Banning Bad, Actually?

[KDraygo]

@Yam said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

@Faraday Do you recall ol’ OnceWas?

Minus one Michelin star for “unclear help file” work.

If a system is supposed to work a specific way, say it is supposed to work that way. If it isn’t, update a file or something, maybe?

This was basically enough to get him banned. This person was freshly new. This is the most hair trigger case I can think of. He was immediately shown the door, although he was sure to kinda’ buckle down on his stance. Mild, probably, but no one wanted to deal with it.

I’m unclear of what your threshold is, as I recall you were not very approving of this behavior.

That is, of course, just half of the story since we do not know Ada’s accounts. We don’t know if Ada has had past interactions with the player before or someone else have already spoken to about this player before. From one telling, it appears to be just be an one-off encounter but it’s only one telling.

Unless I missed Ada’s explanation and not just one log that was provided stating that was it.

[Roz]

@Ominous said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

For those who are on the side of ban early and ban often, might I suggest running private, whitelist server for just your friends? Or maybe have a rigorous review process requiring an interview between staff and an applicant before they can CG?

idk i feel like my counterpoint for this is “if you don’t want to get banned early and often from a public game, might i suggest simply being on your best behavior?”

[Ominous]

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

I think this may be another crux (can an argument have more than one crux?) of the argument. The difference between something being right and someone having the right – and in this instance whether there’s a difference at all.

Civil Law countries have the Prohibition of Chicane which holds that using your rights to inflict harm on another is illegal. So, people have to use their rights right for it to be alright, right?

[sao]

Like I can ask someone to leave my table for any reason and you can choose not to play at my table for any reason. One of the reasons I don’t staff anymore is I spend all my grace for my job and I don’t have a lot to get shit on as a volunteer anymore. So now I don’t even HAVE a table.

[Ominous]

@Roz said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

idk i feel like my counterpoint for this is “if you don’t want to get banned early and often from a public game, might i suggest simply being on your best behavior?”

I don’t think “best behavior” is a realistic standard for a recreational hobby. How about “decent behavior?”

[catzilla]

@Yam said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

@Faraday Do you recall ol’ OnceWas?

Minus one Michelin star for “unclear help file” work.

If a system is supposed to work a specific way, say it is supposed to work that way. If it isn’t, update a file or something, maybe?

This was basically enough to get OnceWas banned. This person was freshly new. This is the most hair trigger case I can think of. He was immediately shown the door, although he was sure to kinda’ buckle down on his stance. Mild, probably, but no one wanted to deal with it.

I’m unclear of what your threshold is, as I recall you were not very approving of this behavior.

Wasn’t part of the banning also because they had shown creeper tendencies in the past?

[Yam]

@catzilla Possibly. I have vague memories of folk coming out of the woodwork.

[Pavel]

We’re like this close > < to prescribing general behavioural standards, again.

[Wizz]

@Faraday said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

Various folks in the thread have made statements that indicate they don’t leave grace to ensure it’s more than an isolated incident. That even a single remark they deemed “rude” was enough to warrant a ban. I’m too tired to go and find the exact quotes, but it was pretty clear to me.

I’ll admit that this is true, depending on the issue. I’m actually with you more than I’ve made room to say, there are situations that I would have more grace for, but on the other hand others I definitely have less, and (omg shocking, I know) strangers acting like they are disproportionately entitled to my or other people’s free time is just one of those things.

there’s a line where just leaving a player hanging with no explanation becomes just as obnoxious, of course, but. it’s not measured in days, for me. there’s just not any imaginary fun time thing that’s that important.

[bear_necessities]

@Pavel I mean isn’t that just “don’t be a dick”?

Come on people, don’t be a dick. It really isn’t that difficult lol

[Pavel]

@Wizz said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

there’s a line where just leaving a player hanging with no explanation becomes just as obnoxious, of course, but.

I agree, though I would probably also posit the corollary that if you’ve already established (through word or deed) a standard and that standard is unmet, then a player is entitled to regard that as an issue. That doesn’t entitle them to be a shit about it, obviously, but perhaps a little more leeway on shittitude is understandable in those circumstances.

@bear_necessities said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

@Pavel I mean isn’t that just “don’t be a dick”?

Come on people, don’t be a dick. It really isn’t that difficult lol

Well that’s kind of yet another crux of the matter. What counts as being a dick for you isn’t necessarily going to be the same as it is for me, or for Faraday, or for whomever is running Shang, etc, etc.

My mostly facetious line about prescriptive behavioural standards is the suggestion that we’re going to have this kind of a conversation ad nauseam until and unless there’s a set, precise, prescriptive, and detailed standard of acceptable behaviour that is inviolate. Which is impossible. So we’ll have this conversation. Forever.

[bear_necessities]

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

So we’ll have this conversation. Forever

I mean you could say that about every conversation we have on this forum, pretty sure we just go around in circles.

[Yam]

Do we ever learn anything? Ever?

[Roz]

@Yam not if i can help it

[Jennkryst]

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

We’re like this close > < to prescribing general behavioural standards, again.

Is it going to be ‘respect the lawyer cat gavel’?

[Ominous]

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

Well that’s kind of yet another crux of the matter. What counts as being a dick for you isn’t necessarily going to be the same…for whomever is running Shang, etc, etc.

I suspect that being a dick or any sort of phallic object is celebrated on Shang, as is being one of the various orifices or phallus receptacles.

[Pavel]

@Ominous I think there was a guy who was quite successfully roleplaying as a… I wanna say washing machine? Something like that.

@bear_necessities said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

So we’ll have this conversation. Forever

I mean you could say that about every conversation we have on this forum, pretty sure we just go around in circles.

[Ominous]

@Yam said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

Do we ever learn anything? Ever?

Yes. I learned that a few people are actually interested in a ridiculous 3-month server surrounding the antics nobles trying to get chosen as a spouse to a head of state to be.

@Pavel said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

@Ominous I think there was a guy who was quite successfully roleplaying as a… I wanna say washing machine? Something like that.

I will say this of Shang. It may be the Mos Eisley of the MU* world, but I have encountered and heard of some the most creative RP there.

I’ve also encountered some of the worst. The place tends to house the extremes.

[Faraday]

@Yam said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

This was basically enough to get OnceWas banned. This person was freshly new. This is the most hair trigger case I can think of. He was immediately shown the door, although he was sure to kinda’ buckle down on his stance. Mild, probably, but no one wanted to deal with it.

I didn’t recall them by name, but I searched and all I could find was this post where I basically said that their attitude over a minor documentation issue was “bafflingly aggressive”. I can’t find anywhere where I said they should be banned for it? Or supported them being banned for such a thing? That doesn’t seem like something I would do, but maybe I’m forgetting some important detail.

I’m unclear of what your threshold is, as I recall you were not very approving of this behavior.

Disapproving of someone’s behavior doesn’t equate to thinking they should be banned for it. As staff, you have the authority to set boundaries. Sometimes that can be done with a coaching approach, other times you need something firmer, like:

“If you would like to try again and rework that page into something even remotely approaching a reasonable discussion of issues rather than a full-on attack, feel free. Otherwise leave. It’s that simple.” - actual Fara quote

In that specific case, the player backtracked and we had a constructive conversation. There have been other times where other players full-on apologized and we’ve gone on to have a good relationship.

There have certainly been times where I’ve given someone too many chances, but on the whole this approach has worked out well. YMMV.

[Pavel]

@Faraday Well yeah, but you’re Faraday. You can speak braille and have counted to infinity twice. You won a game of connect four in three moves.