eGO and the steam forums.

[opscomm]

Yeah, there are hoards of idiots on the internet who all gravitate towards miscellaneous forums. Another example are the CBS sports forums where people treat my buckeyes like complete crap and never give any proof why. Most of those kinda people are immature teenagers and little kids who grow up spoiled rotten. I especially despise the people who come on to our servers, complain about stuff, grief, moan, hack, and cuss then ask why they were banned.

 

[BWoods]

Moral of the story: Stay away from the Steam forums. There is little useful information there, mostly just a bunch of kids complaining about every little thing Valve does and ganging up on targets to take all of their teenage rage/angst out on. Anyone who needs to go there to complain about being banned from a server probably deserved what they got.

Besides, eGO forums are a lot cooler anyway.

 

[iKougar]

I was playing on a dodge ball server the other day and killed someone and he was like "f*** you kougar and f*** ego what a bad clan"

those posts on that were funny, getting banned for being too good is a joke.

 

[firestrike24]

Time for a moderated opinion instead of Steam bashing...

I have to agree some admins are overzealous and tend to kick out of hand, especially for incidents which are clearly not aimed at anyone in particular. There needs to be a tighter control over decisions to appoint admins, and perhaps the institution of an "intent to incite" rule.

What is this "intent to incite" rule, and what is the rationale?

Well, we have the "grandma policy", in which says "don't say it if you wouldn't say it in front of your grandma". Which quite frankly, is out of hand, works like damn, hell, and bloody are often called up on ego even if directed in jest.

The "intent to incite" rule should be one which takes a moderated view of the intent of the person to incite a flamewar, so something like "f*** you bloody motherf***** c*** bit***" would obviously be "intent to incite". But something like "lucky bas****" would be taken more moderately as there is no direct intent.

Why "Intent to incite"?

The "I2" rule would allow us to target those who are clearly attempting to flame others, while giving leeway to those who just use words more liberally in what is clearly a non-offensive manner. The very point of this idea is to give the "offending" party the benefit of the doubt, which would make for a better game experience on the whole. After all, we expect them to be mature enough to moderate themselves.

My removing of my tag on some other servers because of bashing I've been getting is a testament to the public image of ego, and frankly, it's not a good one.

Instead of ignoring the problem, we must attempt to engage them in dialogue, such as this post I put on another notoriously flamy board: Gamefaqs. Clearly, it's not so much unbased as it is blown out of proportion.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=437678&topic=51776135

So let's go out there, and start engaging.

After all, it is M for mature.

 

[DUCE]

This brings back bad memories of the WoW forums. It's easy to put blame on a large organization, nothing new in human history. No sense feeding the bears.

 

[AdmiralVonBentebent]

Time for a moderated opinion instead of Steam bashing...

I have to agree some admins are overzealous and tend to kick out of hand, especially for incidents which are clearly not aimed at anyone in particular. There needs to be a tighter control over decisions to appoint admins, and perhaps the institution of an "intent to incite" rule.

What is this "intent to incite" rule, and what is the rationale?

Well, we have the "grandma policy", in which says "don't say it if you wouldn't say it in front of your grandma". Which quite frankly, is out of hand, works like damn, hell, and bloody are often called up on ego even if directed in jest.

The "intent to incite" rule should be one which takes a moderated view of the intent of the person to incite a flamewar, so something like "f*** you bloody motherf***** c*** bit***" would obviously be "intent to incite". But something like "lucky bas****" would be taken more moderately as there is no direct intent.

Why "Intent to incite"?

The "I2" rule would allow us to target those who are clearly attempting to flame others, while giving leeway to those who just use words more liberally in what is clearly a non-offensive manner. The very point of this idea is to give the "offending" party the benefit of the doubt, which would make for a better game experience on the whole. After all, we expect them to be mature enough to moderate themselves.

My removing of my tag on some other servers because of bashing I've been getting is a testament to the public image of ego, and frankly, it's not a good one.

Instead of ignoring the problem, we must attempt to engage them in dialogue, such as this post I put on another notoriously flamy board: Gamefaqs. Clearly, it's not so much unbased as it is blown out of proportion.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=437678&topic=51776135

So let's go out there, and start engaging.

After all, it is M for mature.

I like your idea.
I am concerned about our bad ''public realations'' too.
We have to do something, not just ignore it.

 

[trykael]

Please do not go to these forums and "speak" for eGO. We of course would not keep you from joining whatever forums you so desire, but do not attempt to speak on behalf of the community in these sorts of discussions.

Well, we have the "grandma policy", in which says "don't say it if you wouldn't say it in front of your grandma". Which quite frankly, is out of hand, works like damn, hell, and bloody are often called up on ego even if directed in jest.

Our policies are set by leadership, whether you agree with them or not. If you have questions or concerns about our policies, we would ask that you address them in the proper manner; either use the drop box or PM an advisor from your division.