- Old boards allowed for lines of posts to be highlighted and then a button would appear to convert the highlight into a sourced-quote.
(would could be clicked to pull up the post being quoted)
- Old boards had a button in the ‘reply’ box from bringing up the quote,/quote bracket commands (,[/]) and those commands could then, and can now still be typed manually.
- the button for quoting is still there in the reply box (indicated by the picture of paired apostrophes) though the effect is instead cast as a script for >blockquote while the area is highlighted (generally for copy/paste)
The one change is the button under a specific topic for the “block quote” to be automatically done for the purpose of quoting the entire post — which is often unneeded and obnoxious (hi posts that repeat walls of text :D) So that ‘change’ is arguably an improvement, but if you’re ever going so far as to copy & paste lines from posts and not use a quote, you’re putting in more effort for an inferior result. Cuz ya know, the ‘readability’ of a post really helps. Given that I’m familiar with my own writing, I can recognize what you’re trying to address, but really, if you were trying to have someone else reading what you write? They’d probably have issues of figuring out when you’re quoting someone and when you’re speaking on your own behalf – quote features exists to assist in that regard, so I’d surmise you’re not caring about that is do to your lack of interest in both evaluating previous replies, and in reading your own material.
Part of the reason I brought up the quote feature, or lack therein from you, is that it is an example of demonstrable behavior where you don’t know something, could easily find out, chose not to do so, make things harder for yourself, and then essentially continue on that you are ‘right’ despite the indicated evidence contrary to that. There isn’t anything to ‘relearn’ for the quote feature, you just didn’t notice, know or care how to use it before, and then continue to do so.
In effect, rather than put in the time/effort to make sure you’re right about something, you continue to avoid being informed and knowledgable and instead act off the impulse with the assertion that you are right. If this were a stand-alone concern, I wouldn’t keep mentioning it, but the effect pretty much persists in the rest of how you reply:
This can be seen in your understanding of the CoC
This can be seen in your fixation on “freedom of speech”
This can be seen in your assertion of ‘fair’ or ‘just’ or ‘innocent’
A couple posts back I even asked, in effect, ‘why do you think such rules are against the CoC" in the first place?’ It was one of the few items not in your list of direct replies. Granted, I personally don’t need a reply on that (cuz the point of my asking it wasn’t for me to get an answer) but it was for you to try to think outside your bubble and consider something through a different lens rather than the “stuff I say is immoral must therefore be immoral” that you’ve been preaching.
So ‘why’ do that boards even have a rule, to which you don’t agree, against posting about disciplinary actions?
It is because blizzard are terrible overlords that have to infringe on [our] rights and strike out against any criticism of their magical perfection?
That this censorship is an example of seeing where people are willing to give up ‘rights’ so that they may gradually impose more on their victims and control the spread of information in and of their products?
It is because disciplinary posts tend to be off-topic and ignore the game to perpetuate assertions of what people don’t know, but claim to be ‘fact’ or’ morality’ manifest?
It is because the idea of bringing up ‘disciplinary’ action posts are made with the demand that blues must reply, and the forum conduct discourages calling out to blues specifically?
It is because people can misrepresent their position, doctor evidence, and create a farce in how they represent themselves to people willing to believe any and everything other people post, no questions asked?
It is because the form of the post becomes one of a petition, enacting numbers to rally the cause, rather than one of discussion?
It is because the consequence of people having been sanctioned invites flame wars for people to deride victims/perpetrators or for the accused to lash out at those that speak out against them, and essentially foster an environment that enables conduct unsuitable for discussion in favor of a myriad of other violations?
It is because there are multiple rules and violations as a consequences of the posts that could, supposedly, be conducted in other means?
If the perpetration stands, in ‘censoring’ the discussion of specific player disciplinary actions, how many examples persist where people use the pretense as means for skirting more rules from the CoC and demonstrate their case isn’t so ‘innocent’ as claimed?
I don’t know how much you noticed of particular cases on the old boards — where some replies were shot down initially by blues — but of the examples you currently cite as an example of concern, you include the "literally afraid’ topic.
Did you see the next topic the poster made, that was deleted, in the aftermath of the “i’m afraid” claim? Granted, without that topic specifically, I doubt you’d take to heart anything contrary to what you so claimed now, but the topic, and why it was deleted, demonstrated that the OP wasn’t “literally afraid” as they continued to create another ‘critical topic’ that had blatant disregard for the CoC here. Generally, if people are willing to skirt rules, or justify themselves to skirt ‘rules’, then it generally casts doubt on both their claim of being willing to do so, but the claim of ‘honest criticism’ that they cast in the assertion of what you do.
In fact, the posts than tend to cry-out the alarm the most, tend to also associate their claim with being “honest”, but then well, act contrary to the claim. That topic’s supporters asserted any criticism would be shut out, and even at the time of the topic, the boards were more critical than complimentary or useful of the game. So, ‘any’ was not the case, but it was what was so claimed.
While some may say that the ‘censoring’ does deter people from posting, when topics are made from ‘new’ accounts, is the topic made specifically to be ‘honest’ in the case, present false evidence with the idea they have ‘nothing to lose’ and thus act out with open disregard for how they conduct themselves?
There isn’t much to verify the consequences therein, but the consistent quirk remains of those that ‘support’ the cause, and their ‘conduct’ following those sort of topics. Yourassertion in this has been in backing those posts in the same honest/innocent cast, but as seem by many who do back the same claims, many of those posters are neither ‘honest’, or ‘innocent’. I’ve certainly made posts trying to post this out, and well, they tend to get responses that demonstrate the lack of ‘honesty’ or ‘innocence’ at hand.
From my experience in ‘discussions’ with many of those posters, they aren’t about for details or ‘rights’ in specificity, but rather, they post on the superficiality of things either looking to agree with them or not agree with them. Then, they slander those that don’t agree with them. The op of "literally afraid’ falls into this as well as they don’t speak well of those that don’t agree with them and fall into the same rut of ‘buzzwords’ for labeling clusters of players with keenly derogatory words.
That sort of conduct seems far more conducive for people that aren’t so ‘honest’ or ‘innocent’ as you so claim. So if anything, of what your own consistent conduct indicates to me is that you don’t actually care how ‘honest’ or ‘innocent’ people are in these affairs, you want to assert ‘rights’ you don’t have here, bypass rules, conduct a ‘discussion’ through falsehood and effectual farce, avoid verifying that you are ‘right’ in a number of topics, but assert yourself despite contradictory evidence and then fixate on the ‘moral wrong-hood’ of ‘censorship’?
You acknowledge the nature of the ‘privacy’ of the environment, claim you’re not trying to ‘impose’ your will on others, but you’ll repeatably stand by "human moral obligations’ in direct contrast to the CoC despite conducting yourself in immoral ways (are falsehoods and willful ignorance ‘good’ for your human obligatory standards? cuz they don’t seem to be to me) and then claim that the forum would be better by thus enabling continued behavior that may present falsehood, insult others, revel in willful ignorance and misrepresentation because that sort of posting is ‘honest criticism’?
You’re not only condoning that sort of behavior, sans the derogatory remarks, you’re otherwise conducting yourself in the same manner, and then claiming it would thus make he boards ‘better’
Yea, I’m not going to agree with that sort of position.
If anything, I find it ironic that you’re so vehemently fixated on ‘censorship’ when you apparently don’t seem to care how your own posts even look, to say that you’d even notice if they were ‘censored’.
You interested seems to be on the principal in the affair, but not the particulars therein, so if you don’t care about the details, are you going to care if there aren’t actually there?
Heck, the whole ‘zomg, blizz is censoring criticism’ can largely be avoided if posters don’t put up personal details, or even simpler, they just cast topics as suggestions in the first place.
Instead of this passive farce where you feel ‘safe’ in this ‘discussion’ you could have just made a topic with something like 'hey, times have changed since blizz first made their game forums, here’s some ideas on how these new boards could be better" and ya know, work with the expected rule set to propose changes instead of disregarding it and expecting to feel ‘safe’ through violating the expected standard of conduct.
I mean,I pose the above that rhetorically:why would you bother improving post quality, topical awareness, or a myriad of other things that function within the expect conduct of the boards to be ‘better’ when you can instead may less-efficient posts that hide away from getting anything done, and act out as open rebellion as a means to look like you’re not actually in favor of supporting the cause you so claim as you’re not actually interested in doing things that might actually benefit the cause.
But ya know, safe space. Woo hoo.