Forum Moderation PSA

SilverBride

Syldras wrote: »

If someone writes "Your statement is stupid" to another user it might be a little less insulting than if they wrote "You are stupid", but it's both still not very polite.

Both may get the poster moderated because they are calling the poster and their idea stupid. Those are accusatory statements and are not bringing anything constructive to the topic. It's best to avoid saying "you" and "your" when debating a topic because that puts the focus on the poster when it should be just on the topic.

Syldras wrote: »

But people who don't accept any different opinions also exist.

That is something they need to learn to accept, and it should not prevent us from giving our view.

Daiyanae

I would be happy to have a 'Squelch' setting in forums so I could just quiet the posts from users that I didn't want to read.

spartaxoxo

Daiyanae wrote: »

I would be happy to have a 'Squelch' setting in forums so I could just quiet the posts from users that I didn't want to read.

You can ignore a user and their posts will be hidden.

TaSheen

Daiyanae wrote: »

I would be happy to have a 'Squelch' setting in forums so I could just quiet the posts from users that I didn't want to read.

You can ignore up to 12 (I think it's 12) users. Go to your Edit Profile page, select Ignore List, add the user ID you want to ignore, and agree when asked. This hides posts, but not the first post of a thread created by an ignored user.

spartaxoxo

Here's the ignore link

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/profile/ignore

Here's what their comments will look like. Doesn't work for threads afaik. You can unignore them the same way and unhide a comment if you want to see what was said in one thread without ignoring it in general.

Red is just name, icon, date but no content. Hidden by ignore. Blue is a regular post that's not hidden.

Erickson9610

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

If someone writes "Your statement is stupid" to another user it might be a little less insulting than if they wrote "You are stupid", but it's both still not very polite.

Both may get the poster moderated because they are calling the poster and their idea stupid. Those are accusatory statements and are not bringing anything constructive to the topic. It's best to avoid saying "you" and "your" when debating a topic because that puts the focus on the poster when it should be just on the topic.

This 100%. In general, expect any post which directly addresses the author of a post to be subject for moderation, even if it's not a bashing post.

Here's two examples:

1. "I like your idea! I think it would be better if . . ."
2. "I like this idea! I think it would be better if . . ."

Example #1 is addressing the person in relation to their idea, whereas example #2 does not. It is generally safer to go with example #2 because the focus is solely on the idea being presented, rather than also drawing attention to the author.

Above all, you* want to avoid using ad hominem in your* discussions.


*This is an example of an "impersonal you", which does not directly reference an individual, but instead refers to people in general.

Syldras

Erickson9610 wrote: »

In general, expect any post which directly addresses the author of a post to be subject for moderation, even if it's not a bashing post.
Here's two examples:

1. "I like your idea! I think it would be better if . . ."
2. "I like this idea! I think it would be better if . . ."

Example #1 is addressing the person in relation to their idea, whereas example #2 does not. It is generally safer to go with example #2 because the focus is solely on the idea being presented, rather than also drawing attention to the author.

I disagree, for several reasons.

Many people (including people who are not native English speakers) would probably accidentally write like this, which would lead to a lot of work for the mods - time that might be better invested in other things. I also don't think that a behaviour that does not lead to any harm should be punished. Actually I even think that writing should be policed as little as neccessary.

Also, not being able to refer to other people directly would make every kind of roleplay impossible. And even outside of roleplay, I honestly doubt that being as impersonal as possible in forum interactions would help in building a sense of community - while being a community where people can relate to each other would probably lead to more mutual respect and a better self-regulation; so it should rather be supported than prevented.

SilverBride

When I suggested not using "you" or "your" I am meaning just here on the forums, not in game. In game interactions are a whole different world and I never have heated debates in game.

I also feel that our forum posts should be kept impersonal, because it's not friends talking to friends but rather players with different ideas about the direction of the game bringing their feedback to be discussed.

Syldras

SilverBride wrote: »

When I suggested not using "you" or "your" I am meaning just here on the forums, not in game. In game interactions are a whole different world and I never have heated debates in game.
I also feel that our forum posts should be kept impersonal, because it's not friends talking to friends but rather players with different ideas about the direction of the game bringing their feedback to be discussed.

Roleplay also takes place on the forum. Sometimes, smalltalk ensues. Sometimes, people are posting their fan drawings or writings. Sometimes, people have a question and I don't think that it improves the forum if people have to make sure they reply "Was the support contacted?" instead of "Have you contacted the support?" - I see it as another obstacle instead of an improvement if people have to watch out for such things instead of concentrating on the content of their post. Indeed I think it could be even worse for people who have a non-English mother tongue, because in some languages replying with "you" just feels more natural, let alone some people don't speak English very well and every extra rule makes it more complicated for them. I know if accidentally writing "I like your suggestion" instead of "I like that suggestion" could lead to an account ban, I would certainly reconsider whether I want to continue using the forum (and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person). Luckily, I don't think such a rule would ever be added to the code of conduct.

Also, I made a few friends at this place, and I still have the impression that having a friendly relation to other users is better for the overall behaviour and atmosphere than one that's merely distanced and polite.

SilverBride

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Above all, you* want to avoid using ad hominem in your* discussions.

*This is an example of an "impersonal you", which does not directly reference an individual, but instead refers to people in general.

We can also use "we" and "our" in these instances. Such as "Above all, we* want to avoid using ad hominem in our* discussions."

spartaxoxo

I agree with Syldras. Yeah, nobody should be flagged automatically for using the word "you" and the mod team needs to look at how that rule is being applied.

We are human beings having conversations with one another. Some will be longer, some will be shorter. Sometimes we'll disagree, other times we'll be aligned. Sometimes emotion will be evident in writing and sometimes it might as well be a corporate memo. Sometimes we'll address each other directly. As long as someone is not being intentionally disrespectful and flaming, or being overly personal, that should be alright.

Syldras

"Ad hominem" means claiming a person's view was not valid (or not to be taken seriously) because because of alleged negative character traits (lazy, dumb, selfish, immoral,...) or because they belong to some demographic group (age, sex, nationality, world view, etc) - the latter case would usually fall under discrimination today. Funny example to brighten the mood (I hope using my own username as an example doesn't count as naming and shaming...): "Don't believe Syldras' report that an IA level is bugged - he's an immoral Telvanni wizard and certainly only posted this with some evil ploy in mind! Also, he's from Sadrith Mora and you know how the people there are!"

It has nothing to do with adressing someone personally in a discussion, especially not in a positive or neutral context.

SilverBride

I suggested not using "you" and "your" specifically in the context of giving opposing feedback to other posters after a poster inquired why "expressing the view that some people are unreasonably complaining" was considered baiting. Not just using the words "you" and "your" in general.

Syldras

SilverBride wrote: »

I suggested not using "you" and "your" specifically in the context of giving opposing feedback to other posters after a poster inquired why "expressing the view that some people are unreasonably complaining" was considered baiting. Not just using the words "you" and "your" in general.

Yes, I was referring to this:

Erickson9610 wrote: »

In general, expect any post which directly addresses the author of a post to be subject for moderation, even if it's not a bashing post.
Here's two examples:

1. "I like your idea! I think it would be better if . . ."
2. "I like this idea! I think it would be better if . . ."

Example #1 is addressing the person in relation to their idea, whereas example #2 does not. It is generally safer to go with example #2 because the focus is solely on the idea being presented, rather than also drawing attention to the author.
Above all, you* want to avoid using ad hominem in your* discussions.

I don't see how this would be neccessary as ad hominem is clearly a personal attack, and I don't think that being allowed to positively or neutrally address each other increases the risk for that. Of course the forum could be restricted to short, formal statements without any personal notion only - no personal interaction, no risk for misbehaviour, after all. But I somehow don't think that many people would enjoy that much.

AtriaKhorist

I'll speak plainly here - most people are not trained in communication. Most people will not make the considerations you are all making here in this thread. Most ZOS customers will also not be native English speakers.

Moderators, on the other hand, I expect to have at least rudimentary training in communication, a solid grasp of English and the understanding that not everyone has the same, to speak nothing of cultural differences. Demanding higher standards of contributing players than involved moderators - as implied in this discussion - is not reasonable.

And if moderators do not fulfill that standard after all they require additional training.

Syldras

Indeed cultural ideas of what's appropriate or not are different from country to country. That's why I think that context and intention should be important in judging a post that might be slightly inappropriate topic-wise. Take as an example someone using the name of a real-world military technique to describe a behaviour in Cyrodiil so people immediately and clearly understand what it's about, without long and complicated explanations needed. Or someone saying "creature x in ESO is based on creature y from real-world-religion z's mythology" to provide interesting background info (also, a lot of Michael Kirkbride's TES lore is based on real world religion and myths, so it's almost impossible to avoid that, sooner or later it would be important to the discussion).

From my point of view, posts made with a good intention only should not be punished - deleted, yes, if ZOS deems that neccessary, but without a ban (or warning that counts towards the ban).

Syldras

While we're at it: I think that often the term "discussing" or "discussion" is also causing confusion because it also doesn't mean the same thing in every culture or language, even if words look similar. The original English-language paragraph 2.8 of the code of conduct forbids the "discussion of (...) real-world religion and politics", and that's fine, but what exactly does it mean? Where does a discussion start?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in English, "discussing" something can mean just mentioning it (As in "This is a topic one wouldn't want to discuss with kids")? The thing is, in some other cultures, it doesn't.

As an example: Since I live in Germany, I automatically get shown the German version of the code of conduct, no matter which forum language I choose. There's no way to change to the English original, unless one uses a VPN to change location (which I've just done to copy the quote from the original, but I think that only a minority of people has a VPN at hand - and would think of using it to check the original language version of the a code of conduct instead of just relying on what ever language is normally shown to them).

So, the official German version of the code of conduct says: "die Diskussion (...) Religion und Politik aus der realen Welt".

In German, just mentioning the existence of something or stating a short fact would never be considered a "Diskussion". A "Diskussion" is a discourse, debating about something, talking about its advantages and disadvantages, with that topic being the absolute focus of the conversation. Saying "I don't understand religion X because... While aspect A seems fine, aspect B doesn't make any sense to me." would be a "Diskussion" about a religion.

Now getting a "Creature X in ESO stems from religion Y's mythology" post deleted for violating that rule... let's say it leads to astonishment and confusion.

And there are several of such passages in the code of conduct that just seem unclear or may be interpreted very differently by people of different cultural origin. I wish these points would be clarified, maybe even with an example given, and that people who break these rules with no negative intention in mind would not be treated harshly.

doabhi

@ZOS_Kevin First off hope you and the team have had/are having a good holiday break.

In my honest and most constructive opinion, I feel the forum moderation is lacking in some key areas - areas I think drastically need improvement. To keep things balanced I will also bullet point things I think are just fine or may only need a bit of work.

Things that work

• The general conduct I think Is mostly fine, Be civil and respectful. Though based on some comments, perhaps it is unclear to some. This may be a wording or language barrier issue if it needs improvement.
• Moderators snipping things out of comments that probably cross the line (We would never know!) with a little comment why.

Things I think need improvement/change

• Transparency - Explanations as to why something was auctioned help foster understanding and personal growth.
  There are often cases (I have myself experienced this I think) where entire comments are deleted from the forum without even a note from a moderator to explain why it was removed. This is bad. Even if the removal was justified, Deleting and giving no explanation does not help foster understanding.
• The Forum seems to lack an option to facilitate the above? Maybe I'm wrong here, but in situations like above, there does not seem to be any system in place to give a forum user feedback or a log - it's just gone without comment, warning or any hint of anything. (which just leads you to questioning your own sanity or if it was a database error.)
• AI Moderation tools. - I really shouldn't need to explain this one. AI Is a bubble. It's snake oil for tech companies, it needs to go away and we need to stop shoehorning it in to every orifice of our world. AI tools are inaccurate/unreliable at best, Dangerous at their worst. - they are honestly a waste of valuable energy and system resources. They have no place here or in game in my honest opinion. (or anywhere for that matter)

I hope this counts as constructive criticism, Do'Abhi hopes you all had a Good Saturalia Baan Dar gift swap and good luck with the coming Trial of the Five-Clawed Guile

SilverBride

Syldras wrote: »

While we're at it: I think that often the term "discussing" or "discussion" is also causing confusion because it also doesn't mean the same thing in every culture or language, even if words look similar. The original English-language paragraph 2.8 of the code of conduct forbids the "discussion of (...) real-world religion and politics", and that's fine, but what exactly does it mean? Where does a discussion start?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in English, "discussing" something can mean just mentioning it (As in "This is a topic one wouldn't want to discuss with kids")? The thing is, in some other cultures, it doesn't.

My opinion, as far as these forums are concerned, is that a discussion starts once the topic is mentioned. The reason I feel this way is because once the topic is mentioned it will generate replies from other posters, so just mentioning the topic is the thing that causes a discussion to then ensue.

Syldras

doabhi wrote: »

The general conduct I think Is mostly fine, Be civil and respectful. Though based on some comments, perhaps it is unclear to some. This may be a wording or language barrier issue if it needs improvement.

The problem isn't that people don't understand that they should behave respectfully towards other users - that's quite an universal rule in human interactions world-wide. The problem is that cultures have different ideas of what is considered rude or inappropriate, and that many international users don't have a perfect grasp of English and may use terms that are completely normal in their language, without having a clue that these might sound unfriendly in English. With users from all over the world, misunderstandings are basically unavoidable.

The only solution I can think of right now would be being aware of these cultural and language differences and be more lenient - for example by just deleting a post and informing us that this topic (or some real life comparison or word, for example) is not allowed here, instead of issuing an official warning or even a ban. More serious measures could still be taken if the person willfully ignores the info continuously.

And also, I think that when it's not 100% clear whether something was meant rudely or not, it would be good to give the user the benefit of a doubt, especially if it's known that the person is not a native English speaker. Also, one could always ask to clarify. Right now, I want to be honest about that, it sometimes feels to me like wordings that might be slightly doubtful are most often interpreted in the negative way just to make sure no rule violation slips through. I see that's very diligent, but I truly don't think it's neccessary to assume that the average user has bad intentions (especially if a user usually writes good posts, helps other users, takes their time for long lore discussions - things that show that the person is dedicated to contribute positively to the forum). As I said in that last thread some days ago, we're not here as enemies.

Of course, misunderstandings can always happen. That's human. And it wouldn't be a problem at all if it couldn't lead to harsh consequences like an account ban without a way to talk about it beforehand. I think many cases (that are not clear insults like people throwing around slurs - in such cases there is no doubt) could easily be clarified and recognized as being nothing but a misunderstanding if there was more communication.

Syldras

SilverBride wrote: »

My opinion, as far as these forums are concerned, is that a discussion starts once the topic is mentioned. The reason I feel this way is because once the topic is mentioned it will generate replies from other posters, so just mentioning the topic is the thing that causes a discussion to then ensue.

From my experience, it does not. I've seen cases in earlier years where in lore discussions something like "Character X is based on the god Y of religion Z" slipped through, and it never turned into a discussion about religion Z, let alone one that could be seen as respectless or insulting.

Although to be honest, with diversity being a big topic these days, it's hard for me to understand anyway why talking about this world's diversity, all its different interesting cultures, beliefs and traditions, in a non-judgemental way, is considered a bad, forbidden thing. And not an insightful opportunity to learn, and to contribute to the mutual understanding between people of different origins. I'm in different international forums where discussing these things is absolutely okay, and I've never seen these discussions ending badly, quite the opposite.

Of course if it's forbidden here, I accept it. But with my background and experiences, it's truly a bit hard to understand why.

SilverBride

Syldras wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

My opinion, as far as these forums are concerned, is that a discussion starts once the topic is mentioned. The reason I feel this way is because once the topic is mentioned it will generate replies from other posters, so just mentioning the topic is the thing that causes a discussion to then ensue.

From my experience, it does not. I've seen cases in earlier years where in lore discussions something like "Character X is based on the god Y of religion Z" slipped through, and it never turned into a discussion about religion Z, let alone one that could be seen as respectless or insulting.

Although to be honest, with diversity being a big topic these days, it's hard for me to understand anyway why talking about this world's diversity, all its different interesting cultures, beliefs and traditions, in a non-judgemental way, is considered a bad, forbidden thing. And not an insightful opportunity to learn, and to contribute to the mutual understanding between people of different origins. I'm in different international forums where discussing these things is absolutely okay, and I've never seen these discussions ending badly, quite the opposite.

Of course if it's forbidden here, I accept it. But with my background and experiences, it's truly a bit hard to understand why.

Real world religion and politics, for example, are things that people tend to have very strong feelings about. Discussing these can and most likely will create conflict as people tend to defend their views strongly.

Besides the fact that these forums are to discuss ESO, not real world beliefs or diversity.

Our guild's Discord does not allow these topics either.

TaSheen

Real world religions etc are at the basis of some of the pantheons of the Elder Scrolls world. So it's really odd that discussing them IN THAT VIEWPOINT is disallowed. What should be happening is allowing those discussions in this forum, and moderating anything that goes outside of the "in world" discussion into anyone's current religious beliefs.

Syldras

SilverBride wrote: »

Real world religion and politics, for example, are things that people tend to have very strong feelings about. Discussing these can and most likely will create conflict as people tend to defend their views strongly.
Besides the fact that these forums are to discuss ESO, not real world beliefs or diversity.

As I said, it was about drawing comparisons in lore discussions and I've seen it happening before, not leading to any conflict at all. There are many TES lore bits and characters where comparisons absolutely make sense in helping to understand what a character concept might be about.

Anyway, the wording in the code of conduct in German is easily misunderstood, because the average German would understand "Diskussionen über Religion" as debating about a religion including giving personal judgement about it. They would never consider saying "TES character X is based on a figure from real-world religion Y" to be a discussion and therefore violating that rule. Same goes for politics and some other topics.

One factor certainly is that in Germany, these aren't inappropriate or controversial topics at all. It's completely normal here to compare a situation/character to some other religious or political situation/figure, especially when historical. It happens all the time and no one bats an eye. With it being so normal in this culture, people can't even guess this might be a forbidden or inappropriate elsewhere, it if's not explicitly stated. If the code of conduct would be changed to disallowing mentioning real world politics or religions, instead of discussing it, it would be clearer.

Destai

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

thorwyn wrote: »

Again.. and again.. and again..
This is NOT the safe space you are looking for! This is not a happy place with fluffy unicorns. This is a gaming forum, where people are discussing, reporting and expressing their views on the PRODUCT they bought with their earned money. Sometimes controversial and confrontational. Deal with it.

Going to clarify slightly here. This should be a safe space for people to discuss, report and express their views. Absolutely. And there will be times where that discussion can be controversial and disagreements can (and should) happen. Those disagreements can happen without name calling or trying to ridicule another poster. That also makes people unwelcome to have conversations here. Confrontational does not need to be part of that equation. Conformational implies hostility, and that is not appropriate most cases here.

I think you should be careful about this "safe space" thinking. Of course, we should foster a respectful, bigotry-free environment. But we shouldn't be fostering an environment where every disagreement is seen as a personal attack and gets reported. That is happening now. That is a problem. That does impact ZOS getting the necessary feedback to improve the game.

Ultimately, people can choose what they respond to, and choose to get upset about something. For example, I have a few people here that I largely will not engage. I never report them, or anyone for that matter, because I think they should be able to state their opinion. I put them on ignore and move on with my life.

You should be giving sensitive people better tools to protect themselves, so the rest of us can enjoy our conversations. The ignore list we have now is insufficient, IMO. One of the things I really enjoy about Reddit is the blocking functionality. If I don't like someone or their tone, which happened recently, I can just block them. They shouldn't be further inhibited from discussing the game because I don't like them.

I also want to touch on your statement about ridiculing people. I think there's a difference between mocking or belittling someone and just pointing out behavior that negatively impacts others. For instance, I ignore some people because they often refute or minimize other people's struggles or issues. I think it's fair for people to point out that behavior so they can learn from it and we can have constructive conversations. A moderator doesn't need to get involved. They shouldn't get banned. They should just hear "hey, XYZ behavior isn't adding to conversation, can you stop that?".

Right now, I see the people pointing out negative behavior getting actioned more than the negative people themselves. I think that really needs to change. Hopefully you're seeing the similar comments made here by others and will reach out to them in the aforementioned 1:1's.

SilverBride

Destai wrote: »

You should be giving sensitive people better tools to insulate themselves, so the rest of us can enjoy our conversations.

I think there's a difference between mocking or belittling someone and just pointing out behavior that negatively impacts others.

Right now, I see the people the pointing our negative behavior getting actioned more than the negative themselves. I think that really needs to change.

I disagree with all of these points.

No one has to insulate themselves and accept other posters personally criticizing them, and this does not mean they are sensitive.

Pointing out what a poster perceives as negative behavior in another is judgemental and not the job of any poster. If a moderator sees what they perceive as negative behavior they will address it.

Changing things so that it's acceptable for posters to openly criticize others is not the way to go.

spartaxoxo

Snipped quote for brevity

Destai wrote: »

I also want to touch on your statement about ridiculing people. I think there's a difference between mocking or belittling someone and just pointing out behavior that negatively impacts others. For instance, I ignore some people because they often refute or minimize other people's struggles or issues. I think it's fair for people to point out that behavior so they can learn from it and we can have constructive conversations. A moderator doesn't need to get involved.

I wouldn't go so far as to say a user should be able to be publicly called out but some minor degree of addressing them shouldn't be a problem. I think neutral, positive, or times when you're discussing a point that someone brought up themselves should all be fair game. But trying to call someone out, denigrate them, be overly personal, etc shouldn't be.

I don't think a user should need thick skin to post on here. But I also don't think extreme sensitivity should be catered towards either. Some people will report for the tiniest things because the real reason they're reporting is they can't handle disagreement with their opinions or being proven wrong about a point of fact. I would hope mods keep both of these things in mind before validating a report.

Destai

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to say a user should be able to be publicly called out but some minor degree of addressing them shouldn't be a problem. I think neutral, positive, or times when you're discussing a point that someone brought up themselves should all be fair game. But trying to call someone out, denigrate them, be overly personal, etc shouldn't be.

Right, I'm just saying it should be more acceptable to tactfully address those behaviors between posters. And only when things get heated, should a moderator step in. I hope no one's taking my statement as advocating for denigration. Didn't say anything like that at all.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

Syldras wrote: »

And also, I think that when it's not 100% clear whether something was meant rudely or not, it would be good to give the user the benefit of a doubt, especially if it's known that the person is not a native English speaker.

The issue with the last part is that anyone could then claim to be a non-native English speaker whether they were or not to get special treatment.

Syldras

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

The issue with the last part is that anyone could then claim to be a non-native English speaker whether they were or not to get special treatment.

I think the risk of dozens of trolls showing up, insulting other players and claiming it would be a language misunderstanding is rather minor. Also that might work once or twice; at some point the behaviour would become suspicious.

Also, from my point of view this is not "special treatment" - but just showing understanding that not everyone in an international forum has perfect English skills and that sometimes misunderstandings ensue.