Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => The Summit (IG Channel Discussion) => Topic started by: Katrina Oniseki on 27 Oct 2013, 13:47
-
Hello!
I'd like to talk about the process of Moderation, its typical methods, and some things you as users can do to help us out.
First of all, let's set some terms for this conversation. There are two broad categories for moderation, Warnings and Actions.
Warnings can be public warnings either IC or OOC, and they can be private chat warnings. Public Warnings should be considered a gentle nudge in the right direction OOC (even if the warning is serious IC). Private Warnings are more serious, and if you've received one, it is typically your last chance to cease whatever the warning was about. IC warnings are typically handled IC, as you might expect. There really is little difference there.
Actions are used when warnings were either ineffective, or would be insufficient to stop the disruptive behavior. Actions consists of Mutes, Kicks, and Bans. A mute silences your participation in the channel, and usually lasts less than an hour. If you've been muted, the proper response is to calm down. There is no appeal for being muted. Just wait it out and relax. Kicks and Bans are, respectively, temporary and permanent. You can appeal both. Both of those deserve their own thread, so I won't get into detail here. Whether IC or OOC, all actions are subject to the same process of appeals (or lack thereof).
As most of you are aware, the moderation team of the Summit is perfectly willing to issue moderation on our own against users who we feel openly and obviously violate the rules or spirit of the channel. We often step in quickly for particularly egregious cases, but we tend to be much slower in doing so for the more mild cases. In many cases we may issue private warnings, or simply make a note of it for later and not do anything at all yet.
This sometimes leads to the perception of favoritism or selective moderation. Such perception is not entirely unfounded, but it sometimes ignores an important part of the reason for inconsistent moderation of mild disruptions/trolling: Lack of User Reports. We as moderators strongly rely on user reports to determine how disruptive behavior is. If somebody is being a jerkwad on the Summit IC and nobody reports it, we have no way to know if everybody is secretly upset about it. We tend to assume the not-accused troll is considered legit and avoid interfering.
Speaking as myself (Katrina), I can say that I avoid interfering in mild cases unless I get reports, because I'm wary of the common perception that the mod team is an oppressive Orwellian police force. In short, I try to be more libertarian with my moderation and only action when necessary. Other moderators might be far more willing to slap a mute or kick on someone for being a suspected troll.
If you want the mod team to notice and do something about a character/user or situation, FILE A REPORT. We can only act according to our own perception of the problem until reports start showing up and giving us certain reason to suspect foul (role)play.
It is important to note here that we may not always agree with a report. We may strongly disagree, and reports should not be assumed to guarantee moderation. On the other hand, it should not be considered a guarantee of immunity. Depending on what we see in the logs, we may issue moderation against more than just the reported person (up to and including the person who made the report).
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
In all cases though, we do not rely on the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of the law. If you feel such moderation is not being done to your satisfaction, we encourage you to step up your game in assisting us using reports.
Thank you.
-
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
Mh, if I understand it correctly, it's mostly the subject of mob rule and tyranny of echo chambers ?
That explains a lot...
-
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
Mh, if I understand it correctly, it's mostly the subject of mob rule and tyranny of echo chambers ?
That explains a lot...
In a cynical manner of speaking, yes, you could say that. We understand that this method may not appeal to everybody, and that's okay. We don't expect everybody to like our way of doing things, and we understand it's not the only way of doing things. It is our way of doing it though.
If you prefer a clearly and explicitly written set of rules like a ToS and EULA that are followed to the letter, there are alternative venues available which follow that format.
-
Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.
Can't have it both ways.
-
It is also worth noting that us enforcing rules that are laid out in the EVE TOS/EULA is one reason CCP went and created a pair of completely unmoderated shitheaps. Ironic, huh?
-
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
Mh, if I understand it correctly, it's mostly the subject of mob rule and tyranny of echo chambers ?
That explains a lot...
In a cynical manner of speaking, yes, you could say that. We understand that this method may not appeal to everybody, and that's okay. We don't expect everybody to like our way of doing things, and we understand it's not the only way of doing things. It is our way of doing it though.
If you prefer a clearly and explicitly written set of rules like a ToS and EULA that are followed to the letter, there are alternative venues available which follow that format.
Yes... Thank you for the explanation.
Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.
Can't have it both ways.
Honestly I don't even know what to answer to that...
-
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
Mh, if I understand it correctly, it's mostly the subject of mob rule and tyranny of echo chambers ?
That explains a lot...
FML... Do you guys have to turn this discussion into WestSide Story.
-
Even more important, why is this not in Moderation Discussion O-o
-
Moderation Discussion is for discussion of the moderation of this board, not the unrelated sister channel.
-
Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.
Can't have it both ways.
There was also a lot of attempts to rules lawyer everything I understand, which as a moderator, I can understand why would be obnoxious as hell.
-
Anslo: Because it's about ingame channels (which are what this subforum is for), not this forum.
While the policy is the same (if you see something, report it) in both places, it's a lot more important for people to report things ingame because unlike a forum where there are handy tools for seeing what you've missed, like the 'unread posts' and 'replies' links up top, ingame the chat moves as fast as the participants are talking. If it goes out of your chat buffer, you're boned unless you feel like trawling through logs.
So it's not particularly helpful for people to engage in he-said-she-said later on without providing logs. We're also somewhat reluctant to slap someone across the face with a brick for something they did a few days before when none of us saw it and nobody bothered to say anything about it until that person did something while we were watching and got told off for it. It's not exactly a statute of limitations, but it's a little more effective to tell someone "Hey, <name>, don't post racist shit, you ignorant fuckwad" (wording negotiable, dependent on the phase of the moon, alignment of the planets, and the blood alcohol content of the moderator in question) within a few hours of it happening than it is to do so a few days later completely out of the blue.
tl;dr of the above: Reporting things as they happen (or shortly afterwards) allows us to react in a timely fashion.
Regarding the always-brought-up mob rule/echo chamber BS, because at this point that's what it is:
1) I find it odd that the people who constantly complain about this never pick up their toys and leave. Seriously, if you hate this perception you have so much, leave, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Everyone reserves the right to point and laugh at you if you come back crying because the alternatives were worse than what you had, though, so keep that in mind.
2) Just because moderation decisions are usually based on community perception of what is acceptable and what is not in addition to an internal fuzzy rubric (I say fuzzy because it isn't set in stone and is more like a set of guidelines than actual concrete rules) of what constitutes in/appropriate behavior does not automatically equate to mob rule or echo chambers. Just like the moderation on Backstage, if we get reports that are pretty clearly not motivated by "there's someone who's actually breaking rules and/or being disruptive" and are more akin to "I don't like this person so I'm going to nitpick every little fucking thing s/he does until you ban them so I stop complaining" they aren't going to be acted on unless there's some actual rule breakage going on. And yes. This does happen. Don't be that guy.
Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.
Can't have it both ways.
There was also a lot of attempts to rules lawyer everything I understand, which as a moderator, I can understand why would be obnoxious as hell.
Yes, especially when it comes from people who like to pretend they are important internet spaceships lawyerpeople IRL.
-
Fuck you Morwen, I got my SJD from Harvard Law School's Jita Satellite Campus.
You'll be receiving a pixel slander court summons shortly.
But no really, thanks for the clarification! :)
-
Regarding the always-brought-up mob rule/echo chamber BS, because at this point that's what it is
Not entirely.
-
I has a funny log saved where someone threatened to report me for using (( )) in the summit for an internet link to a wiki article that is considered "in character and not meta logic. Poor CCP Logibro got to watch me screaming "THEN FUCKING REPORT ME." for a good thirty minutes to people who were not mods and kept quoting the MOTD "don't use double brackets" thingy.
Regardless of how they work I'd rtaher have living human mods who actively mod then a room full of people whisper or yelling they'll tell on me.
-
Gief logs pl0x
-
1) I find it odd that the people who constantly complain about this never pick up their toys and leave. Seriously, if you hate this perception you have so much, leave, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Everyone reserves the right to point and laugh at you if you come back crying because the alternatives were worse than what you had, though, so keep that in mind.
2) Just because moderation decisions are usually based on community perception of what is acceptable and what is not in addition to an internal fuzzy rubric (I say fuzzy because it isn't set in stone and is more like a set of guidelines than actual concrete rules) of what constitutes in/appropriate behavior does not automatically equate to mob rule or echo chambers. Just like the moderation on Backstage, if we get reports that are pretty clearly not motivated by "there's someone who's actually breaking rules and/or being disruptive" and are more akin to "I don't like this person so I'm going to nitpick every little fucking thing s/he does until you ban them so I stop complaining" they aren't going to be acted on unless there's some actual rule breakage going on. And yes. This does happen. Don't be that guy.
1) As I have already told countless times before, leaving the channel means cutting you off from almost everyone and everything. I still have other OOC channels with a handful of people here, but there are still enjoyable people I only see on OOC. As for the Summit, it's useful ICly.
2) So because alternatives are worse, it's okay to have poor standards ? Be happy with what you get ? And before telling me to create my own channel, please note that i'm just unable to do it, firstly because I suck at motivating people to come, and secondly because people rarely bother to change.
Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.
Can't have it both ways.
There was also a lot of attempts to rules lawyer everything I understand, which as a moderator, I can understand why would be obnoxious as hell.
Yes, especially when it comes from people who like to pretend they are important internet spaceships lawyerpeople IRL.
[/quote]
Rules are the solid basis for moderation. Without rules, it's a mess of whining and popularity contests.
Everything can be sorted out when taking proper time to do it, when without rules it's just based on subjectives biases. It's already open to interpretation over rules, so imagine when it's over a big void...
Everyone can bend it in any way one likes, and it eventually leads to butthurt and unsane situations. It works a lot better on backstage for this very reason, even if the medium is slightly different. You don't need thousand of articles in rules, it only participates to make it worse.
And what Arista said.
NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)
-
NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)
Good idea, as we're not going to change the way things are handled because you do not like it.
I has a funny log saved where someone threatened to report me for using (( )) in the summit for an internet link to a wiki article that is considered "in character and not meta logic. Poor CCP Logibro got to watch me screaming "THEN FUCKING REPORT ME." for a good thirty minutes to people who were not mods and kept quoting the MOTD "don't use double brackets" thingy.
Regardless of how they work I'd rtaher have living human mods who actively mod then a room full of people whisper or yelling they'll tell on me.
I'm confused, did that happen in the CCP channels or in ours? Your first paragraph suggests ours, but then you say you'd rather have living human mods. Unlike the CCP channels, we actually do have full TZ coverage of moderators most of the time.
Keep in mind that both channel sets rely on reporting for moderation, but only one channel relies on a codified set of rules to respond. Ours is more 'flexible', theirs is more 'predictable'.
-
NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)
Good idea, as we're not going to change the way things are handled because you do not like it.
Yes, that was stupid of me.
-
Yes, that was stupid of me.
*presses butan*
-
You know, sometimes you just have to take what you can get. If you don't like the way something is RPed and the person isn't listening to your suggestions, ignore them. If their RP is that intolerable, they'll find themselves with few listeners. If your standards are too narrow, you end up missing out on the fun. Either way, people get what they deserve. Nobody deserves other peoples' OOC blowups disrupting the flow of RP.
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say ?
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say ?
I'm just saying, in general, we can solve a lot of our problems ourselves before they become problems the mods have to deal with. Most of us can see a situation getting ugly before it gets there. The less rule-heavy structure here does mean we aren't always going to court with each other, and that's a good thing, but it depends quite a bit on our ability to be civil and understanding with each other. That isn't always possible, but if it becomes necessary to report someone to a mod, do it and be done with it.
I may not have been around for whatever provoked this (or I may have been; I tend to ignore stuff if it looks nasty just because I don't want to pour gas on a fire), but just my friendly two-cents to not carry on anything that you've reported someone for and to use your best judgement to avoid as much OOC trouble as you can before it happens.
-
theirs is more 'predictable'.
Are you suggesting that CCP's implementation of its own rules is predictable?
-
theirs is more 'predictable'.
Are you suggesting that CCP's implementation of its own rules is predictable?
If you notice, I edited my post. I originally typed reliable. Clearly I did not nerf my post enough. :lol:
-
I believe the word you were looking for was either "retarded" or "inconsistent".
-
"The Summit: Deal with our flexible but predictable moderation, or roll the dice with CCP"
-
Summit Mods = Cats
Ping Pongs = derp
(http://i.imgur.com/MPLRdMG.gif)
-
Kat post modding/booting out derp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5ITkFuo00&noredirect=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5ITkFuo00&noredirect=1)
-
It happened in the player channels. I PREFER said moderation because it HAPPENS.
CCP doesn't moderate channels. Some shmuck gets their account subbed for free to be able to do it for a few hours a day and they're just as hateful as anyone else - and they get "paid" for it.
So yeh, no.
I'd prefer to be in a "private" situation, especially since there could always arise a situation where someoneone could in a rage or whatever say something that could get them SERIOUSLY BANNED FROM LIKE ALL OF EVE, but instead with the protection if them being private channels they just get their asses kicked out instead of an account ban.
And for your personal entertainment, Ari blowing a gasket here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vlr4_sqGh26hE3DHH_cH9OC-w7mud5TxtR-Zplg_rsU/edit
I kept it because I was, well, expecting to get reported ;)
-
I'd prefer to be in a "private" situation, especially since there could always arise a situation where someoneone could in a rage or whatever say something that could get them SERIOUSLY BANNED FROM LIKE ALL OF EVE, but instead with the protection if them being private channels they just get their asses kicked out instead of an account ban.
Except apparently - and unfortunately, in some ways - this policy is no longer as it once was, where the player channels were sacrosanct and any and all moderation/behavioral issues were to be dealt with by the players who ran them.
You can now be petitioned - successfully - for saying things in these channels that violate the TOS/EULA. Which is why the bullshit behind the new channels is so ridiculous, because it boils down to being slapped in the face for doing what GMs would have told people to do at the time.
To be fair, this hasn't exactly changed any policies on our end - we will still get on someone's ass over racism, sexism, etc. just as we would before - but there's now the added incentive towards good behavior that someone might decide to bypass the channel moderators entirely and just petition you.
-
(http://www.pakkotoisto.com/attachments/yleinen-keskustelu/78687d1333031990-hehaen-ovat-kuin-kaksi-marjaa-tonni-seteli-kummeli-silvennoinen-1v5jzv.jpg)
-
Wow that guys isn't even a mod and he's talking so much shit? :|
-
Addendum, now that I've scanned through that log: Arista, you really should've reported that to us. I would've been at work at the time, but I would've seen the mail and would have been able to check if anyone was available to handle it.
A lot of people need to remember that not everyone in the Summit uses OOC and vice versa - it really isn't reasonable to tear into people over something so minor as linking something you're referring to, especially if it's a link being referenced IC and you just can't fit it into the already ridiculously short message limit.
The "no brackets" rule is intended to tell people if they want to have OOC discussions that they need to go to OOC channels or private convos. It is not a "use brackets once to clarify or fix typos, get banhammered for being a massive immersion-breaking fucktard" rule.
The people giving you shit in that log would've been told in no uncertain terms to either calm their tits or eat a dick.
-
Well, officially, a CCP employee was there ;)
As for the petition thing - you justappeal it, and the GMs reverse it. Happened when someoen in our corp tried to report people in corp for 'foul language' or something being used in corp chat. The players (one of which was my husband) appealed the warning, and it was revoked.
-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vlr4_sqGh26hE3DHH_cH9OC-w7mud5TxtR-Zplg_rsU/edit
Put a group of macaques in a roomy cage, with a large central pillar. Rig it up so that if one of them climbs it all the way to the top, sprinklers shower the entire cage with cold water. Pretty soon, the macaques learn to stay the hell away from the pillar, sure. What's more, when new macaques are introduced to the group, the old guard will slap them if they so much as look at the pillar with intent. What's intriguing is that after a while, the new macaques will join in the beat-downs, and that when you cycle out the old guard, after a while you may end up with a group of macaques who zealously keep up the behaviour while not knowing the first thing about where and why it originated..
-
Should just be fairly obvious by now that my beliefs are this - if there are rules and systems to handle rulebreaking, follow them, don't run your mouth. Just do it. Period. Don't try and play good cop and act like you're helping someone out cause ooh they're breaking them and some magical person will get you in trouble. Hate that shit. Just makes people look like they're trying to be self important. Someone does something wrong report it and keep your hole shut about it.
-
We normally ask people to use their common sense for shit like this. If this is unreasonable of us, it would be nice to know.
If someone's using brackets in the Summit for reasons that aren't normally considered appropriate (correcting typos, linking things that don't fit in chat messages, like reference images or such, etc.) and isn't in OOC, the response from other players should be to politely let them know of the channel, and then offer an invite so they can use it. If they insist on continuing to do so and it is becoming disruptive, that is when a report should be sent to one or more moderators.
Generally, we're more concerned with people just being flat-out OOC in the Summit without brackets.
Folks also need to keep in mind that just because someone is in both channels it doesn't mean that they're watching both at the same time or even actively - Summit and OOC are in two different stacks for me but they each share their stack with at least 10 or 11 other channels, for example - sometimes it is far easier, and simpler, and more convenient for everyone involved for someone to toss a link in brackets in the Summit rather than expecting everyone involved in a discussion to check OOC or another channel. A lot of us have our characters effectively sitting in front of a camera drone while chatting, for example. Sometimes a quick image link can be helpful to clarify an object someone is holding, or a piece of jewelry that's in easy view, or just something in the background. In this kind of situation, it's more polite to toss a quick link into the IC channel than it is to expect people to think to look into another channel. If you don't care about the link or just want to use your own imagination, go right ahead. Just don't flip your shit over it - it isn't hurting anyone.
-
I was prolly having a bit of a pain day, thats usually went I go batshit about people getting on my case about stuff.
-
For what it's worth, I despise moderating. Period. I dont like even thinking about it. At times when the retardery in the channel grows beyond normal, tolerable bounds (and my limit is WAY above Morwen's) I ask someone to stop.
When a mod asks you to stop, STOP. Do not cry about it in channel, do not escalate it with whiny bitchfesting. If you want to bitch in private to me, have at it. Sometimes, I AM wrong. Sometimes, I respond poorly, because I don't know what to do. The overwhelming majority of the time, I do nothing at all; most minor derp I just shrug and let slide. If it bothers me enough that I am asking you to stop, STOP.
Believe me, when I am out of bounds (Yep, it happens) I get yelled at for it. I get told to stop. Sometimes I whine about it, but yep, it happens. I am told to stop, and I stop. Favoritism? My alt was muted last week for something I thought was relatively minor, and I didnt receive a warning beforehand. I bitched some. The mod who did it was right. That discussion, between me and moderation, occured in private, where MOST WARNINGS OCCUR.
If you dont like moderation, dont do things that cause moderation? Fuck. It isnt hard. If you dont like the channel, stop using it. If someone else is doing something you dont like, and we dont do anything, it likely isnt favoritism. It means we likely did not notice. I do online tutoring for my students. Sometimes, I am alt-tabbed out doing that. Sometimes, I am tying flies for customers. I am alt tabbed or not watching screen. Unless you report someone else's bullshit, you cannot cry about it if we do not intervene. We may just not know about it.
If it bothers you, PLEASE. Tell me. Whatever it is. I've quite publically taken the side of the player in question many times, against other mods. This isnt us vs you. This is us trying to do the best to keep a channel you all seem to enjoy using enjoyable and usable.
If you have suggestions, we're all ears.
Bitching isnt offering suggestions. It's just bitching.
Threw this up here because, after yesterday, it seemed like a good add.
-
I have to admit to an on again off again relationship with the Summit. It took almost two years and some gentle nudging by an unnamed friend to visit again after my childish rage-quit. Yes in life as in game pride is my primary vice. But over time I have learned to respect how very difficult it must be to keep order in a channel where so many motivations and interests come to bare. Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes your wronged. The Summit is to my knowledge the largest IC player owned channel in game and its still open and thriving That at least should be acknowledged and the work behind it appreciated.
-
I have to admit to an on again off again relationship with the Summit. It took almost two years and some gentle nudging by an unnamed friend to visit again after my childish rage-quit. Yes in life as in game pride is my primary vice. But over time I have learned to respect how very difficult it must be to keep order in a channel where so many motivations and interests come to bare. Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes your wronged. The Summit is to my knowledge the largest IC player owned channel in game and its still open and thriving That at least should be acknowledged and the work behind it appreciated.
If anybody ever wounds your pride, just give ol' Kat a call, and she'll fluff it back to full tumescence!
-
If you want the mod team to notice and do something about a character/user or situation, FILE A REPORT. We can only act according to our own perception of the problem until reports start showing up and giving us certain reason to suspect foul (role)play.
It is important to note here that we may not always agree with a report. We may strongly disagree, and reports should not be assumed to guarantee moderation. On the other hand, it should not be considered a guarantee of immunity. Depending on what we see in the logs, we may issue moderation against more than just the reported person (up to and including the person who made the report).
I want to raise a few issues, Kat (not that I disagree with what you're saying, of course :) ).
You mentioned that there's a perception of the Summit mods being an 'Orwellian police force'. In many cases, this is more than just a 'perception'.
I have filed reports -- several of them, and two or three of that includes a particular mod. In each case, the result was the same:
'The mods discussed it, they decided that [particular person] acted properly, so we won't do anything about your complaint'.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's rather like the police investigating themselves for corruption.
I've spoken, at length, on this topic (hell, I've even gone to Graelyn himself with my complaints). The tone of the response has been 'the logs show nothing', or 'I don't believe you'.
If you want to dispell the stigma of Orwellianism that hangs over the Summit, I have a laundry list of ways to do that:
First, establish a clear and unambiguous standard of rule enforcement. As it stands, a rule violation that particular mod 'lets slide' on Monday becomes the next mod's bannable violation on Tuesday, and then the mod that's there on Thursday is letting it slide again. Yes, this does mean setting publically-visible rules again. At least that way, we'd know that a mod wasn't just making stuff up to abuse their authority.
That last part ties in strongly with my next point:
Take complaints against moderators seriously. Do a proper check-in and investigate the allegations properly. Graelyn, this is (in part) directed at you: we are not typing complaints just so we can give our fingers a workout.
Third, and most important: regardless of EVE being a game, and mods being volunteers, the mods are in a forward-facing position and professionalism is important. I've had long discussions with my EVE-playing friends, and most of them flatly refuse to use the player-run Summit because it's such a toxic and unstable environment.
And yes, a good many of them are upset about the behavior of a particular mod, but I won't get into that here.
It's been said, on occasion, that the Summit is 'not a democracy', and I'm inclined to agree: instead of a democracy, it's become akin to a dictatorship, and I have no interest in participating in a dictatorship.
(DISCLAIMER: I have no personal problems with any of the Summit mods. I do not intend, in any way, to accuse any particular person of being 'a dictator' or engaging in any kind of inappropriate or unprofessional conduct. The opinions herein are entirely my own, and do not necessarily represent those of the greater EVE playerbase or any specific person, corporation or entity).
-
Disregarding any of the other stuff: Clear and explicit rules were removed by popular request among both mods and users, as both felt they lead to both ridiculous levels of ruleslaywering and a perceived oppressive environment on their own, where people were met by a large and confusing list of "DO NOT ______" which grew ever longer in response to people trying to circumvent the existing rules.
To be more clear on this: When there were fixed rules, we got a stead flow of mails from people saying explicitly "I don't think this is the best method of doing this, for reason X". Mod team agreed, went back to a flexible judgement system. Since then, we've not had nearly the same rate of mails on this. If there is a serious widespread desire to see this changed, then speak up.
-
To be more clear on this: When there were fixed rules, we got a stead flow of mails from people saying explicitly "I don't think this is the best method of doing this, for reason X". Mod team agreed, went back to a flexible judgement system. Since then, we've not had nearly the same rate of mails on this. If there is a serious widespread desire to see this changed, then speak up.
I get that, honestly, and I'm not suggesting a huge long list of 'THOU SHALT NOTS'.
I'm simply saying that there's a perception (however incorrect it may be) among some of your patrons that the rules are enforced arbitrarily, depending on how a given mod feels about a particular person.
Now, I stress the point: that's only a perception, but it makes the mods as a whole look bad: why should anyone be expected to follow the rules if the mods don't even enforce them consistently?
Having a codified list of rules protects everyone involved: the patrons (who know, without equivocation, what rules they've broken and that they're being enforced fairly) and the mods (because they're much less likely to power-trip if they can't do it without getting caught).
What I'm saying is that having some rules that not everyone agrees with is much better than a 'flexible judgement system' that doesn't define any boundaries beyond the individual mod's opinion.
As for the rules-lawyering:with all due respect, if someone is 'gaming the system' by quibbbling over semantics...well, I have to question the wisdom of appointing someone who's so easily pushed around by those he's supposed to be governing.
-
We weren't. We just stopped people from doing that by making the only firm rule be "Don't be an ass"
-
What I'm saying is that having some rules that not everyone agrees with is much better than a 'flexible judgement system' that doesn't define any boundaries beyond the individual mod's opinion.
It wasn't about having issues with some rules; it's a foregone conclusion that no rule will ever be universally popular and individual rules can always be addressed if a feeling that they are problematic is widespread.
It was about people edging around the very letter of the rules, leading to huge headaches for us. For instance: in response people trolling around emoting all the terrible things they did to their slaves we put up a role against abusing people on camera. They insisted it wasn't abuse, so we just changed it to 'no slaves on camera. In response started emoting all the terrible things they did to their slaves... just off camera. The question of how we were supposed to know what was going on off camera aside, the issue remained that they were actively trying to circumvent the spirit of the law by toeing around the exact letter. Similarly, a rule against nudity because people popping on while naked inevitably derailed the channel lead to a spate of people popping on while naked... but in the bath and under soap bubbles, which derailed things just as badly. We eventually had to politely ask people to stop showing up in the tub, please.
Which brings us to...
As for the rules-lawyering:with all due respect, if someone is 'gaming the system' by quibbbling over semantics...well, I have to question the wisdom of appointing someone who's so easily pushed around by those he's supposed to be governing.
As shown in the above situation, being "pushed around" had nothing to do with it. Rather, it was people circumventing the existing rules leading to us having to establish new ones, which they would circumvent, ad infinitum.
When we just got fed up and "pushed back" against the people who did this sort of thing as you suggest above, there was just lots of rabble that we were unfairly applying rules and/or singling out individuals that we didn't like. Catch-22 ahoy.