Chat Moderation Changes and Additions!

[Sesaline]

28 minutes ago, D20 said:

Oh please, we're not some kind of totalitarian hivemind from outer space. No seriously, what do you guys think we are ? We don't ban people out of the blue like that. That's not how we work.

If this didn't blow up on reddit again for the umpteenth time my messages wouldn't have lasted 2 minutes on this forum and that's the truth. Fortunately this is a thread where my concerns are actually relevant to the topic for once. It's only been... what, 2+ years in the making? The vast majority of people affected by these moderators and practices do not care enough to voice their concerns here or are worried about worsening their own situation by doing so (like me). Look at the track record of previous posts with similar concerns... all locked and shut down, telling the poster to take it to 'support'. The same support that a mod publicly waved around as a fruitless effort. Let's not even bring up Rev and Co. I guess.

This isn't some overreaching conspiracy theory as you are making it out to be. I'm glad that the bot is being reworked (it really needed it). Giving an automated bot ban powers is just about as bad as giving volunteer moderators ban powers without logging their account activity-- oh wait. 😳 Either way, none of this addresses the pile of proof regarding Moderators (and beyond) acting in their own best interests while tossing customers and DE rep in the bin. DE doesn't even abide by the rules they set for their playerbase. They can have redtexts joking about fisting and comedic reactions/comments about Mesa's butt on stream but then you have a moderator policing pixar-grade humor in-game and following up by threatening chat bans to everyone:

Spoiler

Do I need to censor their name or is this mod publicly threatening everyone and disrupting a harmless conversation fair use? I'll be safe and say yes, I need to censor so that I don't get my posting rights revoked like many others before me have. With Mod power comes the responsibility and awareness that whatever you say openly on said account is being watched and logged. Well, logged by us, the players. Not by DE of course, until now at least. There's a lot more of this 'I'm not in a great mood so everyone shut up'/ 'nothing will happen to me' / 'this community is human garbage' mod mentality posted all over the place for anyone to see. I welcome them to find the more severe screencaps as mine is the mildest one I could find. I'm already laughing at the hypocrisy behind this, given that this exact moderator openly plastered a picture of limbo ass-up in the face of another blushing frame on their profile.

The problem is that the moment a moderator's name is mentioned, the post is removed. If support isn't listening, and the mods aren't listening, and the staff also doesn't seem to care, then where does a player turn? Apparently reddit and places beyond DE's grasp. DE has chosen to keep moderators who insult the community in ways that would never fly if anyone  said them in game to even another player. Mods that are so hypocritical and impulsive that they literally tell the community to "keep your stupid fetish crap out of my chat" (referring to region btw) while also posting damn near NSFW and very niche artwork (referenced above) on the same public profile. Also included in this now-archived profile is "got a problem? take it to support. I don't care" and "I'm still a moderator after this mod fiasco -- I hope you're mad about it 😉💖". Not the first mod to publicly wish that the community would stay angry. Forgive me if I am wrong but isn't the purpose of a moderator to reduce tensions and keep a level headed approach to situations? This isn't some one time thing either. It has happened A LOT via several different moderators over the course of years.

An entirely different mod told people to please report them because "your report is nothing special". So at what point does a player believe that support will actually support them in any way when moderators have regularly flexed their immunity publicly? How can support help anyone when there is no appeal and support defaults to 'wait out your ban' AKA 'deal with it' and then requests no further replies on the matter?

So please, yes, waive this off as if it's never happened before. Nobody has ever wrongfully been banned in-game or on the forums for saying something a moderator simply doesn't align with. Posts don't get shut down and people are free to discuss their own representation at will here. Sure. /s

Your reply to me is troublesome. Kinda goes along the lines of saying moderators haven't had anything to do with the chatbots despite them flaunting that they definitely did. What they say publicly in their moderator position should be held up to a certain standard... especially as mere volunteers that are entirely optional. For these few, I honestly feel that they have crossed the line comfortably for too long. Is that uncalled for on my part? Still no comment on all of this. Still no comment on Bear being not only besties with them but also now their correctional supervisor (???). The attention to this is definitely deserved considering that no customer crossing their paths on one of their many 'bad days' were given a chance to appeal or voice their concerns. So here I am. If you want people to take DE seriously with these shiny new rules, start by enforcing them without bias from the ground up. Everyone knew several days ago that nothing would happen to these moderators and look, nothing happened to them. Surprise surprise. They hope we're still mad about it 😉💖. 

 

[notlamprey]

Another facet of this discussion that I think bears specific highlighting is the request that individuals shoulder some amount of responsibility for dealing with problems that weren't directly their fault.

DE's chat moderation policy asks this of players, when we are told we cannot use certain words because they have perjorative associations. How many of us have ever used these words with the express intent to target someone based on a label like race? I think it's safe to say few, compared to the total number of players. Let me throw a number out and guess less than five percent - we can quibble about the number later if we want.

My point here is that the solid majority of players are being asked to assume responsibility for correcting something they didn't directly, intentionally cause. This does happen quite a bit out in the real world, and the fact that hard-working people do it every day is wonderful because it allows us to enjoy a lot of daily benefits in our lives.

However, is it unreasonable of players to ask the same from our volunteer and staff moderators (both forum and game chat)? Of course I don't believe that every moderator is actively conspiring to tweak, antagonize and otherwise burden the community. Unfortunately, a minority within that group has displayed a pattern of such behavior. It therefore doesn't surprise me that a trust issue has developed.

Players are being asked to assume responsibility for negative externalities they didn't directly cause. If the new Code of Conduct is indeed aimed at providing a single comprehensive set of guidelines to govern everyone, players and moderators alike, I think it's fair to ask that our moderators and DE staff more completely acknowledge the problems that exist. To do otherwise risks undermining this new policy project right out of the gate.

[Sean]

6 hours ago, D20 said:

Oh please, we're not some kind of totalitarian hivemind from outer space. No seriously, what do you guys think we are ? We don't ban people out of the blue like that. That's not how we work.

 

While I honestly would be surprised if that happens to this topic, there have been other issues in the past that have been more... odd, and it is those that have helped erode trust. One of the reasons I keep seeing people cite for others to use the subreddit over the OFFICIAL forums is that you won't have to deal with some of the more extreme practices that SOME moderators do (heavy emphasis on "some"). So while I wouldn't go as far as "hivemind", I would say it's more of "some bad apples spoiling the bunch".

Sometimes a moderator seems to be "too protective" of DE and interprets something that is simply critical as outright devbashing instead of looking at the rest of the context of what is being said, and other times I've seen posts edited in underhanded manners. Hell, one of the reasons I even edit a good chunk of my posts now, even if I'm not actually doing anything to the post, is just so I can be sure that someone else didn't try and do a stealthy edit. When they do opt to hide that "Edited by..." flag, it then removes it completely from that user's post.

[SilverBones]

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

[FoxyKabam]

22 minutes ago, [DE]Bear said:

Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

See that was my biggest, worst, keeps me up at night concern through out this whole years long chat mod situation that keeps getting swept under the rug

The “satirically” toxic names

 

 

thank you bear, I feel so much better now

[Yggdrazzil]

26 minutes ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

And as a completely unintentional side-effect, the moderators get a new name that clears their bad rep without DE having to remove anyone. Clever!

[FoxyKabam]

3 minutes ago, Yggdrazzil said:

And as a completely unintentional side-effect, the moderators get a new name that clears their bad rep without DE having to remove anyone. Clever!

Stop it

you're not supposed to watch rug sweeping, you just look at how nice that rug is

[notlamprey]

22 minutes ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

First, I appreciate everybody's continued willingness to hang around in what is bound to be an uncomfortable discussion. That needs to be acknowledged before I proceed on to being disagreeable.

I do not believe that at all the aliases being referred to were satirical in nature.

When assessing the intent of any specific behavior, it's important to fit that behavior within as broad and comprehensive a context as possible if you want the most accurate assessment. In the case of one particular individual who shall not be named, that's exactly what the community did. This person had a large number of public web and social media accounts that were linked to one another, making it possible to get a fairly complete picture of this person's generalized online behavior patterns.

To paraphrase our distinguished and long-serving community moderator @Letter13 - if people do not act in accordance with the rules because they believe they are not being supervised, then they are not acting in accordance with the rules. (I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, but I'm trying to help us establish consistency for now.)

I believe this unnamed individual was broadcasting close and personal associations with Digital Extremes while also acting in contravention of previously existing community guidelines. Since @Cleesus has already pointed out that "retroactive punishments" will not be applied, I won't build an argument based on the breaking of any new guidelines. Even under the older guidelines, there were instances of behavior on platforms including, but not limited to, a personal Tumblr blog (which again I will not name).

This person's activity on that blog strongly indicates to me that their alias was not satirical. If it was, there would be no need to carry the 'joke' as far as it was. At some point, you must dispel the confusion in order to prevent causing collateral damage. To my knowledge, this never happened.

With all respect to @[DE]Bear, we have the receipts. The community has compiled a thorough history of interactions that indicate to us this person was not kidding around, but instead was abusing not just the kindness and generosity of DE, but also the community. Yes, I'm also asserting that this person treated wide segments of the player community as stereotypes. Yes, the community has evidence of that too. That's a type of group labeling I don't think you want to encourage.

When someone makes comments with references to "crying anons who are butthurt about my url" and responds to honest questions about the nature of their alias with only "lol" - I don't believe we're talking about satire any more.

Sorry Bear, I'm sure you're trying to do the best you can manage while working within some very strict constraints. Unfortunately this just isn't going to work for me, or indeed a lot of other people, right now.

 

 

 

[Sean]

14 minutes ago, Yggdrazzil said:

And as a completely unintentional side-effect, the moderators get a new name that clears their bad rep without DE having to remove anyone. Clever!

 

I will say that with this, they're really between a rock and a hard place as on one hand, it had to be done, a person using a name that promoted bigotry (especially when combined with their behavior / rants) and another person whose name made others think they were an employee, just were things that could not have continued, and the other it does setup a "new identity" in a way. Maybe have a topic that lists all chat mods much like the one that lists all forum mods (though needs some updating).

 

While I do get the purpose of only having the rules apply now since now they are setup, and so applying them retroactively wouldn't be fair, there is another side of me that just sees a lot of the "new" Code of Conduct as just obvious / standard moderation practices. As such, they should have known that their behavior (that was both repeated and subsequently archived) was not the proper conduct a moderator should take, and some form of action, even just demoting them back into the Guides of the Lotus (instead of as chat moderators) would be fitting.

 

 

Additionally, there is this line on the chat moderator page linked in the original post that details some of the criteria to being a chat mod at all:
 

Quote

We look for a history of positive contributions to the community and a spotless Warframe account history.

 

It is safe to assume that the ones that have numerous evidence against them on this already do not fit that criteria.

[Helch0rn]

27 minutes ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

I am going to be really blunt here:

This took too long! Way, way too long!

If regular players can't use """satirical""" nicknames that insult or demean people based on their sexuality/gender/race/religion and so on, then Moderators (who in some way represent DE) should have never been an exception. The fact that it took you (as in DE) all this time and all this community outrage to react to these toxic names paints a bleak picture.

10 years ago I was a Mod for a real crappy online game. That game was a pure cashgrab and pure pay to win. The publisher only was interested in the money they could milk from the players but still they managed to have a better set of rules for their Mods and we (as in the Mods that decided who was allowed to join the team) regularly denied people because of toxic names.

 

regarding the toxic behaviour of some mods I am not exactly in the loop. But I hope you will keep an eye on them in the future and I hope that you will get rid of them if they continue the toxic behaviour of the past.

[notlamprey]

18 minutes ago, Sean said:

"We look for a history of positive contributions to the community and a spotless Warframe account history."

It is safe to assume that the ones that have numerous evidence against them on this already do not fit that criteria. 

Oh dear.

That does seem to put a wrench in things, if consistency is indeed a top priority.

[Sormaran]

1 hour ago, [DE]Bear said:

and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

Translation: "We know community is outraged, what if instead of "oh you" and slap on a hand we would go a bit further and make mods in question change their name and do nothing else? Thats enough for the issue being swept under the rug in 2-3 months?" - So much for "hard decisions" that wont be influinced by your frienship with certain people, Bear. Thats barely scratching the surface of the issue.

Spoiler: wont be enough to sweep everything under a rug either, just you wait till your friendos gonna ban someone else for nothing and then we go again.

[shut]

8 minutes ago, notlamprey said:

First, I appreciate everybody's continued willingness to hang around in what is bound to be an uncomfortable discussion. That needs to be acknowledged before I proceed on to being disagreeable.

I do not believe that at all the aliases being referred to were satirical in nature.

When assessing the intent of any specific behavior, it's important to fit that behavior within as broad and comprehensive a context as possible if you want the most accurate assessment. In the case of one particular individual who shall not be named, that's exactly what the community did. This person had a large number of public web and social media accounts that were linked to one another, making it possible to get a fairly complete picture of this person's generalized online behavior patterns.

To paraphrase our distinguished and long-serving community moderator @Letter13 - if people do not act in accordance with the rules because they believe they are not being supervised, then they are not acting in accordance with the rules. (I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, but I'm trying to help us establish consistency for now.)

I believe this unnamed individual was broadcasting close and personal associations with Digital Extremes while also acting in contravention of previously existing community guidelines. Since @Cleesus has already pointed out that "retroactive punishments" will not be applied, I won't build an argument based on the breaking of any new guidelines. Even under the older guidelines, there were instances of behavior on platforms including, but not limited to, a personal Tumblr blog (which again I will not name).

This person's activity on that blog strongly indicates to me that their alias was not satirical. If it was, there would be no need to carry the 'joke' as far as it was. At some point, you must dispel the confusion in order to prevent causing collateral damage. To my knowledge, this never happened.

With all respect to @[DE]Bear, we have the receipts. The community has compiled a thorough history of interactions that indicate to us this person was not kidding around, but instead was abusing not just the kindness and generosity of DE, but also the community. Yes, I'm also asserting that this person treated wide segments of the player community as stereotypes. Yes, the community has evidence of that too. That's a type of group labeling I don't think you want to encourage.

When someone makes comments with references to "crying anons who are butthurt about my url" and responds to honest questions about the nature of their alias with only "lol" - I don't believe we're talking about satire any more.

Sorry Bear, I'm sure you're trying to do the best you can manage while working within some very strict constraints. Unfortunately this just isn't going to work for me, or indeed a lot of other people, right now.

 

 

 

Well said.

This unnamed chat mod in question has a well-documented history of, ah, "less-than-constructive" interactions with the community they're moderating. They've flaunted their inappropriate social biases both ingame and on social media for quite some time, and they've been using their position of power to essentially bully players whose views don't match their own.

It's shocking and disheartening that, even now, DE is seemingly defending this individual by passing off their name as simply "satire". As if the only line this moderator has crossed is having a goofy name that angry players could've "mistaken for actual toxicity".

I don't mean to focus any blame on @[DE]Bear or anything, but the stance of DE as a whole on this issue doesn't exactly inspire confidence for the future.

[XaoGarrent]

2 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

You've completely and totally missed the problem. A name doesn't mean much. Nobody really cares about the alias. Everyone might, for instance, point to the chat moderator Tumblr handle, but it's not the handle itself that's the problem. It's not that they're being offensive that anyone has an issue with, it has nothing to do with anything being toxic or any kind of satire. The problem is actually that it *isn't* satire, this is an example of someone wearing their true nature on their sleeve. Nobody would care if it was really in jest.

People are up in arms over the ideas behind the names. What people have problems with is actually the complete opposite of what you call "toxicity" or satire, it's the politically driven babyproofing and the unwanted moral guardianship and grandstanding that's being objected to. Just doubling down on socially authoritarian moderation practices and applying the rules more consistently isn't going to solve the problem. You're just going to get more backlash, and accelerate the problem.

You've spent the last year banning people for memes and ironic S#&$posting. Basically, you're banning them for being people on the internet. You have entire Youtube channels that successfully promote your game by doing this, and you ban people in the chat for it. What you're now telling people is that you're just going to change the rules surrounding naming conventions of the people doing this, and do nothing to address the overzealous, ideological and out of touch rules and their subsequent application.

[Voltage]

Will we see any increase in Community Forums moderators? I feel as the playerbase grows, the staff team should also keep up with some sort of consistent ratio. I don't expect broken rules to be dealt with instantaneously, but it would be nice to see forum moderation occur more swiftly by more volunteers whom DE trust and are active.

Anyways, thank you [DE]Bear for the update on the system and it seems the foundation is set for a great system. Hopefully this improves the state of chat.

EDIT: I just read all the pages in this thread. I am quite astonished that the only thing done was a name change. Some players don't deserve their positions due to their behavior, and they should be terminated. There is no option A or option B. The behavior was apparent and well documented. I don't see how this is such a hard decision to make. I am all for working with people, and anyone who applies to my clan knows this. I don't believe everyone deserves a second chance based on the severity of their behavior though, and these moderators have proven just that. They don't deserve to be moderator. It's a simple outcome.

Here is my feedback on how chat is moderated:

Can we get a little disclaimer in a private message that chat bans are not to be discussed on the forums? This would alleviate spam on this platform and also enable moderators on the forums to act quickly to remove threads as this could be addressed with Verbal Warnings.

[Urlan]

2 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

A good first step, a messenger of arbitration shouldn't present themselves front and center as a messenger of hatred or intolerance. That said, I hope this means that current or previous moderation will no longer feature those that abused that position in the past - with a blog about doing so - and will live to the standards that DE has always written to have in place and for the most part held themselves to on the majority of occasions. Its a tough job, but sometimes you can't try to redeem the rot coated branch but must cut it to preserve the bush.

[(XBOX)Eminem2420]

This appears to be a good starting point. However, trust has been eroded in the past due to moderator abuse of players and nobody at DE doing anything about it. It will take a lot to convince those players that they will not be targeted like that again. Do not be surprised when the community reacts with justified skepticism.

[Sesaline]

9 hours ago, Sean said:

While I do get the purpose of only having the rules apply now since now they are setup, and so applying them retroactively wouldn't be fair, there is another side of me that just sees a lot of the "new" Code of Conduct as just obvious / standard moderation practices. As such, they should have known that their behavior (that was both repeated and subsequently archived) was not the proper conduct a moderator should take, and some form of action, even just demoting them back into the Guides of the Lotus (instead of as chat moderators) would be fitting.

 

6 months ago, 8 months ago, and all the way beyond 2 years ago... there are definitely receipts of these moderator abuses. DE said many, many months ago that they would be looking into it and the same moderators continued on in the same fashion as always. This is what really bugs me about not demoting them now and cutting ties with the DE name; they said that the were going to do something about it then and only now after another fiasco are we hearing that the mods are being reconditioned, so to speak. Every time something new happens with these mods, more evidence of recent abuse spills out for the same few.

So my understanding thus far is that for all the past occasions the moderators were never talked to? They were never told to follow certain guidelines without personal bias? Of course they knew about it then just like they definitely know about it now. Their reaction was to berate the community and even taunt us publicly. This is why myself and numerous others want them gone: they simply don't care. They are literally tarnishing the new player and community experience in this game which is meant to be social and rated Mature. In every online game you see clearly stated that the chat is not rated because it cannot be 100% contained. People will outsmart bots regardless of what DE does. People will say whatever they want and it will show for a mere second before being removed by a bot. You can't protect everyone all the time. Most of the comments I see deleted are completely harmless and it is just plain weird. None of this makes sense to me lol. It's just sad.

I'm not coming at Bear for full responsibility of these people. I know that he's not the one entirely calling the shots even if that is his duty now. DE needed someone for damage control real fast to throw a blanket over this reoccurring ordeal. Everyone with half a bit of sense knew that these mods wouldn't be removed. Now it just seems like the community is voicing our concerns even louder into the void to no avail. There's literally zero reason for them to remain after so many public displays of community outrage. There's enough proof in every case to show that these moderators are not fit for their roles... their mindsets and personalities seem pretty cemented if you ask me.

 

[Sean]

27 minutes ago, Sesaline said:

 

6 months ago, 8 months ago, and all the way beyond 2 years ago... there are definitely receipts of these moderator abuses. DE said many, many months ago that they would be looking into it and the same moderators continued on in the same fashion as always. This is what really bugs me about not demoting them now and cutting ties with the DE name; they said that the were going to do something about it then and only now after another fiasco are we hearing that the mods are being reconditioned, so to speak. Every time something new happens with these mods, more evidence of recent abuse spills out for the same few.

So my understanding thus far is that for all the past occasions the moderators were never talked to? They were never told to follow certain guidelines without personal bias? Of course they knew about it then just like they definitely know about it now. Their reaction was to berate the community and even taunt us publicly. This is why myself and numerous others want them gone: they simply don't care. They are literally tarnishing the new player and community experience in this game which is meant to be social and rated Mature. In every online game you see clearly stated that the chat is not rated because it cannot be 100% contained. People will outsmart bots regardless of what DE does. People will say whatever they want and it will show for a mere second before being removed by a bot. You can't protect everyone all the time. Most of the comments I see deleted are completely harmless and it is just plain weird. None of this makes sense to me lol. It's just sad.

I'm not coming at Bear for full responsibility of these people. I know that he's not the one entirely calling the shots even if that is his duty now. DE needed someone for damage control real fast to throw a blanket over this reoccurring ordeal. Everyone with half a bit of sense knew that these mods wouldn't be removed. Now it just seems like the community is voicing our concerns even louder into the void to no avail. There's literally zero reason for them to remain after so many public displays of community outrage. There's enough proof in every case to show that these moderators are not fit for their roles... their mindsets and personalities seem pretty cemented if you ask me.

 

 

Excellent points, and if these mods actually truly cared about Warframe, DE, or its community, they would opt to no longer be a chat moderator in order for trust to heal. As it is, it seems more for selfish reasons that they even continue to BE moderators at all based on what they have done.

[OniDax]

12 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

To clarify on some points made here:

As part of this change moving forward, we have asked that all current and new Chat Mods adhere to Alias naming conventions that do not have controversial natures. Although we understood the satirical nature of some Alias’, we are changing the policy to make it clear, and our Chat Mods are on board in making sure that they are not mistaken for actual toxicity.

To clarify further, we understand our fault in this by allowing some leeway on Alias’ because we knew they were satirical in nature, however, that does not translate well into the Community. If we were part of another Community, we would agree that some satirical Alias’ would be inappropriate. As of the new agreement, we will be making sure that regardless of intent, we will be consistent with this change.
 

This does not excuse the previous toxic and hateful behavior of the mod who had such a controversial (and literally hateful) name. That mod still needs to be removed, and if that isn't an option for you, then they should at least be made to issue an official, formal apology for their behavior. The other two mods associated with that individual should also be made to do the same if they will not be removed. Your new name policy is good, but it does not make up for their past bad behavior. Until these mods are directly dealt with, the problem continues to exist. Without taking this action, you're just sweeping the issue under the rug.

[AdunSaveMe]

17 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

we knew they were satirical in nature

The only way for anybody to know this is the person's word, and their word alone. It's going to be a bit hard for some people to believe that it was merely in jest based on that, especially if the person in question's behaviour gives context to their name.

[Voltage]

7 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

This does not excuse the previous toxic and hateful behavior of the mod who had such a controversial (and literally hateful) name. That mod still needs to be removed, and if that isn't an option for you, then they should at least be made to issue an official, formal apology for their behavior. The other two mods associated with that individual should also be made to do the same if they will not be removed. Your new name policy is good, but it does not make up for their past bad behavior. Until these mods are directly dealt with, the problem continues to exist. Without taking this action, you're just sweeping the issue under the rug.

There is a point where apologies mean nothing, and I think we are beyond that. Clearly these moderators expressed that they have a lack of respect for rules and the well being of others that aren't themselves. Termination is not only the easiest solution, but the correct one.

[o_pogode]

can you add some report button on moderators?

[(PSN)DARK_WIZARD999]

If i can't say the word "trap" without reprecussions, then it isn't fixed. The word has in game use, so personal reasons will need to take a back seat. 

Focus on keeping the stupid, unfunny CLEM and !plat spammers at Bay. Lol. 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

9 hours ago, (PS4)DARK_WIZARD999 said:

If i can't say the word "trap" without reprecussions, then it isn't fixed. The word has in game use, so personal reasons will need to take a back seat. 

Focus on keeping the stupid, unfunny CLEM and !plat spammers at Bay. Lol. 

You're several months behind on that one. How about you actually test it with a regular sentence with the word trap and see what happens. 

If you aren't sure how to use the word trap, there are some wonderful examples of that at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/trap

 

 

Oh and, "Clem".