You are here

Feed aggregator

No xp for epic Gianthold wilderness area

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 17:34
You went in the wilderness area by the teleport guy, you...

Screenshot of New Amenities!

Dev Posts - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 16:19
---Quote (Originally by BOgre)--- Never mind that one, it's R2:C4 that's the real kicker. ---End Quote--- Now you're speaking my language.

Quarterstaff Bug? (Attack rate slows down while moving)

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 16:17
Thanks for the response and explanation. Appreciated!

The Skill Tome per character thing

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 15:20
Great! Thanks :-)

How it is/was : Loot and rewards.

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 15:08
Kinda same topic - different approach. Topic name is bad...

Erdrique's Blog-The Thrill of the Hunt

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 14:38
I finally got into the Thrill of the Hunt for the firs...

looking for light hammer of everbright.

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 14:38
Screaming would make a nice prefix for that crafted blunt...

Proposed Community Guidelines Change: Goodbye Threads

Recent Discussions - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 14:36
---Quote (Originally by Luxgolg)--- You could possibly...

Proposed Community Guidelines Change: Goodbye Threads

Dev Posts - Wed, 05/07/2014 - 14:23
As some of you may know, back in February we updated the Community Guidelines ( to be more clear, and to be more explicit about a handful of longstanding practices to make sure that they were described in detail. After considering your feedback, there were a handful of rules that we ended up - not - including in the final Community Guidelines. From the post last February: ---Quote--- 11. Polls and Petitions. While we consider this spam, we felt we should explain why. First, several pages of /signed and /unsigned doesn’t really offer us much in the way of actionable feedback. Second, they usually turn into something unpleasant. Instead we recommend a well-considered suggestion posted in the appropriate area that would allow for meaningful contributions and opinions to be shared by all members of the community. 23. Goodbye and farewell. We appreciate that players have made meaningful personal connections while playing our games and we also appreciate that sometimes it’s time to say goodbye and move along to something else. We feel that heartfelt goodbyes are best done in private with personal messages to those who you will miss and who will miss you, not as missives to everyone who happens to read your post. Posts of that nature typically do not end well and as a result we will close or remove goodbye/farewell threads. 24. Inactivity. The DDO forums and web sites are aimed at providing a valuable service to players of Dungeons & Dragons Online, and as such are meant to be used by active players of the game. Moderators may remove forum access to inactive players at their discretion, if it is deemed necessary to promote the overall goals of the web site. (One example would be if a player is no longer playing the game and using their community account to violate the community guidelines.) If it becomes necessary in the future to add these topics to the Community Guidelines, we'll do it then. *Otherwise, the things these rules were meant to address can be dealt with using a different or already-existing rule. I fully expect that this stuff will be a non-issue. Thanks!* ---End Quote--- In recent days, several community members have raised the idea that we should explicitly spell out our longstanding practice of closing Goodbye threads. Let's talk about it! Keep the following things in mind: 1. The question is not whether we will continue to close goodbye threads. This is not up for debate. We have never allowed these threads to remain open, and will continue to close goodbye threads with a message wishing the person saying goodbye the best of luck in the future, and with a hope that they return to the game soon. 2. The rule's inclusion is not meant to "let us ban people" who say goodbye. Any infractions from goodbye posts would be made in context, based on the intention of the thread itself. For example, saying "I quit because Dev X suxxors" would be eligible for infraction, not because it's a goodbye thread, but because it's insulting. We very rarely take disciplinary action against people posting goodbye, although if the community wished us to be more harsh in this regard, please let us know. 3. The main reason for the rule's inclusion, and the reason it was initially presented as a possible revision to the Community Guidelines, was to be more explicit about why we close goodbye threads, so people (who read the rules, and everyone reads them, right? :) ) can understand why we take the action we do. I initially was hesitant to remove the Goodbye rule, but was swayed to do so based on the large amount of community feedback on the subject. Since it appears that some members of the community disagree with the initial decision on the matter, I'd like to take a day or two to re-consider it. Please remember that this thread does not give folks carte blanche to discuss moderator activity or specific actions taken against people in the past in a general way. Stay on target! Thanks.


This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.