Proposal to make the idea section exclusive

My understanding is that the idea section of this forum has some very specific guidelines and my experience suggests they are being ignored by a large number of posters. Unfortunately I cannot locate those guidelines despite searching. If someone has a link that would be very helpful.

To be useful and effective the idea section needs to be treated differently than the rest of the forum, something that list of guidelines reflects.

I have two ideas for remedying this problem:

1: Put those guidelines up as a sticky in that section. and/or…

2: Make inividual posting access to that section restricted in some way or ways. For example:

a) Anyone can post until they have demonstrated they cannot or will not obey the guidelines, at which point, their ability to post there is blocked.

b) To post there requires a request be filed with moderators who will evaluate the poster’s postings going back some weeks or months before approval is granted. This will allow posters to have second chances to learn to be constructive.

c) A hybrid system where if someone’s posting access is removed as in point “a” above it can be reinstated with a system similar to point “b” above where the poster can request to be readmitted after a time period and moderator evaluation of recent posts.

There is no other place on this forum I would rather read or post, but if things remain as they are, with even the idea section being rather “wild west” with vapid accusations of salt just for posting an idea, I cannot see myself being bothered much further.

And honestly, even if my own behavior is deemed unworthy of posting privileges there, I could live with it just to be able to go there and read about ideas from thoughtful people working together to create, and improve, ideas for EVE Online.

Also, in the end, I believe this will eliminate some work moderators have to do on the forum.

Thank you. Constructive comment is invited.


You have linked to them yourself before, so I am not sure what you are looking for beyond the pinned rules for PF&I?

Welcome to Player Features & Ideas

As for your request for targeted section bans: anything that breaks the rules of a forum subsection breaks the rules of the forum and, in my opinion, should have universal impact. Breaking rules is breaking rules, and the effects should be applied consistently across all forum areas. PF&I does not need specialized moderation. An argument can be made for improved moderation as a whole, by that’s a different discussion and not specific to PF&I.


A sticky guideline thread for this sub-forum sounds good. Should also include a link to the Forum Rules too.

The old forums had a link to the rules, unfortunately this one doesn’t because back when these forums were first being implemented, CCP thought they needed to entice players into participating here by being very lenient with enforcing the rules.

Now about having limited access or requesting access from moderators. That’s a very big no. Moderators already have too much power in these forums and they certainly don’t interpret or enforce the rules equally and fairly to all posters.

As for the initial issue of posters being uncivil and disrespectful to others, that’s what the ‘Flag’ option is for (accessed by clicking on the 3 dots located next to the ‘Reply’ button for that post).

The main issue with the ‘Flag’ option brings us back to the moderators, some moderators may view the flagged reply as being ok, whereas others may not. Unfortunately it seems the unruly crowd (those who blatantly disregard the forum rules) have formed a group and will always back each other up when needed. Those who do abide by the forum rules should also do the same. Unfortunately moderators have the end decision of what type of conduct is allowed and by who. The fact that CCP doesn’t regulate their actions here in the forums is another problem.

Anyway, my reply could be viewed as discussing moderation which is against the forum rules. All it takes is a couple posters to flag it for moderators to remove it. Obviously I’m treading a very thin line here so I’m just going to stop now.


Thank you for the link to the guidelines/ rules. My own link to them is buried in a sea of troll spew…part of the reason for me posting this idea you know.

I take it from your quoted response that you are in disagreement with the following point from the linked post:

This forum category has a few additional rules on top of the regular forum rules.

Indeed. Even actively searching I could not find what I wanted.

Thank you for your input. My suggestion is to simply focus on poster behavior from now on. There is no point talking about anything else anyway. Anyone can see that several usual suspects have utterly horrific behavior and it would be nice, if, at least, the ideas and features section could be held to the standard which CCP Falcon laid out by excluding those who demonstrably have no interest in abiding by the spirit of this particular forum section.

It seems to me that it suffers from over-reliance, over-use and delayed response, and those cripple the ideas and features section. The mind-numbing abuse cannot simply be “undone” by an edit or deletion hours or even days later. Its all complete anathema to productive thought.

Specialized moderation =/= specialized rules. The former is different moderation behavior; the latter is supplements to the forum rules for a given area, which are moderated in the same manner as all other areas.

Subforum rules are fine. Extra hoops for players to jump through and moderators to manage just to have access to posting in them is not.

Yes, and most of them have alts / friends that will back them up in threads, it’s how they meta-game the forums, all done in an attempt to make it seem like the majority agrees with them.

Best thing to do is to find ‘like-minded’ posters and start submitting formal complaints to from the verified email address associated with their EVE Online account(s)

Agreement is not the issue. Its simply whether the poster is being constructive or not. For example, repeated negative criticsm is not. Those who keep posting without being dynamic are not worthy of being in the ideas section.

You seem to be trying extra special hard to be contrarian. I clearly said that the specialized rules are not being followed, which is why I am proposing specialized moderation. I never said they were the same. What I said was that the latter will ensure the former.

Again, you seem to be bending over backwards just to say “no”. Does this idea threaten you in some way?

Sure let’s go for it. Some things to keep in mind however, is that it may not work out the way you expect.

Some things that people will have to keep in mind, as examples.

Holding a persons feet to the fire to defend their idea is not trolling
General disagreement is not trolling.
Heated debate is not trolling.

I’m sure I could come up with some more, but that should suffice to get the gist.

1 Like

I have no idea why you are taking exception to me clarifying my stance after you mis-stated it, or identifying what I perceive as flaws in this idea - all in a polite fashion.

I said:

PF&I does not need specialized moderation.

You said:

I take it from your quoted response that you are in disagreement with the following point from the linked post:

This forum category has a few additional rules on top of the regular forum rules.

I reiterated my original point, which is not in disagreement with the existence of additional rules.

You are proposing a change to forum structure due to what you view to be ineffective moderation. Address the ineffectiveness of the moderation - otherwise these changes won’t do any good anyway. After all, if as you say the moderators are already not moderating to the existing rules, why would you expect them to also manage some new and complicated system for adding/removing access?

Which all completely sidesteps the fact that CCP is using third party software to run the forums and it does not contain a default feature that would deliver this functionality, so I have no idea how they could even implement it anyhow since they cannot code new functions into the forums - only activate what is made available by the Discus developers (not a CCP company/employees).

If you have a problem with moderation, and feel it is not being applied consistently, please follow CCP’s escalation path and contact them as directed in the ToS:


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).

1 Like

Holding a person’s feet to a fire IS trolling.

An ideas section is not a place for “general disagreement”. Its a place to point out flaws in ideas, and if possible, provide ideas to counter-act the flaws rather than the idea itself.

Heated debate has no place in an ideas thread. Its counter-productive.

In short, this is not about trolling. Its about being productive.

This is false. Tools to control a certain section of a forum can and most likely will do some good for that section.

To be absolutely clear (and I should not need to be) but the general condition of the forums is outside the scope of this thread, so please stop talking about it. This is specifically about the condition of the ideas section, which has special rules.

Do you agree that the condition of the ideas section is not what it should be with regards to the special rules laid about by CCP Falcon linked above or not?

No, this is an informed observation from a veteran player who also has extensive moderation experience in other communities. Adding code-based restrictions to an area does not improve compliance - with rules or with moderation standards. It just makes life harder for the moderators who are stuck with a bunch of new ticket types to manage.

You don’t have to agree with the information for it to be an accurate observation.

Nearly every subforum has special rules; PF&I is by no means unique in this respect, and in fact has some of the more vague special rules than other areas. PF&I also is not moderated any differently from the other areas, with or without special rules, so far as I have seen, so I don’t know why you feel it deserves special attention in response to the moderation actions being taken forum-wide.

Whether or not I agree with the state of moderation is immaterial to the proposed change. The merits of the change rest on its ability to solve the stated concern: effectiveness of moderation of, and adherence to, the rules of the forum space it is intended to control. I do not believe this proposal will improve the moderation experience at all - as stated, I think it will actually make moderation more onerous for the extremely small team of moderators handling this forum - and I certainly don’t think it will improve rule adherence by players.

By the way: the PF&I rules are already stickied - they are literally the second post in the Player Features & Ideas subforum (and would be the first if CCP wasn’t actively soliciting landmark ideas right now):

It doesn’t matter if you are accessing via desktop or mobile, they are still immediately visible if you access the subforum - but that doesn’t mean players bother reading them. Just like they don’t bother reading the ToS for the forums.


Well I cannot see them there.

That would be a bug, then, that should be reported. No idea how that happened, but I can help you troubleshoot browsers tomorrow to provide more details for the trouble ticket.

1 Like

Ok, bad adjective? Asking someone to defend their ideas is not trolling. In general if you have an idea that you are not interested in defending, it isn’t much worth bringing up.

General disagreement on the topic at hand. Sheesh you really are 100% literal.

Some people have very strong feelings on their ideas. Debate in those cases can get heated. This on its own is not necessarily counter-productive.

1 Like

But your vague and unsubstantiated claims of direct experience with something “similar” “somewhere” hardly back up the supposed accuracy of your observation.

I was not aware of other subsections with special rules except for one: the fiction section.

My non-personal reason to focus on the ideas section is that it is, according to my experience, the place where its special rules and spirit are the most outrageously violated. In fact, I would like to see more rules added to that subsection to keep it straight and useful.

No one needs to defend their ideas. They don’t even need to support their ideas beyond providing some “information”.

All you are doing is illustrating why some people have no place in the ideas section. I suppose I should thank you.

I don’t know how this is supposed to be better.

Its not a debate section. Its an ideas section.

In fact it is. Once it gets emotional (heated) it turns into an unconstructive fight pretty much 100 percent of the time.

It is the ideas section in a discussion forum. It is not a drop box to CCP for feedback; it is a place where CCP invites players to post and discuss ideas. When two parties have a discussion from different viewpoints, with differences of opinion (or fact) as it relates to the discussion, it is, by definition, a debate.

Please stop nitpicking language in everyone’s replies to try and exclude the validity of their words. It is incredibly rude and counter-productive to your stated objective of polite constructive criticism of your idea. Note that addressing underlying assumptions that are premise for your idea is also entirely valid.