These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harraria
Perkone
#141 - 2012-10-21 20:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Harraria
ISD Suvetar wrote:
I know it's a concern to some people, but there are very good business reasons why CCP have (and indeed enforce) an ESRB rating.

Potentially losing the business of the whole of the North American continent is KindofABigDeal™ especially when it's just to allow a few people to space-swear.

Trust me, you don't need to revert to bad language to make your opinion of something apparent - just try and do it constructively.
If you really feel the need to call someone out because of their post then you can either post constructively:

"That's a bad Idea and you should feel bad"

Isn't

"That's a bad idea - because it would have this effect to XY and Z. What would you have instead?"

Is!

Also, if someone's made you mad then click that report button and let me and my team do our job; it's what we're here for!


For the point of argument I'll cede the fact that mature games are banned in North America (which isn't true).

What about

ISD Suvetar wrote:

"That's a bad Idea and you should feel bad"


Violates the teen rating?

BTW, I don't know if you've played online video games but teens love this type of thing.You're trying to be paternalistic but you're not being very realistic.

You also need to differentiate between the different types of trolling.

Anyway, I think if I saw you guys post and lock about 4-5% of what you do now it would be a good amount.

By this I mean your inclination should be not to moderate. You should really not want to delete or change someone's post. It really seems like you guys are eager to do so and you look for reasons. Which is the worst possible attitude for a moderator.
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#142 - 2012-10-21 20:34:28 UTC
I didn't say they ban sales of mature games - it's just a self policed rating system that is taken seriously by the majority of the games publishers that operate there.

Anyway, regarding the "bad and you should feel bad" comment - that was just by way of example of what a non-constructive bad post is like. We wouldn't necessarily even do anything about someone who posted that, as long as they add something constructive too.

Harraria wrote:

By this I mean your inclination to be not to moderate. You should really not want to delete or change someone's post. It really seems like you guys are eager to do so and you look for reasons. Which is the worst possible attitude for a moderator.


I agree one hundred percent wit the first two sentences; appearing too eager to moderate is something that will cause us to reject an applicant and will earn an existing moderator a nice and friendly coaching session, from yours truly.

If you can see any posts where you think we've been 'too eager' and where we've been 'looking for reasons' then please report it or petition it as discussed in the OP of the thread. If you want to report it, feel free to put 'FAO CCL Leads' at the start of your report and I can assure you that myself, ISD Eshtir or a member of CCP will investigate.

It might help you to understand that we don't hunt for things to moderate as a rule, but we are the first responders to anything that's reported and we find that troublesome threads get reported very quickly, so that perhaps is why it looks like we're being too eager ?

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

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#143 - 2012-10-21 21:26:31 UTC
Someone might want to look at the don't pick on goons thread locked crap. Apparently it's not a problem unless it's goon. Pretty transparent.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2012-10-21 22:17:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
ISD Suvetar wrote:
I know it's a concern to some people, but there are very good business reasons why CCP have (and indeed enforce) an ESRB rating.

Potentially losing the business of the whole of the North American continent is KindofABigDeal™ especially when it's just to allow a few people to space-swear.

I don't understand this argument - any and all online interaction (which forums are) is explicitly not rated by the ESRB.

The "Teen" rating only applies to CCP-generated content (e.g. mission texts), it does not apply to any interaction between players or any player-generated content (all of which is unrated).

As such claiming that EVE would lose the ESRB "T" rating if CCP did not police player interaction well enough seems ... weird.

I very much doubt that ISDs (or me for that matter) are qualified to comment on what the ramifications of poorly policed forums would be - that falls into the area of expertise of CCP's legal and marketing teams.

.

ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#145 - 2012-10-22 00:38:05 UTC
Vera:

I'll direct you to CCP Falcon's post about that
here

As you mention, Of course I cannot state CCP Games position on that whole thing.
I was pointing out the salient part of CCP Falcon's post that provided evidence as to why relaxing/removing forum rules is not going to happen.

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

ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#146 - 2012-10-22 00:38:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Lord Ryan wrote:
Someone might want to look at the don't pick on goons thread locked crap. Apparently it's not a problem unless it's goon. Pretty transparent.


You and everyone else have been asked to avoid 'specific' actions in this thread, you know what you need to do if you think something needs investigating.

Thanks.

Edit: By specific, "don't pick on goons thread locked crap" is pretty specific.

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

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#147 - 2012-10-22 01:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ryan
So this thread is pointless? Just delete the post that question, questionable actions?

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#148 - 2012-10-22 01:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ryan
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Lord Ryan wrote:
Someone might want to look at the don't pick on goons thread locked crap. Apparently it's not a problem unless it's goon. Pretty transparent.


You and everyone else have been asked to avoid 'specific' actions in this thread, you know what you need to do if you think something needs investigating.

Thanks.

Edit: By specific, "don't pick on goons thread locked crap" is pretty specific.


Really I seem have missed that thread. Was that in GD? How much less specific should I be?

Oh I get it.

Someone did something bad to a thread.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#149 - 2012-10-22 01:15:17 UTC
No,

I deleted the off-topic , partially offensive post that once again brings into light you trying to bring the debate to discuss a specific topic.

If you've got some kind of agenda against CCL, you should remember that it's not the forum moderators that ban people.
If you're not going to report the threads that you 'claim' to bring our actions into disrepute, could that be because you know it won't stand up to investigation by CCP ?

If you continue this crusade against CCL without any good evidence, or continue to sling insults and allegations then it won't be CCL taking action, it'll be the community team.

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

Reptail
#150 - 2012-10-22 01:27:55 UTC
So we aren't able to discuss moderation here , not allowed to open new threads about it , sounds a bit one sided stuff. Two posts removed for no reason. Try not to remove this one please.

Ground Shiwer

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#151 - 2012-10-22 01:30:38 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
No,

I deleted the off-topic , partially offensive post that once again brings into light you trying to bring the debate to discuss a specific topic.

If you've got some kind of agenda against CCL, you should remember that it's not the forum moderators that ban people.
If you're not going to report the threads that you 'claim' to bring our actions into disrepute, could that be because you know it won't stand up to investigation by CCP ?

If you continue this crusade against CCL without any good evidence, or continue to sling insults and allegations then it won't be CCL taking action, it'll be the community team.



Sounds like another personal attack on me. CCP can clearly see you attacking me again, yet do nothing about it. If I file a private compliant am I to expect different out come?

Can they see all my post you delete? Or just the ones you point out?

And good evidence you just delete.

Or is this where you ask for citation than backtrack again?

I don't have a problem with CCL, I have a problem with attacking people you don't like. Deleting my post. And what makes you think it's ok for you to attack, but not us?

And I do report when you take unjust actions on someone else, which is usually followed by my post being deleted.

But that's the point isn't. Irritate me till I go off.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#152 - 2012-10-22 01:41:35 UTC
I'm done you've killed the forums! I come here(pay) for fun, not to be harassed.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

Reptail
#153 - 2012-10-22 01:54:03 UTC
Lord Ryan wrote:
I'm done you've killed the forums! I come here(pay) for fun, not to be harassed.


I love lost causes :) , and probably this post will be removed so i won't be a martir, but i'll gladly lose my account if it serves as an example in eve as well as RL. /o :P, but things need to change ! So let your voice be heard people here and everywhere!
Reptail raises your fist! :D. ok i'm ready you may BAN me now, adios.

Ground Shiwer

Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#154 - 2012-10-22 02:33:42 UTC


What is everyone's opinion on moderators noting on a post if the user gets banned or warned because of it?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#155 - 2012-10-22 02:43:20 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Lord Ryan wrote:
Someone might want to look at the don't pick on goons thread locked crap. Apparently it's not a problem unless it's goon. Pretty transparent.
ISD Suvetar wrote:
You and everyone else have been asked to avoid 'specific' actions in this thread, you know what you need to do if you think something needs investigating.

Thanks.

Edit: By specific, "don't pick on goons thread locked crap" is pretty specific.
Lord Ryan wrote:
So this thread is pointless? Just delete the post that question, questionable actions?

Lord Ryan, if you think there is some specific moderation error occurring ("... don't pick on goons ...") then your proper action should be either:

  1. report the moderator's post which says that,
  2. petition the moderator's post which says that, or
  3. email internalaffairs@ccp.com requesting that it be investigated.

Bringing it here won't accomplish what you presumably want (unless your desire is just to be annoying -- in which case: mission accomplished!) An example of what would be "in bounds" would be to ask about how does CCL prevent biased moderation (if that is what you claim is happening), or to suggest ways to preclude biased moderation. If you think that whichever rule precludes "picking on" is improper, then criticizing that rule would be in bounds, too.

The point of this thread is to talk about moderation in the general sense, not to discuss particular moderation actions. (You may, within limits, cite specific moderator actions to support more general claims, however.)

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#156 - 2012-10-22 02:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
CCP Falcon wrote:
Please bear in mind that despite its pretty harsh and dark setting, EVE is an ESRB "Teen" rated game.

Lets look at the definition of a "Teen" rating from the ESRB :

Quote:
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.


While we all appreciate good humor and a little bad language is fine, what has been going on on these forums in the past has been far from teen rated, and far from acceptable.


These forum's are CCP hf.'s, and they're free to demand that posters behave however CCP hf wishes. But it does you and CCP hf no good for you to argue positions that fail to hold up to fact checking. As Vera pointed out, the ESRB rating applies only to content created by CCP. Content created by the players is explicitly disclaimed by CCP hf (legalese for "that's not us!"), so the ESRB rating does not apply. That doesn't mean that other web presence regulations/ratings wouldn't be applicable though.

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#157 - 2012-10-22 03:02:51 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
What is everyone's opinion on moderators noting on a post if the user gets banned or warned because of it?

Well, I suppose my first thought is "what is the purpose of making those actions public?"

  1. Public shaming will reduce recurrence for that character/player
  2. Public shaming will reduce copycat offences
  3. Public announcement will make it easier for the remaining players to "learn by example" those actions which are out-of-bounds


Maybe there are some other potential positives I don't realize.

Potential negatives:

  1. "Public shaming" becomes a goal for a subset of players/characters, causing intentional rule breaking
  2. Public acknowledgement encourages public debate over the specific moderation action (CCP believes this is undesirable)
  3. More work for CCP (ISD neither bans nor warns players; that is strictly the responsibility of the CCP Community team)


From the above, I see no compelling reason to make a ban or a warning public.

Inquisitor Kitchner, do you have some point I've overlooked?

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#158 - 2012-10-22 03:10:07 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
Having multiple slots (on the front page of GD) constantly filled with multiple Avatar threadnaught and 'Like and get Likes' is annoying to quite a few people.

I agree. I think CCL might have fewer irritated players (read: "moderation candidates") if we had a way to hide threads, similar to how we can hide the posts of a specific player. Something like an "anti-subscribe".

MDD
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2012-10-22 09:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Vera:

I'll direct you to CCP Falcon's post about that
here


CCP Falcon's post just reiterates the criteria for a ESRB "Teen" rating - which is useless as forum posts or in-game chat are not even considered in the ESRB rating.

Quote:
Do ESRB ratings address online-enabled game elements like player chat, player-generated content or downloadable music?

ESRB age ratings only address content created by the publisher and do not consider content that is created or introduced by individual players or other third parties when playing the game online. However, ESRB-rated games that can be played online with other players and facilitate exposure to user-generated content must display an Online Rating Notice that states: "Online Interactions Not Rated By The ESRB." This notice is intended to warn consumers about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment. ESRB-rated mobile apps may display a similar notice regarding potential exposure to user-generated content, among other pertinent app elements.

Games that allow users to download songs not considered in the ESRB rating assignment will display the Music DLC Notice, which reads: "Music Downloads Not Rated By The ESRB." This content does not have to be submitted to ESRB for rating but the provider must display the Music DLC Notice and, if appropriate, an RIAA Parental Advisory logo prior to download or purchase.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#13a

If they wanted the ESRB could of course require companies to submit their moderation & filtering policies for player-generated content and consider these in the rating - but they don't.
Maybe they don't because doing so would provide little in terms of guarantee and only expose the ESRB to criticism (how would someone who has never played EVE recognize the importance of a missing "don't create obscene pictures using anchored cans" policy?) or maybe because the spot checks required to monitor enforcement of these policies would be extremely expensive.

You are building a huge strawman around the ESRB rating which is just not going to work.

.

CCP Falcon
#160 - 2012-10-22 09:25:41 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Please bear in mind that despite its pretty harsh and dark setting, EVE is an ESRB "Teen" rated game.

Lets look at the definition of a "Teen" rating from the ESRB :

Quote:
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.


While we all appreciate good humor and a little bad language is fine, what has been going on on these forums in the past has been far from teen rated, and far from acceptable.


These forum's are CCP hf.'s, and they're free to demand that posters behave however CCP hf wishes. But it does you and CCP hf no good for you to argue positions that fail to hold up to fact checking. As Vera pointed out, the ESRB rating applies only to content created by CCP. Content created by the players is explicitly disclaimed by CCP hf (legalese for "that's not us!"), so the ESRB rating does not apply. That doesn't mean that other web presence regulations/ratings wouldn't be applicable though.

MDD


The point of my post is that we're trying keep a uniform level of acceptable player interaction across both the game and the forums.

The forum rules are there for a reason, and as such people will be expected to follow them or run the risk of being moderated and potentially having their posting privileges removed either temporarily or permanently for repeated breaches of the rules.

In the end, there is very little difference between now and the forum moderation standard that was in place during the operation of ISD CRC during the early years of EVE. We've simply chosen to move back in that direction to tidy up the breaches of the forum rules that have been occurring during the period where there was no specific team responsible for moderating the forums.

Frankly, most of the stuff that goes on on these forums has made me laugh my ass off for the last 10 years or so, but in the same respect while we all love to laugh and joke, the line is always there and shouldn't be crossed.

There are rules, they will be followed, and they will be respected. Likewise, you will all learn to respect each other, and our ISD volunteers. Those who don't will sadly end up being on the bad end of a forum gag if they repeatedly choose to ignore the rules. Be it on their own heads.







CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3