| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 93 post(s) |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
188
   |
Posted - 2012.10.15 13:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Warning points for users like this please. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
189
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:War Kitten wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Warning points for users like this please. Especially for the CCP posters who have an unfair advantage in getting in first. This will be addressed, but as we we do not discuss warnings and specific moderation actions on our forum, we cannot comment further on this. Other off topic posts were removed. Please stay on topic and constructive, thank you.
So why was my post removed? Because I gave the opinion that people who just post saying "First" and don't add anything to a discussion (in this case, what we should and should not moderate in general on the forum)?
It wasn't meant to be targeted at that individual poster, rather the idea that surely posts with "First" aren't helpful or needed. Warnings or deleting posts (or both) would be appropriate for first time offenders.
Of course if THIS is also discussing a specific moderation issue in your eyes I can always file a petition to get the answer, but I'd rather not as everyone has quoted my post anyway so I'm not too bothered about my point not being made. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
189
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
So why was my post removed?
Your point was very valid but Phantom simply wanted to have the discussion and conclusion covered in one post.
Fair enough!
Another minor gripe:
There are plenty of people in NPC corps posting in the COAD forums. Forum rules state this isn't allowed, are these posts being deleted and being warned (or their main being warned if they have used it to alt post)? If not does this need to start happening or does the rule need to change? |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 11:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
My opinion is that transparency combined with genuinely taking on board feedback from players will eventually breed a system that the community agrees is an acceptable level of moderation.
If you look at the Something Awful forums if a user is banned for a post, it says so on the post. Everyone can view the ban history of a poster. Personally I think that's great, if you're trying to lurk a bit and find where you fit in with everyone looking at a post with a mod stamp saying "USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST" gives you an idea of what NOT to post. Likewise if you think a mod is being over zealous, you can simply look up all the users they banned and why, then call them out on it (or in the case of EVE-O file a petition etc).
Plus it means that people can never claim "over moderation" without being able to say "For example ,here, here and here" because if they don't have examples they are probably making it up.
I mean I started a GD thread which got locked (because it was terrible and thats why I made it) but I think thats pretty much the only interaction with the ISD I've ever been aware of.
I know it's more of a forum coding rather than moderation team thing, but I think moderation needs to be a lot more visible. I honestly think the CCL team wants to listen to player feedback so the best way to use that is to make moderation as visible as possible.
At the moment posts edited by mods usually say why etc. I think that's a good start but other actions too I think are a good thing. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 02:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
What is everyone's opinion on moderators noting on a post if the user gets banned or warned because of it? |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks
Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 12:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:What is everyone's opinion on moderators noting on a post if the user gets banned or warned because of it? Well, I suppose my first thought is "what is the purpose of making those actions public?"
- Public shaming will reduce recurrence for that character/player
- Public shaming will reduce copycat offences
- Public announcement will make it easier for the remaining players to "learn by example" those actions which are out-of-bounds
Maybe there are some other potential positives I don't realize. Potential negatives:
- "Public shaming" becomes a goal for a subset of players/characters, causing intentional rule breaking
- Public acknowledgement encourages public debate over the specific moderation action (CCP believes this is undesirable)
- More work for CCP (ISD neither bans nor warns players; that is strictly the responsibility of the CCP Community team)
From the above, I see no compelling reason to make a ban or a warning public. Inquisitor Kitchner, do you have some point I've overlooked? MDD
No your positives pretty much cover it off, other then the 2nd negative I don't think the other two carry any weight.
Some players may have a goal for "public shaming" however that's no different to now. I started a thread called "Post in this thread every day there isn't a dev blog" pretty much knowing it was going to get locked. It's only the repeat offenders that would get any actions taken against them anyway, in which case if you threaten to ban their actual game account rather then a posting alt they may think twice.
In terms of the public debate over moderation, it may increase debate in the short term, which means extra work closing threads and telling people to file petitions however isn't the point that CCP wants feedback? Over time as the warning/banning or whatever would become more in line with what the community wants and therefore less debate would occur.
Also I don't know if there's a technical reason why it isn't done but I'm all in favour of temporary read only bans as punishments for terrible posters. |
| |
|