Censorship

[Gandalf]

Its clear that my point has been missed or perhaps just ignored it. The 'business developer' you refer to is called a 'business analyst' who can be responsible for defining business strategies alongside senior stakeholders. The term business developer is not a term which I've seen promoted as part of any major project methodology so since we're on the topic of educating eachother -  how about you assist me in validating your point through a established source.

In the wider context of the subject, we might want to consider relabelling the roles of staff in Argonath to more suitably aligned designations since it might assist those younger to follow it up as a career option. By giving them relevant and accurate information, we are doing our bit. Instead right now I feel that we are failing in our obligation uphold this value.

More importantly, I would like to seek clarity on why we are unable to talk about this subject widely in /p. If it offends developers to talk about real life project methodologies, then I might claim to be offended by the subject of dogs. In that case, will you uphold my right to prevent a discussion about dogs in /p?

In different countries different nomenclatures are used for the same types of jobs.  A toilet cleaner may be called a facility manager in some countries.
It is up to us to use whatever titles we wish, if you seek clarity you may refer to the staff page to find the exact position.
As for the discussion, I believe I answered that in my previous post.

[Kirgiz]

However if it is clear that certain poster are attempting to create negativity, they will be dealt with. Everyone is welcome to add their thoughts and critisize, however they should do this in a civil and if possible positive and constructive attitude.

Ben is an example of a positive attitude, others are less.

I'm sorry, but I can't remain silent after these words. To get this clear, you claimed a really lose definition, I asked you a completely straight question. To begin with, what makes you think I'm inciting negative attitude, if you were the one to provoke me in the first place by flat out telling me I'm to be ignored? If you explain where I was at wrong I will stop, however I got nothing in response.

[Lustigkurre]

The day when Argonath told people to not talk about the odd and harmless subject "project methodologies".

[Frank_Hawk]

Gandalf,

It’s convincingly reassuring that this topic has remained open as had it been locked, I would have with no doubt ascertained it was undoubtedly censorship. Since it has remained open – it’s fair to continue questioning how a topic around project methodologies can be considered as detrimental to the atmosphere or offensive for it to be censored from public view.

The judge is the community – in this case, I’m reliant on the community’s support in agreeing that this topic was in no way detrimental to the atmosphere in the server but rather constructive and open. Added to that, I ask that you show me how this was detrimental to the community through evidence which I’m confident you will not find any. Nowadays, I rather shy away from these situations, but today was too farfetched for me not to bring this up.

Since you have not responded to showing me evidence around the ‘business developer’ role being accredited by a reputable project methodology – I have no other option but to accept your point as invalid. That said, I agree with you and haven’t questioned that developers can play roles outside their normal remit. But it is worth mentioning that in the project methodology context, this is not supported for which I am arguing a point for.

As ever, I am reliant on you to steer us to righteousness but the community is the ultimate judge of your words.

[Gandalf]

Gandalf,

It’s convincingly reassuring that this topic has remained open as had it been locked, I would have with no doubt ascertained it was undoubtedly censorship. Since it has remained open – it’s fair to continue questioning how a topic around project methodologies can be considered as detrimental to the atmosphere or offensive for it to be censored from public view.

The judge is the community – in this case, I’m reliant on the community’s support in agreeing that this topic was in no way detrimental to the atmosphere in the server but rather constructive and open. Added to that, I ask that you show me how this was detrimental to the community through evidence which I’m confident you will not find any. Nowadays, I rather shy away from these situations, but today was too farfetched for me not to bring this up.

Since you have not responded to showing me evidence around the ‘business developer’ role being accredited by a reputable project methodology – I have no other option but to accept your point as invalid. That said, I agree with you and haven’t questioned that developers can play roles outside their normal remit. But it is worth mentioning that in the project methodology context, this is not supported for which I am arguing a point for.

As ever, I am reliant on you to steer us to righteousness but the community is the ultimate judge of your words.

As I have mentioned before, when you are in game the in-game administration team has the exclusive right to determine if a topic is detrimental to the atmosphere. The players are required to follow any directions to cease discussion in public chat, and if not they could be rightfully punished.
It has not use to discuss the nature and content of the topic itself, as it is not the community that has the right to judge in-game matters of public chat.
A perfectly harmless topic could still be seen as unnecesary or detrimental and there for can be asked not to be referred to. When in game, players are to obey instructions regardless on their own opinion on if the subject is suitable for discussion in the public chat of a game server.

[Ben.]

In CBF's defense, the discussion you and I had on main chat could have been considered heated (although we know it was not). It certainly filled up the chat window!

I should imagine that in different circumstances the conversation would have been considered acceptable, but after a misunderstanding/incident involving Argonath Developers, perhaps it was not the best topic to be discussed - certainly could have appeared to be provocative to those more aware.
Obviously CBF perceived it to be somewhat prvocative, and it must be considered that as an Administrative member, he is a member of the community just the same as anyone else!

Business Developer could be a job title in some parts of the world - Certainly sounds legitimate, and brings back some honest looking links in Google Search...
Though that's really a little irrelevant, as I would promote Developers being more involved in the "business" side of things even if totally technical.

[Gandalf]

I'm sorry, but I can't remain silent after these words. To get this clear, you claimed a really lose definition, I asked you a completely straight question. To begin with, what makes you think I'm inciting negative attitude, if you were the one to provoke me in the first place by flat out telling me I'm to be ignored? If you explain where I was at wrong I will stop, however I got nothing in response.

I merely replied that the definition used was invalid, and could be seen as damaging where it is not.
Your reply cam with quotes that were not in any way related to the context and a question that seemed to be provocative. That means I simply mirrored your behaviour, obviously with success.

Where Frank may be trying to look as the contect of the discussion, the fact remains that the issue here is tha he does not wish to follow instructions by the administration to cease discussion of a topic over public chat. That is handled, and if he wishes to discuss the topic in-depth I suggest him to use the Wolrd News section, hopefully linked to a related news item.
For the topic of censorhip, an in-depth discussion regarding the topic he discussed in public chat would actually be off-topic.

[Frank_Hawk]

As I have mentioned before, when you are in game the in-game administration team has the exclusive right to determine if a topic is detrimental to the atmosphere. The players are required to follow any directions to cease discussion in public chat, and if not they could be rightfully punished.
It has not use to discuss the nature and content of the topic itself, as it is not the community that has the right to judge in-game matters of public chat.
A perfectly harmless topic could still be seen as unnecesary or detrimental and there for can be asked not to be referred to. When in game, players are to obey instructions regardless on their own opinion on if the subject is suitable for discussion in the public chat of a game server.

The above statements align well with the definition of censorship being the 'supervision of information' by classifying it through one's own opinion as being harmful to the community. Thanks for making it clear that despite the harmless nature of this subject, it has been warranted as negative despite being a widely promoted subject in the professional software technology world.

Reading the statements above leaves me in no doubt that seasoned veterans views are held in low self-esteem when compared to the likes of 'developers' and admins who in this case I've proved wrong. This directly violates point 2 of the Argonath vision by you refusing to uphold the rights of me as a player. While I agree that there should be a regulation of the chat, I expected you to denounce this action of censoring this topic but instead it seems like you have promoted it instead.

I would not be surprised if many others have fallen prey to similar situations like mine. Unfortunately, for the majority they are unable to articulate their views and suffer in silence. Therefore I felt it was an moral obligation in this scenario to stand up for the people and righteousness.

You've let this seasoned veteran and the wider community down by failing to denounce this unexplainable/flawed censorship.

[Gandalf]

The above statements align well with the definition of censorship being the 'supervision of information' by classifying it through one's own opinion as being harmful to the community. Thanks for making it clear that despite the harmless nature of this subject, it has been warranted as negative despite being a widely promoted subject in the professional software technology world.

Reading the statements above leaves me in no doubt that seasoned veterans views are held in low self-esteem when compared to the likes of 'developers' and admins who in this case I've proved wrong. This directly violates point 2 of the Argonath vision by you refusing to uphold the rights of me as a player. While I agree that there should be a regulation of the chat, I expected you to denounce this action of censoring this topic but instead it seems like you have promoted it instead.

I would not be surprised if many others have fallen prey to similar situations like mine. Unfortunately, for the majority they are unable to articulate their views and suffer in silence. Therefore I felt it was an moral obligation in this scenario to stand up for the people and righteousness.

You've let this seasoned veteran and the wider community down by failing to denounce this unexplainable/flawed censorship.

Please give your definition of censorship, as I believe we are talking about separate things.

[PSVITA]

As I have mentioned before, when you are in game the in-game administration team has the exclusive right to determine if a topic is detrimental to the atmosphere. The players are required to follow any directions to cease discussion in public chat, and if not they could be rightfully punished.
It has not use to discuss the nature and content of the topic itself, as it is not the community that has the right to judge in-game matters of public chat.
A perfectly harmless topic could still be seen as unnecesary or detrimental and there for can be asked not to be referred to. When in game, players are to obey instructions regardless on their own opinion on if the subject is suitable for discussion in the public chat of a game server.

Maybe this is the problem. The community is at the core of Argonath. Maybe not respecting this through actions of putting the community first can cause problems. The very fact that you stated that players are to follow administration instructions on whether or not a topic is up for discussion in not entirely unfair. Say a particular administrator does not like a particular discussion that is occuring in public that, he/she can freely shut it down by scaring the public with punishments regardless if the chat has not brought about any negativity. Say the situation was reversed. What if a few players saw the same conversation as been too sensitive? Frank used an example using the illustration of dogs.

I would like to know why the community is given so little respect.

[Frank_Hawk]

Please give your definition of censorship, as I believe we are talking about separate things.

Perhaps you've been reading too many topics lately to see the underlying points being made here - I suggest you read this topic over again to understand what is being said. I would only be repeating myself otherwise.

[CBFasi]

The above statements align well with the definition of censorship being the 'supervision of information' by classifying it through one's own opinion as being harmful to the community. Thanks for making it clear that despite the harmless nature of this subject, it has been warranted as negative despite being a widely promoted subject in the professional software technology world.

Reading the statements above leaves me in no doubt that seasoned veterans views are held in low self-esteem when compared to the likes of 'developers' and admins who in this case I've proved wrong. This directly violates point 2 of the Argonath vision by you refusing to uphold the rights of me as a player. While I agree that there should be a regulation of the chat, I expected you to denounce this action of censoring this topic but instead it seems like you have promoted it instead.

I would not be surprised if many others have fallen prey to similar situations like mine. Unfortunately, for the majority they are unable to articulate their views and suffer in silence. Therefore I felt it was an moral obligation in this scenario to stand up for the people and righteousness.

You've let this seasoned veteran and the wider community down by failing to denounce this unexplainable/flawed censorship.

How about my rights as a player, developer and admin ...
A seasoned veterans view was taken into account of .... MINE !
And if it was censorship all comments would of been removed, you got asked to stop and at first did not ..

When discussing matters you need to look not just at the subject but how it can be interpreted by others.

You may have seen it as no problem but by referring to the Argonath developers at the start you changed the whole tone of the subject as I saw it.  If you had NOT mentioned Argonath developers it may have gone unnoticed or not been stopped in the manner it was..

Too many times players forget to look at the interpretation that others may make of what is being said and cause offense even when they do not intend to do so.

[PSVITA]

The above statements align well with the definition of censorship being the 'supervision of information' by classifying it through one's own opinion as being harmful to the community. Thanks for making it clear that despite the harmless nature of this subject, it has been warranted as negative despite being a widely promoted subject in the professional software technology world.

Reading the statements above leaves me in no doubt that seasoned veterans views are held in low self-esteem when compared to the likes of 'developers' and admins who in this case I've proved wrong. This directly violates point 2 of the Argonath vision by you refusing to uphold the rights of me as a player. While I agree that there should be a regulation of the chat, I expected you to denounce this action of censoring this topic but instead it seems like you have promoted it instead.

I would not be surprised if many others have fallen prey to similar situations like mine. Unfortunately, for the majority they are unable to articulate their views and suffer in silence. Therefore I felt it was an moral obligation in this scenario to stand up for the people and righteousness.

You've let this seasoned veteran and the wider community down by failing to denounce this unexplainable/flawed censorship.

Damn, you hit the nail on the head right there.

[Gandalf]

Perhaps you've been reading too many topics lately to see the underlying points being made here - I suggest you read this topic over again to understand what is being said. I would only be repeating myself otherwise.

Please answer my question, I can not continue until you do.

[Gandalf]

Maybe this is the problem. The community is at the core of Argonath. Maybe not respecting this through actions of putting the community first can cause problems. The very fact that you stated that players are to follow administration instructions on whether or not a topic is up for discussion in not entirely unfair. Say a particular administrator does not like a particular discussion that is occuring in public that, he/she can freely shut it down by scaring the public with punishments regardless if the chat has not brought about any negativity. Say the situation was reversed. What if a few players saw the same conversation as been too sensitive? Frank used an example using the illustration of dogs.

I would like to know why the community is given so little respect.

That is why there is an extensive recruitment and training for the administration team, as well as the possibility to send in complaints on incidents that can be verified by ttime and date of logs.

As for your last line, I wonder where this type of propaganda people seem to be spreading has started.