Let's talk about TS.

[Carex]

@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:

This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase.

I'm sure they said something similar about having democracies instead of kings. Giving up control is always a horrible, unthinkable idea to people who have power.

[peasoupling]

I would leave that game so fast. As a completely uninvolved person, if that was policy, I'd just be out.

[Kay]

@carex assuming I didn't just leave the game, I would never ever ever tell staff about anything. If there is a problem, as a player I would expect and want staff to help fix it. I would not want every other player on the game to be involved and for them to decide how it should be solved.

[Roz]

@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:

@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:

This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase.

I'm sure they said something similar about having democracies instead of kings. Giving up control is always a horrible, unthinkable idea to people who have power.

It's almost like a MU* is a small hobby game and not an actual system of government!

[Coin]

@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:

@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:

This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase.

I'm sure they said something similar about having democracies instead of kings. Giving up control is always a horrible, unthinkable idea to people who have power.

This is not a personal attack, it is just an observation, but the more I read from you the less convinced I am you have a clear separation of the world of gaming and how it works as opposed to the real world.

It is a game. There is no actual oppression in the game because actual oppression can't be avoided; there is an absolutely huge chasm between a king having power (actually affecting your life in a way you cannot avoid because they rule you) and a staffer having power on a game (something that can be easily avoided by just leaving the game).

You are mixing levels of functional reality in a way that would make Theodor Adorno stick his head in a woodchipper.

[Doozer]

@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:

Give your players a justice system they are part of and your game will last longer with a more loyal player base.

No. And no to everything else. Player does something against policy, they are banned. That's it. If there's no policy then staff may create a policy and clearly state VIOLATING POLICY RESULTS IN BAN.

[Apos]

@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:

@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:

This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase.

I'm sure they said something similar about having democracies instead of kings. Giving up control is always a horrible, unthinkable idea to people who have power.

Ya but pretty much every single person that replied are players rather than staffers, so they are the powerless in your analogy, and think your idea is awful.

[saosmash]

What you've described is very different from how jury trials work, too. But even in the bizarre world where that's a jury trial, lemme explain something here.

Trial by jury exists to ensure fairness in fact finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt exists as a standard of proof because of the belief that restriction of personal liberty is the hardest thing a government should ever be able to do to an individual person.

To compare "not being able to play on a game anymore" to the restriction of fundamental personal liberty in real life goes beyond myopic to actually offensive. I'm gonna be in a jury trial next week to defend a person who is accused of ending the life of another human being. He's facing years in prison. That justifies the tremendous effort and expense of a jury trial.

No one, in the history of justice, would call a jury trial "efficient". It is one of the least efficacious ways of administering justice there is. Because the rights at stake are so important. Human rights are important so we sacrifice efficiency in favor of protecting them.

You know what isn't an important right?

The privilege of playing a pretendy game on someone else's server.

Misbehaving on a game doesn't entitle you to a jury trial. This is similar to misbehaving in a restaurant and being told to leave. You know those signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Totes legal. And when you harass another customer and get thrown out of the restaurant, there's no appeal because this is a free goddamn country and that's a private business.

[ThatGuyThere]

@magee101 said in Let's talk about TS.:

. You also cannot just on the first tume do anything.

I don't understand the logic behind this statement at all, it just seems to give everyone who wants to be a creeper one free shot. I mean if there is a pattern that is useful in determining the level of punishment but there are very much fist offenses than need to have the boot dropped on them right away and I would say this was one of them.

[Prototart]

@thatguythere said in Let's talk about TS.:

@magee101 said in Let's talk about TS.:

. You also cannot just on the first tume do anything.

I don't understand the logic behind this statement at all, it just seems to give everyone who wants to be a creeper one free shot. I mean if there is a pattern that is useful in determining the level of punishment but there are very much fist offenses than need to have the boot dropped on them right away and I would say this was one of them.

for real the only shot some people deserve is one to the head

[Carex]

@saosmash

To compare "not being able to play on a game anymore" to the restriction of fundamental personal liberty in real life goes beyond myopic to actually offensive.

And no one is making that comparison but you.

I'm saying the jury system works because it allows the common people to believe that they have at least some part in how justice is given out. People believe in the justice system because it isn't just officials handing out dictates without the citizens having any say in the matter.

No one, in the history of justice, would call a jury trial "efficient".

I agree. As I said before, it would make things more difficult. That was never in question. I just question if that added difficulty is worth the effort to increase the longevity of the engagement of the players.

The consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be worth it.

Misbehaving on a game doesn't entitle you to a jury trial.
You are looking at this from the perspective of the perpetrator. Proposing this system has nothing to do with the outcome. The bans would happen either way.

I'm not saying that the creeper deserves a trial, it isn't about what they deserve. It isn't about them in any way, shape, or form because society already has standards that dictate the outcome of the events. It's about engagement.

I'm saying that if you have a trial by public vote then you will make the game more engaging for everyone else. You give the players a feeling of power and control over the fate of the game. You give them a way to define what the game stands for and stands against.

The creepers will still get banned but if you let the players do it as opposed to just having staff do it unilaterally, you make it a community effort.

The people in that community will care more about what happens because it is their judgement to make and the more they care, the more they feel empowered and the longer they play.

Games are in contention for an ever-shrinking player-base. If you want people to stick around giving them a sense of collective power is a good way to do it.

Take a look at Blizzard.

They have made an art form out of giving their player base the feeling of power. They purposefully create problems like overdoing the global cool-down changes then let the players complain, then pretend to react to the player's feedback and undo some of the changes.

Blizzard leaves only the changes Blizzard actually wanted in the first place.
The players feel like Blizzard listened to them and cooperated with them so they end up being thankful to Blizzard instead of fighting them. This creates long term engagement.

In the same way creating a justice system that involves the players creates long term engagement. The outcome will be the same, the creeper will get banned because the majority will always side against a creeper but your playerbase will thank you for it and feel empowered because they were part of the process.

[Roz]

@carex You are incredibly wrong about how people would react to this and you're ignoring the many people talking about how off-put they would be if they were a player on a game with this as policy.

[ThatGuyThere]

@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:

I'm not saying that the creeper deserves a trial, it isn't about what they deserve.

But the entire concept of jury trial is based on protecting the rights of the accused not on getting the public engaged. And while RL the public to varying degrees does believe in the justice system very few want to participate in it, as shown by how much people do not like jury duty. Go into any jury selection situation and poll the perspective jurors about weather or not they want to be on the jury and I would be doubtful you would find enough that wanted to to fill out the jury.
So implemented on the game you would likely have most people avoiding the issue and not voting and only those with an ax to grind one way or the other actually voting.

[Ominous]

Let's be honest. We kind of already do trial by public opinion here on these boards. Someone makes a thread about how much of a bastard Ominous is and lists the details of all the awful things I have done to them. Other people add to the litany. I post a "No, you" response. Maybe one person sides with me, becoming my advocate so to speak. So on and so forth.

Let's keep it off of the MU*s, though. Those places are already crazy enough without importing our particular kind of batshit to them.

[Arkandel]

@ominous said in Let's talk about TS.:

Let's keep it off of the MU*s, though. Those places are already crazy enough without importing our particular kind of batshit to them.

You think suggesting someone should be removed from a game for trying to force other players to roleplay being pregnant-via-magic is a batshit notion?

I disagree with some of the knee jerk reactions we sometimes put on display here. This isn't one of them.

[Ominous]

@arkandel How are you reading "let's keep courts of public opinion off of MU*s" as "let's not ban creeps who violate policy?"

[Arkandel]

@ominous If I misread your post I apologize.

[Tinuviel]

At what point does airing a grievance or complaint become a court of public opinion?

[Ominous]

The moment you air that grievance on a forum rather than to staff. That's what a forum is - a court of public opinion.

[Tinuviel]

Then... courts of public opinion are already on every game and in every human interaction.