Staff and ethics

[Roz]

@mietze said in Staff and ethics:

I think it’s better for all concerned to have a truthful, simple, short and clear explanation for the ban in all circumstances.

It prevents a lot of issues.

Bob was banned because of x incidents of inappropriately using ooc info IC. Please see our policy of x (if there is one). If you have questions or need a gut check about your own behavior in this regard please feel free to reach out to staff.

I think when I have seen silence or “face saving” explanations allowed to be given for someone being asked to leave, it tends to stir up more upset or in some cases allows that person to act as if nothing happened/no cause.

That’s not really good for anyone in that situation.

^^^^^^^^^

Ban posts/announcements are for the benefit of the rest of your game, not the banned party. And they serve a function and purpose. Obfuscating them eliminates that benefit and actually causes problems.

[Kanye Qwest]

@arkandel Nah, if it's just a little bit of a correction or discipline that does not result in a banning, I'd say no. No need to announce that. I might announce a clearer version of a policy if necessary, but then Arx is kind of a different beast.

[mietze]

Same thing for lesser punishments, if the effect is visible (like sudden removal from a position).

Jane has been removed from x position due to inactivity/being AWOL. Once we have resolved an ic solution, it will be given. Please see news faction head for our guidelines.

Joe has been asked to take a 2 week break from the game due to being rude/condescending/argumentative/abusive on the ooc channel after being asked to stop . Please review our behavior expectations, and if you have questions or concerns about your own behavior and aren’t clear then please feel free to reach out.

[ThatGuyThere]

@arkandel said in Staff and ethics:

@surreality So for example what's the correct generic approach to a scenario like this:

• There is an allegation that Bob is harassing Jane. Staff investigates.

1. Bob is found GUILTY and bans him. Does Staff announce that he's banned? Do they explain why? To what degree? To whom - is it only to those involved or to the public?

I would say staff should definitely announce the ban, for no other reason than to let people know Bob will not be around. Assuming Bob was not an asshole the entirety of his time there are likely other PCs unconnected to the complaint who might be in plots with Bob, politically aligned with Bob etc and the announcement lets them know to move on with RP.
Personally I would also like to hear a reason but that is secondary and optional but I think knowing the person is for true gone so weeks don't pass waiting for him to run the next scene of a plot is essential.

[surreality]

@kanye-qwest I call that the 'If we have to make a rule because of you, you probably really screwed up creatively' clause.

It's one of those standard catch-alls for 'welp, there's one nobody thought of before! I don't know whether to be horrified or impressed' things, like the 'we reserve the right to make additions, clarifications, or amendments to policy as needs arise', and is essentially one of the unspoken components of precisely that. It just doesn't typically require any outing of anyone's laundry unless the situation is dire, agreed.

<random staff confession> Though it is never announced with a name, and I would never even say it on a private staff channel, these always somehow get nicknamed in mental shorthand after whatever crazy person inspired them somewhere in the back of my brain. 'The Joe Clause', etc. </random staff confession>

[ixokai]

Like. On the making a rule because of you thing?

Someone on M1963 put in a request to run a plot with a mutant that possesses people. They described types of things they would do. All seemed good.

They proceeded to have their PC possessed, have mild sexytimes with their boyfriend, and then be unpossessed, and claim, SEXUAL ASSAULT. Boyfriend did not have any reason to be even vaguely aware girlfriend was possessed during mild sexytimes.

We're all: -.-

Seriously? We needed the 'dont rape yourself' rule? Sigh. Fine. Now look we have a rule.

Now, all that said, on topic: I am for announcing major disciplinary actions. Minor ones, ones that don't need banning, I'm for announcing a change in rules or clarification in rules about an issue. But not shaming a player we've determined we're allowing to stay.

If what a player did is not enough to ban, then its important to protect that player and while you might privately share that 'a warning has been given', etc, with those affected, you should not create some stigma around the offender.

[mietze]

Holy shit, someone tricking others oocly into participating in rape play is pretty yuck! I hope the boyfriend or whoever was oocly aware/fine with that path! If not, that would rise to the level of a bannable offense (banning the possessed person), at least for me.

Maybe I’ve just encountered too many Surpise! Rape and Rescue! So Dark and Gritty! “plots” on WoD and fantasy games.

[flahgenstow]

@ixokai

They seriously raped themselves??

It be your own people

[ixokai]

@mietze said in Staff and ethics:

Holy shit, someone tricking others oocly into participating in rape play is pretty yuck! I hope the boyfriend or whoever was oocly aware/fine with that path! If not, that would rise to the level of a bannable offense (banning the possessed person), at least for me.

They were absolutely not okay with that path. Not even a LITTLE bit. The plot runner wanted to reset and pretend none of it happened, the boyfriend was like: ... No. There are Consequences here, you reaped what you sow. And we chose to respect that.

He didn't want a ban, but didn't want to just handwave away the situation, and instead to accept it ICly. We crafted our response based upon his wishes.

Maybe I’ve just encountered too many Surpise! Rape and Rescue! So Dark and Gritty! “plots” on WoD and fantasy games.

I... have seen those, but just didn't expect it in a comic game.

@flahgenstow said in Staff and ethics:

@ixokai

They seriously raped themselves??

It be your own people

Yes. Seriously. They created the situation entirely, without anyone elses consent (and we're a consent based game), or fore-knowledge, where they could claim assault... because of the situation they, themselves, made.

To say we were all collectively, on staff: WTF?!

Is an understatement.

[surreality]

@ixokai Weirdly... I think I would have that one covered. Not the specifics, because... I... <spikes the shit out of her coffee> ...really. Wow.

There's the standard rape clause (can't involve someone in rape-related RP without their consent), which would cover this, ultimately.

There are also 'informed consent' (make sure the player reasonably knows what they're getting into if it's known to the person initiating the scene, she clearly knew, he clearly didn't) and 'no bait and switch' (agreeing to mild sexytimes != agreeing to perpetrate sexual assault) as things under the consent policy, and really... I'd call that one hitting both of those right on the nose.

<goes back to gibbering in Even Cant and reaches for the vodka bottle> Goddamn, hobby. Just... goddamn.

[ixokai]

@surreality Yeah, believe me, we shoulda been on top of this. We completely know. We messed up. The particulars of the screw up just... whoa, shocked us. And yeah we made new rules.

[surreality]

@ixokai I don't think anyone would have seen that one in particular coming, I mean... WOW.

[Arkandel]

So while we're on the subject of rules... do you think it's better for staff to create a detailed set of policies, or keep it to generic "don't be an asshole" guidelines?

[TNP]

@arkandel said in Staff and ethics:

So while we're on the subject of rules... do you think it's better for staff to create a detailed set of policies, or keep it to generic "don't be an asshole" guidelines?

We started out with 'don't be an asshole' as a tl;dr version of some basic policies that should be common sense. We added as needed (see above).

[Lithium]

The problem with 'Don't be an asshole' as a rule, is that it is subjective. I would never run with just 'Don't be an asshole' because of that. What one person is ok with, another person is not and there are some hard themes I will never allow on my games.

As for the person running the plot about possession and assault etc...

This is /kinda/ one of the reasons why I dislike people putting their own pc into any plot they are running.

Yes, some people can handle it, and use their PC as an NPC properly.

Others cannot.

It's better to err on the side of caution and protecting the player base imho.

[Ganymede]

@tnp said in Staff and ethics:

We started out with 'don't be an asshole' as a tl;dr version of some basic policies that should be common sense. We added as needed (see above).

I like vague rules, as staff. It allows me to shoe-horn obvious things in.

"Don't be an asshole" is a fine rule for the situation. A player that engages their PC in sexual RP with another PC, but then turns it into a rape or sexual assault ICly, for whatever reason, is as much of an asshole as someone who engages in consensual sex in real life, and then claims it was sexual assault the next day. That's kind of what I'm seeing here.

I'd probably go with: "Don't run plots that involve or result in sexual assault or non-consensual sex." This might seem to cut out a few legitimate good-guy plots, like rescuing kids from predators. However, although child trafficking often involves sexual congress, but you can have a perfectly reasonable plot involving the rescue of children from a predator that has nothing to do with sex. See, e.g., B:TAS, S.1 Ep. 6, "The Underdwellers".

[Faceless]

@arkandel said in Staff and ethics:

So while we're on the subject of rules... do you think it's better for staff to create a detailed set of policies, or keep it to generic "don't be an asshole" guidelines?

That's so vague that sometimes it hurts. Much like The Reach's "Be Excellent To Each Other" policy. I get it. It's a sensible rule to the average person. To MUers who, more often than not, are pedantic wanna-be lawyers(or actual lawyers, in some cases)? Yeah, I'd just air on the side of caution and spell it out as clearly as I'm able.

Should you necessarily have to go into the tedium? Almost certainly not. With many MUers(sometimes myself included) however, you need to be hyper-specific with the expectations. Being appropriately vague and overly thorough each has their respective place, sometimes at the exact same time. In dealing with the frequent imaginary fun-time hobbyist, I tend to air on the side of thorough and/or specific. It offers less room for the more abusive elements of the MUing world to try to play language-lawyer.

As a staffer advised me a few months back: many people don't grasp nuance in text.

So when it comes down to a question of whether you have a generalized blanket policy or go into the tedium of specifics?

I. Harassment will not be tolerated... (generalized statement)

• This includes harassment based on sex, religion, goat-loving, etc, etc, etc. (specific)
• If another player asks you not to page them and you continue? This is harassment. (specific)
• If you are repeatedly asked not to send pictures of Dick Van Dyke to another player and continue to do so after receiving a warning, you will be banned for harassment. (specific)
• If Player A is asked not to page, whisper, or otherwise contact Player B and Player C contacts Player B on the behalf of Player A? Player A and C will be banned for circumventing anti-harassment measures. (specific) (this would also require some sort of public declaration that Player A should not be contacting Player B)

As previously mentioned rules are meant to protect players and the game itself. Being general and working your way down into the specifics increases that protection in a very clear way. Can every possible scenario be covered? Nooooo. Harassers, abusers, and the rest are creative. Take away their lighter and they'll put a couple safety pins in an electrical socket, heat those bastards up, get some toilet paper, and light their cigarette that way. Being general and providing specific examples though? Provides the rake or the net that is designed to handle a lot of your commonly encountered issues that arise within the hobby.

@darinelle said in Staff and ethics:

I love the Bannings board on Arx.

I think it's a good thing. Because when the hammer is dropped, it sends a very clear message. Paraphrasing what @Kanye-Qwest said previously: it creates a very clear stance, with no uncertain terms. The only thing that needs to ultimately be kept in mind is that it shouldn't be seen as some board for staff(on any game using a ban board) to get some 'last punch' in or, more likely in the case of most games and most staff groups, reveals inconsistency in punishment(s).

[Kanye Qwest]

@ixokai Yeah I probably would have banned the "i raped myself" player, if their proposal was a bunch of innocuous shit.

@faceless I'm never trying to get a last punch in on the bannings board, I don't think. Now i have to go re-read them.

[Faceless]

@kanye-qwest said in Staff and ethics:

@faceless I'm never trying to get a last punch in on the bannings board, I don't think. Now i have to go re-read them.

No, no. That's not a statement directed at you specifically. It's a generalized cautionary mention. Because I've seen it happen in past games. Sorry for the confusion. Looking back I can see how you'd link one statement to another, with the mention of you scrunched in between them.

"Jim was banned because he's a creepy shit and was harassing another player."

It just comes off as excessive and as if staff has some sort of personal investment or even making the banning seem personal. When they could just state the facts, without the need to make it seem personal.

"Jim was banned because he was harassing another player, repeatedly, in pages. This is a warning to anyone else that wants to send multiple pictures of Dick Van Dyke and does not stop when asked."

[Lithium]

Bannings should be simple and to the point:

Player A was banned because they violated our policies that result in banning.

Done.

If you absolutely must list which policy just to head off questions. Bannings should be transparent imho, you don't have to name who was the victim or anything like that, but you most definitely should state which policy was the one that was violated.

This serves several purposes, it lets the players know you won't take violations of that policy, it warns people on other games that said person violated this specific policy, and it provides transparency on the situation that is needed.