Levia Files 2: GM Harassment and Censorship

[Man]

I am sorry. But why are you so focused on 1 guild? They are legit living rent free in your head, ruining your mood all the time. Maybe focus on your own game and enjoyment and if you dont want to deal business with them, just ignore them. I dont even play on PvE server and reading through some of those topics, i wonder if the average age on that server is like 10...

I can't stand injustice.

[Man]

I'll agree the rules are up to interpretation and so it's a bit annoying that different GMs interpret them differently. But they are not harassing you, they're just trying to enforce the rules and have likely gotten a lot of reports about your messages, and they're just acting on those.

I think your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up when you take a step back.
Putting negativity towards a specific group in a message you constantly spam is definitely harassment.

My question is, why? Since we have to read your message all day why not make it a nice and positive one?

#HailOcto is positive. #FuckBlizzard is negative. Hate and love fuels us all both. Its what makes us human.

[Mauden]

Constantly break chat rules, constantly have GMs come after you. Seems like there's a simple fix, no?

You'd have to include a VERY big chunk of the player base, most have said far worse stuff than just #LuckFevia. Maybe there is a reason to why you guys are getting so much hate, but you just can't help but deny it all the time.

I am not involved or associated with Levia in any way, as you can easily check in game (same name). I'm just sick of the constant levia spam, of which you heavily contributed to with your macros.

I would be fully in favor of that "huge chunk" also being reminded of the rules they agreed to, as world chat over the last week has been nothing but levia spam and bigots using the spam as a thin veil to spread their garbage.

[Clown]

"the guild continuously controls the AH market"
What market are we controlling? We held some rare recipes exclusively to the guild at first, but there is nothing being restricted now. We had one member that *tried* to control the Black Lotus market, but that failed spectacularly. So which market are we controlling exactly?

[Tassetasse]

I've had to endure many harassment policy discussions over the years.

Having rules open to interpretation is not a bad thing. Any man-made rule will be inherently imperfect. Additionally, you don't want to be lawyered out of actioning behaviour that is genuinely disruptive. You ultimately choose when to apply the rule, you can trust yourself to enforce the rule "reasonably", as in, in the spirit you intended.

Unfortunately, a single person can't do all the work and nobody can be reasonable at all times, but most people can be reasonable at fair amount of the time.

To control for that, you sometimes make decisions as a team. When the currently unreasonable person argues their case to the team, they are in a stronger position than the people in opposition (i.e. "no action"), because the person who wants to action a behaviour can appeal to the (intentionally vague) letter of the rule.

In other words, the person who wants to action a behaviour argues: "OP said something in chat" -> "What OP said fits the letter of the rule" -> "Therefore we have to enforce against OP".

Other popular supporting arguments:
- "there's an unusual number of contacts about this, therefore we should action it" (squeaky wheel gets the grease)
- "some members of this client group want us to take action, we shouldn't risk losing the group" (is the group they claim to represent actually a monolith? unlikely.)
- "this player is a good customer, we have to action or we'll lose their spend" ("selling out")

Other team members may think that OP's message should not be actioned in principle, but they have to prove negatives to make their point. It can be done, but it requires work and may weaken their standing if they fail. Unless there are genuine stakes for people who disagree, it may just not happen when it should.

There is of course the opposite extreme where everything is "no action", which is also unhealthy, but given experience reports like OPs, anecdotes about GM interactions from guild members, plus the recent abdication of Pig, I think Octo is currently overenforcing with too much leeway, rather than underenforcing.

This dynamic can very quickly spiral and lead to unforeseen, unintended and rather destructive culture outcomes. While I have no doubt that Devs try to make the best decisions they can, I hope they don't to hesitate to reform how moderation is done. I have noticed a positive development in some areas, so I hope this is a trend that continues. It can take some very specific personality types to get it right, and many, many people seeking moderator positions are more activist than judge, in that regard.

[Darhk]

I don't even know what recipes you are talking about. And as I said, world bosses can be up for half a day or more before we go kill them. How is that controlling market and mafia the world bosses. But I can see there is no point talking with you.

[Dzielkus]

Poor levia, leave them guys.
Just let them ninja loot and harass low lvls or just being rude.
Cause it's not against rules.

Ps: dear harassed guild - you are the bully here.

[Man]

I don't even know what recipes you are talking about. And as I said, world bosses can be up for half a day or more before we go kill them. How is that controlling market and mafia the world bosses. But I can see there is no point talking with you.

Your Guild Master knows.

[Beepboop1337]

Levia is Israel and the GMs are the World Leaders.

[Pancakes]

I get why #FUCKLEVIA would be moderated, because it’s overly crass. But disclosing a price for a particular group of players for a service should be acceptable. In economics this is called price discrimination (it’s the technical term, look it up), and completely legal.

I’ve seen plenty of Gnome hate in world chat, and I wonder if anyone would get in trouble for declaring “Gnomes must pay 3x the usual fee.”