271 replies to this topic

[Accurs3D]

Is this thing on?

Hello, PGI and IGP are ******* ******** ******* and I hope you all die of brain cancer.

Please ban me.

Bonus points if you guess what the asteriks are.

Edited by Accurs3D, 07 September 2014 - 02:22 PM.

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

Those have been bugged since the Data center Migration. Jon hopes to get them back up soon as he can while he has been otherwise focused mostly on the post-migration routing issues being reported to us.

What? I'm talking about the deletion of the initial thread, which Ekman later described as full of "unruly responses". That does not sound to me like a "post-migration routing issue".

Edited by Zharot, 07 September 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[Zensei]

I think you should run General Discussion as a Live Twitch feed.

[ApolloKaras]

Roland hit it right on the head. The dev team acts as if the community started that way and was always bitter. No... Things like CW not arriving, things like the Loyalty points from the Phoenix package, things like the launch event CW details, I could go on and on. UI 2.0 I along with many others suggested how you all could NOT make this a click fest, no one listened. We attempted to help when balancing weapons etc in beta, and no one listened. Some of the people that have been banned have been banned for no other reason, other than they posted a bunch. Chronojam, Sandpit, Roadbeer some of your biggest supporters at one point, instead try asking yourself what brought them to that point? I don't think you would.


Last post in this ridiculous place unless something changes. Good luck to the rest of the posters screaming into a wall.

Edited by Saxie, 07 September 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

First off ... I have not read any of the previous feedback, so if some of this is redundant, it probably needed to be said again. The OP is long, so I will try to keep my comments to precisely what I think is important.

About the open letter ... there is a weird gray area between truly abusive speech and harsh criticism.

While I disagree with calling for someone to be fired or questioning someone's competence or intelligence, these are probably "blue" offenses. However, if there are questions about an employee's or company's motives, plans, or decisions that attracts such responses, particularly from previously supportive or neutral players and in large numbers, it probably deserves attention and maybe even an official explanation.

I especially disagree with personal attacks based on ethnicity, origin, religion, etc. ... these are clearly "yellow" offenses.


In response to your questions and/or dilemmas:

1. "Blue" offenses ... I'm not a fan of the "three strikes" policy for these offenses, but I can't think of anything better with the options you've described, particularly if the recidivism rate is high. Possibly include a warning banner next to the "POST" button reminding the offender he's on "probation".

2. Ignore them, or hire more Community Managers to reply to them with the truth, but do NOT remove them or their posts unless they violate the TOS. Open and frank discussion that begins with something along the lines of "I'm sorry you feel that way, but our point of view is ..." would go a long way to building the trust of the middle 80%.

3. For TOS violations ... fair and consistent. For differing points of view, see 2.

4. As far as I can tell, the name and shame policy is fair.

5. I like Kaetetoa, but I think that there should be a statement from the moderator or staff member that reflects why a thread was moved there.

6. The best reward would be more Developer or Community Manager feedback on the forums, even if it's just hitting "like" for good posts.

7., 8. Agitators are gonna agitate ... not much else you can do, I think.

9. One thread for each staff member (or senior staff member) for a persistent "ask the Devs" question and answer, beginning with the primary area of responsibility and expertise. One place where players could go to get the most current information or get their questions answered by the team. Karl Berg's awesome thread is a great example of how communications between players and developers should be. The moderation rules could even be different or more strict here.

I believe that if there was more open and honest discussion, there would be less need for moderation.

10. No.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 07 September 2014 - 03:36 PM.

[wolf raider]

I lurk on the forums a lot, and post very little for same reason your anonymous source gave.

This forum is full of trolls.

But the trolls aren't the people who are constantly criticizing PGI. The trolls aren't the people who beg, even plead, with you to stop your insane attempts at balancing. The trolls aren't the people who vent their anger onto the forum in response to the constant lies and insane "micro" transaction tactics (there's nothing micro about $30 mechs).

No, the only trolls here are you. And you proved that when you used this letter as your righteous facade. That's a list of game developers to address the very real, very serious problem of misogyny and general antipathy towards abusive behavior in the gaming world. That's a list of people who really want to change how people interact with each other in a video game. You have never had a problem like that on these forums, aside from one or two isolated incidents which I assume were quickly banned.

I don't seen forum posts on this forum telling women to stop driving mechs or calling them misogynistic slurs. I don't see people bragging about[REDACTED] on this forum. What I do see is a crowd of people who feel rightly angered by your constant disregard for the community and shady business practices that make used-car salesmen look positively honest.

So you want to try and quash the negative criticisms on this forum? Fine. Whatever, I don't care, because I long ago accepted that the founder pack I purchased was an investment I would never see returned. You want to tightly control how people talk about your game, until you create an echo chamber of positivity? Good luck, its never going to work but you're welcome to try. You want to punish people for making comments on your game on other websites because it hurt your feelings? Go for it.

These are your forums, you can do whatever the hell you want with them.

But don't you dare try to hide your intentions behind that letter. You insult what those people are standing up for by using it to justify your latest wave of censorship. Your attempt to associate yourself with them just to make you look noble and righteous, is one of the most disgusting things I've seen you do. You not only expose yourselves as the sleazy, dishonest company we all suspected you to be, but you expose your cowardice as well.

If you don't like negative criticism, or angry people voicing their anger, just come out and say it. Don't hide it. Do you think for a single moment that any one of the people in this forum would be surprised to find out your concern isn't for a healthy, vibrant community but rather your bottom line? That your only concern is to create a place where potential noobs with money to burn won't run into people warning them about your business practices? That in reality you've been reduced to the level of developers like the ones who run take-down notices again critics like Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit?

I promise you, none of us would be surprised. And it wouldn't lessen our opinion of your company because frankly...

It's just not possible for us to think any less of you.

Edited by Mal, 07 September 2014 - 03:53 PM.
Removed inappropriate language

[TKSax]

So since now comments on 3rd party site count here, how long until you are perusing/prosecuting people who post negative reviews on reviews sites about this game? Also taking into account what people say outside of your forum is poor form. I may be more constructive here because after all I am in PGI's "home". But I may go to Reddit or somewhere to blow off steam instead of doing it here where it is against TOS.

I think saying you are doing this because of the forum toxicity and linking it to a post about threats and sexual harassment is a poor analogy. Should any type of threats and harassment be tolerated?? Of course not but I am sure that is a tiny about of what is going on here.

If you think making people to pay for forum access is going to work, you are wrong, I do have a compromise, let everyone who has bought a package and or 7 days or more of premium time have access to the premium forums, that should help right I meant those people are supporters of your product....

Edited by TKSax, 07 September 2014 - 03:53 PM.

[Novakaine]

First I'll say I'm a founder and I play daily.
I even buy MC to help support the game, am I satisfied with the progress?
No to dang blasted slow.
I've hung around even after 80% percent of my friends have said buh bye.
Criticism is just this you going to get the good with the bad.
Are there trolls here?
Yes, but not as many as you would think.
Most of us are very passioniate about the things we like.
The same applies to the forums.
Trying to stifle criticism here will continue to move it to other forums in other places.
You can't avoid it, but what you can do is provide better feedback here.
When PGI started posting on reddit, and twitter and other places your harshest critics followed you there.
Why?
Because they felt no one listened here.
That simple.
Not pointing a finger, but this is what I've observe since 2011.
Sometimes I've raged at PGI.
Sometimes I've congratulated PGI.
But perma-bans I totally disagree with.
It only makes angry people angrier and it's gonna follow you (PGI) to whatever project you create.
Heavy handedness will only beget harsher criticism.
And in the end less profits for PGI.
So I'll say it here, thanks PGI for a game that's starting to turn into what it should have been a few years back.
Developement take time and I appreciate that.
But don't blow your fan base just because of a very few people.
Because let me tell you it's the hardcore members that really push this game to their friends.
I am a founder and I reserve the right to praise PGI.
I am a founder and I reserve the right to criticise PGI at times.
But most of all I am a founder and I play daily.
Thanks and keep working it PGI.

[slide]

Niko, I have much respect for the work you do mostly because of the assistance you have provided in the past.

However if you wish to implement a standard of moderation then you also need to hold your own people to the same standard.

Bryan Ekmans deletion of the original "new game" thread was a complete slap in the face to anyone who posted a legitimate question. Russ Bullocks comments in the past come under the same heading.

If PGI as a company can not take any type of criticism then you are doomed to failure in the customer relations department regardless of what moderation techniques you employ. I am in business myself (manufacturing) and if I treated customers concerns, deadlines and changed promises at whim, the same as this company I would have been out of business long ago.

Let me make it clear because it is a point that seems to be lost on PGI. Many people only play this game because it is based on Battletech. That grace will only get you so far. I have seen as many as 1000 people pass through the ARMD recruitment process, most of them expressing a love of the IP. Less than 10% remain active in the game for longer than 3 months and a huge number of founders who had limitless enthusiasm at the beginning are long gone. That includes many of the former white knights that I suspect have just been banned. This is a direct result of how they are treated by this company, particularly your managing directors. Comments about being on an island are a perfect example of this.

You cannot turn a fan of the IP into a PGI hater with out effort. Stifling peoples opinion just because you don't like them will only make this worse.

I am a perfect example of this as I am currently considering if I even want to be involved with MWO anymore and you know that I have tried to do huge amounts within the community here in Australia.

I am currently on moderator watch as a direct result of Bryan Ekmans deletion of that thread, I don't normally troll or try to cause descent but be aware that heavy handed moderation is a double edged sword. You are likely to rile people up more than they were all ready. I have seen it happen on our own forums on occasion.

[Cpt Leprechaun]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

Those have been bugged since the Data center Migration. Jon hopes to get them back up soon as he can while he has been otherwise focused mostly on the post-migration routing issues being reported to us.

then what happened here http://mwomercs.com/...lore-part-deux/

the replies were not what you wanted so you nuked it and now this thread has been moderated to DEATH. peoples voices. your customers concerned voices have been snupped out.

The excuse of your forums being a mess is not the fault of the people who are mad, but instead the people who constantly make them so. This treatment of banning and censorship whether it be by paywall or whatever you want to justify it as is akin to a Big brother getting in trouble for something the younger brother has done. The older brother didn't do anything and yet is punished. Now that being said I do realize there can be circumstances where a full ban would be necessary. example being a death threat.

A big point I want to get across is that it is not your communities fault for being in the state where your forums are nothing but a troll farm instead it is your own and it has been propagated by your actions on the game you have developed.

The communication to your community has been horrendous. you need CLEAR lines of communication to your community. This is where im going to say something you might not like to hear and probably has been stated many times before. look toward a good role model in this regard. I suggest RSI. reason being the communication they have brought to their community is unheard of for a game at its stage of development. you are (and this is debatable) supposed to be past that point by now. Start making videos answering questions from a non moderated ( I say non moderated with the same reasoning I did before death threats and what not) forum and don't duck the questions you know we want answered at first these videos will be comprised mostly of non game related questions but through time it will focus onto the subject YOU actually want it to without being heavy handed like this.

That is one example of the communication you can use from them I suggest using more and trying others like a monthly report of whats happened the prior month.

Basically what I am saying is we need transparency with your product to regain trust and refocus the overall conversation on your forums to something positive without ( I repeat without) such heavy handed methods.

[wolf raider]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

This is a conversation I've been dying to have.

Except you're not trying to have a conversation. You're trying handle us. A conversation is a two-way street, give and take. We've been trying to have conversations with PGI for years, giving you advice on how to handle balance, giving you feedback about innumerable gameplay additions that were confusing and counterintuitive (Ghost Heat), even giving you praise on rare occasions (I still think the game looks great, even it doesn't play great.) You claim you take it all under advisement, but what you give us are changes no one asked for and announcement feedback threads where all the feedback goes unanswered.

Now I'm sure you'll try to deflect this by saying, "Well this thread is for discussing Moderation Tactics, nothing more." Except the whole reason you're changing your tactics is because you're trying to treat the symptom and not the cause.

Quote

[color=#00FFFF]Even in the spirit of openness, I must be firm that this isn't a thread for tearing open wounds, old or new. It is one to find measures to heal them and to rebuild a trusting relationship between our community and team[/color]

The wounds never closed, you let them scab over, hoping they'd disappear. Instead they've become infected, pus-oozing abscesses that you've tried to ignore.

You want a conversation? Then let's have a conversation.

Start answering the hard questions like how do you think you're going to develop a second game when MWO is still developing at a glacial pace?

Start responding to people when they voice their concerns in the Play Test Server. A Test Server serves absolutely no purpose if you ignore all the testers.

Start taking responsibility for the many feelings of resentment you've caused in your player base.

Until you (or someone at PGI) can do these things, and have a real conversation, then your attempts to make this is a friendly environment will fail.

[Roland]

Another thing that should be said here...

It's ridiculous to try and attach PGI's constant PR struggles, and the overt criticism of its staff, to some kind of anti-misogyny campaign.

The criticism of PGI's staff are not in any way due to racism, or misogyny, or the critics being bad people in some way.

PGI's staff is constantly criticized by its users because in many cases, they do bad things worthy of criticism. When people say that Paul is bad at balancing this game, that is not an unfounded criticism. It is not based upon some personal dislike of him as a person. It is based upon years of poor balance changes being made. While maybe it makes Paul feel bad to have people calling for his firing, on some level, when someone is consistently bad at their job, that's the solution.

Speaking truth to power should not be a bannable offense.

The forum users are not a bunch of outsiders who are only here to rain of your parade. The forum users are your most active players. They're the heart of your game.

Look at Karl Berg (sorry if this gets you in trouble, Karl). He interacts with the forum users in a respectful way. He answers our questions. He is seemingly competent at his job, and understands the issues that are brought before him. Hell, he apparently sits around and writes up well thought out answers ON HIS DAY OFF.

And what is the result? PEOPLE LOVE KARL.

To some extent, Folks like Niko too on, because he at least talks to us a bit. He doesn't have the in-depth answers that we need, but at least he doesn't just pretend we don't exist, like the management at PGI does.

No one's negative to Karl. His thread isn't full of people just saying "DERP, PGI SUCKS!". No, it's one of the most civil and productive threads on the entire forum. And that is simply because Karl actually gives a **** about us, and actually talks to us like humans, instead of just bags of money to be exploited.

Hope I'm not banned for this post, but whatever. There's little reason to be on the forums if it just becomes a dead echochamber full of PGI shills that doesn't actually lead to the game changing in a beneficial way. I'd rather not post at all then pretend like everything's fine.

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

I see. I thought you were referring to the front-page issue with our announcements. I'll try to resurrect that thread in someway when I can, even if it means sifting through the unruly ones. For now, I'd like to try to focus on getting through the feedback here first. This is a conversation I've been dying to have.

Suffice it to say, optics problems like this are a large part of why your forums are a mess.

[Chemie]

"I took my time sifting through months of these behaviors across not one but multiple social media streams and sites before making my decisions."

I am sorry but how someone conducts themselves on OTHER sites should have ZERO bearing on how you moderate them here. Ban them...I don't care...but you need to leave their conduct on third party sites to those sites TOS. You can only ban them for what they do HER. Maybe what they are doing there is OK...maybe it is another person with the same handle.

Edited by Chemie, 07 September 2014 - 05:19 PM.

[One of Little Harmony]

Quote

Would you agree with the idea that we should revert to a 3-strike system for most general misconducts in the aforementioned Blue category?

I think you need to find a way to better escalate Flaming, Bashing, and Insults. However, Report Abuse, Cross-Linking, Unconstructive comments, Vulgarities, Spamming are probably best left at blue level. There are likely a lot of occasions when people can do the latter hings without knowing better. Flaming, Bashing and Insulting are those sort of things people know is wrong before they come here.

Quote

It is often said to ignore those who actively ignore what you say or twist it towards their own ends. Given the prolific nature of some of these individuals, many of whom seem to spend whole work-weeks on the attack, should we make stronger efforts to remove those players who actively and repeatedly refute, deny, or ignore staff statements and announcements?

Well, ignore yes, deny yes. Refute? No. Removing someone merely for refuting a statement is a bit too much on the chilling effect side.

Quote

Do you feel it's more important for moderation to be fair and consistent (at the risk of seeming cold orauthoritarian); or to handle matters on a case-by-case basis to offer individuals the benefit of the doubt (at the risk of seeming to offer favouritism or being manipulated)?

I think it's more important to offer the benefit of the doubt, but such 'Benefits of the doubt' should be contained on a time limited basis. To illustrate, if it's been 6 months since they were last warned of a certain violation, they probably need the benefit of the doubt. If it's been 6 days...no.

Quote

Is our Name & Shame policy fair to the privacy of players, or should we be publicly flagging banned/restricted players who have been repeatedly abusive in the spirit of being more open? What about the potential risk of "bullying the bullies"?

Your policy should be privacy unless someone is blatantly making statements against you. If they are making false statements in a public forum that you have the access to reply to, by all means, tell the community the full story of that player's actions. If a player merely says they were banned unfairly without going into detail, or such meaningless statements, that is better left unreplied to. There's probably a risk of bullying bullies, but if you use very neutral language, people realize you are just making a factual reply.

Quote

Do you feel that the creation and use of Kaetetoa has been a more open and productive way of handling simply unreasonable and unproductive threads? If not, should those be unproductive threads be un-approved or locked instead?

It think these sort of forums are great. The only problem is that it is sometimes TOO easy for threads to be moved there. A system needs to be made to get threads moved back or otherwised explained why they can't be moved back quickly when the thread maker believes their thread is okay.

Quote

What kind of "positive" moderation systems (e.g. Likes. Rewards) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?

The ability to add an extra badge (like from game achievements) next to one's name if they have been without a significant violation for a certain amount of time. It should be something that ANYONE can get.

Quote

What kind of "negative" moderation systems (e.g. Restrictions, Penalties) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?

I think it would be an effective learning by embarrassment if you starred out ******* words that are often abused for problem players as an intermediate violation before suspending and so forth.

Quote

Given the increased use of alternate accounts at any time a player is suspended or banned, would you rather see the following: A) Increased thresholds on the Recruit restrictions. B ) Pay barriers placed on the forums for new accounts. C) [Your own recommendation].

A) Not really. I don't think that'll help too much.
Probably not barriers per se, but perhaps people who buy MC get immediate access. I imagine something like this would get MWO a lot of flak though.
C) I don't know if there is any way of dealing with this sort of thing effectively other than IP banning, or at least some sort of new player review from a certain IP.

Quote

Without naming individuals or citing cases; If you could offer a simple, polite and constructive suggestion to the staff and/or volunteer moderation team, what would it be?

Be less sarcastic when dealing with someone's negative actions. You should make a list of nice neutral words and phrases to use for reply. Some of the responses to negative posts towards MWO on social media are a bit too upbeat and saccharine. People are smarter than that.

Quote

Without naming individuals or citing cases; Do you have any general questions regarding the moderation system left unanswered by this post?

What system do you have in place to moderate the moderators? Excuse me if I've missed this post somewhere.

[3rdworld]

New user experience getting improved on the forums instead of you know. In the game!

Roland, on 07 September 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

snip

Roland dropping the truth bomb.

As a customer I am have plenty of right to be critical of a game. When my largest critique is and has always been poor balance; it isn't an unjustifiable leap to accuse the person in charge of balancing, as being bad at his job.

Edited by 3rdworld, 07 September 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[Tekadept]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

I took my time sifting through months of these behaviors across not one but multiple social media streams and sites before making my decisions.

So your COC now covers anywhere on the internet that you talk about PGI/MWO is that what you are saying? Police your own forums sure, but dictating what people can do an say on the rest of the internet and sifting through these sites to find breaches of the mwomercs.com COC? really????? or have i just misread what you said as if that is the case that is truly heavy handed and should have NO bearing on how you moderate the mwomercs site.

Edited by Tekadept, 07 September 2014 - 05:51 PM.

[Xenosphobatic]

I've always thought K-town was a fun and interesting way of handling redundant or trollish posts. Putting things behind a paywall however is a bit silly, as many of us have already paid money into this forum.

I, for one, have a vested interest in the game. Any and all concerns and criticisms I have for the game, the development staff, and the moderation staff are coming from a position of honestly wishing this game to succeed and thrive.

[Mawai]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

...

These were the players we received forum reports about on a near-daily basis. The staff moderation team would be taking turns attempting to cool down these players, burning out on ideas of how to properly handle them, how to encourage them to be positive.

...

[size=4]It's all well and dandy when it's clearly a case of someone who flagrantly break all standards of common courtesy, but what about those who are just actively or passively seeking to drain on positive experiences in their own grudge-fueled quest to "rescue" our fans and new players from us? Would you say this merits a new protocol and codification of it's own in the Code of Conduct or would it fall under the realm of being Unconstructive? Is the Unconstructive protocol well-enough defined in the Expanded CoC manual?

...

Dear Niko,

Perhaps the attitude embodied in the comments above which I have pulled out is part of the problem. It generally is not possible to change strongly help opinions on matters for which there is no objective evidence .. and PGI doesn't communicate sufficiently for there to be much "objective" evidence about anything.

1) There are people out there, on the forums, who are just trying to cause problems for laughs. For some reason they find it amusing ... call it forum griefing.

2) However, there are also folks out there who love the franchise, the IP, and even the blowing up mech aspects of MWO ... but who hold strong opinions that PGI is making mistakes, destroying the franchise, implementing features that make things worse rather than better. They don't have these opinions just be be negative ... they really just disagree with many of the design and development decisions made by PGI in regards to MWO.

The posts made by folks in group 2 may sound a lot like the posts made by folks in group 1. They will be repeated, they will likely be strongly worded and they will likely be negative most if not all the time.

There is no real way to "encourage them to be positive" since they truly believe that PGI has continually let down the community by failing to provide the product that they "promised" more than 2 years ago.

Do these folks need to be banned from the forums because they hold negative views or opinions that differ from those of the company making the game? Ultimately, that is your decision ... you will need to try to find some protocol to divide group 1 from group 2 (assuming you actually still desire criticism of the game from "true believers" to be present on the forum).

Besides if you ban everyone who has expressed negative views on PGI and MWO ... there may well be no more than a handful of forum posters left

[XIRUSPHERE]

You gave me reason enough to log in after ages. This message is the bitter harvest sown by abandoning the core principals of this community from the onset. From letting people down and being dishonest constantly. That list of 2000 people you listed by the way, they are 98% nobodies. People that don't even work on games. You should see the list of 10,000 signatures asking developers and media to stop treating gamers so badly.

At the end of the day that's what changes like this are about, treating your customers badly. Too many gave you the benefit of the doubt and got taken advantage of and it created a lot of animosity. I guess I paid 120 dollars to be able to say I told you so. At this point I suppose it's worth it. The faster this franchise can get rebooted by people with class the better. I appreciate you guys for teaching me a lesson though. I don't buy into anyones fools gold anymore.