The post provoked a bunch of other posts down-talking the guild, and the whole thing turned into a mess.. If Stubs wanted to express his bad experience with the guild, then he went about it the wrong way. His post contained @comments about the GM, and following posts also had flames/insults toward members of the guild.
Guild matters are up for discussion on the forum, but there are limits. Comments like 'Nobody should join this guild' are going to be deleted. If the post had been written another way, perhaps things wouldn't have resulted in deletion of the whole topic.
So how about instead of deleting the entire message to the public, why not just take out the "@ parts" or the parts where he calls names but doesn't back it up?
Stubs was obviously upset and perhaps over exaggerated with the comments like "No one should join this guild" but at the same time completely deleting his side of the story and the legitimate facts is wrong.
There is a difference between defaming someone without legitimate reason. An example of this would be "Do not transfer to this guild, they are are terrible people because I said so".
The inverse of this is defaming someone with the inclusion of
just-cause such as: "Do not transfer to this guild, they are terrible people because they have backdoor rules, do not hold their word (or the interpreted word), have low integrity. This is why: [Enter Stubs story here]"
Just because people say negative things
does not mean they are "Flaming" or Nonconstructive. Why should any group be able to have censorship of the negative connotations that become associated with their group because of
WRONG actions. It is VERY important to the health of the low level PvPing community to have transparency of actions that have been preformed by individuals or conglomerates.
It is even more so important that it be publicized to make sure the group is
held accountable for their actions. Nothing prevents them from telling their side of the story or even explaining how they rectified the situation, which in my mind is almost better than pretending that nothing ever happened. This would allow mature individuals to
not only see but BELIEVE the integrity of the group they may or may not be interested in joining.
This is not something that can be taken up by PMs, it is something that the community should be able to see, educate themselves on, and make their own personal decision upon. It is something that each person should have a right to choose whether to take interest in or ignore, not up to the what the White Knight Forum Zealots perceive as useless belittling or the overused misunderstood term "Trolling".
Now I have given you a test, let's see if you pass.
- Derv