Backstage - OOC Forums

General Discussion => Web Development and Site Suggestions => Topic started by: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 00:03

Title: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 00:03
EDIT/UPDATE 2015/04/05: New (condensed) version of the rules has been posted here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6388.msg111294#msg111294).

Again, my apologies for the extreme delay in getting these things out; people have had RL up the wazoo.

This is the first thread of several to come covering aspects of the planned IC forum. This particular thread is intended to cover the rules that we want to have and enforce on the new forum, and mostly duplicates an existing thread in the private moderator areas.

We (okay, I) have taken the original EVE forum rules located here (http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/forum-moderation-policy) and sorted them into three groups. Each rule has a note with it; these are the quick summaries that I attached to each rule in the original thread. Thoughts from the moderation team (some paraphrased, some quoted) have been added to rules where specific comments were directed.

In the interest of transparency: based on feedback from the moderation team, a number of rules have been moved from their original position in my first iteration of the list, and some of their summaries have been updated since then, too. The first iteration of the list was posted internally on December 17th in response to a post from Mizhara on the 15th.

Since there are a lot of rules listed here, for the sake of easy reference and being able to follow the discussion, if you have feedback, please indicate which rules you're speaking about and try not to blob them all together into one massive wall of text. It will help us and everyone else sift through for commentary on specific rules. You don't need to make a new post for each rule you have thoughts on, but a separate paragraph would be helpful!

Anyway: THE LIST.

The rules we think we should keep:
The rules that we think can be discarded:
The rules that could go either way and need more discussion:
Have at it.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 00:23
Some additional thoughts from me that I didn't just edit into the list directly:

Rule 2-6, 8 (respectfulness, ranting, personal attacks, etc.): This isn't intended to be a hard red line. I would expect us to try to avoid enforcing these rules too strictly, and only take serious action when it was causing a pattern of thread derailment or the like.

Rule 9 (doxxing): It's one thing for people to post their own location, or to post that sort of information (belonging to someone else) with non-hostile intent. This rule should specifically handle doxxing in the traditional sense, though with that said, I don't think that addresses and locations of serious import tend to come up in RP - for someone's actual ingame location, locator agents are always available.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 22 Jan 2015, 01:01
There are a few things here I'll address in turn:

Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6:
I would prefer that these be left out entirely, and a general rule against being disruptive and/or trollish in general be instituted with the relevant portions of 2-6 listed as things that are likely to be considered 'flash points'. Here's my reasoning: Even if the rules aren't intended to be a 'hard red line', merely having them in place may cause people to tiptoe around them because they aren't exactly sure how and where the line exists with those rules; new people may become confused when they see people apparently ignoring existant rules. Putting them as mere examples under a rule against disruptiveness/trolling moves the focus back to behaviors that we actually want to curtail, while still being informative.

Rule 9, 'doxxing':
This seems questionable and vague to me; does it refer to just telling where a given player is docked at a specific time, where they tend to be active, or where an RP-critical location is? Does it refer to things in space, in text, or both?
- For example - player X puts up some items in space as part of an RP arc they are doing, posts about it on our IC forums. Player Y of opposing faction mentions their location in another post. Did they just commit an offense?
- Player A has a channel for their home/private bar/whatever. Player B has a falling out with player A and posts information regarding the in-universe location of the place represented by the channel. How would this be handled?

Rule 19, 'new player bashing':
While I don't disagree with the rule in concept, I think a line of some kind needs to be worked out for the possibility of a new player posting something which - IC - is quite mockable, without breaking this rule or going OOC. Should their mistake be pointed out in the thread? The post reported and/or a move request be made? The poster quietly PMed and informed of their error?

Rule 32, 'rurmors':
Seems overly sensitive to me unless interpreted in the loosest possible way - the line between rumor and opinion is an exceedingly fuzzy one. E.g., player X posts that player Y supports a faction by doing A, B, C (not verifiable ingame activities). Player Y says "you can't post that, that's a rumor!" Where does the line get crossed without smothering virtually any accusations of any kind?

Rule 35, 'chat logs':
I would personally add the caveat that chat logs may be posted under mutual agreement of all parties involved in them.

Baseliners:
I favor making it a rule only if this develops into an issue.

IC/OOC divide:
I think it merits being up there, even if just as 'ass covering' - so there's something to point to if anyone ever does need to be smacked for breaking this.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jan 2015, 08:51
I do largely agree with Esna.

More generally, I'd say that the rules should be as few as possible, imho. Having 27 rules or what is confusing, and easily lends itself to metagaming based on those rules. So, I'd propose that the rules get condensed and I think there is a lot of room for that, along the lines Esna proposes for rules 2-6.

Rule 11 is included in rule 12, imho.

Rules 13, 19, 21, 23, 34 can be included in the 2-6 complex.

Rules 17 and 26 are already suggested to fit together. 28 fits here as well, I think.

Rules 20 and 25 are already suggested to be one rule, really. 22 fits here as well, imho.


Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 09:02
Condensing rules: I had figured it was a given that this would happen before any official ruleset was deployed, especially with some of the notes/summaries for individual rules in the list, which is - at least the bolded parts - a verbatim copy of the official EVE forums' ruleset. We don't want 30-40 individual rules either. We do, however, want to start where the apparent core of the issue requiring a new IC forum lies - namely that the rules that are there for EVE-O, do not seem to be enforced consistently or at all when they should be, and that that is contributing to the reasons many people are giving up on the IGS or want an alternative.

The impression we'd gotten from reading the threads here was that if those rules were actually enforced that most of the problems would go away, so we figured it would be simplest to start from the same set of rules and work our way forward from there.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Aedre Lafisques on 22 Jan 2015, 10:21
Here's my take, 23 is redundant in part because of 1-6 and a few others. If you're not being a ...uh huge helicopter d*ck to people, then I would say to have a comment moderated solely quoting 23 would be pretty disheartening.

As for Rule 19, I think PMing the 'offensive' newbie is the best reaction. OOC, nicely. There's no reason to publicly shame and haze people over canon misunderstandings. I've never really understood that. There is so much canon. Maybe that's easy to forget once you get past clearing up the fundamentals?
This should maybe also be done by a mod? Rather than a pile of (potentially well-meaning) people. This is exactly why people are afraid to reach out. Don't tell me they're not - I spent a year studying the lore before I felt comfortable saying so much as anything! I still couldn't say I know very much about certain topics. I'd rather be chatted informed and linked to nicely than messed-with IC. That's destructive. Who would want to keep playing like that? And realistically, who's going to spend a year studying and doing other stuff just to RP? XD

35 - I sometimes reformat chat logs with permission for posting. Would something like that be allowed, as it's not copy-pasta private chat logs, and with permission? I ask not to mess with the rules, but because that could come up.  Is there a place for character stories, or would that continue to be posted here?

PROPOSED: I would add to the last one that people also remember to post as not-themselves too, just as they should take slights as towards their characters; it works both way, IC <--> OOC. While that's obvious and some people's duders are more avatars than others, I think the wording would still be appropriate.

32 - I think rumors could be handled as an extension of forceposing (which, while a basic tenant of RP, might be good to put in the rules anyway?). IE, consent. I think if you wanted to spread a rumor about Aedre and actually asked me, I'd probably allow it no questions asked. Roughly speaking, I think I'd be okay with it either way, but I can see how, at least in this community, that could get really dirty very quickly. You know, nobody forces me to mine all day or do market stuff while I play my EVE. I don't really see why anyone should be forced to play the rumors game either if they don't have the skin for it. It's not really fun if they're not into it, you know? However, if they are into it, then banning rumors outright stops a style of play. It's fairly simple to be like "I want to say I saw this about your duder, interesting?" or "mod, I didn't okay this rumor wtf :x" Since there's only ever two people involved, it should be reasonable to manage?

And here I started pro-rumors. I talked myself out of it :p

6 - How are you going to enforce no racism? 90% of RPing I see is racism-based. XP I'd lift that, since you have, instead: No Ranting, Personal Attacks and Trolling! IE, being a huge racist specifically to get a rise out of people. You can be a huge racist, because New Eden is Racism Central (probably everyone is racist, because their cultures literally demand it, and everyone thinks in at least terms of the Big Four), but you can't use your bigotry to then instigate hysteria.

Anyway, TLDR, I think 'being a racist' isn't really a very good rule for us IC, when you have 2-5 to cover the actual assholery that usually comes from it. It seems more like a public forum/OOC concern to me, Real Life stuff. (Additionally, if the rules are somewhat IC, then it doesn't make sense I don't think :P)

Thanks for all this! And for opening up the table for discussion.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Jennifer Starfall on 22 Jan 2015, 10:38
Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jan 2015, 08:51
More generally, I'd say that the rules should be as few as possible, imho. Having 27 rules or what is confusing, and easily lends itself to metagaming based on those rules.

Detailed rules allow for significant weaselling. Broader, "softer" rules specifically counter metagaming, as Nico puts it. An RL example is the FDA in the US. The FDA was originally founded to combat snake oil merchants (the ultimate rules lawers). FDA regulations are deliberately broad and do not have  hard and fast requirements (I do not miss my days in the pharma industry).

By the same token, when you start writing rules that delineate "bad behaviors", they can be meta'ed around by saying "but it doesn't say that's wrong." Whereas, "behavior deemed disruptive by the moderators" will cover anything that disrupts the community and can't be weaselled around. The only flaw is that it depends on a body of trustworthy moderators, but I think we're covered there.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Vizage on 22 Jan 2015, 11:54
I'm also in agreement with Esna, Nico, and Jenn on this one. Properly condensing the rules will not only give user proper room to breath but also allow for proper moderation "In good faith."

If there is anything Backstage isn't short on its proper moderation. So I think we won't have nearly as much as to worry about when it comes to particularly inflammatory post or repetitive grudge flaming going under the radar.

Beside that, I think these are pretty great rules and I'm getting excited about all this!
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Lyn Farel on 22 Jan 2015, 16:03
Rules have to be made the most simple possible, but also the clearest. Too many rules leads to obnoxious rule metagaming, but too loose rules lead to what we have seen already here or there, which means no moderation accountability, which is even worse because it creates gaps between mods and users and leads to mistrust and toxic environments.

Condensing rules is good, but they will have to be made clearer. For example, include things like "no ad-personam". It's rather universal and not too vague to deal with. The more vague and loose you will be, the more you will have people contesting rulings, and pointing fingers at "moderation tyranny".


BASELINERS :

Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.


Letting non subscribers participate :

Banning them under the pretext that they can't be shot ingame is a fallacy. You can't either shoot anyone who stays docked and spew things here and there. So either ban everyone that is not ready to undock to back up their words, or just don't. I think the answer is pretty obvious on that one.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Muck Raker on 22 Jan 2015, 16:19
Quote
Rumor mongering is prohibited.

kek.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 22 Jan 2015, 21:14
That rule is, as you notice, appended with some pro-rumor comments. I think the concern would be that while rumors can be awesome, they can also be an effective means of trolling. I guess the question would be if the environment we would be looking at creating would be one that would support that type of 'he said, she said' arguments that can arise from unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumors spread with malicious  (rather than constructive) intent. With RP the problem is noone can really prove anything other than what happens in space, and combat - alas- does not cover the full range of things people might do.

It can lead to what we are trying to avoid, which is uninteresting, repetitive arguments with nothing new or interesting coming out of them.

Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 23:46
2-6, 23, etc.: If people want this literally condensed into a single rule that says "Post constructively and don't be a cunt" and let the mods determine the definition of the latter part, we can do that. The general idea I was hoping for was similar to how it's handled in the Summit ingame. When it gets disruptive, it gets dealt with - sometimes it is hands-off, sometimes it is hands-on.

9 (doxxing): I was more specifically considering standard internet definitions of doxxing. Places of work, residence, that sort of thing. But because most of us don't exactly come up with street addresses (or equivalent) for our characters, and even if we did, there's this issue of hostile actions to those locations often would be godmoding anyway. If you want something simpler - private things would be an example of a no-no. Precise address of home, family members, that sort of thing. If it's an object in space it's fair game.

11, 12: I don't disagree. But as I said in my previous post, each individual rule is listed because it was from the original rule set. Not because we intend to have each of those rules listed out. I will repeat this in red so that it is clear to everyone: There are thirty-nine rules listed in the OP because there are 37 rules for the official forums and we added two new ones for discussion. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE INTEND TO HAVE THAT MANY RULES LISTED IN THE END.

19: I'd rather avoid having OOC discussions on the IC forum. If people want to PM people directly, be polite about it. If you can't be polite, then report problematic posts with a note "hey, this person needs a quick PF-check" and have a moderator then go and approach them and point them to Backstage/Evelopedia/Source.

32 (rumors): I am personally ambivalent about this one. There's a difference between a rumor intended to attack someone, and a rumor intended to generate RP for people. The idea, in theory, would be to curb the former and encourage the latter - as someone on the team suggested, through a similar gossip thread to what we have on Backstage. Of course, the IC nature of the forum might make posting things to the rumor thread... awkward, so my thought there was that perhaps the mod team (or just the admins) would have a shared "gossip" account that people could PM their rumors and gossip things to, and then the moderation staff could post them anonymously for them.

35 (logs): The whole concept of "with everyone's consent" is great and all but all you have to do is say you have everyone's consent. And then if you actually don't, there's a shitstorm. Or if someone changes their mind, there's a shitstorm. This is why we want to try and narrow down a definition of a "public" event.

Baseliners and Active Subscriptions:
I really wanted to avoid responding to specific posts if I could, but this particular one isn't going to work.
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jan 2015, 16:03
Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can: jesus fucking christ. You seem to have read so much into that one that you came out responding as if it says the opposite of what it does. Not a single mod ever said 'ban it because too many people abuse it'. The "no" responses were because of "I can't shoot it QQ" (not me) and "because the capsuleers are probably going to be dicks to them." (also not me)

The rule is proposed as a "baseliners are not allowed" because the moderation team considers the default state to be that they are allowed.

My response to you is the same regarding subscription status: It's pretty clearly stated that the moderation team doesn't believe we should require people to actively be subscribed to the game - let alone actively logging in - in order to post on the forum, unless it becomes a clear issue that cannot be resolved simply by taking action with individuals as it comes up. Not just because it's difficult to enforce without an API mod, but also because requiring it discourages the people who don't have the time or money to play internet spaceships but have the time to spare to forumwhore.

Please read more carefully and stop leaping to conclusions that are in the opposite direction of where the evidence lies.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Ché Biko on 23 Jan 2015, 01:28
Quote
  • 10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
    [..]Might be worth discussing when it's permissible to post mails from event actors.
I think this could be merged with rule 35.
Quote
  • 18. Impersonation of another party is prohibited.
    The expectation is that there will likely be zero tolerance for this sort of behavior, and users can expect that characters and/or players trying to impersonate character(s) belonging to other players will have action taken against their account(s).
I would like this to be possible with the consent of the impersonated character's player. Because the best way to do this may be having the impersonated character's player post on behalf of the impersonator, I think this should be purely an IC rule (possible character ban, but not player/account ban) if the transgression is IC only.
Quote
  • 24. Posting with alternate characters is prohibited in some forum channels.
    This rule will probably be rephrased to specify "no astroturfing." It's fine to have multiple characters posting in a thread if they would legitimately be participating in said thread, but astroturfing will be shitcanned.
Where lies the line? I feel there should be some lenience, especially for alts in the same small corp, like D-STON. Also, this seems to overlap with rule 18 somewhat.
Quote
  • 32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
    Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
Rumors should be refered to as such, slander and defamation is not allowed. "I've heard a rumor that PIE eats babies." is ok, "PIE eats babies." is not.
I think a seperate forum section for IC media might be in order, with an attached disclaimer that these can contain unverified information.
Quote
  • 34. Posting of inappopriate content is prohibited.
    Self-explanatory. Try to keep it SFW. Moderator discretion here.
No IC snuff movies on this forum then? Or IC adverts from certain adult venues?
Quote
  • 35. Posting of chat logs outside the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
    This is done on EVE-O to avoid a lot of drama and "those are faked!" arguments. A valid stance to take in general but there are cases where it could/should be permissible, such as for recording-for-posterity of live events and things like SeyCon. Private conversations and evemails are a no-no. We will need to come up with a clearer definition of what is and what is not acceptable, but the above are a starting example.
I think that the IC nature of the forum partly prevents this from taking place, as the chatlogs of things like bars would not be chatlogs IC, but probably an audio/video recording, and should be reformatted as such.
I would not want to ban media outlets or others from posting recordings/communications, though, if all involved parties agree OOCly that the eavesdropper could have obtained them. But perhaps the rule should be that only media outlets (see my comment on rule 32) can post these communications/recordings, after they have done some form of checking the authenticity of these things (or not). Stuff is leaked to the press by others. This may serve as a buffer to keep things from spinning out of control.
Quote
  • 16. Posting about bugs and exploits is prohibited.
    Not really necessary - implied by the in-character nature of the forum.
Implied? Not for everyone. I sometimes talk about bugs ICly, especially if it affects my IC actions. If my drones can't lock because of a bug defect in CCP's patch, then my drones will have a similar problem IC with their/my capsule/implants latest firmware update. A lot of bugs in EVE are also bugs IC. ECAID is an IC division, we can't talk about them?
Quote
  • PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
    AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
    -"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."
I'd like to try to have baseliners on the forum. I think the "Primary problem" above is not that big of a problem. Being an asshole is largely not allowed in the first place (the other rules enforce it), and having to engage in consensual RP and deal with someone OOCly to deal with them ICly is a legitimate alternative to shooting-in-space in my eyes, and one that can be just as fun.
Also, toxic elements will be toxic, wether that is as capsuleer or baseliner. I don't see this rule decreasing that.
Quote
  • PROPOSED: IC/OOC divide - players are not their characters, and vice-versa.
    -"While this might seem self evident enough it needn't be stated, it is also pretty clear to anyone who spends time RPing that it is often forgotten."
    -"Possible wording: 'Please remember, as an IC forum people will be posting here not as themselves but as their characters. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt that if they aren't being very nice to you IC it might be because their character doesn't like your character - don't just assume that it is because the player doesn't like you. Also feel free to reach out and clear up any possible misunderstandings, rather than jumping to negative conclusions.'"
I too feel that this is sadly still worth repeating, if only for the newbs, although this looks more like a disclaimer then a rule to me. I like the "Possible wording".
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Lyn Farel on 23 Jan 2015, 06:32
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 23:46

35 (logs): The whole concept of "with everyone's consent" is great and all but all you have to do is say you have everyone's consent. And then if you actually don't, there's a shitstorm. Or if someone changes their mind, there's a shitstorm. This is why we want to try and narrow down a definition of a "public" event.

Why not just saying it's allowed, and that any capsuleer can simply says so when he or she wants something removed ? As long as one of the people included in the logs wants it removed, it will be.

Of course you run into the issue of people just posting for the sake of showing it until it gets removed. You can apply sanctions if necessary to prevent that.

Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 23:46
Baseliners and Active Subscriptions:
I really wanted to avoid responding to specific posts if I could, but this particular one isn't going to work.
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jan 2015, 16:03
Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can: jesus fucking christ. You seem to have read so much into that one that you came out responding as if it says the opposite of what it does. Not a single mod ever said 'ban it because too many people abuse it'. The "no" responses were because of "I can't shoot it QQ" (not me) and "because the capsuleers are probably going to be dicks to them." (also not me)

The rule is proposed as a "baseliners are not allowed" because the moderation team considers the default state to be that they are allowed.

My response to you is the same regarding subscription status: It's pretty clearly stated that the moderation team doesn't believe we should require people to actively be subscribed to the game - let alone actively logging in - in order to post on the forum, unless it becomes a clear issue that cannot be resolved simply by taking action with individuals as it comes up. Not just because it's difficult to enforce without an API mod, but also because requiring it discourages the people who don't have the time or money to play internet spaceships but have the time to spare to forumwhore.

Please read more carefully and stop leaping to conclusions that are in the opposite direction of where the evidence lies.

Am I not allowed to have my own opinion on that ? :/

Either you didnt understand or I wasnt perfectly clear, but I was actually refering to that no slave rule on the summit, which was iirc applied because too many people abused it.

Here I feel it is the same, you will condemn players that use it well and do nice things with it just because some abuse it. It's wrong imo...
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Gaven Lok ri on 26 Jan 2015, 10:52
Is rule six IC, OOC, or both?

From an IC point of view, who is hosting these proposed forums? Seems like that should have an impact on the choice of IC rules.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 26 Jan 2015, 11:11
We're a little undecided on that particular bit, Gaven, though I did mention internally it might be nice to "resurrect" the CRC Auxiliary for the purpose.

As I've said for the other rules similar to 6, I personally don't envision it being a super-strict guideline once that bunch of rules is eventually condensed into some sort of "don't be a cunt" rule, and it would be handled similarly to the Summit, where it's tolerated to the point that it doesn't become disruptive or harmful to the environment. As for the individual rules being listed, well, if we feel one particular item in the list doesn't need to be kept, it wouldn't be included in an "example" list of behaviors that fall under the purview of the condensed rule.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Gaven Lok ri on 26 Jan 2015, 11:20
If you resurrect the CRC Aux, then a anti egregious racism rule makes sense. CRC Aux was founded based on Gallente ideals, after all.

I think you might want to get that nailed down earlier rather than later in this process, as it will clarify things.

One advantage of a forum RP setting is that you don't have the problems we had with the moderators having separate characters. It is a lot easier to switch quickly to a special moderator account on a forum than it is to drop what you are doing, log out of EVE and then log back in.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 26 Jan 2015, 11:24
Speaking of the multiple accounts - I'll see about posting the usergroups thing from the internal forums later. Not really a ton to discuss or change on it since it shouldn't affect that many people but it'd be good to put out there.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Milo Caman on 26 Jan 2015, 13:08
Predicting every post made will be locked within 24 hours.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Havohej on 26 Jan 2015, 19:39
Quote from: Gaven Lok ri on 26 Jan 2015, 10:52
Is rule six IC, OOC, or both?

From an IC point of view, who is hosting these proposed forums? Seems like that should have an impact on the choice of IC rules.
Good questions, both.

I would think it very desirable for 6 to be taken IC - one of the biggest complaints about the quality of the IGS has frequently been that there's too much Gal-Cal or Min-Amarr nonsense.  "Federation must be destroyed", "Filthy Minmatar", "Slaver scum", et ceteras.  I think all of the factional disputes can very well be approached in ways more conducive to cross-faction discussion than base and banal mud slinging, right?

As to who hosts the thing IC, what organization(s) would be rich enough, neutral enough and interested enough to do so?  SCC?  CONCORD?  Nation ( :lol: )?  Others?
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 26 Jan 2015, 21:40
Silver in his guise as eccentric Caldari billionaire recluse. Although I know that the slightly sinister patina of his old involvement with the Nation would proabbly drive some folks off.

I'd say we can do a new organization, keep it vague, maybe HQed out of Syndicate. Syndicate: When your shell corporations need shell corporations.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Havohej on 26 Jan 2015, 22:18
(https://i.imgflip.com/gva98.jpg)

Wealth.
Neutrality.
Interest in capsuleer affairs.

Sounds like a winning candidate to me.

Anyone got a better idea than Silver's?
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Lyn Farel on 27 Jan 2015, 01:20
Syndicate is nice idea but you will always have characters taking issue with it like with any other factions... I would personally favor a fictional and really neutral entity.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 27 Jan 2015, 01:23
The only reason I suggested the CRC Auxiliary was because they were behind the original Summit. And with CCP being oh-so-delicate about copying said channel to pair with the official forum, it wouldn't be inappropriate for the CRC Aux to come back and make their own forum, I think.

That said...
Quote from: Milo Caman on 26 Jan 2015, 13:08
Predicting every post made will be locked within 24 hours.
... if we wanted this scenario, the Sisters of EVE would make sense.

Break a rule? Shitcan the thread with the moderator explanation "FUCK CAPSULEERS".
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Gwen Ikiryo on 27 Jan 2015, 03:01
Why not an SOCT branch? They already spend all their time creeping on Capsuleers.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Saede Riordan on 27 Jan 2015, 06:02
SocT is space hogwarts.

I'd say Thera, but :SOE:
Its too bad there's not some other well known named wormhole system to base it out of.

In terms of the 'who' is doing the operating. Eccentric capsuleer philanthropy is pretty well established as a thing. Chribba is pretty much a household name, so having justification for it might be as simple as having a group of capsuleers come together ICly and go 'the IGS sucks' and making this new forum.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Anyanka Funk on 27 Jan 2015, 06:18
Quote from: Saede Riordan on 27 Jan 2015, 06:02
SocT is space hogwarts.

I'd say Thera, but :SOE:
Its too bad there's not some other well known named wormhole system to base it out of.

In terms of the 'who' is doing the operating. Eccentric capsuleer philanthropy is pretty well established as a thing. Chribba is pretty much a household name, so having justification for it might be as simple as having a group of capsuleers come together ICly and go 'the IGS sucks' and making this new forum.

Is there a petition we can all sign or would we have to each submit our own?
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Ché Biko on 27 Jan 2015, 17:40
 :D
Ché is not a big fan of the IGS, and might very well discreetly or not so discreetly support an alternative.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Alain Colcer on 27 Jan 2015, 18:32
DED branch related to capsuleer monitoring? call it DEEDZ?  :lol:
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Gaven Lok ri on 28 Jan 2015, 16:14
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 27 Jan 2015, 01:23
The only reason I suggested the CRC Auxiliary was because they were behind the original Summit. And with CCP being oh-so-delicate about copying said channel to pair with the official forum, it wouldn't be inappropriate for the CRC Aux to come back and make their own forum, I think.

Yep, it would be entirely in the spirit of that now defunct group of alts. Of course I biomassed Alianora a while ago, so she can't make an actual reappearance :P
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Avio Yaken on 11 Mar 2015, 08:47
Is this thread dead?
If not can i ask if Parody threads would be allowed?

And im sure someone has already asked  and i just missed it when reading  or that was already stated by the Op  and i missed that when reading also

But still :|
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 02 Apr 2015, 23:02
I'm going to sit down and try and condense the rules down a bit (and flesh out what we keep) over the weekend so we can have another go at things. If people still have thoughts or w/e on what's up there, please post (soon) so I can take it into account.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 05 Apr 2015, 20:22
UPDATE!

Here is the condensed version of the rules we are certainly going to be keeping:



Some rules are still left over from the original list, and need further discussion (original numbering included). Please help us narrow down where the lines should be (if any) with some of these:

Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 05 Apr 2015, 21:43
The rules that are 'in' looks pretty good.

For rule 1, if someone needs to post something OOC (like if they are doing an IC event or something and need to have a brief explaination of some part of it that is OOC) maybe require it is in spoilers. A touch of OOC here and there can help IC arguments not spill into OOC bad feelings as well.

Rule 6: Maybe make clear that it would involve a loss of posting privileges for the *player*, across all accounts they might have.

For the rules that needed more discussion:

9) This seems pretty clear. Though I guess we need to figure out if it will be permitted in cases where all parties okay it?

32) I think maybe this would work as an addendum to #3 rather than a rule in itself. Ban being a troll, rather than specifically rumor mongering. That should allow the interesting useful kind while allowing us leeway to nuke the uninteresting shitty kind.

35) We could make this as simple as 'public events are okay' and then we can just mod people who abuse it. Since we already have a handy rule against rules lawyering.

No Baseliners: I'm still against this as an outright ban. I'm probably just in the 'it's a privilege' camp.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Jekaterine on 06 Apr 2015, 06:45
I'll echo what Silver said.

Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 08:17
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion.   Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.     

An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'.    You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.

Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating?  Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit?   Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about  spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?

Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP.   For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now.    It's like the drive's just gone right?   Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?


- from my phone




Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Anyanka Funk on 06 Apr 2015, 09:02
^That.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Lyn Farel on 06 Apr 2015, 09:49
Quote from: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 08:17
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion.   Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.     

An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'.    You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.

Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating?  Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit?   Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about  spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?

Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP.   For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now.    It's like the drive's just gone right?   Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?


- from my phone

I disagree with that liberal drivel  :P

More seriously though, on the Summit it's either cantina/baby RP as you say, or just outright mudslinging contests (booo slaver, booo subhuman!) if you don't apply any moderation... I don't think it's the lack or the presence of moderation that is responsible for the quality we get, it's just the players (as misanthropic as it may sound...).

I don't think players are actually comparable to Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler. Those could have been able to at least keep a bit of dignity when talking to each other. Or well, if not, then Putin and Western Leaders in international summits, if you will.

Nah, a lot of players are just more comparable to Kevin1858 and xxXThugzor98Xxx.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 06 Apr 2015, 11:12
Quote from: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 08:17
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion.   Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.     

An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'.    You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.

Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating?  Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit?   Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about  spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?

Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP.   For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now.    It's like the drive's just gone right?   Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?


- from my phone

Rule 3 is intended more for things that would make it so threads aren't useful. It isn't intended to prevent what you might call vigorous debate. Of course, this is going ot be a new thing, so we will have to find where the exact balance lies, but I think the general consensus is that mods would step in mostly if a thread actually just becomes non-functional due to people shitposting.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 11:21
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 06 Apr 2015, 09:49
Quote from: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 08:17
The IGS was at its best when the only time the moderators got involved was to remove post that broke immersion.   Becoming heavy handed on the IGS was a contributing factor to the stagnation of the RP community.     

An even bigger contributor is the self inflicted moderation policy of 'the summit'.    You guys built a box inside the sandbox and then threw out all the sand from it.

Do you think its realistic for an Amarr slaver and a Minmatar terrorist to visit a medium were they must be in no way offensive to the people they are dedicated to eradicating?  Would Genghis Khan or Vlad the impaler have used the summit?   Would Sith and Jedi bother with conversations that mostly about  spats between spouses, birth day parties for toddlers, shopping trips or favorite ways of making a sandwhich?

Offenses drive conflict and conflict drive RP.   For you folks who were around in the old days - think about how it used to be compared to now.    It's like the drive's just gone right?   Like whatever special ingredient that made eve RP different than, say WoW RP is gone?


- from my phone

I disagree with that liberal drivel  :P


We should chat politics in private some time :P
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 06 Apr 2015, 14:56
purple: I'm going to make the guess that you haven't read the thread where people expressed interest in having a separate-from-IGS IC forum, because the stuff that you're saying is good, is exactly why many of those people are saying "fuck the IGS" right now.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Havohej on 06 Apr 2015, 15:49
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 06 Apr 2015, 09:49
Kevin1858 and xxXThugzor98Xxx.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 18:54
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 06 Apr 2015, 14:56
purple: I'm going to make the guess that you haven't read the thread where people expressed interest in having a separate-from-IGS IC forum, because the stuff that you're saying is good, is exactly why many of those people are saying "fuck the IGS" right now.

Nope, but I read your comments above and surmised as much.   My point is that rules outside of Stay IC and maybe keep it safe for work or no worse than rate R aren't going to achieve that goal.   
 
Look at the the ingame channel 'the summit' and ask yourself are ALL those people really that vapid and inane or is it because the mod team Judge Dreads anything that doesn't conform.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 06 Apr 2015, 21:46
Quote from: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 18:54
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 06 Apr 2015, 14:56
purple: I'm going to make the guess that you haven't read the thread where people expressed interest in having a separate-from-IGS IC forum, because the stuff that you're saying is good, is exactly why many of those people are saying "fuck the IGS" right now.

Nope, but I read your comments above and surmised as much.   My point is that rules outside of Stay IC and maybe keep it safe for work or no worse than rate R aren't going to achieve that goal.   
 
Look at the the ingame channel 'the summit' and ask yourself are ALL those people really that vapid and inane or is it because the mod team Judge Dreads anything that doesn't conform.

I've participated in the Summit for many years, including when there was essentially no moderation whatsoever. The majority of it was still often not entirely filled with substance, and the reason has more to do with it being a populated, public channel. People don't do that much interesting RP in that type of setting generally. Largely because in such a public setting perfectly normal or interesting conversations have a way of frequently becoming shouting matches without anything new in them from opposing sides who are unrelated to the original conversation.

I think that Backstage itself (regretably) probably has a greater problem with the level of moderation sometimes making people hesitate to post, compared to the Summit. Which is one reason we are explicitly making the rules quite a bit looser in some (most) ways in the IC section - because the rules we have here wouldn't serve their intended purpose in an IC setting.

Edit: Also, I was a Summit mod for a while, and at that time we didn't bring down the hammer very often. Mostly you had to troll pretty egregiously. As I haven't been  a mod for a few years, I can't comment on the current era, except to say I have hardly seen any mod actions taken in my time since as a participant. Certainly I would guess there is less mod intervention now than there was at the channel's inception.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 06 Apr 2015, 23:14
Quote from: purple on 06 Apr 2015, 18:54
ask yourself are ALL those people really that vapid and inane or is it because the mod team Judge Dreads anything that doesn't conform.

It's neither. If anything, it is the general userbase of the channel - those "vapid and inane" people - that "Judge Dredds" anything that doesn't conform.

It's a bit hard to have meaningful or new inter-faction discussion and debate when there's an incredible tendency from a rather large population of characters to derail any attempts at it with the same old tried-and-boring-as-fuck broken records. Someone asks a question about religion? Pretty much instantly turns into a "fuck the Amarr" shouting match. Sansha or Blooders show up? Ho boy. And don't forget, sticks and stones can break your bones, but they're also a great way to dismiss any uppity Minmatar trying to look even remotely civilized.

End result? "Vapid and inane" is about all that's left that doesn't instantly result in the community shitcanning your discussion most of the time. The moderators have very little to do with it.

It goes back to my point in the previous post, however. A lot of the people posting in support of or requesting an external IC forum cite the lack of moderation on CCP's part - even as required by their own rules - as a reason for why they are finding the IGS unpleasant or outright unusable. I'm not really seeing anyone, besides yourself, suggest the exact opposite. So you're going to have to either wait for my bulk shipment of salt to arrive, or do a much better job of making your argument, before I and a lot of other people are going to be inclined to accept it at face value.

This is all besides the fact that the ingame channels aren't really relevant to the issue, or the thread.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Lyn Farel on 07 Apr 2015, 02:17
Or the opposite also, when you are actually trying to have an interesting and serious discussion and it gets derailed by people that will just say "I have a better idea, let's talk about burritos !" and then 80% of the channel suddenly awakens and starts to talk about burritos, eventually drowning your interesting and serious discussion under ridiculous inanities.

@Purple : also, don't the IGS (ingame channel AND official forum) officially answer to the exact criterias you are willing to support ? Meaning basically, no rules besides PG rated and OOC basic stuff like that ?
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 08 Apr 2015, 10:06
Hamish, I am going to avoid being modded here (irony, i know), and simply state to you that I am very upset and actually quite offended by your implications.

If you want a visualization, this is where I'm hissing those words through my teeth with balled up fists.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Louella Dougans on 08 Apr 2015, 11:32
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 07 Apr 2015, 02:17
Or the opposite also, when you are actually trying to have an interesting and serious discussion and it gets derailed by people that will just say "I have a better idea, let's talk about burritos !" and then 80% of the channel suddenly awakens and starts to talk about burritos, eventually drowning your interesting and serious discussion under ridiculous inanities.

Some of the channel operators are guilty of doing this very thing. People are having an IC discussion about something, sometimes there are people new to rp, and then one of the channel ops butts in to say "this channel is now about (inanity)" and their corpmates join in, to shut down the IC discussion.

But that's the environment people apparently want. So, lol.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Silver Night on 08 Apr 2015, 13:53
I think we are going a bit off-topic. Let's steer this back toward the proposed ruleset for the IC forums. I think derails (which the last few posts have talked about) are probably already sufficiently addressed.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: purple on 08 Apr 2015, 15:41
Quote from: Katrina Oniseki on 08 Apr 2015, 10:06
Hamish, I am going to avoid being modded here (irony, i know), and simply state to you that I am very upset and actually quite offended by your implications.

If you want a visualization, this is where I'm hissing those words through my teeth with balled up fists.

You're welcome to hit me up ingame or skype: johnnygeeksheek
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Havohej on 11 Apr 2015, 22:09
For what it's worth, regarding the above exchange between purple and MorLag, I find my experiences with The Summit ingame and the IGS board have been along closer lines to what Morwen's describing.  It's for that reason that I seldom participate in a meaningful manner with The Summit (that is to say, when I very occasionally type in that channel, it's a few sentences at most, and them Havo goes quiet again) and only recently (i.e., during the time as a part of Scope Works, with which none of you can cope) posted in a more status-quo manner on the IGS - usually to troll Anslol, whom IC Havo did not really like but grudgingly respected for his efforts at focusing a bunch of sullied rabble on single objectives in the warzone, and therefore was willing to fly with and represent the ticker.  My postings on the IGS before that were typically little gems of "straight man" in the midst of a flood of "comic" partners.

I can count on one hand the number of IC adversaries with which I was able to carry out a debate/discussion/other dispute with via the IGS without the entire thread being overrun.  Those times were GREAT fun, but sadly too few and too far between.  I think it would be great if there were a place (which is what we're going on about here) where those discussions weren't such a rare exception to the general flow of things, and in which those new to the game's RP scene could even hash out the old tired schticks that so many of us have already been through and exhausted years ago without the weight of bitter- and/or bored-vets landing on their threads/posts.

I mean hell, I know back when Du'uma Fiisi was a thing, we weren't the first ones to do the Minmatar Terrorist thing, I know some people were bored of the whole "death to Amarr" thing already, but we were thick-skinned enough to keep at it until we earned some RP notoriety and even a modicum of popularity.  So many people that come into this particular RP scene are not so leathery-skinned.  But without doing all of that, I don't think my own RP would've matured to the point that it eventually did, and I also think that it's sort of a necessary growth thing for most players and their characters.  I read enough of the lore to get started on a tired, well-trod path, and kept reading as I went until, through further study and my own RP interactions, my character developed and grew.  Yet we seem to have this expectation that newbros will come into it with a graduate degree in New Eden PF and at least an Associate's Degree in New Eden IC History.

Fuck that.  Shit, I can't even remember what IC year it is.  LEt some newbie make an announcement post about an IC thing they're trying to do, they'll get three pages of replies from Captain Obvious and their entire crew about how "That's not the right year."  After which, some white knights will flame the C.O. team and the actual OP is lost in space and the whole thing never happens, gg OP, kindly fuck right back off to wherever you had the gall to come from to begin with.

TL;DR: IGS and The Summit both suck, imo.  My personal hope is that a better, more productive alternative to the IGS will somehow promote a sort of culture shift in terms of the way The Summit channel is actually used by the players in it.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Utari Onzo on 17 Apr 2015, 16:18
As one of said new bros I found myself nodding furiously to Havohej's post. Tbh my start in eve Rp has been a real struggle. Between a really big drama with someone who's mercifully biomassed, a little incident of passive aggressive jabs in ooc channel, struggles with IRL issues and mental health I've also had to learn fast on my feet the lore and Ic histories. At times i struggle to find a voice in IGS threads/summit when somethig interesting happens, or i try rping with someone who's a bit space famous in the summit and get lost in all the noise of vets who seem to have only hung out in OOC when i'm online but suddenly flood the Ic channels. i don't blame them for that but it's intimidating for me i guess.

I have had a fun moments but it's taken a big intervention by a certain community member to really keep me 'in' as such. An IGS 'lite' forum as Havohej suggests might give someone like me the breathing space needed to develop and actually have more fun rather then frustrating face palms or twiddling my thumbs thinking 'where can I get in on this'
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Rhiannon on 02 May 2015, 12:09
Quote
. Posting of private/personal communication and/or information is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept. Doxxing is not okay, even IC. We have locator agents for that shit ingame.

Does this apply to character POS locations, like when Nauplius launched his De-Minmatarization project?

Quote
10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept, though the odds of this happening are low. Should it be permissible to post mails from event actors?

Event actors, definitely. Those are IC. There's no IC reason to post CCP stuff. That's clearly OOC.

Quote
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
-"I think rumors are great, but we would probably have to draw a line somewhere, and somewhere fairly clear. I know there are certain members of the forum for whom rumors are a favorite weapon."
-"We could even have sort of a version of the gossip thread so people can spread rumors about themselves."
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."

The last roleplay community I spent a significant amount of time in had a special rumor thread that was designed to be used by DMs and only very occasionally by players with DM permission. The best way I can think to replicate that is for there to be a Rumors and News subforum that only moderators can create threads in but people in the Members usergroup can reply to. If a player wants to submit a Rumor or News post they can send it in a PM to a separate forum account for this purpose that mods have access to. (I believe someone else suggested a very similar set up, I'm partially stealing that idea here. Props to them, but I don't remember who it was.) This requires a certain level of OOC trust in our mod team, however. Optimally, the mods would act here in a quality-control but also damage-control capacity, because as mentioned some members have Weapon Focus: Rumors and not all rumors really deserve to be posted publicly. If possible, such rumors should have the OOC permission of the players involved, so we at least know its not being used as an oblique OOC weapon to damage someone's reputation IRL.

Quote
35. Posting of chat logs outside the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
This is done on EVE-O to avoid a lot of drama and "those are faked!" arguments. A valid stance to take in general but there are cases where it could/should be permissible, such as for recording-for-posterity of live events and things like SeyCon. Private conversations and evemails are a no-no. We will need to come up with a clearer definition of what is and what is not acceptable, but the above are a starting example.
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."
-"We should honestly keep chat logs out, and leave it on a 'if you want it, please send me a request' basis. It keeps threads neat, and stops people from cherry picking in the thread and possibly derailing."
-"Chat logs of public events are fine, and I think we should probably avoid ones of private conversations."
-"I think we would also want to make clear what is a public event (ex: a conference, a speech, etc) and what is a private event that happens to be in a public channel (ex: overheard conversations in places like bars)."
-"We could keep it loose on rumors and have the same type of rules we have on Backstage for discussing warnings and bans: If you bring it up, it's fair game."

Public events and public channels, sure, so long as it makes IC sense for that person to have the security feeds for that venue. There's not really a very good reason to be posting private IC conversations ICly except for the purposes of Rumor-mongering. And ideally, we'll have a separate sub-forum for that purpose.

However I think the discussion of warnings and bans is a slightly separate issue here, and as one of the posters mentioned, if the offender brings it up, its fair game. Otherwise the moderation team should stay mum on the subject, which I expect would be their policy anyway.

Quote
29. Please use the correct language when posting on the forums.
Not necessary, really.
-"It may be worth suggesting that if you don't post in English the moderation team reserves the right to run it through Google translate and replace it with the results, for better or for worse. Maybe we should add this rule to Backstage even if it isn't used for the IC one."[/quote]

[ tinfoil hat ] Not using English IC means, technically, that your character is bypassing the automagical Universal Translator. Is the moderation team going to allow people to ICly hack their forum for this purpose? Wouldn't this be considered a security breach of some kind? [ / tinfoil hat ]

On the other hand, some players use some IC-language words (like Napaani) in limited use for words that don't have clear or correct English translations. And I like Napaani. So I think the best way to handle that is if your character is going to use non-English in their posts, they should include the English translation, to represent the Universal Translator doing a best-fit ad-hoc translation of those words. For example, Pieter recently referred to Evi as kirjuun in a recent IGS post. (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5711410#post5711410) The closest English translation is "comrade" or "co-worker" though that doesn't fully explain the cultural meaning to the word. In practice, it might look like this:

Quote from: Before
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [...]
Quote from: After
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [UT- Noun: Comrade, Coworker] [...]

Quote
36. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
Generally serves to do little but cause drama. Possibly worth including references or details regarding killmails in rules 32 and/or 35.

I know there's probably several characters for whom it would be entirely IC to do this, but I don't think the loss there is really all that big. There's better ways to brag about that stuff if a character absolutely must. Most people already have their killboards in their bios and corp descriptions anyway.

Quote
PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
-"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
-"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
-"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
-"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
-"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."

Are baseliner alts really that common? And of those alts, are they often disruptive in some way to warrant barring them from participation? I'm not talking about the minors, that's a whole different thing and obviously they shouldn't be allowed. But adult baseliners? I honestly don't see it being a big deal. Yeah baseliner characters are a little silly as a concept but I honestly don't see it as a big deal. Maybe somebody can jump in here on this and help explain to me why we might need a rule like this in place.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Rhiannon on 02 May 2015, 12:17
After having read this post (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6419.0) I'd like to amend my points about Rule 32 slightly [Rumor mongering is prohibited]

Replace "Administrators" where I say "moderators". It didn't occur to me that the IC forum's moderators would be IC moderators. Which is a great idea, by the way! :)

Nevermind, apparently this is still up in the air! Exciting!
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Nissui on 05 May 2015, 11:30
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 00:03
The rules that we think can be discarded:
  • 1. You must have an active EVE Online game account to post on our forums.
    This can only be enforced if we require it under an API mod (specifically the AccountStatus flag, or whatever it's called). It would prevent some issues, but would not prevent others. Current inclination by the team is to ignore the rule, and just go with a public position of "it's a privilege not a right; we will be keeping an eye on this, so don't abuse it or we'll find a way to disable it."

While I would prefer only those who are able to suffer the consequences of their RP would be able to post, I understand the technical limitations may outweigh the benefit of restricting access in such a way.

Quote
The rules that could go either way and need more discussion:
  • PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
    AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
    -"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
    -"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
    -"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
    -"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
    -"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."
  • PROPOSED: IC/OOC divide - players are not their characters, and vice-versa.
    -"While this might seem self evident enough it needn't be stated, it is also pretty clear to anyone who spends time RPing that it is often forgotten."
    -"As a moderation issue it more likely applies to other people forgetting the difference between a poster and their character."
    -"Possible wording: 'Please remember, as an IC forum people will be posting here not as themselves but as their characters. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt that if they aren't being very nice to you IC it might be because their character doesn't like your character - don't just assume that it is because the player doesn't like you. Also feel free to reach out and clear up any possible misunderstandings, rather than jumping to negative conclusions.'

I am not against baseliner alts posting in their own subforum. The concern above about not being shootable in space is the same concern behind the forum allowing unsubs to post, for me. However, in practice most baseliner alts do not command starship crews and multi-billion ISK enterprises.

The rule on IC/OOC divide is one that is probably sort of requisite CYA, in spite of the fact that the divide should be a given.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Letos on 08 May 2015, 04:33
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 22 Jan 2015, 00:03
EDIT/UPDATE 2015/04/05: New (condensed) version of the rules has been posted here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=6388.msg111294#msg111294).

The "almost certain" rules seem to be reasonable OOC guidelines to me. They outline the forum's purpose.

I would also Keep N° 9, 10, 35 as OOC rules. Everything else appears a bit weird to me. Maybe I'm not experienced enough with backstage forum culture yet. So some of those rules might be necessary/reasonable?

Regarding non-capsuleer contributors: I think it is not a big thing. I would allow it. It adds some intersting aspects to the roleplay setting. Should it turn out to be awkward, it could easily be changed at a later time as an IC consequence.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Havohej on 09 May 2015, 00:31
My opinion would be POS locations are a tangible intel asset that would not fall under the privacy provisions.

Baseliner alts, to me, are only really disruptive when they "use fightin' werds", or otherwise intentionally engage in exchanges where any reasonable Eve player would expect "settle it in space" to be a viable recourse.

I like the suggestion regarding a Rumer Mill thread/subforum being set read-only with Admins posting things submitted OOCly via PM by players wanting a rumor to spread.

I want to make sure, because it may not have been clear in my last post in this thread:  I have nothing against The Summit mod team, and I do not believe that the atmosphere I described as my personal experience with the channel is in any way the channel mods' "fault" - it's simply my perception of interactions I've had their and I think it's just 'how things are' right now.  For the record :)

("Right now", of course, being "last time I was logged in".  Which is months ago.  So... yeah.)
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: scagga on 13 Jun 2015, 04:34
Interesting.

What is the current status of this project?

Hrr
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 13 Jun 2015, 08:52
It's in the same position it was last time someone asked that question.

I'm not seeing enough discussion or feedback to feel comfortable moving forward with things, especially on the rules I wanted more feedback on.

I am also the only person on the team who seems to give even half a shit about it still.
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Vizage on 15 Jun 2015, 12:44
I am posted here to state that I am content with the current proposed rules and would love to see the IC forum project move forward at moderators discretion.

I suggest everyone else who hasn't spoken up in one way or another say something so Morbutts can see where we stand!
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: Ché Biko on 15 Jun 2015, 16:44
I've commented on anything I wanted to. I don't really have an opinion on other things.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ58svR3o3wqhXng7S5plwGlXDltdusH2w03A9GCtbpcnXYndM1OA)
Title: Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
Post by: scagga on 16 Jun 2015, 10:59
Quote from: Morwen Lagann on 13 Jun 2015, 08:52
It's in the same position it was last time someone asked that question.

I'm not seeing enough discussion or feedback to feel comfortable moving forward with things, especially on the rules I wanted more feedback on.

I am also the only person on the team who seems to give even half a shit about it still.

I note that the discussion thread has been dedicated to detailing rules.

Most of the rules focus on what should not be, but I can't yet see much discussion on what the IC forum actually should/could be, or how it would work.

I propose to start a fresh thread to discuss ideas for the IC forum, without a requirement for a list of rules.