FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's the baiting rule that gets abused in reports. Some of it is fair game mind you, but we should be able to express discontent with another posters ideals

We can express discontent with another poster's views but not with the poster themselves. This is where it turns into flaming and baiting. Only address the topic.

This isn't clear to a lot of posters and should be explained in a warning. Let the poster know how their particular post was seen as a violation and give them a chance to learn from it.

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's the baiting rule that gets abused in reports. Some of it is fair game mind you, but we should be able to express discontent with another posters ideals

We can express discontent with another poster's views but not with the poster themselves. This is where it turns into flaming and baiting. Only address the topic.

This isn't clear to a lot of posters and should be explained in a warning. Let the poster know how their particular post was seen as a violation and give them a chance to learn from it.

I will disagree with you here, but the point is abuse of reporting happened and consequences were way to far.

I agree that it's not fair that mods don't most of time explain reasoning.

As for the stream, I'm mildly curious how the next one will go, and whether the ESO community is as "grown-up" as some people may believe. Or whether there will be people seeing "Kevin said posting about PvP is okay", and come to the conclusion to spam away.
In the end, there is very little point to talk about Cyrodiil performance in a PR stream that has nothing to do with PvP at all. They won't suddenly produce PvP content just because some people spam their chat. They won't suddenly talk about PvP (honestly) in a stream unless it has been carefully worded, vetted by the higher-ups, and run through their PR departments.

Varana wrote: »

As for the stream, I'm mildly curious how the next one will go, and whether the ESO community is as "grown-up" as some people may believe. Or whether there will be people seeing "Kevin said posting about PvP is okay", and come to the conclusion to spam away.
In the end, there is very little point to talk about Cyrodiil performance in a PR stream that has nothing to do with PvP at all. They won't suddenly produce PvP content just because some people spam their chat. They won't suddenly talk about PvP (honestly) in a stream unless it has been carefully worded, vetted by the higher-ups, and run through their PR departments.

Discord has a feature to put chats on cool down. Where you can only make a comment every 5 mins or how often it's set to.

I wonder if twitch has this? This would easily resolve the problem zos actually has which is spam

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's the baiting rule that gets abused in reports. Some of it is fair game mind you, but we should be able to express discontent with another posters ideals

We can express discontent with another poster's views but not with the poster themselves. This is where it turns into flaming and baiting. Only address the topic.

This isn't clear to a lot of posters and should be explained in a warning. Let the poster know how their particular post was seen as a violation and give them a chance to learn from it.

This is very true.....as soon as it gets personal, it crosses the line.

"I don't agree with you for these reasons" is much different from "I don't see how anyone with a brain can ask for that?" or "I don't believe anyone would want that thing"...implying that only someone who is stupid would want that thing.

I see a lot of the latter and then see folks get upset for being moderated for just asking "how someone could ask for that"...when what they really did was say "anyone who asks for this is a complete moron" in the guise of asking an innocent question.

Passive Aggressive is hard to moderate...but I agree....it should be explained in the warning.

I got moderate once for calling someone a stick in the mud. For repeating attacking people and implying that people who don't agree with them are bad people. They made themselves the victim.

The entire thread got moderated often for a good week because we didn't agree with them.

See people get passive aggressive as a result of implying things.

I won't argue that either was right, but at some point it's not fair if entire thread is getting overly moderated for those who oppose the point of view.

At that point when a lot of reports come in for same thread then it should be closed as it was both parties. Also if same person is reporting in same thread then thread should be looked at not the people.

My point is the reporter can be the aggressor too.

Oh I agree there...and that is a big reason why I say moderating passive aggressive is hard. For the record....if someone says "everyone who agrees with this is an idiot" in that format...my response is "I like it and that doesnt make me an idiot, thank you very much (and the thank you very much is likely to get moderated for tone...which is....uh....overreaching)..... and I explain why"...I would NOT resort to "reporting". I wouldnt even resort to reporting if someone directly said "Mythgard, you are an idiot". I would more likely respond "takes one to know one".

BUT......people should be aware when they resort to calling everyone who doesnt agree with them names; even by implication, they might expect moderation......even if it was provoked.

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's the baiting rule that gets abused in reports. Some of it is fair game mind you, but we should be able to express discontent with another posters ideals

We can express discontent with another poster's views but not with the poster themselves. This is where it turns into flaming and baiting. Only address the topic.

This isn't clear to a lot of posters and should be explained in a warning. Let the poster know how their particular post was seen as a violation and give them a chance to learn from it.

This is very true.....as soon as it gets personal, it crosses the line.

"I don't agree with you for these reasons" is much different from "I don't see how anyone with a brain can ask for that?" or "I don't believe anyone would want that thing"...implying that only someone who is stupid would want that thing.

I see a lot of the latter and then see folks get upset for being moderated for just asking "how someone could ask for that"...when what they really did was say "anyone who asks for this is a complete moron" in the guise of asking an innocent question.

Passive Aggressive is hard to moderate...but I agree....it should be explained in the warning.

I got moderate once for calling someone a stick in the mud. For repeating attacking people and implying that people who don't agree with them are bad people. They made themselves the victim.

The entire thread got moderated often for a good week because we didn't agree with them.

See people get passive aggressive as a result of implying things.

I won't argue that either was right, but at some point it's not fair if entire thread is getting overly moderated for those who oppose the point of view.

At that point when a lot of reports come in for same thread then it should be closed as it was both parties. Also if same person is reporting in same thread then thread should be looked at not the people.

My point is the reporter can be the aggressor too.

Oh I agree there...and that is a big reason why I say moderating passive aggressive is hard. For the record....if someone says "everyone who agrees with this is an idiot" in that format...my response is "I like it and that doesnt make me an idiot, thank you very much (and the thank you very much is likely to get moderated for tone...which is....uh....overreaching)..... and I explain why"...I would NOT resort to "reporting". I wouldnt even resort to reporting if someone directly said "Mythgard, you are an idiot". I would more likely respond "takes one to know one".

BUT......people should be aware when they resort to calling everyone who doesnt agree with them names; even by implication, they might expect moderation......even if it was provoked.

The test here is, would you say such a thing if it’s a face to face context and not an online forum? Often times Sammy pauses and thinks about it (also cleans his furs) if a particular topic is very heated. Doesn’t always work, but Sammy tries.

People have feelings and it’s also the player’s responsibility to keep forums safe for other players.

Anyhow, back to the topic. It’d be very good if ZOS provides an update soon on the PVP improvement. This one suspects the typing of pvp in Twitch chats is because they want an update, and don’t feel like they’re getting one. Rather than delete the texts, it’s better to address the cause.

Agenericname wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@spartaxoxo, so we'll touch on this also. First, please feel free to PM me your specific example. Happy to review and discuss. Also, that is something anyone on the forum can do. We can chat about an issue and we can always talk to customer service to reevaluate actions as needed.

Moderation as you probably can guess isn't an exact science. Actions are taken based on the circumstances of the current situation and the history of those involved. We won't always get that right for a variety of reason. But we will continue to strive to get better and address situations as they occur. What should be noted here is in those back and forth conversations that get actioned, often times those escalate because either the parties start to include personal attacks or one of the parties has reported the other and a mod needs to figure out context by reading through the interactions and make a call based on our community guidelines. So it's a bit of a different ball game compared to live stream moderation.

However, please remember that our mods are human at the end of the day and work hard to ensure the forum is a welcoming and approachable space for all players. If there is an issue with how anyone has been moderated, please make sure to place a ticket to challenge the moderation. For added measure, please feel free to PM me and I can get that number over to our customer service team for additional context.

When there is room for open dialogue, we're happy to have it. I hope this provides some context for forum moderation as well.

Speaking specifically about the forums, why cant the moderators themselves give reason why an action was taken in the first place? If they need to read through the conversation and make a call based on what they read, then they should be able to articulate that instead of simply posting a link to the TOS.

I appreciate the dialogue, really, but I feel like using this route to find out why I or anyone else received the moderation in the first place is a bit over the top. If "approachable" is the goal, then I would suggest having the communication to the player include "why" so that they know where they crossed the line so that they know what to avoid in further interactions.

Sometimes they do actually. It's just that the biggest issue is consistency.

Moderation on forums had a lot of problems

* Overall people biggest complaints are moderation is too heavy

* Censorship is too far and without letting people know

* The appeal system not working

* Banning discussion seems in agreement that should only be very worst offenders and suspension should be used more often even for repeat offenders.

* Such discussion on reasoning. People feel some moderation just don't make sense like "Morrowind question"


My personal complaints is abuse of reporting system

@ZOS_Kevin current summary of discussion

🌻 Others tell me if I am wrong or missed something

Follow up instead of editing

I see people complain in discord say that zos is trying to hid patch day bugs in unused sub forum sections

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's the baiting rule that gets abused in reports. Some of it is fair game mind you, but we should be able to express discontent with another posters ideals

We can express discontent with another poster's views but not with the poster themselves. This is where it turns into flaming and baiting. Only address the topic.

This isn't clear to a lot of posters and should be explained in a warning. Let the poster know how their particular post was seen as a violation and give them a chance to learn from it.

I will disagree with you here, but the point is abuse of reporting happened and consequences were way to far.

I agree that it's not fair that mods don't most of time explain reasoning.

This isn't my personal opinion that I feel others should follow. It is in the community rules pinned at the top of the thread under Flaming and it seems to get a lot of posters in hot water.

That's why I think posters should just be given a warning with a clear explanation of what the rule is, and a chance to correct that in the future.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.