Trade Channel and Player-Created Event Update

[Pinkleet]

I suspect that some people are irked because nobody buys their trades on the spot. That has to be this "instant gratitude" folks who came into this game and expect their trades to be instantly filled. Unfortunately for all your kiddies who were brought up on "awards for participation" Trade Office and trade chat is not filled by npc's.

We are real people and if there is no need for stuff you offer than go cry to your mom. Or lower your price perhaps. But don't kill a line or two of either funnies or courtesies in trade chat. Quite few of us in this game know each other well and sometimes we "shake a line" in trade just because we like to, but don't feel the need to go and brag in whispers.

Besides, I found trade chat often quite entertaining with so many cool players typing a funny line or two in between offers. Of course trolls are there too, but I think the mods are doing pretty good job on keeping things in check. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[Troll-Phu]

+1

[Magenta_old]

The poll for this question is now closed. While it was intended only to determine a consensus of player opinion, as said in the beginning, there are some things that do stand out from the numbers and the posts following. From the people who voted, nearly a third of the people are unhappy with some of the activity in the trade channel, to the point where they would like the rules changed to stop all small talk. Even if you remove the people who voted to remove the channel completed, a mechanically possible but realistically impossible choice, more than a quarter of the people seem to feel the current level of small talk is not acceptable. Sadly, the people who did contribute to the discussion all fall in the 'current rule' group, so the reasons for wishing the non-trade chat to stop completely can only be speculated.

In reply to some of the concerns expressed by those who did contribute to the discussion, the examples posted would typically be permitted in the trade channel and classified as small talk. The types of activities that are concerning are primarily those that would normally not be allowed under code of conduct regardless. Some simple examples of these are conversations about politics, country bashing, server bashing, and player bashing; some of these discussions have stopped trading activity for extended periods. These activities should be reported and we do take those types of disruptions seriously. The marginal category of conversation involves trade mechanics or game mechanics that may affect trade, including speculation on upcoming or active events. While we do not wish to limit game-related activity, when the conversation becomes the focus of trade chat, it prevents people from using the channel for its primary purpose. If such discussions extend beyond a short duration, they should be moved to another chat area, just as other trade-related activities already are.

There was very little comment on the update for the player-created activity guidelines. Hopefully that means that the changes are acceptable to the people who have read them.

Regarding the idea of self-policing (or self-moderation), it is something we would like to encourage. Currently, one of the largest issues on the trade channel falls outside of the code of conduct for the game except in a few rare cases. There have not been any general guidelines or conventions generally offered, and the lack of these does cause disruptive friction in the trade channel. Therefore, a new thread will be started requesting player-created conventions regarding lootspots. Please do not contribute regarding lootspots in this thread; use the thread about to be made for this purpose.

Happy Settling.

[Upgrayeddd]

The player response to this poll overwhelmingly agrees that non-disruptive smalltalk should be allowed and the current code of conduct specifically allows smalltalk in the trade tab and yet the moderation team seems intent on limiting even the slightest deviation from trade posts. Are the mods just being overzealous or are there some specific guidelines that the players are not aware of? It would appear that more clarification is needed.

For instance, we've all seen how the number of active players has declined and during the wee hours of the morning it will be an hour or more between posts. What is the standard for being disruptive? Does this change based on the level of activity?

Also, I've been told (by a BB no less!) that all links are considered interference and are not allowed at all in trade chat, including links for adventure guides, price guides and combat simulators. This seems extreme and counterproductive. This is not mentioned in the code of conduct. Is there some list of other things that are prohibited or do we need to wait for a warning or ban to find out?

This "summary response" doesn't seem to address any of the player's who've commented in the thread and instead focuses on the 26 people who voted for "trade posts only" and didn't leave a single comment. In fact, the entire poll seems contrived to produce a "trade posts only" result.

Part of the trouble with this entire thread is that those folks in the "trade chat only" camp usually don't contribute to the discussion (in the forums or in chat), so the only way they give any feedback is through reporting to a mod. Perhaps this lead the mods to believe that there's a problem where none exists. As a player, trade chat seems just fine. Very seldom does it stray too far from the topic and as runecaster said, "Small talk in trade brings life to the game."

[LaTuFu]

If you attempt to silence chat, regardless of the forms it takes, you will succeed. Players who cannot interact socially in a gaming platform will begin to find other avenues of distraction. I realize there is a global channel, but muting people for "small talk" creates unnecessary friction between players and community managers. There are countless other issues a CoMa team needs to worry about than a few players spending idle minutes in trade chat talking between offers.

This is another area where it seems like Mods want to make an issue larger than it really is. Leave it alone, it self manages pretty easily if you let it.

[Eriond]

some of these discussions have stopped trading activity for extended periods

This is speculative and needs to be called out as such. The assumption is that, were the "other discussion" to not have been happening, more "trade posts" would have occurred. As anyone who follows trade chat regularly knows, this is rarely the case, and when it is, someone usually says something and the "other things" usually stop at that point (so, self-policing is working).

68% of the respondents like the current rule as-is (or would prefer a more lenient, or at least less-policed, rule, based on the comments); that's a mandate any way you slice it. There's your real summary.

[LaTuFu]

This is speculative and needs to be called out as such. The assumption is that, were the "other discussion" to not have been happening, more "trade posts" would have occurred. As anyone who follows trade chat regularly knows, this is rarely the case, and when it is, someone usually says something and the "other things" usually stop at that point (so, self-policing is working).

68% of the respondents like the current rule as-is (or would prefer a more lenient, or at least less-policed, rule, based on the comments); that's a mandate any way you slice it. There's your real summary.

Quoting and reposting for emphasis. This is spot on.

[Raubhautz]

i'm willing to bet that 99% of the reports you get are from players with such crappy trades that even with no chat they wouldn't sell or someone got butt hurt and that p[layer and his alts started reporting. imo you guys need to go after all the alts, the real obvious ones, and you know who they are. I think that hurts trade more than the sometimes out of hand convos, that usually don't last long.

+1.

[...] 68% of the respondents like the current rule as-is (or would prefer a more lenient, or at least less-policed, rule, based on the comments); that's a mandate any way you slice it. There's your real summary.

+1. Yes, the 68% SHOULD have been the real summary.

[...] This is another area where it seems like Mods want to make an issue larger than it really is. Leave it alone, it self manages pretty easily if you let it.

+1.

[...] This "summary response" doesn't seem to address any of the player's who've commented in the thread and instead focuses on the 26 people who voted for "trade posts only" and didn't leave a single comment. In fact, the entire poll seems contrived to produce a "trade posts only" result. [...]

Yes, Well produced and concluded like any proper marketing pogrom, err... I mean program, questions, responses and the ensuing interpretations of the responses can be worded in any way desired. Usually the author is the culpable one; however, it is not unheard of that readers of the numbers can 'massage' the results into any fashion they wish. It would seem clear what the direction of this thread desired/wished.

[...] From the people who voted, nearly a third of the people are unhappy with some of the activity in the trade channel, to the point where they would like the rules changed to stop all small talk. Even if you remove the people who voted to remove the channel completed, a mechanically possible but realistically impossible choice, more than a quarter of the people seem to feel the current level of small talk is not acceptable. [...]

With all due respect, which is never clear, I must ask these questions:

So, you lumped 2 questions together to obtain a result you desire to enforce? it still fell short of any sort of majority, What happened to the 67.7% who responded to leave it alone (as-is). You (acting on BlueByte's behalf, I presume) put this poll together to see what the majority of the players considered. I realize that the rules and design of the game is not truly a democratic setting, however, the players were polled and responded: We (collectively) replied with a majority that would, even in the US Congress over-ride an Executive veto, so why is it the minority you are addressing?

Look, if you (as a part of a management team) are going the path of a dictatorship, that is fine, it is a free game and not obligated to anything. Do it. Just don't tell us our opinion and then proceed to tell us the majority went a direction that is not true.

[...] Sadly, the people who did contribute to the discussion all fall in the 'current rule' group, so the reasons for wishing the non-trade chat to stop completely can only be speculated [...] If such discussions extend beyond a short duration, they should be moved to another chat area, just as other trade-related activities already are [...]

Yes, that is what the [more than] two-thirds responded with. Thank you.

[...] There was very little comment on the update for the player-created activity guidelines. Hopefully that means that the changes are acceptable to the people who have read them [...]

This appears to be grossly taken out-of-context. As shown in the results of the poll, AND by your previous acknowledgement, we the players want NO CHANGE! That means the changes to which you refer, 67.7% do NOT find them acceptable; they already stated they want no changes, why would they then have to comment further about the changes that they do not feel are necessary?

67.7% wish there to be NO change to the current policy in the Chat Tab. Please honor the wishes of the majority; or at least tell us that our opinion does not matter, and you all will change the enforcement to what you wish. Be honest is the bottom line.

Thank you for your time.

[Ceruhe]

So, you lumped 2 questions together to obtain a result you desire to enforce? it still fell short of any sort of majority, What happened to the 67.7% who responded to leave it alone (as-is). You (acting on BlueByte's behalf, I presume) put this poll together to see what the majority of the players considered. I realize that the rules and design of the game is not truly a democratic setting, however, the players were polled and responded: We (collectively) replied with a majority that would, even in the US Congress over-ride an Executive veto, so why is it the minority you are addressing?

Ahhh. Don't worry Raub, that's is the new form of democrazy that is creeping up. Just like with the recent Brexit, there is a petition to have a 2nd referendum because the people got it wrong the first time
I think that was also the case some years ago in Ireland or so....anyway, they'll just end up re-voting over and over again until they have the result they initially wanted. There is only so much you need to do to spit in peoples faces so obvious while keeping them under the pretense of having choices.

[Thambetochen]

Gotta say, I was put off by the inclusion of a non-option in the survey but reading through the follow-up all I can think is:





Real book, worth a read.