Overmoderation

[Bukkwild]

I think you need to stop closing relevant topics to the f16 because there are poignant criticisms of the process and product. You are just alienating people who paid good money and have concerns over it.

[llOPPOTATOll]

What topic was closed?

[Bukkwild]

a number of them have been closed

 

and deleted

 

[Bukkwild]

wonder of all wonders, thread was moved, was sure nineline would have just closed it

 

[NineLine]

Look guys, we can have the same redundant topics coming up over and over, not to mention half these threads turn into arguments between users or way off topic on other tangents, I will take it under advisement about the forum moderation and review, but I have not seen one closed or deleted that really needed to stay. Thanks.

[SparxOne]

Hey @NineLine, why would you delete my post in the process of locking that thread in the F-16 section (Worth it on sale??? or wait another 6 months) ?

 

Was it too harsh for ED ?

[NineLine]

33 minutes ago, Bukkwild said:

I think you need to stop closing relevant topics to the f16 because there are poignant criticisms of the process and product. You are just alienating people who paid good money and have concerns over it.

How is this:

"never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them"

 

Helpful to anyone? How does this help solve whatever issues you might have? Telling people to never buy our products doesnt seem like someone that cares about anyone's concerns, I'm sorry, but if you don't want to be constructive and mature in your posting, then the threads will be closed, if the same threads keep getting opened, they will get closed.

 

Please review the rules, this forum is here to help players with our products, and improve them, telling people never to buy our stuff seems counterintuitive. 

Thanks

2 minutes ago, SparxOne said:

Hey @NineLine, why would you delete my post in the process of locking that thread in the F-16 section (Worth it on sale??? or wait another 6 months) ?

 

Was it too harsh for ED ?

No, its old news, we have been beaten to death with the F-16 stuff, and we get it, and we deserved it, and we are trying to show we learned from it, if you can't move on I am not sure what to say to you, but posting the same tired rants over and over do no one any good, and if you can't forgive us, or look at the efforts going into improving, I am not sure what else I can tell you. By the way, I am not the only mod on this forum, but I did look at your post, and 100% agree, its just repeated sentiment at this point.

[SparxOne]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

No, its old news, we have been beaten to death with the F-16 stuff, and we get it, and we deserved it, and we are trying to show we learned from it, if you can't move on I am not sure what to say to you, but posting the same tired rants over and over do no one any good, and if you can't forgive us, or look at the efforts going into improving, I am not sure what else I can tell you. By the way, I am not the only mod on this forum, but I did look at your post, and 100% agree, its just repeated sentiment at this point.

 

Fair enough, but i don't see the reason for removing the post if the thread was locked anyways after my post, it's like as if i didn't have the right to expose my feelings of certain precise aspects (I was also replying to some other user), kind of a shame after all to not be allowed that.

 

Don't take it the wrong way, but deleting posts like mine kinda feels like a way of censorship because i exposed some reality. I know i'm repeating myself here, but if it wasn't the case, the post would have been left and thread simply locked.

 

I have nothing against you precisely, but forgiving is one thing, loosing faith and trust is another, and towards ED as a whole, i've taken a big hit on both unfortunately. Getting posts deleted doesn't help.

[NineLine]

Our rules are quite clear, there is nothing nefarious about it.

 

1.4 Posts/threads that undermine the actions of the forum staff, such as opening threads that are redundant, disruptive or deal with topics that have been previously locked, will result in administrative actions against the user.

 

Quote

because i exposed some reality

What did you expose, that we bobbled the F-16 release? You literally typed the same stuff that we all know that happened. I am sure you can find it typed somewhere else on the forums. You didnt type anything new, hence the reason for the removal. 

[Bukkwild]

close this topic. there are more posts of mine to cherry pick from.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Bukkwild

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Bukkwild said:

close this topic. there are more posts of mine to cherry pick from.

 

 

I am answering your questions, why would I close this?

[Bukkwild]

because I am sure you have a topic elsewhere on this. You want to continue, we can. There have been several critical posts just in the f16 forum I have witnessed getting 'moderated', even when they and myself included in at least one case you didnt mention have valid concerns about the direction and decisions you have made. As we have all paid for an unfinished product, we are funding its development. This forum exists for our feedback's sake, yet our feedback keeps disappearing. You have any idea what that feels like? Frustrating to say the least. There is also the concern that you are sitting in a bubble listening to your own feedback loop, only hearing what you want to instead of what some in the community are concerned with.

 

"never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them"

 

This statement shows my frustration. You removed items from the viper's development, quietly. You keep dialing back from the expectations you sold us on. As your faithful consumers (I own 34 modules) I feel bamboozled, like a bait and switch happened. 

hiding behind "early access" and "development" doesnt do one thing for consumer frustration

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Bukkwild said:

because I am sure you have a topic elsewhere on this. You want to continue, we can. There have been several critical posts just in the f16 forum I have witnessed getting 'moderated', even when they and myself included in at least one case you didnt mention have valid concerns about the direction and decisions you have made. As we have all paid for an unfinished product, we are funding its development. This forum exists for our feedback's sake, yet our feedback keeps disappearing. You have any idea what that feels like? Frustrating to say the least. There is also the concern that you are sitting in a bubble listening to your own feedback loop, only hearing what you want to instead of what some in the community are concerned with.

 

"never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them"

 

This statement shows my frustration. You removed items from the viper's development, quietly. You keep dialing back from the expectations you sold us on. As your faithful consumers (I own 34 modules) I feel bamboozled, like a bait and switch happened. 

 How did we remove them quietly? We removed and then noted what and why. It's an active developing product.

 

Also, yes, you are correct, you bought an unfinished product, that is what Early Access means, how are we responsible for that? Hundreds of users manage to report bugs and give feedback and enjoy the Viper, I am sorry you don't, but that doesn't magically make these rant threads any more helpful.

 

Just because you are frustrated doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you. That's not how anything works, sorry.

[Bukkwild]

1. What rule did I break? The post in the should I buy it thread? can't be this line. 

2. I normally enjoy the viper, I don't enjoy your moderation

3. Of FREAKING COURSE the rules apply to me, noone said they didnt. See number 1

This thread is about overmoderation, not the product I was posting about

 

[NineLine]

8 minutes ago, Bukkwild said:

1. What rule did I break? The post in the should I buy it thread? can't be this line. 

2. I normally enjoy the viper, I don't enjoy your moderation

3. Of FREAKING COURSE the rules apply to me, noone said they didnt. See number 1

This thread is about overmoderation, not the product I was posting about

 

"never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them"

1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

I will note that you didnt receive any warning points for it either. The post was just hidden as I am sure the moderator that hid it recognized it was a frustration post, that doesn't mean it would be allowed to stay, it is of no value to anyone.

 

2. I normally enjoy the viper, I don't enjoy your moderation

 

First its not MY moderation, it is ED's moderation, our rules and guidelines are clearly laid out, and once again, you received no warning points, you had a poorly worded post hidden, I don't see how that is over moderation, you should have seen this forum 8 years ago.

 

You have YET to show where we "over-moderated" 

[Bukkwild]

HOW can I, the posts that you are being accused of overmoderating disappear. Stop cherry picking one frustration post when thats not the one I am talking about. how about the dozen or so posts about unrealistic loadouts on the hornet versus the viper, or of closing ongoing discussions. anyone can search my posts and see I am not a sore tooth and this is a REAL problem. 

this is a pointless roundabout as your only defense is that they somehow broke your rules, close it or dont but you still have the problem
 

[NineLine]

The only posts removed were ones that broke rules, everything else is still there. We do not moderate opinion we moderate how it's delivered, such as in your example.

[Bukkwild]

I disagree, do you have any logs for deleted posts in the last 24 hours? cross reference that with me and you will find at least 2 topics I didnt create,but posted on, that were 'moderated' that didnt appear to break any of your rules, and since we will be on the subject since we are restricting the viper's harm loadout when will we be restricting the hornet to more realistic loadouts

Edited June 30, 2021 by Bukkwild

[NineLine]

As I said, I will review moderation, but believe it or not, we get WAAAAY more than 2 topics a day, and I don't read every one. I will review over tonight and tomorrow.

 

Great, lets settle it right now.

 

The question is when will be restricting the Hornet to more realistic loadouts. 

 

The answer, we have no more planned changes to what is currently available on the Hornet. If we do plan to make anymore changes before Early Access ends, will will update the appropriate post. Thanks.

 

There, answered, now there is no need for anymore posts on that subject. Thanks.

[TobiasA]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

How is this:

"never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them"

 

Helpful to anyone? How does this help solve whatever issues you might have? Telling people to never buy our products doesnt seem like someone that cares about anyone's concerns, I'm sorry, but if you don't want to be constructive and mature in your posting, then the threads will be closed, if the same threads keep getting opened, they will get closed.

 

Please review the rules, this forum is here to help players with our products, and improve them, telling people never to buy our stuff seems counterintuitive. 

Thanks

No, its old news, we have been beaten to death with the F-16 stuff, and we get it, and we deserved it, and we are trying to show we learned from it, if you can't move on I am not sure what to say to you, but posting the same tired rants over and over do no one any good, and if you can't forgive us, or look at the efforts going into improving, I am not sure what else I can tell you. By the way, I am not the only mod on this forum, but I did look at your post, and 100% agree, its just repeated sentiment at this point.

As someone who joined DCS with the F-16 about half a year ago (had an account for longer, but not the rig to run it) without knowing the history of it, I appreciate those words. It seems that it really wasn't planned that way, and it is the first time I read it from someone official since I am just too new in DCS. 

Thanks! 

[snipy]

19 hours ago, NineLine said:

No, its old news, we have been beaten to death with the F-16 stuff, and we get it, and we deserved it, and we are trying to show we learned from it

 

Being new here, only a year and some change, I'd say y'all aren't doing great in demonstrating that you've learned from things.  From just a more outsider observation, you could though.  Create rules, and follow those rules.  As you point out with moderation, and forums guidelines, do the same for game mechanics and weapons.  The HARM on the F-16 is a perfect example of how not having a set of standards creates unrealistic expectations by the customer:

 

I've read here and on hoggit "public document" requirements regarding the HARM.  But there exists a public document, on a .MIL website, saying the block 50 can carry four HARMs.  I've seen no public document that says it can only carry two.  I've seen no public document that says the umbilical cord has been removed.  I've seen SMEs saying that.  And that's fine.  So set a rule that the burden of information is:

 

1.  SMEs

2.  Public document 

 

And then, all you have to do is say, we have more SMEs saying that the HARM cannot be deployed on these two stations, and SMEs are the highest expertise.  Create a rule, and then cite it. 

 

But if you state that public document's are the highest source, then the requirement to produce them should go both ways, which means... there is a public document that says four HARMs, and no public document saying no umbilical cords.  Public document rule wins, and four HARMs now exist and can be deployed. 

 

But, just from being here just a brief amount of time, create a rule.  Tell us the rule.  Cite the rule consistently.  Everyone wins, even if not everyone is happy. 

[Xavven]

FWIW I agree with @Bukkwild

 

The ED forums are moderated a bit too harshly. I get @NineLine's justifications, because the forum rules are there, but real life isn't black and white. An analogy would be that police tend not to cite drivers exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or less. I've been on the F-16 forums for only a few months, but in that time I've seen threads that criticize the development get moved to "chit chat" or straight up deleted when I personally didn't judge them to be over the line, trolling, overly ranting, etc.

 

It makes me question whether the moderation is actually for the good of the community (rotten apples do need to be taken out let's be honest), or whether the motive is more defensive in nature. To me, well it makes me suspect ED is abusing the forum rules as an excuse to remove negative reviews or mentions of "that other sim" (we all know which one) because frankly it would cause a loss of sales if people came to the DCS F-16 forums and saw encouragement from the posters here to try "that other sim" instead.

 

It's fine to close a topic when it becomes a flame war between a couple of users though like we've seen recently. The mods have made some good calls too. I just wish they would ease up a little on moving and closing topics that are more borderline.

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, snipy said:

 

Being new here, only a year and some change, I'd say y'all aren't doing great in demonstrating that you've learned from things.  From just a more outsider observation, you could though.  Create rules, and follow those rules.  As you point out with moderation, and forums guidelines, do the same for game mechanics and weapons.  The HARM on the F-16 is a perfect example of how not having a set of standards creates unrealistic expectations by the customer:

 

I've read here and on hoggit "public document" requirements regarding the HARM.  But there exists a public document, on a .MIL website, saying the block 50 can carry four HARMs.  I've seen no public document that says it can only carry two.  I've seen no public document that says the umbilical cord has been removed.  I've seen SMEs saying that.  And that's fine.  So set a rule that the burden of information is:

 

1.  SMEs

2.  Public document 

 

And then, all you have to do is say, we have more SMEs saying that the HARM cannot be deployed on these two stations, and SMEs are the highest expertise.  Create a rule, and then cite it. 

 

But if you state that public document's are the highest source, then the requirement to produce them should go both ways, which means... there is a public document that says four HARMs, and no public document saying no umbilical cords.  Public document rule wins, and four HARMs now exist and can be deployed. 

 

But, just from being here just a brief amount of time, create a rule.  Tell us the rule.  Cite the rule consistently.  Everyone wins, even if not everyone is happy. 

Welcome to the forums snipy, as you are knew I will walk you through this a little.

 

First, a webpage on a military site doesn't make us able to create or make a module. We need much more information. First thing I would look at is that the page is from 2015. We are modelling a 2007 Viper. There is one big red flag, is that Viper described there the exact same Viper we are modelling, doubtful, and I say doubtful because its not a technical document, its a PR document.

 

Secondly, in general, SME's do not talk about weapon systems, at all. The capabilities of most systems are well hidden, sure there is some stuff out there. When we start a module, we get a number of SME's, we did with the Hornet, we did with the Viper, we have them on staff with the Hind, we have a bunch lined up for the Apache. We have rules, we have guidelines for us, we are open to input and have changed things from that feedback at times, but a simple website, or a unconfirmed SME doesn't make things magically happen.

 

Thirdly, I said we use public documents, we have a lot of documents, we don't share those documents, you guys have some of those documents, you guys dont have some of those documents. So as the developer of this game, we get to decide what is the best information and what we can and cat use. if you find a website that has some info and we say its not good enough, or not right for our product, you have to accept that. You may not be happy about a change, but at the end of the day, it is our development path we are following, and the features in that product are the best and most appropriate for that specific module, year, etc.

 

Fourthly, the Viper is under development, its Early Access, and subject to change, the easiest way to avoid disappointment during development is to wait until after EA and pick it up then if it has the things you want or need in a Viper.

 

So basically we have rules, we cite rules and we share these rules all the time. Just like you suggest. So you are new here and now you know. 

[NineLine]

40 minutes ago, Xavven said:

FWIW I agree with @Bukkwild

 

The ED forums are moderated a bit too harshly. I get @NineLine's justifications, because the forum rules are there, but real life isn't black and white. An analogy would be that police tend not to cite drivers exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or less. I've been on the F-16 forums for only a few months, but in that time I've seen threads that criticize the development get moved to "chit chat" or straight up deleted when I personally didn't judge them to be over the line, trolling, overly ranting, etc.

 

It makes me question whether the moderation is actually for the good of the community (rotten apples do need to be taken out let's be honest), or whether the motive is more defensive in nature. To me, well it makes me suspect ED is abusing the forum rules as an excuse to remove negative reviews or mentions of "that other sim" (we all know which one) because frankly it would cause a loss of sales if people came to the DCS F-16 forums and saw encouragement from the posters here to try "that other sim" instead.

 

It's fine to close a topic when it becomes a flame war between a couple of users though like we've seen recently. The mods have made some good calls too. I just wish they would ease up a little on moving and closing topics that are more borderline.

You are 100% wrong on most of that, we are not worried about other sims, we are not designing our products to match other companies, we are designing them to match the real thing.

 

If we remove posts from the forums from people trying to promote other software, so what? Why would we want to advertise anything but DCS here? If that makes us evil, the cue the evil laugh. We are not here to support, promote or compare to other games, we are here to make DCS the best it can be, and the competition is ourselves in improving on everything we do or have done since the beginning.

 

So yes, we moderate promotion of other games, we allow it if its subtle, but if its of no use here, then of course, its gone. We have rules, the rules are clearly marked, we don't delete anything that doesn't break those rules. If you share your disappointment in something DCS related and you manage to do it in a mature and constructive manner, and don't repeat it 20 times in 20 new threads, chance are its not going anywhere.

 

We have come a long way in moderation and are a lot more tolerate than we have ever been, but at some point you have to draw the line and say lets move forward and stop living in the past, the Viper was a stumbled, we already recovered from it, and we are moving forward with development, never as fast as everyone wants, never everything everyone wants, but this is the speed and pace we have right now.

 

I am proud of the moderation of these forums compared to say 5-6 years ago, and we will continue to improve and get better. But with this thread I have not seen anything alarming in our moderation.

[snipy]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

Welcome to the forums snipy, as you are knew I will walk you through this a little.

 

First, a webpage on a military site doesn't make us able to create or make a module. We need much more information. First thing I would look at is that the page is from 2015. We are modelling a 2007 Viper. There is one big red flag, is that Viper described there the exact same Viper we are modelling, doubtful, and I say doubtful because its not a technical document, its a PR document.

 

Secondly, in general, SME's do not talk about weapon systems, at all. The capabilities of most systems are well hidden, sure there is some stuff out there. When we start a module, we get a number of SME's, we did with the Hornet, we did with the Viper, we have them on staff with the Hind, we have a bunch lined up for the Apache. We have rules, we have guidelines for us, we are open to input and have changed things from that feedback at times, but a simple website, or a unconfirmed SME doesn't make things magically happen.

 

Thirdly, I said we use public documents, we have a lot of documents, we don't share those documents, you guys have some of those documents, you guys dont have some of those documents. So as the developer of this game, we get to decide what is the best information and what we can and cat use. if you find a website that has some info and we say its not good enough, or not right for our product, you have to accept that. You may not be happy about a change, but at the end of the day, it is our development path we are following, and the features in that product are the best and most appropriate for that specific module, year, etc.

 

Fourthly, the Viper is under development, its Early Access, and subject to change, the easiest way to avoid disappointment during development is to wait until after EA and pick it up then if it has the things you want or need in a Viper.

 

So basically we have rules, we cite rules and we share these rules all the time. Just like you suggest. So you are new here and now you know. 

 

I get it.  But if y'all don't want to share the stuff you have... then there will always be contention.  Because sharing is a two way, trust building, exercise.  That's what this is about, man.  Not whether something is EA or not.  But can people trust ED.  Am I going to put my time into a product (that's the company, not a module), if there isn't any trust? 

 

Obviously, yea, you guys are free to run however you want.  It's your company.  Most video game/simulation companies don't even have this level of interaction with customers.  So I'll say this, these conversations, right here, do go a long way toward building trust.