GDB flaming policy and consequences.

[Anonymous]

When one of your posts is deleted because it either contains IC information or inappropriate content (I'm not saying flames, but defining inappropriate as including flames, insults, attempts to elicit flames, and slurs on various races, genders, sexual preferences and appearances), you will be warned, and a note will be made on your account. This will happen the second time as well. The third time you are warned, your board privileges may be removed and/or your karma affected. Any staff member can delete posts and warn players. Posts are retained, so if you feel something was unjustly deleted, you're welcome to email mud about it.

I'd like to bring this up for discussion, if possible. I hadn't read this when it was posted, I only became aware of it today.  I understand and respect the decision of the staff concerning the rapid deterioration of the GDB but something with this policy is truly disturbing to me, particularly when it comes to flaming, and I'd like to share it and get others opinion and maybe offer an alternative to such an extreme consequence.

It seems to me that this policy directly affects a player's IC status. OOC anger or annoyance towards another's opinion which is expressed in a non constructive way will eventually lead to in character consequences and I really believe that is unfair.

My (just using me as an example) out of character forms of expression, such as the GDB, whether it be to call someone lazy or an idiot, should not affect my karma. I realize that in retrospect, we have a policy on the GDB to not flame and I am breaking a rule by doing so, but what does my spewing anger at someone have to do with my ability to run an elementalist or a slave, a templar or a noble, a House merchant? I don't think the two should be related. My main concern is that repercussions from my OOC behavior to my IC shouldn't be related unless they directly affect one another.
For this reason, I can't really argue against the policy when it comes to filtering IC information through the GDB, I do not envy the police on this one at all and I agree that a slap at one's account and, eventually, karma, would be warranted.
I urge you to please reconsider this policy when it comes to dealing with flames, insults, attempts to elicit flames, and slurs on various races, genders, sexual preferences and appearances. One's personal opinion of another's personal opinion should not be grounds for punishment that directly affects a player's limits within the game and so I am suggesting the following alternative per the advice of an extraordinary roleplayer and former self procclaimed twink.
-  Work on installing an ignore feature where those who are constantly annoyed by a certain poster's form of expression can have the option to ignore said poster and remove the temptation of lashing back.

1. The (first) removal of a questionable post should be accompanied by a PM stating that the post was removed for X reason, that this should be considered a formal warning and to please stop from doing it again. They should be informed of the ignore feature and encouraged to use it.
2.  The (second) incident, whether it be a removal of a post or otherwise, should be accompanied by an email to the player explaining that the third incident will result in banning from the GDB and reminding them of the ignore feature. A remark should be made in Imm land that this person has only one chance left to stop being a typing penis on the GDB but no remarks should be made onto a player's account.
3.  The (third) incident should be the last, the person should be banned from the GDB, period. Banned, end of story, they broke GDB policy, not mud policy, it should stay here.

Please bear in mind that this suggestion is solely to deal with personality conflicts that are verbalized on the GDB (i.e. flames of all types from mild to habanero) and thereby cause people to break the no flame policy.

Lastly, I'd like to see this policy expand to include immortals and players alike.

I really hope that I was able to read diplomatically, I sometimes have trouble verbalizing my thoughts in a way that my passion (or anger) towards a subject is not felt with a sting.

[Raesanos]

Karma is not an IC construct.  It is a measure of the staff's trust in a player.  If a player has proven outside the game that they are rude and uncivil, it is reasonable to not want to give such a player special roles.  If someone can't be trusted to follow the rules on the GDB, why should they be trusted with special roles in the game, and be trusted to follow the game's rules?

As for wanting this policy to include players and staff members alike, I was a bit unsure of what you meant.  Certainly, if any staff members were engaging in poor behavior on the boards, they would not be above punishment, but I don't think I've seen this happen in recent days.

One's personal opinion of another's personal opinion should not be grounds for punishment that directly affects a player's limits within the game and so I am suggesting the following alternative per the advice of an extraordinary roleplayer and former self procclaimed twink.

We do not punish people for having certain opinions.  Stating your opinion is not against the GDB rules.  Stating it in a rude and uncivil way, or flaming people who have opinions other than yours, is against the GDB rules.  That is a very different thing.

[Bestatte]

Karma is given as a result of proving your ability to handle the responsibility of playing more challenging roles.

There are many different criteria that go into the award of karma points (beyond the first one which -seems- to be given rather quickly to many people).

If you are incapable of being a responsible -human being- in an -official- forum of the game you play, then the staff can only assume that you will also be incapable of being a responsible player in the game itself. If someone proves on the GDB that they can't treat the players with respect outside the game, why should the staff think any differently about how you treat them in the game? It is -all- property of the owners. Just like in real life - if you screw up in gym class in school to such a degree that it brings the attention of the principal, he's not just gonna tell you "no more gym." He'll probably suspend your ass from school altogether.

If you are a customer in a supermarket and get caught stealing a candy bar from aisle 14, why shouldn't the store manager ban you from the entire store, and not simply tell you no more aisle 14?

If you show that your presence is a detriment to the community that plays this game, then the staff has every right to make sure that your options are as limited as they feel necessary. And that includes being stripped of karma. Personally I have no problem with it at all. I've stretched the line of good manners quite a few times on the GDB, and have been given a scolding or two in the past.

As a result I'd tried my damnest to tow the line and stay out of trouble. If someone is unwilling to do the same, then I'd have to question their willingness to play fairly in the game - since it's clear they have no desire to play fairly outside of it.

[ShaLeah]

This is my post, by the way. It logged me out before I could finish writing.  
I'll let the discussion continue before I add my other two sid.

[Sir Diealot]

A somewhat better example, as it shows how dual-'lives' affect each other (no offence Bestatte, just thought it in my head and it sounded closer to the lines of IC/OOC) is your boss finding out at work that you smoke pot.  He can no longer trust you, because you smoke pot, and therefore you get your ass fired.

[Dakurus]

The mud and the GDB are intertwined. We are all part of the general community that play and interact. Removing priviledges such as being able to post, or play certain character types, as well as noting the reason why is a basic but firm way to encourage the people that will not participate in the rules of the community to shape up. Punishments can vary, but certain punishments tend to be more effective.

Warnings will happen, but it's been made apparent that outlining what the rules are, and reminding the community of them, has not worked.

Every character you have could be a perfect angel IC, but your OOC actions within the community have and always will affect your account.

[flurry]

I agree - karma is purely an OOC concept, and I do see a connection between behavior on the GDB and trust with sensitive roles.   If you don't have the emotional maturity to have some basic civility on the board, even after repeated warnings, losing karma seems like a reasonable option.  Also it's a way to give the policy teeth - previously warnings on the GDB were shrugged off.

One small concern though is access to your GDB clan board.   This is something that, depending on the clan and the role, can be essential to playing in a clan.   I hope that no one has to get banned from the GDB, but if they do I hope this can be worked around so that it doesn't spill over into IC hardships.

[Angela Christine]

GDB behavior matters for the same reason that a politician's personal life matters: it indicates if you have good/poor judgement, good/poor impulse control, and the ability to  follow rules and norms.  The staff can't watch every character constantly, so it may be that most of what some of the staff knows about comes from what you do on the GDB.

It isn't what you say, it is how you say it.


AC

[UnderSeven]

At first I was a little iffy about this policy but when I thought about it.. The people I know on other GDB's who are serious flamers, just rip into people personally as miuch as they can, area usually also the people who have no concept of the game.  So yeah, most of the serious flamers probably have no care for the rules, instead just want to get away with stuff.

One thing though I'd like to bring up.  Recently I wrote a post another player felt was a veiled flame. I didn't notice it at all, but they pm'd me about it.  They pointed out what they saw and why they felt that way.  I imiadiatly looked it over and edited my post and appologized.

What's the point of that above thing? Well I'd like to see the staff not leap on people if it's near to the grey, not to say nothing should be done, but I think it is always best if people can reach an understanding first.

[Sanvean]

There are no IC consequences for not abiding by the rules of the board. If you flame, no templar will come after your character, no mysterious walls of flame will appear, no assassins will be sent. IC consequences are things that would affect your character.

There are OOC consequences for persistently breaking the rules. These could include: losing board privileges, having a note placed on your account, losing karma, or being banned from the game. OOC consequences affect you the player, not your character.

Karma is a measure of the staff's trust in the player and extends beyond an appreciation of nicely crafted emotes.  Whether the staff trusts you to not harm the game through abuse of a role, by not spreading information, by not trying to damage the game community, by not trying to damage player/staff relations, by not abusing the OOC command, and on and on. As other people have pointed out, your maturity or lack thereof on this board can reasonably be assumed to indicate what your behavior will be elsewhere.  

In the discussion among the staff arriving at this policy, the fact that it applies to staff as well has been made and underscored. If there is a staff post that has been made since the posting of the policy that is uncivil, please email the link to mud and we'll take a look.

[Carnage]

As other people have pointed out, your maturity or lack thereof on this board can reasonably be assumed to indicate what your behavior will be elsewhere.

As someone who has been labelled a troll by the denizens of the board, I disagree. I would love to see some sort of connection made between my playing on Armageddon and my GDB posts. I've semi-recently played a couple of sensitive roles and received nothing but great feedback, yet making a remark can somehow justify and corellate to me being unable to handle a role. Quite frankly, it's ludicrous.

There are players who happily give e-hugs, help newbies, and give sympathies easily over the GDB. Yet some of these same players also use/pass around IC information but because they have silver tongues and post about how bad IC information is and (to borrow UnderSeven's phrase) flex their RP muscles they're generally never suspected. How about we stop going after stereotyped easy targets and try doing some real work? It'd be a nice change of pace rather than the witch hunts that go on the GDB, where people can sarcastically scream flame at the smallest thing and get an entire thread closed.

[Sanvean]

This is not about players passing around IC information. That's something we try to curb when we can, but it's impossible for us to police communications whose possible avenues include IM, IRC, email, bulletin boards that aren't our own, yahoo groups, and a multitude more.  

This is about policing the board that we do own and run for the benefit of the community.  As stated a wearisome number of times, hostility on this board makes it unpleasant to read, gets in the way of actual conversation and communication, gives new players a bad impression of the game, and works against the sense of community we've tried to promote.

Someone can be capable of good emotes and know the game world well and still be someone who is not particularly well trusted.  In my experience, if someone's an ass in one venue, such as email, in IRC, or on this board, they're generally an ass elsewhere or at least are one of the borderline people who continually push the boundaries and try to get away with as much as they can.  Sure, there may be exceptions. I haven't seen any yet.

[Carnage]

This is not about players passing around IC information.

You're absolutely correct. However, it's a bigger and more serious problem than people saying exactly what's on their mind. The former has ruined plotlines and given unfair advantages. The latter has not. It may be impossible to "police" communications but it's not impossible to make a player persona, get in there, and find out who's doing what.

I'm not completely sure on your definition of trust. I've rifled through a few of your archived posts and come up with the following:

But I can list a few things which might have a negative aspect on trust:

coordinating stuff on isca ('Hey! I just died to a halfling! Go get my stuff!' or 'Yeah, the short, thin so and so killed me.'), maxing skills, ignoring the virtual world ('I don't have to talk to that NPC, there's no imm inside it at the moment.'), engaging in acts which might be construed as whining, asking for a bunch of favors or information that you don't know IC, having your character act on knowledge he or she shouldn't have, abusing code bugs, acting out of character, not bothering to read the docs or help files.... well, you get the picture.

Karma is about trust. Trust that you'll play the character as it should be, that you know how to play it, and that you won't abuse it.

I still do not see how "trust", defined in the terms you used it in those two posts, correlates to flaming, another vague term thrown around all too easily, and conduct on the GDB. I was given the impression that "trust" was being able to competently play the role and be expected to not exploit bugs or twink out.

Furthermore, you stated the following:

I don't think I've removed karma for any board posts. If someone was consistently belligerant, confrontative, did a lot of flaming and bashing staff, yes, it would be possible, but I suspect it's more likely someone would get banned from the board and/or the game for that. I can think of one user who's had what I consider staff bashing in their sig for nigh on a year, and they haven't suffered any for it.

This gave the impression that loss of karma would be a rare event  that would only occur in the most extreme circumstances and now board policies seem to be further shifting into a more heavy-handed manner.

[Unicorn]

Let's not forget that the new policy states that it is only after the third warning that karma may be affected. I would think that after two warnings someone who is responsible and truly cares about the game would have got the idea that their trust factor is coming into question and desist.  

As so many have already pointed out, the GDB does affect the game.

[wizturbo]

Maybe it'll get people to turn to good old fashion innuendos instead of open flames :-)

[spawnloser]

Old fashioned innuendos instead of open flames are still veiled flames.

[Boggis]

I still do not see how "trust", defined in the terms you used it in those two posts, correlates to flaming, another vague term thrown around all too easily, and conduct on the GDB. I was given the impression that "trust" was being able to competently play the role and be expected to not exploit bugs or twink out.

The Staff have asked that the level of GDB animosity be toned down for quite some time for a number of reasons and its been ignored by certain players. Personally, I've found it irritating wading through the piles of bickering between these players for ages. It seemed to me that they were not going to stop of their own accord or out of respect to other players who read the GDB for actually useful information. So I'm happy that the Staff have taken this step to actually inform these players that they have something valuable to lose if they don't respect the rules laid down by the Staff for this board.

Is there a correlation between trust and conduct on the GDB? Maybe, maybe not - hard to tell. But if this new policy means that pointless bickering, bitchiness, flaming, etc. is reduced I couldn't give a damn. We're all adults here - we know how to conduct ourselves in a civil manner, just some seem to need some convincing.