@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:
@sunny
The court of public opinion...
You mean like a trial by jury? Courts of public opinion are the cornerstone of most modern justice systems.
That indicates a severe misunderstanding of the difference between jury trials and the court of public opinion, which are, in fact, two different things.
@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:
@carex Seeing that staff is willing to engage in public humiliation doesn't increase trust and investment by players. It just tells them that staff will be willing to humiliate people, including them.
And it would keep those kinds of players away from the game in the first place.
No, see -- people don't see "staff is willing to publicly humiliate you if you're awful enough." They see "staff is willing to publicly humiliate people." Full stop. It's not just going to be creepers who are suddenly worried about being dragged through this, it's going to be a large bulk of your playerbase, including people who may never have to be spoken to.
If you treat one kind of person terribly, it just shows that you're willing to treat people terribly in general.
What happens when you get the players who are serious issues but are also great at ingratiating themselves and forming shields of other players?
Ok, let's pretend that somehow this creeper creates a human shield of creeper-sympathetic players who protect each other from the ban, that means a majority of your player base wants to be creeping on each other.
People who don't want that kind of creeper RP would be informed by the votes to protect the creeper as to who these trolls are and avoid the problem people while the people inside the creeper's circle of friends would get what they want and keep playing.
Even in this highly unlikely situation where an army of trolls invades your game and become a majority, everyone would be better off by being more informed as opposed to banning the creepers one at a time and letting the others troll go on unexposed.
Even in this highly improbable, worse case scenario, you are still giving the players what they want which is the single most important thing you can do for your game's longevity.
If your goal is to keep your players engaged and playing, then this is one way do it. It's more effort than dictating justice by proclamation but it engages the will of the majority.
Give your players a justice system they are part of and your game will last longer with a more loyal player base.
No. This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase. It's actually super common to have problem players who appear perfectly nice to a certain group of players. Suddenly their hurt and issues aren't just directed at staff, who can at least respond and deal with it, but the rest of the playerbase for literally voting their friend off. It's not as simple as "people shouldn't be friends with creepers." A lot of the time problem players are showing different faces to different people.
Players want to see in a game how they would want to be treated. They want to know that staff will generally protect their privacy. Literally no one, bad player or good player, wants to have their disciplinary action put up to a public game vote.
Staff should keep disciplinary matters confidential until the time comes for a ban, at which point they should clearly state the reasons for it. Your idea that putting up MU* discipline to a player vote will make the game last longer and make the playerbase more loyal indicates to me that you probably haven't staffed on a game. It's literally one of the most disastrous ideas I've ever heard.
