Another missing thread?
- Thread starter SteveMND
- Start date
I think you have a sizeable amount of people right here asking for posts to be 'edited' rather than deleted out right. Deleted threads means you run the risk of losing some potential kernel of useful information. It would seem to be a good compromise for both sides. The ones with issues about the posts get them edited and the rest of us get to keep the threads sans the objectional bits.
Yet, as Mr. Sprange himself said, the posts they are concerned over and deleting are not the ones where the people are saying things about other people, or about the company, etc. Rather, they are looking into situations when people complain to them about posts here criticizing the game itself.
I have to say, i was a little startled at that comment, really. Part of me wants to think that the people probably 'complaining' to Mongoose about criticism of the game are third-party publishers who wish to publish material for MRQ, and are afraid the criticism here will translate into less sales overall.
I can of course understand that point of view, as Mongoose is a for-profit company, after all. But if that is the case (and I'll be the first to admit that I have no evidence to support it, and it's pure speculation), then that is still somewhat disturbing of a practice.
That may very well be. However, wouldn't a more effective (and perhaps more professional) response be to instead correct those sorts of gross errors when made, as opposed to simply deleting not only that erroneous post, but in fact the entire thread?
SteveMND said:
To my knowledge, none of them have.
Only two may post here, but I am quite certain plenty more out there keep tabs on the forum.
Regardless, I believe my comments were not a jump, nor insulting, and certainly not meant to be either. Presumably the third-party developers that post here on a regular basis wouldn't be concerned with critical posts about the game to the point of complaining en mass, since they take an active role in the development of the game and it's public discourse here as well.
As I stated, it is pure speculation, and I have zero facts to support it -- hence my expansive disclaimer. But I am somewhat curious... Most of the time when when I hear of complaints about posts made on an online message board -- regardless of the subject matter -- it is virtually always about the way people are acting, the language or tone used, and/or such behavior as spam, trolling, flaming, or other provocational behavior.
When Mr. Sprange states that they are deleting threads based on which ones have drawn the attention of others not because of those behavioral problems, but rather because of negative comments about the game itself, then I naturally wonder who would be more focused towards specifically reigning in critical comments about the game as opposed to reigning in poor netiquette by the posters.
Hence my speculation.
SteveMND said:
There are 524 threads in this forum with a total of 12441 posts. To date, only what... two threads have been deleted?
Of those two threads, one of them was just some dude stating that the Companion was stupid and that he wouldn't buy it based on a flip-through at the game store. He made negative assumptions based on a rule snippet he happened to pick out in his brief scan.
Mongoose has *every* right to delete such mis-informed and negative drivel, and I would expect them to.
But the numbers speak for themselves. There has been a LOT of discussion about this game, and lots of it negative. I think there's a lot of mountain-making out of relatively small molehills going on here.
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
iamtim said:
While I don't particuarly want to see threads deleted either as they often contain good points buried in a crap thread, I agree with Tim here.
If I came on and started a thread that said "Runequest is crap because my mate told me it was", and did nothing but spout bollocks, I'd expect the thread to be deleted too, and rightly so.
It's just a shame they don't have the time or willingness to edit rather than remove the posts, but as long as it doesn't get out of hand I don't have a problem with it.
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Could you be more melodramatic? :roll: :roll:
Most of what you write on these forums are criticisms, yet I don't see any of your threads deleted.
Ditto. I'm quite happy to see really negative and destructive threads be dropped, especially in response to customer/user demand. Where the constructive points in the thread are valid, those who really care can always post them again (without slagging Mongoose or the product to the extent the posts sometimes are). Loads of threads that have criticisms and constructive (and destructive) comments are still live. Editting the threads would be offensive and _incredibly_ costly.gamesmeister said:
Frankly, I am continually amazed by the light touch Mongoose have on these boards.
Edited to amend a wrong quote=
Trimming threads on a public comment board is not a great, but also not a terrible idea. I'd rather see them locked with a mod's nasty-note edited on to post one and posted as the thread closer. They'll rotate to the back quickly enough.
Now, another game company had a playtest I was in where the playtest board was suffering from thread deletions by the corp. rep for the IP owner... who was neither a gamer nor aware of the purpose of playtests... anything overtly negative on that edition was liable to be deleted post-by-post, and I was on-line when several of my own were deleted. Said corp rep made the comment that the designer "had no business reading these boards." So...
Now, another game company had a playtest I was in where the playtest board was suffering from thread deletions by the corp. rep for the IP owner... who was neither a gamer nor aware of the purpose of playtests... anything overtly negative on that edition was liable to be deleted post-by-post, and I was on-line when several of my own were deleted. Said corp rep made the comment that the designer "had no business reading these boards." So...
DUDES!....dudes.....dudes.........ok, forget about games and forums for a moment and think about SKIRT....................ok, thats better.......happier now........I don't give a monkey's coconut that the thread was deleted. Matt explained why. There are plenty of critical threads on these boards so it CAN'T be just because the thread was critical.........Actually Mongoose police these boards less than I police conversations in my own flat. If someone p..sses me off then they get kicked out under no uncertain terms.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
burdock said:
That is you Private flat, not a public board, the two are quite different. If you want a private forum it is quite easy to set one up.
As for reporting people because you don't like their views on a game! If people feel others are being too negative, why don't they just post a positive response or pm them?
That kind of thing just smacks of petty small mindedness and feels like something out of a trashy novel about a police state.
I'm glad some people showed some restraint and sense.
I find it homourous that this weeks new release is Paranoia's 'Little RED Book'
Perhaps this is all some weird marketing gimmick.
Erm...This was the first forum I've ever been on. Is it always this acrimonious? Joined GURPS traveller site and they seem downright friendly.
As a crumbly old 2 decades+ of RQ3 (Not Glorantha!) player I was keen to see MRQ and cheer it on. It contains some great ideas but like many others I feel that there are also some quite serious flaws with the system. atgxtg is melodramatic but he and a few others do seem to be genuinely trying to sort out some of the aforementioned 'whoopsies' I've tried the same (Mine available on request 10 pages and growing..) because, I think I've said this before, I want a successful RQ line.
Look, there's been a lot of good rules 'options' posted here which I reckon would improve the game (In this biz word of mouth counts for a lot so not fixing things can have commercial repurcussions...Steve Jackson sussed this way back and GURPs happily produce extensive downloadable errata). For my money, and that is what we're talking about, criticism is fine and dandy especially if it's constructive. That's generally an atgxtg strongpoint. Asking Mongoose to censor someone trying to improve the system seems to me more negative than just sitting on your thumbs. C'mon let's try to make this thing work.
As a crumbly old 2 decades+ of RQ3 (Not Glorantha!) player I was keen to see MRQ and cheer it on. It contains some great ideas but like many others I feel that there are also some quite serious flaws with the system. atgxtg is melodramatic but he and a few others do seem to be genuinely trying to sort out some of the aforementioned 'whoopsies' I've tried the same (Mine available on request 10 pages and growing..) because, I think I've said this before, I want a successful RQ line.
Look, there's been a lot of good rules 'options' posted here which I reckon would improve the game (In this biz word of mouth counts for a lot so not fixing things can have commercial repurcussions...Steve Jackson sussed this way back and GURPs happily produce extensive downloadable errata). For my money, and that is what we're talking about, criticism is fine and dandy especially if it's constructive. That's generally an atgxtg strongpoint. Asking Mongoose to censor someone trying to improve the system seems to me more negative than just sitting on your thumbs. C'mon let's try to make this thing work.
homerjsinnott said:
Actually, I think you might want to re-check the definition of "Private" and "Public".
You are posting on a -Private- forum, owned by Mongoose publishing/
Let me remind you of a little something you had to agree (like everyone else) when you created your posting avatar :
While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
This forum system uses cookies to store information on your local computer. These cookies do not contain any of the information you have entered above; they serve only to improve your viewing pleasure. The e-mail address is used only for confirming your registration details and password (and for sending new passwords should you forget your current one).
By clicking Register below you agree to be bound by these conditions.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
Elandyll said:
You are right on the public /private thing. What I mean't to say was the difference between an Open and Close forum ie one where people are invited to join or are vetted and one where it is effectively open to any one (forgive me if these aren't the right technical terms). So Burdock's Flat is in effect a closed forum where he invites who he likes and can veto what they say.
On their forums mongoose have all the power they need at their disposal, but it is the exercise of that power that we are debating not the fact that they have it available.
I thought that was understood by all.
homer wrote
tee hee.....I should have filled you all in about the circumstances in my flat. It is more like a public than a private forum. All manner of riff raff invite themselves to live there....many of them migrants with nowhere to live. I define my personal space as extending for half a meter around my bed. NOONE can come inside that (apart from chickolas). BUT anyone breaks the rules and they're expelled (physically if needs be).......SO, with that in mind there may be some relevence in my initial comment.....though understandably no one could have known this.
tee hee.....I should have filled you all in about the circumstances in my flat. It is more like a public than a private forum. All manner of riff raff invite themselves to live there....many of them migrants with nowhere to live. I define my personal space as extending for half a meter around my bed. NOONE can come inside that (apart from chickolas). BUT anyone breaks the rules and they're expelled (physically if needs be).......SO, with that in mind there may be some relevence in my initial comment.....though understandably no one could have known this.
King Amenjar
Mongoose
What I said was that I went to buy the book, picked it up off the shelf and having perused it, decided not to buy it because I didn't like the direction it seemed to be taking RQ in. I said that hitherto I had dismissed allegations that Mongoose were making RQ more like D&D, but now I thought that the weapon quality rules added a lot of weight to that argument by creating +5 swords for sale in all but name.iamtim said:
Nowhere did I say anything like "this is stupid" or "this sucks". If that is your assertion, either you never read the post, or you are deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting me.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't care for it.
Simply put, the item quality rules come from a long-standing pet peeve of mine. I've never liked the fact that a sword is a sword is a sword ... that the average village blacksmith can turn out something in an afternoon that is, rules-wise, identical to the painstaking, months-long work of the finest craftsman in the world. I figured, since I was writing the book, I'd fix that. Anyone who thinks I'm being unfair to the work of the village blacksmith, of course, is free to ignore said rules.
Simply put, the item quality rules come from a long-standing pet peeve of mine. I've never liked the fact that a sword is a sword is a sword ... that the average village blacksmith can turn out something in an afternoon that is, rules-wise, identical to the painstaking, months-long work of the finest craftsman in the world. I figured, since I was writing the book, I'd fix that. Anyone who thinks I'm being unfair to the work of the village blacksmith, of course, is free to ignore said rules.
