a pretty good suggestion

[Dar]

sorry to add to the drama.  I've been reading the shadowboards after all that recent weirdness.  This guy is making a pretty good suggestion.  In lieu of 'how to improve relationship of staff and playerbase."

One thing I will say about this situation is that staff should always post evidence when they ban people. There would be essentially no unjustified bans if staff were actually willing to put their case out there every time they permanently cut someone off from the game. This is one of those things that other games do when they ban people, and is a cornerstone of transparency in those games that Armageddon has never had.

The OP is generally keen on warping everything Arm related negatively.  But the part I quoted could actually be pretty key.

[Halaster]

What games publicly state who they banned and why?

edit:  I'm not saying that to be argumentative or dodge the question, but rather I'm curious where that comes from.  Other games I've personally played don't do that, asided from like "We banned 1000 cheaters today via BattleEye"

[Dar]

Hmm. if I dig I'll find a few MUDs that do that.  I remember one straight out, but there is likely more.


correction: Found a second one in 2 min.   it's a thing, Halaster. For real.

[Patuk]

Armageddon is a tiny community. It shouldn't change things up too much.

[Dar]

well.  consider this.


We are a tiny community, the bannings won't be that common anyway.

when we ban someone, the fact doesn't stay unknown. It just allows the banned spread their version of events and in that story they are the innocent victim and Halaster is a Tregil Worshipping Abomination.

The very recent experience demonstrated that while highly uncomfortable and distasteful, standing in front of a problem can actually garner support and understanding. Even from people who are dead set on chaos and destruction.

And yes. The idea that one would need to explain the motivation for a ban would make a staff member pause and rethink other alternatives to that problem resolution.

[cnemus]

I don't think there is any one solution that fits all situations.

I think there are times, particularly when an individual is spreading misinformation, that staff clarification is warranted.

In most cases when someone is banned there is an offense that has occurred. This could involve other players and situations in game that victims do not want to have to endure announcements and open discussion about.

Choosing not to publicize details allows people who have made mistakes to potentially learn and grow without facing public ostracization and side-effect consequences beyond the banning while also protecting others who may have been involved, but done nothing wrong.

I feel the line can only be determined by asking what are the consequences of action and inaction, to the individuals affected and the game as a whole. Each circumstance is unique and has to be evaluated on its own.

I generally support private adjudication unless a clear reason demands otherwise.

[dumbstruck]

I can't speak specifically to muds, but it's pretty common practice on mushes to see it posted what happened and why when a player is banned, on more or less every mush I've ever played.

[LXXXVIII]

+1

While the banning of ibusoe was obviously justified, we've had people get recently banned for reasons that seem unjustified (EG, Delirium and others getting banned merely for trying to constructively discuss problems this game has).

As it stands, we seem to have public executions and back room executions. Neither public executions nor backroom executions are the hallmark of fair governance. The lack of transparency and fairness doesn't exactly build trust or credibility. Becoming more transparent or at least consistent in handling matters like this might build trust and credibility.

[mansa]

I am reminded of the old SomethingAwful dot com forums, where Moderation and Discipline was public - it was partly to shame those idiots who managed to get banned - but also to moderate the community to show what people did that deserved the ban.

It is a tricky subject, since any action isn't automated - if you ban someone, you then need to remember to post 'why the ban happened'.  Things can fall through the cracks.


But it's also something that can eliminate any second guessing about it, from the point of view of the outsiders.  When things happen, and the community only hears about it from one party, the rumors start to fly.

[Dar]

those were my thoughts.

I fully understand the idea of privacy. You don't want to shame a player into never returning. And temp bans are likely unnecessary to publicize. Or better off just make such bans anonymous.

Player Banned for 7 days. Reason: Kept making Giants Ball NPC yell Teks Balls. Ignored requests to stop.

there is no need to actually name the person who was banned.


Ultimately we gotta remember. That the old way of doing things, while comfortable, has clearly proven to no longer work in an era of dissipating mud players.

We should find better, or at worst, different ways.

[LXXXVIII]

Even better if it is required to link a specific rule which was broken. If no rule was broken, the ban shouldn't occur.

If a staff member finds they banned someone because "They posted something I disagree with," the ban should be lifted immediately because it couldn't be tied to a rule which was violated.

[Halaster]

How do those other MUD's handle it?

[Dar]

I spent sometime actually 'reading' these announcements. And to be honest not well! They are not handled well.  They are used as a chance to 'say the last word' by staff, with player in question is unable to easily respond to.  They still do on other channels perhaps.

I'd say we can do better! Be less vindictive and bitey and more objective, and lawful. It is still a practice that I think is more appreciated by the playerbase, it seems. Even if illusory.

I'll pm you two links to two different games that announce. Please read and draw your own conclusions.

[Halaster]

Yeah, I'm not going to link directly to another one because I don't want to call out my disagreement with another game for how they do things.  But the one I saw listed the players, the staff banning them, what they did - just putting it ALL out there, heh.  Thanks for the links Dar.

[Dar]

we don't need to go that far.


I'd suggest not identifying the player, but identifying the specific bannable offense. You'd think it to be a tiny matter, but it genuinely isn't.

in terms of "Transparency and mutual respect between players and staff"  it's a step. We might just do a little better then others.

[dumbstruck]

On the MUSH I've played most recently, there was typically a tendency to use the in game board system to make a post, so about like making a forum post, often with a rough outline of why. I can only think of 1 person who was banned offhand and it was for coming in and playing someone who was acting underage and being sexually provocative and making passes at a bunch of people and it made a bunch of people uncomfortable leading to mass complaints and the players subsequent ban, and the board post said something to that effect. I think though, that it's really something where the exact approach should be handled on a case by case basis, because different situations are different, and one blanket solution is probably not going to be universally applicable. While some situations, like the Ibusoe one, might warrant logs, others, like the one from the MUSH referenced, might not, but both involve a level of transparency and communication, and I think that mature individuals who aren't overly close to the situation can (at least most of the time) make a good judgement call and usually find themselves come out right as to how much is too much. Some things are more sensitive than others, every situation is unique.

[LindseyBalboa]

Arx has a public board for bannings and people are consistently banned for things like "Don't be a fucking creep why do we have to say this. They did XXX and XXX." The MUX it was based on did something similar iirc.

[Lotion]

There is a mafia forum which has a public thread for perm+temp bans: https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12139&start=700

[tiny rainbow]

That's horrible... Just pillorying them like that, on someone's arbitrary judgement, just... That's the face of evil, right there.

I can't publicly shame this idea because it was done already
https://wjccschools.org/jhs/resource_guides/lord-of-the-flies/

[Inks]

I strongly approve of posting the log and name, since the player was relying on it not being posted in order to make it look like a conspiracy. Transparency like this goes a long way and it was handled well by staff.

[tiny rainbow]

Yeah THAT case was obviously not really the normal kind of thing, doing it in every case.. That's a lotttt different, that's a nasty path to go down I think.

Sometimes people manipulate this kind of stuff to get the results they want, a lot can go wrong - giving people chances to appeal is important...

[Dracul]

I support this.

It could help with my perception of staff, and it would make me feel more a part of the community, even if I was only a witness.

Post anonymous, with vague details etc. State the topic clearly (player banned for rule x), and allow for discussion by the community.

[Barsook]

I also support this.

[zealus]

Allow for discussion by the community.

Please no. That conversation is never going to be a pleasant one. Either dogpiling or fighting. Would rather not.

[Tuannon]

How do those other MUD's handle it?

One makes a major witch hunt out of it, or used to.

Some of the smaller DIKUs I have staffed on would just go ahead and ban out. Because usually every player knew why the ban was enacted.