7 replies to this topic

[Pezzer]

So I read this from the infamous "Echo Chamber" that seems to have grown a little bit...
http://www.reddit.co...rums_right_now/

Quote

Niko decided to CENSOR THE INTERNET, banning people for rational dislike of PGI's practices. Even on their own private facebook pages under his new TOS.

And I wanted to know if there was any truth behind it. Is Niko really banning people for talking about their dislike of this game's/PGI's direction? I just double-checked the CoC, but the ToS is really long and I hate legal text, so I haven't read it yet. It was updated in June, however, so kind-of recently, so maybe the ToS now says that you can be banned for speaking of Eternal Leader PGI in a negative way across the interwebs?

Any info on the banning of Founders and stuff? Like, is this a legitimate complaint on r/mwo?

EDIT: Edited to try to comply with forum rules. I'm asking about a generalized event mentioned on reddit, not about any particular bans. So it should comply.

Edited by Pezzer, 11 September 2014 - 02:00 AM.

[Manny Rhyde]

basicly what it says is that you can be banned for any reason, at any time without notice. there is a copy and paste to the exact wording but its really late here

[Pezzer]

manny082, on 11 September 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:

basicly what it says is that you can be banned for any reason, at any time without notice. there is a copy and paste to the exact wording but its really late here

Every game has that in their ToS, I was asking if it specifically mentioned that people can't say bad things about MWO. I know that if you make forums posts talking about how PGI is an awful company, etc. etc. without any valid arguments that you can get banned. Same with insulting members of PGI in an unprofessional way. But have people been banned for posting on facebook about how they hate where MWO is going and that they wish PGI actually came out with CW, as an example?

EDIT: Technically what I mentioned would be covered under the Without Notice clause, but it's the specifics that make up legal talk and whether or not a ban was BS and therefore a reason for me to not like Niko. Thus far I think Niko is a pretty decent Community Manager/Mod, he has made some bad calls but apologized after them. He doesn't respond to flaming and is helpful/informative/a decent person on Twitter. So, a decent guy afaik, and as a result I don't get all of the Niko hate.

Edited by Pezzer, 11 September 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[Garandos]

It was a legit concern yes, but it seems, as "**** hit the fan" yesterday again, things have changed, even with a lot of critique which was brought up yesterday, it seems, no banns where issued.

[JackPoint]

Well they can't ban everyone, who's going to play the cash grab game if they do

[Oderint dum Metuant]

In short people have been banned.

Some for legit infractions others for rubbish reasons intent on stifling those who bring up issues to hard to talk about

[Egomane]

I believe it is better if I close this thread.

No rules where changed. We are still running on the same code of conduct, we ever did. I will not comment on the bans that seemed to have started the whole mess, but I will quote Niko on it.

Quote

Their nature was that they had been contacted by most staff moderators repeatedly in the past regarding their behavior. As a reference, 9/10 people here have 0 warns against them. Most who do have warnings have at around 1 or 2 infractions and have been earnest since in following the Code of Conduct. The individuals of concern and why I bring this topic up is that they had quite literally found ways to earn more warn points on their account than the warn meters set to visualize such would allow. (which was 10.) Were we relying on a more automated system, these players may well have been banned by such a system many months ago.

I can't comment on the reddit thing at all, as I don't do reddit and I'm currently unwilling to move into that minefield.