Print

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

[Ken]

Lately, for various reasons, we've begun discussing the idea of a new in-character forum.  Per scagga's suggestion, I am starting this thread to deal specifically with the issue of moderation standards for such a hypothetical IC discussion board.

With a forum consisting of in-character content, we face numerous challenges in providing fair and consistent moderation because our characters are invested in the enterprise in a way that we as players are not on a forum like Backstage. 

Naturally, behaviors that are not tolerated in the constructive OOC environment of Backstage, such as ad hominem, insult, flamebaiting, trolling, and other "asshattery" (to quote the FAQ) do have a place in-character.  In my view, although usually annoying, they essentially constitute a form of psychological PvP that belongs in the EVE universe.  In the game itself we have the ability to block characters that act in this way.  With a forum, that option would not exist.  This is a problem that I think can be solved by determining an appropriate variety of sub-forums and limiting "unrestricted" communications to only one or a few such sections.

The remainder of an IC forum could successfully operate along lines not dissimilar from those that prevail here on Backstage.  In a little forum experiment I've set up in the last few weeks, I prepared a short list of rules from an in-character perspective.  Perhaps there is something in those that could effectively serve as the basis for moderation rules in a larger project.

I don't have the answers to this dilemma, but we might as well start talking about what they might look like and reach a consensus.  What are your thoughts?

[Jade Constantine]

Lately, for various reasons, we've begun discussing the idea of a new in-character forum.  Per scagga's suggestion, I am starting this thread to deal specifically with the issue of moderation standards for such a hypothetical IC discussion board.

With a forum consisting of in-character content, we face numerous challenges in providing fair and consistent moderation because our characters are invested in the enterprise in a way that we as players are not on a forum like Backstage. 

Naturally, behaviors that are not tolerated in the constructive OOC environment of Backstage, such as ad hominem, insult, flamebaiting, trolling, and other "asshattery" (to quote the FAQ) do have a place in-character.  In my view, although usually annoying, they essentially constitute a form of psychological PvP that belongs in the EVE universe.  In the game itself we have the ability to block characters that act in this way.  With a forum, that option would not exist.  This is a problem that I think can be solved by determining an appropriate variety of sub-forums and limiting "unrestricted" communications to only one or a few such sections.

The remainder of an IC forum could successfully operate along lines not dissimilar from those that prevail here on Backstage.  In a little forum experiment I've set up in the last few weeks, I prepared a short list of rules from an in-character perspective.  Perhaps there is something in those that could effectively serve as the basis for moderation rules in a larger project.

I don't have the answers to this dilemma, but we might as well start talking about what they might look like and reach a consensus.  What are your thoughts?

I wonder if it could be turned into some kind of game. ie rather than having relatively wooly rules of order and respect perhaps introducing a solid word-count (per thread) and allowing people to give supports and negatives on the quality of debating points might be interesting. Basically use the forum as a forum of debate-contest and looking at ways of enforcing the rules of debate in that context. That might actually have the effect you are looking for without allowing people to subvert your stated intentions with passive-aggressive stuff and rhetorical malfeasance.

[Casiella]

Basically use the forum as a forum of debate-contest and looking at ways of enforcing the rules of debate in that context. That might actually have the effect you are looking for without allowing people to subvert your stated intentions with passive-aggressive stuff and rhetorical malfeasance.

That's quite an interesting concept. I never did the debate team stuff in high school but the approach seems solid on its face, at least.

[Saede Riordan]

Its a good theory, but how could it be executed in a way that doesn't just turn into a popularity contest?

[Amann Karris]

The rules I like:  http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=14.0
The FAQ I like:  http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=16.0

I like solid, well enforced rules that promote constructive conversation.  I have found that it works the best.  I am however fatally pessimistic about human nature so I may be a bit biased.   Regardless, I do like Jade's idea.  Combined with some decent ground rules it could work.  Just remember that even debate clubs have rules. 

[Mizhara]

Eh... no thanks. That'd just mean you couldn't RP a blunt or straight-forwards character. I utterly despise all those popularity contest features that pop up everywhere. Wouldn't make the forums accessible, but instead turn them into pissing contests right off the bat. Bad idea.

[Ken]

That'd just mean you couldn't RP a blunt or straight-forwards character.

How so?

Its a good theory, but how could it be executed in a way that doesn't just turn into a popularity contest?

Much of human social life is a popularity contest.  We just see it more clearly when there are "Like" and "Dislike" buttons to press.  In any case, I am against the idea of incorporating any quantitative judgment features for every post or topic.  Polls, however, could be useful if constrained to a particular section, and debate style interactions in general can be limited to appropriate sections as well.  It's not an "all or nothing" concept.

[Ammentio Oinkelmar]

How about letting the authors set the IC rules for threads, and having only a few universally enforced rules? I'll quote my more specific comment from scagga's thread below.

Maybe the one who starts a new forum interaction, could for instance add a spoiler at the end of the first post to specify who can join the discussion or to set some other rules? And there could be a degree that if someone is reported to violate these rules with like five or ten posts, they could be banned for some time? This would perhaps require less attention from the mods than judging the IC appropriateness of every statement made.

Maybe it also would be good that those particular rules that can lead to a ban were limited to a restricted set of alternatives so that there wouldn't be ambiguity in any of them?

[Graelyn]

As an ex- Crossexamination debate judge, I can tell you with some vehemance that guidelines and rules for debate don't always do what you would like them to do, like make a debate more civil or meaningful.

Suffer the frustration of a latter-date topicality evidence victory some time.

"My definition of the word 'is' is more recent than yours. Since you use the word constantly in the the AFF's case, it is completely null."

The only way debate matches stayed within the boundaries of the sane was when judges were able to break a NEG or AFF flow point with a 'sorry, that's retarded, I don't care what you or your evidence say' ruling.