271 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

fil5000, on 07 September 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

Which perhaps suggests there needs to be better coordination between moderators, especially in a high traffic, highly charged thread like this one.

All moderators should be singing from the same hymn sheet, mistakes will happen but a clear concise framework should minimise those mistakes.

[Black Ivan]

I would greatly appreciate if PGI would listen more to the forums, there has the be much trust gained back, especially after NGNG and Reddit seems more listened too.

To keep trolls and flaming in promote a civil behaviour, perhaps even give smallprices to people who regularly add good things to discussions and the forums as well.

[The Wakelord]

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?

Not a 3-strike system, but an alternative of. eg: 3-strikes within a certain timeframe. If someone is on the forums regularly, chances are across 6 months, or 3 years, they will inevitable get 3 strikes.

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?

I would like these gone. Nothing turns me off the forums like seeing the many threads & comments about how this moderator is a jerk, or that challenge was designed so x-staff could win. The community on MWO is one of the worst I've come across, particularly because there is a such on a focus on bagging out the individual members of PGI.

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)?

I generally prefer the latter. Even when you try for a fair approach people will consider it favouritism, so you may as well go for a version where you feel better about being compassionate.

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"?

I am apathetic about this.

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?

I've found in other forums that bad topics can be moved to a public bin with a generic mod post saying why. Seriously poor threads can be properly hidden.

Quote

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

Official or unofficial acknowledgement of helpful players, or friendly players, or inspiring or dedicated players. Rewards through MC or premium time as a thanks, or a special, official, badge/signature/background colour they can access. We often reward the best KDR or good ELO, but rewarding players for things other than their skill would be good (particularly for the forum helpers who aim at helping out new people)

Quote

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

Banning forum acesss, or in extreme cases temporary game bans.

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].

None. ( would be the worst option as they no-one would join the forum. No matter what you do the serious people will get around it. IP tracking might work, but in this day & age is easy to get around (and if you are like me, another family member plays MWO with you)

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

I don't track names much from the mod-team and developers, so in general terms I think the new approach across the past few months is working well. Frequent events with variety is great (Even if people complain about it encouraging certain game types), and communication seems acceptable (but a little low). Given the poor attitude from many players, and their no-matter-what-PGI-does-it-is-evil mentality, I don't blame PGI for it's limited communications.

[nonnex]

A lot of people are complaining about why organisations "seems" not to listen to the Community in the last Posts. Well, someone could say its not on topic here, but I think we are talking about communication in general and therefore its worth to talk about it for short.

Lets take the view the other way around for some seconds.

Organisations are used to talk and discuss with other organisations instead of entering into individual concerns. Which is understandable because of the large size of players and therefore individual concerns.

If a community would have a organized Council of elected representatives (Players) who take care for the responsibilities and concerns of a larger Group (here the MWO-community) a lot of things in communication between the two parties would go easier.

The other condition that must be fulfilled is that both parties accept the counterpartys legitimation.

Edited by nonnex, 08 September 2014 - 01:46 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

nonnex, on 08 September 2014 - 12:51 AM, said:

If a community would have a organized Council of elected representatives who take care for the responsibilities of a larger Group (Community) a lot of things im communicarion would go easier and on one eye level.

Is that not part of the role of the community manager?

[Fuzzbox]

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

Greetings MechWarriors,
<snip>
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.

I sort of agree here, but not to 100%. I agree that some of us have behaved badly and should be warned/banned, but it takes two to tango. Much of this abusive posts would never have happened had this forum been moderated in a more strict manner. You don't have to remove full posts and threads, posts can be moderated if they contain somewhat valid structure and content. Which also serves as good education of what is acceptable and what is not.

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

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.

I fully agree with this, the community should ideally stop this, but we have failed, and no developer or responsible should ever have to take personal abuse for doing their work.

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

• 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?

1. No opinion, a banned user is banned, when/if let back there should be no difference from anyone else.
2. Lock the threads with an explanation (maybe we get the hint)
3. None needed, people can like posts already, that should be sufficient
4. Allow us to dislike posts
5. Tricky for a F2P game, but to stop the alt creation in the heat of things, why not disallow cadets from posting without moderation?
6. Be more aggressive to stop things from getting out of hand
7. I don't know how many posts are made per day, or if the number of moderators you have are enough. I see quite a few on this list , but I don't see many of them except egomane.

Keep it up Niko.

[nonnex]

DV McKenna, on 08 September 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

Is that not part of the role of the community manager?

Hm, correct me if I'm wrong. But No.

The community manager is the representative from a company to the attached community, not the other way around.
The community itself have no representative/s.

Edited by nonnex, 08 September 2014 - 01:19 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

nonnex, on 08 September 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

Hm, correct me if I'm wrong. But No.

The community manager is the representative from the companty to the community, not the other way around.

He is the link between the two. It is not one way traffic.

[nonnex]

Quote

He is the link between the two. It is not one way traffic.

exactly.

But one representative can not represent two parties in the same time because of the collision of interests.

How ever, the community council suggestion was just a scenario that I was drawn with the core to take a civilized and hundreds of years prooven approach from the real world.

Edited by nonnex, 08 September 2014 - 01:39 AM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Moderation of peoples thoughts, opinions, ideas and rebuttals is a tuff spot to be in. I always appreciate reading how people view things from both sides of the table. However it is a little annoying to see how far they will go to try to sway others to see it their way. In the past I have even got caught up in the moment but usually in the defense of others.

I do agree some should be put on a little tighter leash. However I hope not at the expense of people fearing that they cant express an honest opinion on important topics they feel strongly about.

As far as the "pay wall" in order to post. I REALLY disagree with the notion of that. I personally know some players who are big fans of the game, play it a number of days a week who just cant put the money into it at the moment but I KNOW would if they could (IE: students or newly on their own in the real world). Please don't do that to them..

My only other take on this is that I have seen a couple "hot topics" in the past had its fire doused quickly by a dev stepping in to give an answer or opinion on the matter. I am not going to say "you cant talk anywhere but here", but I think more issues brought up here should be addressed here. By there being so many 1 on 1 conversations and announcements outside the official forums then linked here by players, you almost seem to bastardize the ones who don't make it their job to go 10 places to keep up with things. When the devs openly respond to people on other sites, but jus make "announcements" here it does not give the impression that they care much to come here themselves.


Anyway,, big wall. Good luck with whatever you figure out.

Edited by Mickey Knoxx, 08 September 2014 - 01:53 AM.

[Sarlic]

Sarlic, on 07 September 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

Apologies, i can be pretty harsh at times. But i can understand why you have added and or changed some rulesets. You're one of the few who i like and have my respect.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 September 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

Likes been altered? Wut? Sounds like a bug. Feel free to doc it and pass me the details.
I can otherwise tell you that the only major changes I have made to this thread is approving the few individuals who posted here while on moderator preview, but thanks for expressing your skepticism.

Edit: Seems a V.Mod un-approved a couple of posts that I'd rather stay up because they elicit my point wonderfully. They should be visible again. Cheers!

Niko,

There's another thing i would liketo add. I know you're doing your job. You're the one who is (required) to handle our AC20 comments. Nothing wrong with that.

But the players, like myself, are legimately raising their concerns here. I like discussions and i can get pretty hot about it on a subject. As long it's legit critic and not calling out or more.

The main problem which is higly disturbing is that how the playerbase has been handled so far. Basically we got spit in our faces multiple times. That's just me being a original backer and Founder. Let's not forget the Overlord & Phoenix and lastly The Invasion.

Questions like "Were developers milking this game from the start?" or "Is MWO currently on his downfall and is the team abadoning the ship?"

It was just a matter of time when these hair cracks over the past few years turned in some serious gaps, cracks and craters. Shortly said: a ticking timebomb waiting to get off. The Community have, obviously enough of this so called 'bad' behaviour. I am not trying to scream dead and murder with negavity all over the place. In matter of fact - I am trying to be realistic here.

But if we make a summary of the past few years it baffles me that the official forums is a second tier communication channel for your company. In other words: i have to dig for communication through social media, reddit and perhaps other channels. While most of the PGI staff have their mouths shut. Unacceptable.

Voices are to be heard. Sure you hear negavite voices more then positive ones. But these forums should be your top prioirity. Most of the playersbare are not teenagers but mature people who have a day-time job. People who are loyal to the BT franchise for over more then 25 years. This is a rocksteady playerbase who have patience, but unfortunatly patience ran out for most of us.

There is so much to write what happened the last years. Too much to name. Too much open wounds. Too much things were later discovered not to be true at all.

When you pay a good amount of money for this game in summary: From the start of Founders PGI have raised more then 5 million of funds. Project Phoenix sold more then 30.000 packages and The Invasion sale sold less then Phoenix, but still a considerable amount of funds were raised during that sale it is very discouraging to see this already slow and painfull development cycle is drawing back with each patch introduced. The overall game- and patch quality is getting worse overtime. Perhaps there is a management and priority issue you need to look into, but with each patch pulling out and i see a battlemech for MC *again* and a few fixes that's disturbing. Or PGI sell packs, and make them stomps afterwards with 'legal' balance solutions which are horrible executed in the first place.

Just to name one example (I know there is alot more like ghostheat, matchmaking e.d.): There have been alot of threads with concerns regarding applied solutions to heat. Tons of threads. The Community have written enough alternative solutions in the Feature Suggestion section. Even backed it up with numbers. All of them are ignored. Can you possible tell me how many Community idea's or suggestions are currently under review or even applied in-game?

When PGI ignore these proposed solutions in the first place and run their own theory on the public test server and yet ignore the feedback provided again shows typical signs of a current lead design failing to research alternative (better) solutions.

We all know it's a minimum viable product - I am not talking about the small problems here. I am talking about the bigger picture of (almost) three years development. Short: no-ending problems, lack of content and lame excuses but you do release some cash-grabbing packs. While information is purposely held back before content release.

Are you telling me that this online game is not a cash-grab? I know profit has to be made, but respect and trust is a thing you need to earn. This is not even the fully story.

In the end when i discovered the announcement of a new game called a Universe to explore the Community went outrageous over this. As it should be. Because a huge portion of remaining original backers disagreed as per Bryan on the fact that MWO is being a huge success.

I am seriously raising my personal concerns if MWO is closing their doors within six months. Or just shut it down in a endless maintenence mode.

We still have a unfinished, a unpolished and a broken game in our hands. A game stalling in development and almost stood still for almost three years. While some of the content is still not promised as delivered.

The first thread of negativity about this new game is launched into oblivion. And why? Because it was expected... Right.

How will i, with this current management, ever be able to trust PGI again?

I am not the only person in this position. I can't imagine how many others are in the same boat as me.

Edited by Sarlic, 08 September 2014 - 02:34 AM.

[NextGame]

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

Greetings MechWarriors,

Going to have this discussion, are we? Very well.

Quote

&quot;I don't come onto the forums, it's full of trolls.&quot;
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..

People declare certain weapons/mechs in the game to be OP in forum threads whenever they die, it doesn't make them right. It's an excuse, one which you have aparrently decided we are all going to suffer for.

Quote

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.

Cannot comment on individual cases, however you should not & cannot whitewash players comments about both PGI delivered info & other players open feedback just because you do not like the message. A conversation is a 2 way activity, not a round table of stating a position without acknowledging anyone else's and leaving it at that.

Quote

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.

This is highly subjective and is just an excuse for pushing out people who you do not like.

Quote

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.

Completely disgusted that you are appearing to support game "journalism"'s attack on gamers. Can you clarify your position as a company on #gamergate? I hate to pull this card, but principle is important in this issue, and to that end you will not be seeing another penny from me if you are on the side of these publications on this matter. I suggest you check the spending on my account, and decide if you want to lose me as a customer.

Quote

We intend to take a firmer stand against repeatedly inflammatory behavior than before. To those who believe we expect each player to become a &quot;white knight&quot; 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.

Subjective interpretation of user posts is why moderation systems like this are destined to fail from the outset. All moderators typically operate from the same school of thought within a gaming community. I bet there isn't a single detractor amongst them, meaning that you will end up with blinkered and 1-sided subjective moderation. I'd volunteer to moderate, having done so for larger communities before, but I suspect that I wouldn't fit in


Outwith the proposed context of moderation and moving onto the logistics:

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?

Fine

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?

No, because they should be allowed to have an opinion. Opinion's should not be squashed.

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)?

Moderation should be as objective as possible, and quite frankly all content is fair game provided that it is in the right place, unless it strays into questionable legality/bullying etc.

Quote

[*]Is our Name &amp; 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 &quot;bullying the bullies&quot;?

It is ok to talk about a specific ban/moderation action if the community bring up the issue, otherwise discretion should be employed.

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?

Kaetetoa is fine, leave it as it is.

Quote

[*]What kind of &quot;positive&quot; moderation systems (e.g. Likes. Rewards) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?

GXP for likes

Quote

[*]What kind of &quot;negative&quot; moderation systems (e.g. Restrictions, Penalties) would you be interested in us investigating or improving?

None

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].

There is no value in this unless there was a proper subscription available with MWO, then you could have a subscribers forum area. However going down this route, you would actually have to offer much more content than currently exists in the game.

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?

Don't whitewash negative opinions.

Quote

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

Nothing that hasn't already been said.

Quote

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.

When you talk about not opening wounds, you're the guy who mentioned the gamergate smokescreen petition, not me. I've also already clarified what an actual discussion looks like, so won't reiterate.

[RustyBolts]

Ok now that I have calmed down some, I have a statement to make to PGI. This is YOUR forum and you control the speech here. I understand that having been a moderator for other sites myself. You own this site and can do what you want with it, even control the speech.

However, if you are banning someone for statements that they make on a third party site or site you have no ownership in, then you are crossing a line into freedom of speech. This is an over reach as far as I am concerned. I understand you cannot please everyone, but what you are failing to do is look at what PGI has done to cause the abusive behavior towards your company.

[nonnex]

Quote

Ok now that I have calmed down some, I have a statement to make to PGI. This is YOUR forum and you control the speech here. I understand that having been a moderator for other sites myself. You own this site and can do what you want with it, even control the speech.

Some sort of free speech can be seen as damage to the business no matter where it occures.

The more realisitic People know exactly that driving a company is far away to be a democratic constitution or super moral place. I would not say there is no moral, moral exists but not in the common social human meaning. Its just a different "Ruleset" to stay on the game context.

I would say everybody adult would claim for him self to know that, in fact it takes part of the own professional work every day, but nonetheless we still wonder and scratch our heads about why the things are the way they are.

Edited by nonnex, 08 September 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[Escef]

RustyBolts, on 08 September 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:

However, if you are banning someone for statements that they make on a third party site or site you have no ownership in, then you are crossing a line into freedom of speech.

Not at all. They aren't stopping such a person from saying anything, they are just denying them the privilege of preaching from PGI's pulpit. Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, it does not mean you must be welcomed wherever you go.

[Gorgo7]

I have zero problems with the current set-up.

No changes necessary.

[Garandos]

How about this:

leaning heavily on the tribunal system that League of legends has put in use, which is quite a nice system, and can teach both sides (the company and the playerbase) on which behavior is okay, which is close to the line and which is overboard.

(the tree strikes system btw. is counter productive, people will abuse it and test how far they can push it, if you then go and put out sanctions because of "we found you are abusing the system to test how far you can go" you start measuring with two scales, which will breake all hell loose)

Just let US, the player, decide whats okay and what not.

it could work like this:

Add a disike Button.

After a treshold of dislikes v.s. likes is reached, for example 50% more dislikes to a posting, then likes, the posting in question gets hidden, you can choose to "read anyway"
and still access it.

If a person gets a certain ammount of dislikes on Postings, volunteering players (which should be aviable via profile) can review the posting history and decide to:

Forgive that player

Skip the decision

Punish that player

Every case should be handed down to x volunteers for review, and after x volunteers have cast their votes, the outcome would be one of the tree above,

in case of slight "punish" advantage, auto bann for 3 days from the Forums, send the player in question a email, notifing him of the case and the outcome against him,
in case of a CLEAR advantage of punish votes, forward the case with the results to moderators, as those would have to decide if a more severe punishment is in order.

in case of slight advantage in "Forgive" votes, send the player a email notification, that his actions are NOT taken lightly by his fellow players, and that he should reconsider how he behaves within the community, but do NOT auto bann.

in case of a high advantage of forgive votes, have again, review the mod team the case in question and if it is in order, clear his posting from all dislikes.

The most important thing about this system would be, you need to show each case to a big enough number of volunteers,
so personal bias would not be a factor.

that way, the playerbase would have a voice in what is okay to say and what not, all the while PGI would have the last word to say in any case.

Now add in the following:

Managing to NEVER show up in this "tribunal" gives you a title per year you go without any case beeing build up

Managing to judge a certain number of cases "right" (meaning the vote YOU cast reflects the majority of votes cast on that case)
gives you something "nice" for christmas (as example, a cockpit item or something)

That way, you get good metrics on what WE, your players, think is okay to say and what we think, is NOT okay.

You encourage people, instead of "putting a gun" to their head, in form of an bannhammer hovering above them,
to behave in a productive manner.

You make producitve (even critising, if they are contructive) Members stand out, and work as an example for others to follow.


*Edit* what i do not get in this whole affaire, we have WORKING systems out there, developed and tested over years and yet still EACH company does start from scratch, why is that?

Edited by Garandos, 08 September 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Firstly, thank you for being so open about this. I appreciate the effort and faith it took to give us this information and ask us for our thoughts. On to those thoughts….

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 a 3-strike policy is a good thing. I would however place it within a timeframe. Like three consecutive strikes within a 30-day period.

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?

Classify this as a blue and enact the three-strike policy.

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)?

Cold and with authority.

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"?

Keep this in-house. We all like to see who got in trouble, human nature to stare at the train wreck, but this really isn’t something we should have info about.

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?

Case-by-case basis. Some threads are just unproductive and abusive, others are legit, but off-topic, or have run their course. I would like to see an official process for resurrection though.

Quote

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

The like button is adequate.

Quote

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

I’d LOVE to see an unlike button.

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].

I think it’s fine as is. There should be no barrier for using the forums. However, if you were to enact something like this, maybe along the lines of Premium Time holders, Founders, etc…. But with transparity.

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?

In regards to the forums and moderation, I think you guys are doing a great job. I’ve been moderated (imo unfairly) in the past, but it really is p*ssing into the wind so keep on keeping on!

Quote

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

Not in the moment, but I am sure we’ll come up with more.

[Dracol]

"Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shiit." -Jim Hines

People have the right to express themselves, we have no right to tell them not to say anything. However, we do have the right to tell em to not spew hatred while standing on our front porch.

I applaud your moderation goals and will only offer my opinion on one thing: Paywall to post should not be a consideration. With the F2P model relying on a small segment of players to make purchases, the majority of players will not be past that paywall. We need F2P to enjoy the game as much as paying players and their opinions should not be closed off.

Edited by Dracol, 08 September 2014 - 05:27 AM.

[NuclearPanda]

Did you seriously just consider the use of a pay barrier on the forums for a F2P game? I would have to highly disagree with that.

While I understand the discontent being thrown around lately, and in my opinion for mostly deserved reasons due to the actions/misactions by PGI staff, I don't feel that we need to go all out on banning those with opinions that are perceived as negative.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hella upset with a LOT of things lately around here, but I'm not going to resort to name-calling or direct put downs of PGI staff.

You're on a dark path right now and you haven't given the community a lot of reason to be happy with your decisions.