General Discussion > Web Development and Site Suggestions

[IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset

<< < (3/13) > >>

Silver Night:
That rule is, as you notice, appended with some pro-rumor comments. I think the concern would be that while rumors can be awesome, they can also be an effective means of trolling. I guess the question would be if the environment we would be looking at creating would be one that would support that type of 'he said, she said' arguments that can arise from unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumors spread with malicious  (rather than constructive) intent. With RP the problem is noone can really prove anything other than what happens in space, and combat - alas- does not cover the full range of things people might do.

It can lead to what we are trying to avoid, which is uninteresting, repetitive arguments with nothing new or interesting coming out of them.

Morwen Lagann:
2-6, 23, etc.: If people want this literally condensed into a single rule that says "Post constructively and don't be a cunt" and let the mods determine the definition of the latter part, we can do that. The general idea I was hoping for was similar to how it's handled in the Summit ingame. When it gets disruptive, it gets dealt with - sometimes it is hands-off, sometimes it is hands-on.

9 (doxxing): I was more specifically considering standard internet definitions of doxxing. Places of work, residence, that sort of thing. But because most of us don't exactly come up with street addresses (or equivalent) for our characters, and even if we did, there's this issue of hostile actions to those locations often would be godmoding anyway. If you want something simpler - private things would be an example of a no-no. Precise address of home, family members, that sort of thing. If it's an object in space it's fair game.

11, 12: I don't disagree. But as I said in my previous post, each individual rule is listed because it was from the original rule set. Not because we intend to have each of those rules listed out. I will repeat this in red so that it is clear to everyone: There are thirty-nine rules listed in the OP because there are 37 rules for the official forums and we added two new ones for discussion. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE INTEND TO HAVE THAT MANY RULES LISTED IN THE END.

19: I'd rather avoid having OOC discussions on the IC forum. If people want to PM people directly, be polite about it. If you can't be polite, then report problematic posts with a note "hey, this person needs a quick PF-check" and have a moderator then go and approach them and point them to Backstage/Evelopedia/Source.

32 (rumors): I am personally ambivalent about this one. There's a difference between a rumor intended to attack someone, and a rumor intended to generate RP for people. The idea, in theory, would be to curb the former and encourage the latter - as someone on the team suggested, through a similar gossip thread to what we have on Backstage. Of course, the IC nature of the forum might make posting things to the rumor thread... awkward, so my thought there was that perhaps the mod team (or just the admins) would have a shared "gossip" account that people could PM their rumors and gossip things to, and then the moderation staff could post them anonymously for them.

35 (logs): The whole concept of "with everyone's consent" is great and all but all you have to do is say you have everyone's consent. And then if you actually don't, there's a shitstorm. Or if someone changes their mind, there's a shitstorm. This is why we want to try and narrow down a definition of a "public" event.

Baseliners and Active Subscriptions:
I really wanted to avoid responding to specific posts if I could, but this particular one isn't going to work.

--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jan 2015, 16:03 ---Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.

--- End quote ---

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can: jesus fucking christ. You seem to have read so much into that one that you came out responding as if it says the opposite of what it does. Not a single mod ever said 'ban it because too many people abuse it'. The "no" responses were because of "I can't shoot it QQ" (not me) and "because the capsuleers are probably going to be dicks to them." (also not me)

The rule is proposed as a "baseliners are not allowed" because the moderation team considers the default state to be that they are allowed.

My response to you is the same regarding subscription status: It's pretty clearly stated that the moderation team doesn't believe we should require people to actively be subscribed to the game - let alone actively logging in - in order to post on the forum, unless it becomes a clear issue that cannot be resolved simply by taking action with individuals as it comes up. Not just because it's difficult to enforce without an API mod, but also because requiring it discourages the people who don't have the time or money to play internet spaceships but have the time to spare to forumwhore.

Please read more carefully and stop leaping to conclusions that are in the opposite direction of where the evidence lies.

Ché Biko:

--- Quote ---
* 10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
[..]Might be worth discussing when it's permissible to post mails from event actors.
--- End quote ---
I think this could be merged with rule 35.

--- Quote ---
* 18. Impersonation of another party is prohibited.
The expectation is that there will likely be zero tolerance for this sort of behavior, and users can expect that characters and/or players trying to impersonate character(s) belonging to other players will have action taken against their account(s).
--- End quote ---
I would like this to be possible with the consent of the impersonated character's player. Because the best way to do this may be having the impersonated character's player post on behalf of the impersonator, I think this should be purely an IC rule (possible character ban, but not player/account ban) if the transgression is IC only.

--- Quote ---
* 24. Posting with alternate characters is prohibited in some forum channels.
This rule will probably be rephrased to specify "no astroturfing." It's fine to have multiple characters posting in a thread if they would legitimately be participating in said thread, but astroturfing will be shitcanned.

--- End quote ---
Where lies the line? I feel there should be some lenience, especially for alts in the same small corp, like D-STON. Also, this seems to overlap with rule 18 somewhat.

--- Quote ---
* 32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
--- End quote ---
Rumors should be refered to as such, slander and defamation is not allowed. "I've heard a rumor that PIE eats babies." is ok, "PIE eats babies." is not.
I think a seperate forum section for IC media might be in order, with an attached disclaimer that these can contain unverified information.

--- Quote ---
* 34. Posting of inappopriate content is prohibited.
Self-explanatory. Try to keep it SFW. Moderator discretion here.
--- End quote ---
No IC snuff movies on this forum then? Or IC adverts from certain adult venues?

--- Quote ---
* 35. Posting of chat logs outside the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
This is done on EVE-O to avoid a lot of drama and "those are faked!" arguments. A valid stance to take in general but there are cases where it could/should be permissible, such as for recording-for-posterity of live events and things like SeyCon. Private conversations and evemails are a no-no. We will need to come up with a clearer definition of what is and what is not acceptable, but the above are a starting example.
--- End quote ---
I think that the IC nature of the forum partly prevents this from taking place, as the chatlogs of things like bars would not be chatlogs IC, but probably an audio/video recording, and should be reformatted as such.
I would not want to ban media outlets or others from posting recordings/communications, though, if all involved parties agree OOCly that the eavesdropper could have obtained them. But perhaps the rule should be that only media outlets (see my comment on rule 32) can post these communications/recordings, after they have done some form of checking the authenticity of these things (or not). Stuff is leaked to the press by others. This may serve as a buffer to keep things from spinning out of control.

--- Quote ---
* 16. Posting about bugs and exploits is prohibited.
Not really necessary - implied by the in-character nature of the forum.
--- End quote ---
Implied? Not for everyone. I sometimes talk about bugs ICly, especially if it affects my IC actions. If my drones can't lock because of a bug defect in CCP's patch, then my drones will have a similar problem IC with their/my capsule/implants latest firmware update. A lot of bugs in EVE are also bugs IC. ECAID is an IC division, we can't talk about them?

--- Quote ---
* PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
-"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."
--- End quote ---
I'd like to try to have baseliners on the forum. I think the "Primary problem" above is not that big of a problem. Being an asshole is largely not allowed in the first place (the other rules enforce it), and having to engage in consensual RP and deal with someone OOCly to deal with them ICly is a legitimate alternative to shooting-in-space in my eyes, and one that can be just as fun.
Also, toxic elements will be toxic, wether that is as capsuleer or baseliner. I don't see this rule decreasing that.

--- Quote ---
* PROPOSED: IC/OOC divide - players are not their characters, and vice-versa.
-"While this might seem self evident enough it needn't be stated, it is also pretty clear to anyone who spends time RPing that it is often forgotten."
-"Possible wording: 'Please remember, as an IC forum people will be posting here not as themselves but as their characters. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt that if they aren't being very nice to you IC it might be because their character doesn't like your character - don't just assume that it is because the player doesn't like you. Also feel free to reach out and clear up any possible misunderstandings, rather than jumping to negative conclusions.'"
--- End quote ---
I too feel that this is sadly still worth repeating, if only for the newbs, although this looks more like a disclaimer then a rule to me. I like the "Possible wording".

Lyn Farel:

--- Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 23:46 ---
35 (logs): The whole concept of "with everyone's consent" is great and all but all you have to do is say you have everyone's consent. And then if you actually don't, there's a shitstorm. Or if someone changes their mind, there's a shitstorm. This is why we want to try and narrow down a definition of a "public" event.
--- End quote ---

Why not just saying it's allowed, and that any capsuleer can simply says so when he or she wants something removed ? As long as one of the people included in the logs wants it removed, it will be.

Of course you run into the issue of people just posting for the sake of showing it until it gets removed. You can apply sanctions if necessary to prevent that.


--- Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 23:46 ---Baseliners and Active Subscriptions:
I really wanted to avoid responding to specific posts if I could, but this particular one isn't going to work.

--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jan 2015, 16:03 ---Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.

--- End quote ---

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can: jesus fucking christ. You seem to have read so much into that one that you came out responding as if it says the opposite of what it does. Not a single mod ever said 'ban it because too many people abuse it'. The "no" responses were because of "I can't shoot it QQ" (not me) and "because the capsuleers are probably going to be dicks to them." (also not me)

The rule is proposed as a "baseliners are not allowed" because the moderation team considers the default state to be that they are allowed.

My response to you is the same regarding subscription status: It's pretty clearly stated that the moderation team doesn't believe we should require people to actively be subscribed to the game - let alone actively logging in - in order to post on the forum, unless it becomes a clear issue that cannot be resolved simply by taking action with individuals as it comes up. Not just because it's difficult to enforce without an API mod, but also because requiring it discourages the people who don't have the time or money to play internet spaceships but have the time to spare to forumwhore.

Please read more carefully and stop leaping to conclusions that are in the opposite direction of where the evidence lies.

--- End quote ---

Am I not allowed to have my own opinion on that ? :/

Either you didnt understand or I wasnt perfectly clear, but I was actually refering to that no slave rule on the summit, which was iirc applied because too many people abused it.

Here I feel it is the same, you will condemn players that use it well and do nice things with it just because some abuse it. It's wrong imo...

Gaven Lok ri:
Is rule six IC, OOC, or both?

From an IC point of view, who is hosting these proposed forums? Seems like that should have an impact on the choice of IC rules.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page