EVE General Discussion

Hey Guard. Just wanted to say it was neat to meet you in Vegas. If you accept one of my wardec transfer corps into CCP Alliance I can get rid of all your wardecs and trolls for you ^^

"I don't accept that" the discussion qualifies as harassment.
Fair?

So no, the attitude of "we don't care that you take exception to our arbitrarily defining your civic participation in a discussion as harassment".

Even bungee cords don't stretch that far.

More arbitrary definitions. What are you getting out of this thread? It certainly seems like you're completely disinterested in an honest moderating team.

I reserve the right to go "I told you so" when you notice your posts disappearing and you have no idea why because they were on-topic and didn't break any rules.

You seem to be confusing me with LCO. I only stepped into this particular subtopic because words like "harassment" were being thrown around with little regard as to their actual meaning. What I saw was someone trying to resolve an issue, albeit with a frustrated tone, in a civil manner and a nonspecific context, treated as though their concerns are irrelevant.

I've had perfectly legitimate posts of mine deleted in the past without any explanation or warning, and I face three rather unfortunate alternatives - utilize CCP's wonderful and critically acclaimed petition system for each and every post for what's rather likely to become a long wait on a very unsatisfying answer, shut and do nothing and hope it never happens again, or try to address the issue in a nonspecific manner in a thread such as this and face replies such as "that can't have happened because our system is set up this way" which you can't make any reply to because mentioning specific details is against the rules. How convenient for them!

Because I feel it absolutely necessary to make my point, I'll go ahead and state that one such post of mine that was deleted without any explanation or any word whatsoever was merely an answer to another poster's question here about whether bans on the forum translate to in-game bans. No discussion of anything specific, just that general question on its own.

You're right, it's completely unrealistic to expect that moderators explain why they delete rule-abiding posts when they have absolutely no problem explaining why they delete posts that don't abide by the rules. It's also completely unrealistic of me to expect that a company should know better than to send all inquiries of moderator actions into an already taxed system.

Apparently commenting that the game having a larger subscriber base would give me more people to steal from is now considered trolling.

It was in response to someone complaining that EVE would be pointless if there were 200-400k people online. My exact words were, "Actually this would be pretty awesome. I'd have more people to steal from".

Post was removed for trolling (If you think that's trolling, perhaps it's time for you to quit the internet).

To Mallak:

I'm echoing CCP Falcon here, I too don't know the specific post you're referring to but there is one possibility that springs to mind.

When we are forced to delete a post, the forum software automatically links all posts that have quoted the one to be deleted, as it makes no sense to keep replies that are in direct response to something that was removed.

It could be that in this case, your post was removed automatically because of that; the CCL agent involved would still have posted a message to the effect that the thread was cleaned of trolling, but that doesn't necessarily mean that *your* post was trolling; it might have been a valid retort (as it sounds in this case) to a post that wasn't acceptable.

If you're not sure that this might have been the case, you can either petition the community team to ask them about it, or you can report the original thread. If you put the text 'FAO CCL Leads' at the start of the report, then ISD Eshtir, myself or CCP will investigate.

To Bloodpetal:

I'm sorry you feel that way!

From our perspective, the forums are significantly cleaner; but I will concede that our measure of this is likely different from yours
This is EVE, it's understood and accepted that part of the meta gaming aspect is that Forum PvP is just as legitimate as anything that happens in game. The forums are never going to be cuddly, but they can at least be civil.

So from our perspective, direct contraventions of forum rules have gone down, the amount of threads we've needed to lock has gone down massively and levels of communication and contribution have gone up. In the last month, you will see that many of our team our posting more and acting less.

We are almost presciently aware of the amount of 'upsets' that we have been accused of creating, that's true - but we're trying to get into a culture of being 100% transparent this thread and our change in how we lock threads is an example of that.
We're also aware that we're (CCP and CCL) inducing a culture shift in the forums and when it comes down to it, nobody likes their cheese being moved.
Last of all however, I don't like to defer to vulgar metaphors to talk about this great community, but in this case it's appropriate to say that 'The squeaky wheel gets the oil'.

We welcome any suggestions however; if you've got some thoughts from the player perspective on how we can be more transparent, we're very open to hearing them in this thread.

Nope, that's very good feedback silk, we actually did have a brief discussion about this today as we were wondering on the reasons why some people were concerned that their own posts had gone missing unexpectedly.

I think that moving forwards, we will try to be very clear in our thread response when this has happened.

Hi Salpun;

In a way you're right and I do agree with the intent of your suggestion.

We feel (in CCL) that it should be clear from the forum rules and the Website terms of service that " your post is subject to anything that CCP games and her representatives consider viable".

In a sense; anyones post is at risk, as CCP could mandate us to purge the forums right now; and they can do so if they wanted to.
Ok that's an extreme example, but to break down your suggestion; having that info in the signature is a dangerous thing:

1) it's by far not the most common forum infraction.
2) Stating it verbatim detracts from our ability to use our discretion.
3) If we count that particular interpretation of the rules as Gospel, then we open ourselves up for enforcing one particular interpretation and another one*.
4) There's not enough room in the Signature! My name and role are on the same line so I could fit the recruitment link.

*that comes from hard experience; if we define one action then people will argue about the edge cases - this is why CCL volunteers are hand picked after a strong vetting processing to try and ensure that they know the forums and its mood swings.
It's the same reasoning for the fact that all GM posts about definitive actions state that your petition will be handled on a case by case basis.