EVE General Discussion

Hi,

Thanks RSB, Just to clarify that, citing example is welcome and appreciated, especially if its something that can be demonstrated in multiple locations.

What we really want to avoid is a link to a post followed by a 'why did they punish me on this specific post' sort of scenario.

Hope this helps!

What grand and opulent social commentary do you see getting crushed under the heel of CCPs shadow guard?
EvE is becoming theme park? This is too OP? This is too UP? Avatars and WiS are stupid?
What exactly are you expecting from a PG13 game forum?
The ones I see getting banned are the ones who wont follow basic civil rules and reposting constantly spouting obscenities and rants racing to be banned.

Not sure why there is so much hate on these forums when it should be an enjoiable place, full of trolls , retarde*d stuff and everything that goes with it. Maybe this is going to be a military recruitment place or a jail :P, who knows

I prupose no moderation at all !

Edit : or to use moderation when and if really really needed ... (not sure why block spam topics, does it occupy GB on your hard disks ? ) always wondered that :P

There seem to be always something unspoken in every forum not only eve. Fly unSaFe.

Actually, no. I think you may have missed the mark in a few ways:
- The "Report Post" feature is a non-public way to provide feedback. There's a old phrase about managing people: praise in public, and criticize in private. I like to take the point of view that the moderators (both ISD and CCP) work for me, albeit indirectly. So when they take action that I find lacking, I provide critical (in the sense of "not complementary") feedback that way.
- When you provide critical feedback, people are more receptive if it is directed at their actions (or inactions) and not directed at their person. As a co-worker of mine was found of saying, "focus on the problem, not the person."

So to re-summarize: in the specific case, where specific moderator actions are not meeting your expectations, then provide your criticism in a non-public manner (Report Post, Petition, a note wrapped around a brick ... wait... scratch that last one ). And at all times when providing criticism, whether for specific acts (via Report Post or Petition) or for more general moderation discussions (here), direct your criticism at the actions, and not at the actor.



OK, so now you are beginning to provide some feedback that can be discussed. You are obviously operating from the assumption that "professional moderators" will provide better quality moderation, or at least moderation that better fits your perception of what the moderation should be. Both of those two are reasonable points of discussion, and I'm willing to make an attempt to flesh out the arguments, although I'm not certain this really fits within this thread's charter as originally stated by CCP Gargant.

So, point #1: "professional moderators" would be better than the volunteer moderators CCP has presently. I confess that although I'm a multi-decade software development professional and gamer, I have never considered the phrase "professional moderator". Is there some certification standard for moderators, similar to CISSP for security professionals? Or do you mean simply "professional" in the sense that it is their vocation/employment? There's a reasonable argument to be made that someone whose livelihood depends on the (perceived) quality of their moderation skill would be amply motivated to do a good job. But there is a similar argument to be made that volunteers are similarly motivated by their love of the game. I have volunteer activities (in RL) that I work hard to do well (and spend my own money to do, too). Activities where my failure can have significant RL impact (e.g. substantial property damage, serious injury or death to others). Yet the organization invites me and my cohorts back year after year I believe because they realize that we volunteers do a better job than any available professionals could. So I don't think you can fairly make the automatic assumption that "professional moderators" (by employment) are better.

Point #2: Your desires for moderation are aligned with CCPs. I said earlier that I try to treat the moderators as if they work for me. The reality is that they work (or volunteer) for CCP hf., and CCP hf.'s motivation ultimately is to be a (more) successful business. This may mean that they will require moderation actions that increase the general gaming public's interest in Eve, perhaps at the cost of some of we veteran's perception of Eve as a harsh universe. That's just one possible cause of a mis-match between your and CCP hf.'s expectations for moderation; there are likely others.

I'm not confident that I've helped you, but I've tried to direct your raw feedback into directions which may ultimately be more satisfactory for both you and CCP hf. And to be honest, all of us in the audience, too.

MDD

Gogela, you've surprised me. This post is much better than the earlier one to which I responded. Thank you.

Oh if that were but true. The reality is more nuanced. The vast majority know the broadly accepted prohibitions on racist language. And I suspect comparable numbers know not to use overtly sexist, homophobic, or ethnically offensive terms. But English is a fungible medium. If I say "Jew", without context, you have no idea if I'm discussing the religion, the ethnicity, or perhaps the vile ethnic slur. In short, whether my use of it is permissible. This is why CCP hf. chooses to have moderators to evaluate my use, and yours, and his, and hers, to determine where along the spectrum of meanings our use is. And to estimate the "culpability" of the offender, too. Simply the act of impermissible use does not, and should not IMHO, trigger an automatic set punishment.

What you've constructed is called a "strawman" argument. We the readers are supposed to take it on faith that what you've said is actually happening. I'm neither claiming it is nor isn't happening, but I am asking for some supporting evidence. I ask because if I were a moderator I wouldn't tolerate that behavior. I would be distributing forum timeouts. I'd like to believe the current crop of volunteer moderators are like-minded. If you've evidence to the contrary, please share it (privately with ISD/CCP if necessary).

Such punishment seems extreme, and I'd hope that in the few cases where extreme measures were warranted that CCP proper took the action. In fact, I'm under the impression that the moderators' ability to see other characters on an account is restricted from the ISD. If the ISD moderators can issue forum timeouts, then I would expect that their interface allows them to ban (from the forum) the account for the offending character without actually seeing the account itself.

Furthermore one must be mindful of having the punishment fit the crime. Mistakes are made -- if a moderator makes an error in judgment as to the severity of the infraction, should they "out" the characters on the account, there's no way to "unring" that bell.

But I appreciate your passion for the subject.

MDD

Actually, it does. I know, I know; "Try not to act surprised MDD!"
But until this moment I didn't have a basis for "liaison" in the forum moderator's group's description. Now at least I can imagine that the ISD people have some internal way of reporting deserving offenders to CCP for proper discipline. That is a liaison activity (contrast with the custodial activities I discussed in an earlier post).

Edit: you can also edit other's posts (within policy limits). A fairly powerful action.

MDD

I ask this legitimately as it's relevant to the 'no personal attacks' general rule that this thread is about.

I wonder how else you might interpret what you posted:

'Blind leading the blind'

"You are one of the worst when it comes to deleting posts that are lightharted and funny"

and

'Your sense of humor is terrible. You really shouldn't use yours to gauge what constitutes 'funny.'"

My point is, if you believe that that wasn't personal; it goes into why CCL exists in the first place.
People interpret the rules differently, and a robot cannot make sense of one case or another.

CCL are here, in this aspect, to read the context, evaluate and ultimately act.

^ We meta game too much for a dislike button to work. Only simple forums, with no meta gaming have them.

You can still hide post someone. If you really don't like their posting.

I've read through all these posts and i must say that i have nothing of value to add,
which i, in this very special context, consider to be a good thing.

Thank you for this thread. ^_^

The internet was an extreme solution to a problem that never really existed. Times change.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that this thread is a response to the fact that a certain degree of overmoderation did happen sometimes. As we have said, mistakes happen and sometimes we are wrong. By doing this we are trying to give you binoculars to watch the watchers, so to speak.