Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => The Summit (IG Channel Discussion) => Topic started by: Silas Vitalia on 12 Nov 2012, 13:28
-
Howdy folks!
As I'm new to the Moderator Kill-team, I wanted to have an even-handed discussion regarding things in the summit that piss off other people in the summit, and how our policy is determined.
So, lots of things happen IC in the summit that plenty of us would not be cool with IC. So, religious Amarr types might be wholly annoyed with heretics being tolerated in channels, or heathen minmater talking about killing Imperials, or Sansha folks talking about uplifting civilians, etc. And I imagine Matari probably additionally equally annoyed with conversations regarding slavery or mention of such things, or the occasional slave wench or servant, etc.
What I'd like to imagine is that 'casual' references that are relatively benign, say Leo's grape feeding rage bait (sorry, Leo :P ) are actually pretty harmless. Plenty of us are ebil overlords with hundreds of servants built on a lot of evil-type shit. I imagine all sorts of Jabba the hut / Leah situations going on.
I think we'd have to be extra careful where we draw that line though. I, personally, don't mind the occasional visual reference to how these people operate. What I'd be much, much less interested in is any reference to mistreatment, or violence, or gratuitous anything. I don't want to see Sabiks draining people on the summit, I don't want to see excessive force, etc etc.
Obviously I will enforce summit official rulings but I'd like to discuss this.
-
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama". For a while, there was no issue with slavery in the Summit, but then some people long banned decided to cause a massive amount of drama about it. The moderation team around at the time discussed it and found very few instances where characters were bringing in NPC slave characters (and in some cases PC slave characters) for any reason other than to cause a massive truckload of drama and to rile people up.
So we stopped it.
Its the same reason we don't let people murder NPC's 'on camera' in the Summit, because it never leads to anything good.
-
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama".
I would get behind this ruling.
-
I mean, long story short, the summit can have strict rules about that sort of thing because ideally people would use it to find other people to RP with and then pull likeminded sorts into private rooms. Want slavery in your BarP? Go for it. We aren't going to stop you. We couldn't if we wanted to. However, by virtue of being a neutral meeting ground, the Summit has to prevent the worst potential excesses. Talk about slavery, fine. Be pro-slavery? Fine. Be anti-slavery? Fine. Bringing your slaves there? Its been shown that this is not fine, because 95% of the people instigating it can't act like adults and were doing it just to piss off a significant chunk of the Summit, going "Look at how hardcore I am".
It's too bad for the 5% that could handle it like adults, but I have faith in their ability to adapt.
-
That ruling as such is extremely loose.
After all, what is drama, baby don't hurt me, don't h...
Is there good drama and bad drama?
And after all, don't you need more than one side for solid drama, especially with the topic of slavery?
Solid philosophy (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944) right there.
In the light of the summit - maybe it should be handled in the way it always was handled: Cause retarded drama for drama's sake, get moderated.
-
I suspect that it would lead to rulings being too subjective.
We have trouble with that in the moderation of Backstage sometimes, and we have the luxury of discussion and review among moderators, whereas in The Summit they are moderating in near real time.
Essentially, chat channel type moderation demands rules that are somewhat more clear cut. Or at least it helps.
-
Basically, the policies that are in place (several since before I was a moderator, in fact - including the "no slaves on camera" one) are there for three purposes:
- Keeping a (mostly) civil atmosphere
- Reducing excessive derpery
- Discouraging deliberate asshattery and trolling
Remember that because of the limited tools we have available to us, we have to explicitly provide all of the otherwise would-be-visible details. Nobody would know or be able to guess that Morwen's been working in the garden if she doesn't mention it or I don't explicitly provide some hint to that fact, like her absent-mindedly rubbing dirt off of her face or hands. Nobody would know that some character had been crying in the recent past if no direct clues were given in emotes or dialogue by their player.
And yes, continuing along those lines, nobody would know (or have to know) that you've got a slave sitting next to you feeding you grapes or whatever, if you didn't explicitly take the time to put it in the text you send to the channel. For people to know and notice, it has to be done deliberately. It is not 'benign'. It is deliberate, intentional dramabaiting, for lack of a better term - with the sole possible exception being for new people who do not know better.
And when you have been told repeatedly not to do something, continuing to do it deliberately does not excuse you from the consequences.
We are not saying you cannot hold slaves and be on the Summit. We are not saying you can't say you have them. We aren't even saying you can't interact with them as 'background' noise from your character's feed. We are saying don't have them in view of your "camera" - ie, don't type about them being visible. It isn't that difficult to work around. Plenty of people who ran afoul of that particular policy were warned, then came up with ways to work around it and still be within the rules. They're doing just fine.
A few others, however, have not changed their behavior. I think it goes without saying what their situation looks like.
-
Our general modus operandi at the moment has been to keep the "No Derping" rule as a philosophical basis, and then make specific rules once it becomes clear that people can't tell something is derping.
It works fine since there is a generally accepted 'Three strikes' style of moderation (that sometimes extends to 15 strikes). Basically it is exceedingly rare that we ban someone permanently or temporarily for a first offense. After that, we start handing out bans of increasing length until it eventually extends to a perma.
About the only things that result in instant bans of a permanent nature are people who start acting like psychopaths IRL.
-
These are all valid points, but perhaps it begs the question that -should- we be making sure everyone is IC 'comfortable' in the channel? We are some of us not very nice people IC?
I realize the derp slope is slippery and too few have any grace or eloquence to properly "troll" IC and keep it 'nice' and not flagrant.
I also see how for some particular pilots in possession of great derp that they would see something relatively benign and take that as a que to start the calligula orgy on-camera every time they log into the summit.
-
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama".
Not that I have any say, I think that's a terrible idea. It's entirely subjective and vague, and would only lead to more rage threads here on Backstage.
-
Howdy folks!
As I'm new to the Moderator Kill-team, I wanted to have an even-handed discussion regarding things in the summit that piss off other people in the summit, and how our policy is determined.
So, lots of things happen IC in the summit that plenty of us would not be cool with IC. So, religious Amarr types might be wholly annoyed with heretics being tolerated in channels, or heathen minmater talking about killing Imperials, or Sansha folks talking about uplifting civilians, etc. And I imagine Matari probably additionally equally annoyed with conversations regarding slavery or mention of such things, or the occasional slave wench or servant, etc.
What I'd like to imagine is that 'casual' references that are relatively benign, say Leo's grape feeding rage bait (sorry, Leo :P ) are actually pretty harmless. Plenty of us are ebil overlords with hundreds of servants built on a lot of evil-type shit. I imagine all sorts of Jabba the hut / Leah situations going on.
I think we'd have to be extra careful where we draw that line though. I, personally, don't mind the occasional visual reference to how these people operate. What I'd be much, much less interested in is any reference to mistreatment, or violence, or gratuitous anything. I don't want to see Sabiks draining people on the summit, I don't want to see excessive force, etc etc.
Obviously I will enforce summit official rulings but I'd like to discuss this.
The summit has become some sort of politically correct codes of conduct, and a vapid homogenous blob that slowly abolished any idea of diversity, all of this often based on OOC decision. And quite gallente in its IC policies actually (western OOC morals, here we come). That is just my opinion - and the opinion of someone that is not even playing anymore - and since you asked for opinions, take it how you want. It may be negative criticism, but it remains criticism as any.
But yes, you hit the nail. Slaves onscreen are forbidden for fallacious OOC reasons (to my opinion, again) that I don't think have anything to do with it at all, and it basically make the channel pro minmtar/gallente ICly just with that. Moreover, the reason invoked are that it is always done for drama's sake 90% of the time, so the team choosed to forbid it all along instead of actually doing their moderating job (killing the 90% and emphasizing on the healthy, good, 10% remaining).
Also, I know from various sources that do not even want to go in that channel again (for various reasons as well) that most of them are more or less disgusted with what often appears to be the knee-jerk circle of friends enforcing their own rules like a political party, never taking any criticism seriously or just dismissing it because it is too hard to take. Maybe that's just an impression, but the impression is here. I have always tried to warn them of that and it has always been met with clear hostility actually not directed at the content of my words, but at the persona behind that was not to the appreciation of the people I was adressing to.
But maybe worse, the moderation is often seen as unfair by various trolls, yes (that is always the case with the 90% of trolls that lurk on popular channels), but it is also seen as unfair by a lot of other otherwise serious RPers (myself included now), to the opposite of the often appreciated neutrality of backstage in contrast. A lot of uncommong RPers playing unconventionnal characters especially, often feel that they are told to fit into a "mold" of cheesy and populirity seeking morals and rules.
Then of course, the owner of a channel makes it what he/she wants it to be like, and to hell all the people complaining. It's his/her channel. In the case of OOC and the summit, this is also an universal truth, but you have to take in account that both these channels are vital for most RPers since they basically are more or less the only active channels where you can find the community. Without them, it's like moving in nullsec space without your alliance intel channel. You are blind and unconnected to most things. This is why, I think, that OOC and the Summit are mediums that involve at least a little responsibilities, even towards people one might not like.
In my case for example, I don't think I have ever broken a single rule of both channels (never got moderated), but I have my own opinions, and my opinion of the channels have seriously decayed over the time considering how I have been treated for raising my voice against what is basically a popularity contest. I am not the least popular, but not the most popular either, and this is where both these channels hurt sometimes.
Anyway, back to the topic, murdering people in front of a camera barely has anything to do with "parading" slaves. I do not see why it would be wrong to have an amarrian with slaves showing in the background while it is perfectly okay for a gallente or a caldari to have workers and secretaries showing onscreen as well. This channel does not assume anymore the cultural diversity of the cluster and tries sometimes even unconciously the grimdark aspect of New Eden for hardly related OOC justifications.
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama". For a while, there was no issue with slavery in the Summit, but then some people long banned decided to cause a massive amount of drama about it. The moderation team around at the time discussed it and found very few instances where characters were bringing in NPC slave characters (and in some cases PC slave characters) for any reason other than to cause a massive truckload of drama and to rile people up.
So we stopped it.
Its the same reason we don't let people murder NPC's 'on camera' in the Summit, because it never leads to anything good.
I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.
It's too bad for the 5% that could handle it like adults, but I have faith in their ability to adapt.
I already know a lot of amarrian/angel RPers that have been drawn away from the channel because they actually were not able to adapt for the same reason I have never been. And I am not even playing a damn slaver. I can't imagine how frustrating it might be for them.
Your faith here might be a little optimistic to my own experience.
Basically, the policies that are in place (several since before I was a moderator, in fact - including the "no slaves on camera" one) are there for three purposes:
- Keeping a (mostly) civil atmosphere
- Reducing excessive derpery
- Discouraging deliberate asshattery and trolling
Remember that because of the limited tools we have available to us, we have to explicitly provide all of the otherwise would-be-visible details. Nobody would know or be able to guess that Morwen's been working in the garden if she doesn't mention it or I don't explicitly provide some hint to that fact, like her absent-mindedly rubbing dirt off of her face or hands. Nobody would know that some character had been crying in the recent past if no direct clues were given in emotes or dialogue by their player.
And yes, continuing along those lines, nobody would know (or have to know) that you've got a slave sitting next to you feeding you grapes or whatever, if you didn't explicitly take the time to put it in the text you send to the channel. For people to know and notice, it has to be done deliberately. It is not 'benign'. It is deliberate, intentional dramabaiting, for lack of a better term - with the sole possible exception being for new people who do not know better.
And when you have been told repeatedly not to do something, continuing to do it deliberately does not excuse you from the consequences.
We are not saying you cannot hold slaves and be on the Summit. We are not saying you can't say you have them. We aren't even saying you can't interact with them as 'background' noise from your character's feed. We are saying don't have them in view of your "camera" - ie, don't type about them being visible. It isn't that difficult to work around. Plenty of people who ran afoul of that particular policy were warned, then came up with ways to work around it and still be within the rules. They're doing just fine.
A few others, however, have not changed their behavior. I think it goes without saying what their situation looks like.
The three basic rules are good rules. Simple and clear, and quite obvious, but obviously needed. No derping is awesome as a policy.
However, you are basically saying that adding several layers of deliberate RP descriptions (yes, you are perfectly right, it is deliberate), is a bad thing for RP ? What the...
Oh well, just refer to what I said above about bluntly denying parts of what makes New Eden what New Eden is.
_____________________________________
Silas, Since I personally think my post here on the summit part of the forum (with different mods and summit rules) is going to be moderated again, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss about it....
-
I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.
Basically, this is why I prefer a looser set of rules, but as Kat just pointed out, people dont like that. I would very, very, very much prefer to keep the rules loose and just ban the troublemakers, and my fellow moderators can point out that I have advocated for this in the past, but some people want us to keep a list of rules somewhere.
Some of the people wanting a list of specific rules (not Kat) are troublemakers who want us to do this just so that they can find ways to work around the rules.
In short, Lyn, it's not laziness, it's necessity.
-
I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.
Basically, this is why I prefer a looser set of rules, but as Kat just pointed out, people dont like that. I would very, very, very much prefer to keep the rules loose and just ban the troublemakers, and my fellow moderators can point out that I have advocated for this in the past, but some people want us to keep a list of rules somewhere.
Some of the people wanting a list of specific rules (not Kat) are troublemakers who want us to do this just so that they can find ways to work around the rules.
In short, Lyn, it's not laziness, it's necessity.
I see. Firstly thank you for the answer.
I don't think that's a necessity. Trolls will always be there, but these rules seem to prefer to disgust actual proper RPers instead of disgusting trolls and dramaqueens.
Who cares if a dramaqueen gets hard feelings for being moderated over a "you were being an ass" ? Nobody, except the troll himself. Who cares if a serious RPer gets moderated over a "you showed a slave onscreen ICly" ? The RPer firstly, but some other RPers as well since the guy was moderated for doing proper and immersive RP.
You say yourselves that it is always obvious when someone is being an ass. I don't think anybody will see any harm if you show yourself a little arbitrary with them (since it's obvious).
-
I don't think that the rule is a matter of imposing a certain set of morals. I think it has more to do witht he fact that slaves showing up makes the rest of the channel freak out. To be fair, they could ban Minmatar characters from showing themselves fondling Khumaaks on screen.
-
I consider that as worthy of a warning, Silver. I don't see it as often, though. Generally most of the Amarrian RPers dont bother to report it.
-
I don't think that the rule is a matter of imposing a certain set of morals. I think it has more to do witht he fact that slaves showing up makes the rest of the channel freak out. To be fair, they could ban Minmatar characters from showing themselves fondling Khumaaks on screen.
That goes back to what I was saying, maybe everyone in the channel freaking out is not a bad thing. Silas is bad, she kills people, lots of people.... maybe she wants others to occasionally be uncomfortable.
I'm just much more of an asshole / no nonsense when it comes to rules discussions like this. I appreciate the summit trying to be a 'welcoming' place but in my little pea brain its just easier to say 'this is my channel' and I will kick anyone who i want for whatever I determine is asshattery' People will know when they've crossed the line pretty fast and RP accordingly if they want to be a part of that group of chatters.
The more specific rules we make the more people try to troll around them, essentially. Its always 90% people are fine and 10% need the banhammer in any group.
-
I suppose it depends on what the purpose and mission of the channel is.
-
I suppose it depends on what the purpose and mission of the channel is.
Quite right, and this is more of a devil's advocate position.
But I can reasonably see why a pro-slaver and otherwise reasonable RPer would be right annoyed that other culture's beliefs are quite protected in the summit and theirs aren't.
I don't know what a 'fair' solution is but I'm generally not of the opinion that player channels need be fair at all.
-
I would suggest that it isn't a 'cultural' issue. It is a practical issue of eliminating things that are disruptive to the channel. Slaves on screen have a track record of being disruptive.
-
For what its worth, I was all for overturning "no slaves in Summit" SPECIFICALLY SO people could not do what Lyn is doing; accusing Moderators of allowing "cultural bias" to sully our moderation or being too subjective. (Not throwing aboot at lyn, just using an example cause lyn did just say it)
People will scream about moderation no matter how they do their job. Do people ONLY bring slaves on screen to cause drama? Of course, why else would you feel the need to emote "LOOK AT MY SLAVE MUAHAHAA". I'm sick of it, I fucking hate it, and it is one more example of the consequenceless trash that is RP in eve that makes it lose what little appeal it had left for me. But, I will tolerate it.
This "Moderators are subjective and use their own bias" shit gets old, fast.
-
I don't think that the rule is a matter of imposing a certain set of morals. I think it has more to do witht he fact that slaves showing up makes the rest of the channel freak out. To be fair, they could ban Minmatar characters from showing themselves fondling Khumaaks on screen.
Admittedly, I've only seen this once or twice. When it did happen, however, it was not taken up as a major issue - I think because it is a different scale of issue (a Khumaak is a symbol, not a direct act. Someone bringing a slave on camera is a direct act; if we ever encountered an anti-slaver character beating up a slaver on camera or something we'd modhammer that just as hard).
Virtually every time a slave has been thrown on camera, it has instantly disrupted the flow of chat. As Tibs has said, we'd love to target the people who do this to make trouble - I would personally much prefer it that way rather than a 'no slaves' rule - but in an environment where people are prone to taking moderator actions as personal grudges, making the moderation even more subjective would only cause further rabble.
Silas, I understand where you are coming from with regard to the idea of "my character is a nasty person, I want to have her be mean and make people upset". I will personally say that I often tend to err towards the side of caution and peacefulness in the Summit for two reasons, the first being that it is where people first go to try out their characters when they start, and the second being that when I was brought on, it was specifically to clamp down on the Summit after a long, long period of unmoderated operation in which we were subject to (both IC and OOC) trolling, baiting, and other such pervasive issues.
-
Personally, my opinion on the matter of npc 'props', in this case slaves, being utilized by members of the channel is the same argument one might make about nudity, strong language, harassment, or morbid scenarios involving torture and death. In the right hands, these tools can be utilized well to relate a particular idea to a character.
For example, a shady Angel Cartel supporting pilot like Leopold being fed grapes tells the audience exactly what we need to know about his position on human exploitation in general. This individual clearly has no regard for his fellow men and isn't afraid to take advantage of his fellow men to get ahead in life. A minmatar murdering Amarrian children in revenge for the wrongs done to him, a Caldari burning a Gallente orphanage just for kicks, or maybe just a liberated Gallente female walking around in transparent clothing, can all tell an audience a great deal about the character behind the act.
The problem is twofold, involving reactions from both the audience and the players.
The audience of characters response to any of these situations could range from 'agreement' of their values, disinterest, disgust/repulsion, to violent verbal response involving the rapid disintegration of civil conversation with hurled insults and wild racist generalizations. In what is essentially an open public channel where various cultures attempt to co-exist any introduction of differences, particularly to the extremes that the EVE lore has engineered to create conflict, will result in a breakdown of order and politeness. As in-character moderators, tasked with maintaining order, this cannot be allowed to happen. It means that essentially conflict, which is the heart of EVE, is not allowed in this format. And while I have no doubt the moderators maintain an excellent record of conflict control, I do feel that much is lost in stifling half of what makes this game great.
And yet this is the most popular Roleplay channel to date, so clearly they aren't screwing everything up, because people continue to participate at a regular pace. I think it maintains its dominance, in large part to this forum and a strong, active central group who promote this site to each new generation of interested role players. However, it does beg the question in whether there is room for improvement in accommodating both civility and conflict in the same channel. Is this possible?
And secondly, our player reaction to these public displays of controversial behavior are just as important. Anyone who has interacted with the community for at least a year or more will start to see common themes, like slavers using slave props to rile up the minmatar, slutty gallente females making conservatives uncomfortable, or greedy caldari hoarding gold coins like a dragon. It's tired, it's boring, and its two dimensional behavior induces eye-rolling responses in OOC with everyone flapping their penguin arms in concert.
By drawing a line in the sand stating clearly that any use of these common tropes is outlawed because most people (or no one) can do it properly, why not draw a more substantial line in the sand and start removing people who you feel are too two-dimensional, or simply do not enhance your channel in any substantial way? Where does one draw the line at artistic license and value judgement when it comes to the characters created by others?
Personally, I'm content with letting individual players and characters make up their own minds in how they react to others in the same channel. Muting people for OOC reasons may be necessary if they continually persist in crossing your personal boundaries, and letting characters react as naturally as possible when the extremes rear their ugly heads. As a socially liberal and rather unorthodox miscreant, I am rather content to let people dictate their own destiny and let the cards fall where they may.
There, I gave my opinion, just like you asked. ;)
-
Also new to the mod team of The Summit, so I'll toss my opinions around and you can all like it.
I find the "no slaves" rule to be silly, the reason I say that is there's been times that Inara has been served while in the channel. But you know what? Nobody got pissed, because I wasn't a douchemonkey about pointing it out.
The problem isn't slaves, it isn't being served a drink or food. The problem is the terminology and presence used to display slaves. Compare the following two statements.
*Inara Subaka chuckles at the antics of this discussion, a light cough causes her to wave off-screen. A glass of water is handed to her to help her clear the cough away. > You're all acting like slaves are the end-all-be-all of evil incarnate.
*Inara Subaka laughs at the foolishness being displayed in this thread, the laughter causes her to cough a bit. With a mere wave of her hand, a slave-boy kneels at her feet to hand her a glass of water; he doesn't move till she pushes him away with her toe. > You're all being complete morons about this issue.
Both say the same thing, but one is much better in presentation and likely won't even raise an eyebrow from the extreme anti-slavery group in the channel. The other is intentionally inciting people's ire for no other reason than to incite people's ire.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
The Summit needs some level of disagreement and discussion about issues like that, or it'll become dry/stale/homogeneous. And that will be the death of the channel. And by denying any forms of conflicting scenarios from appearing is stifling and... well, dumb as dumb gets.
As much as I hate using "subjective moderation"... I'm going to stick with my guns on this: Banning anything (including slaves) simply because some people get offended by it will solve nothing (IC, Inara is highly offended by anyone suggesting that CONCORD is anything except incompetent and evil). Banning based on intentionally pissing people off... well, that's a bit hairy; are we talking IC intentionally pissing people off or OOC doing things IC to piss people off OOC? (note: either way it's a grey area; and impossible to prove).
I suggest that as long as behavior isn't being disruptive, you leave things be. And by disruptive, I do mean the channel is unable to carry on a civil conversation. here's a checklist:- Is someone offended (IC and IC only)?
- If yes, are they remaining civil (Both sides)?
- If no, is the uncivil AND offensive party willing to adjust their behavior?
- If no, strongly suggest they change their behavior with a single verbal warning.
- If still no, take appropriate moderator action (Being unwilling to remain civil even when provoked means you need a moment to cool off; being unwilling to adjust your behavior so the channel remains undisrupted means you need a time-out).
If at any point in that checklist you get a different answer... there's no need to moderate.
There, you have my two cents. Take what you want from it.
-
Worth noting the rule was put in place after a clear pattern of slaves being used to disrupt the channel (I can remember clear instances where discussions not even touching on slavery were instantly derailed by the appearance of a slave in channel).
Looking over the logs of the Summit I have, though, I've noticed another dynamic which I think follows nearly all (if not all) slave-appearances in the Summit, and which Inara talks about in the post above: On very rare occasions, slaves will appear without making a huge amount of rabble in the channel. On other occasions - which form the vast majority of slave appearances in Summit - the rabble ensues primarily because the slave is being hurt, humiliated, or degraded on camera.
Thus, at this point, I suggest we have two alternative options to go with:
1: Remove this specific rule, and instead moderate people only based on their apparent reasoning for putting a slave in channel. So, instead of moderating someone for putting a slave in channel, we'd be moderating someone for trying to create rabble - the use of a slave being incidental.
Advantages: Does away with the hard rule, allowing flexible dynamics for various characters.
Disadvantages: I can practically guarantee that every single moderation action under this dynamic will result in even louder cries of moderator bias and such - and it'll be a lot harder to definitively prove that claim wrong, since there are no hard rules involved.
2: Remove the rule on slaves, instead placing increased focus on a rule against on-camera humiliation, hurting, or degradation. Slave or not, it doesn't matter - if you're doing the humiliation thing on camera, you're getting hammered.
Advantages: Preserves the clarity of a rule-based system while removing this particular rule in question, allowing a wider variety of characters to function.
Disadvantages: There's still some inflexibility in the new rule.
tl;dr - 3 options:
1, remove the hard rule altogether, moderate based on apparent intent. Maximum flexibility, minimum clarity.
2, focus the rule on preventing humiliation or degradation on camera, instead of slaves generally. Moderate flexibility, moderate clarity.
3, keep it as is - parading of slaves is generally banned. Less flexibility, very damn clear.
I kind of like option 2. Your thoughts?
-
The Summit has long had a very strong bias against true and faithfull amarrians. This bias is not limited to the summit either, but has spread to most other channels that are in the "bubble" of frequent summit users. The problem is mainly that non-amarrians get to do their thing while amarrians are frequently discriminated against.
I have yet to see concerted moderator action against people who ,veiled or openly, make statements that cause significant offense to amarrian characters. On the other hand behaviour that is normal and accepted in amarrian society is "outlawed" on the grounds that it upsets characters from other backgrounds.
TL;DR The Summit is biased against Amarr.
This is the reason why new PIE's are told, by Lae', not to bother too much about The Summit, and also the reason why almost no true amarrians are in the channel anymore.
-
As far as I can tell The Summit has always been a 'diplomatic' venue.
You put on your good shoes, good clothes and your good behaviour when you enter a venue like that.
Mainly for the reason that in a diplomatic venue one of the unwritten rules is that everything your do is deliberate and done for the purpose of creating a reaction.
A positive or a negative one.
The success of The Summit pretty much reflects this, you can make or break the public face of your character there.
Getting upset about peeing in your own cereal and complaining that it tastes like piss, to me, is silly.
The 'bias' against certain cultures, mainly xenophobic aspects of them, on The Summit comes from the fact that it is an open channel, open for every kind of culture to put their good foot forward and reach out to other individuals across cultural limits and find common ground for interaction.
Notice that I left out the word 'social' from in front of the interaction there.
The way I see it, The Summit has always been the extension of PvP in the public arena, that is why I have always found it hilarious when someone has 'mistaken' it for a social venue.
-
The Summit has long had a very strong bias against true and faithfull amarrians. This bias is not limited to the summit either, but has spread to most other channels that are in the "bubble" of frequent summit users. The problem is mainly that non-amarrians get to do their thing while amarrians are frequently discriminated against.
I have yet to see concerted moderator action against people who ,veiled or openly, make statements that cause significant offense to amarrian characters. On the other hand behaviour that is normal and accepted in amarrian society is "outlawed" on the grounds that it upsets characters from other backgrounds.
TL;DR The Summit is biased against Amarr.
This is the reason why new PIE's are told, by Lae', not to bother too much about The Summit, and also the reason why almost no true amarrians are in the channel anymore.
Wow.
I have been on the recieving end of moderation for making just the sort of statements you say are just peachy, due to bias, at the hands of other moderators who have commented in this very thread.
It is also worth noting that for the past several MONTHS, I have been the only Minmatar RPer in the summit who was actively involved in "fight against slavery"
You should probably make sure the bias actually exists before accusing people of it. Thank you for yet again pointing out the claims of "waaah bias!" that all of us are so incredibly sick of.
Also, "No true Amarrians"? What a way to insult your corpmates, Graelyn, and a host of other pro slavery Amarrian RPers (Most who do a rather awesome job).
Well done
-
Meh, I guess if you view The Summit the way Lallara does it all makes a lot more sense. +1 Lall' :D
To Ava. I'll not get dragged into an angry argument here, especially not about my corp mates. I guess the "waaah bias!", as you put it, is a hold over from times long gone. The issue of "true amarrians" is, in my experience, not one that can be raised on this particular forum. If you really do want to discuss this, feel free to contact me through our usual channels :)
-
Meh, I guess if you view The Summit the way Lallara does it all makes a lot more sense. +1 Lall' :D
To Ava. I'll not get dragged into an angry argument here, especially not about my corp mates. I guess the "waaah bias!", as you put it, is a hold over from times long gone. The issue of "true amarrians" is, in my experience, not one that can be raised on this particular forum. If you really do want to discuss this, feel free to contact me through our usual channels :)
I dont.
-
After a quick jaunt through another thread, it seems this entire discussion has been sparked by the following:
[12:40:38] Leopold Caine > /emote flickers on, seated at his usual spot, plucking a grape from the tray of the slavegirl kneeling nearby.
I can't help but wonder what the response would be if he simply used "girl" instead of "slavegirl." We can argue until we're blue in the face over whether Leo is trolling the mods or not, but had he simply used a different choice of words--not changing the substantive content of the RP act at all--the mods would have no leg to stand on. The entire audience would know she's a slave, but Leo could say that she was hired to perform such a service if any objections arose, at which point booting him would be an obvious indication of certain mods' desire to simply lord their authority over the folks they don't like.
What we actually have here is not a rule to protect the poor, sensitive Matari characters from being offended, but rather a rule of pure semantics. Phrase the text one way and it's just peachy. Phrase it differently and it's boot-worthy. How Orwellian.
-
Actually, it is not a rule of pure semantics since A) we are generally wary about hired help being on the camera at all in any significant sense, B) the particular resonance of slaves, and C) the fact that in the particular instance we have gone through our records and found enough times that the player in question has been warned for this exact thing that it became an issue in its own right.
-
Honestly I would love to be able to have more proper, polite, and casual or serious discussions or references to slavery in the Summit. I like to think that every time I've ever brought up the topic myself, or lead into it myself, that I do my part to keep things from getting out of hand. I also do understand that over time the course of such conversations does seem to get repetitive and therefore boring to some people, or that others do take the topic and use it to provoke a heated response.
However, I take a step back and try to look at EVE as a wider universe. We're talking about a setting where (correct me if I'm wrong) the largest known government and population base either actively endorses slavery or at least simply accepts it as a natural social strata. I honestly think a lot of the passionate responses end up being over-the-top if you look at the whole of the EVE setting as context. Part of that I attribute to OOC bleed-over of modern western morals, the other part I attribute to the simple desire to do something out of boredom.
Now I'm not saying I think it's unreasonable that the average Matari or Gallentean abhor slavery, I'm simply saying I think some of the cases are overreactions. The mere sight of a slave pouring a drink shouldn't provoke huge amounts of bad drama, in my opinion. Is it really that hard to tune down things and make your IC displeasure at something known with an emoted glare or snide remark? Does it always have to escalate to hour long shouting matches that end up crossing the IC-OOC line?
-
Gyra Rho wins the thread btw.
Some of the 'population' issue also arises from Amarr not being represented in RP community as much as PF population would dictate. If it were 'real' we'd have numerous channels and outlets for Amarr rpers to 'act natural' and they could be as insular as they want.
But it's eve online, and the handful of Amarr RPers don't want to sit in a small room and chat with just each other I imagine.
They are outnumbered by the other three races, instead of the PF other way around, where the other races would be in the minority.
End tangent.
-
I am 100% willing to move away from "No slaves in the Summit ever" towards "Go ahead and bring in your slaves but the second you start trying to cause drama with them, prepare for a temp ban". That was my original position anyways.
Then again, this is going to cause people to scream even harder about moderator bias since by definition its the people who are repeat offenders who are going to be getting the really visible bans.
-
If the goal is for pleasing the most number of people and smooth sailing and less conflict then that should be taken into account as well.
I only brought this up to see what people were thinking. Trolls gonna troll, haters gonna hate probably no matter what rules we have.
-
Strict Rule System: Highly Capable Trolls wage a war of system gaming for their own amusement, tearing down the system is enough for them
Loose Rules System: System devours itself as every two-bit troll tries to achieve the above and turns up the volume regardless of community/moderator debate and goal post changing.
We're trying to shoe horn ideologically, diametrically opposed factions with pre-confirmed OOC bias into a debate chamber moderated by individuals who though rightly 'neutral' in their actions are every bit as human and subject to realtime, instant judgement as the rest of us. Expecting an exemplar solution from our current mod team, as much as I put a lot of faith in them, is unfair and a calcified set of rules will serve only to give the more capable trolls some solid targets for their activities in their aim to antagonise under the guise of 'fair play'.
I am not stating that Slave Holders are trolls, though it is an example for trolling (from the pro and against camps). What I am trying to state is the very subjectivity of trolling, and the fact that we need a consensus on 'acceptable behaviour' in the Summit, is going to drive a wedge with factions regardless, due to the fact that a polarising element such as indentured human labour will only be sustainable when those with a minimum of contact with the channel and a high degree of public decorum, thick skin and no prior IC experience with the 'horrors' of such a system enter the channel. The sad truth is, a vast majority of us cannot handle putting on our Sunday best, and a small minority of us are going to exploit this fact to their relish and our anguish.
Should we come up with concrete metrics for 'what is trolling' I guarantee we will be having this discussion again the moment someone with the wit and contacts to back up their position calls the system in question once more. This time with a point by point deconstruction of the concrete rules to build his/her riposte and subsequent actions within said system on.
My suggestion is a 100% transparency system. Anonymous reporting, whilst suitable for delayed time mediums such as Backstage, are not sustainable due to the perception of 'victimisation by mods' in a real time medium. Retrospective, simple, curt responses to grievances should be submitted with the names of complainants, offenders and officiating mods alike to demonstrate the entirety of the moderation process in a simple 5 minute report would do much to dispel the myth and discourage the potential reality of moderator bias. I appreciate people want anonymity in their reporting procedure, and I wish I could say our community is mature enough to do without such a measure, but the sad fact is that by and large, this community is not. Accountability from complainant, through defendant, to judge and jury is, imo, the only way to basically say don't fight the mod, question the entire system, including your actions, that led to this event.
That is my two pence, full disclosure of names and the systems deployed to execute the law of mod, or a constant circle of iterative system forming as the old (solid or subjective) systems become out dated or torn down by the efforts of those who take relish in subverting the system.
Note I say this as a relative outsider now, due to my disinterest in 'tolerating other's cultures' outside of culture specific venues. Personally I feel that the Summit asks too much and is asked to do too many things - it is heaving at the seams with suppressed friction and possesses a gooey center of conformists and peace-makers that I (ICly) have no truck with. OOCly I respect the vaunted goals of the Summit, the efforts of it's moderator team, but feel that it is trying to be all things to all people - an effort doomed to repeat this cycle of recrimination and anger time and time again.
-
it is heaving at the seams with suppressed friction and possesses a gooey center of conformists and peace-makers that I (ICly) have no truck with.
It's a shame Gaius is in the retirement home for elderly inquisitors nowadays, I'm sure he'd agree with the both of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgT-fg01vY :cube:
Addendum: My main problem ooc with places like the summit is the ammount of veiled trolling that is going on. It's just too bothersome for me to endure passive-agressiveness on that kind of scale whenever people get riled up ooc.
-
Perhaps we should investigate a more 'liberal' alternative channel in which if people don't like what they are seeing they can use the 'block' feature on the neocomm?
I'll look into it.
The only rule will be if IC actions are found to be in 'poor taste' by the hosts then banhammer is wielded. I've had pretty good success with no RP guests at events shitting things up so maybe that will transfer to a channel....
-
Gyra Rho wins the thread btw.
Thanks. It's nice to know someone actually read what I had to say! :)
Also,
Some of the 'population' issue also arises from Amarr not being represented in RP community as much as PF population would dictate. If it were 'real' we'd have numerous channels and outlets for Amarr rpers to 'act natural' and they could be as insular as they want.
Has this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3495.0) ever gone anywhere?
-
It's been relatively empty lately. I'll definetly remind our pilots to look into it though, we've had a big influx of new blood who's looking for rp'ish stuff to sink their teeth in.
-
Just food for thought.
Esna, Tib, Silas, Morwen, Graelyn, and formerly, Leopold, all own, or in Tib's case, condone, slavery.
I think I am the sole "antislavery" mod.
Thank you.
-
Just food for thought.
Esna, Tib, Silas, Morwen, Graelyn, and formerly, Leopold, all own, or in Tib's case, condone, slavery.
I think I am the sole "antislavery" mod.
Thank you.
That that high a % of the moderators' characters condone it and that it is still banned from the channel suggests we are comfortable and open-minded about a diversity of policy directions.
-
More like it's all a sneaky plot to slowly expose Ava to slavery on a moderation level that will eventually lead to her character accepting it and her returning to the fold as Esna's slave.
-
More like it's all a sneaky plot to slowly expose Ava to slavery on a moderation level that will eventually lead to her character accepting it and her returning to the fold as Esna's slave.
Oh the plots we weave!
-
Just food for thought.
Esna, Tib, Silas, Morwen, Graelyn, and formerly, Leopold, all own, or in Tib's case, condone, slavery.
I think I am the sole "antislavery" mod.
Thank you.
Don't forget me ^_^.
But seriously, this is a valid point.
With the majority of the moderators being either slave holders or condoning of slavery, and (as far as I know in my limited time as a mod) there being no issues with disruption of the channel due to their presence... this suggests that the problem has nothing to do with slavery. The more I read, and the more I think about it, the more I'm willing to wager that the problem is with presentation and willingness to interact on a reasonable level with people who have opposing opinions from yourself.
Esna and I are thinking alike I believe. Don't be a dick!
-
Oh, Inara too!
-
I commend the folks who have engaged in some harmless civil disobedience against this particular rule. If I recall correctly, this rule (and others) came about following an outbreak of space lesbian vampire catgirl slave sexplaythings who couldn't resist making a spectacle of themselves. Wouldn't it be much easier to just tell those sorts of folks when they show up that their behavior is unacceptable? If they ignore that advice, just boot them.
-
Oh, Inara too!
/coughs
-
Harmless civil disobedience? Really?
Anyways, we've explained the reasoning behind our decision, and said that we will look into lightening up on this particular issue in favour of working specifically to ban the "space lesbian vampire catgirl slave sexplaythings" for being space lesbian vampire catgirl slave sexplaythings rather than for specific aspects of their behavior.
-
The lack of friction, conflict and hostilities on the channel made it less and less interesting for me, personally.
That doesn't mean that everything should be allowed, especially not in the way of hateful tirades and personal insults, but a bit more laissez-faire while weeding out the obvious DerpMorons (tm) with moderator action might benefit that channel.
The whole stuff such as no nudity, murder and excessive violence "on screen" is perfectly okay - after all, it's a public channel ((in delayed mode)) and that's necessary for OOC reasons alone.
-
As someone completely impartial to the whole "slave" "no slave" debate/discussion/argument, I could honestly care less. I don't see how someone logging in with what Leo did should cause any issue or offense. I've never seen it really disrupt the flow of conversation. Granted, I'm not on much as of late, but even when I was on daily and nightly, I didn't see the issue.
Come on folks. It's ROLEPLAYING! If you're doing something for shock value and that serves no real purpose but to piss people off, by all means, come down on them. To be fair, I haven't seen anyone other than Evelyn and Leo discuss slavery in The Summit. I dunno, I'm rambling now, lol!
-
Oooo, I thought of something else.....
Is it really necessary to flout that you are pro-slavery if it's not relevant to the conversation? I mean, most of us know who is and who isn't. We don't need a walking advertisement.
-
Harmless civil disobedience? Really?
Yes, really.
I've cut out the part that's trying to engage me in a flame war.
There are two major methods of moderating anything. You can go for a "Whatever man, go for it" type of approach where you only step in in the worst of cases, or you can moderate to an actual set of standards. We were brought on to provide some structure for the Summit which had been, for a very long time, the first type or worse without any moderation at all during times when the owners were not subscribed to the game.
Since we were brought on as moderators, we can assume that the channel was moving away from the first option. I'm willing to talk about where we should fall on the ad-hoc/specific rules spectrum, but the fact is that the slavery issue in particular was being used by attention/drama whores to draw attention to themselves. We had a discussion about it at the time, and the majority opinion was that we needed to make a specific rule.
The thing with specific rules, and why I personally fall more towards the ad-hoc end of the moderation spectrum, is that with specific rules the people whom you should be banning for being attention whores tend to try to find ways around them. They try to rules lawyer you. For instance, the second we felt it necessary to say "Wear clothes, for the love of god", people immediately started having their characters come into the summit in entirely transparent clothing. There was an initial round of temporary bannings about this until people got the message, and then these incidents petered out.
My point is that if you have a rule, then you need to enforce that rule. In the case that sparked this discussion, the person involved violated the rule many, many times. When a moderator saw it, they warned him. Sometimes he would stop. Sometimes he would not stop, and get temporarily banned. All in total, we have given 4 or 5 warnings about this to the person in question. This leads us to believe that either he is doing it for attention, or is just breaking rules to break rules. In either case, there is nothing particularly noble or just behind the action.
-
Oooo, I thought of something else.....
Is it really necessary to flout that you are pro-slavery if it's not relevant to the conversation? I mean, most of us know who is and who isn't. We don't need a walking advertisement.
I think the RP logic might be that for some summit goers the institution is omnipresent in a way they would not bother trying to 'hide'
I actually don't care about this particular 'rule' its the concept of having a rule about this I find interesting.
But yes banhammer of great justice against lesbian space vampire cat-ness.
-
Now, I'm sad to see that what seemed to start as a reasonable debate about whether certain rules are sensible or not devolved mainly into two parties calling names. I think that wasn't the intent and/or purpose of this thread.
I think it really doesn't matter whether Leo is protesting here through harmless civil disobedience or whether he specifically or someone else was kicked from Summit rightfully and justly. It really is, in my opinion, largely inconsequential to the question here. Inconsequential as well is, in my opinion the alignment of the Moderators toons with one IC faction or the other. One can very well moderate a channel and RP someone loyal to one faction and still moderate the channel in a way that is partial to another. Or not. It really makes no difference.
I see that the main argument for the rule against explicit displays of slaves in the Summit is that "the particular resonance of slaves" is generally something the moderators don't want to have in their channels. With deciding to ban the behaviour that obviously offends a majority of the Summit and apparently not considering there whether the reactions of those offended are really adequate to the 'offense' it seems to me that the moderators decided to keep it civil by following the wishes of the majority.
Don't get me wrong here, it's a sound decision to do so, as it is the easiest way to keep the majority of the people within the Summit happy. But it really isn't unbiased. I think no decision would be unbiased as clearly as Tiberious pointed out, the moderators are there for a reason. They (or the owners of the channel) set a goal that they want to achieve with their channel and are necessarily biased towards what is supportive of said goal. I don't think it's in the least about being biased against slaveholders or display of slaves on the Summit. They probably couldn't care less as long as everything stays 'civil'. If not something needs to be done.
So, the option the moderators go for in this case are pandering to the majority of people in the Summit that are against slavery. I don't think that it is a good choice for the Summit, as the Summit should be about neutrality and being a open venue for all kinds of pilots from New Eden rather than about having a content and big population. Pandering to the majority is good for the latter and bad for the former, it will usually decrease diversity. Similarly, kicking all the people that 'rageface' when they see a slave in Summit would be a solution to enforce civility on the Summit while generally being open to everyone (and would probably solve any trolling issues as well: Not feeding trolls works wonders, usually), but would work against a big and happy community. robably also not the best choice for a channel depending on an active and big community. Maybe there is a middle way somewhere. But how to react here, it's true, that's the decision of the owner/the moderators.
In my experience the Amarr that were in the channel usually didn't complain to any moderators when they were offended by something, but rather left with disdain for the babarians. Leaving the channel open for those even though they didn't feel comfy there. But then, maybe that's because back then there were no moderators to complain to. Still, I think there oftentimes arise issues that are on par with the 'display of slaves' issue. And I like to think that the tiny few Amarr still remaining in Summit deal with those with more decorum than just raging about that fondled Khumaak or the heap of killmails of 24th pilots that's been posted or such. after all you don't win
I think the rules against diplay of slaves don't really hit the Amarrians in general, btw. Their slaves have imho better things to do than handing out drinks. It really does hit those chars that depend on being free to portray themselves as rather gruesome types (and there may be some Amarr among those), as has been pointed out above. Thus I don't understand why some people try to make this into a Amarr versus Minmatar kind of thing.
Having said all this should make clear that I'm not really all too happy with such rules against display of slavery or somesuch. I'd like it if the Summit allowed for more conflict, conflict that stays civil, though. I think the ruling we're debating here isn't conducive of what I'd like to see in the Summit.
Nico
-
Then the issue is pretty much settled because I think most of us are willing to relax on the specific rule against slavery as long as we can continue to get rid of the people who are using slavery as a vessel for their attention whoring.
-
I've stayed out of this thread since my last post because, to be blunt, I see it as little more than a dressed-up version of the recently-locked thread.
Wall of text incoming, you've been warned.
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama".
Not that I have any say, I think that's a terrible idea. It's entirely subjective and vague, and would only lead to more rage threads here on Backstage.
If you were to sum up the policies/rubric the moderators use, that'd actually be a reasonably accurate tl;dr. Also, "rage threads" are not something that tend to go very far here, as evidenced by the Catacombs. So I don't think that that part would be a problem, personally. It'd just mean a minor headache for Silver until he decided to take off the gloves and get dirty.
Lyn, I would respond to more of your post in detail but I think you and I both know that that will go nowhere productive, so I'm just going to respond to the snippet in response to my original post:
The three basic rules are good rules. Simple and clear, and quite obvious, but obviously needed. No derping is awesome as a policy.
However, you are basically saying that adding several layers of deliberate RP descriptions (yes, you are perfectly right, it is deliberate), is a bad thing for RP ? What the...
Oh well, just refer to what I said above about bluntly denying parts of what makes New Eden what New Eden is.
I've highlighted the one line that is problematic. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere did I say this. I said that adding descriptions is a deliberate action, and that therefore, obviously, any description you add is done deliberately - and that given this, certain kinds of description are problematic because they are clearly intended to stir shit, cause drama, or troll. In this particular case, it's the action of explicitly stating that you have a slave visible on camera - not someone handing something to you from offscreen, not an employee, not just a plain old person with no other description, but you are making it clear that this person is a slave - and that anyone looking at the feed should be able to tell that they are a slave.
It isn't "bad for RP." It is against the rules of the channel at the moment, and can/will get you in trouble.
Please ask for a clarification next time you don't get what I'm saying, rather than accusing me of saying something I am not.
I would suggest that it isn't a 'cultural' issue. It is a practical issue of eliminating things that are disruptive to the channel. Slaves on screen have a track record of being disruptive.
Hammer, nail, head for the particular policy. There are many cultures other than the Amarr who practice slavery.
Kaleigh/Gyra makes a lot of good points; I'd cherry-pick a few but I'm lacking for time (and not exactly writing this post in top-bottom order as read).
Regarding Esna's post (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3789.msg60612#msg60612), option 1 is right out. It'll cause more headaches for everyone with all the "wah wah bias" whining. Option 2 is a possibility, but we'd end up with people loopholing (or trying to) with "oh but this is consensual" or some nonsense. Option 3 has worked so far, and people really seem to be ignoring that the only people who actually run afoul of it more than once are people who are deliberately trying to cause trouble.
[mod]Snip[/mod]
I have yet to see concerted moderator action against people who ,veiled or openly, make statements that cause significant offense to amarrian characters. On the other hand behaviour that is normal and accepted in amarrian society is "outlawed" on the grounds that it upsets characters from other backgrounds.
Today is the first day I've seen you connected to the Summit in months. So while I'm not inclined to put much weight on your statement there as a result, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a timezone issue, because most of the traffic in the Summit is during EU and US evenings, not in the middle of the day. Just because it happens at times when you aren't connected doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (Also, I'm pretty sure public nudity is frowned upon in the Empire. We actually have an explicit rule banning that, in case you hadn't noticed. So there's an anti-Gallente rule, so to speak.)
TL;DR The Summit is biased against Amarr.
This is the reason why new PIE's are told, by Lae', not to bother too much about The Summit, and also the reason why almost no true amarrians are in the channel anymore.
Again, the channel is not biased against Amarrians, and in fact there are quite a number of Amarrian roleplayers in there participating on a regular basis, and a significant portion of them are from PIE. It's also worth pointing out that one of the people who specifically told me they approved of the "no slaves on camera" policy is not only Amarrian, but currently your CEO. At least one or two other corpmates of yours also approve of the policy, as well.
If the channel is biased against anything, it's shit-stirrers and attention-whores.
I'm not going to quote this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3789.msg60620#msg60620) post of Lallara's, but if I understood what he meant correctly, then I agree with the vast majority of what he said. The Summit is primarily a diplomatic venue. Not OKCupid in Space.
Honestly I would love to be able to have more proper, polite, and casual or serious discussions or references to slavery in the Summit. I like to think that every time I've ever brought up the topic myself, or lead into it myself, that I do my part to keep things from getting out of hand. I also do understand that over time the course of such conversations does seem to get repetitive and therefore boring to some people, or that others do take the topic and use it to provoke a heated response.
However, I take a step back and try to look at EVE as a wider universe. We're talking about a setting where (correct me if I'm wrong) the largest known government and population base either actively endorses slavery or at least simply accepts it as a natural social strata. I honestly think a lot of the passionate responses end up being over-the-top if you look at the whole of the EVE setting as context. Part of that I attribute to OOC bleed-over of modern western morals, the other part I attribute to the simple desire to do something out of boredom.
Now I'm not saying I think it's unreasonable that the average Matari or Gallentean abhor slavery, I'm simply saying I think some of the cases are overreactions. The mere sight of a slave pouring a drink shouldn't provoke huge amounts of bad drama, in my opinion. Is it really that hard to tune down things and make your IC displeasure at something known with an emoted glare or snide remark? Does it always have to escalate to hour long shouting matches that end up crossing the IC-OOC line?
I think most of us would too, and like I said earlier, we do actually have these discussions on a semi-regular basis. (You've been out of the game for a while so you probably missed most of them.) To my knowledge, you have generally done well on your end.
As for representation of the wider universe, looking at the current list of eight mods (Graelyn, Tib, Morwen, Esna, Ava, Inara, Silas and Jek) we have, as far as affiliations go, two Amarr, one Cartel, one Minmatar, two neutral (with various leanings), one openly Sabik and one Sansha. Of those, five are explicitly pro-slavery by association. Ava is the only explicitly anti-slavery moderator in the channel. I can't speak to Jek's views, but Morwen's are hardly easily classed as anti-slavery. A minor correction to Ava's later post on this very thing (quoted below w/ Inara's post), however: Morwen does not own any slaves, but she lives with someone who does. I don't think she could legally own any anyway.
Are there overreactions sometimes? Yes. Without a doubt. (Is this particular case an overreaction? No - it's just the latest incident where someone has deliberately and repeatedly played chicken with the moderators to be a dick, and this time action was taken beyond the usual warning.) That said, things don't usually escalate to "hour long shouting matches" unless someone deliberately goes in with the troll flag flying high. Most of the time we only have to step in to remind people to not go overboard with the direct personal insults, or for excessive swearing (because this isn't middle school, saying Carlin's Seven in every other sentence isn't cool anymore, yo).
Ael's idea might work if people actually bothered to report things to moderators who were active or at the very least online. Newsflash, guys: if you report stuff to only one moderator, there's no guarantee of that report being acted on in anything resembling a timely fashion because you've put all of the weight on one person who may not be able to check their mail anytime soon. Send your reports to more than one of us at once - that way there's a higher chance of someone actually seeing the report while it's fresh. Prodding us in channels works but it doesn't really give us a paper trail either, and will usually (I hope) be met with a "mail us about it with logs" response.
Just food for thought.
Esna, Tib, Silas, Morwen, Graelyn, and formerly, Leopold, all own, or in Tib's case, condone, slavery.
I think I am the sole "antislavery" mod.
Thank you.
Don't forget me ^_^.
But seriously, this is a valid point.
With the majority of the moderators being either slave holders or condoning of slavery, and (as far as I know in my limited time as a mod) there being no issues with disruption of the channel due to their presence... this suggests that the problem has nothing to do with slavery. The more I read, and the more I think about it, the more I'm willing to wager that the problem is with presentation and willingness to interact on a reasonable level with people who have opposing opinions from yourself.
Esna and I are thinking alike I believe. Don't be a dick!
More or less. Like I said in my first post: "We are not saying you cannot hold slaves and be on the Summit. We are not saying you can't say you have them. We aren't even saying you can't interact with them as 'background' noise from your character's feed. We are saying don't have them in view of your "camera" - ie, don't type about them being visible."
If people need a good example of how to do this without causing trouble, look at Evelyn (Meiyi, not Valate). She has slaves, everyone knows she does, she interacts with them, but she doesn't go out of her way to make a display of them on camera because there's no reason to do so except to provoke a reaction.
Now, I'm sad to see that what seemed to start as a reasonable debate about whether certain rules are sensible or not devolved mainly into two parties calling names. I think that wasn't the intent and/or purpose of this thread.
I think it really doesn't matter whether Leo is protesting here through harmless civil disobedience or whether he specifically or someone else was kicked from Summit rightfully and justly. It really is, in my opinion, largely inconsequential to the question here. Inconsequential as well is, in my opinion the alignment of the Moderators toons with one IC faction or the other. One can very well moderate a channel and RP someone loyal to one faction and still moderate the channel in a way that is partial to another. Or not. It really makes no difference.
"Harmless civil disobedience" is a wholly inaccurate term, considering he's been doing it despite being warned by mods (and, in fact, by other players, some of whom were Amarrian RPers who didn't like it) for over a year - the only reason action was not taken sooner was because he was doing this while a moderator - which meant that Graelyn had to be the one to take action. It goes under the references to "not behaving like a moderator" in the other threads on the forum.
I see that the main argument for the rule against explicit displays of slaves in the Summit is that "the particular resonance of slaves" is generally something the moderators don't want to have in their channels. With deciding to ban the behaviour that obviously offends a majority of the Summit and apparently not considering there whether the reactions of those offended are really adequate to the 'offense' it seems to me that the moderators decided to keep it civil by following the wishes of the majority.
It's not as much about 'offending' people as some seem to think. It's about getting rid of deliberately disruptive behavior. If we didn't want people to be offended we'd have separate Summits for each faction so that everyone could coexist in their happy little Hello Kitty Online shards. People are going to get offended in the Summit. We're not going to step in in those cases unless it's particularly egregious - we are, however, going to step in when people are trying to be disruptive and/or trolls on purpose. That this particular kind of thing merited a "specific" policy serves only to show exactly how bad it was before the policy was put in place - but it's only as a specific example of the larger "don't be a fucking derp" policy.
Don't get me wrong here, it's a sound decision to do so, as it is the easiest way to keep the majority of the people within the Summit happy. But it really isn't unbiased. I think no decision would be unbiased as clearly as Tiberious pointed out, the moderators are there for a reason. They (or the owners of the channel) set a goal that they want to achieve with their channel and are necessarily biased towards what is supportive of said goal. I don't think it's in the least about being biased against slaveholders or display of slaves on the Summit. They probably couldn't care less as long as everything stays 'civil'. If not something needs to be done.
This is accurate. The bias isn't against slavers, or Amarrians. It's against people who are abusing the subject of slavery to be disruptive and/or trolls. We have civil discussions and debates on the subject (and other controversial ones) all the time.
So, the option the moderators go for in this case are pandering to the majority of people in the Summit that are against slavery. I don't think that it is a good choice for the Summit, as the Summit should be about neutrality and being a open venue for all kinds of pilots from New Eden rather than about having a content and big population. Pandering to the majority is good for the latter and bad for the former, it will usually decrease diversity. Similarly, kicking all the people that 'rageface' when they see a slave in Summit would be a solution to enforce civility on the Summit while generally being open to everyone (and would probably solve any trolling issues as well: Not feeding trolls works wonders, usually), but would work against a big and happy community. robably also not the best choice for a channel depending on an active and big community. Maybe there is a middle way somewhere. But how to react here, it's true, that's the decision of the owner/the moderators.
We are not pandering to anyone. Unless "people who aren't trying to troll or be disruptive" counts, in which case, okay, we're pandering to them. Unfortunately, most people aren't brilliant enough to "not feed the trolls", so while that might be ideal, it isn't sufficient - and kicking the people who complain about people being disruptive doesn't exactly seem appropriate to me unless they go way out of bounds with it.
In my experience the Amarr that were in the channel usually didn't complain to any moderators when they were offended by something, but rather left with disdain for the babarians. Leaving the channel open for those even though they didn't feel comfy there. But then, maybe that's because back then there were no moderators to complain to. Still, I think there oftentimes arise issues that are on par with the 'display of slaves' issue. And I like to think that the tiny few Amarr still remaining in Summit deal with those with more decorum than just raging about that fondled Khumaak or the heap of killmails of 24th pilots that's been posted or such. after all you don't win
I think the rules against diplay of slaves don't really hit the Amarrians in general, btw. Their slaves have imho better things to do than handing out drinks. It really does hit those chars that depend on being free to portray themselves as rather gruesome types (and there may be some Amarr among those), as has been pointed out above. Thus I don't understand why some people try to make this into a Amarr versus Minmatar kind of thing.
I would rather people report issues, as I said in response to Uraniae. IC, OOC, slaver, non-slaver, whatever - I don't care about that, if there's something going on that might need a moderator to look at it, report it. As to the second paragraph here, one hundred percent agreed that these slaves have better things to do.
"Gruesome" character type or not, however, it's still disruptive, and it is still a conscious choice to make. There are other, and better, ways to go about it.
Having said all this should make clear that I'm not really all too happy with such rules against display of slavery or somesuch. I'd like it if the Summit allowed for more conflict, conflict that stays civil, though. I think the ruling we're debating here isn't conducive of what I'd like to see in the Summit.
Nico
We don't have a problem with conflict. We definitely don't have a problem with civil conflict. However, the slaves on camera issue reliably produced non-civil conflict and whining and rage and drama from all sides, and was particularly abused by people who were either simply attention-whoring or were doing it deliberately to cause trouble. Neither of which is really appropriate in a diplomatic venue.
... That's probably a sufficient wall of text for now, especially given:
Then the issue is pretty much settled because I think most of us are willing to relax on the specific rule against slavery as long as we can continue to get rid of the people who are using slavery as a vessel for their attention whoring.
-
Generally agreed. I will point out, in response to what you you said about my suggestions: (Emphasis mine)
Regarding Esna's post (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3789.msg60612#msg60612), option 1 is right out. It'll cause more headaches for everyone with all the "wah wah bias" whining. Option 2 is a possibility, but we'd end up with people loopholing (or trying to) with "oh but this is consensual" or some nonsense. Option 3 has worked so far, and people really seem to be ignoring that the only people who actually run afoul of it more than once are people who are deliberately trying to cause trouble.
I was assuming this would be a flat rule, much like how the mods have had to step in on rare occasion to handle to-heavy PDAs. Consensual or not, agreeable or not, whatever - you are not bringing that into our channel.
-
I love the idea that a channel I run is 'anti-Amarrian'.
I mean, fuckin LOL.
-
Lyn, I would respond to more of your post in detail but I think you and I both know that that will go nowhere productive, so I'm just going to respond to the snippet in response to my original post:
The three basic rules are good rules. Simple and clear, and quite obvious, but obviously needed. No derping is awesome as a policy.
However, you are basically saying that adding several layers of deliberate RP descriptions (yes, you are perfectly right, it is deliberate), is a bad thing for RP ? What the...
Oh well, just refer to what I said above about bluntly denying parts of what makes New Eden what New Eden is.
I've highlighted the one line that is problematic. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere did I say this. I said that adding descriptions is a deliberate action, and that therefore, obviously, any description you add is done deliberately - and that given this, certain kinds of description are problematic because they are clearly intended to stir shit, cause drama, or troll. In this particular case, it's the action of explicitly stating that you have a slave visible on camera - not someone handing something to you from offscreen, not an employee, not just a plain old person with no other description, but you are making it clear that this person is a slave - and that anyone looking at the feed should be able to tell that they are a slave.
It isn't "bad for RP." It is against the rules of the channel at the moment, and can/will get you in trouble.
Please ask for a clarification next time you don't get what I'm saying, rather than accusing me of saying something I am not.
Yes, I am perfectly aware that you did not say that.
You implied it, willingly or not, because limiting RP emotes limits RP scenery description (for whatever reason, valable or not, legitimate or not, that makes no matter), and that is bad for RP. Unless you think it is good, of course, which is another story altogether.
Then you can have all the justifications you want about it (again, legitimate or not), it does not change anything to the logic behind it.
Of course, I don't agree with the justifications in question, but I could have, and that wouldnt have changed the outcome of my statement.
I agree on the rest, since it's pretty obvious for almost everyone here.
By the way, I love how you say that Gyra makes good points when it is basically what I have always said about this rule. Either it is on account of my face, or either I am particularily bad at expressing myself in english.
-
Lyn, your argument can be boiled down to the same principle as Freedom of Speech. Limiting Freedom of Speech is bad, yeah? Well, except of course for hate-speech... inciting riots perhaps... talking about pedophilia in a kindergarten class... oh my, there's a lot of limitations that are not bad for freedom of anything. In fact, they create more freedoms by making the majority of public space usable by the majority.
The same thing applies to any kind of RP descriptions. As a general rule, freedom of expression is preferable of course. Some shit just won't do anyone any good and would be quite bad for RP.
So in short, limiting emotes/scenery description and so on is a good thing in the same way limiting freedom of speech and other such things are good things.
-
It would be a mistake (and has been a mistake) to assume that the Summit has freedom of speech rights anyways, either IC or OOC.
-
I see that the main argument for the rule against explicit displays of slaves in the Summit is that "the particular resonance of slaves" is generally something the moderators don't want to have in their channels. With deciding to ban the behaviour that obviously offends a majority of the Summit and apparently not considering there whether the reactions of those offended are really adequate to the 'offense' it seems to me that the moderators decided to keep it civil by following the wishes of the majority.
It's not as much about 'offending' people as some seem to think. It's about getting rid of deliberately disruptive behavior. If we didn't want people to be offended we'd have separate Summits for each faction so that everyone could coexist in their happy little Hello Kitty Online shards. People are going to get offended in the Summit. We're not going to step in in those cases unless it's particularly egregious - we are, however, going to step in when people are trying to be disruptive and/or trolls on purpose. That this particular kind of thing merited a "specific" policy serves only to show exactly how bad it was before the policy was put in place - but it's only as a specific example of the larger "don't be a fucking derp" policy.
My point is that it's usually not merely an action that is disruptive, but that it is a disruptive action given a certain context. Say, you're with 50 people discussing what you like to eat. "Apples" says one, the other prefers Oranges. Now you say "I like steak!" and there the shitstorm breaks loose: You've been to the 20 year anniversary meeting of the FU (Frutarians United) and well, just saying that you like steak disrupted the entire meeting! Well, would one say that stating that one likes steak is in general a 'disruptive action'? No of course not. Is displaying slaves in itself disrupting? No, it as well depends on context. The context being the people in the Summit. And of them, the majority. Becuse the channel is disrupted when someone displays a behaviour that is in fact, I think, so offensive for the majority of the people that they react with being 'disrupted'.
So, the option the moderators go for in this case are pandering to the majority of people in the Summit that are against slavery. I don't think that it is a good choice for the Summit, as the Summit should be about neutrality and being a open venue for all kinds of pilots from New Eden rather than about having a content and big population. Pandering to the majority is good for the latter and bad for the former, it will usually decrease diversity. Similarly, kicking all the people that 'rageface' when they see a slave in Summit would be a solution to enforce civility on the Summit while generally being open to everyone (and would probably solve any trolling issues as well: Not feeding trolls works wonders, usually), but would work against a big and happy community. robably also not the best choice for a channel depending on an active and big community. Maybe there is a middle way somewhere. But how to react here, it's true, that's the decision of the owner/the moderators.
We are not pandering to anyone. Unless "people who aren't trying to troll or be disruptive" counts, in which case, okay, we're pandering to them. Unfortunately, most people aren't brilliant enough to "not feed the trolls", so while that might be ideal, it isn't sufficient - and kicking the people who complain about people being disruptive doesn't exactly seem appropriate to me unless they go way out of bounds with it.
As I tried to point out above, being disruptive isn't a simple quality someone has, it's rather an assymetric relation someone is disruptive to someone else. And so, as far as my understanding goes, if you're pandering to the "people who aren't trying to troll or be disruptive", which usually is the majority which group dynamics determine by what kind of behaviour they are disrupted, then yes, it's the majority. If moderation follows in general this group dynamic, the channel will homogenize and loose diversity.
I think that asking the question why people get so riled up by an emoted slave in that channel is a legitimate question and one that should be raised before banning stuff like 'display of slaves', imho. The same goes for nudity and all other things in general. If the Summit is meant to stay a neutral ground, is it desirable that the people in the channel react with being 'disrupted' to every little emoted 'slave'? I mean, sure, the majority does and a moderator has to deal with that somehow, sure. Still, simply banning the 'disruptive' behaviour will certainly lead to fewer disruptions, but there are sideeffects to it that might not be desirable.
It largely depends on what the Summit is supposed to be about: Neutral ground for all of New Eden? For the pirates as well as the Empire loyalists?
-
I don't get it. It's an IC channel with IC rules. How's that stifling to roleplay?
I also can't believe how much shit these mods are getting for doing what's essentially a free public service. Jackbooted thugs, really?
-
Was it really necessary to quote half a page of text (more lines than I can count) for that response? :|
Anyhow,
I love the idea that a channel I run is 'anti-Amarrian'.
I mean, fuckin LOL.
that is a pretty strong point.
-
A perspective, from someone who currently has only a tenuous connection with EVE RP:
The no slavery rule was the reason I started using The Summit again, after maybe a year when it wasn't a place I could justify Mata engaging. It was very much the diplomatic thing about moderating some behaviours so we could seek common ground over other things: some of the people there were just as much slavers as they'd always been, but when the slavery wasn't directly in one's face we could have conversations and make connections which weren't otherwise possible. That encouraged roleplay, especially across factions, which can be difficult to span unless there are conscious rules about how we handle the things that we're willing to go to war over. I valued that attempt at a shared space where people could meet, and maybe start making the contacts that would eventually lead to change.
It's possible that I was the only person affected by this. *wry*
-
If the core of the problem is that there's a cultural bias to the whole "slaves on cam" thing, why not place a ban on bringing any kind of secondary characters (non-toon alts, NPCs or whatever else you might call them) on cam? So no slaves, but also no family members (unless they're toons in their own right), no hired help, no captured janitors, no slaver hounds, no furriers, no snow leopards, et cetera. In a diplomatic venue, it's reasonable to expect participants to bring nobody but themselves to the the table or cam or what have you.
Is that a solution?
-
(http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/snowleopardcub2.jpg)
This =/= a slave, a catgirl, or a naked gallentean whore.
edit: Let the record show, lest anyone think i am taking sides due to "bias"
That i was FOR removing the ban on slaves.
Thanks
-
If the core of the problem is that there's a cultural bias to the whole "slaves on cam" thing, why not place a ban on bringing any kind of secondary characters (non-toon alts, NPCs or whatever else you might call them) on cam? So no slaves, but also no family members (unless they're toons in their own right), no hired help, no captured janitors, no slaver hounds, no furriers, no snow leopards, et cetera. In a diplomatic venue, it's reasonable to expect participants to bring nobody but themselves to the the table or cam or what have you.
Is that a solution?
Quoted for remarkable insight.
Call it "The slave parade" and set the MOTD to "Slaves, everywhere all the time" and go hog wild with lengthy descriptions of everything from benign treatment up to torture and death games.
Ten forum points for writing this after the first half of your post. You get five bonus points if you notice the irony without outside help.
-
Jek I <3 you.
I was so tempted to tell everyone whining about Summit moderation to go make their own channel and stop throwing a fit here, but I thought I would get modded for it. This is ridiculous. The whiners are making a sensationalist spectacle, and the moderators are either fanning the flames or outright launching nukes.
Everybody needs to chill out, like the thread title says.
If you don't like the way the Summit is run, make your own channel.
If you are a mod, or Graelyn specifically, and don't like what people are saying about your channel... ban them. Permanantly.
If you are a mod, or Graelyn specifically, and people keep trying to test your limits with this nonsense "lets see how far I can break the rules..." ban them. Permanently.
All this psuedo-civil 'lets talk it out like adults' is fine and dandy when both sides are actually acting like adults.
-
The discussion is escalating because everyone has stated their thoughts and opinions with the echo chamber repeating them ad nauseum. Sprinkle in some trolling (you're welcome) and verbal shit-stirring, and you have yourself a shindig!
-
Lyn, your argument can be boiled down to the same principle as Freedom of Speech. Limiting Freedom of Speech is bad, yeah? Well, except of course for hate-speech... inciting riots perhaps... talking about pedophilia in a kindergarten class... oh my, there's a lot of limitations that are not bad for freedom of anything. In fact, they create more freedoms by making the majority of public space usable by the majority.
The same thing applies to any kind of RP descriptions. As a general rule, freedom of expression is preferable of course. Some shit just won't do anyone any good and would be quite bad for RP.
So in short, limiting emotes/scenery description and so on is a good thing in the same way limiting freedom of speech and other such things are good things.
You are right of course. This is why I have absolutely nothing against the rule about civility and courtesy in the Summit and OOC or else it would turn into chaos.
However, I disagree with the last part of the statement here. I might agree, maybe, if the emote description was so thrashy/gore/offending that it could become a matter of OOC decency or whatever. But slaves inclusions are far, far from that and do not fall in that category.
Anyhow,
I love the idea that a channel I run is 'anti-Amarrian'.
I mean, fuckin LOL.
that is a pretty strong point.
I don't see why ? Because he plays an amarrian ? A lot of the mods play slavers. You are basically accusing them of being biaised by their characters alignement.
(http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/snowleopardcub2.jpg)
This =/= a slave, a catgirl, or a naked gallentean whore.
This one is adorable.
If the core of the problem is that there's a cultural bias to the whole "slaves on cam" thing, why not place a ban on bringing any kind of secondary characters (non-toon alts, NPCs or whatever else you might call them) on cam? So no slaves, but also no family members (unless they're toons in their own right), no hired help, no captured janitors, no slaver hounds, no furriers, no snow leopards, et cetera. In a diplomatic venue, it's reasonable to expect participants to bring nobody but themselves to the the table or cam or what have you.
Is that a solution?
Quoted for remarkable insight.
I may need a deeper explanation on the why ? That sounds quite absurd to me I have to admit. :|
Jek I <3 you.
I was so tempted to tell everyone whining about Summit moderation to go make their own channel and stop throwing a fit here, but I thought I would get modded for it. This is ridiculous. The whiners are making a sensationalist spectacle, and the moderators are either fanning the flames or outright launching nukes.
Everybody needs to chill out, like the thread title says.
If you don't like the way the Summit is run, make your own channel.
If you are a mod, or Graelyn specifically, and don't like what people are saying about your channel... ban them. Permanantly.
If you are a mod, or Graelyn specifically, and people keep trying to test your limits with this nonsense "lets see how far I can break the rules..." ban them. Permanently.
All this psuedo-civil 'lets talk it out like adults' is fine and dandy when both sides are actually acting like adults.
Why yes, why not. Not that I have never thought about it several times.
Any insight on how to do that by making it successful enough to last, especially when directly challenging the very channels that ARE the standard for RP, and without dividing the community even further ?
-
I may need a deeper explanation on the why ? That sounds quite absurd to me I have to admit. :|
Well, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me personally. It just seems like a solution that would silence any accusations of bias, whether they are fair or not. The channel already has a little-tolerance policy towards supposed baseliner toons - is it really that much of a stretch to restrict or disallow the appearance of non-toon baseliners as well? As for animals, adorable though they may or may not be, they are still baseliners.
-
If someone wants to make a new channel, nothing is stopping them. I'm not sure I'd call my statements whining, though of course I may be guilty of bias on that level. I don't think I've ever had a real problem with moderation of the Summit, or these forums. I've certainly never been moderated (to my knowledge) so either the mods are lazy, or I'm not being naughty enough to get a time out. Personally, I suspect the latter.
I will say that I don't agree entirely with the slavery rules for the channel, but I see why they are in place and rather than being upset over the rules being in place, I'm more disappointed that a rule had to be made to deal with it that essentially limits what I consider an interesting talking point. I've always tried to keep Ura's stance on slavery just controversial enough to provoke discussion, while making sure to not throw it in anyone's face to provoke rage.
-
As for animals, adorable though they may or may not be, they are still baseliners.
Incoming capsule-grade cybernetically modified slaver hounds.
-
I may need a deeper explanation on the why ? That sounds quite absurd to me I have to admit. :|
Well, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me personally. It just seems like a solution that would silence any accusations of bias, whether they are fair or not. The channel already has a little-tolerance policy towards supposed baseliner toons - is it really that much of a stretch to restrict or disallow the appearance of non-toon baseliners as well? As for animals, adorable though they may or may not be, they are still baseliners.
And?
-
And?
"And" what?
-
[mod]Thread cleaned. I would appreciate it if I didn't need to do it again, and the discussion really was going quite well for a couple of pages. Remember to use the report button, rather than responding to posts you think break the rules. Post on topic. If you are confused about why your post was nuked, or the rules here on Backstage, check them out in the stickies here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?board=1.0).[/mod]
-
Right.
This discussion has simmered down, so I'd like to check in. I am not looking to restart the discussion, just get a clear answer as it's been some time and I'm not sure what the rules now are.
If Makkal wanted to bring a slave on 'cam' while she was at the Summit: Yay or nay?
-
Nay.
-
Nay I think, it has not changed as far as I know.
Not sure if it's IC or OOC or both at the same time though. Anyway it is probably still enforced ICly.
-
My thanks.
-
I must say that I think I like the turn I am seeing to IC moderation rather than OOC moderation. Though it does bring up some very fuzzy IC issues. And well, I approve of fuzzy IC issues!
It makes sense to me that non-Amarrian moderators would have problems with what to an Amarrian is fairly benign stuff. It also makes sense to me that some Amarrians would be extremely skeptical of a place with Sansha and Blood raiders on its staff.
It also makes the act of moderation an in character act that characters can react to in character rather than some sort of OOC "oh you shouldn't do that."
I am wondering if the OOC rules could be jettisoned entirely in favor of only IC rules? I am OOC fine with an IC ban on showing slaves. I am not sure that I am ok with an OOC ban on showing slaves.
Edit: Now ICly Gaven is likely to be appalled when the situation becomes clear to him. But that is all good.
-
The Summit is an interesting place. It's a sort of 'portal' for new people to RP in EVE, but I think a large number of capsuleers would never go to it if they knew who the moderators were.
-
I am wondering if the OOC rules could be jettisoned entirely in favor of only IC rules? I am OOC fine with an IC ban on showing slaves. I am not sure that I am ok with an OOC ban on showing slaves.
Edit: Now ICly Gaven is likely to be appalled when the situation becomes clear to him. But that is all good.
Same.
EDIT : I have already voiced my concerns about that but to clarify I feel that OOC rule enforced ICly to be a serious blow to Amarr RPers, where slavery is central to their culture and fluff. It would be like telling Minmatar not to come with their Voluvals because, you know, Voluval leads to bad things like Voshun. Ban them ICly only, though, and people might debate about it more freely since we wouldn't have to debate about something that takes its source OOCly.
But of course, if it was only IC, the only reason for it would be "not to offend minmatar people" or something...
-
But of course, if it was only IC, the only reason for it would be "not to offend minmatar people" or something...
Assuming The Summit is supposed to promote civility, that's pretty much IC reason enough.
I've played Aria since 2006. In that time, the Amarr-Minmatar debate has not changed one iota at its base; it's just gotten different scenery. I am sick to death, IC, OOC, take your pick, of the same endless, tired, circular discussion.
We do not need unnecessary provocation to start flogging the same long-skeletonized horse all over again. It may be a little hard on the Amarr to have to keep their slaves out of sight, but it's easier to just receive your glass of spiced wine from off-camera than it is to stop (enormously predictable) Matari cries of outrage when the person handing it to you on-camera is a pretty Sebiestor.
My character and I are both bored to tears of that debate, and we therefore both support this rule.
-
I'm going to be as blunt here as I was earlier in this thread, because we seriously did hash this out several times already.
Summit moderation is primarily done IC, whether you choose to believe it or not, except in cases where the offending party is being disruptive as a player.
Kicking people out for being constantly OOC is obviously OOC moderation. Kicking out alts of banned people can go either way depending on the alt(s), and is done on a case by case basis, but if you've been so disruptive as to be banned in the first place, what reason have we to trust you not to be disruptive on your alts?
Moderators telling you to keep slaves off camera is an in-character response to the pointless, old, tired and repeated bullshit drama that we've heard year in and year out with absolutely no change in the arguments, as Aria just said.
As was also stated much earlier in the thread, of the moderators on the team, the majority of them support or make use of slavery in some capacity, be it directly or indirectly. The only exceptions are Ava and possibly Jekaterine. Any claims about the channel being "anti-Amarrian" are, as best put by Graelyn, "fuckin LOL".
-
Do you think that I am not bored to death of that myself ? I have been here for more than 6 years now, I have seen my share of the same circular debates. Slavery is only one of them. Religion, Caldari Prime, etc, all have become circular debates. And some like religion often mostly stem out of OOC motivations. Even if I am bored of many of these circular debates, the fact remains that they still are a key, core factor of the lore itself. Denying the debate is like denying that part of the lore, or having an issue with that particular point.
But heh, if we were to ban everything leading to annoying discussions or debates we have seen countless times, you might as well close the Summit. Personally, I have seen them all, nothing new for years. What you are doing right here is to forbid newer players (or just players that find it fun) to have the discussions they want to have, according to your personal tastes. Eventually, even with slaves banned, people still argue about slavery at every occasion, since after all, we do not need a slave to show on screen to start a debate on it. The slaves on screen excuse remains a decoy to my eyes.
And half of the mods being in favor of slavery IC does not lessen the slighest the fact that the rule is anti amarrian, maybe not in essence, but in fact as a result.
-
It's not the discussion that is banned. It's the blatant attempt to troll an outraged response from your faction's enemies. The mods banned showing off slaves because it was a cheap way to provoke anti-slavery characters. They also banned full and partial nudity because that was provoking a similar response from Amarr characters. Yet there is still plenty of sex discussion as well.
-
This is exactly the discussion I had hoped wouldn't start again.
Good, bad, or indifferent, the moderators are in charge of the Summit. People using it have to follow their rules. Those rules don't have to meet everyone's definition of fair.
For my part, I sometimes have 'a servant' bring in Makkal's tea or a snack. Yes, they could be a slave, but it's just as likely they're a commoner.* I've yet to have a mod take her to task for it and the various Republic and Federation characters she interacts with have never commented on it.
For people watching to know they're seeing a slave you need something obvious: Collars and chains, groveling before their master, or the capsuleer growling 'you, slave!, fetch my tea.' I'd consider that unnecessarily theatrical and probably a put on to provoke anti-slavery capsuleers.
*Or just part of the elaborate VR Makkal likes to use while in a pod.
-
The specification Morwen gave that the rules as they exist now are IC rules is more than enough for me.
If you want your characters to be sick of the constant sniping and mod accordingly, that's absolutely fine with me! I don't think whether there is OOC motivation for that IC action need come into the discussion at all.
-
When I was still a moderator I had only one basic rule: try and prevent things that would get people riled up OOC. Usually that involved contacting people separately and telling them to either tone it down, or simply use another way to express their RP.
I don't care if it was slaves, sex, murder or simply OOC trolling disguised as IC.
It does mean that I didn't have a strict absolute rule for what was allowed and what not, because some groups could take more without the situation getting out of hand than others.
-
Perhaps a solution is a channel specifically dedicated to Minmatar - Amarr diplomatic realations (Ha) and the discussion of slavery. For all involved to get it out of their system.
For the rare moments of across the aisle respect.
For Amarr to say how much they want to enslave us
For Minmatar to scream for blood and blow their tops.
It will almost certainly have to be closed in a week.
But what a week it would be
-
Amarr can't even agree on who they want to let into their own channel, much less talk nice to the other side.
-
There's an Amarr channel?
-
There's an Amarr channel?
"Imperial Congregation"
-
Oh that! The Amarr faction includes non-Imperials and non-Faithful, so I wouldn't have considered it.
If it's widely considered the Amarr channel I ought to have Makkal drop in a bit more often. Homesickness is a bitch.
-
For clarification, the current standard for admission into Imperial Congregation is that someone must be one of the following:
- A loyal citizen of the Amarr Empire.
- A loyal citizen of the Khanid Kingdom.
- A loyal citizen of the Ammatar Mandate.
- A person of faith in any other nation or location.
The following are grounds for immediate expulsion from the Imperial Congregation, regardless of above:
- A public declaration of loyalty to any faith besides the Imperial, Khanid, Ammatar, or major loyal variants thereof. Participation with Sani Sabik or Blood Raider groups will be considered to fall under this category.
- Active combat operations against the Amarr Empire, Khanid Kingdom, Ammatar Mandate, or any other distinct group of Faithful. Supply and logistics operations supporting groups participating in the above also count.
- Violations of law of the 3 above nations, within the territory of the 3 above nations.
- Becoming continuously becoming disruptive, insulting, or otherwise inhibiting the channel's ability to function. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT ARGUE, merely that incessant arguing and flaming will probably get you eventually removed.
- Moderators reserve the right to remove anyone at any time because we can. Trying to edge around or bend any of the above rules will probably get you into this category.
Hopefully this makes things more clear. If you want to discuss or suggest a change to one of the above rules, feel free to convo or mail me ingame.
-
I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama". For a while, there was no issue with slavery in the Summit, but then some people long banned decided to cause a massive amount of drama about it. The moderation team around at the time discussed it and found very few instances where characters were bringing in NPC slave characters (and in some cases PC slave characters) for any reason other than to cause a massive truckload of drama and to rile people up.
So we stopped it.
Its the same reason we don't let people murder NPC's 'on camera' in the Summit, because it never leads to anything good.
Roleplay is story-telling and stories need drama and conflict to to be stories. By deliberately cutting out drama and conflict from The Summit you are severely stifling RP. Game mechanics already provide a method for settling disputes over slavery; the war-dec. Moderation should focus only on keeping OOC out and squishing god-modding. It has no place doing anything else. If you don't want to follow the rules of the Inter-Galactic Summit then you need to change the channel name and stop pretending to be an extension of the IGS.
By rights anything run by CONCORD should have a Gallentean/liberal slant but CCP has decided that the IGS should actually fair and neutral. The Summit, which claims to be an extension of the IGS should be also.
Also the fact that you have characters with blatant ties to pirate factions managing a part of the IGS is pretty damn immersion breaking. If a player wants to be a mod, then they need to sacrifice a character slot and create a new character who's ties are to CONCORD and the SCC.
-
I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed the Summit is an extension of the IGS.
Didn't it start out as an Amarr channel?
-
As I recall from days of yore it was, and was modded by SCC loyal characters. That was a long time ago and the details escape me.
-
Having discussion is one thing. Trust me, we still have -lots- of arguements about slavery between people on the Summit; that was never inhibited by the "no slaves" rule, and it isn't being inhibited by the "don't be a dramamonger" rule now.
-
I don't think that the Summit claims to be an extension of the IGS, but a lot of people surely seems to think it is.
Also, the Summit has never been an Amarr channel in the past, just an old CONCORD channel set up by Amarrian loyalists to act as a neutral ground or something iirc.
And allowing people speaking about slavery while denying them the right to show off their cultural differences is pretty hypocritical to my eyes and even hints at gallente bias/slant actually, though, this is done completely IC, so that's their call eventually. And that's our call to call them biased ICly. :twisted:
And get banned ICly. :cry:
Of course, the channel is far from being neutral, since it is run by player characters, who are main characters for most with their own faction. Bringing a lot of different factions in the mod team does not mean that it will be neutral. With CONCORD alts, however, yes, maybe, though players OOC influence would still be there eventually, so looking for true neutrality is like looking for a chimera.
-
By rights anything run by CONCORD should have a Gallentean/liberal slant but CCP has decided that the IGS should actually fair and neutral. The Summit, which claims to be an extension of the IGS should be also.
Also the fact that you have characters with blatant ties to pirate factions managing a part of the IGS is pretty damn immersion breaking. If a player wants to be a mod, then they need to sacrifice a character slot and create a new character who's ties are to CONCORD and the SCC.
The Summit is not an extension of the IGS.
It's CONCORD affiliation is actually rather loose, and with only a few exeptions, the moderators are chosen to represent an ideological spread including empire and faction pirates, and are chosen with an eye towards their reasonable behavior within the channel. It's actually very meritocratic.
Edit: Also, requiring potential moderators to sacrifice a character slot is unreasonable since any time moderation was required, they would have to log out of their mains, or pay for a second account. That's utterly ridiculous for a completely volunteer position.
-
Needs more Caldari moderators. :D
-
We're actually on the lookout for one.
-
Needs more Caldari moderators. :D
We're actually on the lookout for one.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6qw4ww6ie1rauqjzo1_500.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bjLn59E.jpg)
Think you've got the minerals?
Fine then, go and put the kettle on.
-
Having IC moderators from a wide swath of loyalties does more to keep things civil than almost anything else.
If it were a bunch of moderators from -any- one faction the opposite types would feel no interest in being exposed to channel IC abuses.
Having some 'upstanding' IC moderators along with several 'outlaw' types is only a good thing.
Besides, most of the 'outlaw' types are 10x more polite and reasonable mediators than many of the 'good' characters.
-
Damned if that ain't true.
-
I love the idea that a channel I run is 'anti-Amarrian'.
I mean, fuckin LOL.
Just food for thought.
Esna, Tib, Silas, Morwen, Graelyn, and formerly, Leopold, all own, or in Tib's case, condone, slavery.
I think I am the sole "antislavery" mod.
Thank you.
Don't forget me ^_^.
Re-quoting these two posts, as they are quite relevant.
(Also, Katrina's now on the team, so I think we've got two explicitly anti-slavery mods now.)
-
...
-
Is she anti-slavery or slavery agnostic?
Either way: Congratulations Kat! Enjoy your babysitting.
-
Is she anti-slavery or slavery agnostic?
Either way: Congratulations Kat! Enjoy your babysitting.
Slavery-apathetic. Also, thanks. :)
-
By rights anything run by CONCORD should have a Gallentean/liberal slant but CCP has decided that the IGS should actually fair and neutral. The Summit, which claims to be an extension of the IGS should be also.
Also the fact that you have characters with blatant ties to pirate factions managing a part of the IGS is pretty damn immersion breaking. If a player wants to be a mod, then they need to sacrifice a character slot and create a new character who's ties are to CONCORD and the SCC.
The Summit is not an extension of the IGS.
It's CONCORD affiliation is actually rather loose, and with only a few exeptions, the moderators are chosen to represent an ideological spread including empire and faction pirates, and are chosen with an eye towards their reasonable behavior within the channel. It's actually very meritocratic.
Edit: Also, requiring potential moderators to sacrifice a character slot is unreasonable since any time moderation was required, they would have to log out of their mains, or pay for a second account. That's utterly ridiculous for a completely volunteer position.
Historical note. It was conceived as an extension of the IGS with an entirely separate corp of moderators. The corp was funded by Amarr loyalists, hence the ownership staying in Amarr loyalist hands, but did not advertize itself as such. It was also conceived of as a place that would basically go mostly unmoderated.
With Graelyn's administration that conception of the channel was abandoned and the claims to the channel as an IGS extension were dropped. I think that this is an improvement.
-
I knew I wasn't going senile. I remember things! What were we talking about? Hippopotamus.
-
Hamish, you made a Haiku! :cube: