Les Beaux Chapeaux performs every other Sunday at 9pm (Landroval server time/EST)
At the Prancing Pony stables in Bree
Anything directly below is an advertisement
| A victory for grievers; discussion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 26 2014, 03:16 AM (1,462 Views) | |
| Lifimun | Oct 27 2014, 07:56 PM Post #21 |
|
Well Skoch is on the PC currently, yeah? And if it happens at Horrorfest I don't think we'll need to ask him to bring it up. |
![]() |
|
| Krohkur | Oct 27 2014, 09:40 PM Post #22 |
|
What happened at the Farm was bad, no doubt. The real problem is in the implicit permission to troll that was given to the troll in question. Obviously, he's shared this with his buddies. We need the management at Turbine to understand the toxicity of this. Unless we can get a message to someone with some clout, things will certainly change, but only for the worse. At the end of the day, I can simply not play anymore. But that doesn't help anyone else, and won't rectify the current environment of bullying and antagonism. |
![]() |
|
| Lifimun | Oct 27 2014, 11:24 PM Post #23 |
|
Right, no. The status quo is not tolerable. I just feel it would be more persuasive to present evidence that has not yet been adjudicated rather than protest the "bad call" already on the books. It gives Turbine an opportunity to save face without admitting to a horrible community relations fail. And I would think the goal would be to change the behavior of griefers, not force Turbine to admit it was wrong. Because I think expecting the latter in conjunction with Turbine taking action on the former seems unnecessary. As long as the new policy accomplishes the main goal, who cares about the really dumb response by one GM? Crisis resolution is about offering easy outs that satisfies all parties without a drastic change in the perception of the status quo. Edited by Lifimun, Oct 27 2014, 11:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Krohkur | Oct 28 2014, 01:49 AM Post #24 |
|
Agreed... it's the "permission to troll" that needs to change. The infractions over the last few days are water under the bridge. We need to protest the policy, not the specific GM call. (even though I think that idiot ought to be transferred to the tic-tac-toe helpline.) |
![]() |
|
| WeeTodd | Oct 28 2014, 07:15 AM Post #25 |
|
Maybe Lifimun has a point. If someone had a concert somewhere and made sure it was well announced and the griefer(s) did show, we would have something better to present...especially if the band did move from point to point to clear the view. If the griefer(s) continued to move around to block the band then we can show the malicious intent behind their actions. We would most definitely have to have video of several occurrences of them moving to block the view. I looked at the existing videos and they show a couple of jerks basically standing still and due to the length of the videos they don't show just how much grief they are causing. I think the malicious intent is what we are after and we will have to prove that the griefer(s) are intentionally harassing us and we are trying our best to avoid them. I know Abby or Zedrock, at the very least, have the ability to video a concert at length to capture this abuse...The key is catching them repeatedly interfering with the show. Somewhere open like Bright Star park, beside the Pony, or Pierson's farm. I'm thinking next to the Pony in the open courtyard as one can get a better vantage point and that its centrally located in Bree and can't be missed. |
![]() |
|
| WeeTodd | Oct 28 2014, 07:27 AM Post #26 |
|
We also would need to make sure that it was well announced in advance and we have to make it enticing for the griefer(s) to show up...such as some "special" concert in tribute to something or some purpose or event. The more special it/they/he/she thinks it is the more likely we get the abuse. Like a concert to celebrate the loss of Chukkato's virginity or something...Sorry Chukkie!
|
![]() |
|
| WeeTodd | Oct 28 2014, 08:53 AM Post #27 |
|
Sorry about the last post. I thought about it a bit and I realized it should be something believable... |
![]() |
|
| Krohkur | Oct 28 2014, 10:53 AM Post #28 |
|
Lifi, I think we're on the same page, mostly. I agree that the past can't be altered. What I'm interested in is appealing to the spirit of the rule, to redefine what is officially considered "harassment". If we can get them to see reason on that, then the tools are back (reporting, tickets, etc) to deal with future griefing. My fear is that if we don't first change their definition, any evidence of the same behavior will just be met with "not a violation" calls. Once they adjust the definition to something reasonable, with some consideration for the spirit of actions rather than the narrow definition that doesn't take the spirit of the action into account... well, then we can document things and have them mean more. |
![]() |
|
| Lifimun | Oct 28 2014, 01:18 PM Post #29 |
|
Yeah we are mostly on the same page. And I'm suggesting that the definition needs changing in a way that will prevent what occurred. But I think it will be easier to affect that change over new, slightly modified evidence than to force an admission of wrong-doing over past events, which kinda seems like what most people are attempting. I can understand how the difference may seem irrelevantly nuanced. Feel free to completely ignore me and my ramblings. This kind of stuff is my profession and academic focus, so admittedly I'm having fun just thinking about what course of action would have the best chance at efficacy. Edited by Lifimun, Oct 28 2014, 01:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Krohkur | Oct 28 2014, 03:20 PM Post #30 |
|
heh.. no, i get it. You were saying tomato, and I was saying tomahto. I agree, the use of the incident on the Farm probably won't bear fruit (tomato? ) but new situations will need to be documented. I'm really trying to be optimistic about Turbine reviewing what harassment and griefing is. It's getting harder, the more responses I'm seeing from them just parroting the same tired line about allowing everyone to play as they see fit. I'm more than a bit frustrated at the lack of options to get some serious dialog to happen, instead of canned policy responses. But, yeah, we're really looking at the same thing. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Les Beaux Chapeaux | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
10:16 AM Jul 11
|





) but new situations will need to be documented. 
10:16 AM Jul 11