More generally, I'd say that the rules should be as few as possible, imho. Having 27 rules or what is confusing, and easily lends itself to metagaming based on those rules.
Rumor mongering is prohibited.
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.
I think this could be merged with rule 35.
- 10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
[..]Might be worth discussing when it's permissible to post mails from event actors.
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.
- 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).
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.
- 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.
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.
- 32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
No IC snuff movies on this forum then? Or IC adverts from certain adult venues?
- 34. Posting of inappopriate content is prohibited.
Self-explanatory. Try to keep it SFW. Moderator discretion here.
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.
- 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.
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?
- 16. Posting about bugs and exploits is prohibited.
Not really necessary - implied by the in-character nature of the forum.
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.
- 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."
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".
- 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.'"
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.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.
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.
Is rule six IC, OOC, or both?Good questions, 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.
Predicting every post made will be locked within 24 hours.... if we wanted this scenario, the Sisters of EVE would make sense.
SocT is space hogwarts.
I'd say Thera, but :SOE:
Its too bad there's not some other well known named wormhole system to base it out of.
In terms of the 'who' is doing the operating. Eccentric capsuleer philanthropy is pretty well established as a thing. Chribba is pretty much a household name, so having justification for it might be as simple as having a group of capsuleers come together ICly and go 'the IGS sucks' and making this new forum.
The only reason I suggested the CRC Auxiliary was because they were behind the original Summit. And with CCP being oh-so-delicate about copying said channel to pair with the official forum, it wouldn't be inappropriate for the CRC Aux to come back and make their own forum, I think.
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion. Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.
An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'. You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.
Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating? Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit? Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?
Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP. For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now. It's like the drive's just gone right? Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?
- from my phone
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion. Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.
An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'. You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.
Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating? Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit? Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?
Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP. For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now. It's like the drive's just gone right? Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?
- from my phone
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion. Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.
An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'. You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.
Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating? Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit? Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?
Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP. For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now. It's like the drive's just gone right? Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?
- from my phone
I disagree with that liberal drivel :P
Kevin1858 and xxXThugzor98Xxx.
purple: I'm going to make the guess that you haven't read the thread where people expressed interest in having a separate-from-IGS IC forum, because the stuff that you're saying is good, is exactly why many of those people are saying "fuck the IGS" right now.
purple: I'm going to make the guess that you haven't read the thread where people expressed interest in having a separate-from-IGS IC forum, because the stuff that you're saying is good, is exactly why many of those people are saying "fuck the IGS" right now.
Nope, but I read your comments above and surmised as much. My point is that rules outside of Stay IC and maybe keep it safe for work or no worse than rate R aren't going to achieve that goal.
Look at the the ingame channel 'the summit' and ask yourself are ALL those people really that vapid and inane or is it because the mod team Judge Dreads anything that doesn't conform.
ask yourself are ALL those people really that vapid and inane or is it because the mod team Judge Dreads anything that doesn't conform.
Or the opposite also, when you are actually trying to have an interesting and serious discussion and it gets derailed by people that will just say "I have a better idea, let's talk about burritos !" and then 80% of the channel suddenly awakens and starts to talk about burritos, eventually drowning your interesting and serious discussion under ridiculous inanities.
Hamish, I am going to avoid being modded here (irony, i know), and simply state to you that I am very upset and actually quite offended by your implications.
If you want a visualization, this is where I'm hissing those words through my teeth with balled up fists.
. Posting of private/personal communication and/or information is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept. Doxxing is not okay, even IC. We have locator agents for that shit ingame.
10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept, though the odds of this happening are low. Should it be permissible to post mails from event actors?
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
-"I think rumors are great, but we would probably have to draw a line somewhere, and somewhere fairly clear. I know there are certain members of the forum for whom rumors are a favorite weapon."
-"We could even have sort of a version of the gossip thread so people can spread rumors about themselves."
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."
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.
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."
-"We should honestly keep chat logs out, and leave it on a 'if you want it, please send me a request' basis. It keeps threads neat, and stops people from cherry picking in the thread and possibly derailing."
-"Chat logs of public events are fine, and I think we should probably avoid ones of private conversations."
-"I think we would also want to make clear what is a public event (ex: a conference, a speech, etc) and what is a private event that happens to be in a public channel (ex: overheard conversations in places like bars)."
-"We could keep it loose on rumors and have the same type of rules we have on Backstage for discussing warnings and bans: If you bring it up, it's fair game."
29. Please use the correct language when posting on the forums.Not necessary, really.
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [...]
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [UT- Noun: Comrade, Coworker] [...]
36. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
Generally serves to do little but cause drama. Possibly worth including references or details regarding killmails in rules 32 and/or 35.
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.
-"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
-"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
-"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
-"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
-"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."
The rules that we think can be discarded:
- 1. You must have an active EVE Online game account to post on our forums.
This can only be enforced if we require it under an API mod (specifically the AccountStatus flag, or whatever it's called). It would prevent some issues, but would not prevent others. Current inclination by the team is to ignore the rule, and just go with a public position of "it's a privilege not a right; we will be keeping an eye on this, so don't abuse it or we'll find a way to disable it."
The rules that could go either way and need more discussion:
- 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.
-"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
-"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
-"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
-"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
-"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."- 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."
-"As a moderation issue it more likely applies to other people forgetting the difference between a poster and their character."
-"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.'
EDIT/UPDATE 2015/04/05: New (condensed) version of the rules has been posted here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6388.msg111294#msg111294).
It's in the same position it was last time someone asked that question.
I'm not seeing enough discussion or feedback to feel comfortable moving forward with things, especially on the rules I wanted more feedback on.
I am also the only person on the team who seems to give even half a shit about it still.