Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Forum Rules Thread fall request for commentsFollow

#1 Oct 14 2010 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
As part of our continuing effort to keep the Forum Rules relevent and in line with our community, we would like to again ask for comment on the existing forum rules, which may be viewed here:

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Forum_Rules

We are looking for general and specific comments, suggestions for any additional rules, an areas of forum behavior that have not been addressed yet, etc.

From submitted comments and discusion, myself, Darqflame and other forum related administrators will draft proposed revisions or additons, if any. Those specific revisions will again be posted for comment, and then after approximatly 1 week, those that make the cut will be incorporated into the forum rules.

Please feel free to PM or E-mail me if you have any questions about this that you would like to ask off thread.

Thank you,
Administrator Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#2 Oct 14 2010 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Just like to say I applaud Alla for asking for our input. Way way too many sites completely ignore their user base until any ongoing problems are too big to contain.

So, yeah, thumbs up. This kind of thing is much to rare as it is. Very very happy to see Alla doing this.

I do have one small concern. In both the Avatars and Uploaded Images section, it references a link to what the motion picture industry allows as PG-13. Currently, the link is broken. Also, consider that PG-13 movies do allow some nudity and language, a better standard may be Network News standards. This would allow most things while automatically disallowing the 7 dirty words and nudity (as well as most "graphic" content).

Edited, Oct 14th 2010 9:44pm by Caia
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#3 Oct 14 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Thanks! we do try to make sure our users have some input in the process here. We certanly won't please everyone, but at least this way everyone gets a say in things!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#4 Oct 15 2010 at 4:01 AM Rating: Excellent
**
482 posts
Again, great to see the admins and moderators take an active interest in their forums!

2 things come to mind.

(1)Section III and Section X tend to conflict with each other. Saying that one can use the karma system to deal with “stupid, inane or controversial posts”, and then say you can’t use the karma system on users whose every post is “stupid, inane or controversial”. Certainly “excessive use” comes to play. But what is the difference between rating every post by a user that posts once a week versus rating every post by a user that posts 3 times a minute? In both cases a user is being “camped”. So does “excessive use” come into play only with the 3 times a minute poster because of higher visibility/post count?

Maybe set a daily/weekly limit on the number of rates (up or down) per user against another user, or just a daily/weekly limit per user account. Also, warning notices via admin PMs would be a plus along with the notes on the user account.

(2)Not addressed in the forum rules, but has the idea ever been entertained to limit the creation of new threads only to users over a certain post count? For example, a user can only create new threads after reaching 50 posts. I think that would cut down on silly/repeat thread topics but still allow new users to participate. Instead of one topic that is “hot” that everyone could respond to, we get 5-10 topics of the same issue by users with 1-5 posts. Honestly this only really shows up when there are controversial topics, but it is annoying none the less. It doesn’t limit a new user’s request to be heard, but does limit the clutter that comes about with the countless repeat threads.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#5 Oct 15 2010 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Quote:

(2)Not addressed in the forum rules, but has the idea ever been entertained to limit the creation of new threads only to users over a certain post count? For example, a user can only create new threads after reaching 50 posts. I think that would cut down on silly/repeat thread topics but still allow new users to participate. Instead of one topic that is “hot” that everyone could respond to, we get 5-10 topics of the same issue by users with 1-5 posts. Honestly this only really shows up when there are controversial topics, but it is annoying none the less. It doesn’t limit a new user’s request to be heard, but does limit the clutter that comes about with the countless repeat threads.

I disagree with the idea of 50 post before making threads. A lot of people join specifically to post a question they need answered. I don't remember ever joining a forum to leave comments. I always join to start a thread.

This rule would repel everyone, not just spammers.

Quote:
Honestly this only really shows up when there are controversial topics, but it is annoying none the less.

Because this is when people have something to say, so they sign up and say it. Just because they have under 10 posts doesn't mean they're trolling/socks. This game has brought new blood to Zam, deal with it. Just because they're saying something you don't like doesn't mean they're here for trouble.

I'm always baffled at people wanting to censor discussion on forums. A forum's purpose is discussion, and real discussion should always spark reactions, good and bad. Your proposition would only cause a temporary slump in threads that bother you. 50 posts later the same people will be posting the same opinions anyway so might as well learn to ignore it if you don't like it.


Edited, Oct 15th 2010 6:10am by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#6 Oct 15 2010 at 4:35 AM Rating: Excellent
**
482 posts
Ratty, my idea wasn't to censor anyone. The idea is to limit the repeat topics. How many (example here) "I can't log-in" "My log-in doesn't work" "Why won't they let me log-in" "%#^$&@# log-in" do we need? All on the same page one right after another? I never said low post count users are all trolls/spammers/socks. I'm implying that maybe new users take a bit of time to read the board before posting? My intent would only be to limit those types of topics, not user's opinions. Please don't read too much into it.

____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#7 Oct 15 2010 at 5:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
8,779 posts
overall its looking pretty good to me kao. my only suggestion would be regarding section XI, specifically adding a "Quor Corollary" wherein users named Quor can, twice per year, and only to make very salient points, briefly break the profanity filter. for great justice. or....something.

Quote:

(1)Section III and Section X tend to conflict with each other. Saying that one can use the karma system to deal with “stupid, inane or controversial posts”, and then say you can’t use the karma system on users whose every post is “stupid, inane or controversial”. Certainly “excessive use” comes to play. But what is the difference between rating every post by a user that posts once a week versus rating every post by a user that posts 3 times a minute? In both cases a user is being “camped”. So does “excessive use” come into play only with the 3 times a minute poster because of higher visibility/post count?


the admins consider the context of this thing. for example, in the WoW forums it was traditional to post a "weekend goals" thread. the same guy almost ALWAYS posted it, and would ALWAYS get rated up. by everyone. pretty much everyone rated everyone else up in those threads, at least on the "plans" post (rarely on subsequent posts, often which consisted of congratulations on accomplishments or the like).

but they're feel good threads, designed to build community, and in that respect it doesnt matter really if someone is coming in and rating everyone up or down....the system auto-corrects itself. so many rate ups occur and its a good thread that even if a dozen socks were made to come in and specifically rate everyone down they still wouldnt be able to sub-default people.

likewise, if you have someone who says something fun, funny, insightful, or otherwise positive, but they say it every, say, thirty minutes, then chances are they deserve their rate ups. even if they manage to say it every three minutes they deserve them, as long as what they are doing isn't a rehash (i.e. no rating up posts that reference an earlier answer to a question in a previous post).

in effect, the nature of the system combined with the general customs of the community and decent human judgment serves as a strong bulwark against a lot of the problems. so some newbie comes in, and spams a dozen different forums with an honest (and likely grammatically incorrect) question. the community members see this, likely answer it if they can, and ideally say "by the way, please dont toss up a dozen different threads about the same topic. thats technically against policy, but youre new here so just be aware next time." if that doesnt work, or if the community doesnt step up and do that for whatever reason, the admins will come in and fix it.

and if someone is coming in and spamming posts with a new account, well, its pretty easy to sub-default all them if its clear that what they speak is dross. and the admins arent going to come after you if you seek out every one of their spam posts and rate it down, because theyre human and they have common sense too and theyll understand that, ultimately, you and the rest of the folks rating the spammer down are saving them a bit of work and keeping the site cleaner in the process.
____________________________
Quote:
The thing about me is that apparently it's very hard to tell when I'm drunk. So I feel like I'm walking sideways on a UFO and everyone else sees me doing the robot like a pro.
- MojoVIII
i have bathed in the blood of many. my life was spent well.
feral druids do it on all fours.
The One True Prophet of Tonkism.

http://therewillbebrawl.com/
#8 Oct 15 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
We've looked at user limits, and there actually are some silent limiters built in to some aspects of the forum that only kick in in very specific circumstances where we are able to clearly identify the account as a likely spammer based on a number of metrices. Very vague, I know, but I also don't want any potential spammers seeing those criteria if they were ever to search for specific countermeasures. The non spammer ones, well, bottom line in most of the forums we need more new people. The current "poster longevity" breakdown (excluding spammer accounts) for the alakhzam forums is that for every 100 new posters we get, 10 will stay longer than a month. 5 will stay longer than 6 months, 3 of those will last a year, and maybe 1 of them, if that will be here in 3 years. Right now we tend to break even with attrition, with a slight downward trend, mainly due to at work content blocking filters if for no other reason. So we want to encourage newbies to stick around, even if they are annoying at first, because like it or not, they help keep the forum alive and interesting. At the same time we have to try and keep established posters from leaving.

The Karma system rules are somewhat vague. Partially by design, and partially because it is suprisingly difficult to write rules that cover all possible solutions, especially since emotions tend to get involved.

We try to limit our involvement in regulating the karma system to quantity and context. If someone who has never had a problem before decides to rate an entire thread down because the people in that thread decided to make fun of their dead mother (I wish I was making this example up by the way) in that case I am not going to say a single word against the person doing the rating. If two people somehow manage to figure out that they are ratwing eachother down into oblivion and decide to engage in unrestricted karma warfare, I might just let them go at it. But if somoene is hitting a bunch of threads persistantly, or hitting a single person persistantly across threads, then we would likely intervene.

Section III was aimed at people who wanted us to ban users for posting threads they felt were particularily stupid, but were not against the rules. Section X was aimed at persistant abuse of the karma system.

The admin tools for reviewing karma are actually pretty useful. Each and every post shows right under the user avatar or name every rate on that particular post. But we also have tools to view All Rateings On a person, and all rateings made By a person. So the first thing any of us does when we get a karma complaint is go and look at the On and By section, and see if there are any patterns there. We also look at the thread, look at the context of the thread, and make adjustments if necessary.

Section III could maybe be worded more clearly to state that it is talking admin intervention in such threads.

____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#9 Oct 15 2010 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
I know some people will be very upset with this, but I really wish you guys locked threads a bit more often. Especially with search enabled for non-premium folks, there's been a ton of redundant threads (of which I'm sure I've been guilty a few times). I'm not saying lock people for being hateful, but lock threads that are redundantly hateful... more often.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#10 Oct 20 2010 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Since there were no major rule text changes proposed during the 1 week comment period, I'm going to go ahead and close this review session. Thank you to all who participated

Administrator Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)