These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#701 - 2014-06-21 01:25:06 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


How a subscription gets paid does not matter and people who pay with plex end up paying more in $$$ for their sub than those that pay with cash because a cash sub is 15.99 while a plex sub is 19.99. This is true for the US at least I do not know about other countries.

People paying their subscription with plexes do not care about the $$ amount as their plex is fully covered by the ISK they are making in game. This is smoke and mirror comparison IMHO.

La Nariz wrote:


If you want to argue from a fiscal point this suggestion is golden because it does not necessitate the hiring of new employees, all of the coding is already done for it via CAOD, and it reduces employee forum workload allowing them to concentrate on other activities. You can further say that since CCP has acknowledged that people who play with social groups are more likely to remained in the game and continue playing that this suggestion should be enacted to encourage more players to join player run corporations in order to increase the chances of them finding social groups.

I am not sure I understood your first sentence.
As for the second, is that a recent statement of CCP? Does it truly reflects he state of the game, or was it their intent ten years ago? Without supporting links, this seems to mainly be hypothesis used to support your point...

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#702 - 2014-06-21 01:28:48 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Cycling alts is a banable offense. There are already more effective means than the block feature for such an offense, reporting the offender via petition. The block function wasn't intended to enforce alt cycling and thus shouldn't have ever been expected to.

If you want to deal with the the ramifications of NPC corps and how you feel they degrade the game, fine, post that and we can have that discussion in its own thread. This discussion relates to the justifications for banning them from the majority of forum participation. It requests that it be done so disproportionally to the level of in game participation restrictions.

Regarding the forum sections, yes, exactly, not essential. Essential for an individual is centered around an individual's gameplay. Now, regarding being essential for the forum as a whole, yes, they all serve their purpose, though in much the same way the other subsections serve theirs. They segregate relevant discussion by topic, thus making F&ID no more globally essential than EVE Information Center, or Ships & Modules.

One thing I'd like to request is your numbers to justify the 1% claim. A number of prolific good posters would be caught up by your proposal, so either you've set an easy to achieve bar on disruption, which would make a number of non excluded posters part of the problem, or your evaluation is largely anecdotal.

Lastly the statement from here in full: "It does though, you are not allowed to use the faceless recyclable ganking alt and you are also not allowed to use the faceless recyclable npc alt forum troll." If cycling is part of the justification, why not use the proper manner for dealing with it rather than call the wrong tool useless?


Is there a specific TOS clause for this I've seen proof of people cycling ganking alts being banned but, no proof of cycling forum alts being an offense?

The point I'm trying to get across is several people are trying to paint me as someone who wants to brutally destroy npc corps when all I want is the forums to stop degrading. Its happened so often during this thread I have to remind people of this.

So your definition of essential is "whatever is affecting that person right now?" I see a bunch of holes in that but, I'll let you confirm/deny this first.

Lets do our own little non-scientific study here and if someone wants scientific justification for it they can get a kickstarter to fund me doing the stats on it or do it themselves. People that post well when not using the classic definition is very subjective so I'm not going to argue about lists or the semantics of it.

People that post well and contribute:
-Chribba,
-Stoicfaux,
-Yourself,
-Mike Azariah,
-Formerly Malcanis,
-3 or 4 other people from this thread.

People that post terribly:
All other npc corporation members posting from pages 1 to infinity in GD.

The fact that we can count the people that post well versus the near infinite amount of people that do not speaks volumes already.

That was an example of the game not mirroring the forums you took the hyperbolic route comparing the suggestion to restricting people in npc corporations to only rookie ships claiming that was a mirror of what the suggestion "really" was.

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
#703 - 2014-06-21 01:51:17 UTC
Saisin wrote:

People paying their subscription with plexes do not care about the $$ amount as their plex is fully covered by the ISK they are making in game. This is smoke and mirror comparison IMHO.

I am not sure I understood your first sentence.
As for the second, is that a recent statement of CCP? Does it truly reflects he state of the game, or was it their intent ten years ago? Without supporting links, this seems to mainly be hypothesis used to support your point...


You said this:
Saisin wrote:

I think there is another reason slightly related. You have players that play for free, because their income In game allow them to pay their subscription with plexes.
You have other players that pay their subscription with RL money.

I would think that the solo or small groups players' ISK income in General is probably significantly lower and more at risk than the players in the big alliances, who can be exploiting the richest parts of New Eden...

So Why would those that pay to,play be more likely to get limitations on their forums abilities, or be required to expose their in game identity, as they may be the ones that inject the cash to keep the game running...


You're basically saying that the people that pay for their subs are the people keeping the game running and that you think they are somehow going to be discriminated against. I don't think this is true and I can't remember if this fanfest showed the proportion of plexed:subscribed accounts.

People don't care but, CCP does. Fiscal arguments are of greater importance to CCP than the players because they are a for-profit business which by definition is purposed with making money. This suggestion is near perfectly aligned with fiscal interests.

I'm saying the suggestion is even stronger from a fiscal standpoint and its not a recent statement its from a fanfest presentation 2-3 years ago.

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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#704 - 2014-06-21 01:54:30 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Is there a specific TOS clause for this I've seen proof of people cycling ganking alts being banned but, no proof of cycling forum alts being an offense?

The point I'm trying to get across is several people are trying to paint me as someone who wants to brutally destroy npc corps when all I want is the forums to stop degrading. Its happened so often during this thread I have to remind people of this.

So your definition of essential is "whatever is affecting that person right now?" I see a bunch of holes in that but, I'll let you confirm/deny this first.

Lets do our own little non-scientific study here and if someone wants scientific justification for it they can get a kickstarter to fund me doing the stats on it or do it themselves. People that post well when not using the classic definition is very subjective so I'm not going to argue about lists or the semantics of it.

People that post well and contribute:
-Chribba,
-Stoicfaux,
-Yourself,
-Mike Azariah,
-Formerly Malcanis,
-3 or 4 other people from this thread.

People that post terribly:
All other npc corporation members posting from pages 1 to infinity in GD.

The fact that we can count the people that post well versus the near infinite amount of people that do not speaks volumes already.

That was an example of the game not mirroring the forums you took the hyperbolic route comparing the suggestion to restricting people in npc corporations to only rookie ships claiming that was a mirror of what the suggestion "really" was.
Actually it's not hyperbolic. It's an extrapolation of the simple logic that if I can do it in game I should be able to discuss it in the forums. For your idea of being in an NPC corp being unable to post in many sections to mirror the in game consequence of being in an NPC corp would essentially require such a restriction. It was a false equivalency and required a statement that was seemingly hyperbolic to accurately portray. That alone highlights a certain level of absurdity in the proposed and one such reasoning for it.

Regarding the people, lets not forget that we should look at WHAT and the amount of posts as well. A single troll that someone bit is worth comparably nothing in the face of even a couple useful spreadsheets from Stoicfaux, Tippia's blog, chribba's tools, Gripen's EFT to name a few. To think that a character of far less significance and activity cancels them out seems hardly a justifiable position.

Regarding the definition of essential, that was addressed from both angles. There isn't any function that those subforums hold that couldn't be rolled into another area thus making them non-essential save recruitment. That said, it being essential for forum functionality adds no value to it's use for those not looking to recruit or be recruited. Thus the term essential is rendered either untrue or wholly irrelevant to those affected.

I was informed that cycling alts to avoid consequence was an exploit, while I haven't verified if forum reputation is one such banable offense, you could always try. Worst case you lose nothing, best you achieve a targeted lasting solution.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#705 - 2014-06-21 01:56:51 UTC
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#706 - 2014-06-21 02:02:15 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


People that post terribly:
All other npc corporation members posting from pages 1 to infinity in GD.


I open up GD and look at the first page, and I see a bunch of people being friendly with each other and enjoying themselves. What kind of a curmudgeon must you be to think its trolling? Point to me what you think is trolling.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#707 - 2014-06-21 02:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


Everything you just said is pure supposition. There's no evidence or reasoned logic supporting your points. I'm pretty sure this is part of what the OP meant by low quality(Not that all of his statements are paragons of proper argument(far from it). To properly illustrate.

Edit: I should probably expand on that or risk being overly hypocritical. Basically, cherry picking one line from an entire argument and ignoring the rest of it is unreasonable and unproductive. As nothing can be constructively analyzed or built from tossing out everything you don't feel like responding to(I find glib remarks useful for those partsTwisted).

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#708 - 2014-06-21 02:08:46 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


Everything you just said is pure supposition. There's no evidence or reasoned logic supporting your points. I'm pretty sure this is part of what the OP meant by low quality(Not that all of his statements are paragons of proper argument(far from it). To properly illustrate.

Pretty much everything OP has based his arguments on was also supposition. The fact that he's long winded doesn't negate this. Only thing that was factual was that CAOD got better when you effected a quick and easy mass ban. This isn't an argument for extending the ban everywhere, as has already been discussed throughout the thread.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#709 - 2014-06-21 02:09:20 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Actually it's not hyperbolic. It's an extrapolation of the simple logic that if I can do it in game I should be able to discuss it in the forums. For your idea of being in an NPC corp being unable to post in many sections to mirror the in game consequence of being in an NPC corp would essentially require such a restriction. It was a false equivalency and required a statement that was seemingly hyperbolic to accurately portray. That alone highlights a certain level of absurdity in the proposed and one such reasoning for it.

Regarding the people, lets not forget that we should look at WHAT and the amount of posts as well. A single troll that someone bit is worth comparably nothing in the face of even a couple useful spreadsheets from Stoicfaux, Tippia's blog, chribba's tools, Gripen's EFT to name a few. To think that a character of far less significance and activity cancels them out seems hardly a justifiable position.

Regarding the definition of essential, that was addressed from both angles. There isn't any function that those subforums hold that couldn't be rolled into another area thus making them non-essential save recruitment. That said, it being essential for forum functionality adds no value to it's use for those not looking to recruit or be recruited. Thus the term essential is rendered either untrue or wholly irrelevant to those affected.

I was informed that cycling alts to avoid consequence was an exploit, while I haven't verified if forum reputation is one such banable offense, you could always try. Worst case you lose nothing, best you achieve a targeted lasting solution.


Except it wouldn't, a much better mirror is super capital construction. "I want to build a super capital so I must join a nullsec corporation that holds sovereignty." "I want to post on all of the forums so I must join a player corporation that has 10+ members."

Content is even more subjective than WHO.

You are discounting the relevance of the existence of options in the first place. Sure they might not use the recruitment forum but, its there should they decide they want to use it. Not having any use for something at the moment does not mean they are unimportant.

Yeah we're not allowed to discuss this sort of thing so I can't provide the proof I've seen but, from what I gather recycling forum alts is a thing and not even urban legends exist of what you referenced there.

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
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#710 - 2014-06-21 02:12:33 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


Everything you just said is pure supposition. There's no evidence or reasoned logic supporting your points. I'm pretty sure this is part of what the OP meant by low quality(Not that all of his statements are paragons of proper argument(far from it). To properly illustrate.

Pretty much everything OP has based his arguments on was also supposition. The fact that he's long winded doesn't negate this. Only thing that was factual was that CAOD got better when you effected a quick and easy mass ban. This isn't an argument for extending the ban everywhere, as has already been discussed throughout the thread.


Sure, but then you're arguing for a two wrongs makes a right scenario. Which often isn't that case(hence the cliche having become a cliche).

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#711 - 2014-06-21 02:14:43 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


You have several things wrong with your post. First its not revoking, the npc alts can still post just not everywhere. Second trolling is very prevelant reality denying won't help you. Third it is fiscally sound because it reduces work required to do a task so CCP has more capital to do what it wants. Fourth troll free forums while not possible would be a very positive thing for people outside the community to see and could be a selling point for the game.

Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
I open up GD and look at the first page, and I see a bunch of people being friendly with each other and enjoying themselves. What kind of a curmudgeon must you be to think its trolling? Point to me what you think is trolling.


E-2C Hawkeye, yourself and probably half of doomheim are great examples.

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
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#712 - 2014-06-21 02:15:36 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


Everything you just said is pure supposition. There's no evidence or reasoned logic supporting your points. I'm pretty sure this is part of what the OP meant by low quality(Not that all of his statements are paragons of proper argument(far from it). To properly illustrate.

Pretty much everything OP has based his arguments on was also supposition. The fact that he's long winded doesn't negate this. Only thing that was factual was that CAOD got better when you effected a quick and easy mass ban. This isn't an argument for extending the ban everywhere, as has already been discussed throughout the thread.


Sure, but then you're arguing for a two wrongs makes a right scenario. Which often isn't that case(hence the cliche having become a cliche).

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.
Smugest Sniper
neko island
Deedspace Consortium
#713 - 2014-06-21 02:17:08 UTC
Forum alts are a means of net nuetrality.

We don't need drama from key members of various parts of alliances or otherwise to start a war for forum posting.

I mean holy ****, I know pubbies are terrible at forums and try to hide behind the internet, but it's hypocritical to try and force someone to post things on a main for chest beating and in-game counter action.

Think about what would happen if someone paid to have some one hell camped and ganked for a month because of a forum post.

Freedom of speech may not be what this topic is about, but it is a breach in safety and security. and the entire anonymity safety feature of the internet.

As a Goon you should know exactly what that means if you spend any time at all in GBS or read anything on SA.(granted there is some hate for it in some portions of SA but irrelevant)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#714 - 2014-06-21 02:17:16 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.


You'd have to prove it has no real weight which you haven't done anything more than "lol no u."

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
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#715 - 2014-06-21 02:19:13 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Suddenly revoking the posting priveleges of a massive number of people is not a positive fiscal strategy. Might as well completely abandon that reasoning. Firstly, trolling isn't that prevalent. Secondly, forum trolling isn't a hole in CCP's wallet. Thirdly, no, troll free forums will not somehow bring more money into their company.


You have several things wrong with your post. First its not revoking, the npc alts can still post just not everywhere. Second trolling is very prevelant reality denying won't help you. Third it is fiscally sound because it reduces work required to do a task so CCP has more capital to do what it wants. Fourth troll free forums while not possible would be a very positive thing for people outside the community to see and could be a selling point for the game.

Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
I open up GD and look at the first page, and I see a bunch of people being friendly with each other and enjoying themselves. What kind of a curmudgeon must you be to think its trolling? Point to me what you think is trolling.


E-2C Hawkeye, yourself and probably half of doomheim are great examples.

No it isn't highly prevalent, and I'm not trolling. How is removing a privilege not revoking? I don't think you even know what trolling is judging by this thread. Finally nobody uses a forum as a selling point for a video game, are you for real right now?
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#716 - 2014-06-21 02:20:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaari Inkuran
La Nariz wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.


You'd have to prove it has no real weight which you haven't done anything more than "lol no u."

Burden of proof, OP. Burden of proof. Your arguments have no data, no substance, its all emotional appeal. Just demagoguery.

edit:
Oh right I was supposed to point out fallacies. There's one. Just because you don't like somebody calling you out doesn't mean the post doing so is done in a juvenile manner.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#717 - 2014-06-21 02:23:41 UTC
Smugest Sniper wrote:
Forum alts are a means of net nuetrality.

We don't need drama from key members of various parts of alliances or otherwise to start a war for forum posting.

I mean holy ****, I know pubbies are terrible at forums and try to hide behind the internet, but it's hypocritical to try and force someone to post things on a main for chest beating and in-game counter action.

Think about what would happen if someone paid to have some one hell camped and ganked for a month because of a forum post.

Freedom of speech may not be what this topic is about, but it is a breach in safety and security. and the entire anonymity safety feature of the internet.

As a Goon you should know exactly what that means if you spend any time at all in GBS or read anything on SA.(granted there is some hate for it in some portions of SA but irrelevant)


The bolded part is actually a good thing because its content creation. Example time, an EVE University director makes some C&P regular angry. The C&P regular decide to war dec EVE University. An EVE University member asks a question on C&P and gets abused by the EVE University director. The EVE University member makes the events public and a holy war is declared against EVE University by C&P.

In-game content was created for thousands of people by 30 or so forum posts.

Said hell camped person is paying for their actions and if it goes over the line the GMs will step in to remedy the situation. Its also not doxxing so there is no anonymity breach or safety feature breach.

I dwell more on SA than I do here so yes I know and I think there's a reason helldump no longer exists.

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
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#718 - 2014-06-21 02:24:56 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.


Then you should point out the ways that the argument does not have sufficient weight.

At the the risk of being overly combative:
La Nariz wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.


You'd have to prove it has no real weight which you haven't done anything more than "lol no u."


He's fairly correct in his position. Returning supposition with supposition gets you absolutely no where. This doesn't mean that you need wikipedia style references and citations. It just means you should cite some commonly known concepts, experiences, or evidence to properly build your arguments upon. Rather than saying, "X is true because I say so."

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#719 - 2014-06-21 02:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:

Actually I'm saying that an argument with no real weight can be dismissed by one without weight. Or something along those lines.


You'd have to prove it has no real weight which you haven't done anything more than "lol no u."

Burden of proof, OP. Burden of proof. Your arguments have no data, no substance, its all emotional appeal. Just demagoguery.

edit:
Oh right I was supposed to point out fallacies. There's one. Just because you don't like somebody calling you out doesn't mean the post doing so is done in a juvenile manner.


Historical data so yes there is data there. I'm not an English expert but, that's definitely not a fallacy to tell you to post well if you want a good response.

Quote:
He's fairly correct in his position. Returning supposition with supposition gets you absolutely no where. This doesn't mean that you need wikipedia style references and citations. It just means you should cite some commonly known concepts, experiences, or evidence to properly build your arguments upon. Rather than saying, "X is true because I say so."


Its all based on the historical data from when the CAOD changes went into effect so his claim is crap and if you search his history he hates goons its pretty much the only reason he's here.

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
Smugest Sniper
neko island
Deedspace Consortium
#720 - 2014-06-21 02:28:15 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
[quote=Smugest Sniper]
I dwell more on SA than I do here so yes I know and I think there's a reason helldump no longer exists.


Do you know what happened to that thread in PI with Crisco Disco and his cats? I've not been on forums in general recently.

Also RIP Rainbow Cake thread.