I have been looking through the forum and have found a lot of threats of warnings from the staff. I have a military background and I agree there should be rules. I am actually a huge fan of rules, but it seems to me (this is an opinion) that some of these rules are rediculous to say the least. Let me explain my position.

I agree that racist remarks, foul language, and double posting should be taboo. I think racist remarks should get someone banned forever without a warning. The foul language should be censored and the user warned. The double posting is just annoying and the offender should just receive a friendly reminder.

Now, on to the rules I think are taking away from this site. I spend a lot of time in the War and Diplomatic discussions area. I like to stay up to date on relationships amongst the alliances. What disturbs me is the flamming issue. Moderators seem to always end up writting something on all of the War and Diplomatic posts. There is always some sort of threat for flamming. Personally I think you should be allowed to say anything you want about anyone in this portion of the forum. Granted, the rules I mentioned in the paragraph above should always be followed, but it seems that everytime someone shows a bit of emotion the moderators step in to stop it. Anyone ever read "1984"? Anyone ever heard of big brother? This game can create intense rivalries and if anyone involved is nearly as competitive as me then they do experience emotion. What is so wrong with someone stating what they think about someone else or stating their position on a matter? What is wrong if two people get into a heated conversation on what they believe is right?

War's are not a nice thing. Things are said in wars that are not nice. This game is based on the idea of war. How can you have a game based on the idea of war and not allow people to argue?? It is ok for a game to portray shooting off nukes, but it isn't ok for two people to fight in a forum?

I believe the creators of this game and the admins of this forum need to take a long hard look at their rules. I think they need to create an actual rule book (instead of a couple of paragraphs that roughly resemble a round about rule).

I am open for discussion on this.

Thank you for listening to little rant.

-PUG

well, to mod's defence they mostly just warn that they don't want to see flaming when they see that it might en up in a flame war.

the other thing is that this is a open forum, anyone can read what are being posted therefor some discression is advicable, you can talk private over msn or other means of comunication if you want to start name calling, and flaming usualy just end with a 3 day bann anyway unless there are serius personal attacks

but a bit more extensive rules could be ok, now it is the mod's and admins personal opinion on whats wrong who deside (last time i checked)

but i think the mods are doing good actualy, they just trie to let the fighting happen ingame

Hey, PUGofCrydee, I'm St.Even, a senior moderator, as you can see.

Battle Dawn is a game intended for anyone from age 13 upward, and therefore we have to keep everything as such. We can't allow people to "say whatever they want" - on any area of our site - to maintain this. We have a large player base of teens.

There are set rules - for example in the T&Cs, but our moderators have personal judgement - although not unregulated.

You are correct that in war, things that are said that would resemble these sort of comments, but this is not war.

This is a war game, and this difference is what makes us seem "overbearing" in our methods, but it is simply for the protection of the enjoyment of our players.

Thanks alot,
St.Even - Battledawn Senior Moderator Leader

P.S. We don't moderate any non-battle dawn hosted chat, obviously. Firstly it's impossible, secondly we don't want to and thirdly because it isn't our business. It becomes our business when such things are posted on the site.

Then I must ask.... why have a war and diplomatic discussion section? Why not just let people talk on MSN?

Second- I have seen more intense, more abusive, and more offensive discussions on most morning cartoon shows.

Third- I already said racism, vulgar langauge, and double posting should not be tolerated. All I hear is that you are trying to protect the teens from "something" still not sure what the something is. How is two people getting into a heated discussion about a war game (i know it is a game, but so is football and i have been in fist fights while playing college ball) is going to hurt the fine sensabilities of a teen?

Fourth- Your morning newspaper has harsher fueds in it then this forum. The curriculm in grade school provides books with much bigger conflict then anything that could occure on here. So then why can't two people got at it for a bit in a forum?

I agree the MODs do a pretty good job moderating this site, but I also think the RULES (not the MODS) need to be looked at again.



I agree that the MODs do a pretty good job on here. But, I also agree the rules need to be revamped.

Not everyone has the facility for doing so, neither is it as... "open" - the forum format suits discussions on alliances and such. It also adds to the "community" feel.


Hehe, Yes. I knew something like "...but they already know worse!" would come up. That's not the point: firstly we shouldn't be advocating such things, and secondly we can't take the "risk" - imagine a 13-year-old on the forums, reading a thread that's got out of hand when his parent walks into the room (This has happened MULTIPLE times.)



Sure,
We allow "heated discussions" - but generally try to cool things down when it goes into personal attacks. We're not perfect and we do make mistakes.


We allow people to have discussions, heated discussions, even arguments. Just when it gets to the realms of personal attacks we cut it off. This is a game, and people shouldn't expect to be attacked as a person while playing it.

Thanks alot,
St.Even - Battledawn Senior Moderator Leader

I would suggest the forum use the censor rating system. Just like on any TV show and most publications have to follow.

Is the lowest age on here 13? If so then make sure all posts are PG13.

Personal attacks should be dicouraged. I agree with this... but only if it pertains to attacking an individual and not their game play. I think attacking the way someone plays the game, attacking the someone's idea, and attacking their overal ethics in game should be allowed. Attacking someone's personal beliefs, them as a person, and such should not be allowed.

If I think someone is a cheat, a bad player, or anything else in game you should be able to point it out. That is a personal opinion, but from the way the rules are layed out it sounds like to me everything is a personal opinion.

I think the only way to avoid any of this is to lay out a set of rules that can't be interputed. They need to be cut and dry and state exactly what is allowed what isn't. I am not saying to you need to cover every possible instance, but they need to be way more in depth then they currently are.

-PUG

PG13's an American thing, but we do try to make it suitable for 13+.



You're allowed to criticise gameplay or game ethics, just not attack the people themselves. People tend not to know the difference so end up just attacking the person, and complain when they're met with a moderator (I'm not saying you're one of these)

I disagree with your last point, though. I think the way to avoid this is to make it so individual moderators have discretion on a situation. Then again, people have different opinions

Thanks alot,
St.Even - Battledawn Senior Moderator Leader

I agree that some people are going to have a hard time understanding the difference here.... I also think that sometimes the moderators do too. I have seen a few spots were a moderator was not needed, but stepped in anyways and I have seen some were a mod was needed but never showed up. This isn't always the case and as a matter of fact it usually isn't the case, but there have been instances of this.



I understand why you feel the way you do, but you yourself just stated that people have different opinions. So when a MOD steps in to do something they may see fit to take action were another MOD thinks it is all good. This is why I think the rules should be layed out in laymans terms and made to be more in depth.

The moderators make the occasional mistake, which is understandable, they're human, but they do know the difference - I understand your annoyance when something is over-modded, because it's annoying for me, too.

As for the second point, USE THE REPORT FEATURE - If a mod hasn't noticed your thread it's better to draw their attention than to let something go on un-moderated.



There are guidelines, we don't give them totally free-rein over what they do. The moderator guidelines state certain things, so we are all Singing from the same sheet, so to speak..

Thanks a lot,
St.Even - Battle Dawn Senior Moderator Leader