Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
A Plan and Method for Stopping ESO Threads From Being Derailed and Closed
DoctorESO
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
✭✭
A lot of the threads on these forums become derailed and closed due to passionate posters letting their emotions get the best of them and hurling personal insults at those who disagree. Regardless of how passionate they are and how much they disagree with others, people should debate the issues on the merits instead of making personal attacks on other posters.
A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.
Under my rudimentary, undeveloped system, people would report comments to moderators. There would be some automated tally of demerits, perhaps by moderators clicking a button in a post. Demerits could even be visible. Posting suspensions would be done automatically upon a certain number of demerits being reached. No ifs, ands, or buts. Strict liability and transparent, uniform application across the board. This system, which focuses on ad hominem attacks only, would be separate from the current disciplinary system.
For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Here's an example from a sitcom:
Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?
Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.
Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!
Edited by DoctorESO on May 8, 2018 3:01AM A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.
Under my rudimentary, undeveloped system, people would report comments to moderators. There would be some automated tally of demerits, perhaps by moderators clicking a button in a post. Demerits could even be visible. Posting suspensions would be done automatically upon a certain number of demerits being reached. No ifs, ands, or buts. Strict liability and transparent, uniform application across the board. This system, which focuses on ad hominem attacks only, would be separate from the current disciplinary system.
For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Here's an example from a sitcom:
Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?
Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.
Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!
4
-
Aliyavana✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I really hate how the argonians derailed and got my thread to be closed. It was simply to warn summerset of the argonian threat.Edited by Aliyavana on May 8, 2018 1:14AM20 -
Knowledge✭✭✭✭✭
✭I feel like I would benefit from this demerit system because a lot of people attack me and hurt my feelings.8 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.8 -
Knowledge✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.
But then they keep going.Edited by Knowledge on May 8, 2018 1:21AM3 -
Rohamad_Ali✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭That is already a forum rule . Just happens as more people join or buy new accounts after bans . I agree we should always debate the topic and not the people .1 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to be enough. There's no tally system, and some people (rightfully) don't get disciplined for making a minor ad hominem attack. Not trying to get people warned, banned, or in trouble - just trying to get them to focus on debating the issues instead of ad hominem attacks. A demerit system could be separate from the disciplinary system.Edited by DoctorESO on May 8, 2018 1:28AM0 -
Ragged_Claw✭✭✭✭✭
✭You make an excellent point, but I think the problem is, as you've said, this would need more work on ZoS's part. Also if they suspended people, they could face a backlash and the old argument about what constitues 'free-speech'. I'm assuming it is simpler for them to just shut down a thread rather than wade through who said what, or who started it. Doesn't make it right of course. I would assume that if a person routinely leaves personal and insulting posts they could be banned altogether? I like the demerit idea though, but I could see it being a bit of a nightmare for the mods. Image all the salty tears they would have to wade through.PC EU & NA0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Ragged_Claw wrote: »You make an excellent point, but I think the problem is, as you've said, this would need more work on ZoS's part. Also if they suspended people, they could face a backlash and the old argument about what constitues 'free-speech'. I'm assuming it is simpler for them to just shut down a thread rather than wade through who said what, or who started it. Doesn't make it right of course. I would assume that if a person routinely leaves personal and insulting posts they could be banned altogether? I like the demerit idea though, but I could see it being a bit of a nightmare for the mods. Image all the salty tears they would have to wade through.
Yes, great points.0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to be enough. There's no tally system, and some people (rightfully) don't get disciplined for making a minor ad hominem attack.
So under your system, comments get reported (my advice) and then the devs keep a tally of how many comments have gotten moderated and take away chat privileges accordingly?
A) the devs probably have something like that already, they just have different priorities for what gets disciplined than you do.
B.) If you want this for comments, I'd like a corresponding system for the devs to give demerits to posters of bait threads, etc.6 -
phermitgb✭✭✭✭✭honestly, wouldn't it just be BETTER if people that post on the forums exercised some self control, rather than creating an externalized system to FORCE them to behave after a certain quantity of anti-social behavior?
Don't get me wrong, obviously, I'm asking a rhetorical question, but it's still a question I have...why can't we just behave with a little more self control?
that's not directed at anyone in particular in this thread, so much as at people on the internet in general..."There is no correct resolution; It's a test of character."
James T. Kirk1 -
Jayman1000✭✭✭✭✭
✭But how would this "demerit" system work in detail? Who gives demerits to the users? Other users? If that is the case it's gonna be completely cancerous abusive system a la reddit were you'll get downvoted, sorry "demerited", for not having the correct opinion. I don't see how a demerit system can work in any way honestly.
If demerits are given by ZOS moderators that sounds 1) like a lot of work and 2) users will feel targeted personally by zos, and many will feel it unfairly demerited. So a lot of negativity for a lot of work. Sounds like a lose-lose situation.Edited by Jayman1000 on May 8, 2018 1:42AM6 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes but free speech agrument. This would be hard.
Free Speech 1st Amedment style doesn't apply to a private forum. We agree to abide by the Community Rules here on the forums.
Thats why my suggestion is to report comments that violate those community rules with derailing and personal attacks.
ZOS generally doesnt talk about their discipline, so I'm making an assumption they have some system of dealing with people who persistently get reported for breaking the community rules. However, given that evidence demonstrates they don't generally take away chat privileges temporarily or period for the sort of derailing and personal attacks peope are complaining about here, I suspect that system is used for more serious infractions.4 -
Sheezabeast✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭They could make it where we could down-vote comments on threads, that may help a little.Grand Master Crafter, Beta baby who grew with the game. PC/NA. @Sheezabeast if you have crafting needs!0 -
Jayman1000✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »
It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?
5 -
DarcyMardin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The forum is fine. Most people are courteous and the ones who aren’t are quickly recognized (I just stop reading posts from certain people). ZOS moderates without too heavy a hand, in my opinion.
There is always occasional drama on Internet forums...it’s in the nature of the beast. But this one remains pretty civilized, as gaming forums go.3 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to be enough. There's no tally system, and some people (rightfully) don't get disciplined for making a minor ad hominem attack.
So under your system, comments get reported (my advice) and then the devs keep a tally of how many comments have gotten moderated and take away chat privileges accordingly?
A) the devs probably have something like that already, they just have different priorities for what gets disciplined than you do.
B.) If you want this for comments, I'd like a corresponding system for the devs to give demerits to posters of bait threads, etc.
Under my rudimentary, undeveloped system, yes, people would report comments. There would be some automated tally of demerits, perhaps by developers clicking a button in a post. Demerits could even be visible. Posting suspensions would be done automatically upon a certain number of demerits being reached. No ifs, ands, or buts. Strict liability and transparent, uniform application across the board. This system, which focuses on ad hominem attacks only, would be separate from the current disciplinary system.
I understand the concern about "bait threads" and so on, but, in my humble opinion, it's really the ad hominem attacks in those bait threads (and other threads) that cause a lot of issues. We should be able to civilly debate any topic, whether some consider it "bait" or not.0 -
Jayman1000✭✭✭✭✭
✭Sheezabeast wrote: »They could make it where we could down-vote comments on threads, that may help a little.
I would oppose that because I believe it will lead to people downvoting posts just because they don't agree, or they may have a personal grudge against the poster. This is something reddit suffers heavily from, and it can't be solved. With downvotes comes massive abusive usage for a ton of other reasons than what was intended.3 -
Aliyavana✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sheezabeast wrote: »They could make it where we could down-vote comments on threads, that may help a little.
As long as they provide a reasoning0 -
Azuramoonstar✭✭✭✭Jayman1000 wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?
i know I wouldn't it sucks to have autism and people misunderstand posts or twist them and/or cherry pick them to make you out to be the bad guy. I've been perma ban from the ff14 forums over misunderstandings, due to my blunt posting.
The forums are the only way in ff14 to post bug reports, so when you are perma ban, you can't really report bugs. I think ZoS does a decent job as removing really bad posts. I had a few 1 post last year get flagged, and when I questioned it, the ZoS person kindly explained what My post did wrong.
I have done/try to do better to keep my posts civil. I rather not see the "safe space" mentality that people are free to say anything, but immune to critiquing by others. Yes keep debates civil, but we should be able to call others out for bs, when they try to give it.Long time mmo player: 2004-[current year]
Long time Elder scrolls player: Xbox launch morrowind.
Follower of the dawn and dusk, keeper of the moon and star.3 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Jayman1000 wrote: »Sheezabeast wrote: »They could make it where we could down-vote comments on threads, that may help a little.
I would oppose that because I believe it will lead to people downvoting posts just because they don't agree, or they may have a personal grudge against the poster. This is something reddit suffers heavily from, and it can't be solved. With downvotes comes massive abusive usage for a ton of other reasons than what was intended.
Yes, I'd be afraid of that as well. We used to have a LOL reaction button (in addition to agree, insightful, and awesome), but that was removed because people were using it like a downvote button and as a way to ridicule others.1 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Azuramoonstar wrote: »Jayman1000 wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?
i know I wouldn't it sucks to have autism and people misunderstand posts or twist them and/or cherry pick them to make you out to be the bad guy. I've been perma ban from the ff14 forums over misunderstandings, due to my blunt posting.
The forums are the only way in ff14 to post bug reports, so when you are perma ban, you can't really report bugs. I think ZoS does a decent job as removing really bad posts. I had a few 1 post last year get flagged, and when I questioned it, the ZoS person kindly explained what My post did wrong.
I have done/try to do better to keep my posts civil. I rather not see the "safe space" mentality that people are free to say anything, but immune to critiquing by others. Yes keep debates civil, but we should be able to call others out for bs, when they try to give it.
I would say not to "call others out for [snip]," but to focus on the logic/reasoning behind the statement made by the person.
[edited for profanity bypass]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 30, 2025 7:57PM0 -
Azuramoonstar✭✭✭✭Azuramoonstar wrote: »Jayman1000 wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?
i know I wouldn't it sucks to have autism and people misunderstand posts or twist them and/or cherry pick them to make you out to be the bad guy. I've been perma ban from the ff14 forums over misunderstandings, due to my blunt posting.
The forums are the only way in ff14 to post bug reports, so when you are perma ban, you can't really report bugs. I think ZoS does a decent job as removing really bad posts. I had a few 1 post last year get flagged, and when I questioned it, the ZoS person kindly explained what My post did wrong.
I have done/try to do better to keep my posts civil. I rather not see the "safe space" mentality that people are free to say anything, but immune to critiquing by others. Yes keep debates civil, but we should be able to call others out for bs, when they try to give it.
I would say not to "call others out for [snip]," but to focus on the logic/reasoning behind the statement made by the person.
you can dress it nicely, but calling others out is calling others out. You can/should be nice/logical. I did say I am blunt lol. I have to be, autism sucks to have. It can make the most basic of conversation difficult to have.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 30, 2025 7:57PMLong time mmo player: 2004-[current year]
Long time Elder scrolls player: Xbox launch morrowind.
Follower of the dawn and dusk, keeper of the moon and star.0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Azuramoonstar wrote: »Azuramoonstar wrote: »Jayman1000 wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
It still applies "in spirit" in that people still expect to not unfairly get their freedom of speech suppressed. People will take great issue with that and the consequence could simply be a deserted forum or a forum where there is little actual debate, where ideas and opinions only gets expressed in limited form. I think these forums in its current state is very lively, and people express great creativity, different opinions and interesting debates. Of course a company may not want that, and in that case an oppressive forum moderation could be implemented. Question is do we want that?
i know I wouldn't it sucks to have autism and people misunderstand posts or twist them and/or cherry pick them to make you out to be the bad guy. I've been perma ban from the ff14 forums over misunderstandings, due to my blunt posting.
The forums are the only way in ff14 to post bug reports, so when you are perma ban, you can't really report bugs. I think ZoS does a decent job as removing really bad posts. I had a few 1 post last year get flagged, and when I questioned it, the ZoS person kindly explained what My post did wrong.
I have done/try to do better to keep my posts civil. I rather not see the "safe space" mentality that people are free to say anything, but immune to critiquing by others. Yes keep debates civil, but we should be able to call others out for bs, when they try to give it.
I would say not to "call others out for [snip]," but to focus on the logic/reasoning behind the statement made by the person.
you can dress it nicely, but calling others out is calling others out. You can/should be nice/logical. I did say I am blunt lol. I have to be, autism sucks to have. It can make the most basic of conversation difficult to have.
Sure. I'm just saying that the focus should be on the argument rather than the person making the argument.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on November 30, 2025 7:58PM0 -
Eyro✭✭✭✭Usually what I see lead to things going off the rails when I see it, is both the op and the person debating not letting it go.
Usually looks like this...
Op: I think it is important the we all remember that The crown store helps support the game we play, so it is not some evil force.
Poster1: I play games like this for the cosmetics and a large portion of what I like is locked in the crown store. So to me it is evil.
Now most at this point would say these two views are never going to align, walk away. But instead we continue.
Op: with out the money from the crown store the game closes and you get nothing.
Poster1: I get nothing now because as I said I want cosmetics.
Op: they have to make money some how they are a business.
Poster1: so sell equipment instead.
Op: that is pay to win.
Poster1: what do I care, I don’t pvp. I want to earn cosmetics in game.
And so on for 3-5 pages. Never going anywhere until finally one of them snaps and goes, ‘Your Stupid.’
All because they couldn’t look at each other and go, I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And that is ok. Im going to walk away now.7 -
xeNNNNN✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »Or you could simply report comments that you think are off topic or making personal attacks.
But then they keep going.
The people who REALLY want to get you down will continue regardless. It wont matter if they get banned here or their entire account gets banned people like that dont care because they can probably afford to buy their accounts several times over so its meh for them.
They often will just want to make someone else feel crap to make themselves feel better or superior. Inferiority complex's are common among trolls and toxic people.Ah, e-communities - the "pinnacle" of the internet............yeah, right.0 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I propose a Frequently Created Threads List. Mods would be able to add thread topics to the list that are obviously heated topics, topics that are usually created for the purpose of baiting or has a history of needing to be moderated. These topics would then be immediately shut down whenever created regardless of whom is creating the thread.
I also propose they make it a rule that youre only allowed to create a certain number of threads within a certain time period. And once you hit that cap you are locked out from making new threads. This will help with the spam and slow down the incessant creation of threads that are created with the sole purpose of making the OPs opinion the centerpiece of a discussion thats already in progress elsewhere.Penniless Sellsword CompanyCaptain Paramount - Jorrhaq VhentKorith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the GrimjawlTenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'LesAban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia SeverinusWhat is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax3 -
Morgul667✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Who gives the demerits ? If moderators they will be too busy
If people, then it will be a mess, I dont agree with you -> Demerit, there will be that kind of behaviour2 -
DuskMarine✭✭✭✭✭
✭A lot of the threads on these forums become derailed and closed due to passionate posters letting their emotions get the best of them and hurling personal insults at those who disagree. Regardless of how passionate they are and how much they disagree with others, people should debate the issues on the merits instead of making personal attacks on other posters.
A plan and method for stopping ESO threads from being derailed and closed is this: give demerits to people who make ad hominem attacks, and temporarily suspend their posting privileges when they reach a certain number of demerits. Simply reporting someone is insufficient; sometimes, they (rightfully) do not get disciplined - the idea here is not about getting people warned or banned for violating forum rules, but about getting people to focus on debating the issues instead of using ad hominem attacks. So the demerit system would be separate from the disciplinary system. This is easier said than done, of course, and the idea as stated would require a significant time commitment from moderators. But let's use this thread to give your opinion about the idea, and if you like it, to flesh out how it could be implemented or at least modified so it could be feasible.
For those who aren't familiar with ad hominem attacks, here's a brief definition from Wikipedia (and for you researchers out there, forgive me for citing to Wikipedia): "Ad hominem . . .is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Here's an example from a sitcom:
Attacker: Should our nation normalize relations with that country?
Debater: The war's been over for 10 years. That country is no longer a threat, but instead could be a valuable ally and trading partner, so it makes perfect sense to normalize relations with them.
Attacker: You moron, what do you know about anything?! You're a frightened little drone that has no life! If you're so keen on normalizing something, why don't you start with your head!
the bad thing is the you get more flies with honey rather than vinegar thing just doesnt work with people especially when their already irate. you have no other choice but to get mean.0
This discussion has been closed.