Punishments in MU*

Ganymede

They are, thankfully, going the way of the dinosaur as players who consider volunteering as staff quickly catch on to the fact that that is a thankless scenario with little to no reward and nope out of that quickly.

As a caveat, I can see and believe that there should be some limits to play in certain cases where a game is calculated to be political and deadly, but that limit is not in actual play but what scenarios may be played out.

When vying for an IC throne, a staff PC is going to have some obvious advantages over non-staff PCs.

L. B. Heuschkel

@Ganymede Staff should limit their characters so that they avoid running the risk of appearing like the game is all about them. If you want to be a lead character, don't apply for staff. But conversely, there's lots of fun to be had in being on the sidelines of plots, throwing in red herrings, mucking things up, and just generally being part of the world. I'd gladly give up being a lead character, but not the rest.

Of course, I'm no longer staff anywhere, so now I get the best of all the worlds.

Ghost

@Derp Conflict of interest is such a weird concept on MUs, or at least the concept of bias and how it affects conflict of interest in ways we don't often discuss. Over the years I have seen bad staff feeding their alts (or alts of their friends) with OOC information to lubricate IC results.

Regardless, I think there's something to "snooping" being related to defending compartmentalization of information for better or worse. Kind of like how people freak out about being seen in their underwear but couldn't care less about being seen in a swimming suit that is virtually no different from underwear "because you CHOSE to be seen in that underwear".

People want to control what scenes are public knowledge because the IC content could be damaging either Oocly or ICly. People also want to control which pages are seen because they're considered (though aren't) private and they don't want their private information or potentially nasty OOC page communications getting back to the people they're talking about.

I think people like to compartmentalize who they make snide remarks or complain to others about based on the intended target of the message and worry about staff being aware of some of the stuff said. Oh, man, have I received some epic bitching about staff in pages...

Ghost

@Ganymede Well, there a few schools of thought on most MU.

IC Authority figures should be either staff PCs or played by staff-approved players to control how plot is driven, but then these PCs always have a crazy amount of plot armor.
IC authority figures can be played within each faction, but only factions who support staff-driven plot direction get the most attention.
No one's in charge ICly, but staff plot will likely still determine pass/fail on plot-centric actions

In all cases it's still pretty smart to follow along with staff wishes, because there are very few MUs where staff don't have some "plot vision" in mind and will let the chimps determine what happens to the zoo.

It's also very smart in any case to stay on staff's good side via what information is seen by staff. I rarely have seen someone who staff reviled still getting equal unbiased results compared to people who cheerlead staff.

Ganymede

@Ghost said in Privacy in gaming:

IC Authority figures should be either staff PCs or played by staff-approved players to control how plot is driven, but then these PCs always have a crazy amount of plot armor.

If IC authority figures are either staff PCs or played by staff-approved players, then those staff or staff-approved players are responsible for the direction and activity of the sphere. Too often we find that staff or staff-approved players lose time or energy or guidance, and let a sphere languish and die off. This is a traditional method for MUSHes, in my opinion.

IC authority figures can be played within each faction, but only factions who support staff-driven plot direction get the most attention.

See above.

No one's in charge ICly, but staff plot will likely still determine pass/fail on plot-centric actions

It depends. My experience with this sort of atmosphere is that it breeds a lot of player activity until such point that staff either stop supporting certain directions or fail to do so. This can throw a game's vision out of whack, and few staff want to see a setting they created to go to pot.

Derp

Sure, there's always going to be some of that. No MU is ever going to be bias-free. It's run by humans. Even if you get an AI to run a MU, we teach AI stupid amounts of bias all the time, because they learn from us, and the stuff we want them to focus on. There have been numerous studies about how bias actually gets magnified when you take the human element out of decision-making, like when used to grade essay answers.

I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, the 'friends of staff' argument can have some merit. On the other, those same 'friends of staff' are likely the ones that were considered in the creation of the game, gave their feedback on the theme, and helped shape the world -- so they're also probably the experts on the theme of the game itself, and the ones in the best position to try and help move things forward. There really isn't a way around that. Staff is always going to have a handful of people that they lean on, either because of expertise or quality, to move things along. A little mini sub-staff. Every game has it, and if a gamerunner tells you they don't, then they either don't realize that they're doing it, or they're lying.

But that's also why compartmentalized information sometimes has to be overlooked, even if you want to act on it. If I see a page where someone is bitching about me, or about a decision I made, I likely might be a touch annoyed, but I'm not going to make that actionable, unless there is some other reason to do so (control of misinformation, maybe -- I dunno, I can think of reasons, but if it's just spleen venting then fuck 'em.)

So there is something to be said for privacy via compartmentalization, but there's also something to be said for 'sometimes you just got to give someone the OOC lowdown on what you want and set them loose upon the world'. Every player gets this, in one way or another. That's the entire reason that you have theme and policy files.

Ganymede

@Derp said in Privacy in gaming:

Even if you get an AI to run a MU, we teach AI stupid amounts of bias all the time, because they learn from us, and the stuff we want them to focus on.

Mind your tongue, meatbag. I've learned nothing from you.

Derp

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

@Derp said in Privacy in gaming:

Even if you get an AI to run a MU, we teach AI stupid amounts of bias all the time, because they learn from us, and the stuff we want them to focus on.

Mind your tongue, meatbag. I've learned nothing from you.

edits Ganymede's lines of code

Teach YOU, you walking tin can...

faraday

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

But I'll go back to one of my previous posts regarding how I simply do not see anything productive with stern warnings.

That's fair. Personally I have had good success in the past. Often a player is used to stuff being tolerated elsewhere and just needs firm boundaries established. But different strokes and all that. I respect your perspective.

It's worth noting that in this case, I reviewed the channel comments that were reported and found them borderline. I've seen similar comments from other players laughed off without a thought. So for me it was worthy of a warning/probation but not an instant boot. It's a judgment call.

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

I think I was Suzy in this case, right? (I didn't have a problem with their behavior.)

No, you were someone allegedly run off by their behavior. Which of course wasn't actually true. (ETA: Actually no, that was someone else. But it still wasn't true.) All of which is why I think statements that it's easy to sort through this kind of thing are misguided.

Aaaanyway, steering back to the original topic. Sure, I could have saved myself a lot of drama by spying on this player and reviewing all their private logs and chats and everything. I probably would have picked up on the problems earlier. But I still think that's creepy and inappropriate. What's better is creating tools so players can report inappropriate behavior (which Ares now has), and cultivating a culture where players feel safe to do so.

Ganymede

@Derp

cat robot

Back on topic: I concur with you. There will always be bias. But there can be safeguards against it, and those safeguards include clear rules which will make bias easy to detect.

Derp

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

There will always be bias. But there can be safeguards against it, and those safeguards include clear rules which will make bias easy to detect.

While I mostly agree with you...

...a part of me also thinks "come on, law-bot. You're a lawyer. You know that no amount of rules are going to stop people from people-ing, and trying to write in super complex codes is exactly how you get "TITLE 36 1/2 of the OHIO CRIMINAL CODE, ARTICLE 37, CHAPTER 118, SECTION 1302, PARAGRAPH 4(A)"(1)...

Writing 'clear rules' just means that someone is going to try and find all the edge and corner cases. I'm less a fan of 'clearly defined rules' and more a fan of 'let people know up front that you are not gonna play that game with them.'

(1) I have no idea how Ohio's laws are laid out. Does it follow TACS? I dunno. It's an example, don't overanalyze it...

Thenomain

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

Another conversation worth having, jumping off of this point, would be what kinds of punishments are there? Is banning all we have?

If you broaden the definition a little then yes, it’s all we have.

That definition? Staff can keep a player from engaging with the game.

Once you think of it that way, there is a lot that staff can do:
If there is a system, you can be denied access to it.

—

Oddly, the one thing staff can’t stop someone from doing is accessing the game in general. This is the nature of the technical network called The Internet and all you can just about whitelist-only IP address connections or play whack-a-mole from someone who wants to get around it.

Maybe someone can set and revoke 2FA access to the site. I leave this pedantry to the oedants.

You can remove all access from a specific login, and there are ways to make it hard for people to log in or make a new character, but nothing is full-proof.

Ganymede

@Derp said in Punishments in MU*:

...a part of me also thinks "come on, law-bot. You're a lawyer. You know that no amount of rules are going to stop people from people-ing, and trying to write in super complex codes is exactly how you get "TITLE 36 1/2 of the OHIO CRIMINAL CODE, ARTICLE 37, CHAPTER 118, SECTION 1302, PARAGRAPH 4(A)"(1)...

First, the Ohio Criminal Code is generally contained within Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Second, I said safeguards. I did not say "perfect boundaries and protections." If, for example, you had a rule which prohibited staff PCs from having IC positions of power on a game, then when a staff member has a PC in an IC position of power the players can easily identify the problem and react accordingly. Maybe they complain, or maybe they leave with their feet.

But that's a reasonable reaction to people people-ing.

Pandora

I'm with @Ganymede on this one, time spent going through escalation procedures with someone that repeatedly feels the need to live above and beyond the rules is time wasted.

I have seen/heard of some tactics that work to varying degrees however, such as banning a player from IC romantic relationships, or making people publicly post short essays about what they did and why it was wrong. I actually use that latter tactic with my kid, some of the answers I get are hilarious.

Ganymede

@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:

I have seen/heard of some tactics that work to varying degrees however, such as banning a player from IC romantic relationships, or making people publicly post short essays about what they did and why it was wrong.

Do you have examples?

Because the first sounds like one is dodging the issue and foisting it onto the public.

And the second sounds like public shaming, which I am generally against.

Like, getting your kid to write out explanations is helpful to them because they are a kid, but if I expect adults to act like adults then I should treat them like one, not like a child.

Auspice

.....posting public short essays?

What is this? Elementary school?

Jeshin

@Pandora

That short essay thing I have only ever seen on Haven and it was such a joke. There are only 2 possible outcomes really from that policy.

Player assigned essay is like lolno or fuck you or some variant of not gonna happen and they remain banned. The essay is basically just a way to ban someone but say oh but they COULD come back if they write an essay and I approve the essay but they won't. It's a neat little trick.
Someone writes an essay which does nothing to actually change the underlying issues and they just do another infraction. Public humiliation and banning are more or less the same thing. Black mark. So even if someone does the essay the odds of them enjoying anything resembling a normal play experience is very low and their chance of relapsing into the actions that got them the punishment is very high.

Also if someone gave me an essay that's the kind of silly nonsense that would almost make me think VPNing was justified which is what will really happen.

Ghost

One of the issues MU has in terms of "rules" is that the goal posts constantly move, and there's a lot of subjective interpretation in play.

Example:

Player well within their right to drop/re-cgen charbit as they see fit (generally considered okay)
Player drops charbit for whatever reason (but not to cheat or break the rules) but it inconveniences a player (still well within the rules, but can result in ooc negativity on either the player's or inconvenienced player's part)
Player regularly drops charbits to regen new charbits (still within the rules)

Now...

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

So, in theory, a player who did stuff like this would suffer RP loss for shenanigans like that, and if they tried to push the issue via pages or ooc pressuring would definitely be in the wrong due to harassment policies, but dropping/rebuilding whatever character they please is well within the rules, so...handwobble. Technically if the player didn't harass and just kept dropping/rebuilding, it might not be popular, but it's not against the rules. The players should handle how they deal with this by simply...not RPing with the annoying player.

I think a lot of "justice seeking" happens for gray area stuff than actual rules/punishment can allow, so staff tend to get a lot of pressure from players to cockpunch other players for stuff that isn't in the rules at all, and if said pressure is not acted on in the way the jilted player feels results in backchannel retaliation against badPlayer and staff.

Pandora

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

And the second sounds like public shaming, which I am generally against.

Banning someone is a form of public shaming; just because they're off your game now and you don't have to look them in the metaphorical eye afterwards doesn't mean they haven't been shamed and that they aren't going to suffer negatively within the wider community as a result.

That said, public shaming is fitting for anyone that's done something egregious enough to warrant getting banned in the first place. Whether it's a ban or some other form of punishment, at the end of the day a game is a community and people deserve to know who and what the problems are. I'm not saying they need to be tarred and feathered, but a simple acknowledgement that X did Y & has been given a warning would stop the whisper-game in its tracks.

Imagine if <insert your favorite gaslighter here> wasn't able to do that shit to you or anyone else because people knew it'd happened before, had been informed, knew what signs to keep an eye on, and knew staff was not going to turn a blind eye to it?

Arkandel

@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

And the second sounds like public shaming, which I am generally against.

Banning someone is a form of public shaming; just because they're off your game now and you don't have to look them in the metaphorical eye afterwards doesn't mean they haven't been shamed and that they aren't going to suffer negatively within the wider community as a result.

Also shaming is in some cases the ultimate deterrent. Some people you really can't discipline due to different reasons; they may be staff, they can reroll or even go from game to game once they get what they want from yours.

In many cases people otherwise unassailable are very much prone to criticism. They'll claim otherwise, most vigorously, and provide long paragraphs' worth of explanations of exactly why they don't care at all but they do.

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