Print

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

[Silas Vitalia]

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687952&#post2687952

Very curious about this. 

This is NOT to detract from summit, this is just a little experiment to change a few variables and see if people still want to act like idiots.

[Morwen Lagann]

You're basically looking at exactly what the Summit was a few years ago before Ashar came back and Graelyn took over. The place was utter shit and largely unusable before then - similar in many ways to Chatsubo, before it eventually kicked the bucket. God forbid the Goons decided to swarm into the channel and fuck shit up - there was nothing that could be done except spend an hour filling your block list.

As Tib and I told you last night, the majority of your disagreements with the other moderators are primarily due to you having spent almost no time in either Summit or OOC at all prior to becoming a moderator - which means that as a result you lack the background and history that govern our decisions, as well as the experience with the older forms of "moderation" it used to have that would show you why things are the way they are now.

We don't ban people for lying to a mod about whether they're an alt or not.

We do punt people out of the channel for extended tears of crude language and direct personal attacks, which is in the MOTD as one of the few explicitly-written rules, and is in fact one of the oldest rules the channel has.

There just wasn't anyone to enforce it back in the days before Ashar or the current team led by Graelyn.

[Sepherim]

Yup, I remember those days. The Summit was mostly un-usable, and people had to go to other channels (Le Maison was pretty active then, for example) and many more faction-themed channels appeared (like the Amarr Basilica, or something like that) because inter-faction interaction wasn't working mostly, only degenerated into trolling.

But I am interested in your experiment, and wish you luck on it. EVE has changed, we have changed, maybe we can do it right this time. Well, in this case "we" doesn't include me, but that's because a blooder organized it

[Khloe]

I'm looking forward to it personally.

[Silas Vitalia]

I really want to stress this is not a repudiation of the Summit or its methods of control.

I honestly want to give people a chance who feel things are a certain way to prove me wrong. 

[Lyn Farel]

Interesting. I hope it will probe fruitful but as I tend to believe in strict moderation since self moderation is a joke for 95% of the people, I do not hold very big hopes on it though.

I will try to join and see how that experiment goes.

However I agree OOCly with Niraia first IC answer.

1. Don't be a sh*t. If you feel a need to use foul language, make threats, act in a certain way, you do what you need to do. HOWEVER if myself, or a majority of the patrons feel you are sh*tting up the channel with your nonsense you will be banned, no questions asked, no recourses.

I hope you know what you are doing. Ostracizing by the majority is often dangerous. That's already one of the flaws I personally hold the Summit responsible for.

I agree with Jinari IC remark about that as well. Popularity contests are like plague, especially since they often mix IC and OOC stuff together.

[Samira Kernher]

While I agree that the moderation in the Summit is far, far too heavy (people really shouldn't be banned or muted for having heated IC arguments, nor for using "bad" words or attacking other members. As long as it's IC, it should be allowed to continue, IMO. Conflict is good), having no moderation whatsoever isn't good either. The best kind of moderation is a light-handed approach, IMO, present and available but only stepping in when it's a very clear disturbance.

Personally won't be participating in the experiment for IC reasons, due to Silas being the founder. Sorry.

[Morwen Lagann]

Samira, there is a difference between a heated argument, and, for example, the incident that happened yesterday after the live event. Heated arguments are fine, and we welcome those. They become not-fine when people stop arguing and just resort to little more than personal attacks and lots of swearing.

Silas, you were proven wrong in this case several years before you came up with the idea, as I stated before. You're setting up a channel that is identical in function and form to what the Summit (and Chatsubo) was several years ago.

You would not be doing so if you had exposed yourself to things back then.

[Karmilla Strife]

Wasn't something similar attempted already with Saede's channel The Undercroft?

[Samira Kernher]

Samira, there is a difference between a heated argument, and, for example, the incident that happened yesterday after the live event. Heated arguments are fine, and we welcome those. They become not-fine when people stop arguing and just resort to little more than personal attacks and lots of swearing.

If they're IC personal attacks and IC swearing, I don't see the problem. It's RP.

I saw Andreus get muted the other day for 3 hours just for ICly calling someone a bad word. There was no protracted, heated argument disrupting the channel. Just one bad word. Someone made a jibe at him and he responded with an insult in return, and got muted for it. That's just ridiculous IMO, no matter how "bad" the word might have been. As long as it's IC there shouldn't be any action taken IMO unless it's seriously disrupting the channel (in which case it should be just a temporary mute of all parties involved so people can calm down, not a several-day ban).

[Silas Vitalia]

Samira, there is a difference between a heated argument, and, for example, the incident that happened yesterday after the live event. Heated arguments are fine, and we welcome those. They become not-fine when people stop arguing and just resort to little more than personal attacks and lots of swearing.

Silas, you were proven wrong in this case several years before you came up with the idea, as I stated before. You're setting up a channel that is identical in function and form to what the Summit (and Chatsubo) was several years ago.

You would not be doing so if you had exposed yourself to things back then.

I was a member of chatsubo for a long time, as was I in the Summit on and off as well. 

It's not 'right' or 'wrong.'  Some people like and need to be coddled, some people need to be grown ups and handle their IC interaction without running to the mod shields for being called a bad name.

[Morwen Lagann]

It wasn't just that, it was the protracted rant of abusive language that was directed at multiple people that resulted in his (temporary) ban.

Keep in mind that the channel is primarily a diplomatic discussion channel.

Calling people whores, among other things, is not appropriate for such an environment. There was a history of prior behavior that was taken into account with that situation. I personally suggested less time than was given, but was overridden by a more senior moderator, for the record.

Karm: You're thinking of The Underdepths. Not sure what the status there is.

[Matariki Rain]

Let the many flowers bloom.

(Morwen, it's okay if people want something different and they're willing to make it happen. We don't all like the same things. Even when there are things that we do like, we don't necessarily want those things all the time. I may have missed some context, but it doesn't seem that this does anything harmful to The Summit. Instead it provides an alternative, and possibly a safety valve.)

[Katrina Oniseki]

I for one, welcome our Summit Overlords. I advocate stronger moderation, harsher. You guys can lose entire ships (OOC) and crews (IC) to a lethal and overreactive police force... but you can't take a slap on the wrist from a moderator?

Y'all got your priorities messed up. EVE is harsh. Let's see some summary ganks for 'RP suspect flags'!

[Morwen Lagann]

That's not the point I'm getting at, Mata. Not at all.

If you want context, it's in my first post, and I provided a few examples. Silas has a fundamental lack of understanding how the rules in both channels are enforced, largely due to not having spent very much time in them in his time prior to becoming a moderator. If he had spent more time in the channels, we wouldn't be having this discussion in all likelihood, because he wouldn't be as (effectively) uninformed as to how things have been done since Graelyn took over.

This is not to say that the moderators never have differences in opinion on how to enforce things. We do - very regularly I have had to step up and say "no, we shouldn't ban/mute X person (yet)" when someone else is chomping at the bit, and vice versa - but we still discuss it with each other openly.

Some joke that trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result each time is the definition of insanity. We've seen this sort of thing several times before, and we've seen it fail too. He's welcome to try, by all means, but I think his reasons for doing so are misguided and partly based on his frequent hesitation to sit down and discuss things with other moderators at length on TS when they come up.

I expect it to fail like other attempts before, and I also expect it to fail -faster- than other attempts.

I'm not going to stop him from trying, but I'm also not going to sit there and not put my 2 ISK on the table regarding his decision-making process when he's part of the moderation team for the Summit and OOC.