271 replies to this topic

[Kyle Polulak]

Greetings MechWarriors,

"I don't come onto the forums, it's full of trolls."
This is a quote of a player from when I asked if they could send me their feedback and bug report through the forums, since chat logs are often a bit more work to sift through. I've heard variations of this phrase time in and time out for over two years now whenever I drop into a match..

As you may have recently heard, a few prolific forum-goers have been permanently forum banned. The average player has nothing to be afraid of out of this. I personally delivered those sanctions, and here's why...

The players who had been removed were all with prolific long histories of being moderated by various members of the team. This would all be well and good were it not for the fact that we have observed these same individuals openly mocking us and our players in third-party channels. I have made the decision that we will no longer offer such individuals the right to use our own channels as a means to drive away new players, denigrate the positive experiences of fans, derail the constructive feedback of the average player, and just plain heckle us; Even if it means someone resorting to proving Godwin's Law correct every once and a while.

Some will say moderation is silly, that freedom of speech is an essential right. We firmly believe that it is. We also firmly believe that we, as a business, may reserve our right to remove patrons who abuse that freedom.

Some will say that we must have more problems than others if we are in such need of moderation. Fact is, we aren't alone on this front by any measure...

In but a few days, over 2 thousand developers from numerous teams have felt the need to join their collective concern regarding harassment and threats around the gaming community, and calling against apathy towards abusive behaviour.

While there are always overarching principles of neutrality in most professional opinions. Opinions and practices of how to carry out and communicate moderation are often wildly varied and suggest that each successful community has had to evolve their own systems according to the expectations of their community.

To make things a bit more open, here's a primer on what our moderation system has looked like since December 2012. A system I collaborated heavily upon. I'll take my cake for any flaws in it's methodology. so please check out the spoiler.

Spoiler

Volunteer moderators triage all reports into one of 5 colour codes.

Green implies a "housekeeping" level of moderation. Cleaning up where people have quoted moderated posts, posting in the incorrect sub-forum, thread duplication, closing invalid reports, etc...

Blue are low-level moderation concerns. On their own they would not result in severe repercussion, but repeated abuse would be recognized: Report Abuse, Cross-Linking, Unconstructive comments, Flaming, Bashing, Insults, Vulgarities, Spamming.

Yellow were intended to borrow from the baseline moderation point of other games: Where three-strikes and you are out. This was set to include discriminatory behaviour, profile/signature abuse, extreme content and advertising.

Orange was the one-strike policy, where an automatic ban would be delivered after staff review of the account in question. Any ban required at least two staff members to sign off on it. This was set to include Spambotting, Phishing, Illegal Use, Account Trading, Impersonating Staff, Releasing Pirated or Malicious Content.

Red was the emergency escalation protocol, in which the volunteer moderators were instructed to contact a team member at any hour of the day or night immediately. This included any viable real-life threat to the safety of a team or community member.

Each possible infraction was given one of these colours, as well as a definition, which have been further refined and are publicly visible in the the post I made under the Primus account. It also included a Procedure to walk a new Moderator through the admittedly obtuse IPboard moderation system as well as templates for both the internal log notes and the communication to be given to players.

The distinct procedures are in place to handle the distinct nature of each problematic behavior. For example, often we find that poking a human and telling them we regard bumping as a form of spam as a friendlier approach than treating them as equal to a spambot offering free furniture and phishing.

A list of Do's and Don'ts is also provided to Moderators. The Do's are composed of sanity measures on the clerical side of things: Always reading notes before moderating, always adding a note when moderating. The Don'ts are mostly protective measures: Don't discuss moderation actions in public or with anyone besides staff or the player being moderated. Don't use the term "Troll" or other ambiguous and potentially insulting phrases; Don't take sides in personal arguments; and so forth.

As a general rule, content is not hard deleted unless it poses a safety threat or breaches vulgarity standards. Threads or posts which appear to be entirely deleted are actually "un-approved", meaning that they remain visible to staff members and moderators, but not to other players.

Reports are handled by a moderator according to the procedures provided before being reviewed and closed.

We have otherwise experimented with other systems, such as follows:

• 1st Offence: Verbal Warning.
  
• 2nd Offence: 24-72 hour Posting Disability
  
• 3rd Offence or Major Threat: Permanent Ban

Penalties offered on the IPboard system include:

• A Warn Status meter: Players who are warned are given a visual representation of the number of times they have been warned, visible only to moderators and staff.
  
• 3 Variations of Suspension:
  
  • Moderation Preview. All player posts start un-approved. Only a moderator or staff member may re-approve. Aside from the high recidivism rate where-ever we have applied it's use, it is also not possible to distinguish un-approved posts from previewed posts.
    
  • Posting Disability: Player is unable to Post. The benefit of this system is it provides a timer for temporary suspensions. The problem with it is that it doesn't prevent use of the Private Message system.
    
  • Bans: Player is unable to access the forums. This is the most successful system at removing repeat abusers, though some still take this as an invitation to circumvent this.

The forum system is distinct from the moderation systems of other social media outlets. Staff members may reserve the right to block or ignore any player who is appearing to harass them on Twitter or other channels. On Facebook, the automated system vulgarity filter is set to strong, meaning that it may occasionally hide even positive comments. "%^$# yeah that's awesome!". Facebook profiles which appear to be un-constructive sock-puppets are reported according to Facebook's policies. Persistently aggressive or toxic commentators are hidden, where their responses are visible to staff but not to other followers.




The forum moderation is also somewhat distinct from the game moderation system, which focuses on chat abuses and game mechanic abuses and is exclusively managed by staff. A player who is forum banned can continue to play the game. A player who is game-banned cannot post on the forums.

We intend to take a firmer stand against repeatedly inflammatory behavior than before. To those who believe we expect each player to become a "white knight" in order to keep their posting privileges. I don't think I can stress enough that isn't the case. We hope to take criticism where-ever we deserve it; Where-ever it seeks to help us improve the game.

Please feel free to respond to one, some or all of the questions and dilemmas below.

• Would you agree with the idea that we should revert to a 3-strike system for most general misconducts in the aforementioned Blue category?
  
• 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?
  
• Do you feel it's more important for moderation to be fair and consistent (at the risk of seeming cold or authoritarian); 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)?
  
• 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"?
  
• 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?
  
• What kind of "positive" moderation systems (e.g. Likes. Rewards) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?
  
• What kind of "negative" moderation systems (e.g. Restrictions, Penalties) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?
  
• 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].
  
• 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?
  
• Without naming individuals or citing cases; Do you have any general questions regarding the moderation system left unanswered by this post?

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. Please try to keep your Reply TAGs firmly locked on me and not on the opinions of other players.




If you have concerns regarding moderation best left to private channels, please private message me.

Cheers.

Edited by Nikolai Lubkiewicz, 08 September 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[9erRed]

Greetings,

Good to see that these forums may start to be a more open and friendly place for new MWO players to access.

Long time in coming.
As it's been somewhat of a difficult place, at times, for those unfamiliar or new with the gameplay, Lore to carry on any lengthy conversations. Without single comments bashing something about MWO or PGI.

Thank you,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 07 September 2014 - 01:33 AM.

[Imperius]

I might return to the forums now. Got real tired of my threads getting constantly derailed. I wonder if this will help.

[Impyrium]

Aye, good to see this. The hate band wagon has become far too out of hand, too, picking up newbies before they have the time to form their own opinion.

[Kin3ticX]

Sounds good Niko. I think you need to throw the book at more situations but still handle minor things on a case by case basis.

I would like to see occasional rewards for the helpers in the new player and guide sections who help out the younglings. I think the existing content generators and helping hands have done all they can but PGI can do more to grow the pie. We can better introduce new players to MWO so they can have better chance to be grabbed by the game and climb the learning curve.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 07 September 2014 - 02:14 AM.

[Sarlic]

Statement redrawed.

Edited by Sarlic, 11 September 2014 - 11:34 PM.

[Egomane]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 12:53 AM, said:

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

As a first and easy step:
We have the forum contributor banner cockpit item. I'd like to see that awarded more often and openly, to those who deserve it.

Edited by Egomane, 07 September 2014 - 02:22 AM.

[Gooner]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 12:53 AM, said:

B ) Pay barriers placed on the forums for new accounts.

Most of the post seems fair enough, cutting down on abuse is obviously a worthwhile goal. But that particular suggestion is one of the worst I've ever heard. We know the games industry is a copycat industry, particularly when it comes to monetization. You might introduce this as a way of discouraging certain individuals from signing up to the forums (especially creating multiple accounts to get around a ban), but as soon as it becomes successful, there are other developers out there who will say "oh hey, another way to get money from players, lets do it!". And then 2 years from now, just as every game these days has preorder content, a season pass and microtransactions, we will also have to pay just to talk about the game.

No.

[Asakara]

My $0.02 on some of your questions:

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?

Yes.

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?

Yes.

Quote

Do you feel it's more important for moderation to be fair and consistent (at the risk of seeming cold or authoritarian); 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)?

Fair and consistent.

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"?

Flag them.

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?

Dumping trash in K-Town is good.

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) Increased threshold on the Recruit restrictions.

[Nauht]

Thanks for making Reddit the main place for true discussion then.

I strongly believe that the internet should be free except for heinous crimes such as paedophilia but what's posted in here is absolutely nowhere near that league. I would have thought that PGI, as devs would have a thicker skin.

But I also strongly believe in the rules of another person's house and this is your house and I'll respect your rules while here.

[Ken Fury]

I think a pay barrier would a wonderful idea. Something Awful does it. Posting rights should be at least :10bux:.

[Appogee]

I moderated a popular tech site forum for more than a decade. So I know from experience how tough it is to find the right line between over- and under-moderation.

I learned over time that the best moderation system is based on a set of shared principles amongst the moderating team, against which individual decisions and judgement calls can be made. These prove much better in operation than hard and fast rules - rigid rules end up tying everyone in knots as they become Forum Rule Lawyers.

One particular thing to watch out for is that there is a fine line between "valid criticism of PGI/MWO from its customers" and "things PGI just doesn't want to hear about themselves on their website". I suggest it would be particularly difficult for PGI to make those judgement calls. You may want to appoint some non-PGI employees as moderators or at least advisers, to help with that differentiation.

Finally, I suggest you may want to give more latitude to paying customers vs non-paying ones (in fact, I suspect you already do). Some of us spent a lot of money on PGI, and I think frankly that entitles us (yes, I used that word deliberately) to be able to provide frank feedback on the product performance and that of the company that's (still) making the product.

I suggest that you have a commercial duty of care to PGI not to alienate their paying customers (or in fact, their potential new customers) by being too quick to ex-communicate them from the forums.

Edited by Appogee, 07 September 2014 - 02:48 AM.

[Tekadept]

One thing I want to mention i didnt see mentioned with overhauling your moderation is consistency, in the past this "appears" to be lacking especially amongst volunteer moderators. Moderator A reads something and moderates immediately, moderator 2 reads something similar but lets it slide, or in the past has often agravated things and made it worse.

[Homeless Bill]

Alternatively, /r/OutreachHPG for all the up-to-date news and moderation only against personal attacks and troll-grade baiting or /r/mwo for zero moderation and a burning hatred of PGI.

[Garandos]

Well good start, maybe add the opposite too, it helps.

Meaning: if a member is constructive, adding value to discussions and the community as a whole (for ex. the guys making all those video guide series)
hand them something in return, not much, a badge, or anything should do, but to get behavior up, the recent years in gaming communitys have proven,
that reward for good behavior, allways yields more results then punishment for bad behavior.
I guess the whys and hows are rather obvious.

[waterfowl]

I agree trolls and toxic posters should be banned ... but did you seriously link to a Kotaku article? I'm outa here...

but before I leave the thread, I like to suggest an MVP (most valued poster) system for people who submit consistantly good criticism, guides, etc. Makes their name a fancy color so people know to click on the thread for non **** content. Ofc you don't have the resources to comb through the forums so I'll leave it up to you to figure that out

As for banning, 3 strike system, no excuses, no unbanning. That's the only way to make people check their post to make sure they're not being *******. Blizzard had a really good authoritarian system. I'm a crass person, so I was always weary when posting there. That's how it should be on a company's game forum. Do you know how many people look at forums before trying a game, to see what the general community feeling about it is? Lots

And for the love of god, no upvote / downvote system. Democracy has proven itself to be an utter failure in internet venues, it's too easy to exploit and the mob mentality is almost always the wrong mentality

Edited by waterfowl, 07 September 2014 - 04:07 AM.

[nonnex]

Wow, never thought to see such a official Statement about the Moderation. +1

My opinion to this is ambivalent but tendentially it seems to be the right strategy, but only time will proof it.

Edited by nonnex, 07 September 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Trust is earned, not given.

If you want to restore that trust, start doing what every other "Professional Buisness" does, listen to your paying customers.

So far what the majority of us have learned, is that the majority of us have no voice here.

With few and rare exception, largely you pay no attention to the community base here, it gets shrugged off and ignored.

If we want to actually attempt to contact any of you devs, we have to go elsewhere, either Twitter, Reddit, NGNG.
And even then, its only a microscopic fraction of the Elite of the Elite that likely get heard.

This is your main forum, this is where you should above all be focusing your attention, not some shady dark alley of the internet.

There are also the problems with the validity of feedback threads, particularly while there is a live test happening.
The people there, give a damn, or they wouldn't involve themself in the testing process, and sure wouldn't post their thoughts if they didn't care.

FIrst was the UI2.0 change (which is both a blesesing and a curse), Jumpjet changes, then Fall damage, or whatever the nerf of the week is, when your testers responses go largely unheard, there is a problem.

The reasoning behind the frustration in the first place, is the delay we see when a set of changes is slated to happen, you guys lay out a planned change list, but responses to those changes don't appear to have much if any impact until much much later, and sometimes not at all.

Take for instance this last patch for Clan weapons, you've got players on both side of the fence.
Some are screaming "YAY finally!", and some are crying bloody murder as their new prized possession can no longer rake them in 1400 damage rounds and guaranteed victory.

What I believe, is that if you're getting that much response on both sides of the fence on any subject, you have not balanced it well.

You guys honestly need to start working in these changes with some moderation, take it slower, and do fine tuning instead of these HUGE leaps in the variables.

PPC/ERPPC going from 1500 to 850/950, which is a HUGE change was not (IMO) helpful in balancing the weapon, its a change that has rather eliminated its use to such a degree that a majority of players don't even want to use it anymore.

Clan lasers getting 20-50% heat increases, which has killed the Nova, Lasers are its primary weapon, and now it can barely use them, and your testers let you know this.

You guys need to take a deep breath, and stop with the Nerfhammer.
Start doing these changes slowly over time, instead of HUGE changes all at once.

I honestly believe that you would see much less angst, and alot less hostility if you would just take your time and trickle in these changes on a weekly basis, and stop doing huge changes that stay fixed for months.

Using hard figures, and imagining that each change is the final solution because math doesn't lie, isn't working.

Get into these pubs, start playing the game and see what is happening during the daily grind, let the players see that you're taking an active and concerned effort to get a Feel the game and understand why people are crying bloody murder, we would respect you alot more for it.

[DEN_Ninja]

Egomane, on 07 September 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

As a first and easy step:
We have the forum contributor banner cockpit item. I'd like to see that awarded more often and openly, to those who deserve it.

I nominate Kiiyor for his astounding work with gathering Clan vs IS data.




Niko, A while back we had the Karl Berg thread in off topic. It produced some of the BEST Dev to player discussion in a long time. Is there any way to get a specific thread or forum for individual devs or teams to view? It narrows down where some folks need to look for questions and discussions and you don't need to have the Dev's that actually read the forums to scour through some of the toxic threads.

These thread/forums can also be heavily moderated to prevent derailing and trolls.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 07 September 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[waterfowl]

Mister D, on 07 September 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

blah blah blah blah blah blah

This guy is correct. If you want healthy forums, you need the developers to post on the forums.

This game and Planetside 2 are so bloody annoying, screw twitter, screw reddit, use your own official venue to communicate with your customers!

Look at how CCP does things.

https://forums.eveon...?g=topics&f=270

LOOK AT THEIR FEATURES AND IDEAS FORUMS! LOOK AT ALL THE LITTLE >Dev TAGS! Open one of the threads, and look at all the constant Dev replies! Where the **** is that here?

Why aren't the MWO forums like this?! Where are the freaking developers? This place feels like a non forum! It's like a ghost town, the only use for them is to talk about builds, there's never any healthy game discourse because devs can't be arsed to post back in say a 15 page LRM balance thread. One dev post in one of those and people would stop making LRM thread after LRM thread

Edited by waterfowl, 07 September 2014 - 04:19 AM.