These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-10-18 14:15:49 UTC
Hehe, maybe its social conditioning, that whenever rules are quoted people instantly asume they did something wrong :p

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#102 - 2012-10-18 14:25:43 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote: Have you discussed allowing people to create Polls?
I haven't personally - but I'm intrigued, what moderation issues do you think that might help resolve ?
In terms of scenarios, that kind of thing ?

I'll chime in here, although I think you were soliciting Skippermonkey's opinion. Polls would allow players an opportunity to support or oppose an idea in a concise, sterile, and anonymous manner. At present, to support or oppose a controversial idea exposes the player (well, their character...) to public ridicule. Ridicule which you would then have to moderate. So in theory polls could reduce the moderation workload.

ISD Suvetar wrote:

Skippermonkeywrote: .,.I like the reddit style of upvote/downvote karma...
Downvoting/Karma is a great idea in principle, we're just concerned how to have it without it being gamed or frankly abused.

I think we're all on the same page there; gaming and abuse were the things I was attempting to reduce by prohibiting players in non-player corporations from voting in polls.

Skippermonkey wrote:
As satisfying as it would be to remove NPC corp players from voting, in the interests of fairness, they have to be included. The best reason for this thinking is they might be voting on something that influences their decision to stay in the NPC corp in the first place.

Valid point. It may not be apparent, by I am ambivalent about my own proposal.

Skippermonkey wrote:
The only way i can see polls working is if they are restricted to 'one vote per account'

That does seem like a completely reasonable restriction. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that CCP's forum software has visibility to that information. So that restriction is at risk of being "not done" because of manpower limits.

ISD Suvetar wrote:
I too would like to see post counts though, there are times it would help us do our jobs too!

Although I worry at the possible costs of doing it, I would think a post count over a given timeframe (e.g. "the last 30 days") would be more useful. If a character was prolific two years ago, but has been silent for a long time, showing their post count would be misleading.

Edit: Damned quote limit! /me shakes fist. I'd love it if it were possible to have that restriction disabled on a per account basis. Some of us aren't pyramid quote abusers.

MDD
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#103 - 2012-10-18 14:31:07 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:

I too would like to see post counts though, there are times it would help us do our jobs too!

That info shouldn't be a open status symbol like likes. Can just lead to post hording or newer people spamming to get this status symbol higher like so many other boards. If anything, it should be kept in the profile page. Eve-search has a good stats system in which you have to choose to view it.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-10-18 14:37:22 UTC
Compare 'post count' with 'karma recieved' and you can soon make a snap judgement on whether the poster has been 'spamming to get the status symbol'

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#105 - 2012-10-18 14:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
New board features can be its own whole topic because this can get a little passionate. The complexities in the hows, whys, whens of votes and what-not would be a bit convoluted to pan out for moderator discussion.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#106 - 2012-10-18 14:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Skippermonkey wrote:
edit - in response to your above post, you could argue the case for 'authority figures' like ISD's and DEV's to be removed from the up/down votes all together

As for the players being subject to 'block voting', well, thats just a reality that people will have to accept

edit2 - in regards to the 'what would polls do for moderating', you might be able to gauge the public reception to ideas or behaivor with more clarity to see if it is a prevailing mood of the community or just a grumpy forum poster pushing his agenda to the front of the queue


Cheeky monkey; editing your post after we've already quoted you. Lol

I agree: just exclude CCP, GM, ISD, and perhaps CSM characters (*characters*!) from karma votes.

MDD
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-10-18 14:48:14 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
I agree: just exclude CCP, GM, ISD, and perhaps CSM characters (*characters*!) from karma votes.

MDD


Not CSM characters, it'd be a good test on whether they are actually a representative of the people

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#108 - 2012-10-18 14:55:57 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
New board features can be its own whole topic because this can get a little passionate. The complexities in the hows, whys, whens of votes and what-not would be a bit convoluted to pan out for moderator discussion.
maybe i went slightly off topic then
http://imageshack.us/a/img822/5618/forumtest.png

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#109 - 2012-10-18 15:06:29 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
OK, so we've gotten a bit off-topic, but it feels like a good discussion. Which caused me to think:
Quote:
Moderators need the ability to "fork" posts out of a thread into their own thread.

There are occasions where moderators are faced with a bit of a dilemma: remove posts which violate the rules (by being off-topic, posted by an NPC character, etc.) but which have redeeming content, or leave those same posts and expose themselves to accusations of adverse bias moderation ("you didn't delete those posts because you secretely have a hard-on for monkeys" Lol). In those situations, the moderators need a third option to fork those posts (the one that started the diversion, plus any that are responses to it).

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#110 - 2012-10-18 15:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Back to the topic of polls: when moderators lock poll threads, they need the option of retaining the poll results to that point or discarding them. I can imagine situations where either would be appropriate. And when the OP creates a poll, they need to have the option of a system-imposed deadline, after which no voting can occur. Or perhaps require a deadline from the OP (limit it to within a year), so that all polls eventually close. I'm ambivalent about whether the discussion part of the poll should be permitted to continue after that point.

MDD
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#111 - 2012-10-18 15:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
MailDeadDrop wrote:
when the OP creates a poll, they need to have the option of a system-imposed deadline

I would argue that all polls need to have a short 'polling period' as the whole point is to capture the current prevailing mood.

There is little point in having a poll that is open for a year, as many things can happen in that timeframe.

I would suggest 7 day and 30 day polls

edit - i would also suggest that 'poll posts' should be limited to one active poll per person and that they recieve forum moderator approval before being posted to the forum

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#112 - 2012-10-18 15:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
MailDeadDrop wrote:
when the OP creates a poll, they need to have the option of a system-imposed deadline

Skippermonkey wrote:
I would argue that all polls need to have a short 'polling period' as the whole point is to capture the current prevailing mood.

There is little point in having a poll that is open for a year, as many things can happen in that timeframe.

I would suggest 7 day and 30 day polls

I was trying to say something like: Require the OP to select a poll closing date within some limited horizon (e.g. a year, six months). For example, we may want a poll on what ships to allow in alliance tournament X, and the deadline for deciding that is March 15*.

Skippermonkey wrote:
edit - i would also suggest that 'poll posts' should be limited to one active poll per person and that they recieve forum moderator approval before being posted to the forum

Prior approval? No. Hell no. That is a recipe for discontent for everyone (ISD included). I don't see obvious support for limiting it to one poll per person. If a person abuses poll threads by creating an excessive number of them, they are subject to the same "corrections" as someone who abuses threads in a similar fashion.

MDD

* Not the real date, simply part of the example.
Jim Era
#113 - 2012-10-18 15:50:13 UTC
Why is it that some general discussion threads are locked because there is a dev blog or something somewhere else.
What if we (the capsuleers browsing) just feel like discussing it between ourselves as it gives us something to talk about instead of having to post in a feedback thread.

I think that just because there is an official feedback thread, the threads just mentioning or asking a players opinion on something should not be locked because it is an interesting read and a place to speculate a specific instead of a wider spectrum for everyone to come and complain about something, not discuss.

It makes me a sad panda

Wat™
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#114 - 2012-10-18 16:11:58 UTC
Hi Jim,

Glad you asked that - I covered it earlier but very briefly.

You're absolutely right in one regard, those sort of posts often generate some very good feedback, as you say - something to talk about.

But we don't lock them because there's a Dev-blog. We lock them because there is already a thread dedicated to the subject.
If it's an an interesting subject for you guys to talk about then it's a *really* great topic for the developers to read about and that's why it's policy to co-ordinate all of that feedback into one place.
Simply, it ensures that CCP can to hear as much of a broad spectrum of feedback as possible.

Because it's not in General discussion is an advantage too, they won't have to go searching for feedback.

However, that's just the current thinking, I know both the Community team and CCL follow this method.

Speaking as a member of CCL, I don't think that simply just allowing multiple topics is the way forward, this place is too busy at the best of times.

So what suggestions do people have about solving this?
Do people think it's a big issue, even?

I ask as quite often there's a comment in such a duplicate saying "And you needed to make a new thread because?";
Not a nice response for anyone to get, really.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#115 - 2012-10-18 16:25:10 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
So what suggestions do people have about solving this? Do people think it's a big issue, even?

I ask as quite often there's a comment in such a duplicate saying "And you needed to make a new thread because?";
Not a nice response for anyone to get, really.


First, I agree: that sort of response is unpleasant. To use an American idiom it's "a kick in the teeth".

As for solving it, if I work from Jim's original premise that the duplicate thread was created intentionally duplicate, with the purpose of having discussions separate from the feedback thread, then I don't have a solution. I don't even think it is necessarily appropriate to classify it as a problem (needing a solution).

What may be more productive is to investigate why someone thinks a separate discussion thread is needed. Is it a perception problem that the official feedback thread is only for talking to the Devs? Is it a signal-to-noise (or signal-to-signal) problem in the official thread, where the duplicating thread owner feels that their point of discussion would be washed out? Is it a visibility problem, where the duplicating thread owner feels that a thread in (presumably) GD would get more player notice than the official feedback thread? Is it an ego problem? Cry

In those cases where a duplicate thread has good content and does not need to remain a separate thread, maybe the Devs that implement the "fork" function (scroll back) can also implement a moderator "join" function to combine the duplicate thread into the duplicated thread. *insert "hope" icon*

MDD
Jim Era
#116 - 2012-10-18 20:47:12 UTC
because posting in threads like these really sucks.

Wat™
Becka Goldbeck
#117 - 2012-10-18 21:29:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Becka Goldbeck
ISD Suvetar wrote:

But we don't lock them because there's a Dev-blog. We lock them because there is already a thread dedicated to the subject.
If it's an an interesting subject for you guys to talk about then it's a *really* great topic for the developers to read about and that's why it's policy to co-ordinate all of that feedback into one place.


Open your mind to the possibility that a topic may have multiple facets which can encompass a broad range of ideas, able to support multiple threads. Do you know what a thread literally refers to?

Dictionary wrote:
A long, thin strand of cotton, nylon, or other fibers used in sewing or weaving.


Imagine a thread as an idea flowing out in discussion until it comes to it's conclusion or end. Wouldn't the discussion of multiple ideas interrupt this flow, even if they're in the same broader category?

Also, it's sort of astounding that you guys view the forum as existing SOLELY for your "feedback"

I know it may be difficult to see at first but discussions may exist simply because people have a common concurrent thought. Not everything which happens in other people's minds has to do with you. So just to sum up, yes CCP you are here trying to collect feedback, this does not mean everything here is in existence as feedback for you.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#118 - 2012-10-18 22:04:04 UTC
Becka Goldbeck wrote:
ISD Suvetar wrote:

But we don't lock them because there's a Dev-blog. We lock them because there is already a thread dedicated to the subject.
If it's an an interesting subject for you guys to talk about then it's a *really* great topic for the developers to read about and that's why it's policy to co-ordinate all of that feedback into one place.


Open your mind to the possibility that a topic may have multiple facets which can encompass a broad range of ideas, able to support multiple threads. Do you know what a thread literally refers to?

Dictionary wrote:
A long, thin strand of cotton, nylon, or other fibers used in sewing or weaving.


Imagine a thread as an idea flowing out in discussion until it comes to it's conclusion or end. Wouldn't the discussion of multiple ideas interrupt this flow, even if they're in the same broader category?

Also, it's sort of astounding that you guys view the forum as existing SOLELY for your "feedback"

I know it may be difficult to see at first but discussions may exist simply because people have a common concurrent thought. Not everything which happens in other people's minds has to do with you. So just to sum up, yes CCP you are here trying to collect feedback, this does not mean everything here is in existence as feedback for you.


I think you're being at best uncharitable and at worst downright disengenuous with that last statement. Suvetar never said they consider every discussion feedback, only that good discussions on a subject will inevitably contain things CCP would like to take note of so its best to keep it in a thread they check regularly rather than risk losing it to random forum noise.

And yes I do believe its possible to have multiple discussions on a single subject going on in one thread, thats what we have a quote function for. Believe me it works on boards with far stricter moderation policies than here.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#119 - 2012-10-18 22:37:26 UTC
Hi Becka,

I think you might be putting words in my mouth ever so slightly, but I'm partially to blame for that.
I do apologize for using the word 'thread' all of the time, we of course formally use the word Topic.

I will concede that in regards to the comments section of a dev blog, Thread is definitely a more apt term, but in general a forum post should be a topic, which does of course emphasize the point of having a discussion about a single concept ,or at least a number of concepts highlighted in the opening phrases.
That is, after all, why we have rules about going off-topic and derailment.

Of course we consider that a topic may have multiple facets. In the "very specific" context of topics that belong to a new feature/devblog - it's fair to assume that those facets are going to be about that feature.

Implications/applications/potential risks - all of these things and many more can spring from this.
Who's to say it's not relevant though ? Not I, nor anyone in CCL (that is, unless it's blatantly off-topic of course)

That, in a nutshell, is why we move the debate back to the main CCP monitored thread. Because they're the one group of people who can say if it is or not; the team behind the change.

People have accused CCP in the past of not considering the big picture, not doing enough testing, not taking some "obvious" detail into consideration; even ignoring feedback.
Well, our job in CCL is to feedback from customer to CCP and to ameliorate the causes behind these accusations.
Ensuring that cogent discussion happens in an area that is guaranteed to be monitored is the only sane way to allow that, with the forum software that we have.

In the end though, as CCP Gargant has stated so clearly, moderation is a judgement call. In this case I think it's a very fair judgement call to say that a new topic called "I don't like heavy missile changes" is going to be relevant to the heavy missile changes comments thread.
We would either move said post to that thread (we have a special tool to merge threads) or we would lock the topic and leave a message.

Ideally we'd merge every thread but you might be surprised how many non-constructive topics we have to deal with.
Similarly, if the salient content of the topic is within it's subject, we can't merge it as you lose the subject.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-10-19 16:27:29 UTC
I love Devs, I love Moderation...

I think eve forums should be more tolerant like they used to be. I like profanity and cusses.

It is better when people are allowed to say what they want to say. It is better when people can express themselves.


Politics, bitching and hate is fine - but most retarted thing ever is wall of short one-two word replies. Smth like intentional flooding.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again