271 replies to this topic

[Duncan Longwood]

As a paying customer, I have stopped posting on the forums because the risk of getting banned and losing the monies vested in this game aren't worth the rewards of whatever I could have contributed. One has definite value, the other has potential value. I don't want my potentially-valuable post to cost me my definately-valuable account. Best to treat the forums as "read-only". It seems that the first rule of robot fight club is: You don't talk about robot fight club.

[Josef Koba]

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

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?

Cheers.

First of all, it's your forum; you can do what you want with it. I understand that freedom of speech does not necessarily apply here given that you're a business and have to protect your brand and for other reasons. However, I generally advocate maximum freedom of speech for less than obvious reasons. Namely, it allows people to make fools of themselves and gives the rest of us the opportunity to understand what sort of people we're dealing with. In any case, that's a philosophical discussion that's not necessary here. It's your forum, you do what you want.

I'm not all that enthused about some of the above proposals regarding bans, particularly permanent bans, except in extreme cases. By extreme I'm talking about legitimate threats of physical harm, stalking, or a very lengthy history of abusive comments. Three strikes seems like an awfully short fuse. As I understand the above, three blue level violations would get a permanent band. To me, that's absurd. So in terms of number one above, I'd not support that. But again: Your forums.

I'm not enthused by number two, either. These people impress me with their dedication, but otherwise they impact me not one bit.

I'd rather issues be handled on a case-by-case basis but within certain parameters. Perhaps there should be some sort of internal review of moderator activities - one fellow bans more than others, why, etc, etc. But perhaps that's just too much to do. In any case, I'm all for evaluations.

I think public, peer pressure is a healthy thing, and I would have little problem with the Name and Shame policy being eased or lifted entirely. I've no problem being called out when I do something bone headed.

I have no idea what number five refers to so I cannot comment.

As far as six and seven go, I don't really know. Do we need positive or negative moderating systems in place? Maybe. Some people like their flair, although perhaps I'm not understanding the questions.

I am not for increasing the length of recruit thresholds because it discourages new players, though I can understand the reasons as you mention for doing so. That said, I am VEHEMENTLY against any and all pay barriers. I cannot state that strongly enough. Vehemently against. I do not think they would help, and they would cause more problems. People on limited budgets would, essentially, be forbidden to participate. And there are plenty of trolls/negative people with disposable income. I think you'd lose more than you anticipate.

Those are my thoughts. Take them however you like.

Edit: I love this game and want it to succeed. Any participation that in which I take part on these forums is a result of those two things. I don't post a lot, but I read multiple times a day. When I do contribute, I try to be productive. However, as has been noted above, I suspect that my participation will decrease because I do not wish to be seen as being overly-critical and thus suffering a ban.

Edited by Josef Koba, 08 September 2014 - 09:30 AM.

[Kaptain]

Vicious trolls are an inevitable consequence of consistently not listening to your customers.
-Role warfare abandon despite community feedback
-Ghost heat implemented against community feedback
-Third Person implemented against community feedback
-The inability (until recently I hear) to play with 5 or more friends (I wouldn't know, my friends don't play anymore)
-Mixed Clans and IS and the abandonment of 10 vs 12 despite community feedback
-"user interface 2.0" half finished implementation with bugs despite community feedback
-Coolant flush ability implemented despite community feedback
-War Horns implemented despite community feedback
-FPS robbing Cockpit Glass implemented without a toggle despite community feedback
-Massive unwarranted balance changes being implemented despite community feedback (Clan Weapons and the IS PPC/ERLL) being the latest)

Not listening to your community time and time again made it toxic. Remove the greatest offenders and continue to not listen or worse yet pretend to listen (public test feedback anyone?) and you will create new trolls to fill the voids you moderation decisions make until there are no new players to populate the ques.

[Dolph Hoskins]

Good read Nikolai.

Tag em and bag em I say.

Edited by The Ripper13, 08 September 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[Kaptain]

Saxie, on 07 September 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

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.

yup.

[Dracol]

Sarlic, on 08 September 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

Do you see where i am going? Communication with (paying) customers is so important. Look at other companies. How are they interacting with their customers, and how can i improve my development cycle to avoid too many issues with the engine again?

I agree coms is important, but a line has got to be drawn some where.

Active players out number devs 10,000 to 1 (most likely more). Forum posters maybe as low as 10 to 1, but I would guess more like 100 to 1 on a regular basis. What this means is a large expanse of the forums will not get personal attention. If they did, there would be no one left to make the game.

Have they improved comms since closed beta? Yes
Do they still make mistakes? Yes
Do they learn from them? Sometimes
Have they appeased everyone? Impossible to do

As much as we focus on PGI as a company, its only made up of mistake making humans.

[Riffleman]

Please remove me forever too. I wont sit here and support a company who takes any criticism and lumps it in with random trolling. You guys are hemoriging players and money, not because of "trolls" but because you plain cant deliver on promised content, and screw up the content you do have. If your answer to legitimate player concerns is to remove them all, plug your ears and pretend everything is ok with your game and all complaints are unjustified, your more delusional then I thought you were when you decided 500 dollar mechs were acceptable content.

[StuffYouFear]

Quote

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

I would like to see people who have not played atleast ten(or even one) matches in the last six months be unable to post on the forums. This is a forums for a video game, and contributors should be the only ones allowed a voice in the community. I do not need to hear how bad things use to be, tell me something relevant to this last patch and I may care enough to read it.

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].

Flip side of this would be a minimal one match to create a topic to curtail puppet accounts as you called them. something like 10 posts per match for your new recruit would help curb the spam as well. This should still allow new people to ask real questions.


As of right now I have 6556 totaled win/losses on my account not including closed beta. I have 69 posts. There are people here that have 10,000+ posts and hardly any time spent playing the game, why should I listen to you?

Edited by StuffYouFear, 08 September 2014 - 10:44 AM.

[Aym]

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

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.

Cheers.

I hope I don't get banned for this. I do sincerely hope these efforts will create a better environment here on the "official" channels. That said, will these "official channels" now be used more actively for official announcements? Can we stop getting announcments on twitter and reddit before MWOMERCS?

[XX Sulla XX]

My main worry is that you need to be very careful about getting rid of people to fast. It is easy for people to be having a bad day and then see something on MWO they do not like and post something against the rules. The real problem are the long term people that only ever post negative anti MWO things. The same people that take over threads and in many ways just get in the way.

[Kraven Kor]

If I am not on any form of moderation, and it appears I am not, then it is clear they are not targeting those who have spoken critically of the game or about PGI; I have had not much positive to say.

But, I've been as polite and professional as is possible, or have tried to be, in how I express my opinions.

Just some proof for the mods that they are not censoring anyone that dislikes MWO or whatever. Just those that are... overzealous and/or a bit of an ******.

[NuclearPanda]

Kraven Kor, on 08 September 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

If I am not on any form of moderation, and it appears I am not, then it is clear they are not targeting those who have spoken critically of the game or about PGI; I have had not much positive to say.

But, I've been as polite and professional as is possible, or have tried to be, in how I express my opinions.

Just some proof for the mods that they are not censoring anyone that dislikes MWO or whatever. Just those that are... overzealous and/or a bit of an ******.

Exactly. I'm quite outspoken myself but I try not to de-evolve into a rabid attacking monkey and throw around threats. I do however have some very clear and concise issues that I try to be as polite as possible about it also.

[990Dreams]

The reason the forums are so bad is because people don't trust the devs or their decisions and get angry. It's a simple problem with a simple solution

[uebersoldat]

This is a good move. I'm glad.

[Jakob Knight]

Forum moderation is a fact of living on any forum, and the only thing that keeps such places from devolving into nothing more than shouting pits for people to attempt an ego trip at the expense of others on the forum (which I have seen happen in a few forums where moderation was largely left unused). I don't see anything inherently wrong with the procedure in place, but there is one issue touched on in the post that is the core of the issue here, in my opinion.

Trust.

The relations between the playerbase and those running the game have taken many hits to the trust the playerbase have in the veracity of the staff, and this cannot help but bleed into the forums directly tied to and largely moderated by some of those same people.

Indeed, in one of the questions asked of the reader of the original post to consider was the consideration to remove those players who actively and repeatedly refute, deny, or ignore staff statements and announcements. Yet, the staff of the game themselves have gone on record in the past that they wished to avoid making any statements that could be considered binding or accurate, rather being the stance of the company at the time of the statement and able to be changed without notice or obligation. This creates a paradox that gives one example of how the conduct between the staff of the game and the playerbase has resulted in a loss of confidence that bleeds over into the issue at hand.

When players have reason to question the veracity of those doing the moderation, then any moderation will generate suspicion, even if it is entirely justifiable under the terms all users of the forums signed when they joined the discussion venue, because the trust between the ones doing the moderation and the ones being moderated isn't there.

So, I would say that the only thing that needs work in the moderation system described is to continue to rebuild the trust that has been broken, and avoid repeating the same actions which destroyed it in the past.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 08 September 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[FDJustin]

"Whatever." sums up my feeling on it. It seems like there's always been more effort put forward to keep people from saying the bad words that would get them in trouble in gradeschool than to really keep the troublemakers out.

So I'm glad to see the people that are obviously just here to cause **** get booted. I just hope you're capable of telling the difference between someone that's purely there to damage you, someone who's upset, and someone who's making relatively balanced points even if they don't weaken their statement with excuses and placating words.

As long as it doesn't devolve into a very common method of 'moderation', where the thought police censor absolutely any negative comment, or reference to outside products, it's the right way to go. That's where the line is.

Also... I want consistency. Since there's a language filter here, it should be in the game. Or it should be removed from the forums. It's just schizophrenic to have different standards, perceived or real. (No one reads the ToS, and if they do, they forget the message through the legalese bullshit within a month.)

[Rick Rawlings]

Look, you can't moderate your way out of a bad game. You know what shuts people up? A game they would rather spend time playing than complaining about on the forum. Forumwarrior Online is a much more balanced and complete game than Mechwarrior is right now, unfortunately. Remember when you changed the forums before, to make them "easier to use", you know, by taking out the General Discussion forum, which pretty much every other game and forum user seem to be able to handle? Well, Good onya for the ease of use... I can't even find this stupid thread without linking it from another thread. It's pretty clear the move was really to hide the growing negativity...You've missed most of what deadlines you've set and the stuff that has made it in has either had to be pulled and fixed, like the matchmaker and 3/3/3/3 or is still sitting there is in a sorry state, like UI2.0., or really basic stuff that still seems to be problematic, like unit formation. So you can forum moderate till you are blue in the face, but until you put on the big boy pants and take your lumps and make some serious progress on this product, you are going to be fighting a losing battle. Game gets good? There will be nothing to moderate...

edit: Oh, and I noticed you unvanished the original #auniversetoexplore thread...

Edited by Rick Rawlings, 08 September 2014 - 04:35 PM.

[Cmdr Rad]

I think there needs to be a quasi-habeus corpus for moderation; specifically for moderation that affects the account is some way (Such as: warnings a la three strikes, mod-only post review, disabling of post ability, forum account banning, game account banning), as there's no need to send a notification of low-level stuff that won't affect the user's future experience. I see people talk about being banned without knowing the exact reason they were banned. They suspect why they were banned, but they can only assume so.

When Moderation happens, it sends a message to the e-mail attached to the account. Not a forum PM, but the e-mail, since if they're banned, they might not be able to access the forums.

This message should include:

• The Moderation Action that was taken, along with explanation of the definition and terms (i.e. How long, or if its permanent)
  
• Why that Moderation Action was taken, in relation to the ToS or what not.
  
• The Vector of the Moderation Action (i.e. the offending forum post, facebook/twitter/reddit, etc.)
  
• The appeals process, if any.

Additionally, you might optionally include the forum handle of the person that made the moderation action, though you'd open them up to personal attacks or whatever.





Anyhow, the point is though: This can and most definitely should be automated. If it isn't linked in the forum tools, it can be a simple Google Form, with some drop-down menus and fill-in blanks.

By doing this, you give yourself more legitimacy in the eyes of the internet public. People who get moderated have no excuse for not knowing why; People who make false claims of getting banned will be asked to present their evidence. A transparent system like that is better in the end, assuming that all moderation is done on good faith.

Edited by Cmdr Rad, 08 September 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[Colin Thrase]

I am among those users that usually avoids the forums. In fact, if it weren't for a fellow player emailing me about the announcement of PGI's separation from IGP and the new game project, I wouldn't have been reading them today.

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?
  
• 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?

I'm not sure whether this is possible, but if you could modify the forums to work something like this, I'd browse them more often. Add slider bars (either on the front page, or in each user's profile) that allow users to filter what posts they see. Allow anyone to post anything they want (barring excessive profanity, threats or other offenses in the extreme). The following slider bars would be great, and each post would be displayed or not based on each user's preference.

• Minimum previous posts by this user 0+, 10+, 25+, 50+, 100+ (default value = 0)
  
• Minimum game played hours of poster: 0, 2hrs, 8hrs, 40hrs (default value = 2)
  
• Minimum forum profile age of poster: 0, 3mo, 6mo, 1yr (default value = 0)
  
• Contribution level of poster (MC/packages purchased to date): 0/none, $25+, $50+, $100+ (default value = 0)
  
• Previous 'likes' from other users: n/a, 5+, 10+, 25+ (default value = n/a)

I think the 'troll posts' and others would probably be eliminated if filters like the above were available. For my part, I'd rather read content provided by users with at least 3 months game & forums history, with at least $25 invested in the game. Often I suspect the toxic posts are made by throw-away accounts, so this would let us get rid of those when reading.


Revision: I don't think it would eliminate troll posts, but it would discourage posters from bothering with them, since they would know their audience would be smaller.

CT

Edited by Colin Thrase, 08 September 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[Mawai]

I have one more comment I would like to make.

I have heard the names of some of those banned. In particular there are two I have heard of who (in my experience) have posted critical but generally reasonable material on the MWO forums. I have never seen threats, rants or screams from them ... just reasoned if particularly harsh at times commentary.

They were apparently banned from the forums for posts on other social media outlets. This is wrong in my opinion.

- there is no way to confirm that a screen name on the MWO forums is the same individual on any other social media site. The posts may have similar opinions or use the same rhetoric but they may not be the same people.

- However, even if the individual admits to being the same person ... the posting of material on other sites outside of the control of MWO is not against the terms of service of the MWO website ... signing up to post on this website should in no way constrain what can be said outside of the resources controlled directly by PGI.

- if the players in question posted violent, threatening, abusive commentary on the PGI forums they should be banned. If they posted remarks critical of PGI and its decisions with regard to MWO that were NOT violent, threatening or abusive but only reasoned criticism then the only reason to ban them is to shut down understandable criticism ... which will be made anyway ... both on PGI forums and elsewhere.

This approach of shutting down criticism won't improve the community relationship with PGI in the slightest. The people who are banned will likely continue to post on outside media which PGI can not control. If they are loud enough then their voices will have a negative impact on the MWO community ... no matter which platform they choose to make their comments ... and their voices will likely be louder and carry more weight as a result of being banned.

Anyway, I think the behaviour of posters on THESE forums should be the basis for any moderation or bans of THESE posters on THESE forums. Trying to ban posters here based on possible or alleged activities on other sites on the internet would tend to exceed what I would consider a reasonable level of response.

If someone posts something that is abusive, violent or threatening on other social media then you should report these people on that social media for their comments there ... and not try to take action against someone, who may or may not be the same person, on social media over which you may exercise some level of control.

Edited by Mawai, 08 September 2014 - 06:35 PM.