These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Moderation discussion thread

First post First post
Author
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#41 - 2012-10-16 01:10:37 UTC
Gogela wrote:

Facts and real examples will be removed by moderators as personal attacks.

Such as MailDeadDrop's posts citing specific topics with questionable behavior? Which were subsequently answered and explained.
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#42 - 2012-10-16 01:28:28 UTC
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!

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Amber Accelerando
One Point 0
#43 - 2012-10-16 01:32:11 UTC
Quote:

Then they should go about it in a more proper business like nature and try to form their opinions from facts and real examples for their dislike and belief they are ineffective rather than just dressing up their distaste for moderation as orwellian/reich like a alliance political game.



*scratches head*

Oh the Irony, how is the Orwellian analogy of re-writing history & thought police not relevant? When you say 'reich' who do you mean?

I would like to float the idea that this level of 'moderation' was never needed, is totally superfluous & counter productive & is in fact destroying the health of the Community.
I suggest people consider the real reasons CCP would introduce overzealous, sycophantic moderators on what was once a fairly open and free forum.

Don't forget the EvE forums have always been moderated, it's just CCP couldn't stop community outcry & rallying that cost the company mucho dinero around the time of Incarna.

This new approach gives the Company the sort of control they wish they had in June/ July 2011, & the kicker is it doesn't cost them a penny, unless you factor in the cost of CCP employee Overlords directing proceedings at a safe distance.
Another benefit, is keeping animosity away from the Company, it's the CCL/ISD not CCP safely ensconced in their Ivory Tower.
Welcome to having your intelligence under valued & underestimated.
Welcome to the process of Weeding Out undesirables, silencing dissenting opinion & permanently Banning those who simply won't shutup or fall into line.

All this in the name of 'having a healthy community'.
Well, I'm sorry but there's not much I don't find absolutely abhorrent about this new approach, I don't blame the gullible volunteers, I blame extremely questionable ethics from CCP.

Unfortunately, the nature of this experiment means the forums are no longer a fair indication of how the 'healthy community' feels about an issue, opinion is now managed & CCP agendas enforced. This means this is no longer a Forum for the Community in General, & no amount of crowing otherwise from CCP or the ISD will change that. This Forum is now a PR exercise, spin & propaganda for the product EvE Online.
That's fine, but don't dress a PIG like a Duck & tell me it's a Duck, it's a PIG, it will always be a PIG. To suggest anything else is to insult my intelligence.
This is the last character I have to post with, soon I too will be silenced, how many others have gone the same way for minor infractions, speaking their minds & insulting ISD's after provocative locks & interjections? Many more just don't bother with GD anymore, it's a losing game, CCP wants us to accept hopelessness, give up, resign ourselves to this tyranny.

How is that promoting a 'Healthy Community'? Was Stalinist Russia a Healthy Community?
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#44 - 2012-10-16 01:48:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
Amber Accelerando wrote:

Welcome to having your intelligence under valued & underestimated.
Welcome to the process of Weeding Out undesirables, silencing dissenting opinion & permanently Banning those who simply won't shutup or fall into line.


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.
Gogela
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#45 - 2012-10-16 02:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Amber Accelerando wrote:
*lots of stuff*

On the one hand, we go have a group of people that just mass post garbage and threats. Their intent is simply to disrupt use of the forums... or they are just venting their hate at the world and have some kind of psychological disorder. The forums aren't therapy, and that smack needs to get locked. It is a problem. On the other hand I agree with you that a more "hands off" approach is probably a better one... that the community can better regulate some of this than the moderators. The old forums were an example of where this was largely the case.

Look... everyone knows the rules. If somebody is posting thread after thread using bigoted language and posting no content, it's not because they don't know that that is unacceptable. It's because they are ***holes. That's just the truth of it. You know it, I know it, the poster knows it, the devs know it, the ISD knows it. You would need to be a real mouth-breather to not know it... and in that case you probably can't use a computer anyway. So what is the point of merely locking thread after thread posted by the same group of accounts alt posting and adding a line like "thread locked for XXXXX reason"? Why would you need to explain it? It's because the ISD wants to look like they are doing something.

Just ban them. Just ban the accounts doing this for a few months. The BS will stop in a heartbeat. Better yet, if they are alt posting, just shame them. Post all of the account names and say "the following forum accounts were banned in connection with this thread: Char 1, char 2 char 3. Reason: racist language" You've stopped the troll... outed his accounts, and provided the reason so there are no illusions about what this or that behavior will get you. You don't even need a whole ISD team if you do this. Take down a few (which will be the bulk of the players doing this anyway), and everyone else will be like "good riddance" and proceed, albeit in a more appropriate way, to engage in forum PvP.

I find it hard to believe nobody has thought of this already. I guess CCP likes the abuse.

Everybody is a tough guy when it's an alt posting the hate... you connect them to their main and **** will turn around. It's really an easy answer. Find some backbone, whoever at CCP makes decisions about the forums.

Edit: The solution I described above assumes that CCP or some paid employee is the one dropping the hammer... NOT the ISD. The volunteers aren't qualified to execute on this, imho.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Reptail
#46 - 2012-10-16 02:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Reptail
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.

Ground Shiwer

Souxie Alduin
Anarchy in the Eve
#47 - 2012-10-16 03:28:04 UTC
Reptail wrote:
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


Because it's bloody annoying to see the same stupid whines from the same stupid people over and over again?
*Waves at Ill ZiggyBang*
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#48 - 2012-10-16 03:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Gogela wrote:
Right. I get my post deleted if I get specific because it's viewed as a personal attack, but if I don't get specific my opinion is invalid because it wasn't substantiated with specifics. That about cover it?
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 Lol). 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.

Gogela wrote:
"You're a poor moderator -- go away" (is) exactly what I am saying. The volunteer program does not work. The ISD's should "go away". CCP might actually have to pay someone to do the job because the ISD as it is isn't cutting it. That's my cold judgement of the ISD as an organization... an attempt to support my argument. If you are going to use an example you might have to get specific... but fine I'll speak in general terms: Fire the ISD and hire some pros.


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
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#49 - 2012-10-16 03:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Amber Accelerando wrote:
I would like to float the idea that this level of 'moderation' was never needed, is totally superfluous & counter productive & is in fact destroying the health of the Community.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. Succinctly, what is your evidence that the health of the Eve community is in decline? What is your evidence that the present level of moderation is a factor in such decline?

Amber Accelerando wrote:
This is the last character I have to post with, soon I too will be silenced, how many others have gone the same way for minor infractions, speaking their minds & insulting ISD's after provocative locks & interjections? Many more just don't bother with GD anymore, it's a losing game, CCP wants us to accept hopelessness, give up, resign ourselves to this tyranny.
I suggest a re-familiarization with Occam's Razor might be helpful: (paraphrasing) when faced with two or more apparently equally plausible theories, the simplest one is usually the correct one. On the one hand you suggest a rather Machiavellian** manipulation of Eve's playerbase by actors within CCP hf. On the other hand, your characters' actions may be intolerably abrasive.

MDD

* Thank you Carl Sagan. R.I.P.
** Twice in one day I'm referencing Machiavelli. I'm beginning to form the opinion that you people are the ones my Mother warned me about. Excuse me, "about whom my Mother warned me."
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#50 - 2012-10-16 04:25:10 UTC
Gogela, you've surprised me. This post is much better than the earlier one to which I responded. Thank you.

Gogela wrote:
Look... everyone knows the rules.
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.

Gogela wrote:
So what is the point of merely locking thread after thread posted by the same group of accounts alt posting and adding a line like "thread locked for XXXXX reason"? Why would you need to explain it?
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).

Gogela wrote:
Better yet, if they are alt posting, just shame them. Post all of the account names and say "the following forum accounts were banned in connection with this thread: Char 1, char 2 char 3. Reason: racist language" You've stopped the troll... outed his accounts, and provided the reason so there are no illusions about what this or that behavior will get you.
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
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#51 - 2012-10-16 04:47:14 UTC
Hi,

I'll clarify a couple of points, to oil the wheels of debate so to speak.

We can't ban or warn, other than leaving a message in a thread.

We cannot see 'Alts'.

We would never enact name and shame, it's considered cruel and unusual.

The reason we leave a lock message is the issue of transparency; If we're forced to lock your thread then we should tell you why.
Sometimes it's a laconic message, as the thread itself provides ample reason.

I hope this helps.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#52 - 2012-10-16 04:54:53 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
ISD Suvetar wrote:
I'll clarify a couple of points, to oil the wheels of debate so to speak.
We can't ban or warn, other than leaving a message in a thread.
*snip*
I hope this helps.
Actually, it does. I know, I know; "Try not to act surprised MDD!" Lol
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
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-10-16 05:07:51 UTC
The only thing I see here is obvious troll threads locked. Never see any ISD issues so have no idea what's going on
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#54 - 2012-10-16 05:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Gogela wrote:


That wasn't a personal complaint specifically. The observation applies to you as well as the other ISDs, and it's definitely relevant to the conversation. No wonder people dislike the ISDs so much... you aren't moderating. You are taking things personally. You are trying to control the conversation. You (ISD) remove legitimate posts. Funny posts. You (ISD) often do this randomly based on personal preference and NOT on any actual guidelines. I want you (ISD) to do the job... but the manner in which you do it is biased and just makes the forums dry and tedious. I think using volunteers for it is a failure. The ISD is just too unprofessional.

~Gogela


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.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#55 - 2012-10-16 07:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
I don't see the big deal with personal attacks... this is the internet, grow up.

But on topic... this entire thing of forum moderation would be less needed if CCP had added a dislike botton from the beginning, something that would hide a post if enough people disliked it, but it could be expanded if you still wanted to read it... that would encourage self moderation.... it would point the fingers at ourselves instead of the ISD or CCP

Again I think It's a failure to understand the eve community when they decided that these forums should have a "healty community" by your own definition... where your only allowed to be nice to each other, not troll, only spread love at fart flowers :)

So add a dislike feature and tune down the moderation to see where it goes is my suggestion

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#56 - 2012-10-16 08:32:17 UTC
^ 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.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Amber Accelerando
One Point 0
#57 - 2012-10-16 08:34:26 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Amber Accelerando wrote:
I would like to float the idea that this level of 'moderation' was never needed, is totally superfluous & counter productive & is in fact destroying the health of the Community.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. Succinctly, what is your evidence that the health of the Eve community is in decline? What is your evidence that the present level of moderation is a factor in such decline?


Ok, firstly I detect smugness, so I'll try not to be too irritable.

I'm speaking from personal experience with the Forums, I used to enjoy the Forum experience & considered it representative of the community at large & good fun, entertaining & vibrant.

Now, definitely not. The quality of threads is in sharp decline as is the quality of the discussion & even when a good discussion does happen chances are it will be imposed upon by an ISD who will attempt to direct the conversation, warn players of possible 'rule violations' or simply lock it for whatever inane reason imaginable.
This slowly but surely degrades the quality of the forum, people react & become frustrated at the intolerably pithy injustice & condescension, they are banned for life or simply don't come back.

The new forums have the excellent Block function available & we have a language filter, there are occasional over the top rule breaches that almost everybody finds intolerable & for that we have the report function. The assertion that a community that survived for 8 years before an ISD CCL team & without Block available somehow all of a sudden couldn't survive without the constant handholding of a bunch of 'well meaning' volunteers running amok locking, editing, deleting nearly everything in sight is more than a little hard to swallow.

Again I say, the manifest function of this extreme solution to a problem that never really existed, is not the 'Health of the Community', this is purely about controlling thought, opinion & ideas on their Forum.

I also maintain that this approach is unacceptable & must be changed or CCP need to issue an official statement coming clean & admitting the Forums are no longer available for all players, they are only available to players who wish to discuss what some anonymous moderators deem appropriate. If you find that unacceptable, stay away. Oh, & what they find appropriate is subject to change without notice.
CCP Navigator confirmed this a few days ago when he said the only rule we need worry about is that the Moderators can make any rules they like & enforce them as they see fit. Navigator is the Boss so I guess that's coming from the top.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2012-10-16 11:10:24 UTC
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. ^_^
ctx2007
Wychwood and Wells
Beer needs you
#59 - 2012-10-16 12:40:48 UTC
I think some of the recent attacks and insults in the forums against the ISDs are wrong, As mature gameplayers we should know want is correct to write down in the threads and if we cross the line. The moderaters are there to say you have crossed the line.

I know we all feel the need to rant once in a while, but do expect this threads to be closed if they get out of hand. Remember these guys are unpaid and are giving their time up for the good of EVE.

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.

CCP Gargant
C C P
C C P Alliance
#60 - 2012-10-16 12:43:26 UTC
Amber Accelerando wrote:

The assertion that a community that survived for 8 years before an ISD CCL team & without Block available somehow all of a sudden couldn't survive without the constant handholding of a bunch of 'well meaning' volunteers running amok locking, editing, deleting nearly everything in sight is more than a little hard to swallow.

Again I say, the manifest function of this extreme solution to a problem that never really existed, is not the 'Health of the Community', this is purely about controlling thought, opinion & ideas on their Forum.



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.

CCP Gargant | EVE Universe esports Coordinator