Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => The Summit (IG Channel Discussion) => Topic started by: Graelyn on 27 Jul 2012, 22:56
-
So, the Fweddit bullshit seems to be subsiding, at least in part.
As part of a return to normal, I intend to examine and probably relax some of the standards of the channel to encourage a little bit of transhumanist wackiness on top of our usual capsuleer srs bsns.
Some of my tireless and beloved mods are probably facepalming after all the work they did to reduce that sort of thing (which, honestly, was usually attempted by the most blase and unskilled of typing typist types).
Well poopie doo! We're going to look at it anyway.
Without turning things into a long and weepy string of I don't like the stupid mod that enforced my face off, I'd like to hear from you guys about what standards you think might be so tight as to stifle Actual Good Material.
Allowing folks to swing thier dicks around on a fluidcomm broadcast stream is not the sort of thing that qualifies! Your virtual vat-grown dick does not impress anyone!
My thanks for any feedback. I love you all...you know, deep down. Somewhere. :cube:
-
Fweddit was directly responsible for the troll brigade?
-
Seems so.
I'd present a smoking gun, but CSI: Yulai got cancelled.
Whoever it was, People did things, and it was derp. Justice got served in clips-o-twenty.
Time to fiddle with the Peacetime ROEs.
-
It started happening almost immediately after we banned FWeddit wholesale for shitting up the channel with trolling nonsense, so it was a safe bet. Whoever ended up causing the subsequent problem was doing it with alts so we'll probably never know for certain, but we found how/where they were doing it from (recruitment channel) and nuked the alts who were actively responsible. The only trouble since then has been from our usual suspects.
I'd also like to say that it's less that the standards of behavior for the channel have been tightened, and more that the active moderators have started enforcing the existing standards and stopped letting people ignore them. We have enough issues retaining people in the Summit and OOC thanks to people constantly causing trouble, useless drama and what could be construed as RP shitposting.
The most frequent complaint I get about the Summit or OOC is that there are certain people who are always making trouble, or being excessively annoying that make them not want to be in there. (Blocking isn't always the answer, either, because then you have people talking to that person, and half a conversation is more irritating than the whole thing. There's a reason people who talk loudly on their cell phones in public are so annoying to most people.)
As a mod I'm inclined to act in the best interests of keeping people visiting the channel. If that means sodomizing repeat troublemakers with the modstick so that they aren't causing people to leave, I don't have a problem with that, and I doubt most of the other moderators do either. But I disagree with the notion that we've actually tightened standards or rules when we haven't. As I said before: all we did was start enforcing the ones that were already there.
Are there some new-ish rules and policies? Sure. But they're designed to cut down on the stuff that is disruptive and causes people to not want to be in the channel.- "No parading of slaves." Self-explanatory, really, and a policy that predates myself being on the mod list. The mods have nothing against slave-owning capsuleers/Holders with this rule. It's simply to cut down on the stupid, thousand-times-overdone drama and disruption that occurs when Holders make a show on the channel about their owning slaves. Want to avoid it? Don't have slaves or servants on screen, let alone ordering them around.
- "Holders will suffer the same consequences as their slaves, should the slaves cause trouble and earn the ire of the moderators on the Summit." This one's new, but also self-explanatory. I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs about 'capsuleer slaves', but if you're a Holder, you are responsible for your slaves' behavior. If a slave earns themself a mute or a ban, that punishment will be carried over to the Holder as well. Want to avoid it? If you're going to insist on having slave characters connecting to the Summit, make sure they stay on their best behavior and don't cause trouble.*
- "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Again, self-explanatory. Act like an adult. If you're going to connect via a visual medium, put some clothes on. This had already been enforced for a long time with female characters, but now it's universal out of fairness. Want to avoid it? If your character isn't wearing a shirt, keep the visuals to shoulders and up or just connect via audio. Easy!
- "Non-capsuleers are allowed on the Summit by the grace of Mod alone." This one also predates me being added to the moderator team. If you're going to insist on having a non-capsuleer character connect to the Summit, you've been warned: keep them on their best behavior, because if a moderator decides to hit them with the modstick you will have no right to appeal; they're not even supposed to be connecting to the Summit in the first place.
Also, the majority of mod action being taken these days is on the previously-mentioned repeat offenders who have had multiple warnings for their behavior. The vast majority of new players (note I said players, not characters) have not run afoul of any of these rules or standards. The same can't be said for the characters of players who like to be disruptive on multiple alts.
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters. Outside of deliberately attention-whoring, interrupting whatever was going on before they showed up, and general drama-mongering, there is no reason for a character that self-identifies as a slave to be on the channel in any capacity, capsuleer or otherwise, and removing their presence entirely would cut down on the vast majority of the pointless drama and disruptive behavior that they cause. This rule is a compromise so that we don't have to ban one of the moderators who happens to technically be a slave, but who also never ran afoul of the rule simply by never making a point of telling people they're a slave.
-
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters. Outside of deliberately attention-whoring, interrupting whatever was going on before they showed up, and general drama-mongering, there is no reason for a character that self-identifies as a slave to be on the channel in any capacity, capsuleer or otherwise, and removing their presence entirely would cut down on the vast majority of the pointless drama and disruptive behavior that they cause.
Seconded. So much.
-
Agreed on the majority of points, especially those involving wholesale removal of attention whore tropes. Good rp is being killed by those that feel RP is an extrovert parade of shitting up other's rp to glorify their own - a return to the glory days of character exploration through interaction would be welcome, but I know it is not your duty as moderators to do such.
Though I am unlikely to return to the Summit for this reason, you as mods are providing a thankless service, one likely to get harder with this more vigorous enforcement, so from a former patron and enthusiastic observer, thanks for the hard work.
-
Only sort of related, but I've just had an idea that I'd like people to pick holes in.
Many people see the Summit as the 'bottom' of eve RP, and long for the days when people actually met up IC/in space and did things. So, why not encourage this by reducing the amount of time people can sit in the summit and bicker?
Give the Summit 'opening hours'. This would cut down on the amount of work the moderators have to do, and possibly also break the growing trend of 'passive rp' that's done by just sitting in the summit. If people can't just sit in the summit all day, then we will see those who are really interested in rp find other ways of progressing their character, and those who aren't will not be forcing the rest of us to deal with them 23.5/7.
You could open the summit for, say, three hours, three times a day. This should give a reasonable timezone coverage without it being permanently open.
I'm sure there are problems with this idea that you excellent theory crafters will be able to spot, but I figured I'd put it out there.
-
I'd argue that forcing at least one mod for each "shift" to be active for its duration would be awkward as fuck, and it'd be pretty easy for people to never see the Summit open with that model. No reason why someone couldn't just open a secondary channel with the same rough purpose that was always open, too.
My approach (before I left, so how effective it was is debatable) was just to approach people without using the Summit if I wanted proper RP. Rather than forcing people to find other vectors for character development, I found it simpler to make my own.
-
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters. Outside of deliberately attention-whoring, interrupting whatever was going on before they showed up, and general drama-mongering, there is no reason for a character that self-identifies as a slave to be on the channel in any capacity, capsuleer or otherwise, and removing their presence entirely would cut down on the vast majority of the pointless drama and disruptive behavior that they cause. This rule is a compromise so that we don't have to ban one of the moderators who happens to technically be a slave, but who also never ran afoul of the rule simply by never making a point of telling people they're a slave.
WTB exclusion clause for Sansha True Slaves.
-
To clarify something I've been asked about in the past: One of the questions I get regarding the "no slaves" rule is "My character is a slaveholder and might have slaves wandering around in the background just doing work. Are you people seriously going to tell me I can't connect? That's pretty biased against my character's RP etc etc".
No.
We are not going to take action under this rule unless you specifically announce a slave doing something for the sole apparent reason of distracting the channel from a current ongoing discussion, or to draw attention to your character's holding or treatment of slaves.
-
Good rp is being killed by those that feel RP is an extrovert parade of shitting up other's rp to glorify their own
Very much this. And also big thanks to the mods for volunteer work and keeping things running smoothly. Morwen has patience of a Saint.
My only suggestion is to seriously start banning and muting much much faster and with extreme prejudice. People causing problems should be out and silenced without so much as a need for explanation or being scolded.
Banhammer of great justice needs to be a sword of Damocles constantly dangling above the head of anyone acting the fool.
-
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters. Outside of deliberately attention-whoring, interrupting whatever was going on before they showed up, and general drama-mongering, there is no reason for a character that self-identifies as a slave to be on the channel in any capacity, capsuleer or otherwise, and removing their presence entirely would cut down on the vast majority of the pointless drama and disruptive behavior that they cause. This rule is a compromise so that we don't have to ban one of the moderators who happens to technically be a slave, but who also never ran afoul of the rule simply by never making a point of telling people they're a slave.
WTB exclusion clause for Sansha True Slaves.
We're the last part of that. We don't sit there and go "We are slaves, doop doop doop".
I'm not convinced we need a specific anti-slave rule, in any case. As far as I am concerned, 90% of all issues can be solved through the judicious application of the "Are you being a derp and a drama-whore? Welcome to ban town" rule.
WTB exclusion clause for Sansha True Slaves.
-
I sincerely doubt they are referring to you and yours Tiberious. More of the "I'm going to abuse my RP slave alt in public channel and attention-whore! Woe is me! *tear* "
-
"If you and your behavior make the Summit community feel like it would be a better place without you, it will be."
-
Only sort of related, but I've just had an idea that I'd like people to pick holes in.
Many people see the Summit as the 'bottom' of eve RP, and long for the days when people actually met up IC/in space and did things. So, why not encourage this by reducing the amount of time people can sit in the summit and bicker?
Give the Summit 'opening hours'. This would cut down on the amount of work the moderators have to do, and possibly also break the growing trend of 'passive rp' that's done by just sitting in the summit. If people can't just sit in the summit all day, then we will see those who are really interested in rp find other ways of progressing their character, and those who aren't will not be forcing the rest of us to deal with them 23.5/7.
You could open the summit for, say, three hours, three times a day. This should give a reasonable timezone coverage without it being permanently open.
I'm sure there are problems with this idea that you excellent theory crafters will be able to spot, but I figured I'd put it out there.
I’m not sure I see any merit to this idea unless the mods are feeling overwhelmed and need more breaks from the Summit.
If people are against ‘passive RPG’ then the best thing would be for them to ‘active RPG’ instead of trying to close down the Summit on a daily basis to force people to RPG the way they ought to.
WTB exclusion clause for Sansha True Slaves.
It already seems to be in place given Tib is a mod who connects daily.
Makkal previously had 'servants' who brought her food or tea, and she was never called on it.
Honestly, I dislike blanket bans. I'd rather avoid a strict 'no slaves or slave capsuleers' rule, and instead go with a 'no attention whoring or too disruptive behavior' rule. The problem is that some people will see themselves as being picked on by the mods or singled out if that happens.
-
Of course they would.
-
ICly, the "no slaves" rule sounds to me like a clear segregationist move against pro-slavery characters or characters that are not basically against it and use them occasionally. Half of New Eden, easily, is impregnated with slavery, even the Gallente or the Minmatar. Saying that the Summit forbids any slaves is like taking a strong political stance against a lot of individuals. It is ok since it is IC, but that's still how it sounds to me.
Well, people mistreating them in front of the camera is one thing, and that would logically end up in the IC ban of the character that did so (because we are not speaking about slavery anymore, but torture and gore). But characters being all upset and offended about slaves on a public intergalactic venue shouldnt be there in the first place. That's like being a strong anti slavery supporter and visiting the Amarr Empire nevertheless. If you can't control yourself, your journey is probably going to turn wrong pretty quickly. It would be like being against the veil IRL and still going to that international summit where you will obviously meet veiled women, and then creating drama over that because you can't control yourself and respect the culture of someone else. Being against it and having your own opinions is fine, but that does not mean that the community has to ban everything that pisses you off.
One could argue that the Summit shares CONCORD's policies in their space, which is perfectly fine, but don't forget that the Summit is a virtual place and all the characters connected are likely to be in all the possible places in New Eden. And CONCORD lets the Amarr Empire and its allies to deal with slaves in their own territory.
Of course at the end, if it is an IC decision from the creators of the Summit, then it is your total right to do so. But don't call it a neutral place then.
__
If that is an OOC based decision (and I bet it is), it is obviously based on the fact that a lot of people parading their slaves here created a lot of drama. Probably it does. As explained above ICly I just can't understand why it is people that showed their slaves that get banned instead of the characters drama-ing over it. It is part of the universe, deal with it, or stfu. To me that kind of decision sounds more like trying to put everyone in the same mould and ending up with a big, happy family. The Summit is supposed to be a place for debate and politics according to its motd, then why trying to eliminated all the things that potentially create debates ?
Now we end up trying to define a line between "good slaves" and "wrong slaves", slaves that can be accepted on the summit, and other slaves that can't. So Amarrian slaves can't be paraded on the Summit, but True Sansha slaves can ? What is the difference ? They are slaves no ? Or is it better when the master is absent or offscreen maybe ? I don't get it.
My apologies if I have been offending, but it was not my intention. It is mostly how I feel about that. In any case, do what you want. =)
-
I agree with Lyn's post 100% and that is why I am not in favour of a blanket ban. We can ban dramawhores on the basis of their being dramawhores. We dont need to make a rule to ban them for that rule, instead.
-
Given that the primary explanation for a capsuleer slave, certain event actors aside and taking into account the wealth and comparitive freedom of podders, is mostly a BDSM thing, wouldn't the slaves issue end up as an intersection of the baseliner question?
-
If the moderators would like to take the time out of their days to not only condemn the problem sources, but deal with their fall out - that is the best quality solution. It's not as simple as dealing with someone crying about being banned, however, because some people are malevolent in their intent behind these kinds of things. They enjoy being a harassment for what ever reason, and go out of their way to be a problem. Blanket bans (such as Fweddit) are useful for those who follow the mob; problem sources can find ways around it quite quickly. This is not including the amount of drama mongering that will inevitably occur in backdoor dealings as the problem source tries to convince the moderator(s) or people they 'are not a problem'.
Blanket bans are crude and exploitable, but they also have a degree of effectiveness to them as far as filtering the riff raff from the real problem sources. My Sansha True Slave clause was half in jest and half in seriousness, but if people want explanations about it I'll readily explain it.
-
First off, I think it needs to be said that Trues are pretty far in the back of any lists of bans we were going to effect; this is at least in part due to the fact that most of the True Slaves / True Citizens we've seen on the Summit have been portrayed in a highly uncliched, actually interesting manner. If we had as many people rolling TS alts that were some kind of cliched borg copy or something, this would be more of an issue. Thankfully, it is isn't the case.
Now a question for Lyn -
Is your post about the proposed blanket ban on all slave characters, or the existing rule/habit of banning slave or slave-owning characters who prove to be drama-filled?
-
This particular debate is why I backed off from the blanket ban on slaves (which would NOT have included the Nation loyalists, I'll get into that in a bit), and went with the suggestion from Ava (or Tib, I thought it was Ava) that if a slave character does something meriting moderator action, both the slave and the master get the same punishment.
Lyn: In my opinion, the rule isn't a segregationist policy in the slightest, even IC. It's a move to reduce the prevalence of things that almost without fail trigger a hostile and unproductive atmosphere in the Summit that often requires moderators to step in to get people to calm down before action needs to be taken. A number of Amarrian RPers have stood up and said it made sense to keep presence of slaves on screen limited because matters of a given Amarrian household should stay within the household and as far away from the public eye as possible. What's the point in going out of your way to show that you have any in the Summit, besides deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or fapping about how much of a badass you are on camera?
The actual presence of slaves in the channel typically turns into an acid-spitting match between a spontaneous horde of white knights, and the slave who doesn't want to leave for some reason (insert bdsm references here) and/or his/her Holder. And should the slave not have an excuse for leaving and openly express a desire to, then there's more acid-spitting because of the response of the Holder. All of this results in a headache for any moderators on duty.
In short, yes, I suppose it boils down to "dramawhores will be smacked for being dramawhores" both IC and OOC. In some ways it's also a way to save everyone the headache that results when shit goes off a cliff with cinderblocks tied to its feet - if you can't put yourself into the position where you're going to instigate a dramashitstorm, you sure as hell can't complain about the backlash of said dramashitstorm. But the specific case of slaves has nothing to do with segregationism, and in fact helps the Amarrians by keeping certain outwardly negative aspects of the society out of view. They don't exactly look too kindly on people who cause trouble within their society, I doubt they'd look too kindly on people who make them look bad when they're trying to appear better than everyone else. "I don't need to prove that I'm better than you by showing off, I simply am."
Briefly regarding the toaster-lovers: I'm personally a little skeptical of most claims of players being proper True Slaves because there's literally nothing locking you into that for the rest of your time with the character. Not to mention, I question why an actual True Slave would bother wasting time with the rest of us. ;)
Regarding servants: I don't have a problem with them, really. But why mention them explicitly if not to draw attention to their presence? And why draw attention to their presence, if not to fish for a reaction? If people are bringing you things, why wouldn't they do so while staying off-camera? It's less disruptive to the person on camera for it to be placed down nearby where they can reach over and grab it, than it is to interrupt that person in order to hand it to them. Just leave it as one of the elephants in the room. People know they're there, but if nobody brings it up, who's going to blow it out of proportion?
"If you and your behavior make the Summit community feel like it would be a better place without you, it will be."
This would be perfect, if not for the points raised in the first paragraph of Ghost's last post. Some people get very seriously butthurt over this shit. :|
-
So the mods take a person's history into account, I'm guessing? I just saw someone who certainly does cause trouble from time to time get muted for something that seemed fairly innocuous, simply because somebody complained that it was "offensive" (calling another character 'stupid').
As noted, I'm not trying to defend the offending player because, well, it's not his first time, but that's the only reasonable explanation I can imagine to mute someone just for calling somebody stupid.
-
First off, I think it needs to be said that Trues are pretty far in the back of any lists of bans we were going to effect; this is at least in part due to the fact that most of the True Slaves / True Citizens we've seen on the Summit have been portrayed in a highly uncliched, actually interesting manner. If we had as many people rolling TS alts that were some kind of cliched borg copy or something, this would be more of an issue. Thankfully, it is isn't the case.
Now a question for Lyn -
Is your post about the proposed blanket ban on all slave characters, or the existing rule/habit of banning slave or slave-owning characters who prove to be drama-filled?
For the blanket ban ofc.
If drama slavers get banned, I guess it is not because they are slavers but because they are drama whores.
Lyn: In my opinion, the rule isn't a segregationist policy in the slightest, even IC. It's a move to reduce the prevalence of things that almost without fail trigger a hostile and unproductive atmosphere in the Summit that often requires moderators to step in to get people to calm down before action needs to be taken. A number of Amarrian RPers have stood up and said it made sense to keep presence of slaves on screen limited because matters of a given Amarrian household should stay within the household and as far away from the public eye as possible. What's the point in going out of your way to show that you have any in the Summit, besides deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or fapping about how much of a badass you are on camera?
The actual presence of slaves in the channel typically turns into an acid-spitting match between a spontaneous horde of white knights, and the slave who doesn't want to leave for some reason (insert bdsm references here) and/or his/her Holder. And should the slave not have an excuse for leaving and openly express a desire to, then there's more acid-spitting because of the response of the Holder. All of this results in a headache for any moderators on duty.
In short, yes, I suppose it boils down to "dramawhores will be smacked for being dramawhores" both IC and OOC. In some ways it's also a way to save everyone the headache that results when shit goes off a cliff with cinderblocks tied to its feet - if you can't put yourself into the position where you're going to instigate a dramashitstorm, you sure as hell can't complain about the backlash of said dramashitstorm. But the specific case of slaves has nothing to do with segregationism, and in fact helps the Amarrians by keeping certain outwardly negative aspects of the society out of view. They don't exactly look too kindly on people who cause trouble within their society, I doubt they'd look too kindly on people who make them look bad when they're trying to appear better than everyone else. "I don't need to prove that I'm better than you by showing off, I simply am."
Briefly regarding the toaster-lovers: I'm personally a little skeptical of most claims of players being proper True Slaves because there's literally nothing locking you into that for the rest of your time with the character. Not to mention, I question why an actual True Slave would bother wasting time with the rest of us. ;)
Regarding servants: I don't have a problem with them, really. But why mention them explicitly if not to draw attention to their presence? And why draw attention to their presence, if not to fish for a reaction? If people are bringing you things, why wouldn't they do so while staying off-camera? It's less disruptive to the person on camera for it to be placed down nearby where they can reach over and grab it, than it is to interrupt that person in order to hand it to them. Just leave it as one of the elephants in the room. People know they're there, but if nobody brings it up, who's going to blow it out of proportion?
ICly Lyn thinks it is segregationist, and I do think it OOCly as well. As I said above, you shun slavers because they are slavers. Which means a good part of the eve population. If this is not segregation, I do not know what it is. That is, of course, about the blanket ban of slaves and slavers.
Now then you think it is better to get rid of what causes the drama for you (the slaver), fine, but I do think that what causes the drama in most cases is not the slaver, but actually the people that always get butthurt over it. As I said above, welcome in New Eden and deal with it. If some characters can't get over it, then it might be better for them to reconsider speaking with slavers in the first place. It would be up to me, I would ban those ones instead. Reacting to a slaver because you can see slaves around, telling him how you disagree, creating a good discussion or debate over it with good RP is fine. Overeacting and being a bitch about it while actually being the drama whore here, and in the same way violating all the rules of the Summit about insulting behavior... Yes, I do not understand why it is to the slaver to gtfo and not the actual drama whore or emo character that couldnt just hold his/her tongue instead of going out all guns blazing. When you are speaking about "creating a dramashitstorm", I think that it is an usual "blame the victim" syndrome.
I find it totally normal for a slaver, or even a Holder, to have from time to time slaves bringing him a cup of tea for example, like a servant would. It also seems normal to me that we can see slaves going on their business in the background. This is part of what creates the environnement of the character in question. Some choose to materialize the environnement surrounding their characters when connecting to the summit, and I think it is part of enriching one's RP to add more flavor and depth to the universe in which they evolve. Same for servants. It is not always about drawing attention to their presence, it is like when you say that your character is sipping a glass of wine, or scratching his head, or whatever. It is about making your characters look more alive with all of their environnement.
Then of course, if some slaver starts to be provocative in an obvious way with his slaves, starting to pet them and cuddle them or doing dirty things or whatever... That is another story.
"If you and your behavior make the Summit community feel like it would be a better place without you, it will be."
This would be perfect, if not for the points raised in the first paragraph of Ghost's last post. Some people get very seriously butthurt over this shit. :|
Yes, because the way Casiella said it, it brings back ideas about "ostracism by the mass". Better to be careful with such things, but of course eventually, it is our community, our channels, our rules. Deal with it, indeed.
-
I haven't been involved in any of the background to this. However...
I've been more active in The Summit of late, and it's partly because of this ruling.
It's not the case that making a space open to all is the same as making a space where all can interact. There is usually a lot in The Summit that Mata has to ignore, and not just in a "Meh", :rolleyes: or "Not my thing" way.
My first reaction to this ruling was along the lines of "Don't ban the slaves: ban the slaveholders!". After some thought, and a range of examples with and without, I've sort of come around.
Having defended open access to channels which I've then stopped playing in because I couldn't stand the consequences, I'm now open to the idea that some restrictions can actually make things work better. Whether this is one of those restrictions for The Summit is something for the Summit mods to decide.
-
There is always open access (except in the one case we've had where we've nearly had to turn it off; i.e. the FWeddit debacle), so thats not going to be a problem. We've just been much more willing to start hanging people with the rope they've been given as a result. :)
It was good to see you in the Summit though. I don't think I've seen that since I started Tib.
-
I haven't been involved in any of the background to this. However...
I've been more active in The Summit of late, and it's partly because of this ruling.
It's not the case that making a space open to all is the same as making a space where all can interact. There is usually a lot in The Summit that Mata has to ignore, and not just in a "Meh", :rolleyes: or "Not my thing" way.
My first reaction to this ruling was along the lines of "Don't ban the slaves: ban the slaveholders!". After some thought, and a range of examples with and without, I've sort of come around.
Having defended open access to channels which I've then stopped playing in because I couldn't stand the consequences, I'm now open to the idea that some restrictions can actually make things work better. Whether this is one of those restrictions for The Summit is something for the Summit mods to decide. To my eyes, they are the ones spoiling the atmosphere, not provocative slavers.
I may have a different experience then. I feel that we are directing the banhammer at the wrong people. Personally, it is not slavers that I would like to see banned. I have difficulties to get into the Summit myself, more and more, precisely because of a whole different kind of roleplayers. All the emo characters that like to lurk around, and all the strawman alts that seem to pop everyday. To my eyes they are the ones spoiling the atmosphere.
-
The Slave argument has plagued many channels too be honest. It simply comes down too whether or not the Holder and the Slave can both conduct themselves according too the channels declared and undeclared rules of conduct. In short you wouldn't see a sane homosexual flaunt his life style at a Klan meeting,so why advertise the fact you're a slave holder in a setting that is mostly composed of Matari and their allies?
Now I will be the first person too decry Eve's lack of true hard boiled villains, but another old and tired saying that I think we should keep in mind is "Don't feed the Trolls"! I will assume that most of us are functioning adults and that for the most part we all role play functioning adults who are experienced in dealing with a certain degree of douchebagery. So I think it's pretty safe too say that we can all tell if someone is genuinely trying too be a troll as opposed too legitimately representing their life style/belief system.
Playing a villain (which most consider Holders too be) in RP is like navigating a minefield, in some channels you can be yourself but in others your very presence may be considered trolling or being an attention seeker (Pretty sure if Hardin and Archbishop showed up in a UK or EM RP channel it wouldn't go over well), despite whatever their actions or reasons for being there are.
So I think in this case it should be something treated on a case by case basis. If we don't have people too give us something too talk about then its just a bunch of self important, opinionated, asses bunched together doing nothing but talking about the weather or gossiping like old biddies who agree with one another on everything. Aimless bitter vet rant OVER!!!
-
No, Im pretty in agreement with that. I think we are starting to stray off topic though. We aren't going to be banning slavers any time soon (I'm pretty sure) and are mostly focusing our attentions on dramawhores, who can come in any flavour.
Are there any other suggestions for the sorts of things that should/should not receive moderator attention, though?
-
ME? Personally? Not of any note or seriousness. I am sorry if I derailed the topic but after reading a few of the posts that came off as a bit.....lets say enthusiastically heavy handed. I felt trying too be something resembling a moderate voice of reason was needed (which if I am compelled too do that, either I am reading things wrong or the final seal has been broken and Jesus is coming).
-
No no, I think the last little bit has been a bit off topic, myself. The original post had nothing to do with slavery (and more to do with keeping our hands off of transhuman strangeness). It has since become a bit of a talk about what we can do to make the Summit a better place to RP in. The slavery thing came in there, and kind of ate up everything else.
It does tend to do that.
Basically: What else should we keep our hands off of.
-
The Slave argument has plagued many channels too be honest. It simply comes down too whether or not the Holder and the Slave can both conduct themselves according too the channels declared and undeclared rules of conduct. In short you wouldn't see a sane homosexual flaunt his life style at a Klan meeting,so why advertise the fact you're a slave holder in a setting that is mostly composed of Matari and their allies?
Now I will be the first person too decry Eve's lack of true hard boiled villains, but another old and tired saying that I think we should keep in mind is "Don't feed the Trolls"! I will assume that most of us are functioning adults and that for the most part we all role play functioning adults who are experienced in dealing with a certain degree of douchebagery. So I think it's pretty safe too say that we can all tell if someone is genuinely trying too be a troll as opposed too legitimately representing their life style/belief system.
Playing a villain (which most consider Holders too be) in RP is like navigating a minefield, in some channels you can be yourself but in others your very presence may be considered trolling or being an attention seeker (Pretty sure if Hardin and Archbishop showed up in a UK or EM RP channel it wouldn't go over well), despite whatever their actions or reasons for being there are.
So I think in this case it should be something treated on a case by case basis. If we don't have people too give us something too talk about then its just a bunch of self important, opinionated, asses bunched together doing nothing but talking about the weather or gossiping like old biddies who agree with one another on everything. Aimless bitter vet rant OVER!!!
First I want to say that I agree 100% with you on the fact that we are adults (I guess ?) and should be able to tell if someone is genuinely trolling or not.
However, I thought the Summit was supposed to be a - more or less - neutral ground for everyone ? We are not on an EM or UK channel, where slavers would get a hard time. It is too easy to call the slavers the cause, again. It is mostly about people being butthurt about things that the universe condone, and breaking the rules of conduct of the Summit itself. Lyn, too could be an asshole and start yelling at freedom fighters and all emo minmatar that want to burn the Empire that show up everyday here. Lyn, too, could insult people that show up and boast about how it is pleasant to kill amarrians because after all, nobody likes them. It is easy to be offended over anything. It does not mean that it is an excuse for everything.
And Lyn is not even an amarrian loyalist, so I do not even want to put myself in the shoes of Amarrians or Cartel dudes, because no, I do not think this channel is really fair in its current iteration.
-
I find myself looking for the "+1" or "Like" button on each of Lyn's posts.
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with Lucian's post. To emphasize something here, I'm going to repost something from the OP where the "slave rule" was mentioned.
Parading. We are not banning people for having slaves. We are not banning people for using slaves in their RP. What we are attempting to cut down on here is an unfortunate tendency to have a good running conversation and then suddenly a cliched slave or slaveholding character (PC or NPC) gets thrown around the channel, instantly destroying all running conversation and turning it all into a big pile of rabble.
-
Basically: What else should we keep our hands off of.
My power supply.
-
Is your power supply stupid drama?
-
Banning slave characters seems rather silly to me, primarily because I feel that individual players should be judged on their own actions. Ultimately, the behavior of the players behind the character disrupting the channel needs to be curbed or controlled, and make it clear that they cannot hide behind IC behavior to ruin everyone's fun.
-
Parading. We are not banning people for having slaves. We are not banning people for using slaves in their RP. What we are attempting to cut down on here is an unfortunate tendency to have a good running conversation and then suddenly a cliched slave or slaveholding character (PC or NPC) gets thrown around the channel, instantly destroying all running conversation and turning it all into a big pile of rabble.
This is what I do not understand. Why does it turn it all into a big pile of rabble ? Why seeing a slave in a background does somehow instantly ruin a decent conversation ?
I would be tempted to answer "because someone has to step out of that decent conversation and starts being a jerk about slavery". Or what do you exactly mean by "cliched" ? Do you have examples in mind ?
-
Absolutely correct Lynn that The Summit is SUPPOSED too be a neutral meeting ground in which all people can meet and discuss things with a semblance of maturity and depth. But the true spirit of any organization or really any collection of people in general is dictated by the make up of said inhabitants. In other words it maybe a neutral place for all too converse. But if the bulk of the ACTIVE player base are pro Fed/Republic then the channel becomes such, just lacking the tendency too have "witch hunts" due too moderators.
This all just brings too mind the days when there was a massive anti-furry sentiment amongst many of the people who are most active in the channel and here. This didn't change until T.E.A. came out and body modders were added into the mix. Now there is a begrudging acceptance of said rp style if it isn't over the top and again they follow the rules of conduct.
So too summarize this all I shall reiterate Wheatons Law; "Don't Be a Dick!" .......that's what I am here for!
-
Drama-llamas will find ways to shit on channels regardless of any specific bans. From channel bombing self-flagellating bdsm alts to parading slave alts on collars to pity-party channel emo fests, it's gonna happen one way or another.
Blanket bans won't work.
Channel needs to stop being as rule-driven and enforce a strict "I don't like the cut of your jib" banhammer policy. People will behave themselves once the kicking starts in earnest. Sometimes not being given a specific reason can do more to make people RP nice than specific rules they can bitch and moan and whine around ad nauseum.
Stop being nice, load up your hair-trigger t2 ban hammers with faction ammo.
-
I think the 'i just don't like the way you are acting' can be pure IC as well, as your characters are human and are 'moderators' and can justifiably be annoyed IC with idiocy and kick accordingly. I think it quite alright to be less clinical about the rules and more 'in the spirit of the rules' regarding what you guys put up with and don't put up with.
-
I like your view. It is... interesting, wouldnt have thought about it like that.
I think the 'i just don't like the way you are acting' can be pure IC as well, as your characters are human and are 'moderators' and can justifiably be annoyed IC with idiocy and kick accordingly. I think it quite alright to be less clinical about the rules and more 'in the spirit of the rules' regarding what you guys put up with and don't put up with.
They are already acting like that sometimes.
-
I just think there might be some cart leading the horse here with all the navel gazing about rule-specifics and bans, not seeing the forest for the trees. Not trying to be negative but I might be wierd and see these issues as very black and white.
IE only one question needed "Is this character's behavior contributing to an interesting or productive RP channel? and enriching our experience?"
Notice I didn't say 'pleasant' or 'conflict free' as that's important too.
If yes, keep on keepin' on.
If no, kick and they can mail you if they want clarification, but 0 tolerance for channel shitting should apply 100% of time.
-
Silas, what about the issue of a moderator deciding "wrongly"?
-
Silas, what about the issue of a moderator deciding "wrongly"?
I don't think it's an issue. Moderators are given those powers by the channel owner as a sign of good judgement. If it's a constant problem of poor judgement as determined by the channel owner then they should re-assign and move on.
Remember we aren't talking about losing huge game assets or being podded, we're talking about being removed from an RP comm-channel for a short period of time.
I'd rather things err on the side of caution and a few RPers get their precious feelings hurt now and then, than have people on that edge all the time and annoying the hell out of 30 other people on a regular basis.
-
I actually think the channel would grow in popularity among all the RPers who avoid it due to drama if they knew that all the bad mojo was being judiciously removed as it occurs.
I've found in EVE that people, channels, and fleets tend to rise or fall to the level of expectations set from the people in charge. Group events seem to directly be influenced and respond immediately to the tone and conduct set by the people in charge.
If you run a sloppy fleet on comms and let people yap about every stupid unrelated thing all the time then that's the kind of fleet you'll get. You can have fun and a good time, but don't get upset when you can't enforce fleet or comm discipline when you need to.
If you run an RP event and let non-sanctioned nonsense occur things deteriorate quickly
And if you run and RP channel and don't enforce rules that are decided upon, things go downhill as well.
I'm not accusing the Summit of this, just making a 'general' opinion.
-
I'm very glad I'm not the only one who sees the slave thing as basically BDSM RP lol. This time, I've actually read all the posts, and I agree that a blanket ban of slaves is bad because...well, "it's just not fair", I guess. They can be put on a watchlist if anything.
I've got a question about characters like Anette Inhonores, though, and what you people think of such persons. When I've RP'd her in the Summit, I have had at least one other player mention to me OOC that she comes off more mature and sane than the rest of the characters currently plugged in, while still acting believably like an 11-year-old. Despite this, have seen people start groaning and making comments "onoes a child" and disconnecting, regardless of her mature behaviour.
Just wanted genuine opinions here, since I've always wondered it. I'm not going to stomp around and demand she be accepted, because ultimately it's about producing a believable character and product of the Gallente Federation/New Eden world that people can engage with and perhaps be entertained. After all, not many child characters that aren't skanky plot devices for kidnapping stories or "The Amarr touched them in their special area and so they're evil". The opportunity for a character to interact with a child may prove rewarding in its own way distinct from an adult character. I like to be the centre of attention (sometimes/most times) for people's entertainment; and that's the goal of Anette, to entertain people.
I suppose she'd fall under "moderator's discretion", but I do frown a bit when a character goes GRR CHILD PERSON IS HERE /disconnect without even assessing the character wholesale first. I know we like our grimdark universe, but there's still children in EVE :3
derp, longer post than i wanted.
-
As the person who you're referring to - yes I said she's more sane and mature than most who connect. That said, she's still a child, and seeing a non-capsuleer child connect to the Summit has always rubbed me the wrong way just the same as seeing slaves connect, or Joe The Space Plumber.
As likable as she is, I am of the opinion that she and everyone else who isn't a non-slave capsuleer shouldn't be connecting. But I don't voice my concerns often because there are characters like Anette, that Rogue Drone girl 'Unit', and Synthia who are not traditional capsuleers (or not at all) and who I'd like to see stay.
I guess this is an argument against blanket bans.
-
We tend to treat non-capsuleers as "allowed, but on a very short leash". Annette doesn't break any rules and is remarkably well behaved, so she's never had moderator attention fall on her. Ciarente Roth falls under the same category.
Now, this doesnt mean that we are going to police the channel as though its family friendly. It's Seriphyn's job to be keeping his kid off the Summit when people are swearing up a storm or threatening to kill eachother.
-
Ciarente Roth falls under the same category.
You do mean Camille Roth, don't you? Because Cia's over the age of majority ...
-
Yes, thats what I mean, sorry! <3 Camille just bad with names.
-
Inhonores: I think whether or not to allow an 11-year old girl into a frequently adult-oriented capsuleer channel full of killers and the like is entirely up to the channel operator and mods.
I've got not OOC issues, but I think the general groans from the IC patrons are quite justified.
-
Oddly, most capsuleers should be more afraid of Camille than the other pilots. That girl is trouble.
-
Inhonores: I think whether or not to allow an 11-year old girl into a frequently adult-oriented capsuleer channel full of killers and the like is entirely up to the channel operator and mods.
I've got not OOC issues, but I think the general groans from the IC patrons are quite justified.
Let's try again, politically corrected. It's not like i lack discretion, especially trying to rp realistic characters. if I personally see what I consider adult behaviour in the summit, that's when I'll use my noggin and not plug in a child character.
But most of the time its complaining about children with rather general conversation otherwise.
-
I've got a question about characters like Anette Inhonores, though, and what you people think of such persons.
What's the question?
Despite this, have seen people start groaning and making comments "onoes a child" and disconnecting, regardless of her mature behaviour.
<snip>
I suppose she'd fall under "moderator's discretion", but I do frown a bit when a character goes GRR CHILD PERSON IS HERE /disconnect without even assessing the character wholesale first. I know we like our grimdark universe, but there's still children in EVE :3
The complaint seems to be that some characters don't like your character, and you only think a character should dislike her for 'reasonable' reasons. If that's the case, I disagree.
-
While I have issues with baseliners connecting to the Summit, that is not specific to Anette. You know personally how much I love her character OOC.
That said, Katrina thinks she's a snotty little shit and greatly dislikes her. Why? Because Anette reminds Katrina of herself when she was a girl. Arrogant, snotty, far too intelligent for her age, and sticking her nose where it shouldn't be.
So if my character continued griping about Anette, and I had never said anything to you OOC about how I like her: Would you be including me in this issue where you think she's not welcome in the Summit? I think you might.
The point here is that while Anette is often groaned and griped about, how do you know people don't actually like her as a character - but dislike her in character?
-
All this talk of BDSM slaves and whatnot has inspired me to write an awesome new book:
50 Shades of Graelyn
I now return you to serious discussion of the topic.
-
All this talk of BDSM slaves and whatnot has inspired me to write an awesome new book:
50 Shades of Graelyn
I now return you to serious discussion of the topic.
*like this post*
-
Not really anything to do with the personal character of Anette, just the presence of a kid having an auto-repulsion effect of people withdrawing from the RP when she appears. I don't know anything about Camille Roth, but I don't think I've seen such a response in the one or two times she's connected in the Summit.
-
I can assure you, it happens just about every time I log her in to the Summit ... much like it happens every time my IRL friends bring their pre-teen kids to a restaurant. Adults in an adult venue are often unwelcoming of unexpected children, in my experience.
-
Ah, well then.
-
I bet they'd have more fun at an amusement park anyway.
-
I can assure you, it happens just about every time I log her in to the Summit ... much like it happens every time my IRL friends bring their pre-teen kids to a restaurant. Adults in an adult venue are often unwelcoming of unexpected children, in my experience.
This. Its supposed to be a Summitt. At the very least it should be an open communication frequency between capsuleers (i.e. mercenaries, industrialists, radicals, terrorists, merchants, murders, and everything else that entails) If a child walked into the U.N. Assembly, or into a Blackwater board meeting, at the very least people are going to stop talking and wonder what in the world a child is doing there.
In fact, IMO no child played as a child would actually really want to be in such a meeting. Its likely quite boring through their eyes. Kids want to do kid things, not talk about what is a reasonable POCO tariff to set for allies.
And really I have no problem with a blanket ban on slaves in the channel, for purely realism reasons. By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society. Its hard to do so with my main for obvious reasons, but if a slave started trying to talk to say my Caldari trading alt, he would likely sniff and say "thats nice, may I speak to an actual person with some standing please?".
Capsuleers are the wealthy, the powerful, the decadent, the corrupt, the movers and shakers of the world. Those kind of people dont talk to the help.
More to the point, if the players of those slave characters wish their characters to have rights, be included into wider society and be treated fairly, they literally should not be playing slaves.
And yes, someone confusing a BDSM "slavery" with actual, no kidding slavery is kinda like saying if a young woman says "oh yes daddy" while wearing a catholic schoolgirl outfit she picked up as a surprise anniversary present she must think youre her actual biological father. Utterly different things, not even in the same ballpark.
Real slavery doesnt have safe words.
-
Gotti is making so much sense right now.
-
By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society.
That's not the definition of slavery.
The entire point of Amarrian slavery is that they're supposedly saving the soul of that individual. You don't see the Amarr attempting to save the souls of dogs or wheelbarrow spokes. Given that it's a theocracy, the Amarrian concept of person-hood likely doesn't revolve around 'natural rights' but whether something has a soul or not.
-
By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society.
That's not the definition of slavery.
The entire point of Amarrian slavery is that they're supposedly saving the soul of that individual. You don't see the Amarr attempting to save the souls of dogs or wheelbarrow spokes. Given that it's a theocracy, the Amarrian concept of person-hood likely doesn't revolve around 'natural rights' but whether something has a soul or not.
If history teaches anything about the merger of slavery and religion, its that slaveholders are perfectly okay believing their slaves can have a soul but still not be a legally defined person. (see New World slavery, Islamic jihads, etc)
The same arguments used by the Amarrians ("we're saving their souls, and giving them eternal life, Heaven and civilization as a reward for their toil!") has been used by oodles of slavers in the past, from European slave traders to the Islamic jihads to just about every aggressive evangelical religion you can think of.
For example, in the pre-Civil War American South black slaves were known for their piety and devotion to the Church and to the concept of Christ. White preachers, even slaveholding ones, recognized them as human beings possessing of a soul that needed saving. That was never in doubt from the very beginning of slavery in the U.S., its one of the excuses used when slavery started. Many white Christians admired their black Christian slaves, and were a bit humbled by their example. (Christianity, like many religions, actually holds up well when its members are persecuted or oppressed)
Didnt mean black slaves were "persons" as defined by U.S. law or society. Having a soul didnt mean you still couldnt be considered property. ( see Dred Scott decision) Its an odd concept to the modern Western ear, but simply having a soul didnt make you a legally recognized "person".
So, to be blunt, I think I have a better grasp on the definition of slavery than you do.
-
And all amarrians are supposed to fit exactly to that kind of views ? I may be wrong but I have the feeling that you are actually telling us that it can't be different than your RL references.
-
And all amarrians are supposed to fit exactly to that kind of views ? I may be wrong but I have the feeling that you are actually telling us that it can't be different than your RL references.
No, Im just saying that a slave isnt a person as far as the Empire is concerned. Theyre slaves, that is to say, property.
Eventually, theyre freed after a certain number of generations, become citizens in the Empire.
But theyre not legal "persons" until that time. They cant sign contracts or the like. Again, they're property, not persons. Thats what a slave is. The definition of a person is "A human being regarded as an individual." A slave is a human being viewed as property, not someone with individual autonomy.
Makkal seemed to think that there is no way someone could be viewed as having a soul but not actual be a legally recognized person. Im saying history says thats wrong, and in fact its been the norm for a lot of slave owning societies, especially ones with religious justifications for slavery. PF seems to indicate thats how the Empire works. Thats what im saying.
-
PF indicates ?
I think you are confusing the legal status of being a "person" in the Empire and being a "person" in a moral sense, especially, having a soul. It is not a hazard that Amarrians always talk about "reclaiming souls". Or confusing the legal status of citizen with the legal status of a person, an individual.
What I am saying is that nothing in PF seems to speak clearly about that added to the fact that this is a big cluster. I wouldnt be surprised to see your view on the matter applied in some territories while other views exist somewhere else.
I am kindof a partisan of "If it is not clearly stated in PF, then it is up to the players until CCP decides to state otherwise, BUT only CCP and the PF have the right to create something that applies to their lore as a WHOLE, a globality". This is why I am not a fan of people telling me OOC that all Caldari care about taking back their homeworld, or that slavery in a legal sense is like this or that in the Empire since it is something they made out of their mind, and that can conflict pretty easily with someone else's interpretation. It is brilliant RP material ICly, but not OOCly, it is just absurd.
Interpretations are fine as long as we use them locally ("in my clan, these are our traditions but yours can differ", vs "in the Republic, these are the traditions and stfu"). This is why as much as I find the work done on napanii or amarrad quite impressive, I am always embarassed when I see factional RP blocs taking them as THE Caldari language, or THE Amarrian language. It equates to enforcing YOUR view, or the view of a GROUP of players over the others.
So, I think it is fine to have discussions over how things might be here or there, as long as people do not start to enforce it over others (ala yourdoingitwrong). And here, unless I misunderstood, you use a rule (the global ban of all slaves) of the Summit to enforce your views through it.
-
If I may?
I believe it comes down to this: The summit, despite being set up ICly like it is a nest of communications screens and interfaces, is mechanically really just a chat channel. If it was actually all the screens and interfaces it is supposed to be IC, then it would be fine if a slave or a servant or someone walked across the camera occasionally or whatever. However, it is not, it is a chat channel. Because it is a chat channel, the only time most people have anything at all happen in the background is when they want it to be something that other characters notice and remark on. The only way that people know the cup of tea in the pilot's hand came from a slave is if the player, OOCly specifically and consciously uses the word slave to describe the person who just handed them the tea. This is why background slaves can still cause problems. Because the only reason at all to note on them, and therefore the only way for any other players to be aware of them, is for the player to directly and consciously chose to type out that there are slaves in the background of their image.
As for slave characters:
First off, I don't like them. There is no reason at all for a capsuleer to be a slave, and like it or not, mechanically, you are in fact a capsuleer. The only reason someone could be seen as a capsuleer slave that made sense to me is if the person in question is a slave by choice, whether that's for bedroomy cybz related reasons, or IC devotion to redemption or something like that (a minmatar whose bought into the Amarr propaganda and thinks its good for them.) Even then, I really just do not like capsuleer slaves. I think they are far too often not played well, and very very often a sort of "look at me! Look at me and pay attention to me! look how edgy I am!" sort of thing. I could imagine what a good slave character would be like, but I have yet to actually see one, and frankly, despite my character being pro-slavery, I have no problem with an out and out ban on slaves in the channel. "Why is that property talking in this channel?"
And not that I think it really needed reiteration, but The Sansha crowd never really struck me as slaves, so you wouldn't even really need to have an 'except true slaves' exemption. They are more like cultists. True Slaves are part of the hivemind and don't come into the summit anyway. Mechanically, you are a capsuleer, you can't be part of that hivemind, and someone claiming that is probably only going to succeed in opening a large can of drama.
Basically, given the way that slavery RP manifests, and also given the mechanical constraints of the game, I would not be opposed to seeing it banned from the summit. If for no other reason then that I don't think a real slave character would be there anyway. There's no reason for them to be there IC. And the only OOC reason for slaves at all at this point seems to be attempted edginess. This goes past empire politics and OOC reflections of those politics, and PF discussions on how xyz would act. We don't need to know any of that to make a decision.
My vote: Outright ban slaves, both PCs, and NPCs, from the summit. If you want to explore issues of slavery ingame, there are better ways to do it.
[gmod]Sniping with really small caliber text is still sniping. -Morwen[/gmod]
-
The state of being a 'person' is a legal state, not a moral or ethical one. One individual can be the property of another; one human being can be the property of another; but one person cannot be the property of another. Or, to put it another way, all human beings may be people, but not all people are persons. And no, this is not the same as the legal state of 'citizen': one can be a person in a nation or state in which one is not a citizen. One cannot, of course, be a citizen when one is not a person; but one can certainly be a person without being a citizen.
While the conditions of slavery may vary widely within the Empire, and there are a variety of indications in PF that it in fact does so differ, the existence of slavery is also PF. Slavery is, ipso facto, legally categorising some individuals/human beings/people as property and therefore, as not being persons. If slaves in the Amarr Empire are persons, they are by definition not slaves, which contradicts PF.
-
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and less formally by different cultures in different times and places. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person)
-
I have avoided this topic thus far, and have decided, as a member of the mod team, and a fairly active one at that, to weigh in.
It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.
That being said, how many characters have come into the summit as "Slaves" and are just there to shit things up? "Oh poor me, help me! I cant escape! Oh, well, I can, but my holder is so nice to me and... and... he touches me there!"
We get sick of it. The amount of drama has reached critical mass, and we are nuking it. Period. In game conflict is not drama, its story. Conflict away. Screaming "look at me, look I am a <whatever the fuck> isnt conflict, it isnt RP, its attention whoring. We are done with it. If you have an issue with it, take it up with graelyn.
In my time as a mod, i have muted someone in summit ONCE, for a blatant personal attack, for 30 minutes, and in OOC TWICE, once for a racist comment in OOC, once for a personal attack. Three times in three months. Yep, we're all tyrants. We're all out to get you and push our own agendas. I see so much RP in there that makes me vomit in my mouth a little, but I dont have to like it. Its still RP. I draw a line between RP and Drama. If that bugs you, odds are you're on the wrong side of the line.
I am always willing to talk to people, to listen to complaints, to do everything I can to NOT ban people. But, the last month, while Morwen was being "the bad guy", no one was informing me. I cannot take action on things which may be an issue if i am unaware of them. Please, tell me. I am not heavy handed, i dont throw bans and mutes around. All three of the people i have muted agreed "yep, had it coming" and one had been muted once before for the exact same thing.
RP is supposed to be fun. Its even more fun when we can forget that we're mods and just play the game too. Let us do that. Down with drama.
-
I don't use the summit much, but personally I think I'd rather see active moderators using their best judgement to limit drama and other "toxic RP", than an ever expanding set of rules that progressively limits what characters can access the summit.
The fact that there are multiple moderators from different personal backgrounds discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed via a public forum is a good sign that it isn't some RP dictatorship enforcing their will on the rest of us. I know I've been in arguments with a couple of the mods before and I haven't been banned...
-
I personally have a rule where I never ban someone for being in a legitimate argument with myself, at least.
-
That being said, how many characters have come into the summit as "Slaves" and are just there to shit things up? "Oh poor me, help me! I cant escape! Oh, well, I can, but my holder is so nice to me and... and... he touches me there!"
That is exactly it. This is what frustrates me so much with this current discussion. This is not about slavery, this is about people with discutable BDSM fantasies using slavery as a tool for their fantasies.
This is exactly why I have a lot of difficulties to cope with arguments in favor of a general ban of slavery, when slavery has very little to do with it eventually. If people are mods, they use their brains, they are not here to play the bureaucrat stupidly applying coercitive rules not even limiting OOC bad behavior (I am all for coercitive anti stupid OOC rules), but IC behavior. Do not take this as a judgement against the mods, they do their jobs. Take this as a remark against people trying to regulate everything even when unecessary, counterproductive, or just totally out of place. And here I do believe it is totally out of place.
I beg you again, do not start to shun decent slavers for what other morons do with slavery. But if you eventually do it, do not be surprised if you start to get a lot of IC flak for ostracism and loss of neutrality.
-
Lyn, what is "discutable"?
And given the makeup of the moderator list and the owner of the channel, calling it IC would be more than a little myopic.
-
Starfire and Lyn. have it exactly correct.
Slavery is not the issue, attention-whoring shittery is the issue. Ban and move on.
:)
-
Lyn, what is "discutable"?
And given the makeup of the moderator list and the owner of the channel, calling it IC would be more than a little myopic.
Sorry, debatable. Too many french roots in english, its confusing. :|
-
(Side note: English is the linguistic equivalent of the bastard child of a Norman knight and a Saxon bar wench. :) )
-
Some say English is a language which borrow words from other languages.
This is untrue.
English is language which ambushes other languages in the dark, drags them into an alley, clubs them over the head and steals any useful bits they may have.
- Praphrased from a novel I read once. Can't remember which now.
Back on topic: I believe that some of the moderators have an interest in having "rules" because it is easier for us to deal with offenders in the short term if we can point to a rule and say "...no, you violated THIS." than have to deal with the extended back-and-forth about moderator bias and what not.
At the same time, the best rules are the flexible ones, IMO.
So, it comes down to the apparent impartiality of the mod team vs. the ability to flexibly handle any situation. I'd love to lean more toward the latter, but if a mod moves without a specific rule being violated (and sometimes even with) it seems like an inevitability they'll be accused of moderator bias, arguments breed resentment, appeals will be tossed around forever, etc...
-
No Posted Rules.
Yes, people will then accuse the mods of Bias.
Fine.
Mod better be used to that sort of shit.
There's a certain person out there who, as soon as kicking/banning proceedings was mentioned, they aproached me with a diatribe that started with "...and I have a degree in American Law, and as per code This and That, evidence is necessary for..."
NO.
I THINK NOT.
-
No Posted Rules.
There's a certain person who, as soon as kicking/banning proceedings was mentioned, they aproached me with a diatribe that started with "...and I have a degree in American Law, and as per code This and That, evidence is necessary for..."
NO.
I THINK NOT.
+1
-
+2, but then I'm biased. :lol:
-
+3
-
+4
-
+5 As a degree holder myself, I will always look down on the academic flotsam who feel that it gives them the right to flex their muscles on a damned forum or game.
Academic Hard Man personas should be saved for the peer review process, not a virtual entertainment environment.
-
I'm of the opinion that being an academic hard man and flexing your massive brain-muscle is perfectly legitimate if you're, you know. Right. Or at least contributing materially to the discussion.
Trying to dictate standards on someone else's venue is neither.
-
Im of the opinion a degree in something importantish doesnt make you not an idiot.
-
Im of the opinion a degree in something importantish doesnt make you not an idiot.
Couldn't agree more. Not only that, the need to throw a few letters into the ring to validate your (the indirect use of the word!) argument is a red flag for a lack of well constructed argument. In a virtual domain, with only text as our contribution to the landscape of a channel, the quality of one's contribution can be easily surmised without going "well what you said was meaningless s**t, but lets waive that because you sat through 3/4 years of education - if you even did at all".
We're peers, sometimes friends (collectively speaking), role-playing or discussing role-play in an internet spaceship game. Whether you're a BA, BEng King, Queen or Emperor doesn't matter. You're just another dubiously implemented python client waiting to be blown to bits and told you aren't good enough in more ways than even the most inventive bootcamp Sarge can imagine. So let's leave pretention aside and judge by action alone (individually and on 'topical' elements), as seems to be suggested by the moderators. A blanket ban on a behaviour because of the few who ruin it, distasteful as it is, is the only way to prevent such infractions from being the sum total of debate and communication within a moderation team. In a choice between a crippled administrative process and a few space slavers not playing leash and collar games on a chatroom, the answer is clear to me.
-
+ 10,000 for your changes, Graeylyn.
-
Incoming longpost. You've been warned.
I feel that we are directing the banhammer at the wrong people. Personally, it is not slavers that I would like to see banned. I have difficulties to get into the Summit myself, more and more, precisely because of a whole different kind of roleplayers. All the emo characters that like to lurk around, and all the strawman alts that seem to pop everyday. To my eyes they are the ones spoiling the atmosphere.
If you actually spent more time in the channel watching what happens, and less time arguing for the sake of arguing, you would have noticed that the people who are having the modhammer swung at them lately are the very same people you're complaining about there. It is those people - the players who are prone to making strawman alts, drama llamas and attention whores - who fall on the wrong side of the "slaves" issue. Not the people or characters who have even the slightest amount of common sense or respect for the other people in the channel.
What Casi said earlier is entirely true. If you think that a policy intended to curb slave presence in the Summit, and punish Holders for the misbehavior of their slaves, is a segregationist and biased policy, you might want to stop flapping your gums for a minute and take note that there are at least five people on the moderator team who are directly or indirectly involved with Amarrian slavery, including three Holders who all own slaves.
I beg you again, do not start to shun decent slavers for what other morons do with slavery.
Again, if you spent more time paying attention to the channel (I know it's excruciatingly painful at times, HTFU) instead of arguing for its own sake, you'd have noticed this is not something we are doing or intend to do. In fact, the decent slavers have approved of the idea, because as stated earlier, a real slave has no business being on the channel in the first place, and if they're misbehaving, that is a failure of their Holder to rein them in. As for the BDSM fetish fantasy alts, well, they're the ones calling themselves slaves. We can't really just give them a pass because we think they're just a bunch of BDSM fetishists that call themselves slaves.
We also have not been singling out Holders or slaves or Amarrian RP. In fact, it could be argued we're helping clean it up by getting rid of the strawmen who think :tonyg: needs help shitting up the faction even further than he's already done. We've always been going after attention-whoring drama llamas who make the channel a toxic waste dump. The current flavor of the month for those people just happens to be strawman Amarrian or slave alts lately whose sole purpose is the very thing we've been trying to keep out of the channel, and as a result, guess what issue finds itself being brought to the fore a lot? That's right: "slave" characters and the irresponsible Holders who let them use the channel in the first place.
tl;dr: Strawmen alts, drama-llamas and attentionwhores have flavors of the month just like most other parts of the game. The current FOTM just happens to be "create moustache-twirling evil slavers that abuse slaves who spew stupid drama all over." The people who aren't causing trouble are not in danger of getting caught in the crossfire.
I believe that some of the moderators have an interest in having "rules" because it is easier for us to deal with offenders in the short term if we can point to a rule and say "...no, you violated THIS." than have to deal with the extended back-and-forth about moderator bias and what not.
At the same time, the best rules are the flexible ones, IMO.
So, it comes down to the apparent impartiality of the mod team vs. the ability to flexibly handle any situation. I'd love to lean more toward the latter, but if a mod moves without a specific rule being violated (and sometimes even with) it seems like an inevitability they'll be accused of moderator bias, arguments breed resentment, appeals will be tossed around forever, etc...
As Esna says here, the issue of using explicit rules, versus depending on moderator discretion, is a lose-lose scenario for the moderators. It doesn't matter what we do: the mods are always going to be fighting an uphill battle against people who want to game the system and cause trouble. Use explicit rules, and people will use it as an excuse to come up with and exploit loopholes. Go with the latter, and there's going to be constant accusations of moderator bias and power abuse coupled with a whiny bleating of "BUT THE RULES DIDN'T SAY I COULDN'T" and "SHOW ME ON THE RULES WHERE IT SAYS THIS IS BAD" over a moderator even twitching an eyebrow at someone, let alone giving someone an informal warning to stay away from the line.
Ironically, the people who bitch loudest about mod bias are often the ones who are causing trouble and in the crosshairs of the modhammer. Also noteworthy: if there were actually an appreciable amount of mod bias, there would've been a lot more bannings and mutings than there have been, and it would've started a while back instead of letting things snowball to the point where the moderator team was forced to act.
In the end we do need some rules and guidelines. We don't need a library of them, but we need something. If all that was necessary to get the point across was "if you're going to act like genitals, be aware you're going to be kicked in them very hard" we'd probably have already gone with that and this discussion probably wouldn't be happening.
tl;dr: People are going to bitch at and about the mods no matter what they do. Some people want draconian, some people want the wild west. Our job is to keep the channel in a state that's usable for as many people as possible: this means taking out the trash when it gets too smelly.
On a more personal note, what Ava said is very true. Of the characters who have come into the Summit who self-identify as "slaves", I can't think of even one that wasn't there causing drama and shitting up the channel. People got tired of it to the point that any one of these characters logging in resulted in a massive wave of eyerolling, facepalming, and a chorus of "here we go again" in various channels. When I start seeing that in multiple channels at once from a variety of different people, i know there's a problem that needs dealing with.
I'd rather not apply the modhammer to people if possible. I would prefer to try and sort things out without needing to resort to it, as would the other mods, but when all other methods fail to produce a change in behavior, I (and, I would expect, the other mods) am not going to shy away from using the tools available to attempt solving the problem with brute force.
The only reason I came across as "the bad guy" is that I was the one being poked with the most complaints through various mediums and was the one taking action in response. If people had been poking other moderators instead, it would've been them taking action, not me. Furthermore, the people who were the "victims" of my foul, dastardly, oppressive swinging of the modhammer were people who had repeatedly been reported, complained about and smacked for misbehavior, where "repeatedly" is an understatement of one of the highest magnitudes.
Outside of very clear line-crossings or offenses (say, someone dodging a mute or a ban by logging in an alt), I never took action without consulting at least one other moderator first. In other words, if you got a mute or a ban from me, I can give a near 100% guarantee that someone else signed off on it before it was put in place. Given what I've seen from the other moderators, I'd be hard-pressed to say this isn't the case for the rest of them as well.
tl;dr: We don't act unilaterally if we can avoid it, but if what you do is so obviously out of line that it requires immediate attention, yes, we are going to shove the stick up your ass first and ask the other mods if they think you mind splinters later. Most importantly: if a mod has to resort to a mute or a ban to deal with your bullshit, you are fucking doing it wrong. Period.
Being a moderator, either in a chat channel or on a forum, is extremely frustrating most of the time, and never easy. You always have to watch your step because no matter what you do, people will bitch and moan about it as if it's the end of the world, and how you're terrible and should be removed. It's always about what they want as individuals, and never about what is best for the channel/forum community as a whole. Very frequently someone will report something that actually needs to be taken care of, only to have them turn around and bitch you out as soon as it's one of their friends in the crosshairs.
Exceedingly few people ever step up and thank you for what you do. We're not here to make your lives difficult or miserable (except when you're making life difficult or miserable for the community). We're here to keep the Summit an enjoyable and interesting place for people to go for RP. None of us have to do it. But we do it anyway because we care about the community.
Something to keep in mind.
-
Im of the opinion a degree in something importantish doesnt make you not an idiot.
+1 for that wonderful bit of trufax, and +10,007 (I think that count is right since Silas skewed it a bit) for Graelyn.
We've always been going after attention-whoring drama llamas who make the channel a toxic waste dump.
And I for one can't thank you guys enough for this.
Good post Morwen. And thanks. :cube:
-
Frustrated Morlag is frustrated. (And not without reason, I'll add. :) )
-
PLUSWAN
-
Despite its length and clear show of frustration, I'd have to say your post is not only very informative, it's reflective of what I've been personally witnessing from the moderators.
I just wanted to voice some support for the lot of you as you go to great lengths to help keep the place open yet regulated for enjoyment and immersion.
-
The whole post
We might not be speaking about the same things. You are eluding my actual points while stating the obvious. I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.
I was not refering to people playing slaves, I was refering to the clear rule written on the summit motd, which is "NO PARADING OF SLAVES". Sorry, I just disagree and will continue to strongly voice against that kind of things. If this is IC (and since it is written in the motd, it is), then I will voice against it IC. But since I know it also comes from OOC bleeding and misconceptions, I also disapprove OOCly. I do not care if you want to ban BDSM slaves or whatever comes here, and the slavers parading them. It does not make a lot of sense IC, but it certainly does OOCly. But when I see people like Leopold (or other slavers that actually are not playing the nice slavers like Esna, Nico, etc) with slaves in the background like you will find voluvals on Matari flesh, slavers that are directly targeted by this rule, I have to admit that it pisses me off.
Yes, I think that channel has had a tendancy to fall into the politically correct syndrome recently, and yes, I spend at least a little time watching what happens here. I may not do it as much as yourself, but it does not mean that my opinion is irrelevant too. Yes, I still do think that this channel has lost its neutrality over the time, and has become somewhat segregationist in is principles. It is still tolerable de facto, but on paper, it is not to my eyes.
You sound like you think that I think mods are not doing their job, when they actually do, and also, congrats for that, you have all my support. You will also note that most of my points in my previous posts where not specifically adressed to you, moderators, but to some of the previous posts with which I totally disagree with.
And finally, on rules vs mod discretion : just tell them to gtfo, who care if they complain ? That is your channel, not theirs. I want draconian, but not draconian bureaucrat. Some guidelines are fine, and probably better, though.
It also goes the same way with me, if I bother you enough (and it is definitly not a big deal, unlike it may seem), same thing : tell me to stfu, it is your channel, your rules, your ethics.
Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.
-
How can I put this very plainly....
We overruled the "No slaves in summit rule" to be "If the slave fucks up, slave and holder get banned". I mentioned this like, I dunno... 3 days ago? I think the MOTD just hasnt been changed yet. When dramawhore slaves show up, we will nuke them for being dramawhores, not for being slaves.
Does that address this?
-
\o/
-
The Summit is an IC channel, and is moderated IC.
If people have a problem, then why don't they, you know, do stuff IC about it ?
-
Holding a slave owner responsible for their slaves' behavior sounds pretty IC to me.
-
The Summit is actually moderated both IC and OOC, at least from my end of the moderation spectrum. If someone is being an OOC ass, I have no issue with banning them on an OOC basis. Even across multiple characters.
You have to be doing something pretty bad to draw that kind of attention though.
-
Holding a slave owner responsible for their slaves' behavior sounds pretty IC to me.
Yes. However, if people have consequences for their actions in the Summit, then why don't those people do something IC about it ? why the rush to complain in OOC channel first ? vOv
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
-
Holding a slave owner responsible for their slaves' behavior sounds pretty IC to me.
Yes. However, if people have consequences for their actions in the Summit, then why don't those people do something IC about it ? why the rush to complain in OOC channel first ? vOv
Complaining IC usually gets the same response anyways. The moderators don't want to hear it at all. 'Take your slap on the wrist and shush.' sort of thing...
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.
Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
-
And "there should just be IC consequences!" when the whole tactic of punishing the owner for the slave's behavior is IC.
Lyn, remember that thing where some folks believe you're arguing just to argue? This is why.
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.
Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
He's basically not been reading a word people have said over the course of the entire thread. The first mention of "banning slaves" was in my original post (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3444.msg54228#msg54228), and was explicitly stated as an opinion, not a rule (emphasis added)...
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters.
... well after the point where I had also clearly stated the policy was that while slaves are allowed in the channel, any cockups on their part will result in their Holders being punished just as harshly.
"Holders will suffer the same consequences as their slaves, should the slaves cause trouble and earn the ire of the moderators on the Summit." This one's new, but also self-explanatory. I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs about 'capsuleer slaves', but if you're a Holder, you are responsible for your slaves' behavior. If a slave earns themself a mute or a ban, that punishment will be carried over to the Holder as well. Want to avoid it? If you're going to insist on having slave characters connecting to the Summit, make sure they stay on their best behavior and don't cause trouble.*
Now to actually respond to your post, piece by piece just to make sure we get through it:
We might not be speaking about the same things.
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't at this point: I and most of the other people posting in the thread are talking about reality, and you and a few people you managed to distract are off in la-la land because you didn't actually read my original post and went completely off the rocker over something I didn't actually write.
You are eluding my actual points while stating the obvious.
It is extremely difficult to elude something that you don't know is there. If I'm "eluding" your points, maybe you should try putting them on the surface of your posts instead of hiding them under ten meters of off-kilter tangential nonsense that's based on something I didn't say.
I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.
I think Mal/Raze/Azdan's post here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3472.msg54982#msg54982) pretty clearly explains why people say you argue for the sake of arguing, and gives a pretty clear example of you not reading what was in the post you responded to - or, if I'm going to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt there, a clear example of you reading what was in the post and then responding in a fashion that pretty blatantly implies you didn't. I would also note that while his post is attributed primarily to your character, I personally see extremely similar behavior in your own OOC posting.
I was not refering to people playing slaves, I was refering to the clear rule written on the summit motd, which is "NO PARADING OF SLAVES".
Kindly check your goddamn facts before claiming shit like that. This has never been in the MOTD. The only "policy" that is explicitly in the MOTD is "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
Sorry, I just disagree and will continue to strongly voice against that kind of things. If this is IC (and since it is written in the motd, it is), then I will voice against it IC.
Again, check your facts before claiming something that isn't true, is. It isn't in the MOTD and never has been. You are confusing "things moderators highly suggest not doing because it almost always eventually leads to moderator action" for actual hardcoded rules.
But since I know it also comes from OOC bleeding and misconceptions, I also disapprove OOCly. I do not care if you want to ban BDSM slaves or whatever comes here, and the slavers parading them. It does not make a lot of sense IC, but it certainly does OOCly. But when I see people like Leopold (or other slavers that actually are not playing the nice slavers like Esna, Nico, etc) with slaves in the background like you will find voluvals on Matari flesh, slavers that are directly targeted by this rule, I have to admit that it pisses me off.
If you still think that it doesn't make sense IC, then you're still not listening to a word anyone's said on the subject. The channel is moderated both IC and OOC, preferably IC when possible. There is more than enough IC justification for this particular "rule", and the people who are "directly targeted" by it are the people who shit up the channel with stupid drama with the behavior the policy is intended to curb. And as it clearly hasn't sunk into your head yet, many Amarrian RPers have voiced support for the policy in and out of character.
Yes, I think that channel has had a tendancy to fall into the politically correct syndrome recently, and yes, I spend at least a little time watching what happens here. I may not do it as much as yourself, but it does not mean that my opinion is irrelevant too. Yes, I still do think that this channel has lost its neutrality over the time, and has become somewhat segregationist in is principles. It is still tolerable de facto, but on paper, it is not to my eyes.
It is far better to be politically correct and throw the drama-llamas, attention-whores and other troublemakers out the airlock, than have all of the decent people constantly complaining about and fleeing the channel because of them.
You clearly don't spend enough time watching, or at the right times of day. And while that doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, your opinion is still based on a lot of false claims that make its relevance questionable at best.
You sound like you think that I think mods are not doing their job, when they actually do, and also, congrats for that, you have all my support. You will also note that most of my points in my previous posts where not specifically adressed to you, moderators, but to some of the previous posts with which I totally disagree with.
You very clearly managed to somehow delude yourself and a bunch of other people into thinking we were doing or saying things that we actually aren't, so it's not that much of a stretch.
And finally, on rules vs mod discretion : just tell them to gtfo, who care if they complain ? That is your channel, not theirs. I want draconian, but not draconian bureaucrat. Some guidelines are fine, and probably better, though.
It also goes the same way with me, if I bother you enough (and it is definitly not a big deal, unlike it may seem), same thing : tell me to stfu, it is your channel, your rules, your ethics.
I will openly admit that the temptation is there, and I guarantee I am not the only person who feels that way.
Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.
If this is the backhanded accusation of moderator bias that it reads as, my response to you, were I not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, would be something that would make a stereotypical Gallentean mother go dashing for her kid's ears.
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.
Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
Are you kidding me ? Refering to your post saying that the rule has been overruled (your own words) on post #97, only after my last argument, so no, you told it after. Then I answered "\o/", post #98.
Lyn, remember that thing where some folks believe you're arguing just to argue? This is why.
I still don't see it. Thats nonsense. :eek:
-
Then continued discussion on this is pointless. :(
-
I was going to answer point by point until I noticed it's futile, at best. Your answer is just full of misconception and misunderstandings, and I bet mine are too. Fine. Nevermind then, especially if everyone agrees (more or less).
I will however adress one or two very cheap shots.
I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.
I think Mal/Raze/Azdan's post here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3472.msg54982#msg54982) pretty clearly explains why people say you argue for the sake of arguing, and gives a pretty clear example of you not reading what was in the post you responded to - or, if I'm going to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt there, a clear example of you reading what was in the post and then responding in a fashion that pretty blatantly implies you didn't. I would also note that while his post is attributed primarily to your character, I personally see extremely similar behavior in your own OOC posting.
What the hell... ? This linked post is about my character.
Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.
If this is the backhanded accusation of moderator bias that it reads as, my response to you, were I not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, would be something that would make a stereotypical Gallentean mother go dashing for her kid's ears.
No... It was actually me trying to emphasize on your own words...
-
It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.
You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?
-
Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.
Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
Are you kidding me ? Refering to your post saying that the rule has been overruled (your own words) on post #97, only after my last argument, so no, you told it after. Then I answered "\o/", post #98.
Quoting for great justice.
-
It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.
You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?
You did not specified it was actually also part of the new rules, i thought it was only your opinion. Sorry if I can't read into minds yet. :bash:
Though at least I see where is the misunderstanding now. What a storm in a kettle.
-
It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.
You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?
You did not specified it was actually also part of the new rules, i thought it was only your opinion. Sorry if I can't read into minds yet. :bash:
Though at least I see where is the misunderstanding now. What a storm in a kettle.
That's the thing, Lyn. It never was part of the 'new' rules. It was a suggestion that was banded about by several of the mods, and we decided against it and went with the "Holders suffer the same punishments as their misbehaving slaves" option instead, as I stated in my first post on the first page.
You arbitrarily decided that what had been clearly stated as nothing more than an opinion - after it had been stated that the "same punishments" thing was the active policy - was the rule. That is where you went way the fuck off the mark, and that's where it became clear you weren't reading what was being posted.
-
This thread is getting pretty heated. Maybe we should all just relax a bit.
-
Yeah of course, now it's my fault. :roll:
You see ? That's the thing too.
-
No Posted Rules.
Does this mean people can connect from their hot tubs again?
-
You can connect that way.
I can't be held liable for what happens after, though.