3173 réponses à ce sujet

[N7M]

For your sanity I've moved it.

squeaky wheels get the grease

[N7M]

To believe or support this is to be really a devourer of turds.
The only use I've seen of the warnings was to work around the problem, namely some disruptor of peace in Off Topic, and to keep up appearances.
The moderators don't have to justify their warnings to the user, only to themselves and - in cases of extreme necessity - to their bosses. The most common thing was
 
- People doing too much mess to be left alone without intervening
- To keep up appearances of a good work, one or more moderators intervene
- Rarely, they warn some people (often warning those who didn't have the fault in the first place). Then, even more rarely, they lock the topic, except if it's manifest spam, in that case the will eventually lock it.
- Frequently drop topics to be locked in the Off Topic section, where not only they were off topic in the same off topic, they were to be locked from the beginning because of spam, bad taste and maliciousness altogether.
 
Seeing their supposed work was considered (justly) idleness - if not worse, they decided to close the appointed source of their discomfort and to merge sections. This way they can, with the right adjustments, be idle as always, but it will be way less visible and condemnable, and people will ask to themselves
 
"Hey buddies? What about discussing about things not related to the games or any specific EA-Bioware matter? Oh Geese™! We can't do it"

 

To believe or support this is to be really a devourer of turds.

 

To believe it is the entire reasoning for the existence of points would be neglectful of other possible considerations. Yet, as much thought as needed is provided by the mind that weighs them for their value unto themselves.

 

The moderators don't have to justify their warnings to the user, only to themselves and - in cases of extreme necessity - to their bosses. 

 

That's not unusual. Regrettably, some people require quite a lot of explanation and a long period of reflection before they can understand how their behavior is unacceptable. That is, if they'll even ever accept the fact they could do wrong. There are a lot of different types of people in the world.

My experience when being moderated here has been decent. There was usually an explanation showing which site rule the post violated and was clear and understandable. One or maybe two posts of mine removed without explanation but it wasn't necessary for them to explain or justify the decision to me. 

 

"Hey buddies? What about discussing about things not related to the games or any specific EA-Bioware matter? Oh Geese™! We can't do it"

 

PM, your own blog, or another forum is unacceptable for this? Why does it have to be here? 

[Fidite Nemini]

"Hey buddies? What about discussing about things not related to the games or any specific EA-Bioware matter? Oh Geese™! We can't do it"

 

PM, your own blog, or another forum is unacceptable for this? Why does it have to be here? 

 

Because people would like to discuss those things with likeminded people, like they for example share a similar preference for games which led them all to play BioWare titles and join the forum?

[LPPrince]

Because people would like to discuss those things with likeminded people, like they for example share a similar preference for games which led them all to play BioWare titles and join the forum?

 

On top of that-

 

PM's don't make for a community like setting to share opinions

 

Nobody here wants to use blog type stuff to talk about things like this, otherwise they'd all be on tumblr. Matter of fact the community got annoyed when people basically copy/pasted their blog posts into threads in Off Topic.

 

And if any forum has to say, "use another forum to come together as fans of the thing this forum is for to talk about other things" then that forum is not doing it right.

[N7M]

Because people would like to discuss those things with likeminded people, like they for example share a similar preference for games which led them all to play BioWare titles and join the forum?

 

Ideally, yes, this would be nice. After reading over recent OT threads, many of the conversations were interesting and fun. It was surprisingly enjoyable to read and discover the contents of some threads I seldom visited. 

Despite these many bright spots, recursive threads and comments were an issue. Threads, posters and posts that should have been reported or ignored were often celebrated, bumped and made into in-group humour that had nothing to do with BioWare games or the greater portion of the community here. This may not have been a problem if this type of cliquish content didn't get repeated in existing or new threads. IF such was a problem for BioWare. 

[Fidite Nemini]

Ideally, yes, this would be nice. After reading over recent OT threads, many of the conversations were interesting and fun. It was surprisingly enjoyable to read and discover the contents of some threads I seldom visited. 

Despite these many bright spots, recursive threads and comments were an issue. Threads, posters and posts that should have been reported or ignored were often celebrated, bumped and made into in-group humour that had nothing to do with BioWare games or the greater portion of the community here. This may not have been a problem if this type of cliquish content didn't get repeated in existing or new threads. IF such was a problem for BioWare. 

 

Which could've been prevented with an active moderation team, is what myself and a couple others have been saying throughout this thread.

 

A good deal of the percieved difficulties BioWare has with the forum is caused by lacklustre moderation/community work. A symptom, not a cause.

[Monica21]

Which could've been prevented with an active moderation team, is what myself and a couple others have been saying throughout this thread.

 

A good deal of the percieved difficulties BioWare has with the forum is caused by lacklustre moderation/community work. A symptom, not a cause.

 

Agreed. I really don't think one can just ignore the forums except for the occasional response to a report, go to other platforms and complain that the forums are toxic, and expect that your own lack of involvement had anything to do with it.

[N7M]

Which could've been prevented with an active moderation team, is what myself and a couple others have been saying throughout this thread.
 
A good deal of the percieved difficulties BioWare has with the forum is caused by lacklustre moderation/community work. A symptom, not a cause.

Some of you have said something like that but many haven't appeared to have given thought about the extent of moderation required or what has already been tried. Locking threads, points, suspensions, bans, interaction from moderators, and other things have been tried over the years. Maybe it wasn't lazy moderation but simply there were too many users with too much time on their hands participating in the aforementioned problems. I'd recommend reading the OT forums and seeing how many users participated in that **** on a regular basis but it would take a lot of time, so I won't but if you want to make an informed guess that would be the way to go.  The most effective move to deal with this large block of users has been closing OT.

[N7M]

Agreed. I really don't think one can just ignore the forums except for the occasional response to a report, go to other platforms and complain that the forums are toxic, and expect that your own lack of involvement had anything to do with it.

Well, if BW doesn't understand the well thought out nuances of your one sentence post of how Bethesda does it what hope is there, right?

[Fidite Nemini]

Some of you have said something like that but many haven't appeared to have given thought about the extent of moderation required or what has already been tried. Locking threads, points, suspensions, bans, interaction from moderators, and other things have been tried over the years. Maybe it wasn't lazy moderation but simply there were too many users with too much time on their hands participating in the aforementioned problems. I'd recommend reading the OT forums and seeing how many users participated in that **** on a regular basis but it would take a lot of time, so I won't but if you want to make an informed guess that would be the way to go.  The most effective move to deal with this large block of users has been closing OT.

 

I've been active myself in the Offtopic and I can tell you firsthand that there was almost zero moderation. And lately mods had even moved spam topics that were created in other sections into Offtopic without locking them, even though they were spam by any sort of standard and thus wouldn't belong in Offtopic either.

 

And if the community was too large for the mods to handle (How many mods where those? I counted three active mod accounts at maximum), then my first move would be to increase the moderator team, not kick out a part of your fanbase just because they aren't talking about your games all the time.

[N7M]

I've been active myself in the Offtopic and I can tell you firsthand that there was almost zero moderation. And lately mods had even moved spam topics that were created in other sections into Offtopic without locking them, even though they were spam by any sort of standard and thus wouldn't belong in Offtopic either.
 
And if the community was too large for the mods to handle (How many mods where those? I counted three active mod accounts at maximum), then my first move would be to increase the moderator team, not kick out a part of your fanbase just because they aren't talking about your games all the time.

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged users making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

[Commander Rpg]

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged slight-collectors holding a grudge and still making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

The evidence is that a moderator has the power to shut many dirty mouths at a time, for a period of time or forever.

The second evidence is that this was rarely done, preferring the simple "scolding" (when that was happening) or being accomplices of the same chaos, moving threads carelessly, awarding admonitions based on their moral preferences rather than on a recognised code of conduct.

The third evidence is they're advocating their choice of not using moderation properly, or not having enough personnel, ***saying they have to close one of the less harming sections due to angry moods***.

 

On this ***last point***, they lie. They bear false witness and they should be thankful there are people like you, that thanks to them (people like you) the waters can be mudded some more; because this is denying the evidence.

[Metalfros]

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged users making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

Just tell me, why doesn't it work on this forum, but it does on all other forums I have ever been on (and that's a lot)? 

[Monica21]

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged users making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

 

And that's when you ban people. IP ban them if the offense continues. It's a matter of keeping up with who's doing what and communicating within the moderating team.

[Reezus Christ]

Because people would like to discuss those things with likeminded people, like they for example share a similar preference for games which led them all to play BioWare titles and join the forum?

I'm triggered by the fact that you even had to explain that.

[Puddi III]

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged users making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

 
You talking about Stanley?
 
If you're on Vroom's forum you know how I feel about that issue.
 
But the moderators' solution to that problem was already more than adequate. Just ban the people who do that. The guilty parties do get tired of it eventually. Most of them barely posted anymore in BSN's OT, if at all. At least, not stuff like that.
 
So closing down the whole forum, if it's for a reason like that, would be pretty dumb, to be perfectly frank.

[Fidite Nemini]

Just read this and thought I'd share since the basic principle it discusses, the communication between developers and its customers/fans/communities applies:

 

The Most Valuable Commodity in the Gaming Industry That All Gamers Deserve; Communication
 

Communication is a valuable commodity within the video game industry, something that’s highly appreciated by the community itself. Being able to hear about the general status of the development of a game is certainly excited news and can help to alleviate pre-release fears if the various avenues are used correctly. We like to hear directly from the big, and little, publishers and developers as they explain the various challenges and fun things they’re doing to make their game. Sometimes hearing why something was included, not included a feature or why a particular direction was chosen can help humanize an otherwise inaccessible industry.



Good words are worth much, and cost little.

How developers communicate with their fan base is as much a part of game development as anything. If you want to be successful, you’ll need as wide an audience as possible, so communicating misinformation frequently or even outright lying can hurt a company’s credibility to the point of affecting their bottom line. Larger companies and franchises can weather such issues, though there is the potential for long term effects not intended.

Some companies do it better than others and have strict policies about either saying too much too early and certainly about releasing deceptive information. Peter Molyneux is almost famous for getting ahead of himself and the projects he’s a part of. Features he’s talked about sometimes never make it into the development pipeline, even.

Watch Dogs is another example, having had a significant graphical down-grade compared to the spectacular E3 trailer from 2012. Ubisoft also told IGN in 2013 that they would delay an Assassin’s Creed game if it wasn’t quite up to par in order to have it ready upon launch, which thus far has only resulted in a delayed and still unplayable and unfinished game.

Call of Duty: Ghosts and Advanced Warfare were supposed to implement dedicated multiplayer servers, something promised and confirmed by Michael Condrey, though that has never made it into their iterations of CoD. Instead, announcements are coming” and then the announcement that it isn’t actually going to be featured came instead. Why blatantly lie and not simply explain your reasoning one way or another, or say that it’s a hopeful feature that they’d like to implement. It won’t ruin the franchise, but it does significantly reduce confidence in their ability to adequately create a masterpiece.

Players can lose faith in their ability to actually follow-through with most wanted features and their ability to listen to their customers. This doesn’t mean caving to demands, though, but collating feedback to help improve upon their platform. Most wanted features or even additions/subtraction a that a vast majority come to a consensus that might add considerable value to the product.

This is almost common sense, we all know how frustrating it can be when one piece of information oddly contradicts another, or a feature that’s hyped and sold as an almost positive addition is suddenly missing without much explanation. It’s highly frustrating.

Certainly, however, circumstances arise within development that are very reasonable explanations of less than truthful initial statements. Things come up and difficulties arise. But it’s how these studios leverage their communication skills and connect with fans that can make a marked difference.

Certainly gamers everywhere aren’t owed explanations for the actions and changes taken. We don’t own the idea and are only paying for the right to play it, not directly control the direction it takes. But to base your entire business model on getting others to pay for their creation, it would make sense to offer a dialogue with your player-base to explain the differences that are real or perceived.

Doing it right might be difficult at first.

Despite the controversy surrounding it, Star Citizen actually exemplifies this with an overly open communication policy. The claims initially made perhaps don’t line up with what some think are possible, and perhaps that’s right, to an extent. Every week we receive updates as to the status of each studio and the items that they’re working on. We get an intimate look at the development process in a way that has never quite been done before. Chris Roberts has very large aspirations, wanting to create a game that’s almost impossibly large in scope and wide with options, but despite those nearly unfeasible pursuits, they continue to update us frequently with specific challenges they have currently, what they expect to encounter due to those challenges and how they plan on overcoming it. They come just short of providing us with actual examples of the code they’re using.

I spoke to an original backer of Star Citizen who has gone through all the emotional phases one can when becoming excited about a project, and he had some interesting and very valuable things to say, especially because he’s also a veteran of software development of a different kind, and knows the difficulties involved.

    

“I love the open communication that CIG is using. It’s kept me involved for almost 3 years and is the first website I check in the morning and the last one I check every evening. Chris Roberts games from the old days I was into before the internet was a thing like it is today, I got my updates by word of mouth and gaming print magazines. I really feel that CIG is the first (and only) company that has ever gotten me involved in the process of making the game and it’s been an awesome ride. The model they’re using clearly works, it’s been lucrative for them and I’ve happily contributed more money than I would have ever thought reasonable to a game prior to Star Citizen, but what can I say, I’m a believer. It probably helps that my background is in running large scale software development projects (in finance, not gaming) with budgets and schedules many times that of today’s AAA games, so I have some understanding of the complexity of the development process and the setbacks and delays that are a standard part of any effort this large.

    But it’s a double edged sword. CIG has been successful beyond what anybody imagined would be possible, that success has also brought a lot of dissatisfaction as they can’t keep everyone happy. Some backers are impatient and didn’t want them to keep stretch goals going early on in the campaign and it’s obviously contributed to the delays of the project. Star Citizen is clearly Chris’ opus and I don’t blame him for keeping it going to the degree that it has. It would have been a lot simpler to just do the kickstarter, get the funding he needed from it and the venture capitalist backers he had lined up, stick to the original scope and go quiet after funding to build the game. This is the model that most games seem to take and sometimes it works, sometimes not, but from a development perspective, it’s simpler as you don’t have the continuous demands of nigh on a million backers always wanting different things. Some people don’t understand the development and pledging/donating process, they think they pre-ordered a static item and it’s late so they should be able to get their money back, they don’t realise the money they paid is to fund jobs and salaries to make the game and in large scale development, the unexpected will occur, delays will happen, things will change. CIG have to deal with the people who don’t understand that. I think it’s a small price to pay for the chance to create the vision, but I also have no doubt it’s a pain in the ass to deal with”

    – Soleith

    
If you’re willing, all of the answers to the questions you might have are actually there, in those weekly updates. It’s candid, harsh and even a bit raw. Fans didn’t like it when it was announced that Star Marine was being delayed to get it right, but they did explain very clearly, and logically, why they chose to do that. In fact, a lot of long posts are available to peruse with tremendous amounts of explanations of their development process. It’s truly open, for good or for ill.

And there are others, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Stardock is fantastic with their developer blogs, and even Brad Wardell being quite vocal about projects. Independent developers of all kinds have risen to the challenge and many update their blogs with even bad news, because it happens and is a part of the process. The developer of Shallow Space is constantly posting updates to Twitter, letting fans know the low-down on progress and the direction they’re going in. It’s not a hard thing to do, but it might be uncomfortable at first.



The line must be drawn somewhere.

But how do developers improve? It’s simply, at its core at least. Be truthful, be candid, and be realistic with how you communicate about your game. Being excited about the game you’re creating is natural, expected and wanted, but one should also strive to be realistic about what’s happening as well. It’s okay if something gets delayed or there are difficulties. This is not an easy profession, making games with grand visions takes multiple departments, people and a lot of talent. That and a lot of time. But why not tell us the journey that you’re going on to fix the problems that have cropped up? Let the public know instead of leaving us hanging with “there’ll be an announcement later” and then completely renege on those promises.

It comes down to some simple principles; regular updates in a timely manner. Use the same principles that many companies use for internal communication. Set clear and obtainable goals and use language that conveys what you want. Really it’s similar to what good communication in relationships is; say what you mean, mean what you say and don’t be mean when you say it.

Being able to speak candidly about issues and policy and how problems that arise are going to be solved can be very enlightening. Things are indeed changing, however, with more and more companies releasing more information and statements regarding the progress they’re making via social media and, of course, on their own developer blogs. This has the power to help increase consumer confidence by at least some small amount. Enthusiastic yet forthright disclosure of information can only prove to be positive for everyone.

 

[bEVEsthda]

It won't help how many mods you have when people simply refuse to learn how their behavior isn't appropriate and refuse to change it on the forums.
OT did have some active moderation for awhile. When a named mod did actively participate there were some good moments of insight and it did help OT, for awhile. Unfortunately, there was a lot of childish ridicule the mod had to endure, possibly from those moderated. Even recently in OT there were still deranged users making threads to ridicule the mod even after years of inactivity. Scary stuff.

 

It won't help because it won't help if it won't help?

 

I'm not so terribly convinced by some of the arguments you try to do here. First of all, the basis, I don't think the theory - that OT was closed because of people's behavior - is particularly convincing in itself. I don't quite believe it. It's very possible the reasons are more complex. (For example, if they can't/don't want to spend the resources, it's a different reason.)

Second, I tend to get very wary when people say nothing can be done because "it won't be effective". True, if your brand of superstition demands that you specifically do something ineffective, then it won't be effective. Likewise if you deem whatever results always as "ineffective".

[N7M]

It won't help because it won't help if it won't help?

 

I'm not so terribly convinced by some of the arguments you try to do here. First of all, the basis, I don't think the theory - that OT was closed because of people's behavior - is particularly convincing in itself. I don't quite believe it. It's very possible the reasons are more complex. (For example, if they can't/don't want to spend the resources, it's a different reason.)

Second, I tend to get very wary when people say nothing can be done because "it won't be effective". True, if your brand of superstition demands that you specifically do something ineffective, then it won't be effective. Likewise if you deem whatever results always as "ineffective".

 

I tend to get very wary when people say nothing can be done because "it won't be effective". 

 

If someone said that then that could be the case. It would be as ridiculous as saying certain things haven't been tried without actually knowing if they have been.

 

 It's very possible the reasons are more complex.

 

No one has said they weren't 

[N7M]

 
You talking about Stanley?
 
If you're on Vroom's forum you know how I feel about that issue.
 
But the moderators' solution to that problem was already more than adequate. Just ban the people who do that. The guilty parties do get tired of it eventually. Most of them barely posted anymore in BSN's OT, if at all. At least, not stuff like that.
 
So closing down the whole forum, if it's for a reason like that, would be pretty dumb, to be perfectly frank.

 

You talking about Stanley?

 

It's against forum rules to name names in this context but it is ok to talk about the behavior. There was another named mod who had to deal with sexual harassment from a user which was condoned and celebrated by some. The reason to bring up the second incident is to show the first wasn't isolated. 

 

But the moderators' solution to that problem was already more than adequate. Just ban the people who do that. 

 

Maybe you're right. Yet, even yesterday users who bring up genuine discussions of BW games are having their threads mocked and derailed, copied then pilloried. This seems to go against the forum ideals of creating a safe place for users to discuss BW games. This lack of a safe environment could be extended to the moderators or developers who would like to participate but cannot in the current state of things. Some thoughts are delicate others coarse. It is for the moderators to decide what is valuable and then help protect and encourage those which showcase and develop the BioWare brand in a positive light by using the forum powers at their disposal and the direction they are given. 

[Morty Smith]

Maybe you're right. Yet, even yesterday users who bring up genuine discussions of BW games are having their threads mocked and derailed, copied then pilloried.

 

If closing OT doesn´t solve that issue, what on earth can?

[Fidite Nemini]

If closing OT doesn´t solve that issue, what on earth can?

 

Ban the people that actually do it instead of nuking a place filled with lots of users who never did such a thing?

[Puddi III]

Ban the people that actually do it instead of nuking a place filled with lots of users who never did such a thing?

Let's not start making sense here. That would violate the forum rules.

[Fidite Nemini]

Hai hai~ Puddi-kun!

[N7M]

If closing OT doesn´t solve that issue, what on earth can?

What indeed.

Moderators have the tools and the willingness to use them. They have directives.

Maybe there is a need for greater understanding of how attitudes and ideas are built one upon another, like attracting like, in a forum. How permissiveness can lead to exclusion. 

 

Or they could just, you know, ban the troublemakers.