Print

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

[Lyn Farel]

1) I find it odd that the people who constantly complain about this never pick up their toys and leave. Seriously, if you hate this perception you have so much, leave, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Everyone reserves the right to point and laugh at you if you come back crying because the alternatives were worse than what you had, though, so keep that in mind.

2) Just because moderation decisions are usually based on community perception of what is acceptable and what is not in addition to an internal fuzzy rubric (I say fuzzy because it isn't set in stone and is more like a set of guidelines than actual concrete rules) of what constitutes in/appropriate behavior does not automatically equate to mob rule or echo chambers. Just like the moderation on Backstage, if we get reports that are pretty clearly not motivated by "there's someone who's actually breaking rules and/or being disruptive" and are more akin to "I don't like this person so I'm going to nitpick every little fucking thing s/he does until you ban them so I stop complaining" they aren't going to be acted on unless there's some actual rule breakage going on. And yes. This does happen. Don't be that guy.

1) As I have already told countless times before, leaving the channel means cutting you off from almost everyone and everything. I still have other OOC channels with a handful of people here, but there are still enjoyable people I only see on OOC. As for the Summit, it's useful ICly.

2) So because alternatives are worse, it's okay to have poor standards ? Be happy with what you get ? And before telling me to create my own channel, please note that i'm just unable to do it, firstly because I suck at motivating people to come, and secondly because people rarely bother to change.

Worth noting that we used to have clearly written rules. People complained they were to strict and inflexible, so we got rid of them.

Can't have it both ways.

There was also a lot of attempts to rules lawyer everything I understand, which as a moderator, I can understand why would be obnoxious as hell.

Yes, especially when it comes from people who like to pretend they are important internet spaceships lawyerpeople IRL.
[/quote]

Rules are the solid basis for moderation. Without rules, it's a mess of whining and popularity contests.

Everything can be sorted out when taking proper time to do it, when without rules it's just based on subjectives biases. It's already open to interpretation over rules, so imagine when it's over a big void...

Everyone can bend it in any way one likes, and it eventually leads to butthurt and unsane situations. It works a lot better on backstage for this very reason, even if the medium is slightly different. You don't need thousand of articles in rules, it only participates to make it worse.

And what Arista said.


NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)

[Katrina Oniseki]

NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)

Good idea, as we're not going to change the way things are handled because you do not like it.

I has a funny log saved where someone threatened to report me for using (( )) in the summit for an internet link to a wiki article that is considered "in character and not meta logic.  Poor CCP Logibro got to watch me screaming "THEN FUCKING REPORT ME." for a good thirty minutes to people who were not mods and kept quoting the MOTD "don't use double brackets" thingy.

Regardless of how they work I'd rtaher have living human mods who actively mod then a room full of people whisper or yelling they'll tell on me.

I'm confused, did that happen in the CCP channels or in ours? Your first paragraph suggests ours, but then you say you'd rather have living human mods. Unlike the CCP channels, we actually do have full TZ coverage of moderators most of the time.

Keep in mind that both channel sets rely on reporting for moderation, but only one channel relies on a codified set of rules to respond. Ours is more 'flexible', theirs is more 'predictable'.

[Lyn Farel]

NB : anyway, there is no point arguing over that again. =)

Good idea, as we're not going to change the way things are handled because you do not like it.

Yes, that was stupid of me.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Yes, that was stupid of me.

*presses butan*

[Vic Van Meter]

You know, sometimes you just have to take what you can get.  If you don't like the way something is RPed and the person isn't listening to your suggestions, ignore them.  If their RP is that intolerable, they'll find themselves with few listeners.  If your standards are too narrow, you end up missing out on the fun.  Either way, people get what they deserve.  Nobody deserves other peoples' OOC blowups disrupting the flow of RP.

[Lyn Farel]

I am not sure what you are trying to say ?

[Vic Van Meter]

I am not sure what you are trying to say ?

I'm just saying, in general, we can solve a lot of our problems ourselves before they become problems the mods have to deal with.  Most of us can see a situation getting ugly before it gets there.  The less rule-heavy structure here does mean we aren't always going to court with each other, and that's a good thing, but it depends quite a bit on our ability to be civil and understanding with each other.  That isn't always possible, but if it becomes necessary to report someone to a mod, do it and be done with it.

I may not have been around for whatever provoked this (or I may have been; I tend to ignore stuff if it looks nasty just because I don't want to pour gas on a fire), but just my friendly two-cents to not carry on anything that you've reported someone for and to use your best judgement to avoid as much OOC trouble as you can before it happens.

[Victoria Stecker]

theirs is more 'predictable'.

Are you suggesting that CCP's implementation of its own rules is predictable?

[Katrina Oniseki]

theirs is more 'predictable'.

Are you suggesting that CCP's implementation of its own rules is predictable?

If you notice, I edited my post. I originally typed reliable. Clearly I did not nerf my post enough. 

[Morwen Lagann]

I believe the word you were looking for was either "retarded" or "inconsistent".

[Victoria Stecker]

"The Summit: Deal with our flexible but predictable moderation, or roll the dice with CCP"

[Silas Vitalia]

Summit Mods = Cats

Ping Pongs = derp

[Anslol]

Kat post modding/booting out derp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5ITkFuo00&noredirect=1

[Arista Shahni]

It happened in the player channels.  I PREFER said moderation because it HAPPENS.

CCP doesn't moderate channels.  Some shmuck gets their account subbed for free to be able to do it for a few hours a day and they're just as hateful as anyone else - and they get "paid" for it.

So yeh, no.

I'd prefer to be in a "private" situation, especially since there could always arise a situation where someoneone could in a rage or whatever say something that could get them SERIOUSLY BANNED FROM LIKE ALL OF EVE, but instead with the protection if them being private channels they just get their asses kicked out instead of an account ban.

And for your personal entertainment, Ari blowing a gasket here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vlr4_sqGh26hE3DHH_cH9OC-w7mud5TxtR-Zplg_rsU/edit

I kept it because I was, well, expecting to get reported

[Morwen Lagann]

I'd prefer to be in a "private" situation, especially since there could always arise a situation where someoneone could in a rage or whatever say something that could get them SERIOUSLY BANNED FROM LIKE ALL OF EVE, but instead with the protection if them being private channels they just get their asses kicked out instead of an account ban.

Except apparently - and unfortunately, in some ways - this policy is no longer as it once was, where the player channels were sacrosanct and any and all moderation/behavioral issues were to be dealt with by the players who ran them.

You can now be petitioned - successfully - for saying things in these channels that violate the TOS/EULA. Which is why the bullshit behind the new channels is so ridiculous, because it boils down to being slapped in the face for doing what GMs would have told people to do at the time.

To be fair, this hasn't exactly changed any policies on our end - we will still get on someone's ass over racism, sexism, etc. just as we would before - but there's now the added incentive towards good behavior that someone might decide to bypass the channel moderators entirely and just petition you.