making PMs public

[Gornn]

I can say... while some PM's I do intend in confidence. I would not strain nor sway to keep them hidden. I am honest in what I state, in my beliefs and in any position I take. I do not hold people to think likewise or feel the same... needless to say...

/signed

Some things are going to stay between you and me, Emi.

[Altarboy]

Where is this "Bucket of photos"?...PM please....er.....so I can repost!

[Demoyn]

weakness being the key factor

Well at least you know what's happening here. There's an easy way to fix it.

[Strakeln]

not signed.....private means what it means. However with the pack mob that is very visible no matter what thread it may be seems like the line of thought for them is "if the rules hinder us to grief even more, re-write the rules to favor us" idea.
Guidelines and rules are not written in pencil, no matter how much you stomp your feet and demand. Hardly surprising from the mob who delights in shutting down others in mass.

Reminds me of a few studies I read about those types......

1. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why...es-form-so.php

2. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/i-c...forming-to.php

They were bound to form like they do....weakness being the key factor as well fear of disapproval from others. So sad really, but hardly surprising either

You are a very special person, Q2. Very special indeed.

[Aranticus]

Where is this "Bucket of photos"?...PM please....er.....so I can repost!

ask around

[SableShadow]

i feel that in such instances, PMs concerning the topic should be allowed to be shown.

...

DISCUSS!

Disagree.

/signed

i would like to extend my thoughts here. not sure how accurate it is

the people who have so far signed on the PM challenge basically are people who have nothing to hide. people who are stand by their position be it across several threads and even in the PM. these same people are also the ones who can stand up to scrutinity for they know they will not be caught backpedalling. PMs or not they stand by their word

how this world would be if every politician can be the same...

Every attack on privacy starts about here, specifically the "nothing to hide" part. If they're a hypocrite in their PMs, well, PM them back that they're a hypocrite, slap an ignore on 'em, and be done with it.

[Kistilan]

it is taboo in ddo forums to repost or quote PMs sent by other players into the public forums. here i quote the divine law

*snip*

i feel that in such instances, PMs concerning the topic should be allowed to be shown. this is meant to troll or flame other but for the purpose of TRANSPARENCY. again i state, this is my view. what of yours?

DISCUSS!

I believe Transparency is a big deal and that it would be nice to state things said in PMs.

On the other hand, I'm devious enough to entrap someone with some friends in an evasive PM-Tag in which we plan our "forum discussion" against another (say antagonist/anti-our viewpoint) group of users. No doubt the same happens in the other camp of a heated discussion. Sides are drawn, fences raised and thus begins brow-beatings and other shennanigans mixed into what is supposed to be an intellectual and non-confrontational debate or discussion.

So, it's hard to lift up the blanket statement when someone could be directly quoted via a PM (either by a friend or a not-so-friendly user) and then recieve infraction or other reprimand for what they typed privately! Yes, maybe that message had some merit to be posted -- however, it could be paraphrased to save the original message-sender the grief of infraction and/or defamation by its claim to their name! The blanket statement cannot be lifted because of this.

On the other hand, I think you're directly inferring to discussions concerning punishment and moderation. I believe a PRIVATE FORUM in which only the parties invited & viewable by those parties would be a correct form of Turbine's moderation power.

For instance: Player A receives constant harassment, trolling, etc from Player(s) B. An open discussion request between the parties is requested by Player A. Player(s) B can refuse or accept unless they are already banned/on probation/historically at-fault by Turbine's tracking system with Player A (or other Players). Then the Discussion Thread is opened by NUMBER ONLY to said players in a Turbine-Moderated Discussion. Player(s) A and Player(s) B are the only posters that can view or reply to posts. Posts have a higher timer (say 1 hour per post, restricted words, rules are only screenshots, etc permissible to discussion, etc etc). Moderation by Turbine Staff on said disputes would be monitored and administered. Hopefully an agreement or ruling could be made between the parties and/or Turbine Staff. The Thread would only be allowed to exist for 7 days and then become locked with an official ruling. This would be used only in extreme cases (which I believe is possibly what fueled this current thread's existence?) of historical griefing/argument or very aggregious cheating, flaming, etc.

Best of all, the one thing EVERYONE else could see is the Thread's Bump Case 134369 and the posters in that Case. It would be like watching a boxing match and not really being able to tell who is getting hit, how hard, or what the end result is 'cept maybe a sudden LOCK by Tarrant.

Welcome to the Thunderdome! 2 men enter, 1 man leaves!

[Mithran]

not signed.....private means what it means. However with the pack mob that is very visible no matter what thread it may be seems like the line of thought for them is "if the rules hinder us to grief even more, re-write the rules to favor us" idea.
Guidelines and rules are not written in pencil, no matter how much you stomp your feet and demand. Hardly surprising from the mob who delights in shutting down others in mass.

Reminds me of a few studies I read about those types......

1. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why...es-form-so.php

2. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/i-c...forming-to.php

They were bound to form like they do....weakness being the key factor as well fear of disapproval from others. So sad really, but hardly surprising either

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that Shadowhand2 and Quanafel are both citing their desire to avoid discrimination after they'd both been advocating discrimination against new players?

[Aranticus]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that Shadowhand2 and Quanafel are both citing their desire to avoid discrimination after they'd both been advocating discrimination against new players?

nope, been saying that all along

[Kistilan]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that Shadowhand2 and Quanafel are both citing their desire to avoid discrimination after they'd both been advocating discrimination against new players?

They've been advocating discrimination against new players?

Screenshots? Links?

Somehow, I think this will be a twisted picture.

[Aranticus]

They've been advocating discrimination against new players?

Screenshots? Links?

Somehow, I think this will be a twisted picture.

new players as in FTP players

and like what i said, this is the issue for PMs

[Kistilan]

new players as in FTP players

and like what i said, this is the issue for PMs

I think I missed out on the discrimination part -- I've been moving for the past 2 weeks (moved exactly when Turbine made the F2P announcement).

So what's the big controversy? How do you turn your nose up against F2P Players? I don't really see how you can do so -- what, they say they won't group with them? How do you determine that they're F2P and therefore not your cup of tea? I mean, seriously?

[Aranticus]

I think I missed out on the discrimination part -- I've been moving for the past 2 weeks (moved exactly when Turbine made the F2P announcement).

So what's the big controversy? How do you turn your nose up against F2P Players? I don't really see how you can do so -- what, they say they won't group with them? How do you determine that they're F2P and therefore not your cup of tea? I mean, seriously?

read this, thou careful... think its 800+ posts long

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=186591

[Kistilan]

I read....

I went 0.o, then o.0, then *_*

Then I saw the funnies and laughed.

Then I realized this was nothing new to Khyber and you guys are getting your panties tied up in knots over someone's suggestion and taking about 7 ways wrong.