Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Did you know:

That the Intaki Liberation Front uses local civilian employees in its orbital production facility known as Prosperity Station? Read more about it here

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Problems in summit moderation  (Read 7355 times)

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3391
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #75 on: 31 May 2014, 20:29 »

K, time for me to weigh in on this because apparently I am the Super Big Bad Evil Person of Terribleness.

Starting at the top:

The problems are :
1. Moderators troll and insult players, and when they reply back - they mute. If they put moderators on ignore - they ban them.
2. Moderators ban and mute without warning for rules that were not explained or written anywhere and without warning that this activity is against the rules.
3. Moderators ban without reasons.

Example: 16.05 this year character Diana Kim was found banned from both The Summit and OOC channels.
Reasons of the ban were not given. Character was evading any violation of known rules in the channel.
When Graelyn was confronted to give exact violation, instead of facts, he provided only insults as reply.

1. There's a fundamental disconnect here. First, your definition of trolling apparently works along the lines of "they disagree with me", because to troll I would generally have to not be serious about things I say. Kindly note that when it comes to warning your character she is out of line or acting inappropriately in the Summit, Morwen is being completely serious. Likewise the same between you (the player) and me (the player) when in OOC.

Just because you do not think a moderator who disagrees with you or your character is a "real mod" does not mean that their warning is not serious, or is trolling. It is completely serious, and your refusal to acknowledge those warnings and act on them by continuing the behavior that got the warning issued in the first place, is what results in those mutes and bans. As for ignoring/blocking moderators, that's been a long-standing thing and is common sense. If you've got the mods blocked, you can't see their warnings when there's a problem; if they block you, they can't verify complaints from other users. Both result in the moderators not being able to do their jobs.

2. The vast majority of these rules are common sense and have been in place for a long while. In your case, you were muted/banned (initially, a long while ago) for extended series of direct personal attacks towards other users that did not cease when you were asked to by moderators. Your recent one-month ban was handed out as a result of cumulative poor behavior and an overwhelming number of mails - NOT JUST FROM YOU - flooding Graelyn's inbox, suggesting that the common thread factor was you. I will quote some of his words on the subject, as he made a copy of the email he sent to you and the other moderators available to the public on Pastebin at the same time he sent it:

Quote from: Graelyn
I'm sitting here looking at my NINETY-SEVEN emails on Diana Kim-related complaints. That's including all DK-related moderations, complaints by DK and people speaking on behalf of DK (all against one mod, though all the mods are unanimous so far on each judgement, an amazing achievement in and of itself), and my personal favorites, lots of our most repected channel users saying that all of this drama seriously impacts the enjoyment they get from the channel.

In the same time span, we have....4 emails on any other party.

That's just unheard of.

That sort of divergence indicates something to me;

One, that on the whole, damn near every person using our channels is doing so properly and productively. Moderator actions are at an All-Time low, and that's a good thing.

Second, that we have a problem that is affecting everything we do, coming from a single source.

Just prior to that, you were given a ten-hour mute, by me, for breaking one of our common-sense rules: No violence directed at other people on camera, whether player or NPC. Period. We don't allow it.

Technically, at the time, I was supposed to ban you for a month for that, according to instructions from Graelyn to the rest of the moderators. I decided to ignore those instructions and gave you a mute rather than a ban partly because I had work to get back to - that whole incident sucked up a fucking hour of my time at my real-life job, dealing with your bitching and pissing and moaning in OOC afterward - but also because I wanted to make sure that the other moderators had an opportunity to weigh in and say whether Graelyn's original instructions were appropriate for the incident.

3. Reasons for all of your mutes and bans have been given, shortly after they have been enacted, either by mail or publicly in the channels when you've started bitching about it there. Just because you don't consider a moderator a "real mod" does not mean that the reasons were not given, or are not valid. It just means you're sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.
- Your 10-hour mute was, as I explained when I gave it to you, for violating the "no violence on camera" rule which had been around for years; we've warned people for it before in the year or so you've been using the channel (Foley's been warned a few times for it, in fact, back when he was doing all his crazy antics).
- Your month-long ban was, as explained to you in the mail Graelyn sent (and I've partially quoted above), what I was supposed to have done instead of muting you, in response to an overwhelming amount of complaints and reports coming in suggesting that removing YOU from the equation would solve the problem.
- Your current (indefinite) ban, according to Graelyn, was because the FIRST THING YOU DID after not even having been back from your previous ban for a week, was to fire off a complaint about two people, one of whom was insulting an NPC character, not you. You were continuing a pattern that we had identified - and, in fact, drawn attention to - before your previous ban. It was mentioned in the mail he sent, in the first paragraph quoted above, in fact. Rather than try to continue what was rightly determined to be a pointless effort, he cut his losses (few as they were) and just banned you. If you want a short and sweet answer for the reason, it is this; you were (and are still, in many respects) wasting a wholly inappropriate amount of the moderation volunteers' time.

Aelisha makes some good points.

Kat also makes some good points in his first post. More or less what I've said already.

Desiderya nails it on the head and gives you some pretty good advice.

Again, Kat makes more good points. If you want to come back, you're going to have to show Graelyn that you're not going to immediately become a drain on our time and energy.

Veik also makes a pretty good point, and being someone whose character often trolls or is antagonistic towards other characters, he'd know what he's talking about.

Andreus: Your decision to do as requested (it wasn't me making the request, let's clear that up first) was appreciated. So thanks for that. That said, the expectation on Diana's part that people shouldn't be allowed to make any sort of reference to her character is both unreasonable and unrealistic. Sorry, but the notion that someone can't be mentioned just because they're not there or can't respond is ridiculous, and can not, should not, and will not be enforced. If your character makes an impression, people are going to talk about them. Whether you're there or not, whether you (or your character) like it or not. That's what happens in real life.

Tib also nails it on the head.

orange: In this particular case, there are an excessively large number of forum posts that could just as easily provide the exact same "first impression" as some people venting about another person would. People make their beds and should have to lie in them.

Lithium, you were banned for causing the management a headache (a reason).  While you may not have broken a rule, the reason is fairly clear.  Diane Kim created entirely too much drama within the player-run channels.
Well, haha, I wasn't causing any troubles since last ban, avoiding any "headache", still, banned  :lol:

You were causing trouble, in exactly the manner I described above. You were continuing a pattern of behavior that suggested that your ban had had no effect whatsoever and that you intended to continue along the same exact path that had gotten you banned before. Graelyn decided not to waste his time with further futile attempts to get you to adjust that path.

It is irresponsible modding to ban people just because you "can't be bothered". Being a volunteer doesn't excuse it IMO. Especially in a game where you are basically denying the player access to the primary public RP outlet. Temporary mutes when a situation is super tense, disruptive, and toxic, sure, but bans I really, really don't understand.

What would you do if someone was talking about you (presumably in a negative light) in a semi-public forum in which you were banned?  Sit on your hands and just accept that any potential first impressions with others you might engage are already tainted by what another individual (who is essentially your enemy) says?

If it's IC, who gives a crap?

A lot of places have "three strike" rules. Fuck up three times and you're out. We gave plenty more strikes than that over the course of a year - there comes a point where the amount of effort being put in is no longer worth it, and when it's members of the community who are sending us mails or contacting us on skype/steam/etc. to complain about it, a judgement call is going to be made in one direction or another. In this case it was decided that Diana was not worth the trouble of continued attempts on our part to communicate if we were going to be ignored just because we disagreed with her.

As for the "if it's IC..." I would agree. The people who do give a crap need to back off and remember they're talking about a character in that instance, not the player.

Andy's next post is spot-on, except for a few details that I have bolded and am going to clarify.

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and write this out anyway. You're pretty much free to read every word of it or completely ignore it, but take in mind I'm writing this pretty much exclusively for your benefit. The only thing I get out of this is finally getting this off my chest. I'm going to try and write this out in as level-headed a manner as possible, but if it gets Catacomb'd, oh well - at least I made an effort.

So there's a lot of stuff in here that you probably already know, but I feel the need to illustrate my thought processes, so if any of this is old news to you, forgive me.

Let's start at the root of it - Diana Kim, the in-universe character in EVE Online. Diana Kim is not a nice person by any possible stretch of the imagination. She's rude, arrogant, disrepsectful, abrasive, antisocial, violent, spiteful, deceptive, mean-spirited, racist, bigoted, emotionally manipulative, short-sighted, close-minded, mentally unstable, wilfully ignorant, chronically hypocritical and completely irrational - she's essentially a walking collection of personality flaws. Now, this in and of itself is not a bad thing - in fact, observing her from an outside perspective is very compelling given that she's a woman helplessly ensnared by Provist propaganda, clutching desperately to the illusions she has of how the world should be as she slowly watches them become more and more removed from the actual reality of the situation. That's good roleplay material right there.

Where the problem starts is when Diana Kim interacts with other capsuleers. An extremely abrasive, strongly opinionated character like Diana Kim doesn't react well to being told she's wrong and reacts even worse to being shown she's wrong. When people call Diana Kim out on the outrageous things she says, she tends to react with either flat denial or insults - accusations of treason if the relevant character is Caldari, "dirty jaijii" etc. if they aren't. Even at her most polite she isn't willing to consider other people's points of views. This leads to an increasingly limited amount of interaction people who don't agree with her can actually engage in without her either insulting or ignoring them. This eventually leads them to either insult her or ignore her, which in turn further limits the people she can meaningfully interact with.

There is, again, nothing wrong with this in and of itself.

So we get to a point where, eventually, Diana Kim's behaviour becomes so abrasive and insufferable that, in-character, people are no longer willing to tolerate it. Remember that in-universe The Summit is an actual communications channel run by actual capsuleers, and they have feelings and limited patience just like real human beings do. In at least one instance, eventually one the moderators, in-character, got so tired of being called names by Kim that they lodged a ban.1 Now, again, there's nothing specifically wrong with this.

The problem comes when you, Lithium Flower, the player, become unable to separate Diana Kim's behaviour and ego from your own.

I have noticed, in certain ways, that you act a lot like your in-game avatar. I'm not going to guilt-trip you for this because I do the same. Andreus Ixiris is almost an extension and exaggeration of my own personality to the extent where if this were a slightly less serious setting he'd probably have at least some awareness of it. I have in the past had - and, as a matter of fact still do have - trouble distancing myself from the challenges to Andreus' ego. Emotional investment in your character is not neccessarily a bad thing - in fact, I think some amount of emotional investment in your character is neccessary. However, at this point, your investment in your character is leading to behaviour that is damaging your ability to interact with the roleplay community (i.e. it's getting you banned from The Summit and OOC). Either you have to step back from your character and not take attacks against them so personally, or you need to tone down your character's behaviour and make them more reasonable.

Honestly at this point I think you may have gone as far as you can go with Diana Kim's current line of behaviour. It might be time to have her reconsider her life.2

1- Morwen was the recipient of this abusive behavior. However, Diana was never banned for calling Morwen a whore in local for four hours, to my knowledge. If she was banned for it, it wasn't by me.
2- I disagree. It's not so much her life that needs reconsidering, it's the behavior and way she interacts with others. Separate issues.

Samira's response to Orange is pretty much how I'm seeing things. As Tib points out in his post, the only time we're going to ban alts of a single player is when it is clearly the player, OOC, that is the issue. The one and only exception to this is if we have to mute/ban someone in OOC for something not justifying a perma but still meriting instant moderator response and they use their alts to get around it. (As an example of the kind of behavior that would merit this sort of response - calling someone else a fag in the channel. It isn't tolerated there, just like it isn't tolerated on Backstage.)

Tib's next post again states the same thing other people said and that I stated above, regarding the current ban situation.

Andreus' post is a little on the harsh side, but I would not call it an inaccurate assessment. Not so sure about the suggestion at the end.

Desiderya's post, "statistics" aside, is pretty accurate.

Kala is correct in his assessment regarding problems and their sources.

Passing on Vince's post...

Diana's next post. Hoboy.

Maybe I wasn't succinct enough in my last post.

The core of the problem lies in the fact that Diana Kim is a horrible person who treats almost everyone with contemptuous disrespect.
And this is obvious lie about the character.
Diana Kim is rather respectful and polite character, but harsh and ruthless to her enemies. To make easier her RP, for her (and for couple others) I have charts with characters, towards whom she is harsh. For Diana personally, there are two lists: first list,  for those who were continuously trolling and insulting her without reason. She tends to avoid these peoples, don't pay attention to their words, and only against them she is allowed sometimes to make first insults, since they were doing it multiple times earlier. Luckily - this list is incredibly short and getting into it rather hard.
Second list is rather large - it is obvious enemies (all members of FDU/TDF) and characters, who has shown hostile behaviour - insults of her out of nothing, minor trolling, insults of Tibus Heth (not constant, though, just single), those, who she just considers enemies and prefers to shoot at than talk with. It is rather easy to get into this list, and easy to get out :D To this peoples Diana simply doesn't pay proper respect and maintains very cold and harsh stance. She is allowed to insult them only when they insult her. She might show respect to them, but they should work rather hard for this  :)

For all other peoples, she is polite and respectful, and you can easily see it for yourself, if you peek into "Intergalactic Summit" and just hear how she speaks with others. Of course, just hear, don't try to talk with her. You should know why.

I'm going to burst your bubble here: When you advocate the destruction of an entire people, and scream about killing them on the IGS (as Kala provides an example of a few posts later), that counts as provocation for ANYONE who belongs to that people. Diana fired the first shot as far as our characters are concerned. It might not have been personally directed at specific individuals, but it is the reason those people are responding to her harshly, so you DO NOT get to say that people are attacking Diana without provocation. Diana's IGS posts are the provocation. Her words attacking the Federation and its people are the provocation. Her actions in space are the provocation. Take responsibility for what you do and say.

Andreus also says much of that in his next post.

And again, since you bring it up again, just because you don't like a reason doesn't mean it isn't one. I don't think Graelyn's reason is a great one but I cannot fault him for making it. It's no different than those two lists you have for the character. After enough crap, you throw someone onto the first list. Well, after enough crap, he gave up trying.

What Ava said, all of it. Morwen tried being nice to Diana for a while, especially when Heth disappeared and she (Diana) started visibly breaking down. Fuck, she offered to cook something and bring it to her, and that is not an offer she makes to just anyone. She's proud of her cooking but doesn't usually make the effort to make something and then bring it to someone. But Diana's behavior (and posting) regressed and she stopped trying. I (and Morwen) tried warning you multiple times when you're pushing the line, but you've ignored it out of hand or just attacked back.

And I, too, argued against your current ban. I'll quote portions of the mail I sent to Graelyn and the mailing list, with some minor toning down of language:
Quote
Re: Re: DK
From: Morwen Lagann
Sent: 2014.05.16 22:02
To: summitmods,

I'm going to have to take the unexpected stance and say I don't think jumping immediately to a ban was necessary in this case.

Yes, Diana has shown him/herself to be [someone who is incredibly frustrating to deal with and get across to].

He/she isn't alone in this. Pretty much anyone who we have to warn more than once or twice about shit falls into this category - the people who get it don't need more than that, and the people who do need more than that, by and large become a chronic issue.

Yes, Diana has demonstrated a tendency to resort to [what comes across as] the childish "if one moderator/parent says no, maybe the others will say yes" tactic by pretending any moderator that disagrees with him/her "isn't a real moderator" and then emailing every mod except those moderators.

Diana isn't the only one who does this sort of thing (except the "real moderator" [thing, only DK does that]) - a number of other people won't mail the entire moderation staff with issues and will only mail one or two of us at a time if they have an issue. I can understand and tolerate this to some extent when it's just an issue of "these people aren't around much so I'm not going to bother" (like, for example, Silas or Jek), but when people start doing it because they think it will get them what they want, that's when there's a problem. Surely I'm not the only person who has received complaints from people because they think I'm more likely to do something about their particular complaint than someone else on the team?

And yes, Diana has a tendency to report [non-issues].

(I would be extremely surprised to hear that Diana is the only person who has done this over the last couple of years, especially because I know I've responded to similar complaints and forwarded my responses and thoughts to the mailing list.)

But back to the main point here - did anyone aside from Ava, Esna or I (the mods who were ingame [at the time]) actually see the logs from last night?

All three of them were going at each other, and while I [am not typically the one] defending Diana, her complaint really is only spurious at worst: Aya and Ava were both being pretty aggressive, pretty much in the same way(s) I have been in the past when dealing with Diana's bullshit. Not necessarily aggressive enough to really warrant a complaint being made, but enough that it wouldn't have been entirely unreasonable to ask people to rein themselves in a little.

So yeah, tl;dr, I disagree with the decision to apply a ban here. I wouldn't have sent the mail I sent to the list last night if I had felt a ban was appropriate or necessary - I would have just said "banhammer plx" and left it at that.

-M

Passing on Kala's post.

Katrina again nails it - if you really didn't care  as you claim you wouldn't spend so much time and effort throwing what comes off as a temper tantrum. As Kat closes his post, this whole thread is you caring.

I'd emptyquote Samira's post with a +1 but this is already getting long enough.

Your next response - again, as I said above, your IGS posting is often the first shot, and people respond to you based on that. Pretty much most of the older folks who use the Summit for starters - you only started using the channels last year around the time of the Caldari Prime event - we had nothing to go on but your IGS posting, and I guarantee you would not have been met with such the responses you have been, had you not been regularly posting such aggressive and hostile vitriol on the IGS.

I would disagree that you tried to fix things. If every time you ask us you just say we're wrong or lying when we give you an answer you don't like, you're not trying. You're just shaking a Magic 8-Ball repeatedly, asking the same question over and over, hoping to get the one side of the bobble that you want so you can call that your answer.

As for why Mika was banned, that's because the mods were told to ban all of your alts by Graelyn. He's senile and missed one.

Samira is right in the first part of her next post, and it's a repetition of something people have told you over and over, not just in this thread: if you want to have a hostile and aggressive character, that's great, but if you can't deal with or accept the consequences of that character's interactions with others you really should reconsider that decision.

Odelya: When one does not treat others with respect or politeness, those two things are often the first to go out the window when it comes to others interacting with that person. In this case, that is what happened. Graelyn could've been far ruder than he was and would have been quite justified in doing so.

Lyn,
The problem becomes when a mod has tried to respond and then told that the aggrieved party does not consider them a mod and will not listen to them and demands to speak to a mod, what then?
The problem becomes when someone starts talking about situation, where they weren't there, didn't managed to ask or even read what happened and talk about situation that happened about 2 months ago, like it was the current problem. While it was related to one of situations, it isn't the current one. I could provide with reason why I did this, of course if you will show your desire to know it, and not just post misinformation.

Thus I ask you to stop doing it and do not mislead readers further by feeding them with outdated information. Thanks in advance.

If you're going to start accusing people of lying, back your accusations up with proof. And if you are going to falsely accuse people of lying, you're going to be called a liar, yourself. (By the way, you're lying, in this post. Steff was there, pretty much every time I had to go through that scenario with you. And frequently said things to you in the process.) Every time you caused shit and had to be dealt with (whether it was by me or someone else) and didn't like the response, you whined in OOC asking for a mod. Generally, this was responded to by other people in the channel telling you that there were mods online or to mail Graelyn. You didn't care. If I, or any of the other moderators who actually had to take action responded, we were instantly dismissed with "I want to talk to a real mod, you aren't a real mod". Well, guess what, cupcake: just because you say we're not real mods doesn't mean it's true. So we had our responses ignored, and you instead shat up the channel repeatedly. It took a lot of restraint, not just on my part, but on the part of every other moderator, not to just mute you when you did that. In fact, apparently Katrina ALSO stood up for you as I did when Graelyn banned you this time.

And in case it hasn't become apparent to you yet, we do not consider individual incidents as wholly separate when they share a common factor - namely the person causing the incident. If someone causes the same kinds of problems over and over again, we are not going to treat repeated incidents as if it is the first time it's happened, every time.

People don't stay amateurs all their life. People learn by doing their job.
Unlike many peoples who replied here, I don't tell things like "you are horrible".
I point exactly what was wrong, and my demands to moderators are rather definite and clear:
- to provide warning/information about rules before banning for them
(like Ava was saying, to tone down a notch, which wasn't done in neither of two previous bans)
- to explain which behavior is strictly forbidden (will be banned), and which is not encouraged, that I still can do, but will be modded for short term for this
- for the modding provide exact date, time and violation, and if it won't be obvious:
- tell what exactly it violated and why i should avoid it
I don't think it is really that hard, and on these terms a constructive dialogue can be made.
And in your turn I ask you to help me actually. Instead I get just insults as reply. Where was warning for previous two bans, really? I have asked this question before, you didn't answer, and you again are saying that I was warned. I am asking second time, just tell when if you don't wish to copypaste text, I still have myself all the logs, and if such warning was, I will apologize, of course... of course, if it was. You warned me about other things. And I am asking about stated incidents.

And why would you bring Morwen, Ava, Tiberious to this? To them as moderators I had complaints more than two months ago, so I don't know how you got sick from it, unless someone else was telling you about it. Then why do you come to me with it? Their cases aside, for the situation around the last ban, I have a case only to Katrina Oniseki as a moderator for not professional behavior.

And I will explain how and why.
There was a combined complaint to moderators on two characters in one, first complaint - just funny for RP reasons, while second one was against quite disruptive behavior and direct insults.
Moderator Katrina Oniseki replied to this complaint with reject in rude form to act, claiming that Diana Kim "was still banned". After that, Diana Kim indeed was banned, however, both complaint and what was said to her, was filled before the ban, and even Graelyn himself before that was saying that Diana Kim was unbanned after previous ban.

Going point by point here, again:
- Personally speaking, whenever I have had to take action against you, you have always been given a reason, whether that reason came afterward (in the case of the 10-hour mute) or if it preceded the action and was ignored by you.
- As stated before, you were, technically, given a warning when Graelyn sent out that long mail the first time you were banned. Your ban was because of the thing I had to mute you for (the fact that there was an extremely rare alignment of literally the entire moderation team on the issue only served to strengthen that) - I was supposed to have banned you outright, then and there, but chose not to to make absolutely sure with the rest of the moderators that that was the decision we were going to make. I still had to do something because it was unacceptable for that fight to continue in the Summit, so I muted the people responsible. That you didn't like my explanation in OOC is your problem and not mine - it was still the reason and you weren't going to get it reversed by arguing about it.
- If we warn you for it, don't do it and you'll generally be fine. It is as simple as that. Unless it is particularly egregious or the person in question is causing trouble with frequency, first-time offenses for individual policies or rules typically will not get you a mute or ban. (tl;dr is what Veik said - the top of the MOTD says "BE TACTFUL." Try that.)
- We aren't going to moderate days later unless we need that much time to make a decision with the entire team. Or if someone is away and cant' respond in a timely fashion. It's not unheard of but it does happen. People who get moderated harshly in response to serious trouble-making are informed by someone, usually by the person putting in the ban.

So, at this point I think I'm caught up.

To sum it up:
- You are currently banned (against the personal wishes of at least two or three moderators, two of which went to the trouble of mailing their dissatisfaction with Graelyn's decision to him and the other moderators), because you pushed us to the point that Graelyn decided continued interaction with you was simply not worth the stress it was causing. This I am sorry for, because as I said in my pasted mail above, I do not think it was the right decision.
- You have been warned and given reasons when you have been muted or banned in the past. That you sometimes don't like them, or don't like the moderator who's given them, doesn't matter.
- You have been given an apology from Kat for a misunderstanding regarding a mail conversation you had a couple weeks ago.
- You have been given numerous explanations for why people treat your character the way they do, as well as explanations for why that treatment sometimes carries over to you, the player.
- You have been given ample suggestions on how to fix the ongoing problem you are having with your character and the community.

What you do with all of that is up to you.

Personally I'd rather have you around and RPing. If you want help, ask, but you're going to have to stop dismissing everything we say out of hand just because you don't like it or the person saying it. Unless you make some effort on your part that can't happen, because in the end, we have to convince Graelyn now that you've annoyed him enough that he doesn't want to talk to you about it.
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #76 on: 31 May 2014, 20:45 »

Apparently the forums ate my first post, so here goes again:

For the record, we used to have clearly stated rules in the Summit about what was and was not allowed. These were removed by popular request because A, rules lawyering everywhere, and B, people actually thought they were to limiting for the channel to function well. Returning to a more by-the-individual method of judgement, in which track records of people were considered rather than by-the-absolute-laws methods of ruling was the requested method. If people do not like this, then the discussion we need to be having is if we should switch back to having clearly stated, absolute rules.


That said: We have 'commonsense guidelines' which serve as red flags when dealing with a given situation, clear signs that something is disruptive and may warrant an intervention. Common ones include violence/gore, nudity, doing anything to outright provoke another faction into pointless rage, etc...

It's the last one that gets the most questions - if my character can't provoke hostile factions, how can we have hostile RP? The answer is very simple question you can ask yourself: Does my character's action offer a chance for a hostile character to meaningfully respond? Conversely, does my character's action serve no purpose in a conversation except to provoke, anger, or upset members of a hostile faction? If the answers are (in order) "Yes, no" then you're on safe ground. If the answers are "No, yes" then you're on shaky ground.

Unsure? Confused? Were you warned and want to know why? Evemail or convo myself or any other mod. I will answer questions about rules, provide clarification, and tell you if something you want to do is a good idea or not. Contrary to popular belief, we are not stern judges issuing decrees from on high; we are just players looking to have a bit of fun and will happily sit down to help you enjoy your experience.
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Rhiannon

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #77 on: 31 May 2014, 23:05 »

Morwen drops the mic.
Logged

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3391
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #78 on: 31 May 2014, 23:17 »

Morwen drops the mic.
It was pretty heavy. And needed a fresh set of batteries anyway.
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Inara Subaka

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Business Woman
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #79 on: 31 May 2014, 23:35 »

Warning, I have only read the first page of this topic, and might read the rest after I post this. Fuck off if you feel like I'm repeating people or saying something counter to the other mods, we don't always agree on shit and if we are in agreement then it's worth repeating.

The problems are :
1. Moderators trolla and insult playersb, and when they reply back - they mutec. If they put moderators on ignore - they ban them.

aYes, we are trolls (at least I am) and we've never claimed to be otherwise.
bNo, we don't insult people in OOC, though it is highly tempting sometimes, and we sometimes skirt that line very very closely... deal with it.
cNo, we don't mute people for replying back in kind, we mute people for going above and beyond. (ex: I call you annoying, you call me a fucking cock-gobbler... you will get muted/banned.)


2. Moderators ban and mute without warning for rules that were not explained or written anywherea and without warningb that this activity is against the rules.

aWe don't have written rules, aside from "DON'T BE A DICK" (yes, that's in our MOTD in bold letters, right under "OOC HOWTO:").
bLolwat? You're smoking seriously good(maybe bad) shit if you think you've ever gotten a mute/ban for something without a warning unless you were being a blatant assmunch. If you were being an assmunch, well you deserve the mute/ban.

3. Moderators ban without reasons.a

Example: 16.05 this year character Diana Kim was found banned from both The Summit and OOC channels.
Reasons of the ban were not givenb. Character was evading any violation of known rules in the channelc.
When Graelyn was confronted to give exact violation, instead of facts, he provided only insults as replyd.

<snip>Graelyn logs</snip>

aNo, no we don't. There are reasons, and I have the eve-mails/logs to accompany those reasons for every ban (not mute) that takes place.
bPlease see the only written rule we have.
cEvading violation of the rules? Even Inara(IC) while drunk is more subtle than that, you were trying to push the limits of the known rules to see how far you could go without getting a warning... well surprise, you had gotten enough warnings that The Baws (aka Graelyn) had enough.
dWell, Graelyn can do/say whatever he wants, he's an adult. Also, "Out Of Character" is not a channel in which we are moderators, and therefore this is relevant.



All of that said, I try my best to keep OOC a place that people want to go to. I'm a "troll" (or so I'm told), but I know when to stop (at least, according to the other mods and the people that levy complaints against mods regularly). Some people keep pushing and pushing and pushing till we, as a team, decide to say "fuck it, we're done." This has happened twice since I've been a mod, once due to RL bullshit and it was fully deserved, and once due to consistent pushing of the boundaries (and this one has been lifted after careful consideration, that individual has not been a problem since being allowed back).

I'm glad that our channel is good enough that it's encouraged you to spawn a micro-threadnaught in attempts to use public opinion to sway the decision, that means we're doing our job right. If it was a shitty channel, you wouldn't care that you were given the boot. In the future, if you feel you can interact with the members of the channel without pushing the rules, feel free to contact me and we can discuss it then. Unfortunately for you, being a mod gives an individual thick skin, and public opinion means a grand total of jack and shit to how we do our unpaid job.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #80 on: 01 Jun 2014, 03:13 »

Lyn,
The problem becomes when a mod has tried to respond and then told that the aggrieved party does not consider them a mod and will not listen to them and demands to speak to a mod, what then?

You don't lower yourself to his level. That's pretty obvious to me, but apparently, not to everyone. By doing so, it's like handing free ammo to the people your are moderating.

And no, i'm not christian. That's just common sense...

I still fail to see why people keep coming back to the Summit if they hate the moderation so much. There already exists another channel. There already exists the opportunity to make your own. Attempts have been made before to make their own. CCP stepped down from the fucking heavens and MADE A CLONE OF THE SUMMIT AND OOC just for you. Just for all of you, who don't like the way we moderate.

The Summit/OOC was THE cornerstone channel when I was still there. The CCP channels (IGS and the other one for OOC I don't even remember the name) were nothing. Has it changed so much now ? No matter how you dislike some things in those channels, you still come to them because you have to, not because you like to.

Countless attempts of alternatives have been tried (The Sphere, etc). None succeeded so far. It's a question of convenience and habits hard to break. It is best to remember that OOC and the Summit still serve the majority, and that the majority is perfectly happy with them (which also means that no, those channels are definitely not a failure !). Democratically, it's a perfect success, or else it wouldn't work like it does.

Sometimes it just seems that the shitloads of idiotic stuff that the mods have to deal with turned them bitter over time.

I signed up for this job because I wanted to help you all. I wanted to be something better for the community. I saw all the older threads just like this, and said I could do better. I looked at the mod team, and it's true... I thought I could do better than all of them.

Well you did no ? I remember that you were doing pretty good when I was still there. :)

Now then, I'm a rather shocked to read your replies in this thread, I have to admit.  :ugh:

Maybe I'm not a perfect fucking snowflake like Lyn over there. Maybe we should all aspire to be as fair and balanced as he is.

As far as Lyn is pretty sure to do a decent job as a mod, Lyn has never been a mod anywhere in the eve RP community and never had to deal with the mod side of things, thus Lyn could be considered a bit onesided and hypocritical.

I am merely forwarding feedback on what looks very wrong from the outside. I am also probably not doing it perfectly right, thus why the outrage every time. I also can be totally deluded or wrong. That is merely me speaking out of my years of experiences in that community, which I have to remind that is probably the best one I have seen in MMOs.

Heed it or not, that's your choice eventually.
Logged

Andreus Ixiris

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #81 on: 01 Jun 2014, 03:56 »

Morwen:


Katrina:


This thread in general:
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #82 on: 01 Jun 2014, 04:01 »

K, time for me to weigh in on this because apparently I am the Super Big Bad Evil Person of Terribleness.

Hyperboles will get you nowhere and doesn't prove one's point.

2. The vast majority of these rules are common sense and have been in place for a long while. In your case, you were muted/banned (initially, a long while ago) for extended series of direct personal attacks towards other users that did not cease when you were asked to by moderators. Your recent one-month ban was handed out as a result of cumulative poor behavior and an overwhelming number of mails - NOT JUST FROM YOU - flooding Graelyn's inbox, suggesting that the common thread factor was you. I will quote some of his words on the subject, as he made a copy of the email he sent to you and the other moderators available to the public on Pastebin at the same time he sent it:

Quote from: Graelyn
I'm sitting here looking at my NINETY-SEVEN emails on Diana Kim-related complaints. That's including all DK-related moderations, complaints by DK and people speaking on behalf of DK (all against one mod, though all the mods are unanimous so far on each judgement, an amazing achievement in and of itself), and my personal favorites, lots of our most repected channel users saying that all of this drama seriously impacts the enjoyment they get from the channel.

In the same time span, we have....4 emails on any other party.

That's just unheard of.

That sort of divergence indicates something to me;

One, that on the whole, damn near every person using our channels is doing so properly and productively. Moderator actions are at an All-Time low, and that's a good thing.

Second, that we have a problem that is affecting everything we do, coming from a single source.

Just prior to that, you were given a ten-hour mute, by me, for breaking one of our common-sense rules: No violence directed at other people on camera, whether player or NPC. Period. We don't allow it.

Technically, at the time, I was supposed to ban you for a month for that, according to instructions from Graelyn to the rest of the moderators. I decided to ignore those instructions and gave you a mute rather than a ban partly because I had work to get back to - that whole incident sucked up a fucking hour of my time at my real-life job, dealing with your bitching and pissing and moaning in OOC afterward - but also because I wanted to make sure that the other moderators had an opportunity to weigh in and say whether Graelyn's original instructions were appropriate for the incident.

So, first : you complain that it ate one hour of your IRL job. Why the hell are you doing that at work if you have other things to do ? :insert jackiechan meme:

Second, you are actually not banning people for deeds that they did, but based on the amount of complaints they generate ? Not saying that DK has done nothing, was not guilty, or is guilty, as I don't even know all the details obviously. Saying that the excuses given are just mind boggling.

If you want a short and sweet answer for the reason, it is this; you were (and are still, in many respects) wasting a wholly inappropriate amount of the moderation volunteers' time.

So, moderators willing to remain moderators, but unwilling to take time to do what their job implies ? Isn't it a bit wanting one's cake and eating it ?

orange: In this particular case, there are an excessively large number of forum posts that could just as easily provide the exact same "first impression" as some people venting about another person would. People make their beds and should have to lie in them.

Or people get their beds made for them and should have to lie in them. Matter of perspective. vOv

To sum it up:
- You are currently banned (against the personal wishes of at least two or three moderators, two of which went to the trouble of mailing their dissatisfaction with Graelyn's decision to him and the other moderators), because you pushed us to the point that Graelyn decided continued interaction with you was simply not worth the stress it was causing. This I am sorry for, because as I said in my pasted mail above, I do not think it was the right decision.
- You have been warned and given reasons when you have been muted or banned in the past. That you sometimes don't like them, or don't like the moderator who's given them, doesn't matter.
- You have been given an apology from Kat for a misunderstanding regarding a mail conversation you had a couple weeks ago.
- You have been given numerous explanations for why people treat your character the way they do, as well as explanations for why that treatment sometimes carries over to you, the player.
- You have been given ample suggestions on how to fix the ongoing problem you are having with your character and the community.

What you do with all of that is up to you.

Personally I'd rather have you around and RPing. If you want help, ask, but you're going to have to stop dismissing everything we say out of hand just because you don't like it or the person saying it. Unless you make some effort on your part that can't happen, because in the end, we have to convince Graelyn now that you've annoyed him enough that he doesn't want to talk to you about it.

I have trouble to reconcile it with the rest of the post, but it really seems actually like a good way to go. Props for adding that part.
Logged

Lithium Flower

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
  • I very speak engrish a bit, thank you!
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #83 on: 01 Jun 2014, 04:27 »

1. There's a fundamental disconnect here. First, your definition of trolling apparently works along the lines of "they disagree with me", because to troll I would generally have to not be serious about things I say. Kindly note that when it comes to warning your character she is out of line or acting inappropriately in the Summit, Morwen is being completely serious. Likewise the same between you (the player) and me (the player) when in OOC.
Okay, speaking about disconnection, I will just list here how moderators "disagree with me":
2013.12.02 23:35:56 "Diana, you are pretty dumb, much of the time"
2014.02.13 17:21:05 "No, air this out in public so you can continue to make a fool of yourself, Diana."
Diana: - Where would I make a fool of myself?
Moderator: - Everywhere you open your damn mouth.
2014.02.13 14:34:23 "I don't care what your closeted little mind callss it to keep your ego intact, Diana, <redacted>"
2014.02.13 17:27:53 " You are the one going on racist diatribes or calling for genocide on a regular basis in this channel."
2014.02.13 17:57:38 " Then fucking get in a ship and go do it rather than making an idiot of yourself in here."
2014.03.16 13:50:21 "Yes, you're definitely the bigger and better-trained idiot here."
Could find more, if you wish, but I think it is enough to get a view of that.

Pretty much sums it up, why I don't want to talk to Morwen or reply further.
Logged

Lithium Flower

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
  • I very speak engrish a bit, thank you!
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #84 on: 01 Jun 2014, 04:53 »

Apparently the forums ate my first post, so here goes again:

For the record, we used to have clearly stated rules in the Summit about what was and was not allowed. These were removed by popular request because A, rules lawyering everywhere, and B, people actually thought they were to limiting for the channel to function well. Returning to a more by-the-individual method of judgement, in which track records of people were considered rather than by-the-absolute-laws methods of ruling was the requested method. If people do not like this, then the discussion we need to be having is if we should switch back to having clearly stated, absolute rules.


That said: We have 'commonsense guidelines' which serve as red flags when dealing with a given situation, clear signs that something is disruptive and may warrant an intervention. Common ones include violence/gore, nudity, doing anything to outright provoke another faction into pointless rage, etc...
Good, but my point was, that for first ban there were no warning to stop/cease activity, that was disrupting. Peoples were rather enjoying and even asking for "shooting", that character was trying to evade.
It was a hard situation, that I was forced into. Just a word from a mod could have stopped it. Or small mute to cool down and think what was going on. Instead it was 10 hour mute with consequent 1 month ban.

For the second ban. Character was behaving and practically didn't do anything wrong. What exactly disruptive there was?

Quote
It's the last one that gets the most questions - if my character can't provoke hostile factions, how can we have hostile RP? The answer is very simple question you can ask yourself: Does my character's action offer a chance for a hostile character to meaningfully respond? Conversely, does my character's action serve no purpose in a conversation except to provoke, anger, or upset members of a hostile faction? If the answers are (in order) "Yes, no" then you're on safe ground. If the answers are "No, yes" then you're on shaky ground.

Unsure? Confused? Were you warned and want to know why? Evemail or convo myself or any other mod. I will answer questions about rules, provide clarification, and tell you if something you want to do is a good idea or not. Contrary to popular belief, we are not stern judges issuing decrees from on high; we are just players looking to have a bit of fun and will happily sit down to help you enjoy your experience.
I sent mail to moderators, you should have it as well. I tried to talk privately, but only managed to talk with Graelyn in public channel, results you can see.
Okay, if it is so easy, lets try it again.

Could you please tell me:
- When character Diana Kim commited a violation for ban 16.05
- What exactly was said wrong.
- Why it is was wrong or which rule it violated.
Logged

Lithium Flower

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
  • I very speak engrish a bit, thank you!
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #85 on: 01 Jun 2014, 05:07 »

bLolwat? You're smoking seriously good(maybe bad) shit if you think you've ever gotten a mute/ban for something without a warning unless you were being a blatant assmunch. If you were being an assmunch, well you deserve the mute/ban.
Then provide, where exactly were warnings for:
- 10-hour mute 10.04
- ban 10.04
- ban 16.05
Maybe I am stupid, maybe I just forgot, maybe I fail at search, but I couldn't find them. WHERE ARE THEY?

Quote
No, no we don't. There are reasons, and I have the eve-mails/logs to accompany those reasons for every ban (not mute) that takes place.
Okay. Ban 16.05?

Quote
Evading violation of the rules? Even Inara(IC) while drunk is more subtle than that, you were trying to push the limits of the known rules to see how far you could go without getting a warning... well surprise, you had gotten enough warnings that The Baws (aka Graelyn) had enough.
No. Trying to talk and express character views without hitting another unwritten rule and getting banned for no apparent reason.
Logged

Jekaterine

  • Like the wind
  • The Mods
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Wandering the halls of Chatsubo
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #86 on: 01 Jun 2014, 05:48 »

Here Lithium have a relevant picture:




Logged
Quote from: Ciarente the beatific, patron saint of moderators big and small
ban ban ban

V. Gesakaarin

  • Guest
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #87 on: 01 Jun 2014, 06:02 »

You know the simplest explanation is that Diana Kim as a character behaves no differently in thought or opinion to either a modern Neo-Nazi or violent Jihadist. Hatred and intolerance are what defines them and if you want to play that sort of character there's nothing wrong with that, it's fiction and make believe after all. However, roleplay often also means you have to interact with other human beings both in-character and to an extent, out of character. It's a mutually constructive process and the intent of the Summit has always been to try and provide some sort of neutral ground for anyone to use for RP discussion. It's not a right, and it's not a privilege and it's moderated mostly to prevent it descending into an unusable and pointless mess of insults and drama that almost every non-moderated RP channel has so far ended up as.

Diana Kim is a locus of pointless insults that cause drama because their player seems to think they have every right to play a violent extremist character (which they do) but where the Summit is concerned, that right ends at the point it affects enough fellow users who just don't want to participate in a venue where the fictional neo-nazi type character spends most of the time flinging racial slurs and abuse at others because that's what extremists do. So given a choice between the enjoyment of one player who seems to enjoy playing their neo-nazi type Caldari character and a majority of others who for one reason or another probably can't be fucked either being the target of or reading fictional insults and abuse written in the style of the most base type of racial prejudice, vilification, and intolerance towards other characters, the mods seem to have chosen the majority over Diana Kim.

Honestly is it really that hard to grasp that it isn't "conflict rp" if all that it engenders is basically:

"Fuck you."
"No you."
"No you, fuck you."

Ad nauseum? Because that is basically all that Diana Kim has provided being an extremist in the Summit. It also seems to fall in the same categories as say, whipping slaves on camera in the summit: pointless drama and aggravating bullshit no one wants to participate in or be involved with, that neither provides content nor is constructive.

To then come on backstage trying to play the victim asking what rules you've broken then seems particularly disingenuous given that you the player deliberately play a character to justify insulting other characters on the summit continuously in order to get a reaction for "conflict RP". You know what it's usually called on the internet when you deliberately insult others just to get a reaction from them so you can, "create conflict"? Trolling. Diana Kim was banned from the summit because they and their player have, for the past year, continuously trolled other users thus impacting their enjoyment and participation in the Summit channel.

But hey, I guess there's always the IGS and the in-game Intergalactic Summit where Diana Kim as a character can be played as the extremist their player wants to be, right?
« Last Edit: 01 Jun 2014, 06:06 by V. Gesakaarin »
Logged

Katrina Oniseki

  • The Iron Lady
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2265
  • Caldari - Deteis - Tube Child
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #88 on: 01 Jun 2014, 07:30 »

pres butan nose

I like you. It's worth noting all that. I do kinda snap sometimes because of reasons mentioned. So, despite your posts sometimes, I don't want you to think I'm hating or anything. My posts in this thread are a result of being irritated with the situation and not being entirely interested in patient replies. If someone talks to me in private about something, I tend to be more reasonable than if they drag me through the mud in public.

THAT BEING SAID:

Lithium...

Ban 16.05 was, as stated, because Graelyn is tired of hearing about you as a focal point for constant issues. You're welcome to show me the logs personally, but I'd be willing to bet the final ban was not about something you did, but rather a final choice to get rid of you completely because of everything you did. All your former choices, issues, problems, all rolled up into one.

Think of it this way: Parole violation.

You're two weeks out of prison, and you go to the gas station to buy some sweeties. You're just minding your own business, but you're wearing a shirt that says "Tibus Heth is my waifu". Somebody at the gas station doesn't like that, and shoves you in the shoulder, calling you a Provist loving piece of crap.

You back off and raise your arms saying, "Woah, woah... chill out dude..." If you get into a fight, you'll go back to prison, so you don't want to fight. Well, too late. The person attacks, and you are forced to defend yourself.

Police show up, and your name shows up on the squad car's laptop as a parolee. You immediately get thrown in cuffs and tossed in the back of the squad car. A few swear words and insistent words that it wasn't your fault later, you realize the officer who cuffed you is the same one you kicked in the balls 2 years ago before you went to prison. Oops.

He doesn't care if it wasn't your fault, he books you for disorderly conduct, and you're shipped back to the lockhouse.

Is it unfair? Yeah. It is.

Like Morwen said, we can't do anything about it anymore. It's Graelyn's call, and we'd have to convince him to let you back in.... at this point, after this thread, I'm personally not inclined to try.

Graelyn

  • Ye Olde One
  • Moderator
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • These things just seem to happen...
Re: Problems in summit moderation
« Reply #89 on: 01 Jun 2014, 09:12 »

Quote
It's Graelyn's call, and we'd have to convince him to let you back in.... at this point, after this thread, I'm personally not inclined to try.

I think we'll end on that note.
Logged


I Saw your Ship!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]