Moderation of the Forums

[Mu_ad_Diib]

@Salt_Foambreaker

@Mu_ad_Diib

For a long, long while, I’ve stayed away from these forums.

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

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

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@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.

[Rekindle]

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

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

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

[Vals_Loeder]

@Lucas_Kell

Sure, he does do that but even he has his limits. And by not removing the real problem posters, the likelihood of it needing to be closed is higher.

Unfortunately, warnings do nothing, because they know that nothing will then happen if they continue to reoffend. At least on the old forum there were some times when a poster would receive a temporary ban after which they would come back with an adjusted attitude as they didn’t want the subsequent longer ban. As it stands there’s no deterrent because it seems that for many of the worst offenders there is no line they can cross that will get them banned.

I’m hesitant to name names but there’s a particular poster that shows up in a lot of threads with not particularly nice things to say and when people tell him they are reporting him, he posts screenshots of his own rules violations and laughs about how no action will be taken. No action is then taken.

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.

[Hi_I_m_Dave]

@Lucas_Kell

I would accept the punishment the ISDs

Your ‘acceptance’ of any meted punishment is irrelevant.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Vals_Loeder

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.

Your concerns have been previously addressed:

@Archer_en_Tilavine

@Mu_ad_Diib opened this thread in such a way that the subsequent discussion has been productive. His opening post was not perceived as a whine or “get over it” thread whereas it very easily could have been and shut down accordingly. Because it was opened well and has proceeded well, MVP ISD Dorrim Barstorlode is permitting it to go on because he acknowledges its constructiveness even if technically some of the conversations itself might be breaking some rules - but acceptably so because the resulting conversation is constructive and harms no one. Similarly, when I posted the ISD Appreciation thread that was linked earlier in this thread, I did so knowing I was breaking some rules, but I also knew the ensuring conversation would be constructive and as such an exception would be made for what was ultimately an exceptional circumstance. I would like to think that both the conversation arising from that thread in conjunction with the incident that “inspired” it are why ISD now have new powers. It goes to show that ISDs are willing to bend the rules if the result is constructive and harms no one.

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.

[ISD_Norros]

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 communityteam@ccpgames.com from the verified email address connected to their EVE Online account(s).

[ISD_Norros]

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

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

Thank you for reopening thread

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

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” , it should be “no discussion of moderation of specific individuals” .

All those in favor of this change, say Aye!

[Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras]

Aye Aye O Captain

[Merin_Ryskin]

Aye.

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.

[ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode]

Actually, the reason we have that policy is pretty simple. Some time ago, way back in the time before time, some people weren’t happy with the way moderation was performed, and proceeded to take it out on members of ISD (namely myself and maybe Ezwal). As a result, CCP Falcon drafted up that particular rule because of how vitriolic it was.

That said, we can always revisit rules and see if they need an amendment. That’s how feedback works. So thanks for bringing up that issue.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode From your experience and in your personal opinion, then, do you think my wording “no discussion of moderation of specific individuals” (or something similar) is sufficiently restrictive without being too restrictive?

And are you a Senior ISD or just Batman?

[ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode]

That’s more of an internal question for us to figure out, but I will say that we don’t discuss any warnings or bans that have been handed out. That’s not professional on our end, and it’s not something that needs to be known about.

Also, my official title is Senior Team Lead, as I’m in charge of the CCL group of ISD. Though the old title of Vice Admiral was way cooler.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode

Actually, the reason we have that policy is pretty simple. Some time ago, way back in the time before time, some people weren’t happy with the way moderation was performed, and proceeded to take it out on members of ISD (namely myself and maybe Ezwal). As a result, CCP Falcon drafted up that particular rule because of how vitriolic it was.

This seems like a problem that is much more constructively solved by banning and punishing abusive language towards ISD/CCP members rather than a blanked ban on the entire topic, no matter how polite the discussion is.

[ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode]

This was well before the policy that we recently rolled out that gives us the power to do so. Before this, everything was left entirely to Community Team, and if they were overtaxed, some areas had to suffer. Now that we’re more able to deal with that, we can take a more fluid approach to moderation.