Eq2 Players Mod - Page 7

Savanja · 09-28-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elanie

No one is saying that they can't have anonymous mod accounts. The problem is that as an anonymous mod, they shouldn't be putting themselves in a position for potential conflict of interest. They shouldn't be allowed to post socially as a mod. At all. Sorry, but they have player accounts for that. They shouldn't be allowed to moderate any forum they actively participate in (server forum, class forums, NGD, what have you). And they shouldn't be allowed to moderate ANY thread which their player account has posted on.

Its not alot to ask, but its something that is NOT happening.

I assume that rules have been put in place for that and are likely constantly evolving..again..no one knows whats actually happening except those involved. I don't believe that EQ2s management system is something that needs to be reviewed and approved by the playerbase. It's not like we get to hire the devs too. :D

Shiverr · 09-28-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elanie

No one is saying that they can't have anonymous mod accounts. The problem is that as an anonymous mod, they shouldn't be putting themselves in a position for potential conflict of interest. They shouldn't be allowed to post socially as a mod. At all. Sorry, but they have player accounts for that. They shouldn't be allowed to moderate any forum they actively participate in (server forum, class forums, NGD, what have you). And they shouldn't be allowed to moderate ANY thread which their player account has posted on.

Its not alot to ask, but its something that is NOT happening.

A-freaking-men

Arthais · 09-28-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

I assume that rules have been put in place for that and are likely constantly evolving..again..no one knows whats actually happening except those involved.

Do I know for sure what happens? Nope.

Do I know what I see though? Absolutly. And what I see is the perception that there is an unwillingness to do what should, in all practical and ethical considerations, be done.

It is troubling for me to see a company, one whose product I enjoy, appear to not take the necessary steps to protect both me as a consumer, and their own staff.

It reeks of indifference and intentional disregard for policy norms that have evolved for good reason.

There is no good reason, NONE, to not put in place, and vigorously, and with good faith, enforce these policies. But I haven't seen it here.

And I have to question why. And it is that question that causes my concern.

There may be good reasons to be anonymous. When you are NOT anonymous, and it's obvious who you are, the system pretty much polices itself, nobody would dare suddenly lock a thread because someone disagreed with them on a personal level. That's just a termination waiting to happen.

But when you're anonymous, what's stopping you, other than an enforced policy against it? And where, exactly, has that enforcement been?

If they chose to keep their mods anon then god damn it, even if every one of them is worthy of sainthood, do everything, EVERYTHING you can to make absolutly SURE it doesn't happen. And when it does happen, kick them the hell out.

The fact that as you say, the system "is evolving" only shows, to me, that nobody bothered to have the foresight to see this problem in the FIRST place. I did, when it all started. I saw it coming the instant the writing was on the wall.

Why didn't they?

RadarX · 09-28-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

I assume that rules have been put in place for that and are likely constantly evolving..again..no one knows whats actually happening except those involved. I don't believe that EQ2s management system is something that needs to be reviewed and approved by the playerbase. It's not like we get to hire the devs too. :D

I can agree with them, it's probably in the best interest of everyone for SOE to establish a policy of enforceable guidelines for Moderators.

Where I disagree with many of them, is that it needs to be public. It is none of anyones business how SOE runs it's show. They have a customer service manager and a community manager who's purpose in life is to handle the playerbase. If SOE wants player input on how to do that? They'll ask.

Savanja · 09-28-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthais

You know, I can even agree with you on anonymity, that's not my problem. As I said, my problem is not with people, it's with policy.

In virtually every other profession I can think of there exist stringent conflict of interest policies. And they exist for a reason.

They exist not only to protect the customers and consumers from inappropriate pressure and undue influence, but they exist to protect the staff person himself, in that it prevents temptation.

These policies exist everywhere, yet I have seen no real evidence that they exist here. It doesn't take much to write up a simple conflict of interest policy, I can do it in 5 minutes (and, in fact, did, in the other thread). It is not complex, it is not difficult to create nor particularly difficult to enforce.

Hell, I can see, even on this cheap php that LFG set up, exactly where anyone is, and what they're viewing, at any time. I doubt that SOE's expensive board software would make tracking any chore at all.

But the fact is that the EQ2/SOE team has by all appearance intentionally, willfully chosen to simply to ignore tried and tested methods to prevent conflict of interest, and seems quite content to not enforce policies that would protect not only their customers, but their staff as well.

It's willful indifference, and it is, in my opinion, a VERY bad policy to have.

Again this is a matter of policy for me. I care not that there are mods, I care not who they are. I do care, and I care very much, that a company policy appears to be either total indifference, or extreme laziness when it comes to enforcing guidelines that virtually every other profession has found necessary, and found necessary for good reason.

It shows fundamentally a lack of respect to me, to you, to their entire consumer base, and to their staff. They chose not to take the steps necessary to ensure a fair system, as a matter of company policy. When a company makes it clear that they are simply unwilling to enforce guidelines that exist soley to protect us, and to protect themselves, that is VERY troubling for me.

THAT is what bothers me.

Well then that has absolutely nothing to do with the mods at all and that should be taken up with whomever handles forum policy. Blackguards replacement? Brenlo?

*shrugs* I've never seen a perfect company. And what issues you might have with it may not be the issues of others. In the end, the people that makes the rules will do what they think is the proper thing to do and either one accepts it, or they move. It seems you've chosen (somewhat) to move on. Such is life.

Arthais · 09-28-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

I can agree with them, it's probably in the best interest of everyone for SOE to establish a policy of enforceable guidelines for Moderators.

Where I disagree with many of them, is that it needs to be public. It is none of anyones business how SOE runs it's show. They have a customer service manager and a community manager who's purpose in life is to handle the playerbase. If SOE wants player input on how to do that? They'll ask.

I like public because...well I like public. Big fan of transparancy I am.

But even if it's not public, I have a really good idea what those guidelines SHOULD look like. I know, based purely on common sense, what they should, and should not allow.

Thus even if I don't see the exact rules, I know what kind of effect they should have, and can observe whether it is, in fact, having that effect.

Public is good, but I'm a reasonably smart fellow, I can see when it's working, and when it's not.

It aint been working too well.

Arthais · 09-28-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

Well then that has absolutely nothing to do with the mods at all and that should be taken up with whomever handles forum policy.

Yes well, I've been saying that it has nothing to do with the mods.

The mods are merely symptomatic, not the underlying problem.

As for moving on, depends on ones definition. I still play, I still plan to keep CR moving, now that my life allows for it.

I just don't post on the forums much anymore.

Savanja · 09-28-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthais

Yes well, I've been saying that it has nothing to do with the mods.

The mods are merely symptomatic, not the underlying problem.

As for moving on, depends on ones definition. I still play, I still plan to keep CR moving, now that my life allows for it.

I just don't post on the forums much anymore.

Well, if you don't agree with forum policy then that would seem like a wise move. The official forums are a small part of the whole package, and luckily, we can choose not to partake.

Nurta · 09-28-2006, 01:55 PM

So has anyone ever presented those arguments Elaine in a respectful manner with a red name? B/C I will be honest I bitched but I wasn't mature about how I did it. I'm sure some people did, I'm just wondering how many. And I'm also wondering that at the end of the day what has this and other thread done that is really beneficial for the cause this forum was created for? I think rather than help it, it only hurt it but that is my opinion. I think that while there are good arguments I think they are over shadowed by the context and undertones present. As Sav said, what if the people who have been named aren't really mods? Do they deserve to be abused in game with a berrage of questions or complaints? B/C while suchandsuch can post here that they KNOW soandso is a mod does that REALLY mean they are?

The good parts and points in this thread could be channeled for good and I think I hear you telling people they should be doing that Elaine b/c you are right going to the official forums with a chip on your shoulder about this forum and promoting it there will only make matters worse. This discussion IMO could have unfolded without all the name dropping, though I will admit it wouldn't have been as much fun for me.

The underlying tone I think I keep hearing is: it's about favorites. There is a perceived notion that people are treated differently for whatever reason. If that is the consensus I ask..."so?" What if anything can anyone do about it excpet what is being done here on this forum or in other channels? God I don't want to be cliche but all that keeps coming to mind is that one always hear's "life isn't fair" or "life's a bitch but then you die". What makes any of us think that a virtual world will be any different? Why do we even care if someone else seems to get the favors? Where is written that SoE or ok anyone should treat you fairly according to your perceptions? This game is multi-cultural, multi-national, it's not bound by ethnicity, or backgrounds. Hell some of the players may not even have the same rights as you or I. The idea that SoE should not play favorites just "because" they shouldn't is well I just don't know unrealistic? This is a paid for service that we each agree to when we are billed monthly or whatever method and when we click that accept button whatever the implications of clickable virtual contracts the bottom line is we are in their world now. They dictate to us and if we don't like it we have the ability to say fuck off and leave. That doesn't mean we can't complain but it means that we play by their rules. At least this is how I've always viewed my arrangement with SoE to play their games.

StryderShadowfax · 09-28-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sqee

I knew the post would be deleted - no surprise there...

The fact that it was deleted BEFORE i submitted it... surprised me.

The update from hitting "submit post" was the update that gave me the "new message" warning.

The moderator had deleted the post based soly on the header, and without reading it.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the boards just fucked up? I mean, it's Lithium after all...