Thank you. This is true…and bizarre. I hate automatic features, especially ones that make it harder for me to choose what happens next.
I never it was and I know well where I am.
You are absurdly off topic and its assinine of you. Go open your own thread if you want to talk about that.
And yes, you are proving my point about exclusion quite well.
This is where that is wrong. It’s as much on topic as the opening post about wanting more moderation rules, etc. in the player features forum.
You ■■■■■ and moan constantly about people not evolving ideas. That’s all I did. Evolved the idea.
Don’t be critical of it, since this isn’t a debate. If you can’t find something position to say about it, then as you expect of others, STFU.
If all you want to do is nitpick word choice, then what you are actually trying to advocate is not even discussion - it is dialog.
But your posting is evidence that you are, in fact, trying to win this argument - because you keep resorting to ad-hominems and red herrings and focusing on everything except actual conversation about the OP.
Why will you not engage in a discussion of your idea?
1 Like
@CCP_Aurora This is a behaviour of pinned topics that leads to very understandable confusion, especially given how clunky the topic search can be (literally I could not get the pinned thread in question to come up in the options for a thread link embed even when I typed the exact thread name!)
Any chance this behaviour can be modified to keep pinned topics at the top of their respective forums at all times?
Edit to add: it looks like this is a feature players can control for themselves, that was probably defaulted to Off at some point for new forum accounts.
@Ridley_Rohan and @Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras you should be able to uncheck the option in the Preferences menu under Interface options.
1 Like
Oh hell no.
That would be worse than what the current moderators are empowered to do. It would allow regular posters with biased and prejudiced viewpoints the ability to silence other posters who have opposing viewpoints.
Happy Holidays and Season Greetings
3 Likes
Ok, I have read through this discussion with some interest. Because it has been posted in Forum Feedback & Requests, I will not debate issues but rather try and add something to the discussion.
To Ridley.
Thank you for your thoughtful request to improve the F&I forum section. If I may make some suggestions–
In your OP you might want to remove yourself personally from the OP and stick more to the points you are making. By putting your personal experience and understanding as justifications, you can be expected to back those up with evidence or examples. If the points are valid and logical there is no need to bring yourself into the discussion this way and it will only detract from your intended purpose. You can refer to your experiences later in the discussion, which encourages others to do as well.
By putting ‘yourself’ as part of the proposal, you awkwardly make any constructive comments personal. Don’t do this my friend, and you won’t feel like you have to defend yourself. Stick to your points they are the focus.
You are intelligent and eloquent and can be much better foruming with less adversarial dialog.
To the rest of you scallywags–
You are the reasons I still come here. Carry on! <3
Stay safe and have a Merry Xmas 
4 Likes
What we really need is the ability to automatically ignore any thread started by specific posters…
1 Like
One last comment for creating F&I threads…
Don’t be afraid to let an idea die on a fire. Not all ideas are good 
I thought I had mine checked, oh well. I wasn’t complaining about it though. But it is difficult when you type the exact topic title and it still doesn’t show
1 Like
Hmm. I did not notice any spelling errors in your idea.
1 Like
And you want to talk about derailing the topic at hand. When others talk about you nitpicking exact language, this is it.
Can there be a distinct difference between discussion and debate from a definitional point of view? sure.
However they are close enough in the english language to be used interchangeably without ruining the gist of the post.
IE, you know full well what we mean, even if maybe we could have chosen a different word. Yet you use that word to deflect instead of engaging in the actual discussion.
1 Like
Thank you for the constructive advice.
I honestly do not understand how it changes things well enough, but I am thinking about it. I am no politician, and in fact, I hate politicians. But I do understand that part of the reason they use their skills to abuse the public and lie to them is because the public is abusive first, and they learned their skills by having to parry or ward off abuse from the public.
I would like to see the idea section peopled by folks who don’t need political strategizing in order to just have a discussion.
Thanks again and Merry Christmas to you too!
What you are missing is the fact that the differenence between debate and discussion is so very central to the thread that “layman’s terms” have no place here.
Besides which, your accusation of nitpicking is straight out of left field. I was not nitpicking language. I was laying the accusation that what was happening was debate, rather than the discussion that should have been happening…which brings us right back to the entire reason I presented this idea.
The entire reason you presented this idea is what you posted at the very beginning:
Instead of accepting feedback from others on how to address this within forum rules, you have insisted on wielding extensive logical fallacies to attempt to discredit any suggestion that without addressing the issue you presented, the idea is functionally dead in the water, as well as accuse players of being here just to be pick a fight.
I have no stake in your idea, and no interest in fighting with you. I am not here to win anything. I genuinely would like to see you leverage the right tools to raise your underlying concern with CCP in the ToS provided manner and have it addressed. I don’t know why you have decided that I am out to get you - I am not. I don’t follow you around to pick battles with you, I don’t disagree with you in every interaction we have, and I don’t disagree with your underlying desire here to see PF&I be a space of dialog. My disagreement is in whether the proposal is capable of delivering the desired state under current moderation, as presented in the first post - and I honestly believe that without addressing the human moderator factor your idea cannot solve for the issue.
1 Like
Take a hike. You are not a mind reader. I could have written a book for the first post, but considering past experience with YOU and people like YOU, I could not be bothered to expound on every last detail because I know even if I did, YOU would come in here all combative, gnashing, twisting and pretending you have some mind reading powers.
Just take a hike. Or a flying leap. You are poison for discussion and you have no idea how to do it and never will.
The hell you don’t. You would be excluded even faster than me. Nobody wants your attempts at mind reading their reasons for presenting an idea. Just telling me what my reasons were as if you know better than me has made me question your freaking sanity.
That’s an incredibly interesting expectation you have when you read the rules for the Discourse levels and look at how I am sitting here with a level 3 status. That would indicate that, according to CCP’s moderators, I am not violating the forum rules with any frequency. Which means I would not be removed from PF&I posting capabilities under the proposed methods you outlined, as my posting is consistent with the current moderation standards.
Which means the only way this idea would impact me is if first there was a change in moderation standards. (Personally I think I would still be fine - I can literally count on one hand the number of players who have ever flagged a post from me, and one of that small number was doing so as malicious abuse of the flagging system).
As I said before, I don’t know what your beef with me is. I posted constructive criticism of your proposal, as requested in your OP. I expanded on what my brief feedback meant when you made it clear you did not understand what the underlying considerations to my response were (my first post was brief because I post primarily from a phone and quoting on mobile is very messy) and why I hold the opinion I do about the efficacy of your proposal. All you have done in response is attack me. You keep asserting that I came in here combatively, yet I have not once attacked you. Deconstruction of your idea is not an attack on you.
With regards to restating your reason for posting: you said it yourself. It is right there. Everything about your idea is premised on your belief that rules are consistently not being followed. to the extent that it stifles discussion. Therefore, moderation is a problem. You cannot have the former without the latter. And without addressing the latter, implementing the former doesn’t work. Your idea is targeting a good goal. In the current state of things, it isn’t functional. This doesn’t mean you were wrong to make the suggestion of a change, but it does mean that players will recognize the conflict between ‘adding moderation abilities’ and ‘current moderation standards’, and point you to how to address the actual issue you called out as the reason for your idea in your very first post.
I cannot prevent you from deciding my posts are attacks on you. They are not, but you have twisted yourself around this and I can’t change that. I’m sorry to see that, as I want to have a dialog with you about this, and encourage you to leverage the tools built into the forum to help achieve a healthier forum.
Edit to restore the quote that got removed by the forum software and its hatred for quoting the immediate preceding post.
Get a load of this guy, insisting a man’s motivations for an idea must not only be singular, they are also guaranteed to be in the OP with perfect clarity.
Anyone interested might also notice that I asked for a link to the subsection rules in the OP because I could not find them. Had I had them on hand I might have posted differently…but I am sure our resident mind reader knows that! He/she knows my mind! And yours! Watch out!
Get a load of this guy: insisting that the word ‘entire’ is not a singular, all-encompassing descriptor.
The entire reason means the complete reason; with no part left out. Whole.
If you are not posting your entire reason anywhere in the thread, yet consistently refer to its existence, you have no business refuting people who call you on shifting goal posts. Which is what @Derath_Ellecon did: nitpicking language is not relevant to the premise you posted for having moderation changed for the PF&I subforum.
And you still have not answered a single post asking you to explain how this idea could possibly make a difference. You consistently are attacking players for how they post, not addressing the content of their posts, skipping over every politely worded item to latch onto something you can re-frame into the most inflammatory content possible. This is intellectually dishonest and does not form a discussion, let alone a dialog.
Are you ever going to address any of the constructive criticism of the idea that players (and it is not just me) have presented for discussion?