Just going through and addressing ideas so far:
From various people:
I think that subforums for various factions - while an idea that could be revisited later depending on how many participants we get - would probably be spreading things a bit thin at the very start
need a good set of rules, regarding god-moding of ingame locations and NPCs.
it wouldn't be constructive to have this IC forum as some kind of parallel universe.
e.g. just because everyone that uses this IC forum agrees that Planet X has Y cities on it with Z population, does not make it so.
Especially if someone on the IGS posts to the contrary.
I don't think it is practical or a good use of moderator time to police things people decide to make up. We will probably handle that the same way we do here: if people think it's silly they will ignore it. Of course, IC it can also turn into a flame fest if people decide their made-up stuff is in conflict with other people's made up stuff. There is also the danger of the escalating hand-waved arms-race ("Oh, you killed some Caldari?! Well I blew up a Gallente kindergarten!" "Well I released nerve gas in a Caldari city!") but we can decide to stamp on that if it gets to be a real problem, otherwise see the second sentence of this paragraph.
Stll phoneposting so got to keep this short and sweet.
1. Same ruleset as IGS except actally enforced.
(IGS ruleset is here for reference
) - Overall I don't find much wrong with that set of rules, though we might add a couple. I would say that a bit of non-PG language is probably fine too, though I don't have any interest in having to wade through the latest in people thinking they can make their characters edgy by posting poorly written but graphic junk. I also think we might look at allowing limited OOC content - exclusively in spoilers - because for some people it is easier to clarify their intentions with a little OOC bit at the end or something and I'm not opposed to that.
3. Moderators need to use "neutral" nameless moderation accounts. OOC we will of course know who is on the team, but IC it needs to be a faceless, neutral entity to avoid the obvious ic biases.
I don't think this is a bad idea. (Known mod list, but no indication of who specifically modded what post) As others have said, the overall mod team should be known but I don't think we should have it be as linked as we have it here. I would think we would overall have lighter moderation but with correspondingly less transparency. Hopefully the greater bar you have to meet to get modded will mean fewer posts that are modded seem ambiguous (at least, to anyone other than the one who posted them.) I don't really see us having a 'mod discussion' section for the IC forum - though we would probably still have some kind of mod-only report forum. I'm not really sure about any kind of appeals process, could use thoughts on that.
While not strictly necessary in a first trial here on backstage, any official startup needs to be tabula rasa. No. Pre. Bans. Everyone gets a chance to prove themselves worthy of access.
From the limited discussion among staff we've already had, this seems to be the general feeling. This would not be the case for the initial trial run
, but if that works out and we go to a separate sub-domain it would have a blank slate (the only possible exception I can think of may be anyone who manages to get themselves banned on the trial run forum section - which should require an actual intent to get banned, and doesn't seem super likely).
On that note, I am actually against this being trialed here. It is setting it up for failure. While there is an existing userbase, it starts things iut exclyding everyone that has already been removed or given up on backstage altogether. It is also hard to advertise as it is an ooc forum to bwgin with and not exactly easy to push ic. A separate forum on the same domain would be better, and could right off the bat be aypplemented with a trade forum, newsroom section etc.
As I think Havo mentioned, there are only a handful of people who are actually banned. There are a number of people who have 'given up' but they are free to join the trial, and if they do not, then I don't see that they would be any more or less likely to join an eventual separate forum for us having run the trial before starting it? The idea here is to see if enough people would even use it to justify someone (Havo, probably) spending their free time setting up another forum.
6. Can not think of a good name right now, but we should have an ic launch and purpose. "For cspsuleers, by capsuleers. Capsuleers only." Bla bla bla. You get my drift.
7. No seriously, capsuleers only.
8. Can we have a "No video feeds" rule please? It is almist never well done.
I'm not totally opposed to having it capsuleers-only myself. I think it would be worth seeing how other people feel though. As far as video feeds, some of my better posts when I used to actually use the IGS were videos (personal favorite is still the Happy Chip commercials), so I would disagree there, though if you see my response above about people posting stuff to be extra dark and edgy, it would apply to 'videos' too.
...tagging a thread as related to that faction. So if someone has no interest in Caldariboos, then they don't have to bother clicking on the thread at all.
Highly support the faction tags idea.
I'm still partial to centerstage.eve-inspiracy.com.
While I was initially on board with something like this, I think I'm now leaning more toward something more 'IC' for the forum name. I'm not much good at names, though. However, as I'll start foaming at the mouth if the word 'Empyrean' is used, and I pay for the hosting, it isn't going to be anything with 'Empyrean' in it.
Anonymous mods ? So that way you have even more potential for abuse since :anonymous: ?
It's already dramatic on the internet as a whole due to :anonymous guy behind a computer:...
Just sounds like an excuse not to deal with the actual job of a moderator.
I'm actually going to support not only mod semi-anonymity , but a lack of a 'mod discussion' type section as it would be a distraction from the actual purpose of the IC forum. I already have a job, so unless you want to pay me to do this one I'm not willing to pile that much additional stuff onto my plate. People will know exactly what they are signing up for, though - that's the purpose of having the rules hammered out here. And frankly, Lyn, if I wanted an excuse to not deal with the job of moderator, it would be a lot easier than making another forum to moderate.
I guess I'll be devil's advocate here.
Section 1) the 'Nice' section. In this section, you're not allowed to derail or post flamebait, very strict rules, topic starters are allowed to say 'this topic is about X, don't bring up Y' so say an Amarrian starts a thread about church ceremonies, a minmatar can't derail it with 'rawr slavers'
Section 2) The 'civil' section. This section is designed to encourage active debate about something. Disagreements and arguments are allowed, even encouraged, but they must be civil and polite.
Section 3) Shitposting. "The cluster would be a much better place if all Amarrians were set on fire" very minimal moderation.
Moderation in my opinion should not be anonymous, and should be handled the same way that moderation of the IC summit is handled. If its in character, then we as the players aren't doing the moderating, our characters are and that should be reflected in how things are handled. I agree with Lyn believe it or not, anonymous moderation leads to bad times for everyone. Better to have everyone's faces visible from the outset.
Now lets go up a level. We imagine that the system I have described above exists within the larger framework of backstage, because we actually would have two tiers of moderators. We have first, your IC moderators, characters moderating from within the universe. Above that layer, we have the opportunity to institute something akin to GMs who will manage things in an OOC sense, and make sure things like dead characters posting doesn't happen. In order to gain access to the IC sections, each person would need to be approved by a GM, this is exactly the framework used on a lot of roleplay forums and roleplay chats that I have participated in before, and in my opinion its a rather good and robust system. It should not be responsive, that is, let anyone in who wants in, then deal with them if they break the rules, because it forces the mods to sit back and let people they know are going to cause problems cause problems, and I doubt that will put us on a very good footing. By having to actually get your access approved at some level, the content can be controlled in a much better manner.
I think that might be a lot of work for what might be marginal gain, in terms of approving people individually. Particularly since the mods aren't going to know everyone. I would also say that I'm not much interested in the idea of the 'shitpoasting' type section, myself. The current sort of early prototype we've brainstormed among the staff would be something like a section for announcements, a section of politics and a section for (essentially) non-political discussion. I could see something along the lines of 1) (with explicit thread ownership) and 2) (without ownership, pretty much) possibly working.
Edit: I think an IG event wouldn't be a bad idea, though probably when and if we open the separate forum proper. Rather than this more 'beta' phase.