General Question Regarding Rule 1.15

[TheGuardian]

I have wanted to ask this question for a while but....just now reading "Go talk on Mudspike.com if you can't do what we demand you do" kinda makes me wanna ask now.

 

For those that are unaware of 1.15 (shame on you, you should have read the rules right after you learn where the "Search" function is)

1.15 It is not recommended to discuss gaming products of other companies on the pages of our forum. This can provoke flame and verbal bickering between adherents. These discussions are also not conducive to maintaining a smooth working relationship between manufacturers. For this reason, review or direct comparison with products from other software vendors is prohibited on our forum. Posting information about news in the development of third-party software, as well as advertising third-party software, are prohibited (except as agreed with the administration of the forum). Violations by other companies or their affiliates are also not tolerated. The administration of the forum reserves the right to delete any post (message) at its discretion, which violates the established rules and regulations.

 

What was the overall idea behind this? I can totally understand not bashing on other games/game companies out there. I can even kinda see where not wanting comparisons on ED's Forum is important to them, but the enforcement of this rule seems really arbitrary and way too based of "feelings of the admins". If manufacturers/developers can't maintain a smooth relationship because someone on some forums somewhere compared two products, maybe those companies should re-think their business approach. I'm not trying to "flame" anyone, I would just be really interested in understanding this a bit more.

 

Where is the cut-off point? Line one says "not recommended to discuss gaming products", while line three outright "prohibits" reviews or direct comparison to ED's work. Not recommended seems like that should revolve around following other rules (1.2 mainly) in discussions. Stay civil and don't review or compare to ED and you're good. Why are we allowed to even use stuff like "that other Viper sim" and that tends to be ok but if you use the CNT name it's deletion on the spot? Is simply saying "this feature works quite nicely in ABC game I wonder if something like that is possible for ED" enough to break this rule?

 

Then again, the rule doesn't point to only Game Development companies (not in the "not recommended" section at least, even then it's kinda loose) or similar products on the open market. It says Gaming Products, so why are we even allowed to discuss Virpil vs Thrustmaster vs Logitech? It can provoke the same kinda of "flame and verbal bickering" as talking about Those That Shall Not Be Named, yet is almost always allowed to go on WAY too long. Why the double standard if the goal is simply to protect from "useless" conversation that is more troublesome rather than constructive.

 

I don't understand the want to make people scared to talk about other companies in any light just because ED wears its feelings on its sleeve to often. The rule makes sense in selective situations/discussions but it's shouldn't be used as a one size fits all blanket. I think a re-work of this rule should be looked into. Not to do away with, but to fine tune so as to allow for adult discussions (within the confines of other rules) that could benefit ED as well us users.

 

Just my thoughts. TL;DR What the hell is the point and why the constant double standard?

[Mars Exulte]

This isn't an issue, and not worth the time to read that collossal wall of text. People reference other games from time to time around here, 90% of the time it isn't censored. What usually gets censored is ''Urrrgggh ED Y U SO BAD BMS DO IT BETTER'' or ''HNNNGH MSFS 2020 GON KIL U SO BAD ED''. I have sometimes seen other comments get censored, but generally they just don't want a bunch of direct comparisons that generally start flamewars. The end.

 

Edit- It's also true this is a privately owned website. The rules don't have to be popular or understood. People are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the moderation.

[Rudel_chw]

I find it completely logical that a manufacturer’s forum is dedicated to give support only to their products... if you want to compare different manufacturer’s products, then you should do so on an independent Forum, not affiliated with any manufacturer.

[BIGNEWY]

As mentioned this is the DCS official forum for support and discussion of our products. Also more often than not discussion of other products ends in arguments.

 

thanks

[TheGuardian]

@zhukov032186 didn't say it was an "issue", was just trying to understand the logic behind it. I agree that the rules don't have to be like, but trying to better understand? What's the problem with that? Flamewars are typically started and ruled by fan boys (of both sides) that can't follow other forum rules. I'm talking only about civil discussions that confine with every other rule and the sections of 1.15 that are "directly" prohibited. I'm not leaving here cause I enjoy 95% of the discussions and help this forum provides. I am simply asking to understand something better.

 

@Rudel_chw I agree it is completely logical and is widely used by many different sites. Again, I'm not talking about direct review or comparisons as a whole. I am talking more along the lines of "blah blah used a good system for counter-measures, making it smoother and faster. I wonder if ED might be able to come up with something similar that works better." You have to have a reference for what you're referring to. I've seen comments in the same topics were one is deleted for directly saying a company name, the other is left because the didn't say the name but said the exact same thing. Seems hypocritical given that, in spirit, it still violates this rule.

 

@probad I get the overall spirit of the rule. I get them not wanting comparisons or reviews of other products. I said as much in my OP. Was unaware asking for better understanding of the "what did you mean" places topics in a particular "age". Words have meanings, rules have words, without understanding the meanings it tends to lead to more rule violations that are not intentional. as for that last line.........damn dude tell us how you really feel?

 

@BN, given that I reached these forums through the address of forums.eagle.ru, I'm well aware these are the official forums and am well aware of the propose of these forums. Asking for clarification doesn't change those facts. Stopping arguments is the main purpose behind rule 1.15 as per a ED CM. Awesome, could of just lead that.

[TheGuardian]

@BN or other Moderators, can you close this thread. Don't want to start a flamewar, Newy answered my question. Thanks