Just Unban Everyone

[Windstorm]

Let people who want to play my stupid desert game with me play my stupid desert game with me.

I don't care what they said before, I don't care what they did before.

I want to play my stupid desert game with whoever wants to play it.

Get out of their way.

[Synthesis]

no

[Windstorm]

yes

[DesertT]

Let people who want to play my stupid desert game with me play my stupid desert game with me.

I don't care what they said before, I don't care what they did before.

I want to play my stupid desert game with whoever wants to play it.

Get out of their way.

Everybody everybody or just certain everybody?

[Brytta Léofa]

We need to ban people who can't be trusted to play 0-karma roles.

Like, minimally:
  The dude who was going on repeated Gaj murder sprees with 0-day str-prioritized dwarves.
  The dude who was multi-playing.
  Folks who coordinate PKs over Discord (hopefully that ~never happens at this point).

(Yes, there are certainly folks banned who don't need to be.)

[Windstorm]

Yes, just unban everyone except what brytta listed.

Those are bad dudes.

But you know what, if they'll stop it let them come too.

I'm over it.


Edit: I will personally write jcarter and halaster up some tall, muscular man descs and throw confetti on them while they oil wrestle on a table in the gaj at this point.

That would get people logging in to watch.

And I want people on my desert game.

[CirclelessBard]

A general amnesty for all players would be ideal. In my view, this goes beyond unbanning. I think account and character notes should also be looked at, and invalidated if they seem unfair or uncharitable.

The recent offer of unbanning from the community fell flat in my view because it forces people who weren't unbanned to ask to be unbanned. Yes, no apology is required, just a name. But also, I can see how the fact that their ban wasn't perceived to be done in error amidst recent events can be insulting to them. Also, on a personal level, I would prefer to play a game that will accept me rather than ask to play a game that has rejected me, even if it is as simple as sending a one-word request with an account name. It's a matter of self-respect, in my view.

I think the only people that should be left banned are people who seriously violated the trust of their fellow community members. I'm not sure that players of murder spree dwarves qualify in comparison to, say, sexual harassment or in-game stalking. At least the murder sprees could have been reversed with resurrections, if staff recognized that it was abuse. The only reason that type of trolling works is because of the incredibly strict restrictions on resurrections, which is admittedly another topic.

In short, I agree with the sentiment of the OP and would take it a step further and ask staff to reverse unnecessarily punitive actions of former staff members in general.

[zealus]

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59147.msg1089724.html#msg1089724

Like that?

[CirclelessBard]

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59147.msg1089724.html#msg1089724

Like that?

I think where it fell short is it only auto-applied to a tiny handful of people and asked everyone else to come to staff with an interest in rejoining the game. The OP is generally calling for everyone to be unbanned which would invalidate the need for former players to ask to be allowed back into the game.

[Armaddict]

Bans.  They're dumb.  I'm just saying that straight up.  They don't work as a punitive measure, and they generally are used as an escalation rather than a de-escalation.  That loses players.  I am almost never in favor of bans.  I agree with unbanning most of those who may currently be banned without question.  There are some exceptions:

1) I cannot verify or confirm allegations, I simply can't investigate such things.  But recent behaviors on one bad apple's part, if those are true, are absolutely cause for a longer-term or permanent ban.  This is one of the few things that results in a permanent ban in any of my communities.  Stalking/Consistent Harassment after clear communication of a desire to stop are unacceptable.

2) 'Constant Piss in the Game Pool' - If someone is repeatedly approached for griefing or abusive play in game and cannot modify behavior to either correct it or try to avoid the situation they don't see, middle-length bans are acceptable.  This is less about correction, and more about creating reprieve from that behavior in the game.

For the most part, game bans are game bans.  Revoking post privileges in discord or the GDB is highly preferable for out of game scenarios.  They should generally be short-term.  A cool off period.  Only extend them longer if they return from cool-off periods firing right into it again.  This latter part may be difficult; I don't particularly like this player-moderation idea, and the posting of rules confirmed part of why.

I do not see reason to do a blanket-unban for those who migrated away and immediately began spreading as much hate for the game as they could.  I do not see this as a position to take power over them.  I do not see asking them to reach out and say they'd like to come back as asking for forgiveness or permission to come back.  I see it as a moment where both parties have to meet in the middle, rather than demand either side come all the way over to their side.  This is the beginning of good faith interaction, and it's a tiny beginning.  I do not see any reason why someone who goes and spreads their hatred from the game should be allowed to come back stealthily.

I'll say it again, bans are dumb.  They create more problems than they fix.  They lose us players.  They avoid discussions.  That being said, as players, when a discussion gets cut off because it's beating on a dead horse, that needs to be respected.  Don't open the same request over and over every time it gets closed.  That is clear signaling that until something new comes to light, that discussion is over.  I will always be in favor of getting players back, with very few exceptions.

Not my game though.  That's just me being honest, I've said this since 2009 or something ridiculous because I'm old.

[Qzzrbl]

should be allowed to come back stealthily.

I agree with you that bans are dumb. For the reasons you've spelled out, but also because bans here just kinda don't do anything in general. It costs zero dollars to just make a new account. The people that actually care about their account aren't the ones anybody should be trying to push away with punishment like this, generally.

[MarshallDFX]

I don't particularly like this player-moderation idea, and the posting of rules confirmed part of why.

Can you expand on this?  Is it about player moderation or just the rules? 

To me it seems natural to get staff out of the line of fire of gdb and discord moderation. Because that breeds the sentiment of "there is a one sided power dynamic and staff hate me because I said X and now they're against me"..  instead it's just like "no dude, your peers just don't like being called names so you got a 2 hour mute"

Plus it means staff, who will review your spec app, may have additional patience if they're not enforcing you being a jerk on discord.

[FamousAmos]

Bans should be reviewed every year and see if it was justified. People should be able to apply for it, and it should be reviewed by both staff and an independent team, like the mod team.

Can't just blanket all bans -- there are actual trolls who've been damaging the game world and people's enjoyment IG.

I understand we're all fed up with all the old hurt, by select staffers, but I don't think blanket unbanning people who don't want to play anyway is the solution. Some of these people will never be satisfied due to the damage done in the past, by select people.

[Armaddict]

Can you expand on this?  Is it about player moderation or just the rules?

I could, but a lot of it just feeling/principle rather than a real argument.  It's not a conversation I'd consider worth it for most, and certainly not worth derailing the thread (I shouldn't have brought it up).

Bans should be reviewed every year and see if it was justified. People should be able to apply for it, and it should be reviewed by both staff and an independent team, like the mod team.

I was not in favor of a moderation team.  I was in favor of a ban review team.  I don't think any ban should be longer than a week or two without examination by that team, consisting of one staff advocate, one player advocate, and three players of diverse backgrounds and mentalities.  Any ban longer than that set period of time is reviewed, and at any point the player can appeal it through that group.  Much like lawyers, the player advocate (who is in contact with the banned player) and the staff advocate (who is in touch with the ban-setting staff member) can reach an agreement to present, otherwise the group as a whole reviews whether or not the ban can remain in place or not.

Policing words is not exactly something I trust to the masses, ever.  Policing actions in the game is something else entirely, where I believe more or less we can understand actions taken if we just see the big picture.  There are different standards on PvP scenarios, but those don't generally earn bans; bans are usually for things that most players would see pretty black and white, I think.

Clarifying again, this is for game bans.  I don't think OOC communication generally warrants anything more than a mute unless someone is vehemently bypassing said mute.