Complete Fail: Board Moderation

[simo0208]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.

[cdbd3rd]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. ....

Be careful what you wish for. A quick browse back thru your post history looking for what the heck you're talking about shows quite a few accusations and name-calling that are within the scope of the moderation you're seeking.

That's all I'll say about it. Carry on.

[Algreg]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.

Pretty much. Basically, the forum has become the vault, just without the entertainment factor and the ability to tell morons to f*** off in a colourful manner. Guess even that was infraction worthy. I don´t care anymore.

[Algreg]

Be careful what you wish for. A quick browse back thru your post history looking for what the heck you're talking about shows quite a few accusations and name-calling that are within the scope of the moderation you're seeking.

That's all I'll say about it. Carry on.

going over the top in an antagonizing way at times certainly is something different from waging a guerilla warfare to disrupt the forum for months. I personally don´t mind the banter and have to admit this place usually brings out the worst in me. Yet I take all insults with some amusement and have barely ever reported anyone. But this guy is actually destroying the functionality of a forum. You cannot discuss anything, he will jump in with his BS. He spams the front page with countless threads all saying the same thing. If that is not worthy of an intervention, well, then SSG can as well shut down this fine place.

[boredGamer]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.

X is terrible now, not like 10 years, months, days ago !

This same thing has been said 1000 times - and it's just human psychology. These boards are mostly fine, and mostly say the same things they've always said.

A few months ago people definitely said the forums are **** and ddo is dying. Now looking back it was helpful and informative?

It's fine, sky is not falling, relax and enjoy the game

[vryxnr]

Having an opinion that differs from your own and being enthusiastic about it does not make one a troll. Annoying? Probably. Especially when people start talking past each other, ignoring points, and attacking people instead of their ideas. But that is not a troll.

I have seen trolls and sock accounts pop up here from time to time. I have seen them actually spam the forums with drivel. They rarely last more than a day, and they usually time their BS on a weekend when it's less likely for the staff to be paying attention. (a rare few have lasted longer by not spamming but being occasional trolls, spreading the disruption out over a few weeks). I am not seeing any of that right now. Whoever you are having a beef with is not - from what I can see - actually disrupting things. TBH this sounds more like trying to manipulate the system to shut up someone you don't like.

[Hobgoblin]

Having an opinion that differs from your own and being enthusiastic about it does not make one a troll. Annoying? Probably. Especially when people start talking past each other, ignoring points, and attacking people instead of their ideas. But that is not a troll.

I have seen trolls and sock accounts pop up here from time to time. I have seen them actually spam the forums with drivel. They rarely last more than a day, and they usually time their BS on a weekend when it's less likely for the staff to be paying attention. (a rare few have lasted longer by not spamming but being occasional trolls, spreading the disruption out over a few weeks). I am not seeing any of that right now. Whoever you are having a beef with is not - from what I can see - actually disrupting things. TBH this sounds more like trying to manipulate the system to shut up someone you don't like.

there is a certain person who keeps making ftp accounts named after various trolls in game that keeps wanting warlocks nerfed.

just speaking of moderation in general, what seems to be an issue is inconsistency. what it appears to be is - rules say no talking about a certain quest. person A says i pulled this from (quest). its persons A's first time posting. person doesnt even get a warning (at least not public). person B post a rant attacks devs on (quest). thread is locked or eaten. person b cannot post. other people say that it wasnt fair and that we need to apply it fairly.

what i hope happens - and it may not, im not going there, is that the mods look at it and go ok this thread is harmless, so will not close it and send a pm to the op saying why you cant. then ok this guy has a history of posting inflamatory posts, i have given him warnings and he posted again. eat the thread and discipline him.

but it just seems that there are certain people that can say anything they want and never seem to have posts restricted. (notice i put this in its own line to make it easier for mods to delete) again this is not an attack, just an observation about attitudes on the forums

maybe if ssg is making more they can hire another mod? reduce some of the workload off cordos shoulders? maybe be a little more transparent i guess?

[slarden]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.

are you sure? I thought there were a bunch of "new" players that just happened to have the exact same opinion on 10 skull reaper - total coincidence.

[Algreg]

there is a certain person who keeps making ftp accounts named after various trolls in game that keeps wanting warlocks nerfed.

just speaking of moderation in general, what seems to be an issue is inconsistency. what it appears to be is - rules say no talking about a certain quest. person A says i pulled this from (quest). its persons A's first time posting. person doesnt even get a warning (at least not public). person B post a rant attacks devs on (quest). thread is locked or eaten. person b cannot post. other people say that it wasnt fair and that we need to apply it fairly.

what i hope happens - and it may not, im not going there, is that the mods look at it and go ok this thread is harmless, so will not close it and send a pm to the op saying why you cant. then ok this guy has a history of posting inflamatory posts, i have given him warnings and he posted again. eat the thread and discipline him.

but it just seems that there are certain people that can say anything they want and never seem to have posts restricted. (notice i put this in its own line to make it easier for mods to delete) again this is not an attack, just an observation about attitudes on the forums

maybe if ssg is making more they can hire another mod? reduce some of the workload off cordos shoulders? maybe be a little more transparent i guess?

in all fairness, Cordo can only do so much and even additional mods would have a hard time dealing with someone being hellbent on disruption (and apparently having a lot of time). This can only be dealt with in a systematic manner. Most online games with a ftp model don´t offer forum access for free accounts or at least implement some other safeguards against burn accounts. It is a shame it would have to come to that, but with the way things work around here, just anyone can decide tomorrow to go nuts on the forum. It is kind of surprising it does not happen more often. But then, sane persons usually leave things they come to dislike behind instead of displaying a manic obsession with them.

[simo0208]

Be careful what you wish for. A quick browse back thru your post history looking for what the heck you're talking about shows quite a few accusations and name-calling that are within the scope of the moderation you're seeking.

That's all I'll say about it. Carry on.


Exactly my point. I get brought down to that level quite easily.

And for the record, my accusations are in response to those accounts... not that it excuses the behavior. Active moderation would nip all that in the bud.

[AbyssalMage]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.
They don't even have the budget to design and test a quality product before its release. As others have pointed out, monitoring the forums would "eat up" the precious time some of the designers are given for "Community Relations" which I would rather have. The company has fallen under a ton of bureaucracy in years past in order to protect their product and give players "surprise" so they can "drum up sales" for the next release.

They need to think "outside the box" like the original development team did when designing F2P about their problems on the Forums like you said. One that addresses your concerns (and probably others) while allowing their Public Relations team the time they need to communicate with us. Currently the weekend seems to be the biggest culprit of hoax threads (which being the weekend, this could be one of them). And I have "fallen into the trap," if so.

[simo0208]

They don't even have the budget to design and test a quality product before its release. As others have pointed out, monitoring the forums would "eat up" the precious time some of the designers are given for "Community Relations" which I would rather have. The company has fallen under a ton of bureaucracy in years past in order to protect their product and give players "surprise" so they can "drum up sales" for the next release.

They need to think "outside the box" like the original development team did when designing F2P about their problems on the Forums like you said. One that addresses your concerns (and probably others) while allowing their Public Relations team the time they need to communicate with us. Currently the weekend seems to be the biggest culprit of hoax threads (which being the weekend, this could be one of them). And I have "fallen into the trap," if so.

Almost no one pays forum moderators. It would eat up no resources or money to appoint some people with clean track records as moderators.

Not a hoax account. I've been here for years. but the fact that we can't tell the difference anymore says a lot about the state of the forum.

I moderated forums for a long time (not here, and not volunteering). With even a small amount of moderating, things get back to normal real quick.

[Nonesuch2008]

Just out of curiosity, which do you think is worse?

A new account basically created to instigate issues or promote an agenda? Or a long-term alternate account that only sees the light in order to make trouble which wouldn't be wise to do on the main account?

[simo0208]

Just out of curiosity, which do you think is worse?

A new account basically created to instigate issues or promote an agenda? Or a long-term alternate account that only sees the light in order to make trouble which wouldn't be wise to do on the main account?



I wouldnt know. I have one account and even link my main. I took about 5 years off if you see a huge gap. But if you pull up the archive data of my character back when myddo existed, you can see it there too. I’ve had one infraction since joining in 2010 where I called out the devs.

Also if you look at my post history, very little of it is inflammatory and the part that admittedly is is directed at the specific problems laid out in this forum.

But thanks for the implication. If there were a moderator, they could see that the traffic from my IP (and anything close to it) is just this single account.

And what “risk” is there for posting at this point? With virtually no moderation, bans/infractions are not happening. Further, I would be pretty surprised if I crossed a boundary into a suspension or ban.

[Nonesuch2008]

I wouldnt know. I have one account and even link my main. I took about 5 years off if you see a huge gap. But if you pull up the archive data of my character back when myddo existed, you can see it there too. I’ve had one infraction since joining in 2010 where I called out the devs.

Also if you look at my post history, very little of it is inflammatory and the part that admittedly is is directed at the specific problems laid out in this forum.

But thanks for the implication. If there were a moderator, they could see that the traffic from my IP (and anything close to it) is just this single account.

And what “risk” is there for posting at this point? With virtually no moderation, bans/infractions are not happening. Further, I would be pretty surprised if I crossed a boundary into a suspension or ban.


No, you're looking for a fight where one does not exist. I was not implicating you in particular, that was not my intent. My feeling is that one-off accounts used to 'stir the pot' are pretty recognizable & can be avoided, and they generally are not sustainable over time. The other kind are worse in my opinion because they give the false impression of being a part of the mainstream of forum activity.

[Bacab]

Here is a thread/poll in the similar vein.

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/496816-Should-new-ftp-accounts-be-allowed-to-participate-in-the-General-DDO-Discussion-area?p=6102257#post6102257

I have known Alimar in game (he's an officer in my guild) and hes a super nice and mature guy. He isn't looking to stir the pot or case trouble.

He is honestly looking to protect the game he loves.

[Algreg]

No, you're looking for a fight where one does not exist. I was not implicating you in particular, that was not my intent. My feeling is that one-off accounts used to 'stir the pot' are pretty recognizable & can be avoided, and they generally are not sustainable over time. The other kind are worse in my opinion because they give the false impression of being a part of the mainstream of forum activity.

hm, hard to say. If those long-term socks are not excessive, one could even argue let the guy post his legitimate concerns, even though it is annoying and pretty lame to use such an approach. What we are witnessing now is really a coordinated attack. The throw away accounts are the lesser problem, they are easily identified and removed just for the use of profanity and insults.

But then you have that other special account that acts a bit more cautious while dominating the whole forum. I am not sure if it is the same guy, but certainly these accounts work together in a coordinated way. I am certain this special account is fabricated though, just look at the language. It combines elaborate vocabulary with an abysmal, at times childlike grammar and spelling. It alternates between identifying as a frustrated endgame player (r10/melee stuff) and a newbie frustrated by the power gap. Clearly a construed persona.

This is way more disrupting than the funny little insult accounts. You are right, you can easily ignore these posts. Personally, I found them even somewhat amusing - and I have to admit, not always completely off mark. My concerns only started when this whole forum became dominated by the guy/guys. It is now a mostly useless place where almost every thread will be derailed. And frankly, it is quite offputting for the game as a whole. I agree with OP, my DDO experience is certainly soured by SSG´s inability to maintain a somewhat sane forum. This is of cause not rational. But I can´t help it. Being part of something where madmen run wild just isn´t fun for me, and to even imagine you run across people like these in game gives me the creeps. I mean, you come across all types in online games, but i really prefer not knowing about their less than desirable personalities. Believe it or not, in game, I really like people getting along and enjoying each others company, even though I act quite antagonistic around here at times.

PS: while writing this little "confession", I realized just how sick and tired I am of this place. Guess I just stay away from the forum. Have fun with this trainwreck.

[HungarianRhapsody]

Exactly my point. I get brought down to that level quite easily.

And for the record, my accusations are in response to those accounts... not that it excuses the behavior. Active moderation would nip all that in the bud.

It wouldn't nip.that in the bud because Turbine/SSG has a long history of moderating only one side and leaving abusive and trollish posts up when they're abusing/trolling someone who is criticizing Turbine's actions or policies.

[Cordovan]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

[Bronko]

Petition:

Please actively moderate the forums. Where just a few months ago this board was not only much less of a cesspool, it was also actually helpful and informative. Now it’s a few users and their “sock” accounts constantly pushing their troll threads to the top. I’m just going to walk away from the forums, but additionally, the lack of moderation here is beginning to sour me on the game product overall. It’s your game, SSG, do something to protect it.

+1. You have given me a reason to post a reply for the first time in years buddy. The trolling made meaningful discussion pointless on the forums and I only check them for release notes now.

Having said that, Cordovan has done a remarkable job of moderating the forums imo. The fact that he recognises that there is a "problem" poster and is working on a solution is all I can ask for. The rest of it falls squarely in the lap of the community. I'll probably go back into forum hibernation again after this.

[Seikojin]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

This^
Context is everything and as pointed out, no matter what you do, there will be troves of opinions against the action taken.

I too think the moderation here is just fine.

[Vish]

I don't see any real problems here
The community does pretty good at policing itself...

[CSQ]

I think part of the problem is that policing forum activity always treads a fine line. It's kind of sad to think that someone devotes a ton of time to making sock accounts to troll a forum, and so I almost want to sympathize, but at some point proper decorum is necessary in all things and quite frankly forums require some basic maturity and decorum that occasionally is lacking. I think that the moderators have been trying, and to some extent succeeding, to deal with issues as they arise, but just remember that this isn't the first time there have been issues with the forums nor will it be the last as long as people are petty and prideful and rude. Since that will never change, moderation is, to some sense, an impossible task since every time a moderator actually intervenes, it can feed a troll's ego or overcompensate or offend someone who really didn't deserve the punishment they received because the moderator thought they were feeding into something they were oblivious about entirely. A little bit of charity, humility, and a communal effort to not feed the trolls is really the best we can do to help the moderators out. Patience and restraint will make their jobs easier. Talking about how they're failing entirely just feeds the trolls.

[Natashaelle]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks.

I've personally found that automatically blocking any content containing : "hushmail.com" -- does help.

I do realise that the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America might potentially make such a blanket ban of anyone and everyone using that provider illegal in Massachussetts, but having said that, I can't think of anything preventing you using that particular sequence of letters and signs as the basis for a more focused search query.

--

Posting this publicly because I know that many of you in here are plagued with these trolls whether in your blogs or in the forums that you mod.

[cdbd3rd]

Exactly my point. I get brought down to that level quite easily.

And for the record, my accusations are in response to those accounts... not that it excuses the behavior. Active moderation would nip all that in the bud.

Ah, K. I gotya.

I've also had problems making my saving throws against replying to things I shouldn't in the past as well - and have the bruises from it. :o I still type responses to things but manage to erase them and change my mind before hitting the button-of-no-return.

[Renvar]

I've personally found that automatically blocking any content containing : "hushmail.com" -- does help.

I do realise that the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America might potentially make such a blanket ban of anyone and everyone using that provider illegal in Massachussetts, but having said that, I can't think of anything preventing you using that particular sequence of letters and signs as the basis for a more focused search query.

--

Posting this publicly because I know that many of you in here are plagued with these trolls whether in your blogs or in the forums that you mod.

The 1st amendment applies to government entities not abridging the right of free speech. SSG is not a government entity. Private corporations in a private space (which this forum is) are generally not bound by 1st amendment rights.

They are bound by civil rights requirements. They could probably get in trouble for automatically blocking a domain/url that was known to be exclusively affiliated with a protected class, without documentation as to why it was necessary and based on specific incidents and corresponding data.

[Kadran]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

Since you opened the door for discussion, I respectfully disagree that forum moderation is consistent. It's one of the reasons I tend to avoid the forums. Having received a permanent infraction for what amounted to name calling a while back, I do not feel that moderation is consistent and fair. It feels like certain posters can say whatever they like, while others are dealt with in a more extreme manner. Granted, this is several years old at this point, and under a different company (Turbine), but the infraction remains, as do my feelings about the moderation.

There is a LOT of grey area when moderating a forum. It can be all too easy to take something out of context by adding tone that was not intended. I would not want to be in your shoes, but I feel like a permanent infraction should be reserved for a MUCH more extreme offense. A ticket from a police officer will fall off your record at some point (for a relatively minor offense), but heaven forbid you get baited into an argument with a troll on a DnD forum - you'll carry that with you forever.

[vryxnr]

I respectfully disagree that forum moderation is consistent.

"we do try to be consistent" and "forum moderation is consistent" are two very different things.

Context, one of the things you bring up, is one of the things Cordo said is one of the things they try to take but is easier said than done.

I'm not saying Cordovan/mods are perfect... but neither was Cordovan.

[simo0208]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

Thanks for replying!

I think it would go a long way to have a better presence in the weekends when traffic is higher and the worst offenders sneak in. When a thread derails too far off topic, either splitting the posts (lots of work, not recommended) or closing the thread would be good. Heck with the confusing nature of thread necros here sometimes, I wpuldmt mind seeing any thread that hasnt been replied to in six months or something be auto-closed, but I’m not sure what your toolset allows you to do through automation.

When SSG is online, I’ve found moderation to be good, especially given the monstrosity that this forum is.

[Kadran]

"we do try to be consistent" and "forum moderation is consistent" are two very different things.

Context, one of the things you bring up, is one of the things Cordo said is one of the things they try to take but is easier said than done.

I'm not saying Cordovan/mods are perfect... but neither was Cordovan.

I said that too. Not really sure what your point is...

[Chai]

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.


We've tested for this in the past, by copying and pasting the Exact_Same_Post from one "seemingly untouchable" poster in the SAME discussion thread, and posting it. One gets moderated, the other does not. Since the one and ONLY difference is the person posting it, this shows the interpretation of "intention" could ONLY be related to a subjective opinion about the poster. There are zero other differences.

When we say "inconsistency" this is in large part what we are referring to. Its not one or two of the same words, but every single word in the exact same order, down to the punctuation.

Furthermore:

When you ask specific people not to use an "offensive" word, yet we can search the forum 90 days later and see over 70 posts with the exact same word in it, this also shows inconsistency. Its not bad enough that the report obviously came from someone targeting a specific poster they disagreed with in the past, and provided some sob story about how a specific word offends them, but they were never before, and never again concerned about heavy use of the "offending term" in any other case. The ONLY usage of it that was moderated was the reported usage. All other instances were left as is due to not being alerted of their usage.

While favoritism isnt the intent, many folks will use abductive reasoning in scenarios which appear to be blatantly obvious. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. They respond by creating obvious ban evasion or ban avoidance accounts, which is the one mechanic that works in their favor to avoid being moderated on their game account while still being able to voice their opinions and advocate for improvements they would like to see happen to the game.

[Renvar]

We've tested for this in the past, by copying and pasting the Exact_Same_Post from one "seemingly untouchable" poster in the SAME discussion thread, and posting it. One gets moderated, the other does not. Since the one and ONLY difference is the person posting it, this shows the interpretation of "intention" could ONLY be related to a subjective opinion about the poster. There are zero other differences.

When we say "inconsistency" this is in large part what we are referring to. Its not one or two of the same words, but every single word in the exact same order, down to the punctuation.

Furthermore:

When you ask specific people not to use an "offensive" word, yet we can search the forum 90 days later and see over 70 posts with the exact same word in it, this also shows inconsistency. Its not bad enough that the report obviously came from someone targeting a specific poster they disagreed with in the past, and provided some sob story about how a specific word offends them, but they were never before, and never again concerned about heavy use of the "offending term" in any other case. The ONLY usage of it that was moderated was the reported usage. All other instances were left as is due to not being alerted of their usage.

While favoritism isnt the intent, many folks will use abductive reasoning in scenarios which appear to be blatantly obvious. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. They respond by creating obvious ban evasion or ban avoidance accounts, which is the one mechanic that works in their favor to avoid being moderated on their game account while still being able to voice their opinions and advocate for improvements they would like to see happen to the game.

You make it sound like it is so difficult to avoid being banned for voicing your opinion and advocating for improvements you would like to see happen. Neither of those is typically an issue, in my experience. (Unless you just can't talk with the devs about what you want to see without being insulting about how things currently are. Which is a challenge for some folks) The majority of infractions tends to be getting into ****ing matches with other posters and being unwilling to acknowledge that differing opinions and points of view are OK. Avoiding moderation is not hard to do if you can exercise some self control and tolerance for others. If you follow Wheaton's Law, you shouldn't find the need to create burner accounts to save your game account from banning.

[arkonas]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.



have you considered opening moderation to the community such as getting 3 volunteers or such that you guys approve that can be unbiased as much as possible. i thought about this because there are people who would probably volunteer to do this with limited power of course. i know other communities or games have this.

[Arkat]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks.

Grand, huh?

[TempestAlphaOmega]

The 1st amendment applies to government entities not abridging the right of free speech. SSG is not a government entity. Private corporations in a private space (which this forum is) are generally not bound by 1st amendment rights.

They are bound by civil rights requirements. They could probably get in trouble for automatically blocking a domain/url that was known to be exclusively affiliated with a protected class, without documentation as to why it was necessary and based on specific incidents and corresponding data.


I rarely log in to post anymore but seeing the 1st amendment issue come up caused me to, thanks Renvar for posting that explanation before I did.

Oddly when I tried to +1 you it told me I needed to spread some around before I could give you anymore. Have they disabled the ability to do that? It has to have been many many months since the last time I gave a +1 (and apparently it was you).

[slarden]

have you considered opening moderation to the community such as getting 3 volunteers or such that you guys approve that can be unbiased as much as possible. i thought about this because there are people who would probably volunteer to do this with limited power of course. i know other communities or games have this.

There are 3 unbiased people on the forums? Who knew.

[vryxnr]

I said that too. Not really sure what your point is...

Cordo said "We do try to be consistent, but..."to which you replied to with "...disagree that forum moderation is consistent." Which is a disconnect. What you are saying cordo said is not what he actually said. That was my point. You then - in the same reply to Cordo - that context is important, and I pointed out that he already said that first. Your post read like a disagreement/arguemtn/counter to Cordo but the main points you made were agreeing with him, which is odd to frame as a disagreement. That was my point. I simply found it confusing to disagree with someone then provide counter-points that actually agreed with that person.

Anyways, this side convo is off topic, so I'll stop now.

[Chai]

You make it sound like it is so difficult to avoid being banned for voicing your opinion and advocating for improvements you would like to see happen.

Nope. Ive said nothing of the sort.




Neither of those is typically an issue, in my experience.

Then we have different experiences, and what ive aggregated over the years proves the "not an issue" claim objectively incorrect.


(Unless you just can't talk with the devs about what you want to see without being insulting about how things currently are. Which is a challenge for some folks) The majority of infractions tends to be getting into ****ing matches with other posters and being unwilling to acknowledge that differing opinions and points of view are OK. Avoiding moderation is not hard to do if you can exercise some self control and tolerance for others. If you follow Wheaton's Law, you shouldn't find the need to create burner accounts to save your game account from banning.

And the issue is specific people will get the infractions while others do not. Re: My test which the mods have failed repeatedly per my previous post.

Ive created zero other accounts for this forum.


Avoiding moderation is not hard to do if you can exercise some self control and tolerance for others.

Not when the moderation is clearly biased. Under circumstances where 2 posts contain the EXACT_SAME_WORDS the ONLY (yes O-N-L-Y) reason to mod one post and not the other is due to the only (again O-N-L-Y) difference between the two posts - AKA the forum name. Theres no way to objectively refute this, regardless of how it is sliced.

[LevelJ]

I post on the forums quite infrequently, and there are numerous reasons why. In past games and subjects I have often enjoyed commenting on plenty of forum posts, but here...I feel like the aspects of meaningful discussion here are too quickly buried beneath individuals arguing too much over too little. Conflicting opinions are perfectly fine and can greatly contribute to a topic's discussion when presented in a civil and well-reasoned manner, but I know I am not the only one who has seen disagreements quickly devolve into a war over nuances and syntax...one person said this word, which is clearly wrong, while another said that word, which completely implies a reverse opinion from their wording five posts back. In the end, one or more sides refuse to budge, so either they burn out or reach critical mass with parting shots and Cordovan is forced to shut the entire thread down. Bashing the developers or SSG as a whole without a constructive criticism also gets old really fast. As a result, I avoid posting on or reading most of the forum threads other than the dev tracker threads. Instead I hang around the Lamannian forums or on the Weekly Wednesday Livestreams, where I feel that an actual dialogue with the developers is far easier. (And yes, when I post, they are long-winded like this one...sorry)

I understand and can appreciate that plenty of discussions on these forums have led to changes in DDO. Still, I wish the meaningful discussions and civil, well-reasoned debates could be more easily highlighted to stand out from the mess of arguments that inevitably convince no one. A bit of a pipe dream, I know. Please note that I do not want these unproductive arguments to be moderated, since they do not break forum rules (well, except for the instances in which they do break rules). Expanding moderating rules to include "pointless" arguments opens a can of worms that can cause a load of problems when you ask what qualifies as a "pointless" post or argument.

A solution I would like to see considered is an "upvote" system for posts similar to the likes of Reddit, Imgur, etc. Unlike our Player Reputation system, you would get a vote on any and every post you find to be relevant to the thread or topic, regardless of the player that posted it (not yourself of course), and there would be no benefit to players with lots of votes on their posts beyond the increased chance of being read. While I suppose the Player Rep system may once have been intended to distinguish post quality, I feel it is no longer a reliable indicator of post quality, nor does it stand out very well in a thread where most people have the same Rep values (don't get rid of it though).

The major difference between this system and other upvote systems would need to be the way posts with higher votes are made more visible. Generally I have seen this done by ordering the posts by vote count, except here they are ordered chronologically. This makes sense of course, so I would instead suggest displaying a post's number of votes in the post's heading, color-coding the vote count to quickly represent what people think of it. This way a reader can scroll through the thread and quickly distinguish posts with high ratings from those with lower ratings, with a button next to each post's indicator so they can quickly add their own vote after reading if desired. Yes, abuse of such a system is always possible (especially if troll accounts spam votes), but I would be far more interested in reading all the way through discussion threads in which indicators highlight the majority of meaningful posts rather than wasting time sifting through toxicity and unproductive fighting, especially in the later pages of a thread.



TL;DR My main problem on the forums is numerous threads with meaningful discussion covered up by squabbling, discouraging me from reading very far in. My solution is to have an upvote-like system for posts and an indicator on each post that stands out very clearly to help you distinguish/promote meaningful posts that contribute to the thread's topic, while remaining separate from the Rep system.



-Jayron

[Forzah]

Not when the moderation is clearly biased. Under circumstances where 2 posts contain the EXACT_SAME_WORDS the ONLY (yes O-N-L-Y) reason to mod one post and not the other is due to the only (again O-N-L-Y) difference between the two posts - AKA the forum name. Theres no way to objectively refute this, regardless of how it is sliced.

It still depends on the context. Infractions need not be based only on one post. They can also be based on previous posts that were nearly worthy of an infraction. It's similar to what you occasionally see with referees in soccer; one small foul may not be enough for a yellow card, but a series of small fouls can be worth a yellow card.

[LightBear]

We have been dealing with an issue with a particularly persistent person who likes to create multiple accounts to troll the forums in recent weeks. Otherwise, I am open to hearing from the community as to what they want to see moderation-wise. We have generally tried to adjust moderation based not just on our needs, but on the desires of the overall community, so when I've heard that we have been a bit too draconian, I've loosened up on it, and when I hear that we are too lenient, we can crack down a bit.

In regard to inconsistency, it's something you hear on just about every forum. We do try to be consistent, but don't get into rules lawyers debate. Context and meaning are one of the more difficult things to parse, but are also critical to the job of moderation. Just because someone uses the same words as someone who was moderated does not mean we're being inconsistent. It depends on how those words were used, what else was said in the moderated post, what the intention was, etc.

I often hear back from people who post something along the lines of, "...Player X is an @##*$#&!!! He hates Reaper." and get called out for "only moderating people who like Reaper" as an example. Obviously that wasn't why the post would have been moderated.

I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

As an unintentional infraction hoarder I can get where the OP is coming from.
There is a particular small group of very vocal forum users that are hell bent on pushing their agenda and are even known to be misusing the forum tools like "report".
(This thread is not the first to make this claim, tho it is the first where it seems SSO is open to debate and address this issue.)

The thing is, once something is added into the game it will be very unlikely for it to be removed unless it is a small thing like an item or an optional in a quest.
And even then, most of the times removed means being overwritten with a new rule-set instead.
And yes I know there have been complete overhauls of the starter area, marketplace, the prestige system, etc etc.

For handling this reaper business, make two sticky threads:
- One for the fanbois where all the "Reaper is the bestamest" post can be placed.
- One for the Heators where all the "Reaper sucks" posts can be placed.
And as soon as a new thread on this subject is made it can be added to either one of the two by a moderator, or even do it post by post for even more cross thread confusion.

Even tho I'm not a numbersman I would like to know what percentages of quests are finished on casual, hard, elite, r1 all the way to r10 and that percentage relatively to the lump-sum of quests finished.
And maybe correlate that to the number of players doing that.
And deepen it some more to see whether or not those are new players or not?
And how long does a new player stay now a days anyway?

[Saekee]

I post on the forums quite infrequently, and there are numerous reasons why. In past games and subjects I have often enjoyed commenting on plenty of forum posts, but here...I feel like the aspects of meaningful discussion here are too quickly buried beneath individuals arguing too much over too little. Conflicting opinions are perfectly fine and can greatly contribute to a topic's discussion when presented in a civil and well-reasoned manner, but I know I am not the only one who has seen disagreements quickly devolve into a war over nuances and syntax...one person said this word, which is clearly wrong, while another said that word, which completely implies a reverse opinion from their wording five posts back. In the end, one or more sides refuse to budge, so either they burn out or reach critical mass with parting shots and Cordovan is forced to shut the entire thread down. Bashing the developers or SSG as a whole without a constructive criticism also gets old really fast. As a result, I avoid posting on or reading most of the forum threads other than the dev tracker threads. Instead I hang around the Lamannian forums or on the Weekly Wednesday Livestreams, where I feel that an actual dialogue with the developers is far easier. (And yes, when I post, they are long-winded like this one...sorry)

I understand and can appreciate that plenty of discussions on these forums have led to changes in DDO. Still, I wish the meaningful discussions and civil, well-reasoned debates could be more easily highlighted to stand out from the mess of arguments that inevitably convince no one. A bit of a pipe dream, I know. Please note that I do not want these unproductive arguments to be moderated, since they do not break forum rules (well, except for the instances in which they do break rules). Expanding moderating rules to include "pointless" arguments opens a can of worms that can cause a load of problems when you ask what qualifies as a "pointless" post or argument.

A solution I would like to see considered is an "upvote" system for posts similar to the likes of Reddit, Imgur, etc. Unlike our Player Reputation system, you would get a vote on any and every post you find to be relevant to the thread or topic, regardless of the player that posted it (not yourself of course), and there would be no benefit to players with lots of votes on their posts beyond the increased chance of being read. While I suppose the Player Rep system may once have been intended to distinguish post quality, I feel it is no longer a reliable indicator of post quality, nor does it stand out very well in a thread where most people have the same Rep values (don't get rid of it though).

The major difference between this system and other upvote systems would need to be the way posts with higher votes are made more visible. Generally I have seen this done by ordering the posts by vote count, except here they are ordered chronologically. This makes sense of course, so I would instead suggest displaying a post's number of votes in the post's heading, color-coding the vote count to quickly represent what people think of it. This way a reader can scroll through the thread and quickly distinguish posts with high ratings from those with lower ratings, with a button next to each post's indicator so they can quickly add their own vote after reading if desired. Yes, abuse of such a system is always possible (especially if troll accounts spam votes), but I would be far more interested in reading all the way through discussion threads in which indicators highlight the majority of meaningful posts rather than wasting time sifting through toxicity and unproductive fighting, especially in the later pages of a thread.



TL;DR My main problem on the forums is numerous threads with meaningful discussion covered up by squabbling, discouraging me from reading very far in. My solution is to have an upvote-like system for posts and an indicator on each post that stands out very clearly to help you distinguish/promote meaningful posts that contribute to the thread's topic, while remaining separate from the Rep system.



-Jayron
nice idea, so quoting in full

perhaps have this as a thread sorting option?
Can we bring back negative rep too?

[Renvar]

Nope. Ive said nothing of the sort.



Then we have different experiences, and what ive aggregated over the years proves the "not an issue" claim objectively incorrect.



And the issue is specific people will get the infractions while others do not. Re: My test which the mods have failed repeatedly per my previous post.

Ive created zero other accounts for this forum.



Not when the moderation is clearly biased. Under circumstances where 2 posts contain the EXACT_SAME_WORDS the ONLY (yes O-N-L-Y) reason to mod one post and not the other is due to the only (again O-N-L-Y) difference between the two posts - AKA the forum name. Theres no way to objectively refute this, regardless of how it is sliced.


The fact remains: If you don't break the rules you can't get moderated.

Your statement is: Some people break the rules and get moderated. Some people break the rules and do not get moderated. That is subjective moderation and that is a problem.

Similar situation: Some people speed and get a ticket. Some people speed and get a warning (or don't get pulled over at all). Speeding may or may not get you a ticket.

Guess what NEVER gets you a ticket for speeding? Not speeding.

I'm sure that infractions are more likely to come in threads where the topic is controversial or, by nature, antagonizing. Or in threads where there are other posters committing infractions. (In basketball, it is common for the referees to call the game more "tightly" if players are getting chippy and tensions are running high. Just to keep things from escalating) Or, from players who have a history of infractions. (Yes, first time offenders might get a pass vs. habitual line steppers). Infractions probably come to heavily reported posts vs. on posts that are not reported. Since you don't have data about how many reports a specific post received, your data isn't complete. Since you don't have data on infraction history on all posters, your data isn't complete.

At the end of the day, just don't break the rules. Chances are you won't get infracted. How hard is that to figure out?

[LightBear]

Gosh, I feel like posting a whole rant here. Such narrow views.

[Chai]

It still depends on the context. Infractions need not be based only on one post. They can also be based on previous posts that were nearly worthy of an infraction. It's similar to what you occasionally see with referees in soccer; one small foul may not be enough for a yellow card, but a series of small fouls can be worth a yellow card.

When there are two posts with the exact same words, and the ONLY difference is the forum name, any lawyering of "context" must apply to either both or none of the posts. It cannot apply to one and not the other.

Moderating one post, but not the other, due to previous posting history, when both are exactly the same, is clear cut, straight down the check list, first ballot hall of fame bias against the poster. There are zero other ways to objectively slice it.

Its the same bias used by forumites themselves when they claim they are offended when one poster uses a specific term, then several other posters use the exact same term in the exact same context, and not a peep out of the "offended" party. You agree with them, they'll let anything you say slide. Disagree with them and even the slightest of transgressions will be blown out of proportion for 12 pages, all the while lawyering "context" was somehow different.

Example: 15 previous posters could have used the term "whales" to describe "big spenders" - but only one posters use of the term "offends" the person who reported it, and thats the only moderated post. The other 15 posts with the same terminology, in the exact same context, meaning the exact same thing, are deemed perfectly fine and allowed.

Example 2: "It only offends me when Forzah uses the word whales, is a clearly biased claim if I take zero offense to anyone else using it to mean the same thing.

[Chai]

The fact remains: If you don't break the rules you can't get moderated.

Your statement is: Some people break the rules and get moderated. Some people break the rules and do not get moderated. That is subjective moderation and that is a problem.

Similar situation: Some people speed and get a ticket. Some people speed and get a warning (or don't get pulled over at all). Speeding may or may not get you a ticket.

Guess what NEVER gets you a ticket for speeding? Not speeding.

I'm sure that infractions are more likely to come in threads where the topic is controversial or, by nature, antagonizing. Or in threads where there are other posters committing infractions. (In basketball, it is common for the referees to call the game more "tightly" if players are getting chippy and tensions are running high. Just to keep things from escalating) Or, from players who have a history of infractions. (Yes, first time offenders might get a pass vs. habitual line steppers). Infractions probably come to heavily reported posts vs. on posts that are not reported. Since you don't have data about how many reports a specific post received, your data isn't complete. Since you don't have data on infraction history on all posters, your data isn't complete.

At the end of the day, just don't break the rules. Chances are you won't get infracted. How hard is that to figure out?

As I stated, no other way to slice it. You are simply justifying biased reporting and moderation based on that reporting using the fallacy that this happens elsewhere, so its OK that it happens here too. Then turn around and wonder why there are people in the community who used to be regular positive contributors now making sock accounts to post the same thread eleventy twelve times a week.


At the end of the day, just don't break the rules. Chances are you won't get infracted. How hard is that to figure out?

Im fine with it in unbiased situations.
When theres strict moderation for ALL Im fine with it
When theres zero moderation for ALL, Im also fine with it
When theres biased moderation where some get away with anything and some get called out for the ticky tack stuff - thats a problem.
When people in the community support this, justify it, and make excuses for it, this is an even bigger issue. It speaks to the degree this bias has been ingrained into the community, and how some cling to their ability to bait and report other posters, knowing full well the one sidedness of the situation offers them a sort of protected status.

[Forzah]

When there are two posts with the exact same words, and the ONLY difference is the forum name, any lawyering of "context" must apply to either both or none of the posts. It cannot apply to one and not the other.

Moderating one post, but not the other, due to previous posting history, when both are exactly the same, is clear cut, straight down the check list, first ballot hall of fame bias against the poster. There are zero other ways to objectively slice it.

Context can include past behaviour and earlier posts. Persons that tend to start fights may need to be infracted earlier than those who don't. That's justifiable and can be based on objective criteria (the number of fights the person has been involved in).



Its the same bias used by forumites themselves when they claim they are offended when one poster uses a specific term, then several other posters use the exact same term in the exact same context, and not a peep out of the "offended" party. You agree with them, they'll let anything you say slide. Disagree with them and even the slightest of transgressions will be blown out of proportion for 12 pages, all the while lawyering "context" was somehow different.

Example: 15 previous posters could have used the term "whales" to describe "big spenders" - but only one posters use of the term "offends" the person who reported it, and thats the only moderated post. The other 15 posts with the same terminology, in the exact same context, meaning the exact same thing, are deemed perfectly fine and allowed.

Example 2: "It only offends me when Forzah uses the word whales, is a clearly biased claim if I take zero offense to anyone else using it to mean the same thing.

If the infraction was based solely on the use of this word, then no infraction should have been given. However, it may have also been based on other things in the post.

[Cordovan]

I've personally found that automatically blocking any content containing : "hushmail.com" -- does help.

I do realise that the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America might potentially make such a blanket ban of anyone and everyone using that provider illegal in Massachussetts, but having said that, I can't think of anything preventing you using that particular sequence of letters and signs as the basis for a more focused search query.

--

Posting this publicly because I know that many of you in here are plagued with these trolls whether in your blogs or in the forums that you mod.

Others have already said this in the thread, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to private forums. There's a famous XKCD comic (https://xkcd.com/1357/) about it (warning: profanity in the link).


Since you opened the door for discussion, I respectfully disagree that forum moderation is consistent. It's one of the reasons I tend to avoid the forums. Having received a permanent infraction for what amounted to name calling a while back, I do not feel that moderation is consistent and fair. It feels like certain posters can say whatever they like, while others are dealt with in a more extreme manner. Granted, this is several years old at this point, and under a different company (Turbine), but the infraction remains, as do my feelings about the moderation.

There is a LOT of grey area when moderating a forum. It can be all too easy to take something out of context by adding tone that was not intended. I would not want to be in your shoes, but I feel like a permanent infraction should be reserved for a MUCH more extreme offense. A ticket from a police officer will fall off your record at some point (for a relatively minor offense), but heaven forbid you get baited into an argument with a troll on a DnD forum - you'll carry that with you forever.

Thanks for the feedback. It's true that getting baited and responding in kind can be rough when it comes to moderation. While I try to be lenient to otherwise-cool people who lose it after getting baited, I also have to try to moderate fairly.


Thanks for replying!

I think it would go a long way to have a better presence in the weekends when traffic is higher and the worst offenders sneak in. When a thread derails too far off topic, either splitting the posts (lots of work, not recommended) or closing the thread would be good. Heck with the confusing nature of thread necros here sometimes, I wpuldmt mind seeing any thread that hasnt been replied to in six months or something be auto-closed, but I’m not sure what your toolset allows you to do through automation.

When SSG is online, I’ve found moderation to be good, especially given the monstrosity that this forum is.

One of the things that most perplexes me is the belief that I'm not reading on weekends. I think if you check the dev tracker I'm on just about every weekend! Frankly, reading the DDO (and now LOTRO) forums over my Saturday morning coffee has been something I've been doing since like 2006. :)


have you considered opening moderation to the community such as getting 3 volunteers or such that you guys approve that can be unbiased as much as possible. i thought about this because there are people who would probably volunteer to do this with limited power of course. i know other communities or games have this.

I have not been convinced that community volunteer moderators work well. In almost every online community I've been in, volunteer modding ends up being a problem, and particularly when it's a company-run forum utilizing volunteer mods. There are also some business and legal concerns with it.

Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

[zehnvhex]

Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

I would tend to agree that volunteer moderators would be problematic on an official forum. You guys get enough flak about the players council. Volunteerism works fine in places like Reddit/Discord where the very nature of the environment is self-policing.

The downside to it is that it leads to a hive mind aspect. Having a dissenting opinion, even if constructively offered, typically gets downvoted/shouted down.

Reddit is a great place to get news, ask questions and share information. It's -terrible- for having a discussion though.

[Qhualor]

Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

Wouldn't this be basically the same thing as pos and neg rep? Wouldn't be in favor of something like that. I remember all too well how abusive people were with the neg rep system.

[Forzah]

Wouldn't this be basically the same thing as pos and neg rep? Wouldn't be in favor of something like that. I remember all too well how abusive people were with the neg rep system.

Pos and neg rep is handed out to a person; this would be handed out to a post. For a discussion it's rather annoying, though, when the chronological order of posts changes because of up and downvoting.

[Chai]

Context can include past behaviour and earlier posts.

Thats called bias, not context.

[Forzah]

Thats called bias, not context.

It's not bias if you can justify it based on objective criteria. In my opinion, good moderation takes into account how persons respond in certain situations. This will prevent the discussion from escalating in an early stage.

[Renvar]

Thats called bias, not context.

So when a judge gives a first time offender probation but gives the three time offender 90 days in jail and a $5k fine, that's bias? Not context?

[Chai]

It's not bias if you can justify it based on objective criteria. In my opinion, good moderation takes into account how persons respond in certain situations. This will prevent the discussion from escalating in an early stage.

Youre literally talking about holding PREVIOUS behavior against a poster when moderating a CURRENT post, and using that to justify incorrectly moderating one post while not the other, when the posts in question contain the exact same content. Moderation is supposed to be corrective. Biased moderation in such a fashion does not allow correction of behavior to result in less penalization, due to the moderation occurring based on bias against the PREVIOUS behavior and not due to the content of the CURRENT post being moderated.

[Chai]

So when a judge gives a first time offender probation but gives the three time offender 90 days in jail and a $5k fine, that's bias? Not context?

The court still has to prove guilt before sentencing. Guilty the first time does not mean guilty the second or third time. Each individual occurrence needs to be proven.

In the context of your analogy, this justification of biased moderation is like saying we are just going to presume you guilty, because you've done it before.

I lost the office pool btw. I thought at least another page or so would go by before the analogies would start popping up. :p

[Forzah]

Youre literally talking about holding PREVIOUS behavior against a poster when moderating a CURRENT post, and using that to justify incorrectly moderating one post while not the other, when the posts in question contain the exact same content. Moderation is supposed to be corrective. Biased moderation in such a fashion does not allow correction of behavior to result in less penalization, due to the moderation occurring based on bias against the PREVIOUS behavior and not due to the content of the CURRENT post being moderated.

That's not so strange, is it? The goal of moderation is to prevent bad behaviour in future discussions. If that can be achieved through personalized penalties, why not? I don't see a problem with it, as long as the personalized penalties can be justified and are applied somewhat consistently to people with a similar list of past offenses.

I'm making a point about moderation in general. Maybe in your "whales" example a mistake was made; I can't judge on that without knowing the details.

[Renvar]

The court still has to prove guilt before sentencing. Guilty the first time does not mean guilty the second or third time. Each individual occurrence needs to be proven.

In the context of your analogy, this justification of biased moderation is like saying we are just going to presume you guilty, because you've done it before.

I lost the office pool btw. I thought at least another page or so would go by before the analogies would start popping up. :p

Your research is taking rules violations (guilty) and determining the sentencing for each (moderation or not). The only difference you are measuring is in sentencing. Not guilt/innocence.

Your fallacy is that you are trying to determine guilt or innocence simply from sentencing.

[Chai]

That's not so strange, is it? The goal of moderation is to prevent bad behaviour in future discussions. If that can be achieved through personalized penalties, why not? I don't see a problem with it, as long as the personalized penalties can be justified and are applied somewhat consistently to people with a similar list of past offenses.


With biased moderation no matter how well you correct the action, it doesnt work because you are being moderated due to your previous posting behavior, and not due to your current, now corrected, posting behavior.

The personalized penalties are never justified. Stick to the post content and moderate that only. If the post itself deserves moderation, then be clear as to why. You shouldnt get infractions because you are Forzah. You should get infractions when violations of specific forum rules are cited on a specific post.

[Chai]

Your research is taking rules violations (guilty) and determining the sentencing for each (moderation or not). The only difference you are measuring is in sentencing. Not guilt/innocence.

Your fallacy is that you are trying to determine guilt or innocence simply from sentencing.

I disagree. The moderator determines both (rules violation and moderation). Not one or the other.

If the post itself does not warrant an infraction, it should not receive one, period. Doesnt matter who posted it.

With two of the exact same posts, down to the punctuation, with only the forum names being different, if one gets moderated and the other does not, this is biased moderation, no matter how you attempt to slice it, lawyer it, or justify it. The sTest proved biased moderation. Its pretty clear cut.

[glmfw1]

I have not been convinced that community volunteer moderators work well. In almost every online community I've been in, volunteer modding ends up being a problem, and particularly when it's a company-run forum utilizing volunteer mods. There are also some business and legal concerns with it.
In theory, SSG could look into asking forum posters who have a good track record to be paid forum moderators on a rotating basis. That should get around legal concerns, but raises additional business issues. You have to pay them, but how do you know they are doing their job: on a low troll day, someone could take no action but have paid more attention to all posts than someone who takes a lot of action on a high troll day. But if people aren't being paid, you are relying totally on their reputation to ensure they do an unbiased job.

[Chai]

I have not been convinced that community volunteer moderators work well. In almost every online community I've been in, volunteer modding ends up being a problem, and particularly when it's a company-run forum utilizing volunteer mods. There are also some business and legal concerns with it.

What community moderation does is takes any accusation of company bias out of the equation. People cant then say they were infracted or removed because their opinion doesnt agree with some company agenda.


Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

You used to have something similar. We saw how well that worked. :p Once someone was irritated enough with a specific poster due to previous disagreements, their posts were combed through from YEARS AGO and all neg repped. This happened until you guys put a cap on how often someone could neg rep another poster.

[Morroiel]

The right answer is to automate some of the moderation, so that Cordo can focus on the issues that can't be automatically moderated.

For those who have been on reddit, moderator bots are becoming more and more sophisticated with each day. One of the communities I help manage, I implemented a bot for and it covers the vast majority of any moderation issues. I think the mod team's manual actions account for less than 0.5% of the total mod actions.

It is extremely evident that there isn't any sort of automatic moderation in place on this forum: you have to look no further than a few months back when someone repeatedly posted racial slur memes on every thread they posted. Instead of being taken down immediately (which is what happens in the vast majority of subreddits using OCR), the posts were allowed to persist for multiple days.

As for the problem with socks, I think that anonymity is the problem. Something trivial that could solve the problem would be to list characters, character levels, and guild names for the account in their signature. This would make it unarguable that the account is a sock just from glancing at it. I think this would go a long way to knocking the wind out of these threads. The problem is that people (myself included) feel the need to argue against the troll's points because we feel that if we don't the devs (and possibly new players) are going to act on them.

Just my 2cp.

Cheers~

[Sam-u-r-eye]

Others have already said this in the thread, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to private forums...

Big +1 for your communication on this topic.

I like the idea of reddit style up/down voting of threads.

Cheers!

[Morroiel]

Big +1 for your communication on this topic.

I like the idea of reddit style up/down voting of threads.

Cheers!

Reddit styled up and downvoting is a good start, but I'd be cautious as well. It works well on reddit (at least in a lot of communities) because the platform is all about catering to the majority. Content that appeals to the most people gets upvoted, while content that appeals to the least people either fails to get upvoted or in some cases even gets downvoted because its not the content the majority wants.

The problem with that when you are discussing a game board like this one is that the forums serve multiple purposes. One purpose is similar: showcase content that appeals to the most amount of people (screenshot subforum or achievement subforum). On the other hand, it also serves as a platform for players to voice their concerns with the game: in this purpose, the reddit voting system fails because the tails of the player skill bell curve will be muted by the overwhelming majority in the middle. The devs have the impossible task of pleasing all these players simultaneously but nonetheless I'm afraid this would lead them to failing to balance content for the tails even moreso than currently.

[Renvar]

I disagree. The moderator determines both (rules violation and moderation). Not one or the other.

If the post itself does not warrant an infraction, it should not receive one, period. Doesnt matter who posted it.

With two of the exact same posts, down to the punctuation, with only the forum names being different, if one gets moderated and the other does not, this is biased moderation, no matter how you attempt to slice it, lawyer it, or justify it. The sTest proved biased moderation. Its pretty clear cut.

We fundamentally disagree and there is no path to resolution. And that's OK.

[LevelJ]

I would tend to agree that volunteer moderators would be problematic on an official forum. You guys get enough flak about the players council. Volunteerism works fine in places like Reddit/Discord where the very nature of the environment is self-policing.

The downside to it is that it leads to a hive mind aspect. Having a dissenting opinion, even if constructively offered, typically gets downvoted/shouted down.

Reddit is a great place to get news, ask questions and share information. It's -terrible- for having a discussion though.

Yea, but to be honest, dissenting opinions get shouted down a fair bit on here anyway.

Regarding your concerns (and those of others) about downvoting, my suggestion about the upvote system earlier was actually only upvotes...not downvotes...admittedly I didn't clarify that well. I agree that there are plenty of issues that could arise from downvotes, although keep in mind that you would not have Reddit's feature of hiding posts below certain score thresholds, so unpopular opinions are not suppressed or ganged up on.

As an additional balance, while one poster that presents an unpopular opinion may receive no votes, those who quote him/her to present a counter argument will be more likely receive votes. In a weird way, that actually can help both sides, because by a popular post quoting the less popular ones, it highlights that such unpopular posts are still quality enough to be worth discussing, and therefore worth reading, even if through a quote. And of course with paraphrased quotes, you can just click the button to go back to the original post...I already do this often with dev posts where players are quoted.


-Jayron

[Rauven]

Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

I prefer Slashdot's style of community moderation to Reddit's. The cliff's notes version is every time a forum user logs in they have a chance to be granted moderator points; 5 to be exact, and they have 24 hours to use them or lose them. They can use those moderator points to moderate exactly 5 posts by selecting from a predetermined list of moderation choices such as: Helpful, Funny, Off-topic, etc. (there are 11 choices). Non-moderators can then metamoderate by rating the moderation of randomly selected posts. In order to be a moderator a forum account has to be of a certain age, so no one can create a brand new account and start moderating the next day. There are, obviously, more details (you can read more here (https://slashdot.org/faq#meta1)), but that's the nutshell. Under this system it is hard for someone to abuse the system and target another forumite, and, IIRC, there is a limit on how often a moderator can moderate posts by a particular user.

[GeoffWatson]

What community moderation does is takes any accusation of company bias out of the equation. People cant then say they were infracted or removed because their opinion doesnt agree with some company agenda.


Instead it will be the volunteer's agenda that gets people moderated.

[slarden]

As for the problem with socks, I think that anonymity is the problem. Something trivial that could solve the problem would be to list characters, character levels, and guild names for the account in their signature. This would make it unarguable that the account is a sock just from glancing at it. I think this would go a long way to knocking the wind out of these threads. The problem is that people (myself included) feel the need to argue against the troll's points because we feel that if we don't the devs (and possibly new players) are going to act on them.

Just my 2cp.

Cheers~

I like the guild/server idea - this would also help identify when a group of friends coordinate to bombard the forum with an opinion to make it seem more credible.

[Ziindarax]

Someone mentioned Reddit-like up/downvoting: This is something I have looked into, and continue to. If/when we ever update the forums, I might well enable this if it is available.

Cordovan, we *HAD* a system like this in the past. Trolls (and their friends) abused this system to auto-ban people they disagreed with (or try to anyways). A re-implementation of this system would simply cause those who disagree with the cry-nerf mobs to get auto-moderated. Community Moderators would be *much* better than this. That, or make it to where only premium / VIP accounts can post on the forums (but don't make it VIP only like SW:TOR does).

[Chai]

We fundamentally disagree and there is no path to resolution. And that's OK.

The path to resolution is in the post you quoted.

[Chai]

Instead it will be the volunteer's agenda that gets people moderated.

I agree theres always potential for that. This is why you choose your mods wisely.

[Chai]

As for the problem with socks, I think that anonymity is the problem. Something trivial that could solve the problem would be to list characters, character levels, and guild names for the account in their signature. This would make it unarguable that the account is a sock just from glancing at it. I think this would go a long way to knocking the wind out of these threads. The problem is that people (myself included) feel the need to argue against the troll's points because we feel that if we don't the devs (and possibly new players) are going to act on them.


Another prime example of why enticing players to play in more than one game space is a good thing. No one playing R1 would care if the devs acted on feedback for elite. Its only when multiple demographic groups of players are all advocating for the one and only setting which gets rewarded the most to be made for their own playstyle at the expense of all others when this conflict becomes an issue.

[simo0208]

And... derailed. Thanks.

[noobodyfool]

Another prime example of why enticing players to play in more than one game space is a good thing. No one playing R1 would care if the devs acted on feedback for elite.

Agreed But do you really think there going to do that?


Its only when multiple demographic groups of players are all advocating for the one and only setting which gets rewarded the most to be made for their own playstyle at the expense of all others when this conflict becomes an issue.

I believe this is more of a perception than reality I don't think most people advocate for nerfs unless there is resistance to buffs at which point they have no choice.

On the other side of the coin if buffs don't displace or change the currant meta but do bring up the weak classics so they can hold their own most meta players would be ok.

Also decrease self heal penalty in R1 by half and increase difficulty in r10 by double

[Dragavon]

I belive that the biggest problem is that Cordovan does not have enough time to maintain an active presence on the forums. Moderating is one thing, but there are many many threads where a post from someone at SSG would be great.

I think Lynnabel has done a great job at that during her internships, but I fear that now that she is a regular employee she will be bogged down in work like everyone else.

Some of the threads she replied in about various bugs and problems in the game got very constructive and problems where identified and solved. We need more of that kind of communication from SSG on these forums.

[Chai]

Agreed But do you really think there going to do that?

The tech already exists and settings are in place. Its a matter of hitting the game culture reset button. Right now the first time bonus incentive to run in different game spaces is not enough - so they need to up the ante. The reason for the game culture reset is too many people care about others taking the path of least resistance.




I believe this is more of a perception than reality I don't think most people advocate for nerfs unless there is resistance to buffs at which point they have no choice.

On the other side of the coin if buffs don't displace or change the currant meta but do bring up the weak classics so they can hold their own most meta players would be ok.

Also decrease self heal penalty in R1 by half and increase difficulty in r10 by double

Its reality, as evidenced by your example here. There are people who are opposed to a self heal penalty decrease and play in the same game space. That conflict is the roadblock to implementation for one group, knowing it will go against the play style of other groups. Now if each had their own game space, no one would care if you got what you want in your game space, as it has zero potential to negatively affect them in their game space. Also: its not just nerfs, but any change whatsoever.

[simo0208]

The tech already exists and settings are in place. Its a matter of hitting the game culture reset button. Right now the first time bonus incentive to run in different game spaces is not enough - so they need to up the ante. The reason for the game culture reset is too many people care about others taking the path of least resistance.



Its reality, as evidenced by your example here. There are people who are opposed to a self heal penalty decrease and play in the same game space. That conflict is the roadblock to implementation for one group, knowing it will go against the play style of other groups. Now if each had their own game space, no one would care if you got what you want in your game space, as it has zero potential to negatively affect them in their game space. Also: its not just nerfs, but any change whatsoever.

What does this have to do with board moderation Chai? You make every. Single. Thread about your crusade. Stop it. Post on topic. You wonder why you get moderated? This. This is why. I literally posted that you derailed the thread and instead, you doubled down. It’s disrespectful and annoying as all hell that everytime I see a post by you or nobodyfool it has to be about ypur reaper crusade. Make your own thread.

And yes, I’m shouting you down. Don’t come to other peoples’ threads and derail them with your drivel. This is exactly what I was talking about with board moderation because now I’m mad and that ruins my game experience. So thanks for proving my point.

[noobodyfool]

The reason for the game culture reset is too many people care about others taking the path of least resistance.

This seems strange to care about what others are doing?





Its reality, as evidenced by your example here. There are people who are opposed to a self heal penalty decrease and play in the same game space.

I think I will start a poll about who may or may not be opposed to a self heal penalty decrease


That conflict is the roadblock to implementation for one group, knowing it will go against the play style of other groups. Now if each had their own game space, no one would care if you got what you want in your game space, as it has zero potential to negatively affect them in their game space. Also: its not just nerfs, but any change whatsoever.

There is already change in the works.

The thing is there are people who want just balance across classes that have no problem in r1-3 but above that it's impossible for them to play with out many conditions being met that other classes do not have to meet.

[Chai]

This seems strange to care about what others are doing?

Yes, it most certainly is strange. It also leads to misleading, if not outright disingenuous positions, such as "its the build that allows this player to accomplish what they did, so the build must be OP" - when in fact more often than not its the player thats OP. My personal favorite is "that other guy can complete the quest, and this ruins my fun" along with "its not that the other guy is a better/more experienced player than I am, its because he is on a warlock (insert class I want nerfed here) and Im playing a barbarian (insert class I want buffed here)."


I think I will start a poll about who may or may not be opposed to a self heal penalty decrease


There is already change in the works.

Then just as elite challenge eroded, so too will reaper.


The thing is there are people who want just balance across classes that have no problem in r1-3 but above that it's impossible for them to play with out many conditions being met that other classes do not have to meet.

Its not impossible for them to PLAY using the intended design - grouping. Its impossible for them to SOLO.

There will always be meta builds in this game, as their methods do not balance it. Doing what would be needed to balance it goes against the way they generate revenue. Im willing to discuss this in another thread, your poll thread if you like.

[simo0208]

Yes, it most certainly is strange. It also leads to misleading, if not outright disingenuous positions, such as "its the build that allows this player to accomplish what they did, so the build must be OP" - when in fact more often than not its the player thats OP. My personal favorite is "that other guy can complete the quest, and this ruins my fun" along with "its not that the other guy is a better/more experienced player than I am, its because he is on a warlock (insert class I want nerfed here) and Im playing a barbarian (insert class I want buffed here)."





Then just as elite challenge eroded, so too will reaper.



Its not impossible for them to PLAY using the intended design - grouping. Its impossible for them to SOLO.

There will always be meta builds in this game, as their methods do not balance it. Doing what would be needed to balance it goes against the way they generate revenue. Im willing to discuss this in another thread, your poll thread if you like.

Seriously? You two are the absolute worst.

[noobodyfool]

Yes, it most certainly is strange. It also leads to misleading, if not outright disingenuous positions, such as "its the build that allows this player to accomplish what they did, so the build must be OP" - when in fact more often than not its the player thats OP. My personal favorite is "that other guy can complete the quest, and this ruins my fun" along with "its not that the other guy is a better/more experienced player than I am, its because he is on a warlock (insert class I want nerfed here) and Im playing a barbarian (insert class I want buffed here)."





Then just as elite challenge eroded, so too will reaper.



Its not impossible for them to PLAY using the intended design - grouping. Its impossible for them to SOLO.

There will always be meta builds in this game, as their methods do not balance it. Doing what would be needed to balance it goes against the way they generate revenue. Im willing to discuss this in another thread, your poll thread if you like.

ok sure can you vote also please

[Cordovan]

Cordovan, we *HAD* a system like this in the past. Trolls (and their friends) abused this system to auto-ban people they disagreed with (or try to anyways). A re-implementation of this system would simply cause those who disagree with the cry-nerf mobs to get auto-moderated. Community Moderators would be *much* better than this. That, or make it to where only premium / VIP accounts can post on the forums (but don't make it VIP only like SW:TOR does).

The old system was a forum reputation system, and I agree that thing was awful, and was one of the first things I got rid of when I rose enough in position to be able to do it. My thinking on a Reddit-style up/down vote would be that it would be an optional way to view the forums; you could view by post date, perhaps number of replies, or by voting, with most positive listed first. This would be in a selected forum of the forums (General, classes, etc.)

To be clear, this isn't something I am at all promising we will do, but is rather something I would like to explore if/when we overhaul the forums.

[Arkat]

The old system was a forum reputation system, and I agree that thing was awful, and was one of the first things I got rid of when I rose enough in position to be able to do it. My thinking on a Reddit-style up/down vote would be that it would be an optional way to view the forums; you could view by post date, perhaps number of replies, or by voting, with most positive listed first. This would be in a selected forum of the forums (General, classes, etc.)

To be clear, this isn't something I am at all promising we will do, but is rather something I would like to explore if/when we overhaul the forums.

It's an interesting idea.

I would just say if you do implement a similar system, please make sure it's something you could "back out" of if it didn't work out the way you were hoping it would.

[slarden]

The old system was a forum reputation system, and I agree that thing was awful, and was one of the first things I got rid of when I rose enough in position to be able to do it. My thinking on a Reddit-style up/down vote would be that it would be an optional way to view the forums; you could view by post date, perhaps number of replies, or by voting, with most positive listed first. This would be in a selected forum of the forums (General, classes, etc.)

To be clear, this isn't something I am at all promising we will do, but is rather something I would like to explore if/when we overhaul the forums.
1 guy with rpa software and a bunch of sock puppets would influence that too much

[Mortas]

...
I am open to wider feedback on what YOU want to see on these forums. While it's unlikely we can make everyone happy, if there is a general tilt in sentiment, I'm open to making an adjustment.

People are vastly different so you will not win with company mass moderation. What I have done in past administration of forums is:

- quit company moderation of the masses by removing all censorship and adhere to minimal legal requirements - this avoids legal/morals traps
- put forum moderation in user hands with personal block lists and profanity filters that can be edited per user, eg. as in-game blocks and the default profanity filer
- add a forum functionality that displays a blocked user's posts as "Blocked" so the blocking user knows there is a post if they are interested in a thread and want to unblock a user to see it
- users can block/un-block whoever they feel like aside from administrators
- apply analytics to all users' blocks to follow the trends and try perma-bans of common offenders - subject to company scrutiny - or not, allowing the user blocks to continue.

I know this can lead to a lot of data but with some decent database techniques, like sharing a filter pool, offload processing to the user so you still send the normal amount of text and let filtering happen client side, etc. it may not be too burdensome. Just loosely based on my own experience, I think you can swing it in a way as to not affect posts and you need to disable it if it takes too much processing.

[TitusOvid]

One of my innermost hopes is that SSG would participate more on the forum. In my opinion this is the best platform to feel out your customers. And by best I mean reaching your customers. I am fully aware that this board hoards a lot of trashtalk and provocations.
Put out important customer information clear to see. Imo it is the best place to publish recent or even pressing information. 1 example:
Curse of Strahd bugged out quite a bit after release. People ran it and coudln't complete. They invested time and money for bypasses.
I don't remember an announcement from SSG concerning that.
A lot of frustration and anger and tickets send could have been avoided. Would have saved everyone some time.

And it is the best place to react to questions concerning SSG.. But the answering rate is horrible bordering on neglect.
One of the best examples is questions about customer support. For exmaple:
- What are the active/office hours?
- Why does tickets replies often take so long?
- What are they able to help you with ingame and for what do i have to send a mail? Waiting hours for a reply and then get the answer that they are unable to help is just annyoing.

If there is official information it is oftentimes spread over different platforms (facebook, twitter, forum, twitch, google+). I would need to monitor all to get that information, because it is missing on the forum for example.

The information quality and rate is a joke.
I rely more on information from third persons than from SSG. How sad is that?

I don't know if there is a PR person or even a Social Media Manager employed but maybe you should think about that. Community Manager is something completely different, so I won't call out Cordovan on that. But I know that he takes on some of that duties.

Thank you.