Echoing a post on Grimwell:

So, a friend of mine just posted this on the official SWG forums.

maxtheuser:
Title: I am so thankful.

Subject: That there has not been a negative reaction to this recent nerf. SOE obviously did a wonderful job with this publish, and should be commended. Gamespot should right an article about how well done this mini-publish was.

I logged into the forums expecting to see pages of protest threads. Instead I saw only one. Sure, the title keeps changing, as does the original poster, but there’s only one Wink This shows that the Devs did a wonderful job with this publish, and it is obviously what the playerbase wants. I mean, I don’t anyone really wants to get past cl45 anyway.

Kudos Devs! 3 cheers for the Devs!
—

He’s referring to the fact that two repeatable quests have apparently been made unrepeatable and in fact, the only reliable way to level in SWG is now to use quests from the premium content released in their last expansion.

Anyway. One minute later….

There is no dissent, there is only the Force….

I don’t know the details of the issue in the game and what was changed in the “mini-publish”, so I don’t know if it’s well founded or not. But I’ve still heard similar complaints since the release of the NGE about the difficulty to level up if you don’t own the last expansion.

This appears to me as a valid concern. I’m above the parts and when I read that message I don’t think “ban this idiot”. Instead I think: “Well, what he says makes sense. I would like to know the reasons behind the change and what the devs think about the whole issue”.

Banned for sarcasm? Come on, this is ridicule. I’m not defending in any way who posted that complaint, it could have been expressed in a much better way and have a more specific title, but it’s still within what should be tolerated on a message board. The possibility to express disagreement and ask clarifications. That looks as a valid concern, it needs to be answered, not moderated.

Moderation rules should be flexible, even if they may bring to misunderstandings. You have to let the players express their malcontent, even if it isn’t within the standards of “politeness” you would like to see. I find ridicule that “sarcasm” is passable of a ban on a message board. Sarcasm comes from “satire”. What about banning “parody” as well? These are fundamental forms of expression. They are essential.

I’ll say it again, that post looks like a valid argument of discussion. It wasn’t so constructive but it expresses a malcontent that looks founded and deserves to be taken into consideration. I consider “trolling” an act that is disruptive for the discussion, that tries to derail it just for a laugh or to delegitimize who is writing. A way to avoid the discussion, to kill it, to negate it, to flood it with noise. That post doesn’t do anything like this, it just expresses a malcontent in a not so constructive way, but still understandable and acceptable, from my point of view. Not only the poster shouldn’t have been banned, but the thread shouldn’t even get locked. It brought up a problem, not in the best way possible, but still trying to expose a valid concern that should be examined instead of suppressed.

But what I find incredible is that SOE has a policy to make sarcasm outlaw. It’s impossible to not see it as a way to suppress valid forms of expression. A way to impose authority and not let you express any sort of individuality.

Answer the polls instead.