Apparently you can't call out bad business practices on spectrum

[CRISS9000]

And if they said something along the lines of "Hey no big deal but we pruned this message because 'milking the whales' is not a nice way to phrase it" I'd understand. It'd be a bit silly, but if I squint I can sort of see the point.
That's not what it said though. Their approach was "Nice opinion but you can't talk about our bad business practices and if you don't shut up we'll temporarily suspend your account."
That just doesn't feel right. That really feels like a bad business practice.

Yeah that would be the adult and logical way, but you can imagine the backlash from that.

"CIG mods are soooo triggered!" and "CIG mods are such losers they can't handle any criticism and are trying to silence us!"

There is no wining scenario for the mods in this case where a comment does not directly go against TOS, but still needs a little prune.

This seems to me like something that has to do with a much bigger problem. This isn't about the guy who was slightly spicy or the moderator's reaction. This is something that you see all over the internet, and the more centralized websites in terms of traffic the more you will see this kind of thing happening. It's tough for me to put in words, but lemme cook:

The internet is cursed in that it extremifies (if that's even a word?) human psychology. People already treated eachother like garbage before the internet, but it gets even worse on the internet where there is only text.

The same goes for both the firehose of b####ing and for the moderators whose job it is to deal with it. Things are just at the breaking point. It's no surprise that this moderator mistook spicy criticism for random b####ing.

And you know what? It's a massive waste of your time. The b####ing is still going to continue, just as always. Moderators will occasionally break, just as always.

You getting mad over it isn't going to change anything. You are wasting your breath, your effort and your health.

Just do as Montoya does and don't pay attention to Spectrum. In fact, the more centralized the traffic is, the less it deserves your attention. Because more traffic means more b####ing and b####ing just rots your brain.

This is a massive nothingburger. Holy shit, you guys are overreacting.

Lock this thread and move on.

 

[FZD]

Yeah that would be the adult and logical way, but you can imagine the backlash from that.

"CIG mods are soooo triggered!" and "CIG mods are such losers they can't handle any criticism and are trying to silence us!"

There is no wining scenario for the mods in this case where a comment does not directly go against TOS, but still needs a little prune.

Well, the CIG standard of conduct literally and specifically states that using terms like "carebear" is not allowed, and I don't see that backslash.
And that's my point. I'd sorta understand if the mod felt 'milking the whales' was bad because it's not the level of politeness mandated by TOS. Because the TOS does in fact mandate a certain albeit somewhat vaguely defined level of politeness one must employ. Maybe it'd be bit of a stretch, but at least there'd be some sort of reasonable basis for it in there.
However, pruning the message for calling out 'bad business practice,' that's bad. That's very bad. Pruning opinions simply because they're unfavorable or bring attention to something bad you're doing and you want to keep up a positive facade is what scammers do, and I don't think this project needs anything from that playbook.

@CRISS9000 I don't think you quite understood the issue. The reason you do things matters. If you hammer a nail to a wall to hang a painting, that's normal. If you hammer a nail to the wall to crucify a fly and then hang a painting there to hide it, that's just disturbing.

 

[CRISS9000]

Well, the CIG standard of conduct literally and specifically states that using terms like "carebear" is not allowed, and I don't see that backslash.
And that's my point. I'd sorta understand if the mod felt 'milking the whales' was bad because it's not the level of politeness mandated by TOS. Because the TOS does in fact mandate a certain albeit somewhat vaguely defined level of politeness one must employ. Maybe it'd be bit of a stretch, but at least there'd be some sort of reasonable basis for it in there.
However, pruning the message for calling out 'bad business practice,' that's bad. That's very bad. Pruning opinions simply because they're unfavorable or bring attention to something bad you're doing and you want to keep up a positive facade is what scammers do, and I don't think this project needs anything from that playbook.

You're still working yourself up just to make a mountain out of a molehill.

If you hammer a nail to the wall to crucify a fly and then hang a painting there, that's just disturbing.

what an odd thing to say...

Anyway, I'm done. You can stay petty if you want, and keep digging into this one mistake that a brain-broken moderator, who probably needs time off, did this one time. But I'm done.

 

[FZD]

what an odd thing to say...

Odd how? Would you not find it disturbing?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Odd how? Would you not find it disturbing?

But which are you? The hammer, the nail, the fly or the painting?

And What does the unwilling witness to all this, the wall make of it?

Take a look at your original lines quoted by the moderator through each of those filters. What do your quoted words actually say in each of those contexts...?

I'd also appreciate clarification: which business practice were you calling out exactly? I think I to make sense of the moderation we need to make sense of what they did and what exactly you think they did...?

 

[FZD]

But which are you? The hammer, the nail, the fly or the painting?

And What does the unwilling witness to all this, the wall make of it?

Take a look at your original lines quoted by the moderator through each of those filters. What do your quoted words actually say in each of those contexts...?

I'd also appreciate clarification: which business practice were you calling out exactly?

I was contemplating on going over this, but ultimately it just distracts from the main topic here, which is the reason stated.
Besides, I think we've already gone over our respective opinions on the wave restructuring in sufficient detail here and elsewhere, and if I were to answer these that's where we'd loop back to.

I think I to make sense of the moderation we need to make sense of what they did and what exactly you think they did...?

They stated that you can't discuss 'bad business practices' on spectrum. I think that's very much the wrong approach.

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

This is starting to get a bit ridiculous.
View attachment 24855

Was the post removed because "subscription based whale milk operation" is too vulgar? No. It was apparently "a claim of bad business practice," an arbitrary offense that, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't found anywhere in the linked code of conduct.
Naturally you can't discuss this on Spectrum, you can't respond to the mod, there's no feedback/appeal process. Mods just get a free pass on such acts of petty tyranny.
I was disappointed in CIG before. Now I'm annoyed. Attempts to silence such trivial criticism are not healthy.

Would you tolerate a backhanded compliment about how you run your business? Would you tolerate it if it also insults your customers as well as one that invites even more critique from others?

 

[FZD]

Would you tolerate a backhanded compliment about how you run your business? Would you tolerate it if it also insults your customers as well as one that invites even more critique from others?

Then prune it because it's insulting, not because it's criticism. If there's suddenly a bunch of people critiquing something you've done, I think it'd be better to address the issue rather than just silencing the criticism.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

They stated that you can't discuss 'bad business practices' on spectrum. I think that's very much the wrong approach.

Puts on Spectrum hat

Apologies, I've missed something here haven't I?

I've taken another look at the screenshot of your original post and can't see where they started we can't discuss bad business practices.

If we are not, I wouldn't be able to discuss the heinous Lootbox "surprise mechanics" business practices of EA or Gatcha mechanics which turn mobile games in to multi-million golden cows, or even just basic Ponzi Schemes on Spectrum without having the thread closed down...?

Could you provide the exact wording where it says discussing bad business practice is prohibited?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Righto, having put on my glasses and read the rules of conduct i believe I've found the reference the moderator was referring to:

9. CONTRIBUTE
[...]

• (a) Posts discussing rumors or misinformation, including the posting of rumors and/or personal opinion as fact, are not allowed.
• (b) Posts designed to rile up or divide the community and spread unrest, including FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) are not allowed.

[...]

As I stated previously, speculation on CIGs intentions to funnel or channel user behaviour toward spend is speculation as we only have the official statement from CIG that Concierge was causing a user load problem which was upping costs and not getting any benefit back from that spend, and that it was the lower concierge levels causing it.

That's what we know, because that's all that has been stated by the official source.

They might be attempting a regular spender milking operation, but they also might be building a secret toilet factory in Germany as a second revenue stream. Does my toilet speculation make it true CIG is branching out into an unrelated sector using money taken to develop the game which should be spent on the game...? That diversion of funds would be bad business practice but as unfounded and in breach of the above terms of conduct as your moderated post. The only difference is mine is pulled out of my arse while yours is based on a Cause-And-Effect analysis where you have identified a potential effect and worked backwards to a cause we have no evidence for... It might... but it might not, too?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Takes off Spectrum hat

I understand you're disappointed and being asked told forced not to vent that frustration how you wish with what you feel/believe, with the threat of potential for being physically silenced for a time, would be annoying and intimidatory.

Little known fact: I was suspended on Spectrum for 24 hours at the beginning of 2020. As I didn't have a New Years Resolution I made it not to use Spectrum for that year. It's the first Resolution I've actually been able to keep. What did I loose? Nothing. What did I gain? Nothing. A cause-and-effect analysis suggests it may have been the cause of COVID-19 becoming a pandemic though, so they better not suspend me again.

So back to the point. The Waves, the interpretation, the moderation... even though it's not the the thread topic, the cause of the moderation is related and I feel an important foundation on the issue that needs attention too.

To put my cards on the table:

If my memory serves PTU access for Concierge was added as a means to an end, people had spent hundreds backing the project and when it came to seeing the fruits of their faith in the project they had to view it through someone else's eyes on a youtube video because they didn't have access to the asset they'd pledged for, but the video maker did. That, rightly, wasn't fair and something was implemented to mean for those committed backers that didn't happen.

But that original solution didn't scale and has become unsustainable... That's what they have told us, that's the only fact we have to go on, anything else is speculation.

I personally believe yes that first-hands-on access to assets has to remain - and not only for concierge but for all backers who have pledged on a specific asset coming on-line. You drop big on a Pioneer to go with your Mustang and have not pledged on anything else, you are not at a level where you'd get to view your asset the moment you'd be able to under the old waves structure but paid out just as much for that ship as anyone in concierge... How's that fair on them and why was the access limited to being a perk just for Concierge? Well, because the PTU solution couldn't scale to get everyone go into the PTU to see the new hotness first hand, there would be too many people just as it had turned out to be with the lower tiers of Concierge.

So my suggestion would be to get any new ships into AC free-fly section or the Hangar Module for everyone who has one to view at the same time as it goes into the PTU. That way we keep single-visit inspection players away from the PTU and the unsustainable patch downloading costs that causes, keep the assets in their local machines easing load on the Persistent Entity Streaming system too, and lets everyone who has one see the ship as soon as they can.

There might be a patch cost to update the AC/Hangar module in Live to include the new asset, but it's going to be lower than a PTU download which would only be used once and then deleted to get Live back.

So that's my angle.

And I need to tell you this: Although I'm not agreeing with you and finding what I deem to be answers to your questions, I get the feeling they aren't actually questions are they...? So please don't go thinking I'm arguing with you - you're pissed off and you know what? That's okay. It's okay to shout and be angry about it and your TESTies are right here for when you are feeling raw. And if an actual answer that explains and makes sense has been provided to you, that's a bitter pill while the heat of rage still burns. So I'm going to say if you see one of those here in your thread, on your patch, please don't hesitate to say "I don't care about that I'm still pissed off". This is your place, your space and in this thread as long as it doesn't go against TEST conduct codes, rule it and get what you need said said.

Sometimes the actual answer doesn't help. Sometimes you just need to rage through it. If you do, let the storm blow itself out and give it to me both barrels

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

Then prune it because it's insulting, not because it's criticism. If there's suddenly a bunch of people critiquing something you've done, I think it'd be better to address the issue rather than just silencing the criticism.

Stating a subscription model that hasn't changed in years a "whale milking operation" didn't help, considering if whales really want access to Wave 1 they'll buy their subscriptions anyways Considering $10 gets you into the second shittiest version of the patch worth spending money on then the already inordinate amounts of money they spent isn't really going to bother them.

 

[FZD]

Puts on Spectrum hat

Apologies, I've missed something here haven't I?

I've taken another look at the screenshot of your original post and can't see where they started we can't discuss bad business practices.

If we are not, I wouldn't be able to discuss the heinous Lootbox "surprise mechanics" business practices of EA or Gatcha mechanics which turn mobile games in to multi-million golden cows, or even just basic Ponzi Schemes on Spectrum without having the thread closed down...?

Well, the problem with rules you make up on the spot tends to be the inconsistent application of said rules. Especially when even the rules written down seem to be rather spottily enforced.

Could you provide the exact wording where it says discussing bad business practice is prohibited?

Sure:

Feedback must be provided 'without the claims of bad business practices.' An example of 'bad business practice' is provided as 'implications of milking backers.'
No other reason for pruning the message is stated.

Righto, having put on my glasses and read the rules of conduct i believe I've found the reference the moderator was referring to:

9. CONTRIBUTE
[...]

• (a) Posts discussing rumors or misinformation, including the posting of rumors and/or personal opinion as fact, are not allowed.
• (b) Posts designed to rile up or divide the community and spread unrest, including FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) are not allowed.

[...]

As I stated previously, speculation on CIGs intentions to funnel or channel user behaviour toward spend is speculation as we only have the official statement from CIG that Concierge was causing a user load problem which was upping costs and not getting any benefit back from that spend, and that it was the lower concierge levels causing it.

That's what we know, because that's all that has been stated by the official source.

They might be attempting a regular spender milking operation, but they also might be building a secret toilet factory in Germany as a second revenue stream. Does my toilet speculation make it true CIG is branching out into an unrelated sector using money taken to develop the game which should be spent on the game...? That diversion of funds would be bad business practice but as unfounded and in breach of the above terms of conduct as your moderated post. The only difference is mine is pulled out of my arse while yours is based on a Cause-And-Effect analysis where you have identified a potential effect and worked backwards to a cause we have no evidence for... It might... but it might not, too?

At no point did the mod claim the message was pruned for spreading misinformation or inciting unrest. I also don't think we really need to speculate as to what they meant when they said bringing up bad business practices was the issue, as the most likely explanation is that they really just meant that bringing up bad business practices was the issue.

Well, all speculation aside, can we agree that if the reason was nothing more than 'claims of bad business practices,' that would be cause for concern?

Little known fact: I was suspended on Spectrum for 24 hours at the beginning of 2020.

This isn't the first moderation action against me either, I think it's perfectly normal that over the course of a decade or so you happen to be at odds with the rules once or twice. So a few years ago a mod closed a thread of mine because it was divisive and the comments devolved into outright hostility. Not necessarily my comments mind you, but it was my thread so it got closed. Bit annoying, but fair enough. And I don't recall kicking up a fuss about it here.

And I need to tell you this: Although I'm not agreeing with you and finding what I deem to be answers to your questions, I get the feeling they aren't actually questions are they...? So please don't go thinking I'm arguing with you - you're pissed off and you know what? That's okay. It's okay to shout and be angry about it and your TESTies are right here for when you are feeling raw. And if an actual answer that explains and makes sense has been provided to you, that's a bitter pill while the heat of rage still burns. So I'm going to say if you see one of those here in your thread, on your patch, please don't hesitate to say "I don't care about that I'm still pissed off". This is your place, your space and in this thread as long as it doesn't go against TEST conduct codes, rule it and get what you need said said.

And I always appreciate the measured manner in which I can converse and exchange ideas with you even when we disagree on a topic.

Maybe it'd be helpful if I clarified what exactly I am and am not upset about. At first I might've disliked it a bit that my message got pruned, but in retrospect I'm actually perhaps even a bit happy about it. It wasn't a very good message, in fact it was objectively the worst message I posted under that topic, so in deleting it moderation really did do me a favor as it then elevated the average quality of my remaining messages.

What I am upset about, however, is the reason it was deleted and the way moderation works on spectrum in general. Now I'm not sure if I can adequately explain what is so frustrating about this, but... Like you know all those people who go around saying Star Citizen is a scam? That lot really does grind my gears. Now imagine there's a moderator who goes around deleting messages and gives reasons along the lines of, or that can be easily understood as, "criticism of the project is not allowed." Well, to me that would seem like something that would contribute to the number of people getting the impression that Star Citizen is a scam. I do not like that idea one bit. Also I've personally always believed that silencing dissenting opinions was bad.

And then there is the rather frustrating part of how you can't give feedback of moderation actions at all. I get that you wouldn't allow people to publicly complain about moderator actions on an open forum. But you also can't point out any areas of improvement privately either. So now as far as I know there's a moderator going around giving horrible reasons for pruning messages and I can't do anything about that. Very annoying.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Many thanks for your kind, measured reply, 'tis in the spirit of the Glory of Test!

Apologies I will be responding a little out of sequence but the responses do tend to flow together a bit better out of order:

[...] I also don't think we really need to speculate as to what they meant when they said bringing up bad business practices was the issue, as the most likely explanation is that they really just meant that bringing up bad business practices was the issue.

I think I've identified something here which I can walk with so apologies I'm not addressing the exact topic right now, however:

I must take my own umbrage with your request we not analyse the instance of moderation, I believe this is the second time you have requested I do this in this thread (the first time I complied)...

You feel you are permitted to speculate about the true intentions for the PTU wave structure change based on official statements and the words of one dev leading to what you feel is a conclusion that neither have said, but we can't speculate on the intentions of your posts moderation based on a screenshot of said moderation and your own words leading to what we feel is a logical conclusion neither of you have said...?

Can you see a correlation? I can. You made speculation which was deemed necessary of a request to cease. I'm making speculation you have deemed necessary of a request to cease.

I believe what I have been doing is, inadvertently, exactly what you were moderated for on Spectrum.

If you live by certain standards you must expect them to be applied back to you - this is when you need to make sure your speculation is as based on evidence as compelling as the following evidence based speculation:

Well, the problem with rules you make up on the spot tends to be the inconsistent application of said rules. Especially when even the rules written down seem to be rather spottily enforced.

Alas that is also covered in the code of conduct:

11. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THESE RULES ARE GUIDELINES FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR AND NOT AN IMMUTABLE CODEX DEFINING WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO
Resorting to literalism or rules lawyering is a weak and transparent defense and will be regarded as such. If your idea of a good time is to find ways to troll Spectrum without technically breaking one of these rules, know that you may still be sanctioned.

(a) “But I’m not technically poking you!” is not cause for the nuanced legal debate you’re imagining.
(b) “But this other person did this and got away with it!” is not an excuse or justification for poor behavior. Due to our privacy policy, we will not discuss any information or actions, taken or otherwise, involving other Citizens.
(c) "But there isn't a specific rule saying I can't do this!" is not an exemption from complying with a request from moderators or staff.

It's very hard to interpret the above speculation as far from the fact of the matter in regard to there being no specific rule about it, as the factual evidence for the speculation it is based on to interpret the instance of moderation is compelling especially in line with the below:

Feedback must be provided 'without the claims of bad business practices.' An example of 'bad business practice' is provided as 'implications of milking backers.'
No other reason for pruning the message is stated.

Alas although not specifically spelled out in the moderators message and although it was almost certainly not intended to be, your post does qualify under the following as previously stated points:

• (a) Posts discussing rumors or misinformation, including the posting of rumors and/or personal opinion as fact, are not allowed.
• (b) Posts designed to rile up or divide the community and spread unrest, including FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) are not allowed.

Your post was reads as personal opinion presented as fact which could cause others to experience uncertainty. There is CIGs official statements on the matter which is an unsustainable problem was being caused, and one dev statement that they expect waves to pass within a few days. I'm not saying your post was not based off of those facts, but I am saying that it includes speculation and conjecture in it which were not in the official statements which then encroaches on these above points A and B.

I believe this is alluded to when they use the word "claims". They have not even said "speculation" or "theories", a claim is a factual statement... Loads of people on Spectrum have raised their concerns of a cash-grab but there are still plenty of threads with the concept, so I don't think the suggestion of what people are concerned about is what's banned, it's the outright claiming of it which I don't really think was intended in your post...?

I don't use the PTU at all, I have no experience with the prior waves or the current ones but from your post I could derive a degree of uncertainty, doubt and fear - if your post was then screenshot and shared outside of the common-experienced space of Specturm/Test, where people who have no experience of SC, that speculation can carry some real clout and affect their decisions to give the game a try.

Just because they didn't spell it out in their message to you doesn't mean you didn't encroach or breach the quoted points and that these were not contributors or drivers to their decision to act and this is where my speculation becomes compelling and unhelpful to the message you are trying to convey, just as yours may have been to the message CIG was trying to send to readers.

This is the problem with speculation, again, who knows it might be exactly as you suspected... but it also might not be. Your instance of moderation may be exactly as I suspect... but it also might not be.

I shall end this part of my response and reply to the last part of your response separately as it is excellent and not related to this part of the discussion at all

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Well, all speculation aside, can we agree that if the reason was nothing more than 'claims of bad business practices,' that would be cause for concern?

I think from my above post you know I'm going to say I don't think it was exactly about that but more about how compelling the speculation was in the first place ;-)

if the reason was purely the phrase "Bad Business Practice" would it be cause for concern? It depends on what the modus is for the action: if it breeches the stated rules in the code of conduct it's to cut out FUD and removes something spreading misinformation that's cool. If it's to silence genuine provable criticism of the company that's censorship and not cool.

So, I suppose it all comes down to this one question: Can you prove it is an intentional bad-practice whale milking operation?

If you can, you've been censored... not cool. If you can't, it's cracking down on unfounded FUD... cool.

Apologies this turned into a post on its own, on to the last part of the message.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

This isn't the first moderation action against me either, I think it's perfectly normal that over the course of a decade or so you happen to be at odds with the rules once or twice. So a few years ago a mod closed a thread of mine because it was divisive and the comments devolved into outright hostility. Not necessarily my comments mind you, but it was my thread so it got closed. Bit annoying, but fair enough. And I don't recall kicking up a fuss about it here.

And I always appreciate the measured manner in which I can converse and exchange ideas with you even when we disagree on a topic.

Maybe it'd be helpful if I clarified what exactly I am and am not upset about. At first I might've disliked it a bit that my message got pruned, but in retrospect I'm actually perhaps even a bit happy about it. It wasn't a very good message, in fact it was objectively the worst message I posted under that topic, so in deleting it moderation really did do me a favor as it then elevated the average quality of my remaining messages.

What I am upset about, however, is the reason it was deleted and the way moderation works on spectrum in general. Now I'm not sure if I can adequately explain what is so frustrating about this, but... Like you know all those people who go around saying Star Citizen is a scam? That lot really does grind my gears. Now imagine there's a moderator who goes around deleting messages and gives reasons along the lines of, or that can be easily understood as, "criticism of the project is not allowed." Well, to me that would seem like something that would contribute to the number of people getting the impression that Star Citizen is a scam. I do not like that idea one bit. Also I've personally always believed that silencing dissenting opinions was bad.

And then there is the rather frustrating part of how you can't give feedback of moderation actions at all. I get that you wouldn't allow people to publicly complain about moderator actions on an open forum. But you also can't point out any areas of improvement privately either. So now as far as I know there's a moderator going around giving horrible reasons for pruning messages and I can't do anything about that. Very annoying.

Kind thanks for clarifying what's got your goat about all this, think I get where you are coming from on the aspects of Censorship, it's totally understandable it could come across as censorship but in a more holistic viewing that feedback provided by others in a different wording remains on Spectrum... why does theirs remain while yours went? The wording? But it's the same thing said in a different way? Or is it more the tone? I note they invite you to still give that feedback, just not in that manner...? So I understand where you are coming from it's confusing others haven't while you have?

I think my question on censorship in the post above may be the crux of the matter... as you do point to removal of comments can be censorship and if it is that, that's concerning: something you have said, in the heat of frustration, has been removed and if done for the wrong reasons there would be a sinister undertone to the action...

But as far as critical feedback goes, you are right that post was not terribly useful or illuminating, didn't progress the conversation in any meaningful way and indeed was not a credit to your post history, and I note in the original moderation message they do state they appreciate your feedback and critique (I don't think anyone can deny there are multiple points that could have in hindsight been enacted which would have made the community happier with the eventual outcome) but thought it could be expressed "in a healthier way", so even if an expression of censorship you were not being told not to say it, just not to say it that way... you could go back and reword it in a calmer manner and one would hope it wouldn't then be moderated.

I've outlined my angle especially on the points covered by the code of conduct. Personally, from my outside of incident view, it doesn't seem so much like a "don't criticise my baby" and more as a "woah bro you okay?" kind of intervention.

And one last speculation: Could that kind of caring moderation be a super sophisticated way of censorship where you give the impression of care with one hand while achieving the clamp down with the other to avoid criticism in the eyes of the wider public? It may be... but it also may not be... Not helpful! :-D

 

[FZD]

You feel you are permitted to speculate about the true intentions for the PTU wave structure change based on official statements and the words of one dev leading to what you feel is a conclusion that neither have said, but we can't speculate on the intentions of your posts moderation based on a screenshot of said moderation and your own words leading to what we feel is a logical conclusion neither of you have said...?

I think there's an order of magnitude of difference between stating what a thing looks like on the surface, and speculating on some deeper meaning behind a few words.
I also think I've been remarkably consistent in wanting to stay on the surface level with no speculation on this topic:
On the surface, asking for $10 to let wealthier backers back in the front of the que, seems like you want $10 from the wealthier backers.
On the surface, a moderator stating you can't make claims about bad business practices, seems like you're not allowed to discuss bad business practices.

And to clarify, I didn't say you are not permitted to speculate, I said we don't need to, as there already exists a very simple and straightforward explanation. Occam's razor and all that.

Just because they didn't spell it out in their message to you doesn't mean you didn't encroach or breach the quoted points

Inversely, just because you can make a compelling case about which parts of the TOS a moderator could've based the action on, does not mean that that is what the moderator meant.

I do get your point though. That is indeed how one could interpret the usage of the word 'claim,' and those inferences aren't entirely unreasonable. They nevertheless are speculative. It would've taken no effort at all from the mod to state that these were "false claims" or that this moderation action was based on 'spreading misinformation.' Even better, if they had a numbered rule to rely on (other than 11 which is a catch-all and as such pointless to state) they could've very easily mentioned something along the lines of 'see rule 1.'

Not to mention the 'claim' about the whale milk operation did include the word 'seems,' so if this was about misinformation, then they'd be saying there's no way this could look like a whale milk operation, which seems a bit far fetched. If it was about the dishonesty bit, then an argument could be made that it wasn't clearly enough an opinion, though what exactly counts as dishonesty is entirely opinion based to begin with so that wouldn't be a very compelling argument either.

So to me, the simplest explanation remains that the mod just didn't want that topic to come up.

if the reason was purely the phrase "Bad Business Practice" would it be cause for concern? It depends on what the modus is for the action: if it breeches the stated rules in the code of conduct it's to cut out FUD and removes something spreading misinformation that's cool. If it's to silence genuine provable criticism of the company that's censorship and not cool.

Well, I'm sure you'd further agree, that if the point is to stop someone from spreading misinformation, it'd be better to just say that? Other than that, well said.

Can you prove it is an intentional bad-practice whale milking operation?

I only need to prove that it "seems to be a subscription based whale milk operation," as that is what I claimed.
So let's review: We have a number of very wealthy backers, who CIG knows and has recognized as wealthy, even going so far as to hand out top hats and monocles.
These backers have been accustomed to getting in in wave 1.
CIG then shuffles the bulk of these backers to wave 4, but gives them the option to pay a $10 subscription to get back to wave 1.
I think that explains how it seems like a subscription based whale milk operation, and as such proves my claim.

why does theirs remain while yours went?

Well, even the rules page recognizes that CIG isn't very consistent on moderation actions (rule 11 b). I probably just got unlucky, but I certainly don't want to test it as I'd rather my account wasn't suspended, however temporary that might be. Could also be, and this is with like 3 layers of tinfoil, that they only take 75% of these kind of posts down, so it seems like they'd allow discussing the topic but that the negative opinion just wouldn't be that popular and these topics would get hidden under everything else.

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

These backers have been accustomed to getting in in wave 1.
CIG then shuffles the bulk of these backers to wave 4, but gives them the option to pay a $10 subscription to get back to wave 1.
I think that explains how it seems like a subscription based whale milk operation, and as such proves my claim.

There is an individual problem for the Connie members and not CIG's as they have every choice to pivot what their business needs in order to proceed based on need. So as you mention the subscription being a milking operation it's still an individual choice, not to mention they really only need to do so at the release of the PTU 4 times a year.

Conversely I know that eating a bag of candy which I buy in order to eat as I see fit I should also know that doing so will eventually cause health issues. How I approach that fact is always my choice as well as.everyone else out there. I got to Connie status primarily thru subscribing and I stopped when I felt it was no longer a value, that was 3 years ago.[/QUOTE]

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I think there's an order of magnitude of difference between stating what a thing looks like on the surface, and speculating on some deeper meaning behind a few words.
I also think I've been remarkably consistent in wanting to stay on the surface level with no speculation on this topic:
On the surface, asking for $10 to let wealthier backers back in the front of the que, seems like you want $10 from the wealthier backers.
On the surface, a moderator stating you can't make claims about bad business practices, seems like you're not allowed to discuss bad business practices.

And to clarify, I didn't say you are not permitted to speculate, I said we don't need to, as there already exists a very simple and straightforward explanation. Occam's razor and all that.



Inversely, just because you can make a compelling case about which parts of the TOS a moderator could've based the action on, does not mean that that is what the moderator meant.

I do get your point though. That is indeed how one could interpret the usage of the word 'claim,' and those inferences aren't entirely unreasonable. They nevertheless are speculative. It would've taken no effort at all from the mod to state that these were "false claims" or that this moderation action was based on 'spreading misinformation.' Even better, if they had a numbered rule to rely on (other than 11 which is a catch-all and as such pointless to state) they could've very easily mentioned something along the lines of 'see rule 1.'

Not to mention the 'claim' about the whale milk operation did include the word 'seems,' so if this was about misinformation, then they'd be saying there's no way this could look like a whale milk operation, which seems a bit far fetched. If it was about the dishonesty bit, then an argument could be made that it wasn't clearly enough an opinion, though what exactly counts as dishonesty is entirely opinion based to begin with so that wouldn't be a very compelling argument either.

So to me, the simplest explanation remains that the mod just didn't want that topic to come up.



Well, I'm sure you'd further agree, that if the point is to stop someone from spreading misinformation, it'd be better to just say that? Other than that, well said.



I only need to prove that it "seems to be a subscription based whale milk operation," as that is what I claimed.
So let's review: We have a number of very wealthy backers, who CIG knows and has recognized as wealthy, even going so far as to hand out top hats and monocles.
These backers have been accustomed to getting in in wave 1.
CIG then shuffles the bulk of these backers to wave 4, but gives them the option to pay a $10 subscription to get back to wave 1.
I think that explains how it seems like a subscription based whale milk operation, and as such proves my claim.



Well, even the rules page recognizes that CIG isn't very consistent on moderation actions (rule 11 b). I probably just got unlucky, but I certainly don't want to test it as I'd rather my account wasn't suspended, however temporary that might be. Could also be, and this is with like 3 layers of tinfoil, that they only take 75% of these kind of posts down, so it seems like they'd allow discussing the topic but that the negative opinion just wouldn't be that popular and these topics would get hidden under everything else.

Ah? Righto, fair enough.

Have a happy day.