These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#281 - 2012-11-13 04:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
DELETE
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#282 - 2012-11-13 05:00:24 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:

or we can all quote others in a way using the scripting language so its not traceable to see where we got the quotes from...


hey - I don't want to get heavy here, especially in this thread but you got to know that that using the system in a way that was not intended and/or encouraging other users to do so is considered to be a very serious offence here.

You know .. you could work *with* the system instead of trying to *play* the system.
If you gave us a chance, you'd be amazed at how lenient we are.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#283 - 2012-11-13 07:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Mittens couldn't have wrote:

or we can all quote others in a way using the scripting language so its not traceable to see where we got the quotes from...
don't do the striked out because its bad m'kayQuestion


hey - I don't want to get heavy here, especially in this thread but you got to know that that using the system in a way that was not intended and/or encouraging other users to do so is considered to be a very serious offence here.

You know .. you could work *with* the system instead of trying to *play* the system.
If you gave us a chance, you'd be amazed at how lenient we are.



lol actually I didn't know about the
Quote:
buttons for quite a while & just learned to quote by manually typing & copy & pasting by teaching myself the language & would often misquote peeps using the
CCP Hilmar wrote:
stuff that he really didn't write
like above... I didn't know until a few hours ago in this thread that the quote scripts can be deleted over multiple posts by ISD or CCP except manually Lol

I learned a long time ago that misquotes are VERY possible & since mistrusted & looked back at every Goon post/quote that looked suspicious
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#284 - 2012-11-13 09:04:23 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
hey - I don't want to get heavy here, especially in this thread but you got to know that that using the system in a way that was not intended and/or encouraging other users to do so is considered to be a very serious offence here.

You know .. you could work *with* the system instead of trying to *play* the system.
If you gave us a chance, you'd be amazed at how lenient we are.
Sorry, just to confirm this.

You are saying - and I quote, that it is a "very serious offence" to edit quote tags on this forum?

If you are confirming that this will need to be specified in the forum rules clearly as that is a fairly obscure "serious offence" and one can only presume it comes with serious consequences.

When I once posted in other parts of this forum I would often just have a series of copy/paste quote blocks edited for whatever reason at the time.

And what constitutes "encouraging other users" anyway by this definition? Doing it? Posting that you do it and why? Blogging about it? This "very serious offence" seems to have a very vague trigger.

Also, what is the definition of someone attempting to "*play*" the system anyway? This should specified clearly as I can see hypothetical situations that this rule could be applied very subjectively on customers in a negative way.

Quote:
12. Spamming, bumping and pyramid quoting are prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or text or nonsensical posts that have no substance and are often designed to annoy other forum users. This includes “first” and “go back to another game" posts. Bumping posts in order to keep them near the top of the list is also prohibited. Petitions or "/signed" posts are a version of bumping and likewise are not permitted. Pyramid quoting is a response to a forum thread that contains the quotes of four or more previous posters, sometimes with additional spaces added unnecessarily. Posts of this nature are not conducive to community spirit and are unwelcome.

This is the only reference to quotes I could find in the rules (the emphasis is mine) so I am curious as to which part of the rules this "offense" falls under? Could you confirm that this may be n fact be an undocumented "offense"?

If so how many other forum activities are regarded as a "very serious offence" that forum members would have absolutely no idea they could be committing before they are possibly banned?
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#285 - 2012-11-13 10:03:55 UTC
It seems apparent that Suvetar was not referring to doing sensible cleanup or editing out potentially offensive content from a quote, but rather specifically using the quote function in a manner to deliberately deceive or mislead.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#286 - 2012-11-13 11:00:58 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
It seems apparent that Suvetar was not referring to doing sensible cleanup or editing out potentially offensive content from a quote, but rather specifically using the quote function in a manner to deliberately deceive or mislead.
Well with respect it is not that apparent to me as it seems to be something that has no grounding in the forum rules as they are presented and seems to be something open to endless interpretation.

That can not be good for customers using this forum.

I refer firstly to rule 12. There is a prescriptive clause in there with regards to "pyramid quoting". Not two, not three but FOUR pyramid nquotes is the trigger for a breach of this rule.

On the other hand you now say that, I quote you and the other poster - "using the quote function in a manner to deliberately deceive or mislead" is a "very serious offense".

If this is so "serious" how can there simply be no mention of it in the forum rules?

And why have you now expanded this "serious offense" from:

- using the system in a way that was not intended 
- and/or encouraging other users to do so

To now include:

- using the quote function in a manner to deliberately deceive or mislead

This is what I am generally finding to be the problem with Moderation on these forums. Definitions of "rules" seem to be incredibly vague and as demonstrated here include two variants that anyone would have to agree are very, very different.

I also note that it continually seems a curiously difficult task to receive basic answers to straight forward questions in this thread.

Overall, it's quite disturbing that a simple example of quoting posts on this forum reveals serious deficiencies in what could be regarded as a breach of a seemingly undocumented, but "serious offense".

If this is the kind of ambiguity one encounters here in the public gaze, one shudders to think potentially what explanations a customer could receive in the confines of a "petition" with no openess of process.

Hypothetically speaking all this would be of little comfort to people banned for these kind of "very serious" offenses when they are not actually documented - and depending on who you speak to, why.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#287 - 2012-11-13 16:04:03 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
It seems apparent that Suvetar was not referring to doing sensible cleanup or editing out potentially offensive content from a quote, but rather specifically using the quote function in a manner to deliberately deceive or mislead.
Graic Gabtar wrote:
Well with respect it is not that apparent to me as it seems to be something that has no grounding in the forum rules as they are presented and seems to be something open to endless interpretation.


I'll grant you, Graic, a half point in that Suvetar's statement was (on its face) overbroad. If he had to do it again, I suspect his wording would be a bit more precise. But at this point, Graic, you seem to be getting into an "internet lawyer" type of argument. This is a losing play on your part for a couple of reasons:

  1. CCP owns the playing field and gets to set the rules however it suits them. One of the principle rules is "CCP (and agents) is almost always right." If Suvetar says that misusing ("using ... in a way that was not intended") the forum software is a serious infraction, then it is.

  2. Eterne then steps in to add precision to Suvetar's statement, and your reply is to say that Suvetar's original statement was not apparent to you. Eterne wasn't saying it was apparent to you, only that it was apparent presumably to the average Eve forum participant. That it wasn't apparent to you says more about you than it says about Suvetar's original statement.

  3. You also replied that Suvetar's original statement wasn't grounded in the forum rules. I refer you to rule #15:
    Forum rules wrote:
    Impersonating another forum user, moderator, volunteer, administrator or CCP employee is strictly prohibited.
    Misusing the forum software to cause the quote feature to indicate that another forum participant wrote something other than what they actually wrote is definitely impersonation.


Graic Gabtar wrote:
This is what I am generally finding to be the problem with Moderation on these forums. Definitions of "rules" seem to be incredibly vague and as demonstrated here include two variants that anyone would have to agree are very, very different.
Overly prescriptive rules would stifle the forums -- there must be some vagueness to allow the moderators to have the freedom to act to maintain the forums. There have been some issues with moderators being heavy-handed, which CCP has acknowledged. I believe they are making a good-faith attempt to adjust the moderation in those cases. This thread is a place where CCP is asking for player participation in that adjustment. You've claimed that a particular moderator's pronouncement is neither apparent nor supportable. CCP mostly disagrees with the former, and I definitely disagree with the latter.

When interpreting the forum rules, I suggest that one keep in mind the overarching purpose of those rules: don't be disruptive. (And no, I'm not claiming you, Graic, are being disruptive here.)

Thank you for your participation.

MDD
Harbingour
EVE Corporation 690846961
#288 - 2012-11-13 18:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Harbingour
DELETED
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#289 - 2012-11-13 19:13:54 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
I am not privy to the discussion of which you speak, but would assume that accusing a Dev, GM, or ISD of bias constitutes a violation of one or more of these rules:

5. Ranting is prohibited
6. Personal attacks are prohibited
7. Trolling is prohibited
20. Post constructively
29. Personal attacks and abuse of CCP staff
30. Rumor threads and posts

I believe that CCP (the corporate entity) expects Devs, GMs, and ISD to be unbiased in their dealings with the players. Allegations otherwise should be investigated by CCP and dealt with appropriately. I can't see how a public discussion of those allegations would be helpful, and can easily see how they could fall under rules 29 and 30.

CSM are not CCP staff. I am unaware of any CCP position regarding the expectation of bias on the part of CSM members. Provided you don't run afoul of the rules (specifically the ones I listed above), I'd think that bias accusations against CSM members would be fair game for the forums. Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with CCP or ISD, except as a current player of Eve Online.

Speaking more generally, do you (Harbingour) think it is necessary for "accusations of bias" to be specifically cited in the rules? I get the impression that the prohibited behaviors listed in the rules are there because they happen often enough that CCP chose to be explicit as to their permissibility.

When interpreting the rules, keep the overarching purpose in mind: don't be disruptive.

MDD
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#290 - 2012-11-14 00:19:59 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
You know .. you could work *with* the system instead of trying to *play* the system.
If you gave us a chance, you'd be amazed at how lenient we are.

So lenient, posts disappear with less warning than Soviet generals.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#291 - 2012-11-14 02:29:34 UTC
Hi James;

I've covered this in another post:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2172329#post2172329

Particularly in reference to the 'To Mallak' part of that post. As I noted, there's a suggestion as to what to do if you don't think this scenario applies.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
CCP Falcon
#292 - 2012-11-14 10:59:02 UTC

Keep conspiracy theories, allegations of CCP bias and wild, baseless accusations out of this thread.

Last friendly warning.

Smile



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

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#293 - 2012-11-14 14:56:32 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
To Mallak:

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.




The forum software is buggy as hell then because I see posts all that time where quotes of deleted entries still remain. When I find one I smile because I get to read what was deleted - satisfied that there is at least some transparency, even if accidental.


As far as the current opinion wave - Companies only understand revenue. If you don't like what the petition said or didn't get a heads up on what you did, tell it to CCP in petition, then vote with your money and leave. That's what you would do with any other company you deal with every day- except maybe the water company, but you can make their life miserable with your local utility board. Wasting hours typing at them is as productive as spitting in the wind - they hold all the cards, except the revenue one.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#294 - 2012-11-16 22:03:26 UTC
When locking threads as duplicates, is there a rule to determine which of the threads should remain unlocked? I would've thought that the older thread would remain unlocked, as the younger thread is clearly the one duplicating the other. But this pair of threads seems to be the other way around:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=172648
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=173086

MDD
CCP Falcon
#295 - 2012-11-16 22:48:57 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
When locking threads as duplicates, is there a rule to determine which of the threads should remain unlocked? I would've thought that the older thread would remain unlocked, as the younger thread is clearly the one duplicating the other. But this pair of threads seems to be the other way around:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=172648
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=173086

MDD


I made the choice to lock the older one and leave the newer one in place is it has more relevant content, and was updated with a post clarifying the rules regarding bumping Smile


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

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#296 - 2012-11-17 01:57:11 UTC
So, a rather pitifully amusing petition later, I decided to provide some constructive Criticism.

There should be a CC of warnings sent to the specified characters evemail box so you receive warnings in a timely manner.

The point of a warning is to deter someone from continuing from what he does which is rendered pointless if you get the message a month later or not at all.

Yes - checking ones mail is someones own liability, but I have important things to do and I have unimportant things to do. Thus, I don't really have email accounts I use for eveO enabled for pushing - as a matter of fact, I usually don't even check them at all.


If you effectively want to warn people, you have to make sure they receive the warning unless you're into banning people for not receiving warnings.

On a legislational basis, I'm certain your decision to send the information to the mail account only is legally correct, however, on a common sense basis, it's ridiculous.

Yes - I am aware of the fact that any trace of common sense appears to be an exclusion criterion when you decide to instate new community employees, but I'll have to admit that this is one of the oddities that keep observing this game interesting for me.

Best regards,

LCO
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#297 - 2012-11-17 09:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Graic Gabtar
Large Collidable Object wrote:
So, a rather pitifully amusing petition later, I decided to provide some constructive Criticism.

There should be a CC of warnings sent to the specified characters evemail box so you receive warnings in a timely manner.

The point of a warning is to deter someone from continuing from what he does which is rendered pointless if you get the message a month later or not at all.

Yes - checking ones mail is someones own liability, but I have important things to do and I have unimportant things to do. Thus, I don't really have email accounts I use for eveO enabled for pushing - as a matter of fact, I usually don't even check them at all.


If you effectively want to warn people, you have to make sure they receive the warning unless you're into banning people for not receiving warnings.

On a legislational basis, I'm certain your decision to send the information to the mail account only is legally correct, however, on a common sense basis, it's ridiculous.

Yes - I am aware of the fact that any trace of common sense appears to be an exclusion criterion when you decide to instate new community employees, but I'll have to admit that this is one of the oddities that keep observing this game interesting for me.

Best regards,

LCO
I think I am now able to welcome you to the CCP "Petition" process club.

In my experience demeaning, dismissive of the customer's point of view, closed minded to common sense or logic. Any process that doesn't answer simple questions but simply paraphrases and rebounds the same thing over and over isn't a process. You would think that after complying with the wishes of CCP and not posting about your views on forum moderation you would receive some kind of common sense sounding board. I think you sum it up well, "pitifully amusing", although I tend to regard it as an attitude that is more, "willfully blind".

Not to be too specific I also have had experienced this email warning issue before. And in my case (and everyone else's) no warning via the forums, just an email account they I never really look at.

It surely can't be that hard to pop it up in EVE Gate - because a forum ban notification does. I wonder why it works like that? Seems a bit odd that CCP are capable of providing one form of notification but not the other.

I agree it would be much easier if someone could see it and give a forum member a chance to change their behavior instead of CCP staff having to send off warnings that are never read.

The whole warning/ban/"petition" apparatus as set up seems to just be a bit pointless and somewhat antagonistic.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#298 - 2012-11-17 15:08:32 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:

If you effectively want to warn people, you have to make sure they receive the warning unless you're into banning people for not receiving warnings.


Yeah, its WAY off expecting people to be notified about the game they play with the e-mail they used to register said game...Roll
That is the common sense.

Quote:
Yes - checking ones mail is someones own liability, but I have important things to do and I have unimportant things to do. Thus, I don't really have email accounts I use for eveO enabled for pushing - as a matter of fact, I usually don't even check them at all.


Sooo, its your fault?
Although I can agree a mail could be added to evegate along with your normal mail. But not one or the other, I use evegate way less than normal email as it tends to get flooded as I have real filter options with standard email.

I think the evegate taskbar could have a third header tracker with the mail and notifications. "Account wide warnings". This includes petitions, warnings, and global news like unexpected cluster downtimes or emergency restart news.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#299 - 2012-11-18 00:14:27 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:

If you effectively want to warn people, you have to make sure they receive the warning unless you're into banning people for not receiving warnings.


Yeah, its WAY off expecting people to be notified about the game they play with the e-mail they used to register said game...Roll
That is the common sense.




Do you really think I check some shoddy hotmail/gmail address (that was created for the sole purpose of not having to bother with spam) each time I made a post on a gaming forum?

Quote:
Yes - checking ones mail is someones own liability, but I have important things to do and I have unimportant things to do. Thus, I don't really have email accounts I use for eveO enabled for pushing - as a matter of fact, I usually don't even check them at all.


Quote:

Sooo, its your fault?
Although I can agree a mail could be added to evegate along with your normal mail. But not one or the other, I use evegate way less than normal email as it tends to get flooded as I have real filter options with standard email.

I think the evegate taskbar could have a third header tracker with the mail and notifications. "Account wide warnings". This includes petitions, warnings, and global news like unexpected cluster downtimes or emergency restart news.



*Sigh*, this is not about someones 'fault' or the specific ban I received but about the intransparent way these things are handled. Of course it shouldn't be either accounts email address or evemail - that's what I said when I wrote that a CC should be sent to the corresponding characters evemail inbox.

Considering the specific posts that triggered the ban, CCP and I have most likely agreed to disagree. Point taken, but we both view the other party as being wrong, No discussion here - that's forbidden and moreover, quite futile - they don't get my point and I don't get theirs. Done.

On the other hand, I was informed that I was warned for 'trolling' more than once before the actual ban.

Even after thoroughly searching all three email accounts I have associated with my eve accounts, I can only find one warning that dates from ~20 minutes before the actual ban.

Anyway:
- CCP can presume someone posting on their forums is logged in to his character through evegate at that very moment.

- If they want to ensure the warning is received promptly, they'd send a CC through Evegate.

(And as always, feel free to ban all my accounts for this post.)
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#300 - 2012-11-18 01:50:17 UTC
Hi LCO,

The information that I have is that if you raise a petition with the Community team, using the 'Other Issues -> Community' category; they may have some detail for you.

Hope this helps.

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