Moderation of the Forums

No. You can’t.

1 Like

Hmmm… looks like someone has been pretty harsh with the post removals.

Was looking for an older post that said, the complaints from both “sides” showed that the mods indeed were not biased. It’s nowhere to be found.

Seems pretty on-topic, since it’s constantly being brought up how the mods are biased.

Akshully I did

1 Like

@Wanda_Fayne makes a very interesting observation regarding different standards of moderation for different forum categories (other than IGS). :face_with_monocle: In NCQ&A, for example, “guide” threads that espouse ignorance and unfun/unprofitable ways of playing the game get both locked AND hidden. Also… that gif:

:laughing::joy::rofl:


Honestly, in my opinion, it would just be better if the rules were rewritten to adapt to the status quo, even if it means a different standard of conduct were applied to each category. (There is a simple, obvious reason this won’t happen, however, and I’ll get to that later.) The status quo is never going to change, and to a large extent this is not a bad thing. I think this is why ISD focuses so much on “edge cases”, because they accept that the status quo - which unapologetically deviates from the rules - is part of our desired culture, and that’s something that rules cannot define, but rather develops its own parameters organically. Yes, there has to be limits, but the limits should be defined in relation to the status quo; anything less will not confine the status quo, and neither will increased moderation.

If CCP takes over for ISD, then the regulation will be identical and some users will be mad at CCP for executing their duties identically to ISD, which is to say that a lot of items that go against strict interpretation of the rules will go unmoderated. Don’t believe me? Let’s review a high-profile case study where CCP was 100% aware of and were closely monitoring the situation but chose not to intervene at any point or at any level on any thread: The Komi Hunt.

First of all I want to say that in retrospect I very much regret my tone and conduct in starting and executing that thread. Just the other day @Wanda_Fayne had described my behavior at the time as a bull rampaging through the china shop - spot on metaphor. One of the ironic things about the situation is that @Komi_Valentine herself (and others, namely @Ferra_Orta ) pointed out that the hunt was entirely within the spirit of EVE and could have been a prime RP/semi-RP opportunity for everyone involved if there wasn’t so much vitriol and OOC trash talk. Without detailing the specifics or who was involved, the episode spanned a few threads: first it started as hypercritical commentary on Komi’s thread, then it forked into a controversial bounty thread that I started, and then concerns were raised in an official CSM thread and an IGS notice thread and those posts were visciously counterposted, and there was even a group raid on a CSM thread. As the starter/organizer of the hunt and as someone who bullrushed posts on other threads without consideration of or respect for others, I was not moderated or contacted by any member of community team even once. The only thread I had removed was a singular post on Komi’s thread that was made after I already linked the bounty thread on Komi’s thread, which essentially meant the post was made in the wrong thread given the existence of the new thread. (I did have a post removed in IGS, but that was only because I wasn’t aware of IGS-specific rules regarding OOC.) Neither CCP nor ISD popped their heads in at all whatsoever in any thread despite both ISD and CCP being repeatedly pinged across these threads. Were other participants moderated? It’s possible, but I don’t know who/when/why. I know some users (who I don’t associate with) made racist and sexist and 100% toxic trash talk (ie. non-constructive) comments, but I didn’t keep track of that stuff because I wanted nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the thread itself was never locked, and nobody (to my knowledge) was ever punished.

What’s my point? My point is that replacing ISD with CCP isn’t going to change the enforcement, but what it is going to do is illustrate the following: the rules are written as they are for the sole purpose of maintaining a PEGI-12 rating, even though at no point in history has the culture of EVE been close to PEGI-12. PEGI-12 is a minus-3 sigma level exception-to-the-rule when it comes to the player base. The desire to maintain this rating is probably the only reason why these rules exist on paper, though the level of enforcement is closer to and has always been intended to be that of PEGI-16, which in my opinion is how it should be when it comes to conversations (though not embeds - those stay at PEGI-12). For PEGI-regulatory purposes, writing a standard of conduct on paper that adheres to PEGI-12 allows EVE to maintain the rating, but “flexible” moderation by both ISD and CCP allows us to be ourselves and only remove posts that are the most egregious of offenses or derailing topics.

I agree with Lucas, DMC, and everyone else that yes, often times ISD fails to moderate threads that most certainly exceed “trash talk” - when you start referencing mental illness in a negative light, or sex with animals, etc, then that needs to be acted upon and when it isn’t then the community team needs to be notified via email.

5 Likes

Based on our recent interactions that’s not true at all.

3 Likes

Very eloquent post resolving into why it wouldn’t matter too much if the moderation changed, because the rules (and the standards for applying them) remain.

I think it also fair to say that players in Eve are well known for ‘gaming’ the rules within a hair’s width and many approach the forums here with the same tactic. Like many rules in CCP’s TOS and EULA the right to determine if a violation has occured, and the subsequent penalty (or moderation) is reserved. This gives the ability to treat ‘edge’ cases and known violators without having to arbitrate anything. You can always appeal, that is true in both realms.

Some rules you just can’t bend. Ever.

Kitteh

3 Likes

One of many tips to debating.

(from Reddit…lol)

1 Like

You are confusing a statement of intent with a declaration of skill.

While I definitely don’t think that my skill is lacking, that wasn’t the point of that statement.

Oops, bad Wanda :wink:

1 Like

I ain’t touching some of the recent comments with a bargepole, too poisonous even for an alleged troll like me.

1 Like

Why would you regret initiating player-made content? EvE needs more of that sort of thing.

Because some player made content can lead to undesirable outcomes where people feel so targetted that they quit because of how the content plays out.
Note, I’m not talking about just ganking a juicy hauler coming through your gank sector here, but about legit IC hunting or revenge type deals which can end up feeling too nasty in hindsight. EVE might advertise that sort of thing (or did), but it doesn’t mean it feels good at the end of the day to actually truly ruin someone.

2 Likes

Depends on who is being ruined, some players absolutely deserve everything that they get in game, thankfully they’re pretty rare.

1 Like

“truly ruin someone” in a video game, eh? …ok sure…

Komi wasn’t “ruined”, and in fact came out looking better to the playerbase due to his conduct playing along with it and not being mentally weak. Although I still very much disagree that a csm could function even adequately in always-on RP mode, I have some respect for Komi after.

EDIT: Also, one notes that ccp allowed events concerning Komi to play out, evidently only taking out some forum posts they deemed unacceptable. Does that tell anything? yup

1 Like


From 4chan

5 Likes

I really hate crap like this.
It’s for all of those who can’t think for themselves.

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode When you silence Sol for calling people assholes, do you silence all the sol characters? Or just the one posting at the time?

Yes, there was an implicit “this only applies sometimes” in what I said, since it was about “Why might someone feel bad”. But fair point to clarify.

Given how much cash even a single sub adds up to over time, and how many hours someone can invest into EVE over time, I think it’s fair to use that term as a description within the game context. I mean, yes it’s a game, that doesn’t mean someone can’t have everything they’ve done in the game totally ruined.

Don’t forget to send me your stuff. Also ban evading is an offence.

“Ruining” someone is entirely consensual on the victim’s behalf, unless you’re doing something like doxxing/hacking accounts. It’s nearly impossible to wage an eternal campaign against someone because unless the target is really stupid, it will always cost the attacker more in time, effort, and money, to keep going after the target. Players have too many counters available to use against unwanted aggression.

@Xuxe_Xu @Nevyn_Auscent I don’t regret being critical of Komi or starting the hunt, but I regret the tone, execution, and vitriol of the commentary, The Hunt, and that it spilled onto other threads. Remember: even Komi said the hunt would have been a great event if it wasn’t so toxic (see interview at end of thread when I announced termination of Hunt). I am not going to rehash why I feel Komi deserved critical commentary other than to say it could have been done in a more civilized fashion. There are so many topics and people that deserve hypercritical commentary and to be torn to shreds, but this can be done with fork, knife, and etiquette instead of claws, fangs, and OOC savagery. Moderator intervention or not, we can tear topics/people apart while conducting ourselves better - that’s my point. That most certainly applies to my own behavior and interactions with (a very long list of) others besides Komi which I aim to improve going forward.

To a limited extent there might be some exceptions to the rule… when Brewlar ran for CSM and refused to address counterpoints (whereas Komi always did) and categorically accused everyone of having issue with his platform or execution of solutions as being “Pro Botters”, then the gloves come off. Each participant in that thread continued to discuss on topic and respond to points, but we had no reason to show respect after receiving multiple personal attacks by a CSM candidate on his own thread (who does that???). I think (and hope) such “taking the gloves off” exceptions don’t come up often, but at least they are somewhat justified if you choose to do so. I think sometimes ISD finds itself judging whether an individual “deserved an ass whooping”, and then those bare-fisted brawls end up taking place under their supervision. They are often accused of picking sides and having favorites, but when it comes to individuals who are simultaneously arguably-stupid AND arrogant (specifically being disrespectful to others instead of talking on points), how can vigilantism not take place, and arguably-deservingly so?*

It’s interesting to note that some (non-CSM) threads are about people but ISD have deemed them acceptable - the ongoing SiCo/ICANP/Noori Naarian+alts thread is among them (to date I have not participated in this thread), and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. This borderlines as a “call out thread” and could have been closed as such; however, it has remained because it details game politics and what/how/why events unfolded, and profiles an individual responsible for these events primarily using evidence and testimony instead of toxic smears. This “profile” is worth documenting for those who may want to keep this in consideration in future encounters in game or forums.