Removal of conspiracy theorys rule

[Zeta333]

So recently iv been infracted for posting "conspiracy theorys" After checking the rules a few times i didnt even see that they were a banned topic and it had to be pointed out by a mod.

Now this rule is a bit silly and very much not needed as its definition is very broad and not covered at all. Fuck a good half of the threads iv seen tonight have somthing that could be considered a conspiracy theory. Here is a thread thats 17 pages and counting thats title is a conspiracy theory yet no moderation has been done.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...red-forced-out

SHould this really be a rule with the moderation picking and choosing when they want to enforce it, or can it be edited out and everyone go thier way. I personally see nothing wrong with "what if" posts that could be considered conspiracy.

[Deleted]

You might have a point with the whole 'not everywhere is moderated' thing.

But as far as conspiracy theories go, I'd rather the mods ban every mention of one.

[Zeta333]

You might have a point with the whole 'not everywhere is moderated' thing.

But as far as conspiracy theories go, I'd rather the mods ban every mention of one.

How far though? Is just supposing somthing might happen considered one? Becuase technically it is? There either needs to be a refinement with specifics to the rule or full moderation of every even remotly sort of one or the removal. I honestly see no problem with them. Dont like them, dont read the threads.

[Kuthe]

You might have a point with the whole 'not everywhere is moderated' thing.

But as far as conspiracy theories go, I'd rather the mods ban every mention of one.

Basically this^
Some mods don't ban things that they should be, and others ban and close harshly. Just another case of people being bias, and what not.

[F1reheart]

I don't think posting about moderation is allowed...but I'd rather not see stupid threads like the one you linked. It takes 1 minute of research to find he left on his own.

[yurano]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/26/s...assword-reset/

Is this sony covering up yet another hacking? I dont think iv ever seen a company forcefully reset your password for no random reason except for a breach. Though it is a very sneaky way to deal with it without causing attention to it and the backlash that would come with another hacking. Reset everyones passwords, cover thier ass and the player base be none the wiser.

Infracted.

The Ghostcrawer got fired thread is a proposed debate.

You used 'conspiracy' as an accusation in order to "brand bash".

The two are different.

[Zeta333]

The Ghostcrawer got fired thread is a proposed debate.

You used 'conspiracy' as an accusation in order to "brand bash".

The two are different.

As dicussing infractions isnt allowed i wont go into it but how is it different from his, his post could be constrewed as hes bashing what wows become becuase of ghostrcrawler therefor he was forced to leave blizzard. Its the same thing that i did just in a different context.

But that doesnt change the fac that this is a very shallowly defined rule allowing moderation to pick and choose from a broadspectrum on how or when to enforce it and it should be addressed. Id bet going through every persons post here in this thread i could find somthing they said that would be considered a conspiracy theory in some shape form or fashion.

[The One Percent]

Every rule in this forum is at the discretion of the moderator to enforce. It is on a case by case basis, it also depends on the user.

[jwtelesio]

As dicussing infractions isnt allowed i wont go into it but how is it different from his, his post could be constrewed as hes bashing what wows become becuase of ghostrcrawler therefor he was forced to leave blizzard. Its the same thing that i did just in a different context.

But that doesnt change the fac that this is a very shallowly defined rule allowing moderation to pick and choose from a broadspectrum on how or when to enforce it and it should be addressed. Id bet going through every persons post here in this thread i could find somthing they said that would be considered a conspiracy theory in some shape form or fashion.

That post was explicitly about the possibility that Sony could be attempting to cover up a possible hack that occurred. Which is the definition of a conspiracy theory, you're bringing up the possibility that Sony is "Conspiring" to keep a possible hack hidden.

The ghostcrawler thread is built on presumption because we don't know the circumstances behind his departure, with people putting personal and subjective opinions on why he left the company. Had GC actually done something blatantly and openly against the wishes of Blizzard and the thread was created to address that possibility it would be a conspiracy theory thread.

[Zeta333]

The ghostcrawler thread is built on presumption because we don't know the circumstances behind his departure,

Then it should have been titled " why did ghostcrawler leave" But by making it "was ghost crawler forced out" Turns the title into a conspiracy.

But more importantly this is a forum where things are disscused as this rule brings a hammer down on quite a few conversation topics and limits peoples repsonses for no apparant greater good as iv seen shit here that made me feel dumber reading which was perfectly not against rules. Also while we are on rules we arnt allowed to dicuss specifics on peoples past infractions fyi.

[jwtelesio]

Then it should have been titled " why did ghostcrawler leave" But by making it "was ghost crawler forced out" Turns the title into a conspiracy.

But more importantly this is a forum where things are disscused as this rule brings a hammer down on quite a few conversation topics and limits peoples repsonses for no apparant greater good as iv seen shit here that made me feel dumber reading which was perfectly not against rules. Also while we are on rules we arnt allowed to dicuss specifics on peoples past infractions fyi.

That's only a matter of subjective opinion on how it's presented. The question of "Was Ghostcrawler Fired/Forced out?" wasn't rhetorical, It was an actual question that was presented to get peoples thoughts/opinions on why he left. There was no inherent conspiracy discussed in it. The Thread was not discussing a conspiracy, because in order for it to do so there would need to be a conspiracy to discuss. "Sony covering up potential hack" and "Was ghostcrawler fired/forced out?" have quite large discrepancies.

[Zeta333]

That's only a matter of subjective opinion on how it's presented. The question of "Was Ghostcrawler Fired/Forced out?" wasn't rhetorical, It was an actual question that was presented to get peoples thoughts/opinions on why he left. There was no inherent conspiracy discussed in it. The Thread was not discussing a conspiracy, because in order for it to do so there would need to be a conspiracy to discuss. "Sony covering up potential hack" and "Was ghostcrawler fired/forced out?" have quite large discrepancies.

THe differences may be large but the fact is they are still the same under a lack of refinement of the rule. WHich is my point here, The rule needs to be greater defined/removed/enforced. In its current state it leaves to much guesswork and very broad terms.

[chaud]

As far as the rules go, different forums have different additional rules. The Off Topic forum rules specifically name conspiracies as a prohibited topic due to previous threads. The Ghostcrawler thread isn't really a conspiracy thread, just asking if people think he was forced to leave or not, and goes on to discuss why he might have chosen to leave.

As far as your specific infraction goes, you can appeal it if you want, but discussing moderator actions is against the rules.