Bring back likes and dislikes
Actually OP made another thread a few days ago because they got a post flagged and buried so I suspect that is what was the trigger here.
I agree. The rules are pretty subjective. I wouldnât have flagged OP for creating this thread but I can see why others would.
I actually got a post flagged and removed in this thread which I can see why people flagged it because out of context of the discussion and without knowledge of what has been said previously, it might have seemed mean. But since no action was taken on it I have to assume the moderator didnât agree I did violate the rules.
Provided we use nice words, and be really polite so as not to hurt any of the snowflakesâ feelings, right? Just like Yahoo, they wonât let you voice your opinion if they donât like it, or donât like how you express it. Pfft. I think you and I both have had this made plain to us, yes?
Semper Fi! 
Maybe thats what sheep see.
I click every hidden post, read it and make my own decisions.
Yes it can mean literally anything. Which means any and every post is allowed to be flagged according to the CoC and exactly why this is a pointless thread complaining about nothing.
Based on
- The number of grayed out posts that I see later are restored because they in no way violate the forum rules
- A phone conversation I had with a manager at Blizzard
- The blue post quoted in the OP
I think youâre wrong by a long stretch.
Because thatâs what you should do⌠strip people from their autonomy. Thatâs always a classic deflection tactic. 
/s
Also, why would you say that? You calling other people sheep only opens the door for you to scrutinize and people think your the sheep here because it just seems like your projecting here.
I mean, talk about a Baaaaaaaaah-d take. 
So you agree that rule shouldnât be there then?
You canât say âthis is a pointless thread complaining about nothingâ (while coming in here and defendng it, so you clearly donât think this isnât pointless.) while at the same time claiming the system is fine with a rule that can mean literally anything. I mean the fact you already agree or even just understand why that rule in particular is a problem is why a lot of people here as well in general think itâs not fine as you claim it to be and pretty much contradicts your own stance here.
I literally say that i agree with it in the very next sentence you cropped outâŚ
Yes I can?
This thread is against the current systemâŚI believe the current system is fine.
I do not agree that that rule is a problem and I cant make that point any clearer. I am all for people flagging whatever they want to because there are safeguards in place to keep it from being abused. ie, the moderator.
In addition, you cant seem to comprehend what you read.
And yet at the same time, you turn around to still continue to reinforce the point that this thread is pointless and think the current system is fine.
If you think the current system is fine, why do you need to defend it?
If you think people are complaining about nothing, why are you here then?
No you canât, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
Ad-homs donât strengthen your case here. Even if you back-peddle atfer and say âOh iâm just kidding or being sarcasticâ.
Itâs almost like people, when they have a way to voice their displeasure removed (the downvote button), will find another way to voice their displeasure (flagging posts to bury them).
Removing the downvote button just because people with hot takes canât handle their feefees getting hurt was a bad idea.
I was trying to be nice and say that you arent at a level where a mutual discussion is possible.
Nobody ever used that in a nice manner, especially since after a disagreement.
If youâre actually concerned with somebody comprehending what youâve said, you would do better to educate or explain to them. Thatâs the only way to make what you just said nice. Otherwise it just makes you should very dismissive, regardless if you put it ânicelyâ. And given your posts on this thread here, i highly doubt you were being nice.
And i would say the same exact thing to you because you have two conflicting stances on this manner here. If you understand why is there a problem, then itâs not fine by you. The only way i would think you still think itâs fine is if you disregard it entirely despite understanding it.
I see very little grey out posts that donât break a rule. You have 194 posts on that character - if you arenât posting on multiple characters you arenât on here a lot. And if you arenât on here a lot you miss a lot of context into things.
That blue doesnât know what is in peopleâs minds either to be honest. It is sort of like when they removed âdislikeâ votes and claimed people were abusing it when it literally said dislike. I also doubt that âmanagerâ you talked to had any better insight into what people were trying to do.
They really should bring back the comment section when people flag and then they will see what people are flagging for it they donât understand now.
For instance, someone who doesnât pay attention, may think some of the greyed out posts about ârepresentationâ are about shutting the topic down. But if you watch some of those are made by the same person on multiple characters as a means to spam/troll the forum.
Its not my job to educate you, i pay taxes to have other people do that, nor do I have the desire to keep saying the same things only to have you respond as if I said the opposite.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Then youâre not being nice by your own admission, end of story.
Also great job skipping over my other responses just to answer this one in particular. Why people just focus on the minor things iâve said and just ignore the other points of my thread? Like does it seriously strengthen your points just by focusing on this? Or do you just have nothing to say about those points and felt the need to just respond to this one? 
When you keep saying the things but in addition of that, contradictory things to those things, what do you expect is gonna happen?
You say the system is fine and yet you said you understand and even agreed with the rule of âupsettingâ being literally anything. Literally anything. Meaning itâs nebulous.
This isnât something set in stone like something like Spamming or saying a like saying a curse word to somebody, or something that is somewhat subjective like Trolling, this is literal nebulous subjective opinion. Who gets to decide whatâs upset and which? I know you said the moderators, but how would they decide that even? How they decide which is upsetting to somebody and which isnât besides removing bans or giving the person a ban? Is removing a ban an indicator means whatever that person was doing is okay? Heck what if somebody post something positive then it gets flagged for being upsetting? What is upsetting in that case? They just disagreed with them?
I mean donât you even have a little bit of concern about that? 
âŚkeep throwing more ad-homs⌠iâm sure you will convince me that youâre the authority on this manner. 
/s
TBH at this point just add a downvote button that does nothing.
I think youâd see no meaningful difference in overall volume. While some flagged posts might stay flagged, other posts that were flagged may be ignored due to inadequate reasoning.
Remember that the moderators have the ultimate authority. So if you flagged, for example, this post Iâm making now as âtrollingâ or âoffensiveâ and you wrote in: âI believe that Atalanta is trolling because this is information that anyone could put together if they read the thread, just by thinking about it for a few minutes,â that doesnât mean it would be upheld.
The logic might work, the rules have been shared and posted, so anyone could think hard enough potentially. On the other hand repackaging information to support an argument is not itself trolling or reposting so long as it has original content and a new point. So youâd see some peopleâs flags being ignored because the moderator disagreed.
Even more interesting I think is that because moderators arenât machines and can read context they can make smarter choices. What you might feel is someone intentionally insulting you, a moderator may believe that youâre mistaken and dismiss your claim. Despite you being offended, theyâd ultimately be saying âjust because youâre offended doesnât mean they actually broke the rules.â
So I think weâd see some flags/removals go away, and some would end up supported when they wouldnât have been. The real trick would be what the quality of the threads getting past the system would look like. Would the moderators enforcing the rules with contextual understanding be better at it, and would we be happy with their choices?
(Though I suppose we do have to consider that very few posts are actually original content completely. Everything is really just a repackage of information that can be found elsewhere. Weâre just sharing, not creating.)
I am talking about threads created by posters who almost always make threads purely to stir up the forum. I have seen some of those where almost everyone in the thread knew the poster was trolling, however, because a moderator didnât understand/realize the context they missed that and restored the post.
When 99% of the people reading something think something is trolling, it generally is.
How odd, that you decided I was talking about something personally offensive to me. That does, however, make me want to relate a story. Years ago, I had a poster go out of there way to make snide comments and pick fights with me on every post I made. I, of course, reported them. However, since the moderator couldnât see the pattern they did nothing. I had to email a mailbox to get something done about that harassment but something was done and he never bothered me again.
Post count means nothing. You have 140. Some people just donât post a lot. But yes, I do post on multiple characters, usually either who I am playing most at any given time (this Druid for instance) or the character that is most relevant to the topic at hand (like class forums). Rest assured I have visited World of Warcraft forums very regularly for a very long time.
Whether or not the reason a post was reported is justified is often very subjective.
As I said before, I had a phone conversation with a supervisor at Blizzard on this topic. He had called me because of an email I had sent to Mike Morhaime to complain about over-reporting and over-moderation. Based on that conversation and subsequent personal experience, Iâd say that they are well aware of the over-reporting and have lightened up on their moderation as a result.
How about the moderators actually do their job and punish false flagging?
1 Like
How about we get the dislike button back, too?
1 Like