,,This is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause’’
I do not tend to post often, but I do like to actively read and enjoy discussions here at the forums. I do feel a strong urge to reply here.
First of all, I would like to make clear that it is in no way up to us whether we agree on these terms or the system over all. Obviously, this forum is hosted by paradox and they can pretty much do what they like. Still, Paradox has a tradition of ,being open for debate, - as they point out themselves - so I feel like we can still make a contribution without losing our heads - virtually.
First of all, I would like to take a closer look to the ,crime’ of toxity. It is defined as follows:
"In general any post that is overly negative, doesn't contribute to the forum or simply contains foul language and insults is toxic".
There are, in other words, three criteria for a post to be considerd toxic. The word 'or' makes it clear that one of the criteria is already enough to deem a post toxic, the criteria are in no way consecutive. I think we can conclude that this indeed is a very broad concept.
"Overly negative": here we already face a small problem; what is overly and who decides what overly is? Does that mean that more than half of the elements a post contains is negative, or does it mean that one element is enough as long as it 'dominates' the post? Negativity is defined as "the expression of criticism of or pessimism about something." If we combine those two, it appears that post can not express criticism or pessimism is such way that it is dominiting within the post?
"Doesn't contribute to the forum": in first instance, I had to think of spam or irrelevant remarks. Then again, what does a contribution to a forum contain? Are there specific goals that this forum wants to achieve (for example, customer feedback, sharing of experiences or ideas)? If so, does one need to contribute to one of these goals to make a contribution to the forum? Then I hope that sharing Stellaris Memes is one of the main goals of the forum, otherwise it would be possible that they do not actually contribute - which would be a shame. One could argue that complaining or criticism is actually a contribution to the forum. So solely contributing is not enough, one has to contribute in a non-overly negative manner.
"Foul language and insults": a lot of foul language is used online, but not always in a negative context. "A big ass fleet", for once, could be considered foul. Insults, on the other hand, are a clear concept but one could ask if the 'receiver' of the insults has any importance - it is about insults towards devs or anyone in that case? I have the impression that it's meant to be against devs, as the reasoning behinf it is as follows: "But we cannot and will not tolerate hate speech, personal attacks, or generalization/untruths about our Devs."
A second definition is also given:
"If your post doesn't contribute and instead serves as a way to stir up more negativity and rage from other users, it's toxic."
Here, the criterium of 'not contributing' is expanded upon. Here I have the impression that the criterium itself is redefined, and consists of two other consecutive criteria: not contributing and stirring up ánd negativity ánd rage. So, only stirring up negativity could be allowed - as long as it is not 'overly negative', since that criterium remains unchanged. It is not clear whether the criterium of 'not contributing' is actually replaced by this. Because even without stirring up negativity and rage, it is still considered toxic.
I therefore conclude - as long as things are not made clear - that one can still post non-overly negative posts, as long as it contributes something to the forum and does not include and foul language and insults.
For example: "I really love paradox and stellaris, but dev X's mother was an hamster and his father smelled like elderberries". Would this be considered toxic?
Well, the post is not overly negative - in fact, a lot of love has been expressed. Does this contribute to the forum? Well, if an opinion is a contribution - then it does. If Paradox wants to get community feedback (as the claim), then this is a valid statement. The post does include an insult, but no real foul language. So, the post would not be deemed toxic - even though I would probably be not very happy about it.
I think you should clear this up, the way you define the concept is not clear enough. Statements like 'don't talk the way you wouldn't want other people to talk to you' make little sense, we're all individuals with a different taste, a different thing to speak the mind and a different 'tolerance level'. I notice that only a limited amount of people can deem posts 'toxic', but avoid the 'randomness' in the labeling and punishment I would strongely recommend to make it more clear that people can still speak their mind, and that concept of toxity is more applicable to how you say it instead of what you say. That is namely my biggest concern: not be able to post critical posts which raise valid points in a respectful way.
