Forum Rule | 2.4

[Deleted member 4084]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:

2.4 Constructive supports - Users should only reply to the threads within the Ban Appeal, Warning Dispute, Refund Request and Action Request section if they were directly involved in the situation in question. When replying to Suggestions and Staff Applications users are expected to be constructive with their replies by providing their reasoning.

Your version of the rule: 2.4 Constructive supports - Users should only reply to threads within the: Warning Disputes, Refund Requests section if they were directly involved in the situation in question. When replying to Suggestions and Staff Applications users are expected to be constructive with their replies by providing reasoning.
** Subject to change

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:
The reason I wish for this to be changed is due to the fact that personally; people like me like replying to threads like such. The Ban Appeals section, is quite 'ironic' to actually add in there. For example: Someone is replying to a ban which doesn't involve them, but they would like to add something. And just to clarify no, not privately messaging staff members. I'd think of it being very, uneven in a way.
Sometimes within the Action Request section of this suggestion: Staff do not notice something from a particular angle, which people of the community then take their time to look over. And get no say in a judgement, which again is quite unfair from the players' / persons' perspective. I think this rule should be relaxed as well, due to the amount of rules changed within the time space of a week.

Another thing to clarify; this thread most likely will fire up quite quickly. If you disagree, keep your reasoning short, but detailed. I don't want to be reading through a remake of the Shakespeare play: Hamlet.
And vice versa.

If you have anything long to say, then try to put most of it in notes.

 

[M]

Summary of reasons that this was done:

• Would not take random users to a report in game.
• Administrative processes are not democratic.
• Gives rise to toxicity and tension.
• Causes clutter; the important information is less obvious among the (generally) identical analytical posts.
• Information given is not always reliable.

As for your reasoning:

people like me like replying

People might enjoy it but the changes remove more negative impact than anything.

I'd think of it being very, uneven in a way.

@Fredy has clarified, if that was even necessary, that these processes are not democratic.

Staff do not notice something from a particular angle,

If something is not noticed by the staff member, it will be handled in a dispute. You are still welcome to contact staff members via PM if you have something to say.

And get no say in a judgement, which again is quite unfair from the players' / persons' perspective.

Again, there is a dispute and complaint process.

I think this rule should be relaxed as well, due to the amount of rules changed within the time space of a week.

This isn't really a valid argument, is it?

@Fredy has also given some information on this:

and changes affecting players get made without any discussion, input from players.

The change you are referring to mostly was obviously intended to make administrative duties easier as well as to prevent bandwaggoning and clearly biased opinions from cluttering up an AR. Most (80+%) AR replies are just saying things like
"He did the same thing to me a few days ago", "Opinion, -Support", "Opinion, +Support"
How are any of these statements even relevant to the AR since they clearly don't affect anything. I just want to make this very clear, your opinions really don't matter when it comes to ARs. AR's are not democratic. The decision is being made using facts from the provided evidence. This is why only people who were involved (who can provide such evidence) are allowed to post. I don't see how this doesn't just make perfect sense.

Issues arise that could of all been solved if players were consulted first.

Can you name any? Because I really can't remember any issues any of the rule changes caused.