Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

That Frentix is a very powerful painkiller?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset  (Read 22060 times)

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #45 on: 07 Apr 2015, 02:17 »

Or the opposite also, when you are actually trying to have an interesting and serious discussion and it gets derailed by people that will just say "I have a better idea, let's talk about burritos !" and then 80% of the channel suddenly awakens and starts to talk about burritos, eventually drowning your interesting and serious discussion under ridiculous inanities.

@Purple : also, don't the IGS (ingame channel AND official forum) officially answer to the exact criterias you are willing to support ? Meaning basically, no rules besides PG rated and OOC basic stuff like that ?
« Last Edit: 07 Apr 2015, 02:19 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Katrina Oniseki

  • The Iron Lady
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
  • Caldari - Deteis - Tube Child
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #46 on: 08 Apr 2015, 10:06 »

Hamish, I am going to avoid being modded here (irony, i know), and simply state to you that I am very upset and actually quite offended by your implications.

If you want a visualization, this is where I'm hissing those words through my teeth with balled up fists.

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #47 on: 08 Apr 2015, 11:32 »

Or the opposite also, when you are actually trying to have an interesting and serious discussion and it gets derailed by people that will just say "I have a better idea, let's talk about burritos !" and then 80% of the channel suddenly awakens and starts to talk about burritos, eventually drowning your interesting and serious discussion under ridiculous inanities.

Some of the channel operators are guilty of doing this very thing. People are having an IC discussion about something, sometimes there are people new to rp, and then one of the channel ops butts in to say "this channel is now about (inanity)" and their corpmates join in, to shut down the IC discussion.

But that's the environment people apparently want. So, lol.
Logged
\o/

Silver Night

  • Admin
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2250
  • Elitist Oldtimer
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #48 on: 08 Apr 2015, 13:53 »

I think we are going a bit off-topic. Let's steer this back toward the proposed ruleset for the IC forums. I think derails (which the last few posts have talked about) are probably already sufficiently addressed.

purple

  • Obvious Gallente Plant
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #49 on: 08 Apr 2015, 15:41 »

Hamish, I am going to avoid being modded here (irony, i know), and simply state to you that I am very upset and actually quite offended by your implications.

If you want a visualization, this is where I'm hissing those words through my teeth with balled up fists.

You're welcome to hit me up ingame or skype: johnnygeeksheek
Logged
You are RPing wrong.

Havohej

  • Friendly Neighborhood Forum Admin
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
  • Ex-convict
    • EWF Digital Consulting
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #50 on: 11 Apr 2015, 22:09 »

For what it's worth, regarding the above exchange between purple and MorLag, I find my experiences with The Summit ingame and the IGS board have been along closer lines to what Morwen's describing.  It's for that reason that I seldom participate in a meaningful manner with The Summit (that is to say, when I very occasionally type in that channel, it's a few sentences at most, and them Havo goes quiet again) and only recently (i.e., during the time as a part of Scope Works, with which none of you can cope) posted in a more status-quo manner on the IGS - usually to troll Anslol, whom IC Havo did not really like but grudgingly respected for his efforts at focusing a bunch of sullied rabble on single objectives in the warzone, and therefore was willing to fly with and represent the ticker.  My postings on the IGS before that were typically little gems of "straight man" in the midst of a flood of "comic" partners.

I can count on one hand the number of IC adversaries with which I was able to carry out a debate/discussion/other dispute with via the IGS without the entire thread being overrun.  Those times were GREAT fun, but sadly too few and too far between.  I think it would be great if there were a place (which is what we're going on about here) where those discussions weren't such a rare exception to the general flow of things, and in which those new to the game's RP scene could even hash out the old tired schticks that so many of us have already been through and exhausted years ago without the weight of bitter- and/or bored-vets landing on their threads/posts.

I mean hell, I know back when Du'uma Fiisi was a thing, we weren't the first ones to do the Minmatar Terrorist thing, I know some people were bored of the whole "death to Amarr" thing already, but we were thick-skinned enough to keep at it until we earned some RP notoriety and even a modicum of popularity.  So many people that come into this particular RP scene are not so leathery-skinned.  But without doing all of that, I don't think my own RP would've matured to the point that it eventually did, and I also think that it's sort of a necessary growth thing for most players and their characters.  I read enough of the lore to get started on a tired, well-trod path, and kept reading as I went until, through further study and my own RP interactions, my character developed and grew.  Yet we seem to have this expectation that newbros will come into it with a graduate degree in New Eden PF and at least an Associate's Degree in New Eden IC History.

Fuck that.  Shit, I can't even remember what IC year it is.  LEt some newbie make an announcement post about an IC thing they're trying to do, they'll get three pages of replies from Captain Obvious and their entire crew about how "That's not the right year."  After which, some white knights will flame the C.O. team and the actual OP is lost in space and the whole thing never happens, gg OP, kindly fuck right back off to wherever you had the gall to come from to begin with.

TL;DR: IGS and The Summit both suck, imo.  My personal hope is that a better, more productive alternative to the IGS will somehow promote a sort of culture shift in terms of the way The Summit channel is actually used by the players in it.
Logged

Twitter
This is a forum on steroids tbh. The rate at which content worth reading is being generated could get you pregnant.

Utari Onzo

  • Guest
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #51 on: 17 Apr 2015, 16:18 »

As one of said new bros I found myself nodding furiously to Havohej's post. Tbh my start in eve Rp has been a real struggle. Between a really big drama with someone who's mercifully biomassed, a little incident of passive aggressive jabs in ooc channel, struggles with IRL issues and mental health I've also had to learn fast on my feet the lore and Ic histories. At times i struggle to find a voice in IGS threads/summit when somethig interesting happens, or i try rping with someone who's a bit space famous in the summit and get lost in all the noise of vets who seem to have only hung out in OOC when i'm online but suddenly flood the Ic channels. i don't blame them for that but it's intimidating for me i guess.

I have had a fun moments but it's taken a big intervention by a certain community member to really keep me 'in' as such. An IGS 'lite' forum as Havohej suggests might give someone like me the breathing space needed to develop and actually have more fun rather then frustrating face palms or twiddling my thumbs thinking 'where can I get in on this'
Logged

Rhiannon

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #52 on: 02 May 2015, 12:09 »

Quote
. Posting of private/personal communication and/or information is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept. Doxxing is not okay, even IC. We have locator agents for that shit ingame.

Does this apply to character POS locations, like when Nauplius launched his De-Minmatarization project?

Quote
10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
Self-explanatory as a concept, though the odds of this happening are low. Should it be permissible to post mails from event actors?

Event actors, definitely. Those are IC. There's no IC reason to post CCP stuff. That's clearly OOC.

Quote
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Where the line will be needs to be discussed.
-"I think rumors are great, but we would probably have to draw a line somewhere, and somewhere fairly clear. I know there are certain members of the forum for whom rumors are a favorite weapon."
-"We could even have sort of a version of the gossip thread so people can spread rumors about themselves."
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."

The last roleplay community I spent a significant amount of time in had a special rumor thread that was designed to be used by DMs and only very occasionally by players with DM permission. The best way I can think to replicate that is for there to be a Rumors and News subforum that only moderators can create threads in but people in the Members usergroup can reply to. If a player wants to submit a Rumor or News post they can send it in a PM to a separate forum account for this purpose that mods have access to. (I believe someone else suggested a very similar set up, I'm partially stealing that idea here. Props to them, but I don't remember who it was.) This requires a certain level of OOC trust in our mod team, however. Optimally, the mods would act here in a quality-control but also damage-control capacity, because as mentioned some members have Weapon Focus: Rumors and not all rumors really deserve to be posted publicly. If possible, such rumors should have the OOC permission of the players involved, so we at least know its not being used as an oblique OOC weapon to damage someone's reputation IRL.

Quote
35. Posting of chat logs outside the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
This is done on EVE-O to avoid a lot of drama and "those are faked!" arguments. A valid stance to take in general but there are cases where it could/should be permissible, such as for recording-for-posterity of live events and things like SeyCon. Private conversations and evemails are a no-no. We will need to come up with a clearer definition of what is and what is not acceptable, but the above are a starting example.
-"If we prohibit private conversations being posted, we should prohibit people from spreading rumors that can only be disproven by private conversations."
-"We should honestly keep chat logs out, and leave it on a 'if you want it, please send me a request' basis. It keeps threads neat, and stops people from cherry picking in the thread and possibly derailing."
-"Chat logs of public events are fine, and I think we should probably avoid ones of private conversations."
-"I think we would also want to make clear what is a public event (ex: a conference, a speech, etc) and what is a private event that happens to be in a public channel (ex: overheard conversations in places like bars)."
-"We could keep it loose on rumors and have the same type of rules we have on Backstage for discussing warnings and bans: If you bring it up, it's fair game."

Public events and public channels, sure, so long as it makes IC sense for that person to have the security feeds for that venue. There's not really a very good reason to be posting private IC conversations ICly except for the purposes of Rumor-mongering. And ideally, we'll have a separate sub-forum for that purpose.

However I think the discussion of warnings and bans is a slightly separate issue here, and as one of the posters mentioned, if the offender brings it up, its fair game. Otherwise the moderation team should stay mum on the subject, which I expect would be their policy anyway.

Quote
29. Please use the correct language when posting on the forums.
Not necessary, really.
-"It may be worth suggesting that if you don't post in English the moderation team reserves the right to run it through Google translate and replace it with the results, for better or for worse. Maybe we should add this rule to Backstage even if it isn't used for the IC one."[/quote]

[ tinfoil hat ] Not using English IC means, technically, that your character is bypassing the automagical Universal Translator. Is the moderation team going to allow people to ICly hack their forum for this purpose? Wouldn't this be considered a security breach of some kind? [ / tinfoil hat ]

On the other hand, some players use some IC-language words (like Napaani) in limited use for words that don't have clear or correct English translations. And I like Napaani. So I think the best way to handle that is if your character is going to use non-English in their posts, they should include the English translation, to represent the Universal Translator doing a best-fit ad-hoc translation of those words. For example, Pieter recently referred to Evi as kirjuun in a recent IGS post. The closest English translation is "comrade" or "co-worker" though that doesn't fully explain the cultural meaning to the word. In practice, it might look like this:

Quote from: Before
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [...]
Quote from: After
I do understand your sense of outrage, kirjuun, [UT- Noun: Comrade, Coworker] [...]

Quote
36. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.
Generally serves to do little but cause drama. Possibly worth including references or details regarding killmails in rules 32 and/or 35.

I know there's probably several characters for whom it would be entirely IC to do this, but I don't think the loss there is really all that big. There's better ways to brag about that stuff if a character absolutely must. Most people already have their killboards in their bios and corp descriptions anyway.

Quote
PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
-"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
-"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
-"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
-"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
-"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."

Are baseliner alts really that common? And of those alts, are they often disruptive in some way to warrant barring them from participation? I'm not talking about the minors, that's a whole different thing and obviously they shouldn't be allowed. But adult baseliners? I honestly don't see it being a big deal. Yeah baseliner characters are a little silly as a concept but I honestly don't see it as a big deal. Maybe somebody can jump in here on this and help explain to me why we might need a rule like this in place.
Logged

Rhiannon

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #53 on: 02 May 2015, 12:17 »

After having read this post I'd like to amend my points about Rule 32 slightly [Rumor mongering is prohibited]

Replace "Administrators" where I say "moderators". It didn't occur to me that the IC forum's moderators would be IC moderators. Which is a great idea, by the way! :)


Nevermind, apparently this is still up in the air! Exciting!
« Last Edit: 02 May 2015, 12:22 by Rhiannon »
Logged

Nissui

  • Guest
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #54 on: 05 May 2015, 11:30 »

The rules that we think can be discarded:
  • 1. You must have an active EVE Online game account to post on our forums.
    This can only be enforced if we require it under an API mod (specifically the AccountStatus flag, or whatever it's called). It would prevent some issues, but would not prevent others. Current inclination by the team is to ignore the rule, and just go with a public position of "it's a privilege not a right; we will be keeping an eye on this, so don't abuse it or we'll find a way to disable it."

While I would prefer only those who are able to suffer the consequences of their RP would be able to post, I understand the technical limitations may outweigh the benefit of restricting access in such a way.

Quote
The rules that could go either way and need more discussion:
  • PROPOSED: This forum is for capsuleers only.
    AKA, "no baseliner alts". Up in the air; the moderation team had no real consensus on the issue, but the "it's a privilege, don't abuse it or we will enact a rule banning it" stance was popular with several of us.
    -"I think they should be permitted to begin with and only prohibited if it becomes a problem that can't be sorted by disciplining individual problem users."
    -"On baseliner posting, I see the danger, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm behind a 100% ban. Still, if it is popular I'm not too attached either."
    -"I don't think that the majority of people use the baseliner characters with ill intent."
    -"No baseliner posting, I think. It'll invite too many 'woe be it to you mortals' god-hood posts."
    -"The primary problem that I have with both baseliners and inactive mains is you can't shoot them in space. Anyone who can be an asshole with absolute impunity is, to me, a toxic element."
  • PROPOSED: IC/OOC divide - players are not their characters, and vice-versa.
    -"While this might seem self evident enough it needn't be stated, it is also pretty clear to anyone who spends time RPing that it is often forgotten."
    -"As a moderation issue it more likely applies to other people forgetting the difference between a poster and their character."
    -"Possible wording: 'Please remember, as an IC forum people will be posting here not as themselves but as their characters. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt that if they aren't being very nice to you IC it might be because their character doesn't like your character - don't just assume that it is because the player doesn't like you. Also feel free to reach out and clear up any possible misunderstandings, rather than jumping to negative conclusions.'

I am not against baseliner alts posting in their own subforum. The concern above about not being shootable in space is the same concern behind the forum allowing unsubs to post, for me. However, in practice most baseliner alts do not command starship crews and multi-billion ISK enterprises.

The rule on IC/OOC divide is one that is probably sort of requisite CYA, in spite of the fact that the divide should be a given.
Logged

Letos

  • Guest
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #55 on: 08 May 2015, 04:33 »

EDIT/UPDATE 2015/04/05: New (condensed) version of the rules has been posted here.

The "almost certain" rules seem to be reasonable OOC guidelines to me. They outline the forum's purpose.

I would also Keep N° 9, 10, 35 as OOC rules. Everything else appears a bit weird to me. Maybe I'm not experienced enough with backstage forum culture yet. So some of those rules might be necessary/reasonable?

Regarding non-capsuleer contributors: I think it is not a big thing. I would allow it. It adds some intersting aspects to the roleplay setting. Should it turn out to be awkward, it could easily be changed at a later time as an IC consequence.
Logged

Havohej

  • Friendly Neighborhood Forum Admin
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
  • Ex-convict
    • EWF Digital Consulting
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #56 on: 09 May 2015, 00:31 »

My opinion would be POS locations are a tangible intel asset that would not fall under the privacy provisions.

Baseliner alts, to me, are only really disruptive when they "use fightin' werds", or otherwise intentionally engage in exchanges where any reasonable Eve player would expect "settle it in space" to be a viable recourse.

I like the suggestion regarding a Rumer Mill thread/subforum being set read-only with Admins posting things submitted OOCly via PM by players wanting a rumor to spread.

I want to make sure, because it may not have been clear in my last post in this thread:  I have nothing against The Summit mod team, and I do not believe that the atmosphere I described as my personal experience with the channel is in any way the channel mods' "fault" - it's simply my perception of interactions I've had their and I think it's just 'how things are' right now.  For the record :)

("Right now", of course, being "last time I was logged in".  Which is months ago.  So... yeah.)
Logged

Twitter
This is a forum on steroids tbh. The rate at which content worth reading is being generated could get you pregnant.

scagga

  • Everything for Vaari
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #57 on: 13 Jun 2015, 04:34 »

Interesting.

What is the current status of this project?

Hrr
Logged

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3427
    • Lagging Behind
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #58 on: 13 Jun 2015, 08:52 »

It's in the same position it was last time someone asked that question.

I'm not seeing enough discussion or feedback to feel comfortable moving forward with things, especially on the rules I wanted more feedback on.

I am also the only person on the team who seems to give even half a shit about it still.
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.

Vizage

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: [IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset
« Reply #59 on: 15 Jun 2015, 12:44 »

I am posted here to state that I am content with the current proposed rules and would love to see the IC forum project move forward at moderators discretion.

I suggest everyone else who hasn't spoken up in one way or another say something so Morbutts can see where we stand!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5