cpuScientist wrote: »LOL they would not sticky the hacking problem. They want that to slowly fade away so they don't have to face the reality of the situation.
Thanks for this thread, AlanG. Sorry that you and @ZOS_DaryaK had such a wretched time policing this place over the weekend.We agree. Unfortunately a proper fix to the system will require a fair amount of work, so it isn't easy to implement.Moonscythe wrote: »I would love to see a colour variation in the Z to signal whether there has been an answer or response to the discussion as opposed to just the "Keep it civil" or "thanks for bringing this to our attention" notice.
Hi guys, this thread was written with a focus on promoting constructive discussion among players. While we don't mind requests to have mod developer interaction, this is somewhat tangential and we don't want this to get off track.
For the moderators, enforcing the rules to remove problems is important, but a short term solution. Explaining why the rules are in place, and getting people invested in the community, helps in the long term. This thread was written, in part, to help with this goal. It is not only a means of being preemptive, but the moderators can also direct people too it to help put the rules in context.This is a good question. To be insta-banned for a single offence you typically have to do something illegal. This has always been the case, but we wanted to spell it out here - we should have been more clear.sooooo just to get that straight if we make a critical post about the game which you think is egregious bashing we can get a instant perma ban?
Hi guys, please do not use this thread simply to complain about the game itself. Additionally, please keep criticism constructive. Some posts have been removed.We agree. Unfortunately a proper fix to the system will require a fair amount of work, so it isn't easy to implement.Moonscythe wrote: »I would love to see a colour variation in the Z to signal whether there has been an answer or response to the discussion as opposed to just the "Keep it civil" or "thanks for bringing this to our attention" notice.Consistency is very important, but we don't see every post. We may moderate a post without realizing there are similar posts elsewhere, particularly for a fast-moving thread. If we action someone, and they let us know there are similar discussions happening elsewhere we'll probably look favorably on that, particularly if links are provided.One thing I noticed recently regarding ZOS interactions was there was some lack of consistency in what was we were allowed to say/post between threads.
For an example there were two threads where myself and others had been discussing exploits and been very critical and spoken openly (without revealing details) about exploits. In those threads I was posting all of this but when I moved to another new thread and posted the same things I was moderated for it.In my experience stickying something is often the best way to get it ignored. A lot of people get so used to looking past the pinned threads they don't notice when a new one is there. Having lots of pinned threads tends to make this worse.Something I think that would help with keeping duplicate threads from popping up whenever some big issue blows up - post a sticky for it.Let me reach out to you via PM to discuss when this happened and who you reached out to.Well, the one time I tried to appeal a mod's decision by PM, he refused to answer.
So, ZOS_AlanG, if Zenimax is serious about opening communication channels I'd love to see it.
That's an excellent rule of thumb.I think if people just remember to discuss the point and not the person making the point, it is pretty easy to have a good debate on things.We can look at forum usage, and ways to improve/consolidate the structure. The goal with moving threads is to make it easier to find pertinent information, and reduce the amount of duplication that can occur when a single topic is being discussed in several places. We don't want people to feel exiled to unused corners of the forums, although in some cases we may need to encourage posting in some areas. Balance discussion is a good example of this.If people aren't using certain boards in the forum to post topics consider removing those boards. Seriously, why are there boards concerning zones/quests, and do we really need 4 of them? If people want fast solutions they'd be better off Googling it (and Im sure they do already). And 3 boards concerning PvP, really? One would suffice... Meanwhile, you don't have boards for each individual class to discuss builds and abilities.... Bottom line, less is more. Keep fewer boards with a larger concentration of quality content.This is a good suggestion, but not something we can currently enable. If you look at your profile there should be a moderation tab you can go to that lists official warnings, but typically suspensions were not issued with the warning system so they won't show up. We'll see what we can do to better communicate this, and in the meantime we'll make sure to tell people when they're on their last warning.Please make the current number of strikes visible to us, in the sense that each of us can see only our own.
Certainly. With criticism and other "negative" discussion, I'd recommend keeping the following things in mind:Ourorboros wrote: »Sure would like a better explanation of the difference between constructive criticism and bashing of the game and company. Am I bashing if I offer the opinion that crown store items are a bad value? Can I say it's unethical for game changes to make it very difficult to find crown store items that are also in game, regardless of whether it's a legitimate business practice? What's the line that makes it bashing when complaining about how the customer base is treated by the company?
When actioning an account, we will check one's moderation history, and may weigh the age of past infractions when deciding what to do. However this depends on a variety of factors, such as the severity of the offenses, and whether you've been previously warned for the same thing.I understand a 3 strike type rule as well as the idea that some crimes are so bad that life without the possibility of posting is warranted... but I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on a minor infraction?
We'd certainly like the ability to separate moderation from general staff responses, and possibly also differentiate staff support. Given the complexity involved in expanding the existing feature to handle this, it's not something we can easily or quickly enable.I am thoroughly in favour of a change to the Z colour so we can see whether a thread has "just" been moderated or actively answered.
The search function right now will look up content in posts. While you can't limit by a specific thread, you can limit the forum it searches in, who posted it, and/or provide a time frame for results. After preforming the search, click the large triangle on the right side of the search bar to toggle open the advanced search options.While we/you are suggesting redesigns to the forum, would it be possible to get an option to search by post rather than by thread? I was looking for a post which I know is in the ZOS how are we as a community dealing with exploits/hacking? thread, but it was by a player rather than a ZOS employee, so I can't use the Dev Tracker to find it. With 22 pages in that thread, it's going to take me a while to read the whole thing to find one post.
I responded to a similar question here. The focus of this thread is on promoting constructive discussion within the community, and to provide additional context for the rules. It's fine for people to request additional staff discussion, but this is outside the intended scope of the thread and we ask that the discussion not be taken far off track.Funny thing how you answered to several posts, but not once addressed posts regarding Zenimax's lack of transparency and useful presence in their Forums, which the majority of the community agrees, is precisely what drives threads to becoming toxic.
I responded to a similar question here. The focus of this thread is on promoting constructive discussion within the community, and to provide additional context for the rules. It's fine for people to request additional staff discussion, but this is outside the intended scope of the thread and we ask that the discussion not be taken far off track.
I responded to a similar question here. The focus of this thread is on promoting constructive discussion within the community, and to provide additional context for the rules. It's fine for people to request additional staff discussion, but this is outside the intended scope of the thread and we ask that the discussion not be taken far off track.
I thought this topic was about discussing rules and the levels of toxicity and frustration in the Forums. Are you saying you believe there is no correlation between those problems and the lack of Dev / Community Admin presence in the forum?
This thread has been left open to discuss means of promoting constructive discussion, and forum moderation. Please do not use this thread to discuss the game or provide feedback. Several posts have been removed.
Additionally, if you have questions about your specific moderation history, we ask that you PM a moderator or submit a support ticket. Please do not post such questions on this thread.
I thought this topic was about discussing rules and the levels of toxicity and frustration in the Forums. Are you saying you believe there is no correlation between those problems and the lack of Dev / Community Admin presence in the forum?
The purpose of this thread is to provide context to the rules and discuss how to keep conversations civil and constructive. Staff engagement can certainly promote positivity and constructive discussion, but is isn't required. And plenty of discussions on these forums maintain civil and constructive discussions of the game without any staff posts.r.jan_emailb16_ESO wrote: »Pro tip: constructive discussions need someone that can make decisions/post real answers from YOUR side to be active on the forums. The general impression that we, the players, get is that you have some rather active community managers, but that's about it. We can post about whatever we want, it's just ignored all the way.
Since moderation is kept private, we can't say whether we actioned other people, even if several are involved in the same fight.Its hard sometimes to respond with an olive branch of kindness when someone calls you names,insults you,and your opinion.This happens a lot in the forums without anyone getting reprimanded.However,if WE respond heatedly,we are given warnings,or banned,..with OUR comments being removed and NOT the other comments that caused the quarrel.
Where is the consistency?
We have not changed the rules, nor are we changing our enforcement beyond increasing the strike system.dap_robertb16_ESO wrote: »You do not get to promote constructive discussion or moderation when you have mods with free will, personal viewpoints and different interpretations or forum rules.
Either conduct an internal review of your forum moderation policies, procedures and processes or maintain the current 'hands off parenting' approach you have now.
Agreed!Roehamad_Ali wrote: »What helps me is keeping in mind there's a person behind each profile . A person with a whole story longer then any written game lore , with ups and downs , success and failures . All of Us come here to escape some of that and relax .
Since most of us only read the General Discussion, a lot of us only post in General Discussion,.
Comments like this are against the rules. If you see them, please report them.One thing I would really like to see from the community and maybe the moderators is to cut out the comments asking for people to lose their jobs.
That can be true but it depends on what posters expect. When console players began flooding the forums with vamp/werewolf bite requests, you guys made official threads for it and kept closing new threads/redirecting people until the lesson sunk in. The same can be true with either sticky threads or with a ZOS-approved "thread for all" on a topic. Either way the chosen thread could have a unique symbol/graphic next to it or even a different colored text for the title.In my experience stickying something is often the best way to get it ignored. A lot of people get so used to looking past the pinned threads they don't notice when a new one is there. Having lots of pinned threads tends to make this worse.
We'd certainly like the ability to separate moderation from general staff responses, and possibly also differentiate staff support. Given the complexity involved in expanding the existing feature to handle this, it's not something we can easily or quickly enable.I am thoroughly in favour of a change to the Z colour so we can see whether a thread has "just" been moderated or actively answered.
This is true. It is expected, particularly with a fan-base passionate about the game, that conversations will occasionally stray beyond the acceptable. It's also why we have a team of moderators, and why we don't ban accounts on a single offence. As much as possible, we want to try and educate people for this very reason, and that's also the purpose of this thread.It seems to me that in encouraging open, honest and frank discussion throughout the forums, with no desire to quieten any particular topic, an environment has been created in which discussion can quickly turn non-constructive. This isn't a criticism of the environment, it is simply an observation. But, sadly, there is an inevitability about it all. By extending this freedom to users of the forums and accepting that disagreements and slightly heated, but passionate debates can be useful - both to you, and to us - such freedom will continue to create scenarios where people occasionally stray too far across that line where moderators feel the need to step in.
I don't believe allowing the public shaming of people believed to be causing problems would result in much constructive discussion. In fact, even with the rule in place we've removed a lot of naming and shaming that was erroneous. This tends to escalate quickly, rather than keeping the discussion even-tempered and constructive.Furthermore, many of the moderator rules do little to actually foster important discussion. Naming and shaming with regards to your current exploit fiasco would be the first case I'd point to. Moderators frequently cite issues as 'baiting' but cherry pick which posts in a long list they consider baiting. In actuality, baiting would cover a huge percentage of posts on these forums, and this plays into the multiple points raised so far in this thread regarding your moderator consistency.
Spiderman memes were being used specifically to cause problems for a while, but generally any thread that devolves into a list of memes has gone off topic and needs to be cleaned up.Threads have been shut down for including spiderman themed memes, all other memes are fine, but not spiderman ones because moderators don't understand their own rules. Threads are edited/removed because the topic was on firor's interview and his name was in the title. Players on the PTS were warned about divulging exploits because they included a video of how every gap closer was bugged. I could go on and on with examples, but it's hysterical that you expect people to respect the rules when you guys don't even seem to understand them.
We actually have a solution outlined, but implementing it requires arranging the time to develop and test it, which is resource-intensive. This being said, if anyone has alternative solutions we're happy to hear them.Can we have the hot, dirty nerd details on why this is so hard? There are plenty of forum administrators in your player base - perhaps they can identify a solution for you.