I have moderated forums, I am also a believer in letting things go as part of the discussion, but the biggest issue here is that there are some people that appear to be engaged in the discussion at a superficial level, but are in fact very good at pressing the buttons of those they want to get at, with bait posts, out of context posting and so on. Like the one who just replied to your post above.
I noticed the same about myself too, but it is because these forums are so toxic.
Exactly, that’s why I try to ignore that poster.
People like that seem to think if they berate and demean those with opposing views long enough, they will eventually bully them away from the forums. Some sort of futile attempt to create an echo chamber and influence game changes…
You’ll find that you enjoy the forums, the game, and even life (even if that’s already going great for you, and I’m happy for you if it is) more if you learn how to be capable of more emotions than only outrage.
Still think the off-topic rule needs to be evaluated. Looks like indeed some posts are not removed, even when they are blatantly off-topic.
In that thread, at least the last 12 posts have nothing to do with the topic. The topic is “In ONE sentence what change would you see in EVE”, yet the replies are arguments back and forth about attribute points, FOMO, disposable gank alts and random YT links.
This is also why the optional text box to flags could be useful. Cause honestly, I believe the mod who looked at the flag, just thought it was part of some sort of forum PvP.
The ridiculousness that a post which topic excludes discussion is actually permissable in a discussion forum is apparent to me.
Not according to how some want the forum rules strictly enforced. I’m just trying to enforce the rules as people wants them. Some people wants posts removed cause of white boxes, no matter if the context of the posts allowed for it.
Having examples of what the rules would flag in a strict system, maybe will lead to a re-evaluation of the rules themselves.
I want the rules strictly enforced and I think that thread is in breach of the rules, or at least encourages breaching of the rules on technicalities.
Ok, think I misunderstood your above post.
After reading it again, am I correct that you would not allow the whole thread, cause the topic does not allow for discussion?
More or less. Id probably advise the post to be modified to allow discussion.
Polls should probably live outside General Discussion, if no actual discussion of the topic is required.
For a start, if the OP wants information to be available should CCP be interested, it would be easier to find. And a limit on each poster posting once per opinion/poll request would keep things simple
The points you raised are all related points to the topic, depending how they were being discussed. If I make a topic that says “only list ways ganking is bad” someone coming along and saying it is good is related to the topic. The forum rules should not be used as a bludgeon to allow threads to become echo chambers.
Now if I instead started talking about how Bob was formed in EVE history. That is probably off topic (unless I’m using it to highlight a mechanic I want to see changed, see how context dependant this becomes super fast).
As for your example, frankly the “some people” absurdity argument should be banned. Its one of the most backhanded insulting discussion stifling things you see on the forums here. “some people think this absurd thing so I’m going to use it as an argument some direction”… really?
standing ovation
Its quite simply the most overused trope other than “Ive been playing 10+ years and I…”
Are you sure? I thought the most used trope was “I’m a game dev and…”.
But yes. The ‘Some nameless unspecified people’ argument is just silly.
I think it’s an assessment of how strictly the rules are interpreted.
I wrote the example, cause there are a lot of uncertainties around what constitutes “off-topic”. I’ve seen posts removed that were more on-topic than the examples in that thread.
The ISDs need to re-evaluate the ruleset and communicate it clearly, if they want these forums to adhere to some specific rules.
Maybe you could assist them by identifying unclear rules.
And please don’t point at off topic. The rule is very clear and it’s so context dependant that there is no way to write a rigid rule, it always has to be done case by case which means the line will fluctuate a little.
If you look in this thread, I’ve pointed out off-topic and the profanity rules.
Off-topic is relevant cause it’s enforcement isn’t consistent. Consistent modding is what we’ve been discussing lately and what seems to be a grievance for several of the forum regulars.
There also seems to be some issues with what constitutes a personal attack, cause people define it differently.
The rule is very clear though for both off topic and profanity. Just don’t push the lines and it doesn’t matter that it is context dependant and therefore will never be applied perfectly evenly, especially since it is subjective and your view may not match the ISD view.
I’ve seen basically all the forum regulars get slapped for off topic at some stage, so clearly no one is exempt.
I agree. Yet, people like DMC (you didn’t want “some people” so I’ll focus his wrath on me) wants these forums to adhere to very strict modding.
I’m giving examples of what, within strict modding, could be removed. The point is that ISD need to re-evaluate and communicate better their ruleset so we don’t have these grievances.
I’ve said before in this thread, if the modding is supposed to stay laxed, then they should just communicate that better. A big part of this thread are grievances about how the mods are not strict enough, cause some edge-cases are not removed.
I don’t know how you get that interpretation from people asking that it be balanced and unbiased.
As an example of this, I was given a 24 hour suspension for calling someone an idiot one time as part of a larger post. On the other hand when someone called me “retard” more than a dozen times, I was informed by ISDs that calling someone a retard is “smack-talk” and so they let it stand.
This is what happens when ISDs are recruited from the playerbase, their bias comes with them and the rules get applied unevenly based on how they personally feel about the people involved.
It’s not limited to ISDs either, CCP Aurora comes from a nullsec background and there’s already been situations where there’s a clear bias towards nullsec players.
There is no line to push. That line is just in the choice of the person enforcing the rules. So yes, inconsistent.
Not unless it addresses an argument that he considers actually makes ganking good. eg I say “ganking is bad because it creates destruction of players assets”, you can answer “it actually makes ganking good becasue destruction of assets is what makes the market work”.
But if you just come and write “ganking is good because it teaches people to accept the losses” then you ARE off-topic.
The topic is “what change would you see in Eve”. The one sentence part is a rule that the author can not enforce, so a mere wish.