Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Silas Vitalia]

Howdy folks!

As I'm new to the Moderator Kill-team, I wanted to have an even-handed discussion regarding things in the summit that piss off other people in the summit, and how our policy is determined.

So, lots of things happen IC in the summit that plenty of us would not be cool with IC.   So, religious Amarr types might be wholly annoyed with heretics being tolerated in channels, or heathen minmater talking about killing Imperials, or Sansha folks talking about uplifting civilians, etc.  And I imagine Matari probably additionally equally annoyed with conversations regarding slavery or mention of such things, or the occasional slave wench or servant, etc.

What I'd like to imagine is that 'casual' references that are relatively benign, say Leo's grape feeding rage bait (sorry, Leo ) are actually pretty harmless.  Plenty of us are ebil overlords with hundreds of servants built on a lot of evil-type shit.  I imagine all sorts of Jabba the hut / Leah situations going on.

I think we'd have to be extra careful where we draw that line though.  I, personally, don't mind the occasional visual reference to how these people operate. What I'd be much, much less interested in is any reference to mistreatment, or violence, or gratuitous anything.  I don't want to see Sabiks draining people on the summit, I don't want to see excessive force, etc etc.

Obviously I will enforce summit official rulings but I'd like to discuss this.

 

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama".  For a while, there was no issue with slavery in the Summit, but then some people long banned decided to cause a massive amount of drama about it.  The moderation team around at the time discussed it and found very few instances where characters were bringing in NPC slave characters (and in some cases PC slave characters) for any reason other than to cause a massive truckload of drama and to rile people up.

So we stopped it.

Its the same reason we don't let people murder NPC's 'on camera' in the Summit, because it never leads to anything good.

[Silas Vitalia]

I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama". 

I would get behind this ruling.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I mean, long story short, the summit can have strict rules about that sort of thing because ideally people would use it to find other people to RP with and then pull likeminded sorts into private rooms.  Want slavery in your BarP?   Go for it.  We aren't going to stop you.  We couldn't if we wanted to.  However, by virtue of being a neutral meeting ground, the Summit has to prevent the worst potential excesses.  Talk about slavery, fine.  Be pro-slavery?  Fine.  Be anti-slavery?  Fine.  Bringing your slaves there?  Its been shown that this is not fine, because 95% of the people instigating it can't act like adults and were doing it just to piss off a significant chunk of the Summit, going "Look at how hardcore I am".

It's too bad for the 5% that could handle it like adults, but I have faith in their ability to adapt.

[Desiderya]

That ruling as such is extremely loose.
After all, what is drama, baby don't hurt me, don't h...

Is there good drama and bad drama?
And after all, don't you need more than one side for solid drama, especially with the topic of slavery?
Solid philosophy right there.

In the light of the summit - maybe it should be handled in the way it always was handled: Cause retarded drama for drama's sake, get moderated.

[Silver Night]

I suspect that it would lead to rulings being too subjective.

We have trouble with that in the moderation of Backstage sometimes, and we have the luxury of discussion and review among moderators, whereas in The Summit they are moderating in near real time.

Essentially, chat channel type moderation demands rules that are somewhat more clear cut. Or at least it helps.

[Morwen Lagann]

Basically, the policies that are in place (several since before I was a moderator, in fact - including the "no slaves on camera" one) are there for three purposes:

• Keeping a (mostly) civil atmosphere
• Reducing excessive derpery
• Discouraging deliberate asshattery and trolling

Remember that because of the limited tools we have available to us, we have to explicitly provide all of the otherwise would-be-visible details. Nobody would know or be able to guess that Morwen's been working in the garden if she doesn't mention it or I don't explicitly provide some hint to that fact, like her absent-mindedly rubbing dirt off of her face or hands. Nobody would know that some character had been crying in the recent past if no direct clues were given in emotes or dialogue by their player.

And yes, continuing along those lines, nobody would know (or have to know) that you've got a slave sitting next to you feeding you grapes or whatever, if you didn't explicitly take the time to put it in the text you send to the channel. For people to know and notice, it has to be done deliberately. It is not 'benign'. It is deliberate, intentional dramabaiting, for lack of a better term - with the sole possible exception being for new people who do not know better.

And when you have been told repeatedly not to do something, continuing to do it deliberately does not excuse you from the consequences.

We are not saying you cannot hold slaves and be on the Summit. We are not saying you can't say you have them. We aren't even saying you can't interact with them as 'background' noise from your character's feed. We are saying don't have them in view of your "camera" - ie, don't type about them being visible. It isn't that difficult to work around. Plenty of people who ran afoul of that particular policy were warned, then came up with ways to work around it and still be within the rules. They're doing just fine.

A few others, however, have not changed their behavior. I think it goes without saying what their situation looks like.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Our general modus operandi at the moment has been to keep the "No Derping" rule as a philosophical basis, and then make specific rules once it becomes clear that people can't tell something is derping.

It works fine since there is a generally accepted 'Three strikes' style of moderation (that sometimes extends to 15 strikes).  Basically it is exceedingly rare that we ban someone permanently or temporarily for a first offense.  After that, we start handing out bans of increasing length until it eventually extends to a perma.

About the only things that result in instant bans of a permanent nature are people who start acting like psychopaths IRL.

[Silas Vitalia]

These are all valid points, but perhaps it begs the question that -should- we be making sure everyone is IC 'comfortable' in the channel? We are some of us not very nice people IC?

I realize the derp slope is slippery and too few have any grace or eloquence to properly "troll" IC and keep it 'nice' and not flagrant.

I also see how for some particular pilots in possession of great derp that they would see something relatively benign and take that as a que to start the calligula orgy on-camera every time they log into the summit.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama". 

Not that I have any say, I think that's a terrible idea. It's entirely subjective and vague, and would only lead to more rage threads here on Backstage.

[Lyn Farel]

Howdy folks!

As I'm new to the Moderator Kill-team, I wanted to have an even-handed discussion regarding things in the summit that piss off other people in the summit, and how our policy is determined.

So, lots of things happen IC in the summit that plenty of us would not be cool with IC.   So, religious Amarr types might be wholly annoyed with heretics being tolerated in channels, or heathen minmater talking about killing Imperials, or Sansha folks talking about uplifting civilians, etc.  And I imagine Matari probably additionally equally annoyed with conversations regarding slavery or mention of such things, or the occasional slave wench or servant, etc.

What I'd like to imagine is that 'casual' references that are relatively benign, say Leo's grape feeding rage bait (sorry, Leo ) are actually pretty harmless.  Plenty of us are ebil overlords with hundreds of servants built on a lot of evil-type shit.  I imagine all sorts of Jabba the hut / Leah situations going on.

I think we'd have to be extra careful where we draw that line though.  I, personally, don't mind the occasional visual reference to how these people operate. What I'd be much, much less interested in is any reference to mistreatment, or violence, or gratuitous anything.  I don't want to see Sabiks draining people on the summit, I don't want to see excessive force, etc etc.

Obviously I will enforce summit official rulings but I'd like to discuss this.

The summit has become some sort of politically correct codes of conduct, and a vapid homogenous blob that slowly abolished any idea of diversity, all of this often based on OOC decision. And quite gallente in its IC policies actually (western OOC morals, here we come). That is just my opinion - and the opinion of someone that is not even playing anymore - and since you asked for opinions, take it how you want. It may be negative criticism, but it remains criticism as any.

But yes, you hit the nail. Slaves onscreen are forbidden for fallacious OOC reasons (to my opinion, again) that I don't think have anything to do with it at all, and it basically make the channel pro minmtar/gallente ICly just with that. Moreover, the reason invoked are that it is always done for drama's sake 90% of the time, so the team choosed to forbid it all along instead of actually doing their moderating job (killing the 90% and emphasizing on the healthy, good, 10%  remaining).

Also, I know from various sources that do not even want to go in that channel again (for various reasons as well) that most of them are more or less disgusted with what often appears to be the knee-jerk circle of friends enforcing their own rules like a political party, never taking any criticism seriously or just dismissing it because it is too hard to take. Maybe that's just an impression, but the impression is here. I have always tried to warn them of that and it has always been met with clear hostility actually not directed at the content of my words, but at the persona behind that was not to the appreciation of the people I was adressing to.

But maybe worse, the moderation is often seen as unfair by various trolls, yes (that is always the case with the 90% of trolls that lurk on popular channels), but it is also seen as unfair by a lot of other otherwise serious RPers (myself included now), to the opposite of the often appreciated neutrality of backstage in contrast. A lot of uncommong RPers playing unconventionnal characters especially, often feel that they are told to fit into a "mold" of cheesy and populirity seeking morals and rules.

Then of course, the owner of a channel makes it what he/she wants it to be like, and to hell all the people complaining. It's his/her channel. In the case of OOC and the summit, this is also an universal truth, but you have to take in account that both these channels are vital for most RPers since they basically are more or less the only active channels where you can find the community. Without them, it's like moving in nullsec space without your alliance intel channel. You are blind and unconnected to most things. This is why, I think, that OOC and the Summit are mediums that involve at least a little responsibilities, even towards people one might not like.

In my case for example, I don't think I have ever broken a single rule of both channels (never got moderated), but I have my own opinions, and my opinion of the channels have seriously decayed over the time considering how I have been treated for raising my voice against what is basically a popularity contest. I am not the least popular, but not the most popular either, and this is where both these channels hurt sometimes.



Anyway, back to the topic, murdering people in front of a camera barely has anything to do with "parading" slaves. I do not see why it would be wrong to have an amarrian with slaves showing in the background while it is perfectly okay for a gallente or a caldari to have workers and secretaries showing onscreen as well. This channel does not assume anymore the cultural diversity of the cluster and tries sometimes even unconciously the grimdark aspect of New Eden for hardly related OOC justifications.

I'd prefer it was worded as "Don't do shit for the sole purpose of causing drama".  For a while, there was no issue with slavery in the Summit, but then some people long banned decided to cause a massive amount of drama about it.  The moderation team around at the time discussed it and found very few instances where characters were bringing in NPC slave characters (and in some cases PC slave characters) for any reason other than to cause a massive truckload of drama and to rile people up.

So we stopped it.

Its the same reason we don't let people murder NPC's 'on camera' in the Summit, because it never leads to anything good.

I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.

It's too bad for the 5% that could handle it like adults, but I have faith in their ability to adapt.

I already know a lot of amarrian/angel RPers that have been drawn away from the channel because they actually were not able to adapt for the same reason I have never been. And I am not even playing a damn slaver. I can't imagine how frustrating it might be for them.

Your faith here might be a little optimistic to my own experience.

Basically, the policies that are in place (several since before I was a moderator, in fact - including the "no slaves on camera" one) are there for three purposes:

• Keeping a (mostly) civil atmosphere
• Reducing excessive derpery
• Discouraging deliberate asshattery and trolling

Remember that because of the limited tools we have available to us, we have to explicitly provide all of the otherwise would-be-visible details. Nobody would know or be able to guess that Morwen's been working in the garden if she doesn't mention it or I don't explicitly provide some hint to that fact, like her absent-mindedly rubbing dirt off of her face or hands. Nobody would know that some character had been crying in the recent past if no direct clues were given in emotes or dialogue by their player.

And yes, continuing along those lines, nobody would know (or have to know) that you've got a slave sitting next to you feeding you grapes or whatever, if you didn't explicitly take the time to put it in the text you send to the channel. For people to know and notice, it has to be done deliberately. It is not 'benign'. It is deliberate, intentional dramabaiting, for lack of a better term - with the sole possible exception being for new people who do not know better.

And when you have been told repeatedly not to do something, continuing to do it deliberately does not excuse you from the consequences.

We are not saying you cannot hold slaves and be on the Summit. We are not saying you can't say you have them. We aren't even saying you can't interact with them as 'background' noise from your character's feed. We are saying don't have them in view of your "camera" - ie, don't type about them being visible. It isn't that difficult to work around. Plenty of people who ran afoul of that particular policy were warned, then came up with ways to work around it and still be within the rules. They're doing just fine.

A few others, however, have not changed their behavior. I think it goes without saying what their situation looks like.

The three basic rules are good rules. Simple and clear, and quite obvious, but obviously needed. No derping is awesome as a policy.

However, you are basically saying that adding several layers of deliberate RP descriptions (yes, you are perfectly right, it is deliberate), is a bad thing for RP ? What the...

Oh well, just refer to what I said above about bluntly denying parts of what makes New Eden what New Eden is.

_____________________________________



Silas, Since I personally think my post here on the summit part of the forum (with different mods and summit rules) is going to be moderated again, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss about it....

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.

Basically, this is why I prefer a looser set of rules, but as Kat just pointed out, people dont like that.  I would very, very, very much prefer to keep the rules loose and just ban the troublemakers, and my fellow moderators can point out that I have advocated for this in the past, but some people want us to keep a list of rules somewhere.

Some of the people wanting a list of specific rules (not Kat) are troublemakers who want us to do this just so that they can find ways to work around the rules.

In short, Lyn, it's not laziness, it's necessity.

[Lyn Farel]

I personnally find this reasoning absurd. Just because 95% are twisting something in a wrong way or using PF valuable materials into shitty ways to troll or cause drama, you basically try to censor the remaining 5% that actually bring something to the atmosphere and the richness of the world we play in, instead of doing your moderation jobs properly. That's lazyness, and quite sad I may add.

Basically, this is why I prefer a looser set of rules, but as Kat just pointed out, people dont like that.  I would very, very, very much prefer to keep the rules loose and just ban the troublemakers, and my fellow moderators can point out that I have advocated for this in the past, but some people want us to keep a list of rules somewhere.

Some of the people wanting a list of specific rules (not Kat) are troublemakers who want us to do this just so that they can find ways to work around the rules.

In short, Lyn, it's not laziness, it's necessity.

I see. Firstly thank you for the answer.

I don't think that's a necessity. Trolls will always be there, but these rules seem to prefer to disgust actual proper RPers instead of disgusting trolls and dramaqueens.

Who cares if a dramaqueen gets hard feelings for being moderated over a "you were being an ass" ? Nobody, except the troll himself. Who cares if a serious RPer gets moderated over a "you showed a slave onscreen ICly" ? The RPer firstly, but some other RPers as well since the guy was moderated for doing proper and immersive RP.

You say yourselves that it is always obvious when someone is being an ass. I don't think anybody will see any harm if you show yourself a little arbitrary with them (since it's obvious).

[Silver Night]

I don't think that the rule is a matter of imposing a certain set of morals. I think it has more to do witht he fact that slaves showing up makes the rest of the channel freak out. To be fair, they could ban Minmatar characters from showing themselves fondling Khumaaks on screen.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I consider that as worthy of a warning, Silver.  I don't see it as often, though.  Generally most of the Amarrian RPers dont bother to report it.