Punishments in MU*

Tinuviel

@surreality

How do you stab someone with a rusty anchor?

I'm not sure if making someone fall on an anchor would be the same as stabbing them, per se, but that's how I'd do it. Olde schoole anchors were pointy as heck.

surreality

@Ganymede ...maybe scale back on the enthusiasm just a smidge from that. Just a smidge.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

...maybe scale back on the enthusiasm just a smidge from that. Just a smidge.

Anyhow, the commiseration circle is just another form of gossip played by idle minds.

surreality

@Ganymede I'd call it a notably dangerous one for this hobby. Fill a group with imaginative people with anxiety, avoidance issues, varying degrees of social awkwardness, etc. (HI!) and you're going to get some doozies.

The big difference here is that if the Penelope or Harland from that example simply said to the other, "Squeeb rapes dogs and stabs the elderly with rusty pirate ship anchors!" the listener is most likely going to realize what complete and utter insanity that is.

The build-up, taking the form of a paranoid validation cycle, has both of them believing this to be fact.

That's not a trivial difference, even if it is a subset.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

I'd call it a notably dangerous one for this hobby. Fill a group with imaginative people with anxiety, avoidance issues, varying degrees of social awkwardness, etc. (HI!) and you're going to get some doozies.

Is it fair for me to say that I find the spiral to be built on unreasonable conclusions?

Is it also fair for me to say that if a conclusion is unreasonable, one should not come to it?

I've come across speculators. I've pointed out the speculation. It seems to ameliorate the situation most of the time. But, sure, some of us won't be reassured or appeased by that, and that's fine.

So, it can be dangerous, yes. As it applies to punishments, though, the reasons for punishment do not have to be public. The rampant speculation when bans occur without apparent reason are hardly ever quelled when the reason is given.

surreality

@Ganymede I'm not talking so much about it applying to punishments on a game, though it's relevant there as well, to be sure.

It is definitely a reason to take the 'run people out of the community on a rail' approach with extreme care and with hard facts rather than this kind of speculation.

You're a rarer person than you think re: people call this out more often than they don't, and that speculation is often pointed out. We would be in a much better place collectively if that was the norm.

faraday

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Sometimes not just the best but the only deterrent is publicly pointing a finger at someone and telling them they are assholes.

I have to disagree. I want players on my games to be constructively contributing to the game's community. They are very unlikely to do so if I point a finger at them - especially publicly - and call them an asshole.

Someone said it in the other thread - staff are managers. An effective manager doesn't publicly name-and-shame employees who screw up. That erodes trust. It creates an adversarial environment. You either steer them toward a path toward redemption (if you think they're redeemable) or you let them go.

Pandora

@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!'

surreality

@Pandora There are a lot of reasons 'isn't willing to work with staff' could end up eventually in a ban.

Examples:

someone told 'no' about a thing they then go on to do anyway, and defend doing despite being told no
someone insisting theme or policy be changed to suit their preferences rather than following the existing community guidelines that work for everyone else
someone unwilling to follow whatever steps are outlined to do a thing (send in a note before running a plot, ask if you're going to create a new character in a private faction, etc. -- whatever they are)

These tend to result in 'this game is not what you're looking for, it isn't going to become that for you, and your refusal to accept this is causing issues for staff/other players; you are not a good fit here, leave'.

Plenty of people leave of their own volition at that point; some say 'no'. Either way, the result is essentially the same, and really should be backed up by code. Just because someone walks out the door voluntarily doesn't mean they won't sneak back around with a new name and pull the same garbage behaviors all over again; there are people who make this their standard operating procedure.

insomniac7809

@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.

Tinuviel

@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:

If a player simply cannot work with staff, why are they banned?

Because they cannot work with staff. Ideally in that instance staff should ask the player to leave, but "we just don't want you on our game" is a perfectly valid reason to remove someone from the game. In this case it doesn't need to be public, it's not punishment, simply incompatibility. More people, not fewer, need to understand that this is a legitimate recourse.

insomniac7809

@Tinuviel And springboarding off that...

"This behavior is disruptive and bad for everyone's collective good time" is a legit reason for a banning, whether or not the behavior technically falls in violation of subsection 2.a of article C of the game's posted code of conduct.

We are here to have a good time. We do not need to treat adjudication as if it were a criminal conviction.

mietze

I think on some games that do not require much staff/player interaction that maybe it is less of an issue. But when it comes to situations where dealing with a particular person is extremely time consuming and wearying whether they are a dick in general, constantly needing hand holding, emotionally fraught/fragile, constantly stirring up ooc drama, sad sacking, constant need for monitoring due to game issues like theme not not cheating per se...sometimes that takes more time and energy than staff wants to invest in an individual. That's probably going to vary depending on the staff involved.

But I do not see the harm and see more advantage than disadvantage in just cutting someone loose who is taking up more resources than you want to give as a team. I support player/sphere/alt caps for the same reason. Different teams will have different tolerances, I'd rather people make decisions that allow them to be able to use their energy/time in a way that keeps their enthusiasm and enjoyment and ability to maintain the game they want up.

Seraphim73

@Ghost said in Punishments in MU*:

TECHNICALLY a player who drops charbits when they get bored with an IC relationship, kills the character, then regens with a charbit that is specifically designed to woo a target charbit for an IC relationship is still TECHNICALLY well within their right to do so, but arguably disruptive to the game because it makes other players angry

This is why "conduct detrimental to the MU*" or "Being more trouble than you're worth" should always, in my opinion, by high on the list of bannable offenses. If a player is OOCly making life hard for other players, they don't need to play on any game of mine (yes, this needs to be tracked for groups "going after" single players who have done nothing wrong).

Ganymede

@Pandora

I think the other posters have said what I want to say. It could come down to a simple personality clash. I could say: “so long as I run the game you won’t have an approved character here,” but that’s pretty much a ban, right?

No matter how polite you are, a ban is a ban. “This isn’t the right place for you; please go elsewhere” is just a nicer way of saying “ain’t nothing wrong with you, but don’t let the door hit you on the ass.”

Thenomain

Late to the clam bake, but:

I've been on many, many games that ask me to write short essays. It's called Chargen. And it also often had nothing to do with the character I eventually played.

Yes, chargen is the first punishment we are asked to submit ourselves to for a game.

Yes, I'm equating chargen essays to punishment because they are not fun and do nothing for my involvement to the game. And my background has been used twice in decades. Twice. (Once, believe it or not, was from @Wretched.)

L. B. Heuschkel

@Thenomain Interesting take. I don't mean that ironically -- I am fascinated by how differently we view the chargen process. To me, chargen is a writing excercise. An exciting one. I get to think my character through and define him or her, write down all the little quirks and hints... And people use them. All the time. Sometimes to a point where I have to go, dude or dudette, just because it says I'm from Thrillsville doesn't mean I have the zip code tattood on my forehead, at least ASK.

Thenomain

@L-B-Heuschkel

I'm honestly surprised and relieved someone taking my anti-background stance—sprinkled with vitriol—honestly. Thank you.

Almost exclusively when I say why I don't feel comfortable (i.e., don't want to) write a background it's taken as if I'm telling staff that I don't respect them. It could be my approach, but I haven't found an approach that doesn't end up with "do it or you don't get to play". Fair enough; their game, their rules.

And I'm not talking about a background on a wiki page, something that I do for the benefit of those curious. This would be a writing exercise, and that would be fun because you're doing it because you want to. Like this was a hobby or something.

No, I'm talking about the background and other chargen-level hoops that gets stored in staff-only tools. If the games you're playing on has staff poking in the brain of your character to make things happen then...wow, buy them a cookie!

—

Back to the topic more directly, the punishment of my not following the rules is banishment. It's the gate to enact with someone's crafted space.

I'm not saying it's good or bad (for me it's bad because I don't RP to write, I RP to interact with other people's mental spaces), it's just no different than telling someone they can keep playing if they write an essay about what they did.

And just as likely to change anyone's approach about anything.

L. B. Heuschkel

@Thenomain I do see your point. To me, writing a background is when I decide who my character is, and what I want to be doing with him or her. Creating the layers in the onion, to paraphrase a certain ogre.

However, I will readily cede that sometimes, it's just not possible. Particularly when looking at games where the setting is large and complex and unfamiliar -- what am I supposed to write here? I don't know the world I'm entering, I have no feel for it. I want to enter it as someone inconspicuous and unimportant, let the game itself mature the character as I become familiar with it.

Situation like that, being told to write a background is the same as telling me to find another game because I can't.

Thenomain

@L-B-Heuschkel

On AetherMUX, we had a test proving that you read the setting wiki. It was short and it was easy and it was also a chargen punishment, but if you passed it your bg could be anything that made any amount of sense. "I am an elf from the Gorge of Bliss come to town to learn how to trade fish because I've never seen a fish in my life."

Of course, I can find fault with my own argument: "Is it a punishment? Really?"

A punishment is because you did something wrong and need to be corrected. But when the outcome of doing something wrong (cyber-stalking) is the same as not following a barrier to entry (write a background of at least 3000 characters), what kind of difference is there?