I just went on and sold a skill book.
I could also sell nearly everything an alpha gets in the first 15 days, including ships.
Which old ones?
âCurious Gadget
extrinsic reward bad
Canât be bothered to elaborate why
The problem with these forums is that a huge amount of the posts are just endless mildly disguised âstop/nerf gankingâ posts, and âx should be easierâ (like the current auto d-scan thread), an awful lot of the content is of no interest to non-hisec players.
When you compare the discussions here to reddit there is a clear distinction between the audiences, most of the subjects on here tend to be about game mechanics/theory crafting, reddit has much more discussion around actual battles/events/politics, so tends to be much more engaging discussion.
Its highly unlikely that the rewards offered would result in an increase of quality content anyway, if every player posts to claim their rewards i doubt thereâs enough moderation time to actually keep up so it would just turn into a mass of low effort posts.
1 Like
Is there anything that doesnât seem like a problem to you ? I meanâŚmaybe there arenât enough dolphins swimming in space ? Or why are there never flies stuck to the window of oneâs space ship ? Or, where do the white mice live that decided to make every warp path in Eve fly right through a planet ? I meanâŚgoshâŚthe list of âproblemsâ one can invent out of nowhere is endless.
In New Eden there is problem
And that problem is carebear
They grind all the PvE money
They never share with us
Throw carebear down the well
So New Eden can be free
You must grab him by his barge
Then we have a big party
1 Like
The problem is that these forums suck.
1 Like
⌠are selectively moderated by volunteers from out of the game instead of paid mods that know how to moderate. People who join these forums quickly leave in disgust over how badly moderated they areâŚ
Mr Epeen 
1 Like
Iâm not seeing any moderation issues much at all. For someone to keep railing on about it they sure must have done some crappy stuff (on alts, obviously) that got them caught.
1 Like
Thatâs the problem.
Mr Epeen
2 Likes
EhhâŚ
That makes no sense.
Iâm not going to waste time trying to explain to a willfully ignorant poster what is glaringly obvious to everyone else. Find one of the regulars to start one of your arguments with.
Mr Epeen
3 Likes
Not sure if youâve noticed but I regularly have arguments with people, many of them âregularsâ.
This reeks of being a you issue.
1 Like
With 30,000 players and the client reports at least 50% online most of the time. You would think more than 0.001% to be on these forums. I have seen this before, most of the players see how the toxic forums are and avoid them like the plague. The rest just donât give a ratâs ass to say anything about the game because talking at the other players here donât matter. We are not in charge of the game, this is suppose to be a place for players to hook up and talk about the game. Instead many game forums degenerate into users complaining to other users.
For example; over on the EA Apex forums, they use very strict language rules, to the point you can get temp and/or perma-banned from the game for the use of bad language⌠o.O Any given day one can look at the forum and read âEA Banned Me for No Reason!â, all too common. The game is very LBTQXYZ friendly and therefor full of what many others call âsnowflakesâ and âcarebearsâ. The only reason I am not banned, I donât talk to my party. Sure I find offensive language offensive, but I expect it in PvP games.
But there is a tiny group on the forums there about 20 to 30 people. When you have an estimated 400,000 playing the game across PC, PS, XB, and NS, one would expect there to be more talk in the forums. Once again, players on the game, play and donât give a ratâs ass to say anything to the public at large.
However @Dchill if it makes you feel better, I think a lot of the numbers are faked accounts by the game companies to push their product.
1 Like
Well you get a nice example just after :
If you donât see a problem with that, then you have a problem.
https://forums.eveonline.com/faq
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. Thatâs fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
- Name-calling.
- Ad hominem attacks.
- Responding to a postâs tone instead of its actual content.
- Knee-jerk contradiction.
The problem, is that the rules are applied at the taste of the moderator.
Imagine for copsâŚ
âyou killed 1000 people but you placed their body in a funny way. You get a slap on the handâ.
âyou allowed people to sell toxic food but I liked your speech governor. You get a slap on the hand.â
Thatâs corruption.
Thatâs what we have on the forum.
If you donât see an issue with that, then you are the problem.
1 Like
Thatâs not a particularly good take, because your own interpretation of âad hominem attackâ is just as biased and subjective as that of the moderators that you allege.
Thatâs why you use definition and not interpretation.
Your post attacks the person instead of his argument, so itâs an ad hominem.
If you canât apply such a simple definition, then you are the problem. There are a few requirements to a discussion, one of them being a minimum threshold of intelligence. You not matching it means you are not able to discuss.
1 Like
If we âapply the definition,â then I assure you that the effects of the moderation wouldnât go in the way you expect them to. Some of what I assume to be your favorite posters would be the ones hit most severely by more intense moderation efforts.
Additionally, most discussions would simplyâŚcease. The forums would just be a bunch of threads following the standard template of a viewpoint being expressed, followed by a number of posts like âthank you for your post, very well written, +1.â
The underlying reason is that EVE is a competitive video game environment. Itâs not just a discussion forum for hamburger or Toyota enjoyers where thereâs no underlying need to engage with anyone you disagree with, because itâs not a zero-sum game.
Here, a person can for example post a pro/anti-ganking thread with the fundamental goal of promoting or removing such gameplay, respectively, at the expense of others, making it entirely rational to make arguments like âgankers only do it because they have no skill and suck at the game so they need to go after weak targetsâ and âminers complain about ganking because theyâre lazy and want to grind without paying attention to the game, and are greedy because they donât want to contribute their fair share of destruction to the economy.â But both of those argument are effectively ad hominem attacks, just ones that are veiled in a third-person observation sort of way to give them legitimacy.
Your perspective about applying rules according to a definition is severely lacking in the nuance of gauging the degree to which something is done contrary to the rules, and what the unconscionable limit to acceptable behavior is in every individual case.
How is that argument even one ?
You make assumptions on me. This does not give any logic to your argument.
If I remove the personal assumptions, all that remains is âSome would be the ones hit most severely by more intense moderation efforts.â How is that a problem ?
Your arguments are nonsense.
The discussion that would cease when you remove personal attacks are not discussion to start with.
They are aggression pit.
Thatâs a lie.
Eve being competitive does not imply that the forum must be toxic.
The underlying reason why itâs that toxic is because moderation is complacent.
The reason moderation is complacent is because 1. CCP consider itâs acceptable in a âbrutalâ game to have brutal behavior, only to be proven false when later legal actions follow real life harassment. 2. they only need the minimum to reduce the legal action risk. 3. CCP has made the game on the idea of a âallow allâ mentality (precisely ultra liberal distopy) which was stupid to start with (because itâs prone to abuse, AKA âemergent gameplayâ ) and they are having a hard time removing that premise without destroying the game. It was made on some solid basis, mainly KISS to reduce management (no rule => no need for people to check them) but then it fell the moment they started claiming things are âexploitâ.
Thatâs a personal attack. If his argument is sound, then this is not a problem. We donât care why he made the post, if it makes sense it makes sense.
Indeed, that is a personal attack.
Also a lie : I ganked because I had no skill, I sucked and I could only go after defenseless targets.
exactly, both are not acceptable arguments.
Itâs not.
In both the cases you quote, those are not acceptable arguments.
Period.
The miner should have expressed his despair about growing in a game where people already established can freely harass him without an impact .
The ganker should have expressed his despair about the lack of weak targets.
In both cases there is a difference between expressing oneâs feeling and making intepretation out of it, that rely on an image made solely for the justification of that feeling (AKA rationalize oneâs feeling).
THAT interpretation is the problem.
That being said, all those are nothing special. They are the basis of a civil discussion. Just like 1+1=2 .
This knowledge should not be brought to you by unknown people on the internets. Thatâs something your parents, family, teachers should have taught you.
2 Likes
The concept of âtoxicityâ is in itself completely subjective. Whatâs toxic to one person is regular conversation to another. For example, I wouldnât support an environment in which another player couldnât accuse me of having no skill, even though an argument could be made for such an accusation being an ad hominem attack and/or toxic. Thatâs why the degree of transgression is important. In EVE, it makes sense for that degree to be fairly high, because this is a competitive multiplayer game with zero-sum opinions on its creative direction. It would also make little sense for calling someone skill-less, or a coward, or salty, or a griefer to be an actionable offense, while destroying many hours of someoneâs work within the game, or lying to them, or stealing from them, are all actions that are perfectly allowed. And thatâs why the barrier to moderation is in fact that high; calling someone a âdumb n-word,â for example, would lead to action, but calling someone a âclueless noobâ wouldnât. In that regard, what I said in this thread isnât considered toxic, and if it were, then that very standard would also apply to classifying comments likeâŚ
âŚas ad hominem and/or toxic. But you didnât call out those comments because of your own bias. So far youâve only been calling out the comments of the people who donât share in your viewpoints as ad hominem and/or toxic.
1 Like