Punishments in MU*

[Ghost]

Yet, I regularly see complaints about banned players sneaking back into games, constant hunts for banned players where innocent players can't log in due to using the same vpn service, and the harsh reality that there's really no central database of players banned from the community itself.

This is another argument for leaning towards newer technology, such as IPTables, and creating connection schemes for your MU to operate on a whitelist of "known OK" users.

In theory, getting access to the player zone of a game could involve everyone being forced to user guest-only accounts until approved, and then after approval being allowed into the whitelist of approved connection addresses where only known entities are allowed.

Public shaming is popular because it assumes that if you break the will of the user to no longer want to attempt to partake in the community that they'll stop, but we see some players take the alternate route of stalking and skulking about.

If you had more control over a whitelist like IP tables, you can make people stay away.

[mietze]

In the case of game bans I'm not really sure that's very effective community shaming, since there are lots of people who have been asked to leave a game and suffer no ill effect in the wider community. Half the time someone is tossed off a game (esp when they are "popular" or "active") the first wider community response is to denigrate the staff for being so mean.

I wish a game ban was more taken as a "this person was not a good fit for the game or behaved at that time in a way that the staff did not feel like/feel like they were equipped for" rather than OMFG THIS PERSON IS A HORRIBAD HORRIBLE BURRRRRNNNN THEMMMMMM.

[mietze]

.@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'm not really sure that it is ever a deterrent. In my experience people always think that they were justified/just joking around/it was someone else's fault/they couldn't help themselves so should get a pass/they were under the influence, ect. Usually people do not do things they do not feel like they are not entitled to do. I think game discipline and policies should be about how to maintain the environment wanted rather than prevention.

[Derp]

@Ghost said in Punishments in MU*:

players banned from the community itself.

Woaaahhhh there cowboy. I usually agree with most things, but this one I think is a bridge too far.

Getting removed from one, or even a handful of games, does not necessarily mean anything for the community at large. I've seen players that I consider perfectly acceptable banned from multiple games at the same time because they pissed off one gamerunner who was friends with other gamerunners. (Those are a very small subset of this community, and despite defenses to the contrary, notoriously clique-y.)

You're never going to find anyone banned "from the community" because nobody in "the community" has that kind of control over anything. I guarantee you that even the most notorious villains like Spider and BigBad and whoever are playing somewhere happily.

[Ghost]

@Derp Counterpoint:

I dont think anyone should be banned from the community or that such a DB should ever exist. People are fallible and bias is everywhere. Having said that there's definitely people out there who have been somewhat "proxy banned" from the community, or are on constant "SpiderWatch" that even if they're now the perfect roleplayer will forever wear that scarlet letter; at least to some players who vow to never forget/forgive.

When you're talking about punishment, public shaming, and how to deal with players, you have to take into account that like it or not some players have vowed never to even attempt to RP on some games if X or Y person has a character bit there, and the casual cyberstalking to try to sleigh-out who is who isn't considered stalking (though it probably should).

When I said that, I wasnt promoting the idea, but simply that there is no "central dbase of worst people ever", and even then it would be highly subjective. The best any game owner could do in my opinion is to dispassionately maintain a whitelist of who is allowed and who has been removed from the whitelist, since public shaming is messy and rife with inaccuracies.

[Arkandel]

@Derp said in Punishments in MU*:

You're never going to find anyone banned "from the community" because nobody in "the community" has that kind of control over anything.

Punishment isn't about control. No one controls everything; hell, most people (especially trouble players) barely control themselves.

To me it's a primarily a message: "This is what we will not tolerate. This is how much we're prepared to do to stop it."

[Derp]

@Arkandel

Which is a form of behavioral control, yes. But it only exists for every individual game, not "the community." No matter how many people or games hate an individual player for whatever reason, there are a handful that simply won't, or will defend that person, either for good or ill.

My larger point was that there are very few things that one can classify as a "community standard" in a community where we can't even agree on terms for things, much less universal blacklists and behavioral policies.

[Ganymede]

@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:

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 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.

The reasons for a banning also do not have to be egregious in the slightest. Take the infamous Spider, for example, one of the very few people I would ban on sight. Many of us know why I would do this, but not everyone. Would everyone need do know the specifics? I think it would be enough to say: I do not want this player playing on this game, and it is, at the end of the day, my game to be responsible for.

To be honest, that's what it all ultimately comes down to, right? If I, as a staffer, simply do not feel that I can or want to deal with a player, I don't want them on my game. That's all. It could be for any reason: too snarky; too back-handed; too many lawyer jokes; it's all subjective to who is running the show. And if I'm running the show, I'm going to do what I think is best.

When it comes to stalking and that bullshit, you're damn right I will call the shit out of it, but at that point the banning is secondary. I can envision many situations where I would ban someone without needing to call out the specific behavior for which they were banned.

[Jeshin]

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.

[Lemon Fox]

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Punishment isn't about control. No one controls everything; hell, most people (especially trouble players) barely control themselves.
To me it's a primarily a message: "This is what we will not tolerate. This is how much we're prepared to do to stop it."

That may be the message conveyed, but the goal of punishment is always correction, all the way up to permanent removal of that problem. It's always about control, but trying to control something isn't inherently a bad thing.

[Sunny]

@Lemon-Fox said in Punishments in MU*:

That may be the message conveyed, but the goal of punishment is always correction

Citations needed, particularly with the 'always' being there.

[Lemon Fox]

@Sunny said in Punishments in MU*:

Citations needed, particularly with the 'always' being there.

I withdraw my statement. It was, in fact, not listed in the dictionary definition.

[DareDaemon]

@Lemon-Fox said in Punishments in MU*:

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Punishment isn't about control. No one controls everything; hell, most people (especially trouble players) barely control themselves.
To me it's a primarily a message: "This is what we will not tolerate. This is how much we're prepared to do to stop it."

That may be the message conveyed, but the goal of punishment is always correction, all the way up to permanent removal of that problem. It's always about control, but trying to control something isn't inherently a bad thing.

In fact. Staff trying to create a cohesive, welcoming community that creates a healthy RP environment for their game and pruning those who are consistently making that more difficult is pretty much one of the most important roles of staff.

That said, the goal of punishment isn't always correction. In the hands of a good staffer it is, but we all know that some staffers are shits who cannot be trusted where the goal of punishment frequently isn't correction, it's coercion. (Once you realize that such staffers are on your game, make a judgment call; either try to get that staffer removed or if you don't think that's plausible, bail. Don't play on games that let abusive staff run rampant.)

[mietze]

Honestly there is also a degree of personal responsibly involved on the part of people who do not feel safe or comfortable in a sphere/game where they know that a specific individual is also active. the decision to leave or walk away is purely their own. If that person is not banned then you do not get to dictate that your experience will not involve them. If you leave that is your choice, not that they "drove you off." It sucks to be in the situation where you have to make that decision. It is stressful and doesnt feel great. You may or may not ask for accommodation if staff allows that sort of thing. But as much as it sucks (and I totally 100 percent understand having to weigh those decisions, having BTDT, it's an ouch) you have to own it on your end as well.

[Lemon Fox]

@DareDaemon said in Punishments in MU*:

In the hands of a good staffer it is, but we all know that some staffers are shits who cannot be trusted where the goal of punishment frequently isn't correction, it's coercion.

That is very fair. I guess I was just taking a too-optimistic viewpoint.

[surreality]

I'm going to second Jeshin. There are too many smear campaigns alone to make that plausible, even if it was possible.

When it comes to that sort of garbage behavior, people are very slow to realize that it's the person spewing steady, endless viciousness over a period of years about someone that's the problem as much if not more than whoever they're smearing. Most of what is coming out of their mouths is probably bullshit born of commiseration spirals with the people they're bashing as a group.

For anyone not familiar with this: go read the perspective section of ye olde guide to common sense.

If you don't think you've seen or participated that, you'd be wrong. Yes, I mean every one of us. It is super easy to fall into that trap and very hard to get out of it, since the people involved have become entrenched.

For people too lazy to click the link:

Another issue to be on guard for when considering perspective is the commiseration spiral. A commiseration spiral occurs when two or more people who have been mildly put-out by a certain person's actions realize they share the same feelings, and rather than speaking to the offending person to try to resolve their differences, they instead proceed to complain to each other and reinforce their negative reactions until their opinion of that person is radically altered and exaggerated.

Por ejemplo:

Harland is playing Captain Humongous, Penelope is playing Rocket Tits, and Squeeb is playing Farnokk The Thrusting. Squeeb has been plotting an epic Farnokk The Thrusting saga for quite some time, and Squeeb is very excited about playing it through, as there are parts for both Captain Humongous and Rocket Tits. So excited, in fact, that he commits a hasty error of omission, and continues Farnokk's Mighty Thrusting attack on the Sinister Space Trolls without realizing that Rocket Tits has called for his help with fighting Captain Humongous.

Penelope is struck with the impression that Squeeb is ignoring her, and says as much to Harland, tentatively. The exchange may go something like this.

Penelope: "Hey, I think Squeeb didn't even read my pose."
Harland: "Maybe not. Huh. Maybe he just skimmed it."
Penelope: "Or maybe he doesn't really like me."
Harland: "Or maybe he doesn't like ME."
Penelope: "You know, I bet he's pissed about that time Captain Humongous kissed Rocket Tits outside of the laundromat."
Harland: "Nobody understands our love."
Penelope: "I can't BELIEVE he'd be this petty about something like that! It was our choice to make with the characters, and who is he to throw it in our faces, like he's some RP god who doesn't even read poses?
Harland: "I'm so sick of this kind of bullshit! It's hurting the game, it is, and it's driving players away!"
Penelope: "I bet Johnny Chundernuts quit because of that crap, too!"
Harland: "Son of a bitch! He probably sits around at home, masturbating to poultry porn and trying to increase his power on the game! You can't even talk to him anymore!"
Penelope: "I know! It's got to STOP, I'm TIRED of this kind of treatment!"
Squeeb: "Hey, Harland, it's your turn."
Penelope & Harland: "YOU RAPE DOGS AND STAB THE ELDERLY WITH RUSTY PIRATE SHIP ANCHORS!"
Squeeb: "... wh-what?"

And so on.

A simple mistake that could have been rectified by a gentle prod turns into a massive conspiracy theory about power plays and personal invectives. The commiseration spiral is a slippery slope indeed.

[Derp]

@DareDaemon said in Punishments in MU*:

In the hands of a good staffer it is, but we all know that some staffers are shits who cannot be trusted where the goal of punishment frequently isn't correction, it's coercion.

But here, 'correction' implies that there is a universally accepted way of doing things. There isn't. All of what we do is 'coercion', in the sense that we are trying to create a specific set of actions and discourage actions that we don't want to see.

What counts as 'abuse', too, is largely subject to an individual game's policy. What is written into the contract for some may be completely out of bounds for another.

Edit because it attributed to the wrong darn person. Sorry, @Lemon-Fox !

[Ganymede]

@surreality

How do you stab someone with a rusty anchor?

[surreality]

@Ganymede Enthusiastically, I would guess.

[Ganymede]

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

Enthusiastically, I would guess.

The thought of stabbing someone with one's rusty anchor whilst trolling for booty makes perfect sense to my pirate PC, but I'm struggling without thinking ...