These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Restrict NPC Corporation Posting Abilities.

First post First post
Author
Paul Panala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#481 - 2014-05-29 21:34:13 UTC
I agree with the idea of restricting the forum to real accounts. I think it would be a better place if people had to sign their name to what they say.

You cannot base it on NPC corp status; it is way too easy to form a holding corp for forum alts. You need to base it on skill points. The toon posting should be required to have an active training queue for the last 24 hours before they can post. One exception is the new player forum should always allow new accounts (not just new toons on an existing account) to post.

You could remove the restriction once the account reaches 20M SP. I think it is safe to say no one is going to train a forum alt that long, or PLEX/Sub an account just so they can post anonymously on the forum. Okay, some might, but it would be few and far between.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#482 - 2014-05-29 21:48:46 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
This kind of post and your attempt to bait me into reporting you in hope of a thread lock are exactly why I suggested this suggestion.


THREAD LOCK!? That right there shows how warped your perception is. My primary aim in contributing to this thread has been to keep it current, so that as many people as possible can see it and YOU, Goon, for what you are. If it was up to me, I'd have this thread stickied in the New Player Q & A forum, so the newbies can see exactly the kind of person they are dealing with in EVE (and in society at large).

I wouldn't even know HOW to go about getting a thread locked, nor do I care. Only people like you even consider such tactics.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#483 - 2014-05-29 22:06:47 UTC
Paul Panala wrote:
I agree with the idea of restricting the forum to real accounts. I think it would be a better place if people had to sign their name to what they say.

You cannot base it on NPC corp status; it is way too easy to form a holding corp for forum alts. You need to base it on skill points. The toon posting should be required to have an active training queue for the last 24 hours before they can post. One exception is the new player forum should always allow new accounts (not just new toons on an existing account) to post.

You could remove the restriction once the account reaches 20M SP. I think it is safe to say no one is going to train a forum alt that long, or PLEX/Sub an account just so they can post anonymously on the forum. Okay, some might, but it would be few and far between.

I fail to see why a known and welcomed personality should be unable to post for a while simply because he wants to train up an alt for one purpose or another for a couple weeks. As is what would happen with your suggestion.

Again, I don't believe these forums need any kind of drastic action like that. There is no need to suddenly revoke the posting privileges of a large number of people using a largely arbitrary metric. If anything, moderation already in place just needs to be given a little more bite.
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#484 - 2014-05-29 22:42:18 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I am impressed... this is a troll attractor thread... this is awesome. All the mud slinging and Ego stomping is good.
+1 keep it rolling / trolling.


Are you implying we should anchor fences around "goons" borders with a board "don't feed the trolls "?


The opposite, feeding the trolls cause them to gather on this thread and the quality of all the other threads go up.

Is that my two cents or yours?

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#485 - 2014-05-29 22:43:44 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
My primary aim in contributing to this thread has been to keep it current, so that as many people as possible can see it and YOU, Goon, for what you are. If it was up to me, I'd have this thread stickied in the New Player Q & A forum, so the newbies can see exactly the kind of person they are dealing with in EVE (and in society at large).


"Exactly the kind of person" as in people who try to make the game better for everyone? Yup, I'd put La Nariz in that column, too.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#486 - 2014-05-29 23:00:19 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
My primary aim in contributing to this thread has been to keep it current, so that as many people as possible can see it and YOU, Goon, for what you are. If it was up to me, I'd have this thread stickied in the New Player Q & A forum, so the newbies can see exactly the kind of person they are dealing with in EVE (and in society at large).


"Exactly the kind of person" as in people who try to make the game better for everyone? Yup, I'd put La Nariz in that column, too.
Except that this doesn't make the forum better for everyone, it just puts up a sign that says "Your corp must be this big to ride." which makes the forums worse for those that don't qualify, but are still a part of everyone.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#487 - 2014-05-29 23:08:34 UTC

"Only mains are in corps." That's an erroneous presumption. How much ISK and SP does it take to open a corp for a forum alt?

Spoiler Alert: Almost nothing, and almost none.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Ohhhh Feely Nice
Feely Good Logistics
#488 - 2014-05-29 23:20:39 UTC
What would be the result of this? Some of the biggest trolls and dickheads on this forum are publically recognized members of their bloc.

Sorry but I have to -1 this idea. It would restrict shitposting and trolling to only a select few individuals whom essentially are too powerful to be messed with.

The rest of us have to actually watch our words and what we say....

No. No surprise it's a Goon proposing this either. Nothing against La Nariz, it's just easy to want something like this when you have all the protection in the world if you speak too harshly.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#489 - 2014-05-29 23:37:34 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
This kind of post and your attempt to bait me into reporting you in hope of a thread lock are exactly why I suggested this suggestion.


THREAD LOCK!? That right there shows how warped your perception is. My primary aim in contributing to this thread has been to keep it current, so that as many people as possible can see it and YOU, Goon, for what you are. If it was up to me, I'd have this thread stickied in the New Player Q & A forum, so the newbies can see exactly the kind of person they are dealing with in EVE (and in society at large).

I wouldn't even know HOW to go about getting a thread locked, nor do I care. Only people like you even consider such tactics.


Your primary aim, whatever you claim it is, is to attack the person making the suggestion, and not the suggestion itself.

Exactly the kind of ignorance and trolling that would be fixed by the OP's suggestion. Which makes it no surprise you are so vehemently against it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#490 - 2014-05-30 08:18:34 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Additionally I posted further down that the level of trolling in the places I hang out most is basically non-existent and a lot of the good content comes from NPC corps. For clarity that'll be missions & plexes, ships and mods, warfare and tactics.

I think we have fundamentally different forum experiences - you might consider that before applying an exclusion list to forums you do not frequent - perhaps a better idea would be listing a very small list of the sub forums to apply your idea in to start with, rather than a select few exempt.

There are way too many subforums imo for a start so a lot of them only have a handful of regular posters who are pretty vigilant about kicking out trolls. Those end up gravitating towards busier areas where they can get some attention. It doesn't mean there isn't a problem if the quieter sections, which are more about advice, info and a dash of discussion are not too bad. Whereas the areas where people are likely to have more opposing views and more interraction between players-devs are radioactive with badposting.


This is true, but the rare problems in the forums I hang in are usually actually people in large null blocs/low sec pirate corps decrying PvEer, one line sniping, that sort of petty nonsense.

Much of the GOOD quality posting there, however, would be ripped out by the proposal - which is one of the reasons I'm against it.

Basically though, It remains a paradox - it only works if ISD get bigger sticks. If that that happens the need for the originally proposed solution is obviated. Trolls die, good content stays. Happy days.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#491 - 2014-05-31 14:42:49 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
An Egalitarian stance would seem to suggest to me that being in a player corp with 10+ members would be of equal worth to being alone in an NPC corp. Furthermore it seems counterintuitive to suggest such a stance would be considered parallel with the idea of the exclusion of those with lesser numbers from forum participation.

Readdressing the list:
1) What tangible asset? The throw away alt has no value, nor does a trash corp created for posting. Both are easily replaced which leaves no greater redress that current for ISD/CCP under otherwise unchanged policies.

2) The search function does nothing to vet conversation out of the New citizens forum that rightfully shouldn't be there but would have to fall there due to a lack of other non-dedicated purpose forums which those affected would have access to. This is primarily an issue for those seeking to ANSWER questions as it lowers the likelihood of legitimate new player questions from being seen, thus lowering the utility for new players.

3) Existing features working as is is not a benefit of a change, it can be an acknowledgement of a problem not being created, but in the case of other suggestions there is no reason special casing can't be applied much like what is still needed here to preserve functionality there. There is nothing unique to your suggestion that makes excluding a subforum specifically advantageous to it, but rather it's an acknowledgement that it suffers the same limits as other suggestions in that respect with a workaround that equally could probably apply to them all.

4) I thought it self evident. We had already established that there are disadvantages to player corps as is. You are adding another disadvantage to player corps consisting of less than 9 players. They gain nothing and lose access to the majority of the forums. That is objectively a worse situation for those corps and adds no incentive to join of have them.

5) That packaging is only as effective as the value of the corps identity. Seeing as such corps would only exist for their function, and that function can be accomplished by any corp with 10+ members, their identity is worthless and thus holding it hostage is ineffective.

6) So basically the answer to solo representation is simply to not be solo? If someone has placed themselves in a situation to minimize risk that person will not seek to undo that for posting privileges, they will create an alt and have that alt join a corp to post, which again leads to the abuses in points 1 and 5.

It's in no way permissive. It involves workarounds that aren't logically beneficial for the responsible posters affected and as such promotes the same tactics of creating actual disposable alts that you claim is the cause of the current forum condition. It creates no accountability or control because it renders everything that could be used as leverage worthless and replaceable. You are penalizing legitimate players and posters and telling them that the only way they can post is to separate consequence from posting, not add to it. This all hinges around the idea that people should be fine with not being able to post, current trolls, future trolls and legit posters alike, which I have trouble believing you actually consider the truth.

Regarding CAOD, that likely works because it's just CAOD, and even then leaves much to be desired. The reat of the forums are incomparable in both desirability and likelihood of effort.


Other people who are against this idea, Tyberius Franklin has just given you an amazing "how to post guide." Look at his entire post there are no obvious fallacies, goonspiracy, or hyperbolic raging. I know its a new idea to many of you but, he actually attacks the argument and supports his points. If you want to be taken seriously learn from his post.


1. The asset is the corporation itself, just like I stated with the dude trying to pull off Walter White, that corporation is an asset and can be threatened through social engineering. It also corrals all of the trolls into one convenient place for CCP to address them at. The slaughter house analogy applies.

2. ISDs can and do move stuff that occurs in the wrong forums. I've seen plenty of posters vs ISD wars occur in GD and they're all solved fairly well so this isn't as big of an issue as you're making it. However if it is as you claim and the quality of that forum decays then they'll have to remove NPC corporation posting abilities completely and have some sort of played time determinant for newbiness.

3. It is a benefit because it does not require CCP to do additional work to make the changes work its basically something they could copy-paste. ISDs/CCP community managers have already stated that the forums are a low priority item for CCP so make it as :effort:/resource minimizing as possible gives it the greatest chance of being implemented. I think you are missing the point of the suggested work around. The work around is intended to be high :effort: enough to prevent as much trolling as possible but not too high enough :effort: so as to catch mains that are passionate about posting. It serves that purpose and can be adjusted depending on need.

4. That angle can be looked at two different ways, you can look at it as another disadvantage to npc corporations or as an incentive to join a player corporation. We're still hitting the unfortunate 1% that will be caught along with the 99% of npc alt trolls. I still assert that it will do more good than harm. I don't think we're going to agree on this point at all unless you have something new to add, agree to disagree?

5. Except it will forever show in their corporation history that they were a member of that corporation which still makes it easier for CCP to identify them.

Part 1 of 2.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#492 - 2014-05-31 14:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
6. If you're playing alone what difference does it make whether you're in an NPC or player corporation? You're still alone you still have access to chat channels. You can still do anything you could in either entities. Massive Multiplayer Online Game; player or NPC corporations can equally facilitate solo play.

That last paragraph:

-How is it not a logically beneficial work around?

-How does this promote the creation of said alts any more than the current status of things?

-With the current system what leverage exists? There is literally nothing you can do about a pending-doomheim npc alt as of right now. With the change that alt will have to do some work before it can do anything.

-There's no separation of consequences there's just considerable :effort: if they want to try to avoid the consequences again. While also making them an easier target for moderation as the troll organizations are identified.

-Again 99% of trash along with 1% of gold is doing more good than harm.

CAOD was an unbelievable toilet until the changes went in. Now its passable hence the precedent that this suggestion is based on.

Part 2 of 2.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#493 - 2014-05-31 14:57:48 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Except that this doesn't make the forum better for everyone, it just puts up a sign that says "Your corp must be this big to ride." which makes the forums worse for those that don't qualify, but are still a part of everyone.


Not really it puts a sign up that says "Your threads won't be derailed by low effort npc alts, please come post and be merry." It makes the forums better for pretty much everyone through the benefit of not having to sort through so much chaff.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#494 - 2014-05-31 15:01:21 UTC
Ohhhh Feely Nice wrote:
What would be the result of this? Some of the biggest trolls and dickheads on this forum are publically recognized members of their bloc.

Sorry but I have to -1 this idea. It would restrict shitposting and trolling to only a select few individuals whom essentially are too powerful to be messed with.

The rest of us have to actually watch our words and what we say....

No. No surprise it's a Goon proposing this either. Nothing against La Nariz, it's just easy to want something like this when you have all the protection in the world if you speak too harshly.



This post reeks of goonspiracy but, I'll humor you once like I did that other person.

There's a big difference between people you don't like and trolls. I don't like a good many posters but, when they disagree with me they are not and I do not consider them to be trolling. Aside from the change benefiting everyone you didn't give me much to address. Clean out the goonspiracy and try again?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2014-05-31 15:02:38 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:

"Only mains are in corps." That's an erroneous presumption. How much ISK and SP does it take to open a corp for a forum alt?

Spoiler Alert: Almost nothing, and almost none.


Strawman reread the OP please.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#496 - 2014-05-31 15:58:04 UTC
La Nariz wrote:



5. Except it will forever show in their corporation history that they were a member of that corporation which still makes it easier for CCP to identify them.



I do have to point out that #5 is effectively meaningless, in either direction. What would occur would be "forum" corporations, not necessarily "troll" corporations.

Guilt by association, while it might be sufficient to pay closer attention to a poster, would not be sufficient to warrant a mass ban. Otherwise you open the can of worms of censoring posters by alliance.

The recent star citizen forum fiasco of them banning a poster with a valid suggestion (the creation of a in game channel for female players, if memory serves) simply because they were a Goon comes to mind.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#497 - 2014-05-31 16:14:40 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

The recent star citizen forum fiasco of them banning a poster with a valid suggestion (the creation of a in game channel for female players, if memory serves) simply because they were a Goon comes to mind.


That, or they're just reactionary fascists in that "game's" forums. Half of them are there and think that their $30 or whatever guarantees them a carebear heaven where they are safe and happy and eat clouds made of marshmallows all day, and the other half think those guys are nuts, and each side has about an equal number of moderators.

And either side will fly into an unreasoning rage at the merest suggestion of something wrong with the game. The mass delusion is something I haven't seen in a long damned time.

It's basically become a forum for worshipping Chris Roberts.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Naomi Hale
#498 - 2014-05-31 16:21:11 UTC
You want to restrict who can post on forums? Wow, talk about the road to Hell...

-1 no.

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.

Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#499 - 2014-05-31 16:22:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

The recent star citizen forum fiasco of them banning a poster with a valid suggestion (the creation of a in game channel for female players, if memory serves) simply because they were a Goon comes to mind.


That, or they're just reactionary fascists in that "game's" forums. Half of them are there and think that their $30 or whatever guarantees them a carebear heaven where they are safe and happy and eat clouds made of marshmallows all day, and the other half think those guys are nuts, and each side has about an equal number of moderators.

And either side will fly into an unreasoning rage at the merest suggestion of something wrong with the game. The mass delusion is something I haven't seen in a long damned time.

It's basically become a forum for worshipping Chris Roberts.


That wasn't the issue. The issue was she had what would generally be considered a valid suggestion, the creation of a channel for women, which exists in many games.

Her thread, upon being derailed by posters making inappropriate comments, was locked, and she was banned (not those who derailed the thread), due to being associated with a group that the moderators considered to be "associated" with trolling.

After it got some publicity, they undid the ban & apologized, but the point is that it is not a valid tactic to ban people based on association, only upon action. I'm not actually opposed to reducing the ability of NPC posters, btw.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#500 - 2014-05-31 16:26:32 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

Her thread, upon being derailed by posters making inappropriate comments, was locked, and she was banned (not those who derailed the thread), due to being associated with a group that the moderators considered to be "associated" with trolling.

After it got some publicity, they undid the ban & apologized, but the point is that it is not a valid tactic to ban people based on association, only upon action. I'm not actually opposed to reducing the ability of NPC posters, btw.


Yeah.

Like I said, they are reactionary fascists on that forum. Even mentioning EVE has a fair chance to get you a temp ban.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.