Intergalactic Summit

I have no idea what this has turned into.

So, the aim is to discourage others from connecting to it? The ideal outcome would be that everybody stops connecting to the Summit and goes elsewhere?



Channel or thread?

'Intergalactic Summit' is an alternative channel that is I believe officially neutral?

It does not seem very popular, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the few people who spend time there?

I'm sure when it comes to the services of chatting and (truly) sharing the opinions of all New Eden, another channel will surface in time that can actually do what it says it does. Without bias, preferred.




I find it cute that you consider the sum of your being to a social rank that is written off the opinion of a channel that is anything but neutral.

You're something else.

I think she's going for some sort of Martyr status and hoping to be ejected from the Summit.

Afterwords a popular revolt in the channel!

"BRING BACK ISIS!" they will demand. BRING BACK OUR CHAMPION.

Their voice will shake the heavens.

The fact you imply I would be ejecting for carrying the opinions I have implies you're anything but neutral.

I question your right to be a moderator or to even moderate, since I am a voice of New Eden and my issues surface from the foundations of each of the empires (where especially it comes to the example of Sansha). At times, especially if true to the character in the mirror, there will be people who will hate you for being you…

And you ban them rather than welcome their opinion.

That's an act only fitting for scum.



You really shouldn't be a moderator.

Welcome to the IGS, it is interesting to read however.

Please forgve me, but this all seems to be a little bit... show-y? Perhaps it is too Caldari of me, but this seems the sort of question best answered by the free market. Let us buy the product we like most, and place the onus on the manufacturer to do the selling.

The Summit is a well-known brand and carries some manner of clout, regardless of the more questionable elements you highlight. If you wish to claim market share, or damage its own current share, however, you will have to do more than a smear campaign - you will have to show a better product for us to purchase in its place.

To Katrina Oniseki:

Which of the eight moderators do you 'question the right to moderate'?
The following I question the right to "publicly" moderate The Summit ((with no offense to any of them personally)):

- Tiberious Thessalonia - The man is an enemy to 90% of New Eden. To stay true to ourselves (if part of said side of New Eden) means we're attack him constantly. That plus even suggesting his own opinion automatically brings many to want to fight/contest it due to his affiliation alone.

- Ava Starfire - Her taboo of edgy conflicts and subjects cause her to dodge a far percentage of what actually is New Eden, especially where you dare let all sides of New Eden be involved. That and she doesn't voice radical Minmatar nor the Tribes outside her own very well.

- Silas Vitalia - Her particular brand of Sani Sabik is very untraditional of others following the Sani Sabik way and those of the Empire should be allowed to follow their leaders in condemning her and her faith. I also find her ego getting in the way of judgement far more than it should.

Other than that I have no issue with any of the channel's moderators.


What is your overall and/or specific opinion on each of the eight moderators of The Summit?
- This part is key: I love them. They are sharp examples of sides of New Eden and bring to show flavors any pilot should be exposed to with time. They're bold, strong in their opinions, and back themselves formidably. Yet as moderators, especially when such examples such as those I raise within this topic surface, that nature can get in the way of maintaining neutrality very quickly.

Do these opinions reflect your overall opinion of the Summit's content?
- Not just my own, but a vast many others who've recently reached out to me. If you're ever wondering about why strong characters haven't been surfacing recently or sought to desire seat within contributing to the channel's purpose, that's why. They have been cut down by these views.

If one were to avoid connecting to The Summit, what would be an alternative venue you'd suggest to them?
- At this point, I find neutrality is truly impossible. At least not without allowing personal attacks and characters to bound off each other, even in the edgy nature I try to bring to show. I'd recommend more focused channels featuring the sides of certain laws. But I don't want to give up on the melting pot just yet...

Do you take issue with The Summit the users, the moderators, or the way the channel works?
- I find the channel's purpose incredibly noble, yet entirely impossible. Yet I've not lost complete hope, hence why I don't want to run just yet. I think it's more a justice to let all of you know there's something wrong. Even if it means shadowing the meaning of this topic under an attack. I'm afraid that's just more myself, a character sticking true to herself, working. Any additional issues have already been (or are further down) listed.

Do you feel that you could improve these issues? If so, how?
- Moderators moderate indirectly, from the shadows, without expressed opinion and intervene only when there's been a clear violation. Classic goers of the channel should know that if they want proper intervention, they need to bait the troubled characters into truly going too far.
- Personal attacks should be entirely allowed if you're truly allowing even the controversial to thrive amongst the populace. At least to a large (but certain) extent.
- If you truly want a state of neutrality then you shift the channel's ownership (publicly) to CONCORD and the rightful owners of the IGS (as to imply within your channel's title). Also denying posers of the CONCORD ((CCP)) affiliation would add a large extent of legitimacy.

Up to this point, while surely not an official channel, this channel has functioned very similarly to one, providing users with the largest community of capsuleers for a forum. That is something incredibly spectacular but also heralds a very large responsibility.

In your opinion, what would be the single most important change to the Summit?
- Reintegrate neutrality. Should that be the freedom of personal attacks and the true floodgates of New Eden's dark nature opened. Or catering to certain laws and holding true to them. In either case, eliminate personal opinions of moderators affecting any act of moderation.

DISCLAIMER:
Please do not use these words against me. I am one of the worst examples of any potential moderator and have absolutely no intention of trying to play that role nor climb any social ladder. I'm a terrorist within my true nature, a rebel, a yapping voice of a empowered ex-slave who doesn't know a limit.

I've just been sitting very quiet for a very long time in regards to all this since the earlier days of The Summit, patiently watching it plummet into what it is now.

It didn't start this way. Even if it means condemning myself amongst the majority to raise these issues to light, I will. I won't wear gloves, I won't be nice, I'll insult far more than I'll likely contribute.

But that is also me, my character, and the curse of.


Just another shade of New Eden,
Isis

That post has been far more helpful than the entire rest of the thread combined. Thank you for writing it. I'd like to address some concerns of yours, if I may.

First, and before I go any further - allow me to state openly that we know we are not neutral, and we cannot be neutral. You are correct in that this is an impossible goal, as we found it to be long long ago. This is the single largest reason CONCORD decided to break off association from "The Summit" and finally make the effort to make an official CONCORD supported "Intergalactic Summit" channel.

In The Summit, we do not seek neutrality or unbiased moderation. The Summit was originally intended to be something quite different from what it is now, as you already pointed out. Instead, using a word you so appropriate used above, we've opted for the "Melting Pot" ideal, where we allow various cultures to intermingle and only act to bring a sense of civility to the channel. This is perhaps key to what we're trying to do. We're attempting, albeit ineffectively or outright failing at times, to keep the channel civil, not neutral. There is a significant difference.

The Summit is a meeting place of peers, not an official forum for discourse and neutrality. It is, in effect, a club or bar or lounge. You used the word 'club' once before in the pejorative sense, and it's more accurate than you might think. It's a place where fellows of a kind (capsuleers and DUST clones) can get together and chat under the very loose pretense of not smashing each other over the head with the beer bottles. Under that metaphor, the moderators are little more than volunteer bouncers. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is a venue more akin to CONCORD's Inner Circle Chambers.

When we tell you to go to the "Intergalactic Summit" channel, we're not telling you to **** off. Well, okay sometimes we are. The point is, we're trying to point out a very different alternative which is closer to what you're describing The Summit should be. We're telling you to go there because we cannot be and will never be what you want. You want this lounge to be an embassy. It's not.

We literally cannot (meaning we are unable to) hand over control to CONCORD. They don't want it. They have their own channel, named the very same as this forum.

We cannot enforce neutrality while being non-neutral ourselves. I'm sorry, but we're volunteer moderators. Not professionals. We could of course be professionals if the users of The Summit wanted to start paying membership fees, and at that point we could seriously consider the prospect of hiring truly neutral and unbiased moderators where money is a more powerful motivator to swallow the boiling anger some of you users can stir up in us.

I understand that you want the Summit to be neutral, but you're effectively barking up the wrong tree. You keep saying it isn't neutral, and you're absolutely right. We agree with you. You're just not hearing us when we say that it's not our intention to be neutral. The purpose of The Summit has changed. It has become something completely different.

There are alternatives to what we have here, as we've pointed out time and time again. Compared to ours, "Intergalactic Summit" channel is not moderated by live users, but by a reporting system instead built into your NEOCOM. That completely hands off approach is just about as close as you can get to the sort of neutrality you request. Even then you will be subject to the interpretations of those reading and answering the reports. More often than not, you'll simply be told to block the offending user. That's neutrality. That's indirect moderation. That's allowing personal attacks. It's everything you ask for, already made.


I hope this helps.