You can't start new conversation about same thing because it's spam, but You also can't bring back dead conversations, because it's forum necromancy, which is bannable. So... How to live?
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The question is always on how to adress a topic. Using methods that border the use of prayerwheels (figuratively) is definitely considered spam especially if a topic has been brought up and answered officially before.
Especially if it hasn't.
It was touching the topic that was brought up (not answered really), but essentials was entirely different
- 1
- 1
- 1
Let me put it that way: I know which topic it was, I know how and when it has been adressed and out of respect for personal privacy I chose not to mention here what the topic is.
I can also say that there were official statements on that topic. As a result, there are times when things have to be accepted as they are. Repeatedly bringing up the same topic can be seen as the attempt to build up pressure by quantity aka spamming.
I could argue with that, mainly by saying that thing i was pointing was even nonexistant when simmilar topics was made. new topic was simmilar but was touching other - new stuff.
But i will leave it here since its offtop.
This topic is about contradictory rules. On one hand we have a rule that prevents from creating new topics about stuff that was not adressed, replied, and fixed. On the other hand we have a rule that prevents from bringing back old topics.
Where is a sense?
And why constantly bringing topics about balance over same stuff like habitability, pop growth or other with each patch/expansion is not against of said rules, but pointing out problems that each DLC have, for each DLC separately is spam? If problem is known and considered, why its not fixed with new DLC? If its not fixed with a new dlc why shouldnt I start a topic about a problem that once again was omitted either by accident or on purpouse. If it was accident then its good someone points this up so it can be fixed. If this was on purpouse, such censorship may brings attention.
But i will leave it here since its offtop.
This topic is about contradictory rules. On one hand we have a rule that prevents from creating new topics about stuff that was not adressed, replied, and fixed. On the other hand we have a rule that prevents from bringing back old topics.
Where is a sense?
And why constantly bringing topics about balance over same stuff like habitability, pop growth or other with each patch/expansion is not against of said rules, but pointing out problems that each DLC have, for each DLC separately is spam? If problem is known and considered, why its not fixed with new DLC? If its not fixed with a new dlc why shouldnt I start a topic about a problem that once again was omitted either by accident or on purpouse. If it was accident then its good someone points this up so it can be fixed. If this was on purpouse, such censorship may brings attention.
- 1
It's a fair enough question about necro vs. creating a new post about something. The way I see it, 'necro' is about whether an issue is obsolete or not. If there's an existing question thread about a game mechanic and that game has had 5 updates since that thread, then it's likely not that helpful to post in the old thread.
If a thread covers an issue that is still very much live today, then creating a new thread is superfluous.
In an ideal world, anything at all is discussed in one thread and one thread only, so that all discussion stays in the one place. That makes life easier for everybody.
If a thread covers an issue that is still very much live today, then creating a new thread is superfluous.
In an ideal world, anything at all is discussed in one thread and one thread only, so that all discussion stays in the one place. That makes life easier for everybody.
- 1
- 1
I mostly agree, but leaving things in one thread makes it bland, and too big for anyone to fully commit to the subject. Lot of people dont even read such threads.
I can bet that devs do not read all posts in DDs, just few random ones (If they do, then correct me please, i will not believe but i will assume its true),aits because there is too much things said, and thread is too big. That is also a reason why most "megathreads" are ignored.
You can be sure that every single post on the forum is read by a PDX staff member.
I don't think the rules are contradictory. On the one hand, if there's an active thread about a topic making a new thread about the topic is spam, and you should post in the active thread. On the other hand, if there isn't an active thread about the topic posting in the dead thread is necromancy, and you should make a new thread. The two rules govern different situations, and are never both active at the same time for a given topic.
- 1
No, no, no.
There is no active thread. There is a topic that WAS touched in a past.
i can't post there since its necromancy, and i can't start new one because its spam.
And this is contradiction OR rules are made in such way that mods can arbitrary decide whatevery they want. Either way, this should not be like this. Rules should be strict with no room for interpretation. IMO at least.
If there is no active thread, then starting a new one can't be spam, surely.
- 1
If you are having issues with a moderator's decision please contact that moderator directly. Discussing it in public leads quickly into PDMA territory (public discussion of moderator action), even if you tried to avoid it, which is also against the rules.
- 1
This is not commentary on any moderator action, but generic commentary on forum rules as per the thread title.
Why is public discussion of moderator action forbidden? Generally an opaque justice system is a thing of dictatorships, while in democratic countries one key point of justice system is transparency, with some exceptions for situations (not always the whole trial but some testimonies) where publicity would hurt the victim (eg rape trials) or public security (eg espionage trials).
This forum is no democratic country but private property of Paradox. Paradox has house right. We moderators enforce that house right.
This is not up to debate.
Any further public comment in that regards will(!) lead to an infraction.
As said, you may ask a moderator in private messages about their individual decisions. You may also contact an admin in case you can't settle a dispute with a moderator or if you want to complain about a moderator's behavior.
- 2
This is not a discussion about mod decisions. Its an example.
This post is saying that new topic can't be considered as spam, according to forum rules, if there is no active threads.
This is an example that yes, it can be considered.
Unfortunate this example exists, but its not an oppening to discussion neither it say mod name for this reason.
BTW. questions about what to do with mods, and their decisions are also "discussions about mod decisions"?
Do You want people to just leave forum?
You absolutely can make a thread asking about how to appeal a moderator's decision - I've done it in the past and didn't get into any trouble. What you can't do is cast judgement on the moderator decision you want to appeal. Even saying what it is is probably not allowed.
Lets see then. Why my main account was banned for that:
If I stop replying that means i got banned without a warning
I don't know why your other account was banned. You'd have to ask the mods that, ideally privately. I could speculate, but that would probably break the rule against discussing moderator actions.