Banning Bad, Actually?

[bear_necessities]

@KDraygo I’m probably being a little pedantic on the word usage here, because to me it just sounds like you have the authority to control someone. IMO the ability to decide you can’t play here is not the ability to control someone, it’s just making rules for their space.

Plus I mean to be honest saying a game admin has power over the players inevitably puts the game runner in a position that not a lot of us want to be in. Fuck when I ran Gray Harbor, I hope people didn’t think I had power over them, I barely had power over my own story lol

[Faraday]

@Wizz said in Empire Discussion Thread:

if someone decides to ban lots of very rude strangers, I mean. so what? this is honestly the only medium I have ever played where bans are considered this shocking “nuclear option.” they are actually pretty common on tons of other platforms, and it doesn’t prevent them from being diverse and active spaces, because it’s about creating and maintaining the game culture and they understand that people come and go regardless.

I don’t disagree with you on principle. Obviously people should act like mature adults, and staff should set whatever limits they see fit.

My point is more practical. I’ve run a LOT of games through the years, for the most part with a reputation of them being pretty chill, friendly places. Yet even on games like that - if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players. Many would be banned, others would have left because of their friends being banned, and still others would have left because I developed a reputation where one misstep (even just a misunderstanding) leads to a ban.

But again I want to stress that I’m not criticizing Ada in this specific instance because I don’t have all the facts, and even if I did - it’s still entirely their call.

[Pacha]

@Roadspike said in Empire Discussion Thread:

I fully believe that you can ban people who are more trouble than they are worth (cue Prue Leith’s “Not worth the calories”), and still maintain a large and diverse base of players. While there aren’t a ridiculous number of people in this hobby, there are plenty to have a nice, large, healthy database while removing the people who make staffing not fun.

Absolutely. I don’t think anybody is disputing that.

I think that what the calories are worth for whom and for what is up for discussion though. Obviously some people might think that donut is worth the calories, others will not.

I tend to agree with Faraday here:

@Faraday said in Empire Discussion Thread:

if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players.

But everyone has the right to choose their own diet. Perhaps I will eat the donut, and Ada will limit herself to a green salad. It is individual choice!

[Yam]

I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners. It might not be a BIG game, but from what I gather, it doesn’t look like most staffers want to staff big games anyway.

[Pavel]

@Yam said in Empire Discussion Thread:

I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners.

Oh yeah?! Name five.

[Juniper]

Thanks all, I needed a good laugh.

[Roadspike]

@bear_necessities That’s fair to disagree on, and it may just be a question of word use.

In my opinion, when a Staffer has the power to remove someone from the game, or the power to inflict IC consequences on that player’s character, they are in a position of power over that player.

The player can remove the Staffer from that position of power over them by leaving the game, but unless they do that, they are in an asymmetric power relationship.

@Pacha Definitely every Staffer has the right to decide what they’re willing to put up with. To go back to my other point, that’s actually one of the reasons that they have power in the situation, because they’re the one who can decide that.

And I would definitely look in askance of a Staffer who had a quick trigger on what made a player more trouble than they’re worth. Of course, my own definition of a quick trigger is likely to be different than someone else’s, just like my definition of “more trouble than they’re worth.”

[Faraday]

@Yam said in Empire Discussion Thread:

I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners. It might not be a BIG game, but from what I gather, it doesn’t look like most staffers want to staff big games anyway.

That’d be nice, but I have never in my life been on such a game.

Look, I’m not excusing rudeness here, but let’s be realistic. These are open public internet games with people who don’t always know each other well, and text-only chat. Text lacks tone. People don’t always word things right. Even the best players can have moments where they get frustrated or impatient.

I’ve never been intentionally rude to a staff member, but I can guarantee I’ve said things in such a way that could be taken as rude, snarky, pushy, etc. at some point. (Actually probably with @Roadspike, lol, since we’ve had some good-natured but spirited debates about FS3 implementations. ) Many players who I consider good peeps and friends have slipped up on occasion. People make mistakes.

Nobody’s saying you should tolerate a player who acts egregiously, or one who’s a constant pain in the butt. It is important to have boundaries. All I’m saying is that it’s probably in your best interests as a game-runner to give people a little grace (and hopefully they’ll give it back to you on YOUR off days).

[sao]

In my experience the amount of grace I am prepared to give others is directly proportional to the grace I receive. Yet the numbers inherent in the math of staff to player ratio renders it almost impossible for this trade to feel fair.

[Yam]

Man IDK guys is it really that hard to avoid bans? Are people just tripping into bans these days?

[MisterBoring]

@Yam said in Empire Discussion Thread:

Man IDK guys is it really that hard to avoid bans? Are people just tripping into bans these days?

I feel like it’s less tripping into bans and more toxic players will be toxic players and staff have finally, at the end of 2025, reached the point where just throwing down the ban is the least headache and anxiety of any option.

[Yam]

@MisterBoring Yeah. I think it’s… in everyone’s best interest that the staffer makes the decision to nip this shit in the bud early on.

The staffer might be a doofus (look at AoA) but at least there’s a clean break instead of what happened on Tk5 where our stupid ass council had to vote to agree on everything and that involved giving strikes to a problem player that, over the course of a few months, wore ALL of the staff down and eventually dissolved the game.

[Trashcan]

@Faraday said in Empire Discussion Thread:

I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners. It might not be a BIG game, but from what I gather, it doesn’t look like most staffers want to staff big games anyway.

That’d be nice, but I have never in my life been on such a game.

I don’t know, man. The last game I was on, somebody was rude to staff and got banned for it right away, right after the game opened. That game went on to have over 4000 scenes, so it seemed to work out to me, and everyone was pretty chill in their dealings with staff after that, at least to my knowledge.

[Meg]

@Faraday said in Empire Discussion Thread:

Look, I’m not excusing rudeness here, but let’s be realistic. These are open public internet games with people who don’t always know each other well, and text-only chat. Text lacks tone. People don’t always word things right. Even the best players can have moments where they get frustrated or impatient.

i think this is a huge point. let’s not pretend we’re all angels who always have the best tone.

hell, one of the first games i was on, the staffers had to sit me down, metaphorically, and explain that my tone was coming off rude. did i know? no. i came from a different internet culture and honestly hadn’t put much thought into my text tone until that point.

if they had banned me instead of at least trying to give a warning, we wouldn’t be friends now, i wouldn’t have attended one of their weddings, and i’d probably have quickly dropped out of the hobby, because it was my second MUSH and the first one had it’s own thing with people being rude to ME, so.

so i’m not saying you can’t ban people, or that you have to put up with rudeness, or that you can’t have a small quiet game.

but there’s also good moments to be had in offering some patience in that position too.

[Third Eye]

@Trashcan said in Empire Discussion Thread:

I don’t know, man. The last game I was on, somebody was rude to staff and got banned for it right away, right after the game opened. That game went on to have over 4000 scenes, so it seemed to work out to me, and everyone was pretty chill in their dealings with staff after that, at least to my knowledge.

LOL I REMEMBER THIS PERSON.

For what it’s worth, this wasn’t a ‘first offense’ kind of banning, this person had been a nightmare to deal with in CG and been given a ‘second chance’ after they finally managed to take some feedback and get themselves in shape for approval.

That’s a case where it actually might’ve been better to just show this person the door before they got out of CG because that’s often less of a headache and waste of time for everyone involved if someone is giving off ‘bad fit’ signals, but you make your choices.

I think this is what a lot of these bannings for what appears to be ‘borderline’ behavior actually are. Staff take a lot of shit the player populace never sees.

[Yam]

This is implying we lack all ability to exercise grace and understanding when it’s clear someone is having an off day. Do you think most people can’t recognize when someone is someone is just in a shitty situation and truly, deeply confused? And I say this as someone that initially asked their friends, baffled, why they were on Ada’s “side” when it looked like Ada went for the nuclear option.

Guys we’re talking about someone that was banned from a game for using chatGPT to RP his girlfriend in event scenes to also get extra equipment to share between accounts.

To Third Eye’s point, how often is this the “first offense”?

[helvetica]

@Third-Eye To quote a scholar (@Tat), CG can be as much an interview period to feel out a player and how they navigate your system, hearing the word no, etc.

I’ve banned someone during CG for being generally disruptive, becoming increasingly agitated with the system and insisting thematic areas that were explicitly not allowed should be plausible for them because they could talk in circles real good.

@Yam There is a distinction between lacking the ability to offer grace and choosing not to offer grace. I understand that you qualify some sort of moral superiority to being forgiving, but forgiveness isn’t something owed. In our hobby, admin are going to make judgment calls. If those judgment calls don’t align with your world view to this level where you’re still chewing on it, that’s when you as a player should consider playing on a different game. (This is theoretical. I don’t know if you play there. I don’t play there.)

[Meg]

@Yam i’m not on either side. i literally care nothing for either of these people. in my opinion, some of the people pushing back are not pushing back on this specific instance, just on the idea that its actually a good thing to go nuclear as soon as someone is rude.

it’s an option, and i don’t think it is a bad option. i don’t think it’s a good option, either. i think it’s just an option and i think you are going to miss some people and moments, that’s all.

my example? it wasn’t a bad day for me. i was just rude, not paying attention to my tone. for weeks, at least, before staff talked to me.

[Tez]

@Meg said in Empire Discussion Thread:

@Yam i’m not on either side. i literally care nothing for either of these people. in my opinion, some of the people pushing back are not pushing back on this specific instance, just on the idea that its actually a good thing to go nuclear as soon as someone is rude.

I think it’s a mistake to treat this as a generic case rather than a specific one.

[Yam]

@Tez I need you to split this convo off into a topic called Is Banning Bad, Actually?