"PVP" and "Cyrodiil" Gets you Banned on Twitch

spartaxoxo

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

If people need to report 10 times in 1 thread then something is wrong with reporter themselves too unless they are famous and are hated for nothing related to topic.

This should only happen if the reports are not upheld. If someone reported 10 times and every time the moderation team upheld a rule was violated, they should not do anything to the reporter. This protects people from harassment.

If they find a particular person is calling out another user for whatever understandable reason, then they should encourage that person to block the user rather than attempt to call out the user in the thread. In general, mods like to keep discussion based on topics and not people.

Your example of calling someone a "stick in the mud" obviously shouldn't result in a ban, because it's quite mild. But it should be deleted and you should get an educational message about why it's deleted that highlights the rule about flaming. This statement, however mild, is derogatory towards another person rather than their argument. And as such violates the tos about flaming.

FeedbackOnly

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

I expressed that if people over report on one thread that thread should be closed instead as topic probably is toxic for aggressor and reporter

There's clear records of that happening too from moderation. So my suggestion too follows standards.

I expressed this point as way to counter people who tend to Overally report.

If people need to report 10 times in 1 thread then something is wrong with reporter themselves too unless they are famous and are hated for nothing related to topic.

Overall, I think abuse of reporting system should be looked at. That is my intention here as people didn't just disappear from forums because of mods but people who reported them

It's the players too who are fault in current state of forums

If someone is baited and verbally attacked 10 times in one thread how are they to deal with it? If they get into a discussion with the other poster they risk escalating the issue even further and putting their own account at risk. And no one should have to just have to accept repeated verbal attacks.

The things we do agree on are that moderation is heavy handed and the entire system should be looked at and reworked. And if a thread is generating a lot of reports it should be locked.

My disagreement is the victim too can be the aggressor.

There's no right answer on how to handle it. How about this.

I change my thoughts. My thought is if multiple reports for same thread come in then this should trigger extra review.

I believe without knowing the victim can be the problem too. In such case threads should be closed as they are going nowhere.

Baiting could be anything if you really look at it. So to further add to it. The reporting system probably needs better response. You shouldn't just be able to click report then say they are baiting me.

In fact I have example. At one point in "What do you think of nightblade thread"

The conversation leads someone to say basically you are a noob. This was the exact conversation nor was it related to me but they continued the conversation with a healthy counter with facts.

The victim could of responded by reporting them and they would of been in right, but they countered differently.

I am not saying my answer is perfect, but reporting I do believe gets over done as evidence mostong term players are just gone in the forums. The problem started with us unfortunately.

I just hope we can find a middle ground where we can trust zos better, not live in literal fear of moderation.

The current state and furtue of moderation has consequences on long term health of community

I make each comment in this thread because I want us to love and grow together with the game. Where we at isn't healthy, but I understand it was very bad before, but at some point innocent people got caught up in last 2 years of forum clean up.

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

SilverBride

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender.

I completely agree with that. When someone who has made literally thousands of constructive posts ends up permabanned over a handful of borderline infractions then something needs to change.

spartaxoxo

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

jaws343

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

Plus, on top of the 3 day suspension, the response time from support to appeal the action is around 20 hours per response. So by the time 3-4 back and forth a in the conversation are done, the suspension is over. It's incredibly inefficient and insulting that a review and appeal process takes the entirety of the suspension to even communicate on.

FeedbackOnly

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

There's a is limit my point. I don't think people should be allowed to abuse the system. People are reporting for silly things that would be fine anywhere else even the ESO subreddit or steam chats

Why are people missing from the forums in the first place? Was it only the moderation that was at fault?

I repeat a not saying call each other moron, but some things really shouldn't be let go like "mount looks silly"

FeedbackOnly

jaws343 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

Plus, on top of the 3 day suspension, the response time from support to appeal the action is around 20 hours per response. So by the time 3-4 back and forth a in the conversation are done, the suspension is over. It's incredibly inefficient and insulting that a review and appeal process takes the entirety of the suspension to even communicate on.

Communication problems we the players have long long have said is a problem.

It's just more noticable now that moderation got extremely heavy in last two years

spartaxoxo

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

There's a is limit my point. I don't think people should be allowed to abuse the system. People are reporting for silly things that would be fine anywhere else even the ESO subreddit or steam chats

Most corporate forums have significantly stricter rules as to what constitutes flaming than something moderated by amateur enthusiasts like Reddit.

And drawing the line at stuff that has no other value to the discussion but to call out or demean other customers isn't unreasonable imo. I would not call it abuse that someone reported someone else for insulting them. It's on the moderatoration team to determine scale of offense, not on the user to tolerate insults.

Frankly, I don't think you could ever get me to agree that someone reporting someone who is openly degrading them is abuse. I agree that people can abuse the report system, but that's only when it's a false accusation. If the accusation is true, it's not abuse.

WiseSky

30k Comments almost 1.5k discussions, I would like to think that a person like that deserves a reset every 5K comments.

Or

Maybe take down their Stars.... Like if you have an infraction you take down a star but the leveling process stays the same at 0 stars you are perma banned.



I am just stating my point as I know Mods works really hard and are humans as we all are.

Lumenn

Personally I think it should have a light touch here and open it up. I WILL admit I'm from a different era(I'm a grandfather many times over) I was born and grew up in the U.S. Marine Corps(my father being a D.I.) and I spent the last few decades dealing with management doublespeak. I realize I'm probably an outdated dinosaur that can be as crude as I need to be or I can insult you in a way that 3 days later you're still not SURE if you were or not.

Keeping all that in mind I still personally think this forum should be very lightly modded. Keep it game related obviously. With all the backgrounds in here politics/race/gender, and religion are a powderkeg and have no place here. I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time. Threats, real world topics, racial/gender slurs should be modded. Anything else let the adults handle. This isn't a children's game, we shouldn't need a mother to protect us from "mean words". But again, I'm from a different time/background and will admit I'm not in "touch" with today's standards.

FeedbackOnly

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

My conclusion no matter what bans should only be for absolute worst offender. My personal grievance is we need to tone down what actually deserves moderation

I don't think it's on victims to ignore or tolerate clearly derogatory remarks aimed at them. They should report those and those should be moderated. Someone not wanting to be called a "noob" is completely understandable. I am inclined to agree that sometimes the person doing the reporting could have baited a response and then reported the result, so obviously mods should always take into account context. But, two wrongs don't make a right. If you called someone a noob, and they reported you for flaming, you earned that report. And it should be moderated. (The royal you, not you in particular)

But moderators should simply also take into account the context and scale of the offense. Currently posts that are akin in scale to jaywalking are treated with the same severity as offenses that are akin to slapping someone. So instead of just editing or deleting the offensive content, they person ends up banned for 3 days for a very minor and very human slip. That's the part that's wrong, not someone reporting someone else for name calling them. Name calling should be reported, that's not abuse of the system.

There's a is limit my point. I don't think people should be allowed to abuse the system. People are reporting for silly things that would be fine anywhere else even the ESO subreddit or steam chats

Most corporate forums have significantly stricter rules as to what constitutes flaming than something moderated by amateur enthusiasts like Reddit.

And drawing the line at stuff that has no other value to the discussion but to call out or demean other customers isn't unreasonable imo. I would not call it abuse that someone reported someone else for insulting them. It's on the moderatoration team to determine scale of offense, not on the user to tolerate insults.

Frankly, I don't think you could ever get me to agree that someone reporting someone who is openly degrading them is abuse. I agree that people can abuse the report system, but that's only when it's a false accusation. If the accusation is true, it's not abuse.

It's okay we can disagree

Know that I am not blaming the victim. I am just saying excessive reporting can happen

Now here's a famous example

In new world if someone reports you 3 times you get banned. People did this to makings raiding easier.

My point is I think we need to look at look all source of problem. The forum moderation was taken to far but how did we get here.

What's a fair in between that would most of happy?

My point obviously isn't favored that's okay. We can look suspension system over bans first. That's what's really important to us all right.

Just throw out longer suspension for repeat offenders in longer periods. Also the appeal system. Let's let some more innocent offenders back into society

This way we can build trust, and healthy community. The trust will be rewarded to zos in bug reports and different opinions on changes.

Like I hate Bretons and think they are uglier than orcs. If I was only voice then nobody would talk about how their lovely lore.

SilverBride

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time.

Stick in the mud may be minor to some, but elicit a strong reaction in others. We are here to discuss the game in a mature and civil manner and that does not include insulting each other.

The problem is the punishment does not fit the crime. Snipping the insult and warning the poster should suffice in most cases. If this doesn't help and the poster continues to insult others, then look at a temporary suspension.

But we are losing a lot of long time posters because the longer a poster has been active and the more posts they have made, the more likely they are to have picked up a few infractions along the way. Giving out final warnings after 2 infractions is beyond heavy handed. It only considers the infractions, many of which are minor, and completely ignores how productive the poster has been, for years in many cases.

FeedbackOnly

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time.

Stick in the mud may be minor to some, but elicit a strong reaction in others. We are here to discuss the game in a mature and civil manner and that does not include insulting each other.

The problem is the punishment does not fit the crime. Snipping the insult and warning the poster should suffice in most cases. If this doesn't help and the poster continues to insult others, then look at a temporary suspension.

But we are losing a lot of long time posters because the longer a poster has been active and the more posts they have made, the more likely they are to have picked up a few infractions along the way. Giving out final warnings after 2 infractions is beyond heavy handed. It only considers the infractions, many of which are minor, and completely ignores how productive the poster has been, for years in many cases.

Fair enough,

I can nod my head to your statement and the direction you taken it.

I don't fully agree, but we are looking for a middle ground and less heavy moderation

Lumenn

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time.

Stick in the mud may be minor to some, but elicit a strong reaction in others. We are here to discuss the game in a mature and civil manner and that does not include insulting each other.

The problem is the punishment does not fit the crime. Snipping the insult and warning the poster should suffice in most cases. If this doesn't help and the poster continues to insult others, then look at a temporary suspension.

But we are losing a lot of long time posters because the longer a poster has been active and the more posts they have made, the more likely they are to have picked up a few infractions along the way. Giving out final warnings after 2 infractions is beyond heavy handed. It only considers the infractions, many of which are minor, and completely ignores how productive the poster has been, for years in many cases.

??? As I said, my views arent in line with everyone's sensitivities. Should you curse and name call, I'll simply assume you're not adult enough to discuss with. I fully understand many find mean words directed at them to be a horrible tragedy that demoralizes their whole sense of self worth. I PERSONALLY(I love that word. Im always surprised though how many people wish to argue about a personal opinion being wrong and somehow you're not entitled to it) I PERSONALLY don't think the forums should be a "safe place". Some will actually discuss. Some will troll. Some will be jerks. But anything short of the subjects I mentioned (threats, racial/gender slurs, real world topics, etc) shouldnt waste a mods time. That would rectify their 3strikes you're out rule as well(or however many you get) post how you like. Just don't be a threatening, racist, gender bashing jerk shoving religion and politics down people's throats and you're good. Anything else handle it like you would were it a verbal discussion among adults. Again though, that's my PERSONAL opinion and doesn't take some people's sensitivities to mean words in account.

FeedbackOnly

Lumenn wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time.

Stick in the mud may be minor to some, but elicit a strong reaction in others. We are here to discuss the game in a mature and civil manner and that does not include insulting each other.

The problem is the punishment does not fit the crime. Snipping the insult and warning the poster should suffice in most cases. If this doesn't help and the poster continues to insult others, then look at a temporary suspension.

But we are losing a lot of long time posters because the longer a poster has been active and the more posts they have made, the more likely they are to have picked up a few infractions along the way. Giving out final warnings after 2 infractions is beyond heavy handed. It only considers the infractions, many of which are minor, and completely ignores how productive the poster has been, for years in many cases.

??? As I said, my views arent in line with everyone's sensitivities. Should you curse and name call, I'll simply assume you're not adult enough to discuss with. I fully understand many find mean words directed at them to be a horrible tragedy that demoralizes their whole sense of self worth. I PERSONALLY(I love that word. Im always surprised though how many people wish to argue about a personal opinion being wrong and somehow you're not entitled to it) I PERSONALLY don't think the forums should be a "safe place". Some will actually discuss. Some will troll. Some will be jerks. But anything short of the subjects I mentioned (threats, racial/gender slurs, real world topics, etc) shouldnt waste a mods time. That would rectify their 3strikes you're out rule as well(or however many you get) post how you like. Just don't be a threatening, racist, gender bashing jerk shoving religion and politics down people's throats and you're good. Anything else handle it like you would were it a verbal discussion among adults. Again though, that's my PERSONAL opinion and doesn't take some people's sensitivities to mean words in account.

I can nod my head partially to this too. This is my side I expressed earlier on some things don't deserve moderation in the first place.

It's hard to find that middle ground, but thinking about this part is important too while developing the future healthy and trusting community

Most important thing is permanent bans aren't okay for minor things. Its what has gotten us here

Lumenn

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm on the fence about name calling. Racial slurs and the like have no place here,(unless you're calling my argonian a handbag. ) But saying someone is a stick in the mud,(to use an earlier example) shouldn't be worth a mods time.

Stick in the mud may be minor to some, but elicit a strong reaction in others. We are here to discuss the game in a mature and civil manner and that does not include insulting each other.

The problem is the punishment does not fit the crime. Snipping the insult and warning the poster should suffice in most cases. If this doesn't help and the poster continues to insult others, then look at a temporary suspension.

But we are losing a lot of long time posters because the longer a poster has been active and the more posts they have made, the more likely they are to have picked up a few infractions along the way. Giving out final warnings after 2 infractions is beyond heavy handed. It only considers the infractions, many of which are minor, and completely ignores how productive the poster has been, for years in many cases.

??? As I said, my views arent in line with everyone's sensitivities. Should you curse and name call, I'll simply assume you're not adult enough to discuss with. I fully understand many find mean words directed at them to be a horrible tragedy that demoralizes their whole sense of self worth. I PERSONALLY(I love that word. Im always surprised though how many people wish to argue about a personal opinion being wrong and somehow you're not entitled to it) I PERSONALLY don't think the forums should be a "safe place". Some will actually discuss. Some will troll. Some will be jerks. But anything short of the subjects I mentioned (threats, racial/gender slurs, real world topics, etc) shouldnt waste a mods time. That would rectify their 3strikes you're out rule as well(or however many you get) post how you like. Just don't be a threatening, racist, gender bashing jerk shoving religion and politics down people's throats and you're good. Anything else handle it like you would were it a verbal discussion among adults. Again though, that's my PERSONAL opinion and doesn't take some people's sensitivities to mean words in account.

I can nod my head partially to this too. This is my side I expressed earlier on some things don't deserve moderation in the first place.

It's hard to find that middle ground, but thinking about this part is important too while developing the future healthy and trusting community

Most important thing is permanent bans aren't okay for minor things. Its what has gotten us here

On this we're all in agreement

spartaxoxo

I personally think that insulting someone is worse than discussing somewhat political things, as long as those things stay within the Elder Scrolls and not the world as a whole. For example, someone wanting to add more male companions because they feel the gender representation of them is unfair should be an acceptable topic.

To me, discussing all aspects of the game is what is acceptable. What is not acceptable is name calling or spending too much of a post discussing another player.

We aren't here to discuss your opinion of Y player, we are here to discuss Elder Scrolls. And yes this should be a safe space to discuss ESO, so that players with all different opinions can offer them without the chilling effect on speech that constantly being insulted for your opinion can have. If you want banter, do it in the game with participants who are also just gaming and not trying to say anything they find important for the game.

Lumenn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think that insulting someone is worse than discussing somewhat political things, as long as those things stay within the Elder Scrolls and not the world as a whole. For example, someone wanting to add more male companions because they feel the gender representation of them is unfair should be an acceptable topic.

I'm not sure I would count that as politics. EP vs AD yes, but I understand what you're saying. (Like I personally was upset that our companions weren't argonian. I don't think they're represented well in the game. But I'm biased) that's why in my 1st post 2nd paragraph I said

Lumenn wrote: »

Keep it game related obviously.

FeedbackOnly

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think that insulting someone is worse than discussing somewhat political things, as long as those things stay within the Elder Scrolls and not the world as a whole. For example, someone wanting to add more male companions because they feel the gender representation of them is unfair should be an acceptable topic.

To me, discussing all aspects of the game is what is acceptable. What is not acceptable is name calling or spending too much of a post discussing another player.

We aren't here to discuss your opinion of Y player, we are here to discuss Elder Scrolls.

Honestly neither side on this part will agree. Some us think we're shouldn't be reported ever little thing while others do.

There's no wrong answer, because in both cases we are imagining different circumstances. We also have different thoughts on what's appropriate.

We do have to tone something down though. Our current circumstances aren't healthy, though neither was toxic forums before now too.

I wish the moderation luck in finding balance. I thank them in listening and giving us a chance to talk about this problem, because outside the forums zos is often sneered at and comments are don't report this because they don't care or be careful because you be banned. They give a lot of personal examples too not that just the famous ones

spartaxoxo

Lumenn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think that insulting someone is worse than discussing somewhat political things, as long as those things stay within the Elder Scrolls and not the world as a whole. For example, someone wanting to add more male companions because they feel the gender representation of them is unfair should be an acceptable topic.

I'm not sure I would count that as politics. EP vs AD yes, but I understand what you're saying. (Like I personally was upset that our companions weren't argonian. I don't think they're represented well in the game. But I'm biased) that's why in my 1st post 2nd paragraph I said

Lumenn wrote: »

Keep it game related obviously.

Gender (and other types of) representation in games is actually something that very often gets quickly slapped with the politics label even when people take great effort to make it game related. The mods are quick to shut such discussions down the second even the tiniest most tangential statement is made during them because it's considered a political discussion. I don't think that's fair personally, because people should be able to discuss any aspect of the game as long as the conversation doesn't center around the real world.

Lumenn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think that insulting someone is worse than discussing somewhat political things, as long as those things stay within the Elder Scrolls and not the world as a whole. For example, someone wanting to add more male companions because they feel the gender representation of them is unfair should be an acceptable topic.

I'm not sure I would count that as politics. EP vs AD yes, but I understand what you're saying. (Like I personally was upset that our companions weren't argonian. I don't think they're represented well in the game. But I'm biased) that's why in my 1st post 2nd paragraph I said

Lumenn wrote: »

Keep it game related obviously.

Gender (and other types of) representation in games is actually something that very often gets quickly slapped with the politics label even when people take great effort to make it game related. The mods are quick to shut such discussions down the second even the tiniest most tangential statement is made during them because it's considered a political discussion. I don't think that's fair personally, because people should be able to discuss any aspect of the game as long as the conversation doesn't center around the real world.

I agree with you completely. If it's game related, it should be allowed, as long as it's not tied in with real world(I.E. "just like in the real world, women in AD are mistreated") and our game world is huge, with enough lore and life for its own political, socioeconomic, gender, and racial discussions. I can see the discussions getting heated at times, as some are passionate about the game(I personally have had several discussions with friends regarding lore. And if my posts haven't tipped you off, I can be long-winded.) But it should certainly be allowed. And could be considered political in a broad aspect (I just tend to get technical at times and love a good debate. It keeps the mind sharp!)

Jaimeh

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, we wanted to follow up on the post here and the general sentiment about asking/discussing PvP in chat during livestreams. We agree that noting terms like "PvP" and "Cyrodiil" should not be timed out when players ask or referenced the topic in our livestream chat. The moderation shown in the clip was a bit heavy-handed. We have talked about this internally, updated our moderation training, and made sure everyone is clear that conversations around core functions of our game, like PvP, should not be timed out or banned.

The bigger question was why did the moderators reacted so strongly to these terms only, was there a previous memo because of what happened with Rich Lambert's stream, where the PvP community was made fun of, and the backlash that followed? It seems strange to hold an entire internal discussion for not banning mentions of core terms of the game, something which should be self-evident. In any case, thanks for the update.

Lumenn

@ZOS_Kevin I have a question, and I don't THINK it would break any company rules for you to disclose the answer as anyone applying for work would be told, but as always it's up to yourself and your supervisors.

What are the rules regarding mods with a personal account on the forums? Do they have to disclose that information to Zos, and if so, are there consequences to say, not disclosing or actively hiding such an account? What steps are taken to ensure impartiality? I've worked in situations where company management are not even allowed to have hourly associates or lower ranking salary on their social media, and any breach is considered an instant terminating offense, even hidden accounts should they be found out. If mods ARE allowed their own account, what steps does Zos take to ensure that this person we disagree with today will be impartial in their role tomorrow. Or is it just honor system?

Gaeliannas

Not to change the discussion, but my personal favorite is when someone gets perma-banned for posting a "Conspiracy Theory" about the game. I have seen and know a folks that has happened to. How is this even a thing, there are basically three possibilities from someone posting a theory about how things are...

1. They are way off base.
2. They are partially correct.
3. They nailed it.

Which of these results in being banned for spreading a conspiracy theory? Because looking around it is obviously not all three.

Now the crux of the matter, a theory is just a discussion of possibilities among folks. Someone posts a theory on why they think something is the way it is, and the debate begins. This is a healthy activity, debating subjects, it starts in grade school and carries throughout life. It spurs thought, creativity and opens ones mind to new ways of thought. Why is this a bannable offense? Better yet, what turns a working theory/discussion into an evil "Conspiracy Theory"?

You would think those falling under #1 would be the conspiracy theorists (by definition), but it seems the ones whose posts look to fall under #2-3, and present well thought out arguments are the ones I never see post again. Regardless though, wouldn't ZOS just chiming in and setting the record straight on a discussion be more reasonable, than perma-banning someone for having a thought, thus also suppressing future posters who may also have thoughts, but are now in fear of sharing them?

SilverBride

Lumenn wrote: »

I PERSONALLY don't think the forums should be a "safe place". Some will actually discuss. Some will troll. Some will be jerks. But anything short of the subjects I mentioned (threats, racial/gender slurs, real world topics, etc) shouldnt waste a mods time.

Community rules need a clear impartial standard that posters are expected to meet. Name calling is not appropriate regardless of what the name is.

However the punishment needs to fit the crime and with the current system it doesn't.

spartaxoxo

Jaimeh wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, we wanted to follow up on the post here and the general sentiment about asking/discussing PvP in chat during livestreams. We agree that noting terms like "PvP" and "Cyrodiil" should not be timed out when players ask or referenced the topic in our livestream chat. The moderation shown in the clip was a bit heavy-handed. We have talked about this internally, updated our moderation training, and made sure everyone is clear that conversations around core functions of our game, like PvP, should not be timed out or banned.

The bigger question was why did the moderators reacted so strongly to these terms only, was there a previous memo because of what happened with Rich Lambert's stream, where the PvP community was made fun of, and the backlash that followed? It seems strange to hold an entire internal discussion for not banning mentions of core terms of the game, something which should be self-evident. In any case, thanks for the update.

There's been some pvpers that have been spamming streams for a while now asking about PvP. It's what lead to that comment in the first place. In their zeal to get rid of the spam so more topics than pvp could be discussed though, they overcorrected and also started banning completely innocent and normal questions about pvp that weren't being spammed or disrespectful.

Gaeliannas

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, we wanted to follow up on the post here and the general sentiment about asking/discussing PvP in chat during livestreams. We agree that noting terms like "PvP" and "Cyrodiil" should not be timed out when players ask or referenced the topic in our livestream chat. The moderation shown in the clip was a bit heavy-handed. We have talked about this internally, updated our moderation training, and made sure everyone is clear that conversations around core functions of our game, like PvP, should not be timed out or banned.

The bigger question was why did the moderators reacted so strongly to these terms only, was there a previous memo because of what happened with Rich Lambert's stream, where the PvP community was made fun of, and the backlash that followed? It seems strange to hold an entire internal discussion for not banning mentions of core terms of the game, something which should be self-evident. In any case, thanks for the update.

There's been some pvpers that have been spamming streams for a while now asking about PvP. It's what lead to that comment in the first place. In their zeal to get rid of the spam so more topics than pvp could be discussed though, they overcorrected and also started banning completely innocent and normal questions about pvp that weren't being spammed or disrespectful.

Well that was kind of self inflicted by ZOS. You don't pin a post saying you are going to do this that and the other things for PVP, then go silent for months, all while not delivering on any of what you mentioned. This will obviously prompt people to inquire rather rigorously, as the silence on the matter continues.

Jaraal

Gaeliannas wrote: »

Not to change the discussion, but my personal favorite is when someone gets perma-banned for posting a "Conspiracy Theory" about the game. I have seen and know a folks that has happened to. How is this even a thing, there are basically three possibilities from someone posting a theory about how things are...

1. They are way off base.
2. They are partially correct.
3. They nailed it.

Which of these results in being banned for spreading a conspiracy theory? Because looking around it is obviously not all three.

Now the crux of the matter, a theory is just a discussion of possibilities among folks. Someone posts a theory on why they think something is the way it is, and the debate begins. This is a healthy activity, debating subjects, it starts in grade school and carries throughout life. It spurs thought, creativity and opens ones mind to new ways of thought. Why is this a bannable offense? Better yet, what turns a working theory/discussion into an evil "Conspiracy Theory"?

You would think those falling under #1 would be the conspiracy theorists (by definition), but it seems the ones whose posts look to fall under #2-3, and present well thought out arguments are the ones I never see post again. Regardless though, wouldn't ZOS just chiming in and setting the record straight on a discussion be more reasonable, than perma-banning someone for having a thought, thus also suppressing future posters who may also have thoughts, but are now in fear of sharing them?

This reminds me of the time when they made Rapid Maneuvers harder to get, but at the same time introduced Alliance War skill line XP scrolls to the Crown Store and put Crown riding lessons on sale. [snip] Now, one would think that the concept of a for-profit corporation like Zenimax would be widely accepted, and that their primary reason for existing is to make money for their ownership and shareholders. [snip] Of course, they ended up making Major Gallop a passive after the intense blowback from the community, but is it really any sort of threat to a company's reputation to discuss potential revenue sourcing?

[edited for discussing moderator action]

Gaeliannas

Jaraal wrote: »

Gaeliannas wrote: »

Not to change the discussion, but my personal favorite is when someone gets perma-banned for posting a "Conspiracy Theory" about the game. I have seen and know a folks that has happened to. How is this even a thing, there are basically three possibilities from someone posting a theory about how things are...

1. They are way off base.
2. They are partially correct.
3. They nailed it.

Which of these results in being banned for spreading a conspiracy theory? Because looking around it is obviously not all three.

Now the crux of the matter, a theory is just a discussion of possibilities among folks. Someone posts a theory on why they think something is the way it is, and the debate begins. This is a healthy activity, debating subjects, it starts in grade school and carries throughout life. It spurs thought, creativity and opens ones mind to new ways of thought. Why is this a bannable offense? Better yet, what turns a working theory/discussion into an evil "Conspiracy Theory"?

You would think those falling under #1 would be the conspiracy theorists (by definition), but it seems the ones whose posts look to fall under #2-3, and present well thought out arguments are the ones I never see post again. Regardless though, wouldn't ZOS just chiming in and setting the record straight on a discussion be more reasonable, than perma-banning someone for having a thought, thus also suppressing future posters who may also have thoughts, but are now in fear of sharing them?

This reminds me of the time when they made Rapid Maneuvers harder to get, but at the same time introduced Alliance War skill line XP scrolls to the Crown Store and put Crown riding lessons on sale. [snip] Now, one would think that the concept of a for-profit corporation like Zenimax would be widely accepted, and that their primary reason for existing is to make money for their ownership and shareholders. [snip] Of course, they ended up making Major Gallop a passive after the intense blowback from the community, but is it really any sort of threat to a company's reputation to discuss potential revenue sourcing?

Like I said, it seems to be the folks who hit what appears to be close to the mark, that get actioned. Much like the question of why has Cyrodiil performance decreased steadily with the release of every new DLC, and why suddenly did it return, when the new hardware was to have no effect on performance? (and didn't in PVE) I pretty much think I know the answer (and have all along), but even discussing it would get me banned most likely, so there you have it.

[edited to remove quote]

Lumenn

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I PERSONALLY don't think the forums should be a "safe place". Some will actually discuss. Some will troll. Some will be jerks. But anything short of the subjects I mentioned (threats, racial/gender slurs, real world topics, etc) shouldnt waste a mods time.

Community rules need a clear impartial standard that posters are expected to meet. Name calling is not appropriate regardless of what the name is.

However the punishment needs to fit the crime and with the current system it doesn't.

Sigh. As I said. Again. And again. My personal opinion. MY clear standards would be racial/gender/religion and political slurs and the like. Keep it game related. I've stated it's my OPINION many times and have never stated it as unquestionable fact. You're appropriate and mine don't match and I get that. Mean words, anything from cursing to kindergarten insults, send some people into fits and they can't tolerate it. Cool beans. Your clear standards would have mods chasing everything, while mine are more in line with hate speech only. My opinion.Yet you keep quoting me with the same thing over and over like you'll change my opinion or I'm not allowed to have one. End of the day you have yours, I have mine and it's a beautiful world. Hope you have a wonderful day.