revenue from a large segment of their playerbase that has helped make the game what it is today, and their loss will be two-fold. They will lose our money and they will lose our feedback when we stop caring. Customer input is a very valuable tool for an MMO, more valuable than most realize.

I view it as their loss mostly. It is a loss of time invested on my part, but I got what I paid for up until this point, and all you lifers that paid for your lifetimes you have gotten your money's worth. If you were paying a month to month sub you would have paid twice what you paid by now, in most cases, throughout the 4.5 years this game has been going. If you feel like you didn't or aren't getting your money's worth now, then that was a risk you took in purchasing such a thing in the first place. You got entertained up until this point didn't you? It would be the same situation, except worse, if the company went bankrupt suddenly and had to shut the servers down. Either way, it's better for us to just talk with our wallets and move on if we aren't being entertained here any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...