The New Chat Restriction in The Feast

[loreleidiangelo]

To be fair, I reported a disgusting post from a pro-banner (my bum hole is quite free of venereal disease, I assure you Ms. Deleted Post), so it's not like they're showing favoritism. I don't get why they deleted the one post in the other thread showing the OP's awful Feast score, though - that's public information to everyone who participated in the match. I guess it fell under "naming and shaming"?

[Ama_Hamada]

To be fair, I reported a disgusting post from a pro-banner (my bum hole is quite free of venereal disease, I assure you Ms. Deleted Post), so it's not like they're showing favoritism. I don't get why they deleted the one post in the other thread showing the OP's awful Feast score, though - that's public information to everyone who participated in the match. I guess it fell under "naming and shaming"?

Well if you are going to make a claim like "pvp feast is better without the chat" don't we have a right to know the background of the person to understand where they are coming from? It is like trying to prove there is too much toxicity because someone refused to cooperate then wonder why they are getting chewed out for wiping the alliance for the 5th time.

How come we do not remove the kick feature because that can be abused? I mean this degree of censorship is too much, and from what I stand, is being done because GMs can't handle all the harassment reports (meaning PvP and PvE) so lets target the smallest population group and hope it does not invoke a huge backlash like banning PvE chat would of caused (even though you need PvE chat less then PvP)

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

I won't contest the mods decision to delete that post, but I stand by what I said. I conduct myself and those I've been happy to help learn to PvP too well to sit idly by and have us defamed and labeled something negative. Just as well, I've met and played with and against too many people who have shown themselves to be well above the common misconceptions about PvPers. I certainly won't cause any trouble here, but I will speak up if someone tries to spread mistruths about PvP or its players.

[Chevronone]

Got my goldy horse and won't be stepping foot back into 8v8 any time soon. Get your mount while the mode still breathes.

[Ama_Hamada]

Yep my boycott thread was deleted, due to being a lot of threads on the pvp subject of chat. regardless I been doing the last achievement purely by frontline and almost done with that.

[Kerwin]

Yep my boycott thread was deleted, due to being a lot of threads on the pvp subject of chat. regardless I been doing the last achievement purely by frontline and almost done with that.

If you need to boycott a game-mode in the first place then we clearly see how bad the PvP community has become with it's toxicity.

[aeoncs]

If you need to boycott a game-mode in the first place then we clearly see how bad the PvP community has become with it's toxicity.

Regardless of whether such a boycott is justified or not, lumping the PvP community together based on the actions of a few just goes to show again how biased and ignorant you and others such as yourself are.
But I guess anyone has to put in their two cents these days; who cares if you don't know what you're talking about, right?

[Ama_Hamada]

If you need to boycott a game-mode in the first place then we clearly see how bad the PvP community has become with it's toxicity.

Regardless of whether such a boycott is justified or not, lumping the PvP community together based on the actions of a few just goes to show again how biased and ignorant you and others such as yourself are.
But I guess anyone has to put in their two cents these days; who cares if you don't know what you're talking about, right?

Or the fact people go great lengths to bend the facts to support their narrative. The statement hardly makes sense unless this person is insinuating I am toxic and these actions to reflect that so the ban was justified?? I am sure it is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy but I hardly understand what is being said to begin with, the sentence structure itself fits the criteria though.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

If you need to boycott a game-mode in the first place then we clearly see how bad the PvP community has become with it's toxicity.

I think you missed the point entirely there.

No one's calling to boycott the Feast because of toxicity at all. We're making that call because 3 months ago when they said they would do this (not suggested, SAID, as if the decision was finalized already), we spoke up and said it was a bad idea, said it would cause the problems it's caused, and nearly unanimously said we did not want the change. . . And we were ignored completely. We only JUST got a response days ago, 3 months and 40 pages later. And it was a completely-oblivious-to-the-thread-it's-in, "If anyone has any suggestions for improvement. . ."

Let me reiterate: 3 months and 40 pages of this topic later, they've asked for suggestions. SUGGESTIONS. As if what we've been trying to, and continue to discuss now hasn't involved that one bit.

CLEARLY, something somewhere is not being communicated clearly (and I can say that one's not on us at this point), so some feel the next best recourse is to boycott the content to make a clear showing of our disapproval. Please do not twist or cheapen our attempts to be heard by spinning it to support the idea of the PvP community as a whole being toxic. While we're not perfect at all, many of us have been quite civil and calm in trying to speak up on this matter.

[Ama_Hamada]

I think you missed the point entirely there.

No one's calling to boycott the Feast because of toxicity at all. We're making that call because 3 months ago when they said they would do this (not suggested, SAID, as if the decision was finalized already), we spoke up and said it was a bad idea, said it would cause the problems it's caused, and nearly unanimously saidwe did not want the change. . . And we were ignored completely. We only JUST got a response days ago, 3 months and 40 pages later. And it was a completely-oblivious-to-the-thread-it's-in, "If anyone has any suggestions for improvement. . ."

Let me reiterate: 3 months and 40 pages of this topic later, they've asked for suggestions. SUGGESTIONS. As if what we've been trying to, and continue to discuss now hasn't involved that one bit.

CLEARLY, something somewhere is not being communicated clearly (and I can say that one's not on us at this point), so some feel the next best recourse is to boycott the content to make a clear showing of our disapproval. Please do not twist or cheapen our attempts to be heard by spinning it to support the idea of the PvP community as a whole being toxic. While we're not perfect at all, many of us have been quite civil and calm in trying to speak up on this matter.

this was my reply to it since the person was quoting me:

If you need to boycott a game-mode in the first place then we clearly see how bad the PvP community has become with it's toxicity.

Regardless of whether such a boycott is justified or not, lumping the PvP community together based on the actions of a few just goes to show again how biased and ignorant you and others such as yourself are.
But I guess anyone has to put in their two cents these days; who cares if you don't know what you're talking about, right?

Or the fact people go great lengths to bend the facts to support their narrative. The statement hardly makes sense unless this person is insinuating I am toxic and these actions to reflect that so the ban was justified?? I am sure it is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy but I hardly understand what is being said to begin with, the sentence structure itself fits the criteria though.

I was quite offended by the post and now I am wondering why they have not bothered to post again.