Ah, http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4225132/Re:_DCS:_World_Newsletter_Janu#Post4225132 is what you were referring to.

I notice you left off the beginning:


Perhaps the part that said " The forums are not here for participants to characterize one another, which is where the psychoanalysis typically leads." was inconvenient.

I would have thought that "To be clear, the above applies to both supporters and detractors." would be obvious that it was clarifying that the preceding message was not aimed solely at people holding one point of view. Since you are of the opinion that everyone should be viewed as a "supporter", then it should be interpreted by you to apply to everyone.

Everybody is free to discuss the sim, the developers/publishers (including 3rd party devs), business practices, marketing and customer relations. People can post positive/supportive remarks, or criticisms regarding that stuff. That's all fine.

What isn't fine is hanging derogatory / insulting / infantalizing labels on other members here. Address the content of the message, not the characteristics of the author.

I have no problem with your quoted post at all other than the divide of supporters and detractors and could see it was aimed at everyone.

It's good to see that were on the same page regarding characteristics of an author.....see my previous comments about 'detractors' talking about products followed by 'supporters' talking about authors.

I don't see 'detractors' having a go at people for enjoying the sim at all on a personal level....this is where the key difference is because it constantly happens when people have a niggle at the sim.

I can see from your posts that you aren't necessarily seeing this though.

It's water off a ducks back to me, I became accustomed to this a long time ago in this particular sub-section of the forum . The point I am making though is that a division which originates from a moderator is only likely to make things worse.

Most humans can't "see" their own prejudices and can therefore never admit to being "wrong"...

Exactly! It's usually the other way around. Those that like it no matter what because they're supporters (notice I didn't use the term fanboi even though it fits?) usually go on the attack and take criticism of the sim or the developer personally.


Another truth. Many of us here have already had the worst possible experience with moderators over on ED's forums. There's absolutely no reason to turn these forums into a version of those forums, even if it's a watered down version. With what's going on here at SimHQ over the past couple of years the site isn't nearly as "great" as it was in it's heyday. So a mod that moderates too much is only going to hurt not only this forum but the community as well. Whether a moderator likes it or not, sometimes having a place to #%&*$# is good therapy for a community member who is unhappy with something particular that is going on. And TBH, most of the stuff people have complained about on these forums (and I'm not just talking about ED products) there is some validity to their complaints. Take away the people's ability to vent once in a while and you get..............well you get ED's forums. Which are fanboi oriented because you can only remain there as long as you're kissing the proverbial rear end of DCS and ED's products.

Can you provide some links to and quotes of examples of "With what's going on here at SimHQ over the past couple of years" that you find to be problematic?



People are allowed to complain here at SimHQ about ED (& 3rd party ) products, 1CGS products, or whoever's. Their marketing & customer relations as well.

If someone is seriously suggesting otherwise, then they should provide links and quotes.

.. and THAT is one of the absolutely best features of SimHQ. Just skip the comments on other members but feel free to flame their opinions.
Quite simple actually (but oh yes, it is tempting to unleash colorful descriptions at times, just write our comments twice before posting when angry and we'll see those colors doesn't really add to our opinion nor facts).

When did that supposedly happen, to whom, and over what? (Link & quote would be useful). Are you talking about the time period before SimHQ's ownership changed? AFAIK, advertising for sim software stopped after the ownership change.

I started moderating the SimHQ IL2:BoS forum back in late November 2014. 1CGS, which includes 777, has gotten plenty of criticism.

I have been given no directive by higher management that any software developer, producer, or any advertiser was off limits. As such, your allegation (which is written in the present tense), appears to me to be fallacious.

The worst thing about the DCS forum over here is the fact that
almost every thread gets off topic after a few pages.

What has your "discussion" about a moderator dividing the
community to do with the topic? Nothing.

The good thing about ED's forum is the content of information
about the sim, not the endless arguments that make this forum
more or less uninteresting.

See the points above Floyd. Threads going off-topic are more than not caused by someone defending ED or their software after someone has posted negatively. You will also notice that these type of posts are not actually defending the sim or countering the negative issue with an opinion but are characterising the author of the post.

The discussion about dividing a community by 'tagging' the userbase into two entities has relevance for every single thread.

In my opinion, there wouldn't be any arguing in this sub-section of the forum if all people had the ability to discuss both negative and positive aspects of the sim. Isn't is strange how the 'detractors' are perfectly capable of talking about the postiive aspects of the sim and don't insult people who are enjoying everything about the product....yet there are quite a few people who simply cannot accept there are flaws or choose to take comments about the product personally. This is only one of very few parts of SimHQ where negativity is countered with a barrage of personal insults and condescending nonsense. Perhaps the ED forums have a part to play in this because negativity is deemed as not acceptable over there.

Like I've said what seems to be a million times now.....people often complain that some posters complain about the same thing over and over again i.e delays. But people are simply expressing their disappointment in delay after delay, it's not like the same thing is mentioned over and over again but if ED and 3rd parties got their act together it wouldn't even be a talking point. This particular thread is obviously about the VEAO update, we all know what sort of delays the Hawk/flight model has had......is it really out of order to complain about new delays given that the update suggests new problems/issues and slow turnaround of development that is or should have been ongoing over the past 12-18 months?

When: sometime in about 2011?

To whom: to me. (Not going to share my old username, but some have figured it out. I appreciate the discretion of those who know who I am.)

Over what: comments critical of RoF and 777 Studios practices. First my posts we deleted. Then I was warned. Then I was banned. I was not in violation of any ToS, nor have I ever resorted to foul language, profanity, etc., on SimHQ. But 777 was advertising heavily on SimHQ at the time, so... money talks. They said get rid of this guy, so out the door I went.

My "allegation" appears to be fallacious? You're right. I'm probably making this all up.

Tough crowd huh CyBerkut?

Nate

blah blah blah - still off topic

Your allegation is couched in the present tense. As in, if you criticize an advertiser now, you will get banned.

I can't speak to how moderation was handled in 2011. I can speak to how it has been since late 2014, and I can say that I'm unaware of any reason to believe that criticizing an advertiser now would get somebody a ban. So yes, your allegation that such a thing would happen now appears to be fallacious.

This from the new DCS open beta change log



It's only the open beta, but still... ouch

FFS... If ED had decided to demand any quality to become a 3rd party dev, they'd have booted VEAO last year.

its simply a compiler issue,
dont assume you know or understand the issues that go on behind closed doors.

Who's assuming what?

sorry was directed towards other user who dissappointedly expressed criticism towards the ED and VEAO or quality.

Oh yeah no, because other than this, VEAO have never been the pinnacle of crap modules.