Please note this is a thread written from a subjective point of view. The statements below are not guaranteed true or complete.
Why argues are bad is intuitive, but it helps if you get their nature in an internet society (feel free to skip this):
Every person has a unique set of experiences (incl. those others shared, not just own) which make up their personality and opinions.
In this very integrated world, media is complex and very possible to manipulate people with. For example, repeatedly exposing people to an experience (like an ad) or opinion makes them trust it more.
If many people confirm the same thing based on experience, there is a very (exponentially) low chance that it was just a coincidence. So, we value opinions far more if more persons have confirmed it.
Most people don't even have control or awareness of how certain information gets to them. On the internet, you can arrange an illusion of most people confirming a theory even if most of them didn't (typically for social media, your friends' activities cause you to be offered groups agreeing with you more often than those who don't). Hence:
Discussions that deal with politics, ideology and similar controversial topics are to be performed with extra care and with sensitivity.
The complexity of the internet leads to incredible diversity in opinions. Every party has different interests and makes people believe in different things. The people often have an illusion of overwhelming proof on their side (which could be achieved with common tricks) and are tempted to attack the opinion of the other. It's also very difficult to find and weigh proof on the internet, so controversial topics result in endless arguments. The people getting banned for this are often nice and support the community. Even if the argument is avoided, frequently forcing one's self to be silent can cause a decline of self-control and get the person banned for being unable to control their emotions. Venting anger also releases dopamine, and the person may get "addicted" to anger. So, tense situations are better avoided completely.
...a number of subjects are strictly prohibited. These include but are not limited to:
Those are related, as they are inappropriate, offensive towards a society or group of people, or support breaking human rights/other laws. Tense situations are better avoided, as stated earlier.
Communication through chat lacks many aspects and it's difficult to interpret something correctly. Even if you meant it the good way (named yourself after someone?), it's hard to tell how you meant it through just the text. And, being prepared for defence is good, so people tend to interpret such unclear actions the bad way and get aggressive, hence the need to stop those names.
It is strictly forbidden to publish or otherwise reveal any correspondence between game support staff and players as well as any private communication between players.
All staff and players are to respect the privacy of all Call of War users and are prohibited from disclosing any personal information ... without the prior consent of the person in question.
In live chat, we know too little about other people to judge what would offend or damage them, so it's better to avoid disclosing PM and personal information completely. This also prevents blackmailing to an extent.
Troll is the term used to describe a user who focuses on violating chat rules or accepted norms of good taste and appropriate behaviour by making inappropriate posts or creating disruption in the chat channels.
Trolling - intentionally breaking rules and/or annoying or angering other people (incl. mods) - is difficult to define as a set of exact things one shouldn't do, as trolls will always find a new way to bypass it. So, we rely on abstract thinking. Telling where one is the offender and is stepping over the line is up to the mods, and affected people usually respond negatively, so it's not hard to tell when one should stop.
At times a player may not agree with the actions taken by staff. In that eventuality, the player is to refrain from commencing an argument in a public chat channel and should instead use a private message or whisper to the relevant staff member or another staff member if required. Similarly, it is also prohibited to discuss, in public, the actions taken by a staff member against other players. This can be done in private.
Discussing staff actions in public causes disruption. Firstly, affected users tend to have a very subjective point of view and spread misinformation about the mods, or use methods like multi accounts to stalk the mod. Secondly, there are hidden aspects that most users can't really see, so they cannot judge the action objectively, it'll be distorted. Mods are fairly active and trained, so they can provide good advice or explanations in case a user feels unfairly treated by staff. Going public can cause disruption and arguments, as the points of view vary greatly.
For the purposes of the chat channels spam is defined as, but not limited to:
Grammatical structure, caps etc. can also change the way other users view the message. If this change in view is unfriendly and interrupts others or causes problems, it can also be considered spam. For example, caps are relevant to show which parts of the post are important. Overused caps don't make much sense, as you only express the importance of the whole message. A truly important message is one that the other users find important even without it being emphasized.
Caps also tend to be interpreted as shouting, which can become offensive and cause arguments.
As I like to say, "the significant gravitational curvation caused by caps causes a black hole to be formed, which then absorbs the author of the message."
As @PrinceofHonor claimed some time ago, posting third party links isn't necessarily prohibited. It's allowed, as long as it doesn't break other rules (= is relevant and not spam, the content isn't inappropriate etc.)
Why argues are bad is intuitive, but it helps if you get their nature in an internet society (feel free to skip this):
Every person has a unique set of experiences (incl. those others shared, not just own) which make up their personality and opinions.
In this very integrated world, media is complex and very possible to manipulate people with. For example, repeatedly exposing people to an experience (like an ad) or opinion makes them trust it more.
If many people confirm the same thing based on experience, there is a very (exponentially) low chance that it was just a coincidence. So, we value opinions far more if more persons have confirmed it.
Most people don't even have control or awareness of how certain information gets to them. On the internet, you can arrange an illusion of most people confirming a theory even if most of them didn't (typically for social media, your friends' activities cause you to be offered groups agreeing with you more often than those who don't). Hence:
Discussions that deal with politics, ideology and similar controversial topics are to be performed with extra care and with sensitivity.
The complexity of the internet leads to incredible diversity in opinions. Every party has different interests and makes people believe in different things. The people often have an illusion of overwhelming proof on their side (which could be achieved with common tricks) and are tempted to attack the opinion of the other. It's also very difficult to find and weigh proof on the internet, so controversial topics result in endless arguments. The people getting banned for this are often nice and support the community. Even if the argument is avoided, frequently forcing one's self to be silent can cause a decline of self-control and get the person banned for being unable to control their emotions. Venting anger also releases dopamine, and the person may get "addicted" to anger. So, tense situations are better avoided completely.
...a number of subjects are strictly prohibited. These include but are not limited to:
- Glorification or advocation of Nazism.
- The making of racist, sexist, homophobic or extremist statements
- Glorification or advocation of violence, drugs or pornography.
- The use of swear words and cursing in general.
- Denigration of one particular nation (nation bashing)
Those are related, as they are inappropriate, offensive towards a society or group of people, or support breaking human rights/other laws. Tense situations are better avoided, as stated earlier.
Communication through chat lacks many aspects and it's difficult to interpret something correctly. Even if you meant it the good way (named yourself after someone?), it's hard to tell how you meant it through just the text. And, being prepared for defence is good, so people tend to interpret such unclear actions the bad way and get aggressive, hence the need to stop those names.
It is strictly forbidden to publish or otherwise reveal any correspondence between game support staff and players as well as any private communication between players.
All staff and players are to respect the privacy of all Call of War users and are prohibited from disclosing any personal information ... without the prior consent of the person in question.
In live chat, we know too little about other people to judge what would offend or damage them, so it's better to avoid disclosing PM and personal information completely. This also prevents blackmailing to an extent.
Troll is the term used to describe a user who focuses on violating chat rules or accepted norms of good taste and appropriate behaviour by making inappropriate posts or creating disruption in the chat channels.
Trolling - intentionally breaking rules and/or annoying or angering other people (incl. mods) - is difficult to define as a set of exact things one shouldn't do, as trolls will always find a new way to bypass it. So, we rely on abstract thinking. Telling where one is the offender and is stepping over the line is up to the mods, and affected people usually respond negatively, so it's not hard to tell when one should stop.
At times a player may not agree with the actions taken by staff. In that eventuality, the player is to refrain from commencing an argument in a public chat channel and should instead use a private message or whisper to the relevant staff member or another staff member if required. Similarly, it is also prohibited to discuss, in public, the actions taken by a staff member against other players. This can be done in private.
Discussing staff actions in public causes disruption. Firstly, affected users tend to have a very subjective point of view and spread misinformation about the mods, or use methods like multi accounts to stalk the mod. Secondly, there are hidden aspects that most users can't really see, so they cannot judge the action objectively, it'll be distorted. Mods are fairly active and trained, so they can provide good advice or explanations in case a user feels unfairly treated by staff. Going public can cause disruption and arguments, as the points of view vary greatly.
For the purposes of the chat channels spam is defined as, but not limited to:
- Empty or no grammatical structure
- Strings of characters which do not constitute words or a sentence
- Constant repetition of word or characters
- Overuse of uppercase characters (Caps), smilies or other special commands
- Message flooding, sometimes referred to as ‘scrolling’
- Basically a post should contribute to the topic and be self-explanatory.
Grammatical structure, caps etc. can also change the way other users view the message. If this change in view is unfriendly and interrupts others or causes problems, it can also be considered spam. For example, caps are relevant to show which parts of the post are important. Overused caps don't make much sense, as you only express the importance of the whole message. A truly important message is one that the other users find important even without it being emphasized.
Caps also tend to be interpreted as shouting, which can become offensive and cause arguments.
As I like to say, "the significant gravitational curvation caused by caps causes a black hole to be formed, which then absorbs the author of the message."
As @PrinceofHonor claimed some time ago, posting third party links isn't necessarily prohibited. It's allowed, as long as it doesn't break other rules (= is relevant and not spam, the content isn't inappropriate etc.)
If you have above 10k manpower, you're not investing properly. A good player never has many resources.
Larger armies destroy enemies faster without taking damage from them.
Build only: 1 military building in each city, airstrips, and recruiting stations to boost manpower.
Minimize research, 2 unit types early, 6 types in late game. Upgrade old units, but: artillery lv1 to lv2 is a waste, only lv1 to lv4 is worth it.
Enjoy
Hornetkeeper
Larger armies destroy enemies faster without taking damage from them.
Build only: 1 military building in each city, airstrips, and recruiting stations to boost manpower.
Minimize research, 2 unit types early, 6 types in late game. Upgrade old units, but: artillery lv1 to lv2 is a waste, only lv1 to lv4 is worth it.
Enjoy
Hornetkeeper
