ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

This moron is a forum moderator (ISD) on the forums for Eve Online. He is proof positive that the selection and training for ISDs is simply to receive a volunteer, give him a copy of the TOS, EULA, and forum rules, and forget about him. There is no handbook or PowerPoint presentation telling these guys what any of the rules mean, and they don’t seem to be capable of comprehending what the rules say on their own. Barstorlode only knows two of the rules: repetitive posting and ranting, but he doesn’t understand them. He thinks a repetitive post is anything that he has ever seen before, and a rant is anything that is either pointed or long. He doesn’t care that 90% of the responses to posts in the forums are ridiculous trolling, yet if anything is something he’s seen before or not written to his liking, the thread is locked. The primary disappointing feature of this pattern is that ISD intervention is not taken with a general mind to prevent anything really disruptive. Sure, there are rules, but enforcement should be centered on preventing that which is really disruptive. Check out the examples below to get a sense of his handiwork.

  • 10 Feb 2015, Thread. This one is just amazing. Barstorlode calls this post a rant and unconstructive. As mentioned below, unconstructive posting is posting without a solution. The post IS a solution to an implied problem. One sentence ending in a period. A rant? Amazing. The implied problem is that mining links inside a POS causes some kind of problem that the poster doesn’t mention. The solution is to remove them. It’s an opinion post. It is a matter of importance that has been discussed before, but not excessively or recently. Most of the responders agreed with the OP. A post like this serves to remind CCP that this is an important issue that they may have to revisit along with off-grid boosting in general, etc. No swear words, nothing rude, nothing facetious, not long-winded, just an opinion that mining link operation from POS shields should be removed.
  • 10 Feb 2015, Thread. Barstorlode needs to understand that there are no educational requirements to post on Eve online, the game is very international, and many players do not have English as their native language. Though writing was poor, this thread was not repetitious or hostile. It was just facetious. The poster wants to convey the idea that the player base bears responsibility for maintaining the technology to play the game and that CCP should make improvements to the game without regard to the technological limitations of those with older or low-performance computers. This is a valid post. Naturally 4 trolls respond with their ‘IB4L’ and ‘0/10’ ¬†responses. One responder commented that it sounds like a rant. He doesn’t know what a rant is either. Barstorlode locks the thread because it was ‘not constructive.’ The rule states that not being constructive concerns negative feedback without offering solutions – just complaining about what is without offering what should be. This post is saying, ‘I want Eve to go the way of a hardcore PS4 game, therefore CCP should not keep Eve technically minimal and Eve players should be expected to keep their hardware toward the top end.’ He offers what he sees as a problem (‘Eve is wasting time on the Mac client and old PCs’) and a solution (‘CCP should develop the game for hardcore game machines and players should suck it up.’) This is actually a constructive post, even if it is poorly written, snarky, and a bad idea. And finally, Barstorlode fails the universal test that should be applied to every ISD intervention: does this thread actually really disrupt the forums? No, it’s one of the only computer technology threads I have seen in General Chat.
  • 9 Feb 2015, Thread. This thread was locked for redundancy because another thread three weeks prior (and several pages separated on the forum) had offered the same idea. Having an idea repeated once a month, occasionally recurring ideas, are a good way to indicate that various players are independently having the same experience and an idea may be worth considering. Here Barstorlode fails to understand that his job is to prevent disruption of the forums from overwhelming and pointless swamping of the forums, not to prevent people from ever posting anything that someone else has posted. How else are we to assess common and recurring problems that should be fixed or ideas that several players are deriving independently and may actually be worth implementing?
  • 8 Feb 2015, Thread. This thread, posted by me, was locked for badmouthing the ISD – requesting information about alternate forums because Eve Forum moderation was poor. No content in the forum referred to ISD – all content in the OP was a link to another site (mine) referring to ISD. Does that mean any link to any point on any site will be locked if it talks about ISD or violates any rule? The post was not spam, as the rule defines spam as having no content or designed to harm. The post was a request for information about forums, which is a content question. Rants are devoid of substance. Barstorlode doesn’t know what a rant is.
  • 8 Feb 2015, Thread. The OP produced a very, very long post, an article, lamenting change in the game. It was too long for Barstorlode, so he locks it as a rant and redundant. He can’t tell the difference between an expansive opinion and a rant. I guess he considers all the articles in Time magazine rants, as some of them are long and some are negative. And again, if anything has ever been posted about on the forums in Eve’s decade-long history, Barstorlode feels entitled to lock it as repetitive because he doesn’t know the difference between forum flooding, which is disruptive, and maybe having a similar opinion to someone else somewhere else on earth.
  • 7 February 2015, Thread. This post was locked purely because of a dramatic title and its writing style. The poster was criticizing jump travel changes on account of increased ‘bad fighting’ centered on shooting cynos and that the the jump changes provide a bad precedent that he worries will lead to further restrictions and eventually affect black ops. Since Barstorlode can’t understand the post, he locks the thread as not adequately constructive. Was the thread a threat to the good order of the forums? No. But Barstorlode apparently thinks a negative reaction to jump travel changes on the basis of a fear of the changes being a poor precedent is something we’re not allowed to be concerned about.
  • 6 February 2015, Thread. So this post was a short, simple idea I’d never seen before (and I read the features and ideas forums every day). Several people post ridiculous responses, possibly trolls, but instead of deleting the potentially trolling responses, Barstorlode locks the thread and punishes the OP. Out of all the stupid responses, a couple of people give serious response, and one even likes the idea. The poster and thread are punished because of stupid responses? Or does he consider the OP a troll? What evidence does he have for that? None. The OP seemed serious to me. And then he throws in that the post is repetitive because on page 18 of a post in June 2013 someone mentioned a similar idea. Yes, there’s no way you can be this much of a failure as a moderator without mainlining liquid crack cocain straight into your heart.
  • 3 February 2015, Thread. Now this is classic. The thread was evidently locked because the OP called one of his responders a “numbnuts.” Now as soon as the poster presented his OP his responders jumped on him with all kinds of harassment. If you look at the posts above, you’ll notice that they are a range of ideas presented by honest posters, most not the best ideas, many not well-written, which are followed by pages and pages of responders trolling and being disrespectful. Does Barstorlode care about any of that? No. Well, after being heckled in this thread, the OP gets a little rough with one of his trolling responders. Is there a general admonishment? No. Is the offending response edited or removed? No. Are the many trolling responses edited or removed? No. The thread is locked and the OP is punished. The idea is not discussed. This is what’s bad for the forums.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s