GMs and Players

[Devrex]

@wizz Putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing about holding what happens next against them. Again. We are not talking about every MUSH ever. We are talking about a specific code base where everything is logged and pull-up-able, where the receipts are kept automatically.

On the places that don't have that? I would work things a different way, and have done, because you go with the best you've got.

And I have never once advocated for victim blaming. So again, you are making personal attacks where none have been lobbied at you in turn.

[faraday]

In the decades in this hobby, I have personally known people who:

• Were falsely accused of being somebody they demonstrably were not.
• Were accused of heinous acts that, upon inspection, turned out to be the accuser completely blowing things out of proportion.
• Behaved badly at some point in their MU lives but genuinely turned things around.

And that's not even counting the general grudges and drama that abound.

So yes, I'm going to require a little bit more than just your say-so that Bob is a creeper, or Spider in disguise, or whatever. Does that mean "iron-clad evidence"? Of course not. These are living room rules, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

This is neither victim-blaming nor abuser-enabling. It's just acknowledging the simple fact that people can and sometimes do make false or mistaken accusations for a variety of reasons.

[reimesu]

@wizz I didn't get lucky, I called it to Dev's attention. I spoke the fuck up. "Hey, I think this is that guy from Other Game and he's pulling that shit that annoys me again." And Dev joined a scene and witnessed it for himself. He's the one who said, "Uh...this is predatory, he's weaponizing stupidity and if you say something, you're not kicking a puppy."

I don't begin to think for a second that my experience is universal. Nor do I hold it against people for not keeping receipts.

But WORA was originally invented to STOP the kind of behavior that y'all are advocating and I don't want to regress to those times.

Trust, but verify. Back up your assertions. Communicate.

Also, @Faraday AGAIN said it better than I did. And there's one more thing: sometimes, people can be wrong. I'm usually pretty bad at spotting people from game to game.

[Meg]

This post is deleted!

[Tinuviel]

Every single occurrence of an abuse complaint will be handled uniquely by anyone that handles it. Who it comes from, who it is against, what the impact will be, what evidence is given, what 'testimony' is gathered. All of this will make each complaint new and fresh and will cause the resolution to deviate slightly from whatever policy is laid out. No policy is going to be one hundred per cent iron clad against all situations, nor should it try to be.

I will ban anyone an accuser says is just as myopic and, frankly, farcical as never investigating or listening to any report.

When studying history, there are levels of sources. I imagine the same extends to the legal and other communities as well. All that is being said, from what I can parse through the emotional knee-jerking, is that evidence from outside the game is treated below evidence from the game. It's still evidence, but it is not sufficient on its own.

[BetterNow]

@greenflashlight said in GMs and Players:

If a game's policy is that any claim of harassment must be proven with incontrovertible evidence, then that means we are comfortable beginning from the position that people who report abuse cannot be trusted, right? That they are liars or, at least, too mentally incompetent to understand what other players are doing to them. Since such people are so untrustworthy, their reports must be investigated, correct? That's the only reasonable thing to do. No one's saying they're liars, just that they can't be trusted.

That is not what anyone here has been saying. That's twisting words, and pretty much the EXACT kind of gaslighting they're referring to. I am sure I'll be chewed up for this but VASpider, DownwithOPP and yes, even Ruiz, all practiced this exact thing. It's how they get AWAY with abusing people, by turning the accusations onto the VICTIM, and having staffers BELIEVE THEM over the actual people they are hurting. By not asking people for actual proof of the abuse.

I speak from experience, and if Cobalt were still active she could confirm, that this is precisely what VASpider did on Darkwater, the first iteration of the game, where she literally told staff several players were being abusive to her. Those several players weren't even really interacting with her, and certainly not abusively, and had no idea of who she actually was.

This came down to an apology from Cobalt to me years later when Darkwater 2.0 was made, and a personal invitation to come play there.

I hope this helps with the distinction of "letting abusers run free" and "actually making sure the accused is the abuser".

[L. B. Heuschkel]

Sometimes, I really think Will Wheaton said all that needs to be said: Don't be a dick.

No game will have a 100% rate of success but communication goes terrifically far when it comes to sorting out these things. At least for the major league abusers, they tend to have recognisable histories from everywhere -- and I think it's entirely fair in self defence to have a policy of one complaint and you're out when it comes to people who have done this shit in the past. Some of them have done it so much that they shouldn't even get that one chance, given their demonstrated lack of intent to stop doing it.

[Roz]

@devrex said in GMs and Players:

@greenflashlight I think you are being unfair. I think you took that straight to the most extreme hyperbole possible. It certainly doesn't match up with the reality of how I have seen Derp handle people who need help. If you meant it to be a demonstrative example, or to get your own back somehow, then we've moved far afield of the point. We have gone from a civil discussion about principles and best practices and the pros and cons of two approaches to basically just attacking Derp. Heck, a few folks have said this is now just about attacking Derp for some past threads, and we have now moved so far past "constructive" it's not even funny. I have watched Derp be the first to jump in and defend people who need help.

I just want to clarify why I initially brought up that people's opinions of Derp's posts are colored by prior interaction. Not because I was saying, "Oh, Derp and I or Derp and others have gotten into tiffs in other fights, so people just hate whatever Derp says and wanna be jerks to him because of it." What I meant is that myself and others have seen Derp be dismissive numerous times on this board to these very sorts of issues, including one instance that wasn't even remotely connected to MU*s or games but was just someone talking about some unsettling RL interactions. What that means is that, for some people, he's not someone who has engendered trust or confidence in this particular area. I am very glad that Reimesu's experience with your game was one that was so swiftly positive, I honestly am. I am glad that your experience of Derp is one who will jump in first to help defend people, and I sincerely hope it all works out well on your game for you. Just understand that others have a different experience that make it difficult to always take his words on this particular topic at face value. I would not feel comfortable playing on a game he staffed, which I'm sure is not at all an issue, because I imagine he has no desire to play on a game with me either, so it's honestly the best result for both parties.

Setting that aside, I think this topic as devolved pretty dramatically to just a cycle of hyperbole on both sides. No, says one side, we are not advocating for acting on every single complaint that comes our way without any judgment or due diligence. No, says the other side, we are not advocating for refusing to act until we have a signed affidavit as evidence.

In practice, I imagine the distance between the two sides is smaller than any of these arguments is going to really illuminate; it comes down to probably a bit more extension of trust in some areas, a bit more skepticism in others.

In any case, you're not wrong that the thread as a whole has likely moved beyond "Mildly Constructive" so I will largely be tapping out of the central debate. Or trying to, at least.

[saosmash]

I agree with @Tinuviel: we're arguing about hypotheticals that grow increasingly extreme and I strongly suspect that in practice, despite different philosophies, the way each set of people actually handles a complaint about harassment or stalking would be similar.

It's only the edge cases where we would differ, and we don't actually have an edge case to discuss here, just a philosophical difference in approach -- and I suspect it's not even that wide. It has to do with what the burden of proof would be on a harassment complaint - how much evidence you need that a thing is happening prior to action. And we frankly don't have the language we would need to define what quanta of evidence would be sufficient, because we don't know, because it's extremely situationally dependent, and most of the language I personally have for handling sufficiency of evidence comes from an extremely nonanalogous forum.

I wouldn't act with a report alone, probably, absent any other evidence - depending on what you mean by act. But I would at minimum flag a player who had a report enough to start paying attention and start looking for other warning signs; an fyi if you will. Because I trust reporters in general as I believe there are so many internal and/or social barriers to reporting that most reports are genuine.

But I do also agree in philosophy with @farfalla that the harm done by mistakenly excluding a not-wrongful actor from a game I'm running would be a lesser harm than mistakenly continuing to include a wrongful actor. Perhaps it is only this harm analysis that separates the two philosophies? Perhaps it isn't.

[BetterNow]

@saosmash said in GMs and Players:

But I do also agree in philosophy with @farfalla that the harm done by mistakenly excluding a not-wrongful actor from a game I'm running would be a lesser harm than mistakenly continuing to include a wrongful actor. Perhaps it is only this harm analysis that separates the two philosophies? Perhaps it isn't.

Can I just get clarification on this part? How is it less harm to throw someone off your game who might be innocent? If they are, and the reporter is the bad actor, isn't it then keeping someone on your game who might be the actual bad actor? Who then remains on your game free to continue preying on your playerbase?

If you don't know for sure who the bad actor is in the situation (because no proof is provided), how can you have any sense of whether you've done more or less harm to your game with who you chose to remove, and who you chose to let stay?

The only way I'd see to be sure in that circumstance, would be to remove both players from the game? Or am I totally misreading this?

[silverfox]

I feel like you can make a false accusation without being a bad actor.

If you are triggered by a specific behavior it is really hard to stay calm and in perspective.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@silverfox said in GMs and Players:

I feel like you can make a false accusation without being a bad actor.

If you are triggered by a specific behavior it is really hard to stay calm and in perspective.

I'd be enough of a semantics nitpicker to say that then that is not a fake accusation -- it's a mistake. And mistakes do indeed happen, but they're rarely deliberately malicious.

[3543thrh67]

@l-b-heuschkel said in GMs and Players:

@silverfox said in GMs and Players:

I feel like you can make a false accusation without being a bad actor.

If you are triggered by a specific behavior it is really hard to stay calm and in perspective.

I'd be enough of a semantics nitpicker to say that then that is not a fake accusation -- it's a mistake. And mistakes do indeed happen, but they're rarely deliberately malicious.

I would call it more of a knee-jerk reaction. 'X is doing Y stuff that made my experiences on mu* super uncomfortable. It must be the same person doing it to be an unpleasant player!'

I feel like, to good or bad means, people decide someone is the same person because of similar actions/traits. sometimes it is correct, some times it is not.

I think it is unavoidable to sometimes ban an innocent person. There is the falsifiers, the people who instinctively react to bad behavior and remove it, mistaken identity, etc. So many possibilities of a possible mistake even with evidence. This is why I am a fan of the 'Why do you think' and 'What d you expect' questions and 'This is what you do, this is what we will do, and any evidence you have is important'. It's not perfect but it acknowledges the accusers, shows you are aware and have planned actions. It is not flawless but it does give empathy and clear expectations that you have and they should have.

Like, sometimes a person is /certain/ the stuff they are doing is funny and drawing in people. It might come from good intentions or desire to interact but instead it is resulting into people being very upset. I would consider that 'innocent' because there is no malice in the actions. It falls under the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' for me. Obviously there's the people who use the guise of 'opening discussions' by talking about things that offend and not listening when people express they aren't enjoying the way they are doing the conversation. Though it is not always a clear cut distinction you can generally tell, even in text, when someone is doing a thing intentional or not, at least that has been my experience in stuff like that.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@icanbeyourmuse I will expect that once the people trying to be funny but actually managing the opposite are made aware, though, they will cut it out. Because their intention was not to abuse or harass in the first place.

[Devrex]

In response to earnest concerns, on my own game this morning I have done the following.

• Verified that the page log history spans interactions back to the first pages exchanged on game.
• Verified that the option has been set on our system to keep unshared scenes indefinitely, an option already included in the standard code suite for Ares.
• Verified that every conceivable form of on-game communication is tracked and monitored (but available to look at only with the permission of you, the player).
• Urged players to "archive" mail rather than delete it, in case they need it later.
• Added all of the reporting commands to our "safety" policy after testing each and every one of them to make sure they did what I said they did in the descriptions, as I offered an expanded help to what was already available on-game.
• Urged individuals, both in the policy documents and in a forum post, to allow us to take a look at any communication that happens in game any time they feel uneasy, either to allow us to take disciplinary action or to begin a paper trail.
• Added a note to our off-game communication policy which clarifies that we do communicate with the admin of other games re: problems that could indicate stalking behavior or other abusive behavior and will, whenever that admin will consent to share information with us, use that information in our deliberations. We also clarified we reserve the right to use interactions we already personally were aware of from our contact with other games to ensure there is no doubt that we are paying attention to this information.
• Clarified why we do not feel qualified to evaluate Discord, Facebook, and similar evidence by pointing out we do not know the Discord handles of every player, or their RL names. Offered a link to HTML instructions posted by people who Discord spoof as (I hope) a mere hobby. A gentle reminder that already existed but which is now reiterated has been offered that urges people to keep their conversations in-game where they can be reported at a button touch unless they are very sure the other person can be trusted.
• Reiterated that we do not integrate our Chat with Discord nor do we have an official game Discord server precisely because we want to give players the ability to limit interactions to an environment where they can, at any time, report the interaction to actual people they talk to instead of faceless Discord admin. As this is posted right on policies, those who come to play know before they choose to gen and before they take the risk of using our site that this is a part of our ToS and they are agreeing to and accepting those terms, which we offer to ensure that they can make informed decisions about whether to communicate off-game or not.
• Added a line to our safety policy which made it clear that they can ask staff to issue DNCs on their behalf if they do not feel comfortable doing so. Language existed already which indicated that DNCs may be issued for any reason without need for proof: I don't want to talk to you is considered ample reason. Players are not required to provision us with any reason other than "I would like a DNC."
• Hopefully put abusers on notice that this is an environment where their every move is ultimately watched and reportable, and that we are trying to foster a culture wherein people feel a-okay reporting either to allow us to take disciplinary action or to create a paper trail that will allow us to corroborate multiple reports from multiple witnesses later, thus allowing us to take disciplinary action eventually if the nature of the interaction is not, on its own, enough to prompt disciplinary action, but was nevertheless sufficient to make a player uneasy. We want it clear that the probability of being seen and caught is very high in this specific space where we have offered to provide volunteer services as game runners, despite the fact that we have indicated that we do not feel adequately equipped to provide protection on other spaces or to evaluate off-site evidence.
• Added a line to our Removal policy which clarifies our standard of proof is "more likely to have happened than not," and not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Hopefully this makes our commitment to stopping harassment or abuse clear, and gives some insight into how an evidence-based system could still be committed to protecting every player that walks through our doors, without requiring us to know all of them personally.

[il-volpe]

@greenflashlight You're doing it all wrong. There's no need for all this investigation and trouble and effort. You have no obligation to shield a player from abuses. Or to do anything whatsoever under any circumstances. So when your player reports abuse, ban her for being demanding and entitled and trying to take up your time.

[silverfox]

@il-volpe

What is your problem?

Edit: Like, seriously. The person you quoted is making efforts to see to their own core philosophy in a way that respects nuance. Agree or disagree with that, but don't be like that.

[3543thrh67]

@l-b-heuschkel I think usually they are but mental health issues and other factors could make them forget. So, when deciding someone is 'bad' I think that should be factored in. I'm not on board with the 'X thing excuses their behavior' but I am on board with taking that in as a factor when trying to decide if the person is unintentionally or intentionally doing something. Obviously, no one needs to share stuff wrong with them, expecting them to is dickish to me. But, if you are aware, it should be taken into account.

Note, I'm not talking about the people who are like 'You can't get mad at me for doing X thing! I have Y thing!' I mean the people who genuinely think they are doing things expected and making a joke that is funny without fully getting they are doing the opposite than intended then when corrected, listen, but potentially repeat it. I've seen both of these types. The unintentionals /usually/ stop when made aware. Sure, they might do it again, but rarely do I see them try using their mental health as a full on excuse to get out of trouble. The intentionals, use their issues as a shield against getting in trouble and sometimes people accept that, some don't.

[il-volpe]

@silverfox Sarcasm.

[silverfox]

@il-volpe

Sarcasm has a place - this isn't it. This is the mildly constructive part of the forum, so I'll leave it there.