Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Havohej on 08 Dec 2014, 11:33
-
Ideas and suggestions for how the IC board should be arranged, and how it should be run/moderated.
Go.
-
Total Anarchy
Because people will bitch about anything you do so you might as well do nothing.
-
If the idea is to have a place with looser moderation than currently found in some places, then I suggest you have a two-tier'ed system.
You need an area of the forum where some poo flinging is allowed, and another place for the large segment of the community that tends to run to the hills when they encounter that sort of thing.
-
The lines are a little too blurred for me having IC forum nested in an OOC forum, or is that just me?
IGS not doing it for you all lately?
-
Russian doll forum, have a forum in a forum in a forum in a forum
-
.
-
The reasons for why there's going to be an IC forum have been pretty well covered in this thread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=254.0). Please, let's focus this on how it's going to be done now that it's definitely going to be a thing.
-
I don't really support this in general, but if I had to offer suggestions...
One general forum, and a forum for each sovereign faction. If this is run as an IC thing then I would suggest an 'Independent' forum for the pirate factions rather than supported forums for each pirate faction (A Sansha's Nation or Blood Raider forum would just be silly).
Also, a Craigslist forum (for IC trades, recruitment, etc).
-
The lines are a little too blurred for me having IC forum nested in an OOC forum, or is that just me?
IGS not doing it for you all lately?
The plan, at this point, is to temporarily host a small trial-run within Backstage itself as a subforum with a handful of sections. If it goes well, we'll probably set up a subdomain with a wider variety of sections for people to use.
As for the IGS, yeah. Go read the other thread - if you have to ask that question, you evidently haven't read it.
-
The lines are a little too blurred for me having IC forum nested in an OOC forum, or is that just me?
IGS not doing it for you all lately?
The plan, at this point, is to temporarily host a small trial-run within Backstage itself as a subforum with a handful of sections. If it goes well, we'll probably set up a subdomain with a wider variety of sections for people to use.
As for the IGS, yeah. Go read the other thread - if you have to ask that question, you evidently haven't read it.
word!
I'd suggest just run it as a parallel IGS format.
Breaking by faction might sub-divide too much?
Maybe IC wise this is the 'capsuleer only' private secure comms? Not public like IGS?
-
I don't really support this in general, but if I had to offer suggestions...
One general forum, and a forum for each sovereign faction. If this is run as an IC thing then I would suggest an 'Independent' forum for the pirate factions rather than supported forums for each pirate faction (A Sansha's Nation or Blood Raider forum would just be silly).
Also, a Craigslist forum (for IC trades, recruitment, etc).
As a representative of Serpentis i would like put forth our demand for our own forum. We do not wish to mingle with vampires, calculators or simple minded brutes. We deem a joint Serpentis and Cartel forum acceptable.
-
I don't really support this in general, but if I had to offer suggestions...
One general forum, and a forum for each sovereign faction. If this is run as an IC thing then I would suggest an 'Independent' forum for the pirate factions rather than supported forums for each pirate faction (A Sansha's Nation or Blood Raider forum would just be silly).
Also, a Craigslist forum (for IC trades, recruitment, etc).
As a representative of Serpentis i would like put forth our demand for our own forum. We do not wish to mingle with vampires, calculators or simple minded brutes. We deem a joint Serpentis and Cartel forum acceptable.
((We're not posting ICly yet, m8. o7))
:P
-
Especially for a trial run (but also in general) I am against subdividing into each individual faction as it would simply spread the posting far too thin. Remember, if we split it into each pirate and empire faction, we end up with a staggering nine subforums... plus freelancers and unaffiliated. That's a lot to split a handful of posters out into. Perhaps instead some sort of thread tagging system would be helpful?
-
some sort of thread tagging system would be helpful?
I like it. And it shouldn't be difficult.
-
need a good set of rules, regarding god-moding of ingame locations and NPCs.
it wouldn't be constructive to have this IC forum as some kind of parallel universe.
e.g. just because everyone that uses this IC forum agrees that Planet X has Y cities on it with Z population, does not make it so.
Especially if someone on the IGS posts to the contrary.
-
Stll phoneposting so got to keep this short and sweet.
1. Same ruleset as IGS except actally enforced.
2. We do not need one general and four empire forums. One general and one "regulated" where faction tagging ( "Republuc", "sansha" "pirate/outlaw", "lawful", or whatever suitably descriptive nomenclature fits the bill ) is allowed. One of the problems with the igs right now is that it is remarkably easy to derail while staying on topic and within the ruleset. This is at times a good thing, other times it stifles discussion and roleplay. To offset the "exclusivity", allow or even require a "general" copy of tagged posts for everyone to be able to weigh in, without disrupting the tagged one. This could also be achieved in one forum as well, but it would be far messier.
3. Moderators need to use "neutral" nameless moderation accounts. OOC we will of course know who is on the team, but IC it needs to be a faceless, neutral entity to avoid the obvious ic biases.
4. While not strictly necessary in a first trial here on backstage, any official startup needs to be tabula rasa. No. Pre. Bans. Everyone gets a chance to prove themselves worthy of access.
5. On that note, I am actually against this being trialed here. It is setting it up for failure. While there is an existing userbase, it starts things iut exclyding everyone that has already been removed or given up on backstage altogether. It is also hard to advertise as it is an ooc forum to bwgin with and not exactly easy to push ic. A separate forum on the same domain would be better, and could right off the bat be aypplemented with a trade forum, newsroom section etc.
6. Can not think of a good name right now, but we should have an ic launch and purpose. "For cspsuleers, by capsuleers. Capsuleers only." Bla bla bla. You get my drift.
7. No seriously, capsuleers only.
8. Can we have a "No video feeds" rule please? It is almist never well done.
I said short and then it got away from me. Hand hurts. Fuck phone typing. Anyway, this will do to start with.
-
Jesus christ that is a lot of typoes. I blame the phone and Norwegian autocorrect.
-
A separate site might work.
I'd say same general ruleset as IGS.
Previously banned IGS or OOC shitposters I don't see a need to re-introduce?
With new forum chance for semi-anonymous mod cabaal? Or is moderation IC?
-
3. Moderators need to use "neutral" nameless moderation accounts. OOC we will of course know who is on the team, but IC it needs to be a faceless, neutral entity to avoid the obvious ic biases.
...
8. Can we have a "No video feeds" rule please? It is almist never well done.
Yes yes yes yes. These.
-
I'm inclined toward completely anonymous moderation. Moderators presenting as Identity-less automatons, effectively. I'm even in favor of the userbase in general not knowing who all of the moderators are. The same way we're not allowed to know Devs' mains' names. Moderator X10 = ? Could be Silver, Morwen, Havo, Jek, Ghost, or anybody. Of course, they may or may not post their moderation IC - as forum drones, AI programs existing inside the
matr forum itself.
While there are plenty of posters I'd just as soon not have to be bothered with, I think the only way this thing will avoid at least some of the preemptive cries of bias and unfairness and other such canned goodness is to have the doors open to all and let the bad eggs weed themselves out all over again, this time in-character.
Despite the flaws inherent, and yes, I do recognize them, I think it's best to do the trial run here, rather than go to the effort and trouble of putting up the new board, finding a suitable theme, overhauling that theme's CSS, adding elements that do not previously exist (such as faction tags for threads, which also means shooping). This way, if it's just a terrible idea at its core, we'll find out here in and avoid a lot of extra rigamarole later.
I hadn't read into the faction tagging idea an exclusivity - in the sense of "Amarr tagged, only Amarr characters may post." I took the suggestion to mean more in the sense of tagging a thread as related to that faction. So if someone has no interest in Caldariboos, then they don't have to bother clicking on the thread at all. If the exclusivity of topics within faction is desired, I think that would be better handled by Factional subforums with assigned usergroups. Graelyn, for instance, would be assigned the Amarr Bloc usergroup, while DeT Resprox would be assigned the Minmatar Bloc usergroup, and so forth.
I'm still partial to centerstage.eve-inspiracy.com.
Or spotlight.
I like video feeds. Nothing like watching some poor schmuck get their head blown off, amirite?
-
I don't see the issue with video feeds. If a rules violation occurs, they can be addressed in the same way any other post would.
And yeah, the thread-tagging idea wasn't so much exclusivity as in "only Amarr people can post here" - a quick glance back at my post would show how bad I feel that idea is - but more a method to say "this thread is generally meant to be about Amarr-related stuff, and derails will be handled accordingly."
-
Yes to optional videos and speech feeds.
Text is so antiquated, yes? :P
-
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator. :|
-
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator. :|
Implying that the staff wouldn't know exactly who each other are.
Are you kidding me? Really? That's a concern for you?
m8
meight
Stahp it.
-
The moderation corp needs to be known ooc, to keep a certain measure of trust. The ic snonymity is for ic reasons, to give some ic trust to the forum. Examples of the trouble you get into with ic modswould be the summit and sansha mods, as an example.
Ooc though, it is rather important to maintain transparency so the community can know uf these are people who can be trusted. I am damned certain I am not participating in a place like this if I do not know who is wielding the banhammer.
As for names, let us not go for stage puns. This needs to make sense ic.
Empyrean Conclave or something else aignifying capsuleer exclusivity and hubris would be nice.
-
I like stage puns. I also like continuity and cohesion. And we already have one stage pun, so... :)
As for whether the mods are or aren't all known to the userbase and how that effects peoples' decision to use the boards or not... vOv. We're certainly not going to be able to satisfy every preliminary ultimatum delivered by every interested member, so let's just see how it all pans out.
-
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
Anonymous moderation accounts on the forums themselves for posting the "you're bad for shitposting and breaking the rules and should feel bad" posts and locking threads and other crap, rather than people using their regular names and becoming targets of abuse and harassment for doing their volunteer jobs. Not anonymous moderators. There is no reason for you to ever need to know who's behind the keyboard of Moderation Account #23357, just as there is no reason for a moderator to have to feel like they have to pussyfoot around or that they can't post at all on an in-character forum just because of oversensitive twats who will insist on screaming foul at the slightest perceived hint of a tone that isn't "omg you're my best friend EVER."
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
What exactly does this have to do with an in-character roleplaying forum? How is separating moderation accounts from user accounts dramatic? Stop trying to summon crises where there are none, Lyn, it's old.
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator. :|
Just sounds like you being yourself and assuming the worst-case scenario and then claiming it to be fact.
-
I guess I'll be devil's advocate here.
3 sections.
Section 1) the 'Nice' section. In this section, you're not allowed to derail or post flamebait, very strict rules, topic starters are allowed to say 'this topic is about X, don't bring up Y' so say an Amarrian starts a thread about church ceremonies, a minmatar can't derail it with 'rawr slavers'
Section 2) The 'civil' section. This section is designed to encourage active debate about something. Disagreements and arguments are allowed, even encouraged, but they must be civil and polite.
Section 3) Shitposting. "The cluster would be a much better place if all Amarrians were set on fire" very minimal moderation.
Moderation in my opinion should not be anonymous, and should be handled the same way that moderation of the IC summit is handled. If its in character, then we as the players aren't doing the moderating, our characters are and that should be reflected in how things are handled. I agree with Lyn believe it or not, anonymous moderation leads to bad times for everyone. Better to have everyone's faces visible from the outset.
Now lets go up a level. We imagine that the system I have described above exists within the larger framework of backstage, because we actually would have two tiers of moderators. We have first, your IC moderators, characters moderating from within the universe. Above that layer, we have the opportunity to institute something akin to GMs who will manage things in an OOC sense, and make sure things like dead characters posting doesn't happen. In order to gain access to the IC sections, each person would need to be approved by a GM, this is exactly the framework used on a lot of roleplay forums and roleplay chats that I have participated in before, and in my opinion its a rather good and robust system. It should not be responsive, that is, let anyone in who wants in, then deal with them if they break the rules, because it forces the mods to sit back and let people they know are going to cause problems cause problems, and I doubt that will put us on a very good footing. By having to actually get your access approved at some level, the content can be controlled in a much better manner.
-
Stage puns make sense ooc. Ic it would be a big fucking wut. Let us not make this a big joke right out of the gate, yeah?
And I have to say again, it is not about ultimatums. It is about trust. Any moderator base needs to be accountable. If they are not, they fast go from helpful site staff to tyrranical overlords, in the eyes of users.
Of course, ic they have to be anonymous and heavily implied to have nothing to do with the factions, people or posters on the site. Bots ysing advanced heuristics to determine miderateable content, or a firm hired to deliver a perfectly neutral enforcement of rules, or it will be an immediate shitstorm when the empire loyalist mods a minnie or the minnie loyalist fsils to moderate their own.
It just can not be ic positions for player characters if even the veneer of neutrality is to be preserved.
No one needs to know who exactly pulls the trigger on a mod action, but the team behind it needs to be known.
-
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator. :|
Implying that the staff wouldn't know exactly who each other are.
Are you kidding me? Really? That's a concern for you?
m8
meight
Stahp it.
I suppose that might be a concern for some people. I'm not new on these forums. vOv
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
Anonymous moderation accounts on the forums themselves for posting the "you're bad for shitposting and breaking the rules and should feel bad" posts and locking threads and other crap, rather than people using their regular names and becoming targets of abuse and harassment for doing their volunteer jobs. Not anonymous moderators. There is no reason for you to ever need to know who's behind the keyboard of Moderation Account #23357, just as there is no reason for a moderator to have to feel like they have to pussyfoot around or that they can't post at all on an in-character forum just because of oversensitive twats who will insist on screaming foul at the slightest perceived hint of a tone that isn't "omg you're my best friend EVER."
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
What exactly does this have to do with an in-character roleplaying forum? How is separating moderation accounts from user accounts dramatic? Stop trying to summon crises where there are none, Lyn, it's old.
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator. :|
Just sounds like you being yourself and assuming the worst-case scenario and then claiming it to be fact.
Refer to Miz' post right after mine. Either i'm not very diplomatic (don't give two shits), or either you are just applying double standards on how you answer to the person rather than the actual content, as usual.
Edit : and Saede's post too.
Nah, just trying to see drama where there is none, right. :roll:
-
It just can not be ic positions for player characters if even the veneer of neutrality is to be preserved.
No one needs to know who exactly pulls the trigger on a mod action, but the team behind it needs to be known.
Fair enough.
I don't think Spotlight would be too 'wat' though. =/
-
Spotlight would not be too wut, but neither does it really make much sense ic I think. Safer to forgo the stage puns or it runs the risk of being "a silly thing" rather than a separate ic forum.
I imagine it would also help with the ic/ooc separation to be free of too obvious connections.
-
Let's try it from scratch shall we.
@ Havo : believe it or not, i'm actually concerned (a little) since i'm watching this with interest, and have been since day one it has been discussed. Not just because I find the initiative intriguing (and very risky), but also because who knows, it could bring something unexpected out of the equation. If some players remain on these boards it's not only as a mean of communication with old friends, but also out of interest in the game, that could be interesting as a way back into the game.
@ Morwen : Actually I do think there is always a reason to know who is behind every account, as it prevents abuse of authority and provides a level of sous-veillance to balance out surveillance. It is also a very delicate point as you all probably know since we are dealing with internet RP communities and not governmental democracy, that's definitely true. I'm myself not very fond of democratic boards and enjoy swift and unbiased authority a little too much for my own good. This is a community as any inside the general Eve community as a whole, and this community is supposed to be shared by people who share common values, which is RP.
Well apparently, as I have seen in EVERY RP community I have been in, every RPer doesn't tend to get along with his brethren very well, and cliques emerge. Cliques are either dealt with by splitting communities between cliques that will stop communicating between them, or by a community that share compromise and is actually talking (ah and it's also solved by eradicating the enemy clique in minority too, that works). For instance on these forums, cliques have never been so present in the past months and probably a lot of people do not really dare to speak up to share their mind, either out of fear to be ostracized, or else, since they know that no matter what they do, the people in power plug their ears or just answer very dismissively.
Well with that said, I do believe that accounting is required for any sane moderation job, even with the added charges and the potential abuse from members. I don't think those abuses are very hard to tell either, and when they are, maybe that's because their concerns might be valid. The main issue with most moderation teams is most of the time that they can't get past what plagues most people on the internet as a whole (heh, me being the first) which is a clear refusal to admit one's wrongs. Anyhow, that's supposed to be part of the moderation job, me thinks, and being a volunteer should actually not mean taking the mod role for granted, but knowing that's going to be a burden and actually imply being devoted to the community and not to cliques.
Well you may disagree of course, but I also do not trust humans to be right and just when handled a position of power, and that position of power should always be held in check.
-
Stage puns make sense ooc. Ic it would be a big fucking wut. Let us not make this a big joke right out of the gate, yeah?
Awh....just one more, just because the most obvious one has not been mentioned yet:...
[spoiler]Upstage[/spoiler]
:lol:
Amiright?orAmiright!? :P
-
Could there be an in-game event for the creation of the new ic forum? Then whatever it ends up being called would have ic signifigance.
-
I don't really support this in general, but if I had to offer suggestions...
One general forum, and a forum for each sovereign faction. If this is run as an IC thing then I would suggest an 'Independent' forum for the pirate factions rather than supported forums for each pirate faction (A Sansha's Nation or Blood Raider forum would just be silly).
Also, a Craigslist forum (for IC trades, recruitment, etc).
As a representative of Serpentis i would like put forth our demand for our own forum. We do not wish to mingle with vampires, calculators or simple minded brutes. We deem a joint Serpentis and Cartel forum acceptable.
What, you don't want to mingle with the glitterbugs (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3655.0)? Think of all the free illumination and disco balls you could string up!
-
I don't care who the mods 'really' are, and none of us should; we shouldn't need to do much interacting with them.
As with any internet forum or mmo or RP whatever, 98% of problems by 2% of people.
A swift kick in the ass to dramallamas and everyone else goes on interacting smoothly with no need for much moderation at all.
Getting a shitpost deleted isn't the end of the world, and people who get posts cleansed should chill out, tack, and come from another direction in the future.
-
Just going through and addressing ideas so far:
From various people:
I think that subforums for various factions - while an idea that could be revisited later depending on how many participants we get - would probably be spreading things a bit thin at the very start
need a good set of rules, regarding god-moding of ingame locations and NPCs.
it wouldn't be constructive to have this IC forum as some kind of parallel universe.
e.g. just because everyone that uses this IC forum agrees that Planet X has Y cities on it with Z population, does not make it so.
Especially if someone on the IGS posts to the contrary.
I don't think it is practical or a good use of moderator time to police things people decide to make up. We will probably handle that the same way we do here: if people think it's silly they will ignore it. Of course, IC it can also turn into a flame fest if people decide their made-up stuff is in conflict with other people's made up stuff. There is also the danger of the escalating hand-waved arms-race ("Oh, you killed some Caldari?! Well I blew up a Gallente kindergarten!" "Well I released nerve gas in a Caldari city!") but we can decide to stamp on that if it gets to be a real problem, otherwise see the second sentence of this paragraph.
Stll phoneposting so got to keep this short and sweet.
1. Same ruleset as IGS except actally enforced.
(IGS ruleset is here for reference (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6321&find=unread)) - Overall I don't find much wrong with that set of rules, though we might add a couple. I would say that a bit of non-PG language is probably fine too, though I don't have any interest in having to wade through the latest in people thinking they can make their characters edgy by posting poorly written but graphic junk. I also think we might look at allowing limited OOC content - exclusively in spoilers - because for some people it is easier to clarify their intentions with a little OOC bit at the end or something and I'm not opposed to that.
3. Moderators need to use "neutral" nameless moderation accounts. OOC we will of course know who is on the team, but IC it needs to be a faceless, neutral entity to avoid the obvious ic biases.
I don't think this is a bad idea. (Known mod list, but no indication of who specifically modded what post) As others have said, the overall mod team should be known but I don't think we should have it be as linked as we have it here. I would think we would overall have lighter moderation but with correspondingly less transparency. Hopefully the greater bar you have to meet to get modded will mean fewer posts that are modded seem ambiguous (at least, to anyone other than the one who posted them.) I don't really see us having a 'mod discussion' section for the IC forum - though we would probably still have some kind of mod-only report forum. I'm not really sure about any kind of appeals process, could use thoughts on that.
While not strictly necessary in a first trial here on backstage, any official startup needs to be tabula rasa. No. Pre. Bans. Everyone gets a chance to prove themselves worthy of access.
From the limited discussion among staff we've already had, this seems to be the general feeling. This would not be the case for the initial trial run, but if that works out and we go to a separate sub-domain it would have a blank slate (the only possible exception I can think of may be anyone who manages to get themselves banned on the trial run forum section - which should require an actual intent to get banned, and doesn't seem super likely).
On that note, I am actually against this being trialed here. It is setting it up for failure. While there is an existing userbase, it starts things iut exclyding everyone that has already been removed or given up on backstage altogether. It is also hard to advertise as it is an ooc forum to bwgin with and not exactly easy to push ic. A separate forum on the same domain would be better, and could right off the bat be aypplemented with a trade forum, newsroom section etc.
As I think Havo mentioned, there are only a handful of people who are actually banned. There are a number of people who have 'given up' but they are free to join the trial, and if they do not, then I don't see that they would be any more or less likely to join an eventual separate forum for us having run the trial before starting it? The idea here is to see if enough people would even use it to justify someone (Havo, probably) spending their free time setting up another forum.
6. Can not think of a good name right now, but we should have an ic launch and purpose. "For cspsuleers, by capsuleers. Capsuleers only." Bla bla bla. You get my drift.
7. No seriously, capsuleers only.
8. Can we have a "No video feeds" rule please? It is almist never well done.
I'm not totally opposed to having it capsuleers-only myself. I think it would be worth seeing how other people feel though. As far as video feeds, some of my better posts when I used to actually use the IGS were videos (personal favorite is still the Happy Chip commercials), so I would disagree there, though if you see my response above about people posting stuff to be extra dark and edgy, it would apply to 'videos' too.
...tagging a thread as related to that faction. So if someone has no interest in Caldariboos, then they don't have to bother clicking on the thread at all.
Highly support the faction tags idea.
I'm still partial to centerstage.eve-inspiracy.com.
While I was initially on board with something like this, I think I'm now leaning more toward something more 'IC' for the forum name. I'm not much good at names, though. However, as I'll start foaming at the mouth if the word 'Empyrean' is used, and I pay for the hosting, it isn't going to be anything with 'Empyrean' in it. :P
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator.
I'm actually going to support not only mod semi-anonymity , but a lack of a 'mod discussion' type section as it would be a distraction from the actual purpose of the IC forum. I already have a job, so unless you want to pay me to do this one I'm not willing to pile that much additional stuff onto my plate. People will know exactly what they are signing up for, though - that's the purpose of having the rules hammered out here. And frankly, Lyn, if I wanted an excuse to not deal with the job of moderator, it would be a lot easier than making another forum to moderate.
I guess I'll be devil's advocate here.
3 sections.
Section 1) the 'Nice' section. In this section, you're not allowed to derail or post flamebait, very strict rules, topic starters are allowed to say 'this topic is about X, don't bring up Y' so say an Amarrian starts a thread about church ceremonies, a minmatar can't derail it with 'rawr slavers'
Section 2) The 'civil' section. This section is designed to encourage active debate about something. Disagreements and arguments are allowed, even encouraged, but they must be civil and polite.
Section 3) Shitposting. "The cluster would be a much better place if all Amarrians were set on fire" very minimal moderation.
Moderation in my opinion should not be anonymous, and should be handled the same way that moderation of the IC summit is handled. If its in character, then we as the players aren't doing the moderating, our characters are and that should be reflected in how things are handled. I agree with Lyn believe it or not, anonymous moderation leads to bad times for everyone. Better to have everyone's faces visible from the outset.
Now lets go up a level. We imagine that the system I have described above exists within the larger framework of backstage, because we actually would have two tiers of moderators. We have first, your IC moderators, characters moderating from within the universe. Above that layer, we have the opportunity to institute something akin to GMs who will manage things in an OOC sense, and make sure things like dead characters posting doesn't happen. In order to gain access to the IC sections, each person would need to be approved by a GM, this is exactly the framework used on a lot of roleplay forums and roleplay chats that I have participated in before, and in my opinion its a rather good and robust system. It should not be responsive, that is, let anyone in who wants in, then deal with them if they break the rules, because it forces the mods to sit back and let people they know are going to cause problems cause problems, and I doubt that will put us on a very good footing. By having to actually get your access approved at some level, the content can be controlled in a much better manner.
I think that might be a lot of work for what might be marginal gain, in terms of approving people individually. Particularly since the mods aren't going to know everyone. I would also say that I'm not much interested in the idea of the 'shitpoasting' type section, myself. The current sort of early prototype we've brainstormed among the staff would be something like a section for announcements, a section of politics and a section for (essentially) non-political discussion. I could see something along the lines of 1) (with explicit thread ownership) and 2) (without ownership, pretty much) possibly working.
Edit: I think an IG event wouldn't be a bad idea, though probably when and if we open the separate forum proper. Rather than this more 'beta' phase.
-
Section 3) Shitposting. "The cluster would be a much better place if all Amarrians were set on fire" very minimal moderation.
Tried and failed with chatsubo's ic section thing, also shitposting fundamentally incompatible with:
Now lets go up a level. We imagine that the system I have described above exists within the larger framework of backstage, because we actually would have two tiers of moderators. We have first, your IC moderators, characters moderating from within the universe. Above that layer, we have the opportunity to institute something akin to GMs who will manage things in an OOC sense, and make sure things like dead characters posting doesn't happen. In order to gain access to the IC sections, each person would need to be approved by a GM, this is exactly the framework used on a lot of roleplay forums and roleplay chats that I have participated in before, and in my opinion its a rather good and robust system. It should not be responsive, that is, let anyone in who wants in, then deal with them if they break the rules, because it forces the mods to sit back and let people they know are going to cause problems cause problems, and I doubt that will put us on a very good footing. By having to actually get your access approved at some level, the content can be controlled in a much better manner.
By having to actually get your access approved at some level, the content can be controlled in a much better manner.
Sounds rather like: "You must be this /sip to RP". Shutting down anyone whose RP you don't particularly like.
It should not be responsive, that is, let anyone in who wants in, then deal with them if they break the rules, because it forces the mods to sit back and let people they know are going to cause problems cause problems, and I doubt that will put us on a very good footing.
Putting up a special wall, so that particular elements of someone's RP cannot be challenged by someone whose interpretation of the PF differs, says that only people who buy into someone's interpretation, get to RP.
E.g. Laerise doesn't like my interpretation of the PF, about scripture and stuff. Occasionally makes a fuss. But I'm not going to argue Laerise shouldn't be allowed to access an IC forum to challenge any RP I have on that forum.
Or, on another example:
People who play characters who appear to be rogue drone controlled - Unit as an example. They cause problems in and of themselves, because other people have a great problem with the very idea that such a thing is possible. But if you prevent access by the people who have a problem with rogue drones, you stop them contributing their other content, which others would find interesting. That would only fuel accusations about "special snowflake zoo", or whatever. And if you prevent access by the drone characters, because you don't want to deal with the problems caused by their simple existence, then it's "RP police state" or whatever.
-
Requesting "cannotbeworsethantheigs.com" as domain name.
-
Would there be a way to block people or hide a person's posts? This could resolve some of the need for moderation as well.
Edit: There may be a thing amongst paying subscribers that don't see a point in forum roleplay with people who they will not be able to interact with in space.
-
I vote for the name : The Fourth Wall
-
Putting up a special wall, so that particular elements of someone's RP cannot be challenged by someone whose interpretation of the PF differs, says that only people who buy into someone's interpretation, get to RP.
E.g. Laerise doesn't like my interpretation of the PF, about scripture and stuff. Occasionally makes a fuss. But I'm not going to argue Laerise shouldn't be allowed to access an IC forum to challenge any RP I have on that forum.
Or, on another example:
People who play characters who appear to be rogue drone controlled - Unit as an example. They cause problems in and of themselves, because other people have a great problem with the very idea that such a thing is possible. But if you prevent access by the people who have a problem with rogue drones, you stop them contributing their other content, which others would find interesting. That would only fuel accusations about "special snowflake zoo", or whatever. And if you prevent access by the drone characters, because you don't want to deal with the problems caused by their simple existence, then it's "RP police state" or whatever.
That's pretty valid as concerns, I admit the places where I've seen that sort of system work tend to be places where there already exists very well defined central lore, like Vampire the Masquerade, or even Naruto. Or places where there is only a forum, so people RP out actions their characters perform in text on the forums, the GM pre-approval is an attempt to screen out people with uber-godmode abilities from coming along and slaughtering everyone else's characters.
-
Doesn't matter what way you moderate it, people are going to hate being moderated.
That's my input on the matter.
-
since nobody reads the last post on a page:
[spoiler](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/792/270/1b4.gif)[/spoiler]
-
Silver pretty much summed it all up. Can not say I agree 100% with it all, but close enough for Comfort.
-
Silver pretty much summed it all up. Can not say I agree 100% with it all, but close enough for Comfort.
*gets too close for comfort*
-
Edit: There may be a thing amongst paying subscribers that don't see a point in forum roleplay with people who they will not be able to interact with in space.
This is an interesting point. I've thus far resisted the urge to go back to EVE, and with E:D about to release and SC making progress, I'm not sure I'll ever return.
But I'd love to drop Vicky back into an IC environment with some of the folks here. But is it fair to be able to walk in with an unsubbed character? Is there a way to prevent people from just making random characters and claiming to be capsuleers? Or making trial accounts so they show up in-game?
Anyhow, something to mull over.
-
I have already resigned myself not doing that. I know that at least half people would be really pissed if I did so, and even if some other that might wonder where my char left, I don't think it's worth it to cause more drama than there is already by doing so, even with a char that will never get involved into conflicts or similar things that call for possible ingame interaction.
Too messy. I might just get back ingame instead.
-
To be everything the IGS is not, there is an appropriate name, that Kybernetes and I came up with a while back.
The Intergalactic Nadir.
-
The Intergalactic Valley, the Intergalactic Basement, the Intergalactic Dungeon...we might be sending the wrong message with some of these...
-
Pinnacle.
-
My vote is for "The Intergalactic Plummet."
-
My vote is for "The Intergalactic Plummet."
I actually laughed out loud. gg
-
On a slightly more serious note, I was contemplating "New Eden Link" earlier but it doesn't sound quite as good as it did then.
-
*Begins Chanting*
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
-
Plummet!!!
-
*Begins Chanting*
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
Sitting back and watching never sounded more fun.
-
*Begins Chanting*
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
Plummet..
Does that mean we would be allowed to call participants "plummeteers"? :D
-
Anyone have any other thoughts before we take the next steps (which would probably be setting up the 'beta' forum)?
-
Well, I'd love to see a summary of what the forum admin overlords have garnered from this thread and what the current plans are, specifically.
1. Ruleset.
2. Name.
3. Moderation team.
4. Thread tagging?
5. Usergroups?
6. Characters/Real Poster differentiation?
This is by the way why - in that other thread - I asked for a temporary Smoke Filled Room analogue first, so we could have multiple threads for different subjects related to this topic, so specifics could get hashed out without drowning in a single thread full of different things.
-
I read somewhere about this being capsuleers only. No Dusties? Why?
Seems to me this may also be something that is not around yet, as far as I know: an IC forum for both capsuleers and Dust soldiers.
-
I think it was more "capsuleers only" in the context of not having baseliners allowed to post, which is a thing some people feel shouldn't be allowed to happen ever. I see no reason why DUSTies should not be allowed to take part.
-
I read somewhere about this being capsuleers only. No Dusties? Why?
Seems to me this may also be something that is not around yet, as far as I know: an IC forum for both capsuleers and Dust soldiers.
We can just say "infomorphs only" if it would save on confusion.
I've yet to see a good reason why DUST soldiers shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that there currently AREN'T any public forums for EVE players and DUST players to RP together is probably the best reason of all for us to create our own IC forums.
I'll be honest and state up-front that I don't have a particular problem with baseliner posting. It can and has been done properly in the past, and there are quite a few reasons to have baseliner alts for RP and even forum posting.
-
I think it was more "capsuleers only" in the context of not having baseliners allowed to post, which is a thing some people feel shouldn't be allowed to happen ever. I see no reason why DUSTies should not be allowed to take part.
I don't get why no baseliners, that seems a bit silly.
I read somewhere about this being capsuleers only. No Dusties? Why?
Seems to me this may also be something that is not around yet, as far as I know: an IC forum for both capsuleers and Dust soldiers.
We can just say "infomorphs only" if it would save on confusion.
I've yet to see a good reason why DUST soldiers shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that there currently AREN'T any public forums for EVE players and DUST players to RP together is probably the best reason of all for us to create our own IC forums.
I'll be honest and state up-front that I don't have a particular problem with baseliner posting. It can and has been done properly in the past, and there are quite a few reasons to have baseliner alts for RP and even forum posting.
Also, if you had 'infomorphs only' it would include any baseliner with a clone backup, IE: most of the population of Origin, CTCS's mass produced missionaries, and various other groups with non-capsule based cloning technology.
-
No baseliners, because that is too easily used as a consequence-free tool to talk down others.
Player A and Player B don't like each other.
Player A posts something on the forum.
Baseliner C who is 110% not an agent of Player B, posts in a denigratory fashion about Player A.
Player B then says "you can't associate me with those awful, awful comments".
Everyone knows it was them OOC. Even the Zeta Reticulans who don't even play EVE know it was them, it was that obvious.
People give a collective sigh.
-
It might be a better alternative then coming on the IGS and getting responses like "What do you mean you no capsuleer?! Your profile say you capsuleer?! Only Capsuleer can post on IGS!!!"
I feel like allowing non-capsuleers might add something. Why should try it, IMO, it's a beta after all, let's see what works.
Also, I could replace "baseliner C" with "player C" in Louella's example...as in, I don't see how having baseliners around would make this any more possible than it already is.
-
No baseliners, because that is too easily used as a consequence-free tool to talk down others.
Player A and Player B don't like each other.
Player A posts something on the forum.
Baseliner C who is 110% not an agent of Player B, posts in a denigratory fashion about Player A.
Player B then says "you can't associate me with those awful, awful comments".
Everyone knows it was them OOC. Even the Zeta Reticulans who don't even play EVE know it was them, it was that obvious.
People give a collective sigh.
You can do literally the exact same thing with alts right now.
-
with alts, there is at least a possibility of interacting non-consensually with them in game in some fashion. Though that possibility is reduced quite a bit, should they never undock.
with a baseliner, there is literally no way of interacting with them non consensually. that would be god moding.
-
Isn't all RP that is acknowledged by all involved parties consensual?
I would say that non consensual RP is not possible at all, baseliner or not.
Is it not usually when god-moding is involved that RP becomes non-consensual?
-
I'm looking around to see if there are any options for the API-based character selection similar to the official forums. In fairness, something like that would 'handle' the issue of baseliner characters in the sense that someone would need to at least create them ingame before they'd be usable on the forums.
If we used something like that, rather than making people create 50 zillion accounts.
-
Isn't all RP that is acknowledged by all involved parties consensual?
I would say that non consensual RP is not possible at all, baseliner or not.
Is it not usually when god-moding is involved that RP becomes non-consensual?
When I blow you up in space, that's in character and I can treat it as such whether you like it or not.
Despite that, the number of alts who never undock is already very high, so there is already quite a lot of that present. I think however, that we should not categorically deny baseliners for that reason. It won't actually make the problem any better. The difference between a trial account alt that I never undock, and a baseliner, is pretty minimal on that front, and categorically cutting out baseliners cuts down on a lot of RP opportunities.
-
cutting out baseliners cuts down on a lot of RP opportunities.
what kind of opportunities ?
-
cutting out baseliners cuts down on a lot of RP opportunities.
what kind of opportunities ?
baseline family members of capsuleers, baseliner doctors, scientists, etc, since capsuleers don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing, even baseliner news reporters. There's fundamentally no reason why Muck Raker should have to be a capsuleer besides that they couldn't post on the IGS otherwise.
-
There's fundamentally no reason why Muck Raker should have to be a capsuleer besides that they couldn't post on the IGS otherwise.
Capsuleer status also allows me to get killed in amusing ways, while investigating news "stories".
-
The difference between a trial account alt that I never undock, and a baseliner, is pretty minimal on that front, and categorically cutting out baseliners cuts down on a lot of RP opportunities.
Yeah, and I would actually prefer baseliners to not have capsuleer profiles ingame, and such I don't feel baseliners on The Plummet should be required to have one.
But if the char selection API thing can work in a different way, that could be usefull.
...Not that I'm really afraid of the zillion alts accounts thing happening, the EVE RP community isn't that big.
-
The difference between a trial account alt that I never undock, and a baseliner, is pretty minimal on that front, and categorically cutting out baseliners cuts down on a lot of RP opportunities.
Yeah, and I would actually prefer baseliners to not have capsuleer profiles ingame, and such I don't feel baseliners on The Plummet should be required to have one.
But if the char selection API thing can work in a different way, that could be usefull.
...Not that I'm really afraid of the zillion alts accounts thing happening, the EVE RP community isn't that big.
You underestimate the altapacolypse.
-
I have had as many as three alts in the same room at a time in game... maybe 4. And that was limited by accounts.
Without that limit? Vickiblob might cease to be so easily contained.
-
I have always wanted to show up somewhere with a character from all of my accounts, but I just could not live with myself if I did it.
-
Moderation should be IC too for a truly IC forum
-
It will be, by an unbiased firm not connected to any faction posting on it.
-
I am in agreement that the mods should be faceless. ICly this works better for pirate roleplayers. If the mods were a faceless internal security AI integrated into the ic forums it would allow for a non bias approach to moderation, unlike eve-o forums that are controlled by CONCORD.
-
Ex:
SECURITY AI: Rule violation detected in reply #367 - "I will set all Amarrians on fire" by user:Anyanka_Funk.
Rule 3, section 1b; Threatening the lives of others will not be tolerated.
Third offence, final warning. Further rule violation will result in account deactivation.
-
Ex:
SECURITY AI: Rule violation detected in reply #367 - "I will set all Amarrians on fire" by user:Anyanka_Funk.
Rule 3, section 1b; Threatening the lives of others will not be tolerated.
Third offence, final warning. Further rule violation will result in account deactivation.
We totally need a standard format like this. Very win.
-
Well, I'd love to see a summary of what the forum admin overlords have garnered from this thread and what the current plans are, specifically.
1. Ruleset.
2. Name.
3. Moderation team.
4. Thread tagging?
5. Usergroups?
6. Characters/Real Poster differentiation?
This is by the way why - in that other thread - I asked for a temporary Smoke Filled Room analogue first, so we could have multiple threads for different subjects related to this topic, so specifics could get hashed out without drowning in a single thread full of different things.
No response to this yet.
-
Well, I'd love to see a summary of what the forum admin overlords have garnered from this thread and what the current plans are, specifically.
1. Ruleset.
2. Name.
3. Moderation team.
4. Thread tagging?
5. Usergroups?
6. Characters/Real Poster differentiation?
This is by the way why - in that other thread - I asked for a temporary Smoke Filled Room analogue first, so we could have multiple threads for different subjects related to this topic, so specifics could get hashed out without drowning in a single thread full of different things.
No response to this yet.
Holiday season over here in the US where all but two of the mods are based. People are busy.
My current understanding of the items listed:
1) Presumably similar to the rules for the IGS, with the expectation they'll actually be enforced. Personally I would prefer a strong bias towards enforcement being dealt with IC - at least outwardly to posters - and only dealing with things OOC if absolutely necessary (ie, a pattern of behavior across multiple characters all belonging to the same player).
2) None set. We're doing a beta attempt first. Name for the actual thing can come later, whether as some IC initiative through the beta forum or a separate "offer names" -> "vote on names" thing here.
3) Backstage mods to start; I'm guessing we're going to watch the beta forum and yoink some additional people from there. This has come up though no names have been put forward yet.
4) Not seen any discussion internally about these. I don't think that they're all that useful beyond stating the obvious (if they're supposed to be used to show what is/isn't "on-topic" as I understand them to be, which should be self-evident from the contents of the thread), and I'm not sure how we'd implement these anyway, whether as space-wasting tags you put in the thread title, or some sort of checklist when posting the thread.
5) Usergroups aren't necessary if the new forum is on its own subdomain. Shouldn't really need to use them here for the purposes of the beta. The only real use for these I can think of off the top of my head at the moment is allowing moderators the ability to see when there are new reports without them having to log off and log into a moderation account.
6) If we can't find or make a tool to deal with the API so we can have some sort of single-sign-on like the official forums have (I'm looking and not having much success), people are just going to have to create individual accounts for each character they wish to post as deal with the multiple account issue. We may still add an API mod to let people link their portraits/corp/alliance stuff over even if this is the case.
Edit: I have just posted at length in the mod areas about all of these. Hopefully we'll have something more substantial to post in a day or two. Silver's got RL up the wazoo and may have time here or there to read or post a bit. Havo said he'd look tomorrow, and I'll prod Jek and the rest to go give it a look.
-
I have always wanted to show up somewhere with a character from all of my accounts, but I just could not live with myself if I did it.
I got five in a room at once. I think my eyes started bleeding.
-
I have always wanted to show up somewhere with a character from all of my accounts, but I just could not live with myself if I did it.
I got five in a room at once. I think my eyes started bleeding.
I've had multiple in separate channels/events, not interacting with each other - but there's just something weird to me about having your characters interact with each other. I just couldn't do it.
-
It's happened to me a few times elsewhere. I don't have enough alts in EVE to warrant it. I see them as different individuals, so while I mostly avoid it just for practicality, I've never been specifically against it, particularly in the smaller groups. /shrug It can be weirder sometimes if they always happened to miss each other! It really depends on if they know the same people. Generally, then it only becomes a clusterproblem at parties. /laugh
-
I rarely have more than one of myself actively participating in a room at a time. It's why I always colored the UI for my accounts differently, though - just in case.
Usually if I have more than one character present, the others are supporting characters that are there for the entertainment of everyone else rather than myself; there's been very few situations in RP where any of them might have been expected to show up, though, so. vOv
-
It's why I always colored the UI for my accounts differently, though - just in case.
I tried this. It worked for a time. It still did not prevent some of the most hilarius altfails. Some could be gracefully recovered from. Some could not.
-
Beware the pitfalls of design by committee!
http://youtu.be/2pysgaHRh80 (http://youtu.be/2pysgaHRh80)
-
It's been a while (December 2014), Can we just pull the trigger on this and not overanalyze the rule set? :)
-
I skimmed around the threads looking, but didn't see anything addressing this. Do we need to have an active account to RP? Honestly, I miss you guys a lot more than the game, and I'd love getting in on the RP without having to chalk up the sub money to access the IGS.
-
vic, I never removed your amarr char from SFRIM :cube: so technically you still are a player with a corp :) I don't think sub money matters if they do this thing (I hope!) :?:
-
I know, and I appreciate that! However, technically, I won't be wandering around in the game world. I just wanted to make sure it was alright to RP through the IC forums. Presently, I can't through the IGS because I don't have a subscription.
-
I skimmed around the threads looking, but didn't see anything addressing this. Do we need to have an active account to RP? Honestly, I miss you guys a lot more than the game, and I'd love getting in on the RP without having to chalk up the sub money to access the IGS.
It was something that was briefly discussed (and it's included on the rules discussion thread) but we weren't really in favor of it because it's not really necessary, since the kind of behavior we would be deliberately trying to eliminate with such a rule would be covered by other rules. Plus there'd be no real way to enforce it without a functioning API plugin for the board and we've not found one that really suited our needs.
-
I skimmed around the threads looking, but didn't see anything addressing this. Do we need to have an active account to RP? Honestly, I miss you guys a lot more than the game, and I'd love getting in on the RP without having to chalk up the sub money to access the IGS.
Good question. As I had Scagga sold years ago I am refraining from representing him in the IC sections (despite the fact I don't think the person who has Scagga is active). I am however 'creating content' by managing a 'bar' channel and non-capsuleer entities.
However it is my opinion that if you still own the account of your character, regardless of whether you are currently paying a subscription fee, you should be ok to represent your character on the IC forums here within the bounds of common sense. e.g. you wouldn't boast about making a massive impact on a recent battle and would probably come up with a plausible explanation if asked about your lack of presence in space...
What does the wider body think of this reasoning?
-
As long as it's your character on your account, it shouldn't matter if it's subscribed or not. My only barrier for entry is that I just can't be arsed switching between accounts for posting on the very same forum.
-
As long as it's your character on your account, it shouldn't matter if it's subscribed or not. My only barrier for entry is that I just can't be arsed switching between accounts for posting on the very same forum.
So far, the test boards have been very quiet. I do remember seeing a forum that had a feature where users could have multiple names and switch between them in their control panel/profile page. If the interest that was there before the test board was opened shows itself again and the whole thing goes well, I will make sure to track that mod package down and try to make it available on the actual IC forum at launch.
-
You aren't likely to find a mod for SMF that lets you switch names on a per-post basis that doesn't change the display name for ALL posts you've ever made on that account.
If it existed we'd have found it already back when this project started last year. :P
I skimmed around the threads looking, but didn't see anything addressing this. Do we need to have an active account to RP? Honestly, I miss you guys a lot more than the game, and I'd love getting in on the RP without having to chalk up the sub money to access the IGS.
Good question. As I had Scagga sold years ago I am refraining from representing him in the IC sections (despite the fact I don't think the person who has Scagga is active). I am however 'creating content' by managing a 'bar' channel and non-capsuleer entities.
However it is my opinion that if you still own the account of your character, regardless of whether you are currently paying a subscription fee, you should be ok to represent your character on the IC forums here within the bounds of common sense.
Without an API module installed it is impossible for anyone to really police this without everyone volunteering the status of their account, which we are not about to do ask them to do. I don't think most EVE API mods for forums keep track of that status anyway.
-
As long as it's your character on your account, it shouldn't matter if it's subscribed or not. My only barrier for entry is that I just can't be arsed switching between accounts for posting on the very same forum.
So far, the test boards have been very quiet. I do remember seeing a forum that had a feature where users could have multiple names and switch between them in their control panel/profile page. If the interest that was there before the test board was opened shows itself again and the whole thing goes well, I will make sure to track that mod package down and try to make it available on the actual IC forum at launch.
Well, like I said, in my case that's because I can't be arsed switching between accounts on Backstage for IC and OOC posting. A separate board would be a bit different as I could be logged into a different account there, while remaining logged in on this account here, eliminating the need for account switching.
It's probably just me being that lazy, but I'm not going to be posting IC with Pinkie Pie bouncing around in the sig and Pinkie Pie is staying.
-
Good point, MorLag. To be honest, I'm not sure which forum engine that place was using.
@Miz: I still don't see why you feel that Pinkie Pie is so OOC, especially for Mizhara (she's a little throwed off, isn't she?) :p
-
why does the signature have to be considered IC anyway? I mean like, my sig, avatar, and such are all OOC and that never stopped me from posting IC.
Also someone should probably swat Lyn with a newspaper, I don't think she realizes the post I made earlier today was IC, lol.
-
Ok shit that's two times today.... Those forums are nested rigt in the middle of the rest and it is a mot harder to differenciate on tiny devices like tablets or when you just go through functions like 'show new messages'
My apologies...