EVE General Discussion

Not that I disagree, but I think a major factor in the past was CAOD existed and 90% of the rubbish was sucked into there. Now its all over General.

You simply can't put a group of people up to control something without them ALL following the exact, clear cut and unsmokescreened rules.
As long as there are rules which have interpretation variations you will never ever be able to blod out the notion of favouritism in regards to moderation since you didn't take out the human factor.

People from certain groups have a dislike of people from another group and this will always result in more exact or strict ruling than for those they do like or don't care about at all.

Since there are no affiliations known of the CCL people the people start to roar because of seemingly prejudice towards a ruling.
Is that wonderous? No it isn't.

Your only way to get a clear cut answer is either a fully accountable organisation, which CCP refuses to be.

or

Very clear cut and all covering rules which get used for everyone exactly the same, which CCP refuses to do.

Go back to Failheap jade. =)

I tolerated you very very well for the first, say, 10 pages, but after that your intolerable lies caused personal attacks, not just from me but from countless angles (though I was actually not personally moderated).

You may think it "clever" to repeatedly lie over and over again to try to make the other side fall foul of self induced moderation, but at some point people are going to call you on your bullshit. For instance:



a) They are not objectively terrible since there was a debate over them which reached no conclusion.

b) You repeatedly asked me to counter your proposal only because doing so made it look like I had not. I had, repeatedly. Other posters had also, repeatedly. You simply ignored this and kept asking people to prove you wrong because you felt making the other people look bad in the discussion was going to further your agenda. The changes you referred to had been mentioned by me in that thread TEN TIMES in that thread alone and you willfully ignored them, even quoting parts of the same posts out of context to further your agenda.
It's a little woeful that the substance of your debate seems to be to try to trip people over forum rules, but I guess that's your lot to live with.

You need to step away from YOUR ego and read your posts. Because a lot of your early posts WERE moderated for being little else than personal attacks on CCP. It's nice that you can sit here and claim level headed posting when there's pages of evidence on eve-search and EN24 of you getting very very angry indeed.

This is now ANOTHER thread where you've appeared and posted within 2 posts of mine and/or mention of your name, so I am a little flattered you've included me in your internet stalking behaviour.

You received this response form everyone because despite about 100 posts explaining the complete lack of logic behind it, and your statements which held no evidence behind them at all, you still kept saying the same thing.
No, I don't think you're an escaped mental patient but you need to realise when you doggedly push a completely illogical argument because it suits your agenda that is *exactly* what it looks like.

If the ISD team were competent they would have deleted all your posts where your statements of fantasy as fact that were demonstrably untrue were made. Interestingly this is against the rules now, so I can't wait till yout next "CCP are doing what GSF are telling them to do" post.

Oh, and before you claim you never said that, just know I'll link every single post you made on it in a reply.

Well I did suggest on the CCL introduction thread it might be a good idea for CCP to provide some data on which organizations the CCL volunteers came from (and in what ratios) as a way to deal with people's innate suspicion of bias. If those numbers showed some CFC affilitiation, some anti CFC affiliation, some general Eve affiliation - then at least everyone would know there were biased mods of all shades represented in the body. But, I did kinda take the point that CCP was making on the thread that these guys (CCL volunteers) were supposed to be above their in-game affiliations and referring to them at all might create rather than erase suspicions. Its a bit of a tricky problem.

Issue here really is that CCP have allowed the forum culture of Eve Online to get pretty disgusting, poisonous, and negative over the years. Bullying, personal attacks, RL slander became the norm. There is a reason why most Eve players are terrified about posting on the forums.

To turn this around somehow CCP needed to take a stand and start actually enforcing player rules of conduct. But whether inviting volunteer moderators to be at the sharp end of this enforcment is the sensible or courageous play - well, the jury is out on that decision.

I took the liberty of highlighting and underlining the part of your spluge of rubbish which i found most interesting.
Now, since its page 8 and no one has said it, Can i haz your stuff?

So, when I said "you may not know this" I was dead on then, since there hasn't actually been a new meme created on SA in awhile.

I think this ISD thing could be really really good thing. Asking people to behave with respect to one another can be challenging. CCP try not to be discouraged by these winers, and see it thru. There are always growing pains, and this bunch are going to challenge this to no end. Don't give up.

Given the essence of complaints about the CCL program are "because we are unable to talk rubbish about our in-game opponents" that seems rather unlikely.

I remember making a couple very long posts to the SL forums about their volunteer mod system (of which I was one), about four years ago now. They're actually still archived, just looked them up.

My argument was (since you moderated under your normal avatar name) that you should be banned from accessing the world during your tenure. This was a bit more important with SL (where competition there could cost you real money), but I still stand by that if you're going to allow original avatar names to moderate. In the case of what ISD is doing here (separate character /w activity monitoring), I think its a good compromise by CCP. I still wouldn't join since I'd then be arguing to use my RL name. Sorry, it's just who I am.


As for these - 'accountability' will have to happen for an IPO (fair warning to CCP, I'd strongly suggest a re-think about that). I believe clearer rules are far closer than you'd think; But I'm waiting to see the next round of devblogs before expanding on that.