Moderation of the Forums

Good points as usual.

This might come down to the “quality” of the individual ISD in question. Let’s consider, for example, what top-tier MVP ISD Dorrim Barstorlode did a few hours ago: he temporarily closed a thread, cleaned it up, issued warnings to posters of violating posts, and reopened a thread.

Basically, more ISDs need to do this instead of categorically closing posts, especially now that they have tempban powers by which to enforce their warnings.

Granted, you could say “well, even Barstorlode categorically closes threads”, but I would argue that the only threads I’ve seen him categorically close are the ones that fall under the two criteria I described above: where either the opening post is totally out of bounds, or where the opening post is a written to be piñata where no amount of moderation is going to keep it from getting smacked around.

The only thing I could say is that ISDs could provide leniency on reopening threads if the reopened thread is word crafted to be on a signifcantly tighter leash in terms of scope and bounds so as to not present the problems that had it closed initially. All reopened threads I’ve seen continue to violate the above criteria, so go figure they get shut down - I have yet to see a reopened thread that don’t violate the criteria, so we don’t have a basis on which to evaluate ISD’s current degree of leniency.

On this I agree with you. I do think, however, with threads such as this one and the ISD Appreciation thread I started a while back that they definitely listened to our collective feedback. They took direct action based on our collective feedback and they themselves participated (specifically CCP Aurora on the other thread, who alongside CCP Dopamine really engages with us on the forums and takes our feedback seriously, as well as other ISDs).


Given the wall of text you just posted, this is a good thing :rofl:


Heyyyyyyy speaking of behavior that needs to be moderated - I have my own thread now! :heart:

I feel so emotionally hurt and violated and I am going to retaliate by WRITING A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER. Buuuuut seriously, since it’s totally relevant to this topic, I wonder how much or how little punishment ISD is going to dish out :smile:

1 Like


Carry on, then.

I totally agree with this Buoytender Bob. Well said.

To be fair a post this long is rare for me. I’m dyslexic so writing is hard and the original post took me about six hours to write.

I do post much shorter stuff, you’ll be glad to know, check: Towel Day

@Muad_dib I don’t know how you’re linking people but that’s not how you tag people. You tag people using @ . They won’t be notified until you tag them like that.

1 Like

oh we’re pretty sure you’ll get it locked before too long.

i didn’t know you could PM on forums anyway?

Interestingly the ISD is breaking its own rules by allowing this topic to continu. So why should this topic go on but other topics should be closed and posters be banned because you do not like it or them? Some would say you are taking a rather hypocritical stance here becasue you are actually criticizing ISD decisions and asking for posters to be banned, which in itself is a bannebale offence. In other words, what you’re asking for right here is to be banned yourself. And I am sure quite a few people wouldn’t mind that at all if you were.

If anything the ISD itself should be far more consistent in its decisions. Time and time again they show they are not. This means that every singly closing of a topic and or banning of a poster is rather arbitrary and criticism of the ISD by the forum users justly.

Your ‘acceptance’ of any meted punishment is irrelevant.

Your concerns have been previously addressed:

Rules should be enforced to the extent to which it is actually beneficial to do so, and to the extent that not enforcing them poses no detriment compared to enforcing them (especially if there is, in fact, a net loss should they be enforced, such as losing a constructive conversation that hurt no one). This is why flexibility and discretion is important, especially when the discussion is on the rules themselves and enforcement of said rules.


2. Specifically restricted content.

EVE Online holds ESRB Teen and PEGI 12 ratings. All content posted to the EVE Online forums must be teen rated.

In addition to this, the EVE Online forums are not for discussion of real life current affairs, news, politics or religion. Discussion should revolve around EVE Online and its community.

For these reasons, specific content is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:

  • Pornography
  • Profanity
  • Real Money Trading (RMT)
  • Discussion of Warnings & Bans
  • Discussion of Moderation
  • Private communications with CCP
  • In-Game Bugs & Exploits
  • Real World Religion
  • Real World Politics
  • Content that distorts the forum layout

If any pilot has an issue or complaint regarding the conduct of our forum moderators, the EVE Universe Community Team can be reached by contacting from the verified email address connected to their EVE Online account(s).


Oops, Didn’t see Dorim’s note, reopened.


Thank you for reopening thread :heart:

1 Like

Given the constructive conversation that arose from this thread and the ISD Appreciation thread (from which ISD received newfound powers), I think CCP should tweak the forum rule a bit: instead of “no discussion of moderation” :red_circle:, it should be :arrow_right: “no discussion of moderation of specific individuals:white_check_mark: .

All those in favor of this change, say Aye! :ballot_box:


Aye Aye O Captain

1 Like


The “no discussion of moderation” policy has a point when it’s stopping extended “BUT MY FREEEE SPEEEEECH” arguments from someone who doesn’t like that their post was deleted, it is not acceptable when it turns into a tool for silencing valid commentary on moderation decisions or policies.