Pax__

[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
I was certainly expecting 11 to go Beta this month, but today? Color me surprised.

Looking forward to it going Open Beta even more though!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm expecting it to go LIVE in mid-november - second or third week.

Has to be AFTER Haloween Event, which won't end until November 1st or 2nd.

Has to be BEFORE Winter Event, which might start as early as November 15th, or as late as December 1st.

So the window LOOKS, to me, to be "anytime in November", with earlier being more likely - thus, I'm guessing November 5th to 10th as the most likely range.

Bummer, Beta Boards go away. Guess I'm not in, after all.

Ah well, c'est la vie, I can still poke through the new costume bits, yum!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Selection to be included in the closed beta test of Issue 11 is pretty straightforward. We have selected testers who were helpful with previous closed betas and also included accounts who had recently logged into the Training Room.



[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else see the "Catch-22" in the above-mentioned quote?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you needed to login/play on test some in the couple of months?

[/ QUOTE ]

I worry about you sometime. Also: no, that's not a "Catch-22".

[/ QUOTE ]
"previous closed betas" doesn't necessarily mean only "for City of Heroes", Judas. There's a decent chance that my very short time on AA's beta, and modest time in TR's beta, may just have gotten my name into the pool of "maybes". I'm sure Ex is swamped with stuff to do, so it may be a bit before I get a yea-or-nay answer back.

And damn those beta boards, sitting down there ... tempting me ... TAUNTING me with their delicious, not for my eyes secrets ... *_whimper_!!*

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The devs say that they have a system for choosing beta testers, but they don't want to reveal what it is for fear of people trying to work the system.

However, if you beta-tested I9 or I10, then chances are you'll be in the I11 beta.

[edit] oh, and none of the testers are allowed to post anything about the beta because of an NDA

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm assuming that the only way you wuold get a invite to beta test the issues is if you have already done it before. so that basically jsut cancels out everyone except the select few they chose before. Reguardless of what else you have beta tested (in some people's cases beta testing the game before it launched)

Which is silly imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well. I see the two beta forums down there (must ... not ... peek ... *whimper* ...!!!). I have NOT yet been in an issue Beta, and do NOT regularly log onto Test.

But I have been selected to Beta Test two prior NC titles (and one of my suggestions is now a permanent feature of TR, even), which means I've signed an NDA with them before ... so ... it's remotely possible the email just hasn't gotten here yet. I've PMed Ex about it ... we'll see if she takes those boards away from me, or says "stop whimpering and go read, silly!"

Obviously, I'm hoping for the latter. ^_^

There's also the issue of context.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with constructive disagreement... (as stated ad-nauseum)

[/ QUOTE ]
And I applaud you for that. however, many of your "don't say /no" compatriots are not so discerning. I've felt the lash of their ire for posting well-reasoned flaws in an idea, and clearly stating my total opposition to it. Often enough that, yes, I decided "why bother explaining to these people, they're just going to get ticked anyway ... '/jranger' ... there, good enough."

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen more of that than I've seen /no, and /no more than I've seen anything that remotely resembles suggestions on how to improve or make an idea workable. And I've seen dogma that holds little weight in the grand scheme of occurances that have come to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]
... "improve an idea or make it workable" - full stop, my friend. There are ides I just on't think are, should be, or can be made workable. Not even GOD almighty herself could possibly make such ideas workable.


[ QUOTE ]

As far as thread/post possession; if you post something (thread or otherwise...) that gets you banned... it's all you and yours baby, all the way out the door.

[/ QUOTE ]
You own responsibility for your posts, but you do not own the thread your post started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's apalling to think that some think it's the OP's responsibilty to roll over when accosted, belittled or harrassed in their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

It's apalling to think that you would decry unadorned disagreement as anyone being "accosted, belittled or harrassed". Furthermore, I have been told to leave threads, to "be constructive or go away", for posts that were quite lengthy and thoroughly described as to why I objected to, or disagreed with, someone's idea.

And the people saying those things? The very same people who were (and some of whom remain) vocal, repeated opponents of "/no". They don't just object to "/no", they object to any disagreement with their ideas. They're not here for discussion, for development of an idea into something good.

They're here for ego-[Censored]. Nothing more, nothing less.

...

Oh, and further? It's not "their" thread ... noone owns threads here except PlayNC, and Cryptic.

[ QUOTE ]

It's funny to me that the same people that can't leave a thread alone when it rubs them the wrong way are the same people that can't find their way out the forum door when the forum starts rubbing them the wrong way.

If you can't or refuse to adapt... leave, duh.


[/ QUOTE ]
How about, you adapt to the idea that not everyone is going to love your Unique and Special Snowflake idea. Some of us are going to disagree, or, just plain not like it.

Just like, if I post an idea? You may disagree, or even just plain hate it. Hey, that's fine ... maybe I'll come up with a different idea, prompted in part by your very disagreement or dislike!

It actually has happened before, elsewhere: someone so loathed the entirety of the first idea I came up with for something (part of an online, forum-based game), that I had to scrap it and go back to square one. In the process of avoiding the things from the first idea, I actually ended up coming up with an idea that not only did they actually like ... I thought it was superior to the first one, too.

And you know what? Their response to the first idea was, almost word for word: "Sorry but I hate every last bit of it."

Go figure, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
He got more persistent at it the more people bugged him about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Key phrase here: people whined at him for it, so he became less inclined to just let a thread slide, and maybe started looking for things he disagreed with (but might not have cared to bother replying to), just to tweak the whiners' noses BACK a bit.

I'd say your own statements evince JRanger having not started things quite well. And this is coming from someone not displeased to see him gone (albeit, for the wrong reasons).

Yes; having recently transferred my main Villain to Virtue (in an effort to improve my ability to team with the folks I'm on a Global with - none of them had high level ANYthing on Infinity, where my MM was made) ... I've been lurking the Virtue boards to see if I wanted to start yammering at you lot.

And I watched, unhappily, as those threads were ruthlessly stomped-upon. 8(

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will respond to any post in any way I feel like within the confines of the forum rules. I don't really care if you think that's being rude or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I dont give crap if I m rude or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then if you are rude you will not be surprised if you are banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes, I would.

You will note that I said that I would respond 'within the confines of the forum rules'. If I, or anyone else for that matter, are banned without breaking the rules, then there will be hell to pay.

A lot of people on this board seem to think that being polite is a requirement. THAT is the exact reason that we are having this 'Notification Discussion' in the first place.

There's just one problem with that: some people are oversensitive and some people are undersensitive. That means that the things I find 'rude' and 'offensive' are not even close to the things that you find 'rude' and 'offensive'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can go you one better. And Ex Libris, with her background iin anthropology, should take this fully to heart.

In my very first course on the subject, the professor related a lesson she had learned while conducting a field study in a rural region of India (anthropology is not all monkeys-and-primitive-tribes stuff, you can do work in the field right in New York City, even). Youy see, like any good Westerner raised in our American/European blend culture, whenever people did nice things for her, she owuld of course say "thank you", most sincerely.

Turns out, where she was? That was seen as the height of rudeness. Yep, that's right ... "thank you" was a slap to the face.

You see, the idea there was (and this wasn't something necessarily expressed in words, or even necessarily consciously realised): neighbors, friends, and family simply did nice things for each other. You showed your gratitude by reciprocating, and thus, joinig in a sort of "web of exchange". Not so much tallying favors, but rather, "engaging in a relationship of trust and mutual kindness".

Saying "thank you" was seen as a cheap way to repay the favor done, without ACTUALLY repaying it. So when she'd sincerely thank those who were generous and kind to her during her stay ... they would react with hurt and even hostility in their eyes. It was as if she were trying to say "your gift is worth no more than a few words, now begone with you."

...

So. What one person, or group of people, consider to be the height of polite behavior, absolutely de rigeur for proper behavior ... another personor group can consider to be the very blackest depths of rudeness.

I think everyone should try and keep that in the back of their mind, whenever they try to decide "is /no rude?"

[ QUOTE ]
Asking people to behave themselves is one thing. Telling people they should post a certain way or post a certain minimum required number of words or post a required argument or what have you is just one big slippery slope. If we keep going that way, we may end up with people being prosecuted because they didn't post the correct way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Case in point: I have a three hundred and seventy-six word response saved to my hard drive, which content-wise is really nothing more than: /no. Wordcount minimums don't work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you see nothing wrong with what Sixy did?

OMG YOU'RE CONDONING IT REPORTED PMED

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of expected at least one reaction like Sixy's.

The followups by (only 1 or 2) other PWNZ members acting like it was acceptable made the whole group look worse than they are though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, although it was a wee bit more than 1 or 2 (more like 5 or 6 from what I saw before a certain thread, which turned blatantly congratulatory, was deleted). And I do think those direct supporters should join _Sixy_ in Banville.

[ QUOTE ]
You would think after years of getting no help from staff. Paying yearly for a great game but No help from staff. That they would make something free like hmmm instead of wentworths why not give us a FREE options to transfer influence salvage and heck even enhancements from character to character.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. Maybe server transfers, etc, should be ... oh ... what does WoW charge? SEVENTY FIVE dollars, isn't it? Or was that EQ or EQ2?

Stop complaining, ten bucks is MUCH cheaper than the industry average.

*shrug* Your funeral.

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] you [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, Grinnz ... you're not helping yourself, with this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
Too lazy to read this all, what the hell is going on here?

[/ QUOTE ]
First, READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

Thsi thread is for discussing that very announcement. Technically, your post amounted to "tl; dr" ... and is now very verboten by the new forum rules.

When someone uses <QR>, or similar, it means they hit the "quick reply" button, and are not necessarily responding to the person who shows up in the "RE:" line.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, tell that to jranger who didn't break any rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No? Because I seem to recall these two being long time rules:

[ QUOTE ]
2. Keep feedback constructive.
3. Keep feedback high-quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the mods chose to overlook violations doesn't mean the rules didn't exist. Whether or not repeated "No"s can be viewed as constructive is highly debatable -- and I lean heavily towards no -- but it's certainly not high quality. He spammed the boards repeatedly with his banal monosyllabic retort. Personally, I'd be surprised if he even read half of what he was "no"ing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing, prior to Ex's announcement on Friday, made his post against the rules. They did not fall outside of the then-stated definition of "sufficiently constructive", nor did they fall outside the then-stated definition of "sufficient quality". A rule was enacted, after the fact, which made those things no longer acceptible. And it is ethically reprehensible to punish someone ex post facto.

Mind you, I say this despire having despised JRanger, and had him permanently on /ignore. I don't regret that he's gone - but the how and the why of it leave a very bad taste in my mouth: it wasn't done right.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: IMO, however, when I think of names that should be worried about this... yours doesn't come to mind... at least, not in my dealings

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently, I'm "in the top ranking of posting violations" for September. *shrug*

[ QUOTE ]
in any event... I still don't see this as double jeapordy; the way you are explaining it to me is more akin to the 3-Strike laws... yes, you may have been convicted and served time for your felony but that felony can still be referenced in the process to determine whether or not you'd be considered a 'habitual offender'

[/ QUOTE ]
Still not the same thing. What's happened to me doesn't require any subsequent action to be done by me - that old mistake of mine was resurrected behind the scenes, by their (yes, AFAIK, automated) filter. I believe it would have come up even if I had been a virtual Mother Theresa on these boards for the past six months.

Heck, if I'd been absent for six months, even.

And that just strikes me as "not right". So I dearly, DEARLY hope I'm wrong. Somehow. Despite the evidence of my eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ... you advocate an atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia towards your fellow posters? You advocate a climate in which we must suspiciously eye every single word or letter posted by someone to whom we wish to respond, on the merest off chance that they might have slipped up?

...

That's not a community.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't live in America, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do (as bothering to look at my Location, to the left, woudl have already told you). Why do you ask?

[ QUOTE ]
and i didn't say this wasn't retroactive... I said this wasn't 'retroactive charging'; to me... people have already been charged (like a criminal going up for parole)... this is just a case of your charges being reviewed... if you have a bunch of charges they don't like when they do your review (despite apologies to the community, victim or family) then you're out of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is definitionally double jeopardy. At the time, the action taken was deemed sufficient. It then stops there - or at least, ethically, it should. The powers-that-be aren't supposed to be able to go "yeah, you know? We don't think you've suffered enough. Have some more. (weeks pass) Hey, remember that thing, with the more? Yeah, uh, we change our minds again, you still need more. (weeks pass) Hi again, yep, it's the thing with the more, and the more again. Well, more again, again. (...)"

Or to put it in TOS terms? NCSoft already TOOK the action they deemed appropriate at that time. Per our contract, the issue was over and done with (or should have been). Taking additional action, at a subsequent date, for the same infraction ... isn't in the contract.

[ QUOTE ]
If you lack a long list of charges or your charges are considered minor enough... you may get a reprieve and be allowed parole (as long you keep your nose clean)

[/ QUOTE ]
They appear ot have gone back an entire two years. Things that were okay (in the sense of "the issue was dealt with and the matter purportedly closed") under "a prior administration" are now not okay, and are apparently being revisited. With a heavier hand. And that's just not right, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: -In the example you listed (after rereading it), it may have just been a case of them finally getting to you after the fact

(ie. someone filed charges... they conducted a slow investigation and then brought charges against you)...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, Lighthouse PMed me directly about it, at the time. That's not a matter of "a slow investigation", that's more like "six months after paying your speeding ticket in full without contesting it, you are served a summons and made to pay the whole amount again ... because policy changed."

[ QUOTE ]
at Pax:

as someone here tried to tell me... rights in the real world don't apply to privileges here

however, I don't believe that... nor do I believe that this is a case of retroactive charging...

I see this more as a case of a group of parolees that are up for review (or a group of miscreants/felons going up before a parole board)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying anything about rights - I meant to refer to the underlaying principle that, in the real world, created those rights.

And I do believe this is a case of retroactivity ... and I know so directly, because I've been given a Warning for September ... based in part on an edit ... that, as best I can recall, was from sometime in February or March. That is inarguably retroactive.

And what's wrose, I already was spoken to directly - and I agreed I'd stepped over the line, apologised, and took my lumps without argument. But now here it is, being brought up again, creating a new, much more threateningly-worded Warning.

Don't tell me things aren't being brought up retroactively - they are.

Don't tell me these things aren't being used for a blatant case of Double Jeopardy - they are.

[ QUOTE ]

My additional opinion is that the implication for this was already dropped in the last Dev thread on this subject (the one that got locked) and therefore it should've been from that thread forward with most participants in the flame- war/bait/trap with Silver (or Shiver... whatever) being banned at that time

[/ QUOTE ]
No change of policy this significant should be merely implied. And IMO, it shouldn't go into effect until after it is explicitly stated. Ideally, in fact, the announcement should have a lead time - even if only an hour or two - before the policy goes into effect.

[ QUOTE ]
Part 2 - /yes vs. /no

this is comparing apples to oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not within the framework that Ex Libris has put the issue: "fluff", and "[does] little to contribute to the discussion". Both are equal in that regard, so it's more like Red Delicious and Granny Smith ... both apples, just different kinds of apples.

[ QUOTE ]
Part 3. - The sad thing is:

It's the usual suspects that are getting outraged over this.

They're worried about getting retroactively punished for all of the free passes (in the form of edits and warnings - as opposed to outright bans) they have gotten in the past for things they could've avoided in the first place (had they the mind and discipline to do so)

[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't free passes. They were the moderation policy of the time.

There's a reason, for example, that in real life a person cannot be charged retroactively under a new law: because retroactive penalties plain old stink.

I'd have zero problem if the tracking was "from this day forward"; fine, it's what I myself asked for. My problem is that everyone is now subject to double jeopardy for past infractions. Things we were already dealt with over, are now being brought back up again.

Not helping, G.