I love every one of you who has been brave enough to come forward and relive your trauma to try to make this hobby safer and more considerate.
@kanye-qwest said in GMs and Players:
I'd find a different game to play.
This made me laugh. Also this is exactly what would happen. It would suck to get kicked off a game and I personally would be really sad because ahhhhhhhh. But also I think that I'd be taking a big step back from MUing and asking myself:
What behavior did I exhibit that led people to believe I was possibly another person who consistently stalks and harasses people?
Because I'd find that deeply concerning.
Here is what I think is something of a crux here:
Is more harm done by 1) someone innocent erroneously being removed from a game, or 2) someone malicious being allowed to remain?
That is, I think, part of the fundamental difference of opinion happening.
Yes, the US courts (and I assume others internationally, idk) say a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, that it is an incredibly valuable legal principle to use in actual criminal proceedings where the cost of declaring an innocent person to be guilty has severe consequences for that person's actual live.
But this isn't a court of law. It's an online hobby game. Big games in this instance might have a playerbase numbering in the hundreds; a lot of the games discussed here are more in the tens or dozens.
My view is that more harm is done by the malicious player allowed to remain. Hugely so if that player is someone who has actively stalked or abused another player. Being stalked is active, real-life harm. It is severe, in a way that being removed from a RP game simply isn't.
That does not mean that you have to simply believe each and every report that comes your way. There is a measure of common sense to be deployed here. If you have a long-term player who has a visible history of getting on well on the game, who does not have a history of making a lot of complaints, such that receiving a complaint from them is notable -- that is very different from receiving a complaint from someone who makes them regularly and frivolously and who maybe has had more than one complaint made about them. Someone making a clear, serious request involving stalking or targeted harassment is different from someone making a request about not getting along with someone. Yes, absolutely engage in judgment and critical reasoning here. Absolutely. But if a player's history on a game points to them being generally above board? That's also a form of evidence.
There are very, very few methods of providing evidence on a game in a manner that are 100% reliable. I know that Ares has built-in tools. Not every game is built on Ares, and any bad actor can easily avoid putting their efforts into places that can been directly reported on the games that are on Ares. If these are the only methods of evidence that are acceptable, you will be leaving countless openings for bad actors to exploit. If the answer is that any other avenues will likely be off-game and not policeable, I think that's a bad answer that favors manipulators and harassers. Yes, you may have to take a critical eye to evidence that's presented, and that's fine. But rejecting it out of hand as being outside the scope of a game's staff isn't.
As for staff favoritism: if staff are going to behave in an unethical manner to favor the people they like best, neither philosophy will make a difference. It will be an issue on both sides of this philosophy divide. No amount of evidence requirements will get around this if a staffer wants to give shinies to their friends.
As has been stated, if someone is being stalked or abused, and they are given hoops to jump through in order to avoid their abuser on a game, they will just leave. And maybe that won't impact the game in the grand scheme of things, and maybe it doesn't impact a staffer personally. But it is a form of violence on the victim's life. It is one more place of fun, engagement, socialization, and community that is now lost to that person due to the systemic efforts of their abuser.
And I don't want to be party to that. It is, in my view, a far greater harm and moral failing to allow that to happen than to potentially ban an innocent player.
@roz said in GMs and Players:
That does not mean that you have to simply believe each and every report that comes your way. There is a measure of common sense to be deployed here. If you have a long-term player who has a visible history of getting on well on the game, who does not have a history of making a lot of complaints, such that receiving a complaint from them is notable -- that is very different from receiving a complaint from someone who makes them regularly and frivolously and who maybe has had more than one complaint made about them. Someone making a clear, serious request involving stalking or targeted harassment is different from someone making a request about not getting along with someone. Yes, absolutely engage in judgment and critical reasoning here. Absolutely. But if a player's history on a game points to them being generally above board? That's also a form of evidence.
This is what I wanted to say but you said it best so thank you 
If you 'encourage players to report' but make them provide elaborate 'proof' or first tell people personally to leave them alone or use a multiple strike system, they will not report. They will just leave.
I know this because staffing probably the biggest not-sex-focused MU showed me this. So many people who came to us with concerns specifically said "I would not have brought this up but I saw that you guys actually deal with problems." / "I would not have reported but so and so told me to because they know you won't ignore it."
@roz said in GMs and Players:
It is one more place of fun, engagement, socialization, and community that is now lost to that person due to the systemic efforts of their abuser.
I cannot overstate how true and important this part right here is. It sucks. It sucks SO HARD.
Look, I've been the victim of someone starting a whispering campaign about me on a game and it messed me up for two years, so yes, there is a lot of harm done that way, too. It impacts someone's reputation, which is ongoing harm that lasts for years as well, and no, it's NOT ok to do that to innocent people. So, yes, I do know what it's like to be the innocent person who got victimized on a game because someone had a grudge.
You can't save one person's mental health at the cost of another person's and claim to be righteous.
@reimesu I'm sorry that happened to you. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that they would ban someone based on a whisper campaign. That's the sort of negative, toxic environment I don't want anywhere near my game.
@bear_necessities That's why I'm such a fan of some form of evidence. Because all it took with me is one person who got all their friends to hate me. PK attempts, victimization of the people I was RPing with, all kinds of 'fun' harassment, based on what ONE person said about me and the person playing my cousin. (This was on The Reach, btw. Long, long time ago.)
This is why, creepers or not, stalkers or not, I want to be on a game where evidence is required. Because there IS stuff that goes on below the surface, but if I'm on a game that asks for evidence, and most of the people are of similar mindset, then it's less likely this will happen. I don't want a game where one staffer will say "People are complaining" and not explain which people, but the accused still gets disciplined. I don't want a game where people will be able to automatically say that someone's a creep, get rid of them and it happens to innocent people. Give SOMETHING. "Hi, I'm being stalked, this happened on other game, could I ask you to reach out to that staffer on that game and corroborate?"
I don't want to be ruled by mob rule. Even on a game. But I'm absolutely fine with a game that states, "You can ask for a DNC at any time, for any reason at all, and it will be honored or the person will be booted." Because it's a reasonable expectation and a clear violation of trust. And can cover that jerk who gets into all your scenes just to make you uncomfortable. As for people who are passive-aggressive, that's covered by "don't be a dick" rules.
It gives a clear expectation of the required behavior and satisfies my need for ethical behavior from staffers, if there's transparency.
For me it's as simple as harm reduction. Is more harm caused by banning someone who didn't do anything wrong, or by allowing someone abusive to stay? I think there is an objectively correct answer, clearly, but that's the call staff has to make.
@reimesu Were you banned from this game by staff because of the whisper campaign against you? Did you talk to staff about the whisper campaign? I guess I'm not seeing the correlation between having a whisper campaign started by an asshole and you wanting staff to have evidence that someone is a stalker before they get banned.
I'm definitely not advocating games being ruled by mob rule. But I can say that DNCs do not work in all situations. The situation that changed my perspective here involved two people where DNC was the option, the DNC was honored, and the manipulator went on to hurt several other women, none of whom felt they had the 'proof' required to stop it. He never broke any DNCs - he just moved onto the next one, and the next one, and the next one.
@bear_necessities I had one staffer who was fine with me leaving because it was threatening to turn the entire sphere into a war, and another staffer who didn't want me to come back much later because he'd believed the campaign, even after the person who's started it left, does that count?
@reimesu Well that sucks and I'm sorry that happened to you. It is definitely not what I'm talking about here.
Stalkers are awful. Obviously nobody wants them on their game. The fact that so many shenanigans go unreported is tragic.
Nonetheless there is a wide gulf between "ban immediately with no evidence" and "oh well not my problem". If someone came to me saying they think Bob is their stalker, I would go to great lengths to see what I could do to make them feel more comfortable. DNC, making sure they understand the reporting tools, promising to keep an eye out for IC shenanigans, etc.
What I won't do, though, is just blindly ban based on accusation alone. Short of instances where a legit restraining order or conviction is involved, I can think of no other venue - online or in RL - where "I think Bob is a creeper because he did xyz on some other platform" would be likely to result in them getting kicked out. Unless, as @Roz says, you know and trust the accuser.
@roz said in GMs and Players:
any bad actor can easily avoid putting their efforts into places that can been directly reported on the games that are on Ares. If these are the only methods of evidence that are acceptable, you will be leaving countless openings for bad actors to exploit.
Channels, mails, pages, and scenes can all be reported in Ares, so I think you're pretty covered? If someone is aware of a gap in the reporting defense I'd love to know about it.
@bear_necessities Isn't it? Roz is talking about banning innocent people in the name of the greater good.
Go on, you guys explain to me how going all nuclear option on innocent people is the right thing to do. I'm listening. Explain to me how mentally harming innocent people is a good thing.
@reimesu said in GMs and Players:
Go on, you guys explain to me how going all nuclear option on innocent people is the right thing to do.
These guys already did, so...
@farfalla said in GMs and Players:
For me it's as simple as harm reduction. Is more harm caused by banning someone who didn't do anything wrong, or by allowing someone abusive to stay?
@kanye-qwest said in GMs and Players:
If you 'encourage players to report' but make them provide elaborate 'proof' or first tell people personally to leave them alone or use a multiple strike system, they will not report. They will just leave.
@roz said in GMs and Players:
That does not mean that you have to simply believe each and every report that comes your way. There is a measure of common sense to be deployed here.
Because this random stranger on the internet isn't one of your friends, and so don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, or equal treatment.
Good. Cool.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
I mean, as long as we're being honest about what we're talking about here. I called it favoritism before and everyone was quick to clutch their pearls about it, but I guess we're fine just calling it what it is now.
It's not something I would do. It's not something I would support one of my staff doing. I definitely wouldn't play under staff that do this. I would hope that someone out there has similar standards, but that's probably a vain hope.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@reimesu said in GMs and Players:
@bear_necessities Isn't it? Roz is talking about banning innocent people in the name of the greater good.
Go on, you guys explain to me how going all nuclear option on innocent people is the right thing to do. I'm listening. Explain to me how mentally harming innocent people is a good thing.
You keep saying 'innocent person', 'innocent person'. Who is being banned that is an innocent person????? When did I EVER say that we should ban innocent people? When did @Roz say that?????
Come on now, you know and I know that this isn't at all what we're saying here.
