External communities & Graalonline - Page 2

Rufus · #16 07-28-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unixmad

Valid proof or not, public bashing is not good. When something is said in public, valid or not, it stays something in the head of everyone and it's easy to use such tactic to make false rumours about someone.

It's also easy to use such "tactic[s]" to expose how people really are.

Not saying this is the case in this little episode, but you've got to account for both sides of the argument for it to be fair.

Crono · #17 07-28-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unixmad

Valid proof or not, public bashing is not good. When something is said in public, valid or not, it stays something in the head of everyone and it's easy to use such tactic to make false rumours about someone.

Well...if the points are made each with proof then you wouldn't have false rumours. Also, although I agree bashing someone out loud is wrong, I still think that criticizing their actions is fair and legal.

Rufus · #18 07-28-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerami

Well...if the points are made each with proof then you wouldn't have false rumours. Also, although I agree bashing someone out loud is wrong, I still think that criticizing their actions is fair and legal.

If there are proven points then it is easy to work that reputation to create rumors.

Crono · #19 07-28-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus

If there are proven points then it is easy to work that reputation to create rumors.

I said "if the points are made each with proof". Meaning you don't make rumours, points, and such without valid proof.

HoudiniMan · #20 07-30-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unixmad

...

Oh, this is the thread you meant?

Well, I just found it.

I suppose that answers your earlier question.

Malinko · #21 07-30-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

Oh, this is the thread you meant?

Well, I just found it.

I suppose that answers your earlier question.

Perhaps someone should be a bit more active.

Oh, and that was not a bash, because it's advice, or rather a suggestion that a lot of people want to state sometimes.

HoudiniMan · #22 08-01-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malinko

Perhaps someone should be a bit more active.

Oh, and that was not a bash, because it's advice, or rather a suggestion that a lot of people want to state sometimes.

I tend not to register the stickied threads, just like everybody else when there's a few up there.

As for your advice, I've been a PWA more than 16 times as long as the 73 day stint leading up to your getting fired. Keep it.

Mykel · #23 08-02-2006, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

I tend not to register the stickied threads, just like everybody else when there's a few up there.

As for your advice, I've been a PWA more than 16 times as long as the 73 day stint leading up to your getting fired. Keep it.

Someone uses the calculator.

excaliber7388 · #24 08-02-2006, 05:06 AM

So are globals allowed to participate in non official graal communities yet?

HoudiniMan · #25 08-02-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mykel

Someone uses the calculator.

Inspired by the recent addition of a day counter to my sig

konidias · #26 08-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerami

I said "if the points are made each with proof". Meaning you don't make rumours, points, and such without valid proof.

It's incredibly hard to prove anything over the internet. Saying "it's true because it really happened I swear!" isn't proof. Screenshots aren't solid proof. Logs are not solid proof. There is nothing you can do to prove anything that happened over the internet, via the internet.

Then what happens if someone falsifies evidence to make it look like proof, and then everyone believes that person? Then someone innocent will take hell for it.

Crono · #27 08-02-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by konidias

It's incredibly hard to prove anything over the internet. Saying "it's true because it really happened I swear!" isn't proof. Screenshots aren't solid proof. Logs are not solid proof. There is nothing you can do to prove anything that happened over the internet, via the internet.

You're right, so why ban people? Hell why even make rules if nothing can be proved, right?

jake13jake · #28 08-02-2006, 03:37 PM

Haha, want to see some of my notes from trying to agree with Classic guild leaders on a territorial base CTF system??

Stubborn Tangential Arguments:
Won't work
Nations vs. Guilds
Not a priority of development

TonyRivers2 · #29 08-18-2006, 08:51 AM

My take on all this is if you have any viable proof of wrong doing by a staff member there should be a meadeation between you, the staff person, and someone who can do something about it. This party should be non-objective and hear both sides of the arguement then have the ability to deal with it. From the player prospective a support ticket is bias to the accused as they (staff) can speak to the higher up directly and can easily convince him/her it is an issue of a player that happens to merely dislike them. Conflict cannot be resolved without the involvement of both parties. You have to include the player directly when you look into these sort of things.

Of course this will never work because you are dealing with a majority of teens and preteens that will never understand this is only a game, (despite the fact that you paid for it or how much time you spend everyday playing it) none of it is real.