@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:
@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:
That is a reasonable way to look at it, but it's not one that I share. If someone suffers public shame as a result of being banned, so be it; however, I know a handful of people who have been banned which I do not considered to be either shamed or besmirched by the act. Sometimes, a ban comes down because a player simply cannot work with staff for one reason or another.
I find this curious. If a player simply cannot work with staff, why are they banned? Have they actually done something wrong? If not, a ban seems silly and excessive. If so - well, then that's the shameful thing they've done, and why banning them is still textbook public shaming.
Unless of course there's some sort of example of a situation in which someone is banned, having done something legitimately deserving of a ban, but no one thinks any less of them as a player/staffer as a result. But I do not think this is possible, as a banning smacks very much of 'Leave and never come back!' as opposed to 'Sorry it didn't work out, maybe one day!'
You'll never be able to keep people from interpreting it how they will, but I think people would overall be happier if they didn't take "you're no longer welcome in my pretendy sandbox" as a condemnation of their fundamental worth as a person.
There's a big internet out there. Not every part of it is a good fit for everyone.
@Jeshin said in Punishments in MU*:
Mob mentality whitelist/blacklisting is probably not a good thing for a hobby wherein there is enough drama to keep a forum running 24/7.
That is every hobby. Model train enthusiasts... man, you don't even know.