Another non-personal reason is that I think its the most useful part of the forum for CCP overall. If one part of the forum is going to improve EVE and ensure EVE survives or even becomes more prosperous, its the ideas section.
And where are your facts to back up the claim that it will fix the issue you describe? That argument cuts both ways - and as the proposer of the idea, you have an obligation to provide evidence first before you have the standing to demand it from others.
Actually, the forum area that is most heavily moderated (as can be seen by clicking on the Dev Posts link in the forum display) is the Marketplace - especially the Character Bazaar - that are constantly being violated even though they are very clear and simple to adhere to.
2 Likes
No. Your choice of language is in many ways taking this thread beyond its scope. YOU please stay within the scope of this thread by choosing your language appropriately. Debate and discussion are NOT the same things. Further, the general purpose of a forum is not necessarily relevant to a specific sub-section. For example, a model airplane forum may well have a world news section for news items with no relation to model airplanes.
Give me a moment to fetch my crystal ball so as to prove future events.
No, wait. I got a better idea. Try being more positive for once.
So help me understand.
Someone has an idea. They post their idea.
Now usually the person with the idea thinks their idea IS great. I mean I guess some might post a knowingly bad idea but letās not deal with that now.
Somone else may reply, having a different opinion. They may think the idea isnāt so great and they have reasons to back up their claim that the idea isnāt great.
The original person then what, just sits there? I mean they have no reason to defend their idea per your reasoning.
1 Like
Because you insist on viewing things as āgreatā or " not great" rather than to envision a discussion where people talk about merits and potential problems is why you are not grasping this. You CANNOT, from the outset and indeed, without actual testing (past or future) determine that an idea is great or not great.
You may arrive at a premature presumption, but without actual implementation in this non-physical universe that is is EVE, its ALWAYS premature.
Whether you think its great or not great is totally irrelevent. In fact, your focus should be on expanding and improving an idea even if you think its a bad idea. Reason: it may evolve into an idea even you agree is āgoodā through discussion and positive assistance.
The idea section needs to be free of the stone walling, foot dragging, nay-saying etc. that plagues it currently. This is simply NOT remotely optimal for the formation and evolution of good ideas.
This is not true. Ideas can be objectively bad without any testing. Ideas conceived from a lack of knowledge are often bad due to said lack of knowledge. Providing the knowledge as an explanation for why the idea is bad is valid constructive criticism of the idea.
Again, this is not true. The merits of an idea can be debated without having to implement the idea and watch it in action.
You are attempting to remove the freedom of players to discuss proposal, entirely contrary to CCPās explicitly stated purpose for this forum.
Unless a player calls out the issues with an idea how will it evolve into a better idea?
Evolution of good ideas cannot happen when players are barred from providing feedback on said ideas. CCP even requires players to keep discussion of ideas centralized instead of re-posting their own versions of them as new threads, as outlined in the PF&I subforum rules.
No. Your choice of language is in many ways taking this thread beyond its scope. YOU please stay within the scope of this thread by choosing your language appropriately. Debate and discussion are NOT the same things.
Discussion: the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
Debate: a discussion or argument carried on between two teams or sides.
All debates are discussions. Any time a discussion has multiple viewpoints, it is inherently a debate.
Both discussion and debate are valid, and within scope of the forum, per its subforum rules:
This forum category has a few additional rules on top of the regular forum rules. Please read and follow them when you take part in discussion here.
Said forum rules start with the premise:
This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion
Further, posting counter-arguments is explicitly blessed:
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. Thatās fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
- Name-calling.
- Ad hominem attacks.
- Responding to a postās tone instead of its actual content.
- Knee-jerk contradiction.
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Bolding is mine in all cases.
1 Like
No because you are doing it again. āIā am simply not using EVERY possible adjective to make the point I chose two examples at the extremes. But you are the one who constantly takes this as completely black and white.
Do I really need to every possible adjective to cover the entire spectrum from a great to not great idea?
1 Like
You two are doing a really great job in illustrating the poor practices that have made the idea section what it is today, which is a place new ideas go to get horrifically murdered before anyone has even thought it over for a day. Your reactionary attitude is your biggest failing and it harms us all.
No, you are refusing to discuss our actual arguments and keep focusing on us as people you view as Negative Nancyās. Instead of refuting our points, you attack our motivation in posting. Please stop with the ad-hominem posts and debate the ideas, not the people.
Idea 1 is already in place, albeit with a bug of some kind that needs to be reported and addressed.
Idea 2 has been challenged with: āThis idea will create additional work for moderators, whom you already assert are failing to maintain the PF&I subforum to the level you believe it should be (this statement does not take a stand on whether than belief is accurate, and is treating the accuracy of that belief as irrelevant to the merits of the idea itself). This premise inherently presents that moderation is not meeting its current objectives for that subforum. Please explain how this idea will help moderators satisfy the objectives of this subforum.ā
An additional note on Item 2 is a technical limitation to the forums: āCCP does not own the forum code: it is an implementation of third party software. Do you know if this idea is even possible on the software? If so, please link supporting documentation for it, as that information is relevant to discussion of the limits of the software and how it can be best implemented if this idea is shown to have a reasonable chance of providing the desired effects.ā
1 Like
I refuted plenty of points, but you two are stonewalling, have a preconceieved opinion, mostly likely suffer from reflexive contrarianism, and refuse to budge no matter what is said. You are simply unfit for constructive discussion although you excel at dirty debate and discussion slaying.
When you ask a question, you tend to dismiss any possible answer before its even given. You are close-minded and generally unhelpful in discussion. Rather than see hurdles as something to overcome, you see them as impassible obstacles. Your negativity is precisely what is NOT needed in an ideas section.
This post is 90% ad-hominem fallacy. If you are not clear on what an ad-hominem is, here is a lovely definition and many example from Texas State Universityās School of Philosophy:
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someoneās argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Examples:
- Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldnāt have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine.
- Socratesā arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence.
- Yeah, I think everyoneās opinion counts on moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one marriage sheās broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything, much less morality?
- Of course Marxā theories about the ideal society are bunk. The guy spent all his time in the library.
- We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
- Thereās no reason to take seriously Nietzscheās ideas about the Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.
- I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I donāt have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
8. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.
Notice that last one. Itās remarkably similar to the content of your last post.
Please actually respond to the points I raised, rather than breaking forum rules to attack myself and @Derath_Ellecon. Present information about your idea. Address the basis from which you are making claims, provide evidence for your expectations, and make an effort to illustrate the benefit your idea will confer upon this forum.
(sigh) I double dog dare you to present one potentially positive aspect of my idea without saying anything negative in that post.
sigh There are no purely positive components here because it is a complex situation.
I am going to break this down point by point for discussion.
This is the current state of moderation - violations of forum rules, when recognized by a moderator, result in a warning, and then a temporary posting ban (at which point, their ability to post there is blocked). We already have this. Itās a non-item for discussion purposes, because this wouldnāt be a change.
On the face of it, this seems logical. However, proactive limitation of posting is a barrier to entry for players who join the forum to share their ideas. This has a chilling effect on the community, as it deprives new arrivals of any voice in the PF&I subforum - and new players are absolutely capable of bringing in worthwhile development ideas.
Adding an application-based entitlement also creates a significant amount of work for forum moderators, who have to take time away from moderating existing posts to review post history and evaluate posts (which all should be within the rules anyway if they are still accessible on the forums per moderation policy), then record their findings and, if the findings are positive, either directly make a change to the player entitlements or submit a request for change to whomever has that power.
If moderation is working as intended this is not progress. If moderation is not working as intended, the moderators are unlikely to behave differently in this format than in the current one and there is not progress in the state of the subforum. Unfortunately, this would not achieve the desired goal, because it is subject to the same human effects as current moderation behavior.
This would be akin to the Discourse Trust Level system recently deployed on the forums, which ties certain abilities to player-specific forum history, including warning and flagging history. Tying into this system might be a viable approach provided there is:
- a way to account for new players being able to make suggestions (see above regarding the negative impact to the community of excluding new players from the PF&I subforum); and
- the Trust Level system contains these features or can be configured to enable these features.
Here is a blog post from the Discourse developers about Trust Levels and the limits of the system: Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
Reading through that: the only extent to which one could leverage Trust Levels would be if the PF&I subforum were restricted to Trust Level 3+ exclusively, meaning players with lower trust levels would not be able to view it - and that runs afoul of the same problems as item 2b with regard to being a barrier to new player participation absent any negative posting history, because Trust Level 3 requires a minimum tenure of 100 days to achieve.
So the Discourse forum software does not natively have this feature set. That means either paying Discourse to develop a new feature, or once again going to an entirely manual process that falls into the same pitfalls as suggestion 2b with regards to current moderator application of standards.
In short: to fix PF&I, moderation would have to be fixed first, and then from that state improvements could be evaluated (assuming it is broken, and I am again taking no stance on that, but treating it as an accurate assumption for the purpose of this idea).
1 Like
Working with this idea, I propose something totally positive and constructive.
Based on forum history we earn badges:
In my own case for example, Iām regarded on the forums as:
- Empathetic
- Admired
- [An] Aficionado
- Licensed
- Certified (not sure if this one is good or bad)
- Respected
- Enthusiast[ic]
- Famous[ly] link[ed]
- Someone that Gives Back
- Appreciated
- etc.
Badge combinations should bestow moderation rights so we can sin bin anyone we want for 24 hours (or different moderation powers based on what badges we earn).
Thatās an evidence based idea that Iām certain others will only find positive things to write about and not be critical of at all.
Merry Christmas
1 Like
Hilariously: this is legit something Discourse offers at Trust Level 4 - which @CCP_Aurora quite firmly said is a No Go:
1 Like
Sheās a very smart woman. The forum pvp would go nuts.
2 Likes
@Mkikaden_Tiragen the rules post not showing up for him is not a bug, but simply the way the forum works. When you view a pinned topic, it unpins, and you basically have to search for the rules again to repin it.
Like right now, my top post is the rules for PF&I, but I donāt see the post regarding landmarks, because I already saw it, and it unpinned itself, now if i look through ālatestā the one on landmarks should reappear and at the bottom of the page, i can repin it.
2 Likes
Mkikaden Tiragen and Scipio Artelius kindly knock off the off topic discussion of giving posters mod powers. Not a damn thing to do with this except to once again prove my point of how the ideas section needs to exclude certain members for being unwilling or unable to discuss appropiately. Incidentally,
This isnāt the player ideas section. Itās the forum feedback and requests forum and I made a completely valid request for the forum, in line with the rules.