Forums » Suggestions
I don't dispute your assertions about the benefits of transparency. You have failed to to acknowledge/dispute the benefit of secrecy I pointed out: reducing fallout.
We have no way of knowing what types of moderation have occurred towards players of an offensive nature because, up until now, we haven't had the transparency you speak of. If I might point out official GS policy for those who aren't aware:
"We generally do not inform the person reporting of any disciplinary actions taken as a result, as it tends to only exacerbate the situation and heighten the drama."
So, as far as I'm aware, up until this point we have had essentially no issues secretive moderation. The two issues you pointed out were both eventually acknowledged and corrected, and one of them I wouldn't really classify as moderation anyway (nation changing). Perhaps increasing secretive moderation frequency will raise the level of issues we have, but only in a minor way that many would see as still within the realm of acceptable.
From what you said in your previous post, it would seem you disagree with GS's policy as it currently stands. Aside from the two issues you pointed out, what about GS's current policy do you feel is not working?
We have no way of knowing what types of moderation have occurred towards players of an offensive nature because, up until now, we haven't had the transparency you speak of. If I might point out official GS policy for those who aren't aware:
"We generally do not inform the person reporting of any disciplinary actions taken as a result, as it tends to only exacerbate the situation and heighten the drama."
So, as far as I'm aware, up until this point we have had essentially no issues secretive moderation. The two issues you pointed out were both eventually acknowledged and corrected, and one of them I wouldn't really classify as moderation anyway (nation changing). Perhaps increasing secretive moderation frequency will raise the level of issues we have, but only in a minor way that many would see as still within the realm of acceptable.
From what you said in your previous post, it would seem you disagree with GS's policy as it currently stands. Aside from the two issues you pointed out, what about GS's current policy do you feel is not working?
ye guyz be such ninnehs.
Greenwall, Pizzas addressed that point:
"And what benefit is gained through secrecy? Several people have brought up drama, but secrecy causes drama. When people don't know what is happening, they start to imagine things. Transparency, on the other hand, eliminates drama unless the moderators are misbehaving. If the moderators are misbehaving, then people should raise a stink."
There is a lot of concern about mod powers perceived vs. in reality. Secrecy can only exacerbate this, while transparency can only help it
And as Pizzas said, in no way is transparency and trusting Inc mutually exclusive. Personally I think he's always done a damn good job at selecting the most responsible and level headed members of this community. But as Whistler has pointed out, no matter who or what is involved in moderating, there will always be people accusing the mods of unfair behavior. Furthermore, there will always be mistakes even by perfect guides. In a system with transparency, it's incredibly easy to point to the public record. This will assuage the majority of complaints, and the people who don't believe it were always going to be trouble no matter what
But in a system without transparency, it all comes down to a he-said-she-said. And luckily this has a chance of working because the Guides in this game have always been very trustworthy, but it's in no way foolproof.
Pizzas nailed it: the biggest counter point to transparency that I'm seeing in here is that it will create more drama. Can anyone address how it would create more drama than the secret moderation we have now?
(The only case I can envision is players who act out because they want the infamy of getting punished publicly. But again I say... fuck these people, let them identify themselves, and let's get them out of our game so the rest of us can enjoy it)
"And what benefit is gained through secrecy? Several people have brought up drama, but secrecy causes drama. When people don't know what is happening, they start to imagine things. Transparency, on the other hand, eliminates drama unless the moderators are misbehaving. If the moderators are misbehaving, then people should raise a stink."
There is a lot of concern about mod powers perceived vs. in reality. Secrecy can only exacerbate this, while transparency can only help it
And as Pizzas said, in no way is transparency and trusting Inc mutually exclusive. Personally I think he's always done a damn good job at selecting the most responsible and level headed members of this community. But as Whistler has pointed out, no matter who or what is involved in moderating, there will always be people accusing the mods of unfair behavior. Furthermore, there will always be mistakes even by perfect guides. In a system with transparency, it's incredibly easy to point to the public record. This will assuage the majority of complaints, and the people who don't believe it were always going to be trouble no matter what
But in a system without transparency, it all comes down to a he-said-she-said. And luckily this has a chance of working because the Guides in this game have always been very trustworthy, but it's in no way foolproof.
Pizzas nailed it: the biggest counter point to transparency that I'm seeing in here is that it will create more drama. Can anyone address how it would create more drama than the secret moderation we have now?
(The only case I can envision is players who act out because they want the infamy of getting punished publicly. But again I say... fuck these people, let them identify themselves, and let's get them out of our game so the rest of us can enjoy it)
Sure Smittens -- First, as I pointed out, there is the existing policy of secret moderation to reduce heightening the drama. Presumably this has been successful because the policy has remained in place and nobody has complained about it. Kinda like how the US Govt censors media outlets from showing the bad parts of wars because they don't want the public sentiment to be razzled more than it already is.
Examples of heightened drama and exacerbating of the issues would be:
-Nationalist Member of Nationalist Team A espouses anti-opponent rhetoric decorated with explicit and inflammatory language of realworld violence and sexual crime. Guide mutes Nationalist A after several requests to "tone it down" and public is notified of the action. Nationalist Team B rejoices and gloats publicly, smearing Nationalist Team A and raising tensions further. Accusations of favoritism and debates about who started it begin.
-Player A sends RoC violating explicit private messages to Player B, but Player A remains as sweet and innocent as a cute and lovable little kitten in 100. Player B complains, Player A is publicly muted after not stopping his misbehavior. Player A eventually is relieved of his mute and returns to the game and starts up a propaganda storm about his "unfair" muting. People take sides, drama heightens, guides are forced to step in again to sort things out.
Examples of heightened drama and exacerbating of the issues would be:
-Nationalist Member of Nationalist Team A espouses anti-opponent rhetoric decorated with explicit and inflammatory language of realworld violence and sexual crime. Guide mutes Nationalist A after several requests to "tone it down" and public is notified of the action. Nationalist Team B rejoices and gloats publicly, smearing Nationalist Team A and raising tensions further. Accusations of favoritism and debates about who started it begin.
-Player A sends RoC violating explicit private messages to Player B, but Player A remains as sweet and innocent as a cute and lovable little kitten in 100. Player B complains, Player A is publicly muted after not stopping his misbehavior. Player A eventually is relieved of his mute and returns to the game and starts up a propaganda storm about his "unfair" muting. People take sides, drama heightens, guides are forced to step in again to sort things out.
Scenario 1 With Secrecy: Guide mutes Nationalist A and public is not notified. Team B notices Nationalist A has gone silent and continues cajoling him. He fails to respond; they assume he has been either muted or cowed and they gloat publicly, etc.
Scenario 2 With Secrecy: Player A is secretly muted after not stopping his misbehavior. Player A eventually is relieved of his mute and returns to the game and starts up a propaganda storm about his "unfair" muting. People take sides, drama heightens, guides are forced to step in again to sort things out.
Secrecy does not help either situation. Also, note that I'm not in the "Make a public announcement through the game upon muting people" camp. I just want a publicly accessible log via the website. People could, of course, check that periodically to confirm suspicions. It would at least be more subtle than screaming it out inside the game.
Anyway, how often have you associated the phrase "secret police" with happy, drama-free nations of freedom and general well being? Do you think the world would be a better place if convictions were kept secret and people just disappeared?
Scenario 2 With Secrecy: Player A is secretly muted after not stopping his misbehavior. Player A eventually is relieved of his mute and returns to the game and starts up a propaganda storm about his "unfair" muting. People take sides, drama heightens, guides are forced to step in again to sort things out.
Secrecy does not help either situation. Also, note that I'm not in the "Make a public announcement through the game upon muting people" camp. I just want a publicly accessible log via the website. People could, of course, check that periodically to confirm suspicions. It would at least be more subtle than screaming it out inside the game.
Anyway, how often have you associated the phrase "secret police" with happy, drama-free nations of freedom and general well being? Do you think the world would be a better place if convictions were kept secret and people just disappeared?
Anyway, how often have you associated the phrase "secret police" with happy, drama-free nations of freedom and general well being? Do you think the world would be a better place if convictions were kept secret and people just disappeared?
This is a game, not the real world.
Fair point, on the second example.
This is a game, not the real world.
Fair point, on the second example.
Easy fix. Get rid of undirected chat.
Make all communication require opt-in either via group, guild or /query type direct messaging.
by joining a group or guild, you implicitly opt-in to receiving broadcasts from members to the group/guild.
The only other communication would be direct messaging, and it would require you to "connect" with the initiating user before you see their message. Further communication with that user doesn't prompt you unless you remove the connection. Approved connections could be a screen in your pda allowing management or communicating or you could use the terminal.
Undirected communication's place is the news feed.
Make all communication require opt-in either via group, guild or /query type direct messaging.
by joining a group or guild, you implicitly opt-in to receiving broadcasts from members to the group/guild.
The only other communication would be direct messaging, and it would require you to "connect" with the initiating user before you see their message. Further communication with that user doesn't prompt you unless you remove the connection. Approved connections could be a screen in your pda allowing management or communicating or you could use the terminal.
Undirected communication's place is the news feed.
First, as I pointed out, there is the existing policy of secret moderation to reduce heightening the drama
I don't think you can point to the current climate as an example, when this thread is explicitly about dealing with the kind of ugliness that is occurring and (theoretically) not being dealt with appropriately AND about how a future moderation system would work with an even larger and more unruly playerbase
Yes, the secret system has worked acceptably on our very small and fairly tight community. That is certainly worthy of consideration in this debate, but it's impossible to separate what is "Secrecy being effective" from what is "Small communities are easier to police"
Pizza did a good job showing why secrecy doesn't really help your two situations, and I'm not sure why you gave credit for the 2nd but not the 1st (and yet didn't explain why it might be invalid)
Furthermore, here is why I don't see your two scenarios as particularly problematic even with transparency:
(1) Gloating and poor sportsmanship are just going to be part of this game, especially as the playerbase grows. If someone cannot see the line between acceptable shit talk and RoC violating shit-talk, then the mods should be stepping in.
(2) If Player A is being such a two faced prick, they should get their explicit PM publicized so everyone can see what a schmuck they are. The devs log everything with good reason, specifically to be prepared for this kind of situation
In both cases you worry about accusations of nationalist favoritism. As Pizza identified, this is equally a problem with secrecy, but in a transparent system with well-picked, level-headed guides, there is a public record to disprove any such notion... and anything that DOES look like a suspicious pattern SHOULD be discussed publicly. That's how you get a good system of moderation where the public feels like they have a check on the police.
As a further note, not to continue slobbing the nob, but I wouldn't believe transparency could work if I didn't have faith in Inc's guide choices. Because I know the potential mods will be as level headed and sensible as possible, they won't have anything to hide.
Finally, the specifics of this transparency are up for debate. A log on the website could work, but personally I think a designated channel ingame would be enough
cellsafe That idea is just looney! It destroys the one form of spontaneous-event-generation and marketing we have!
I don't think you can point to the current climate as an example, when this thread is explicitly about dealing with the kind of ugliness that is occurring and (theoretically) not being dealt with appropriately AND about how a future moderation system would work with an even larger and more unruly playerbase
Yes, the secret system has worked acceptably on our very small and fairly tight community. That is certainly worthy of consideration in this debate, but it's impossible to separate what is "Secrecy being effective" from what is "Small communities are easier to police"
Pizza did a good job showing why secrecy doesn't really help your two situations, and I'm not sure why you gave credit for the 2nd but not the 1st (and yet didn't explain why it might be invalid)
Furthermore, here is why I don't see your two scenarios as particularly problematic even with transparency:
(1) Gloating and poor sportsmanship are just going to be part of this game, especially as the playerbase grows. If someone cannot see the line between acceptable shit talk and RoC violating shit-talk, then the mods should be stepping in.
(2) If Player A is being such a two faced prick, they should get their explicit PM publicized so everyone can see what a schmuck they are. The devs log everything with good reason, specifically to be prepared for this kind of situation
In both cases you worry about accusations of nationalist favoritism. As Pizza identified, this is equally a problem with secrecy, but in a transparent system with well-picked, level-headed guides, there is a public record to disprove any such notion... and anything that DOES look like a suspicious pattern SHOULD be discussed publicly. That's how you get a good system of moderation where the public feels like they have a check on the police.
As a further note, not to continue slobbing the nob, but I wouldn't believe transparency could work if I didn't have faith in Inc's guide choices. Because I know the potential mods will be as level headed and sensible as possible, they won't have anything to hide.
Finally, the specifics of this transparency are up for debate. A log on the website could work, but personally I think a designated channel ingame would be enough
cellsafe That idea is just looney! It destroys the one form of spontaneous-event-generation and marketing we have!
I have sorta given up on this thread for a couple reason:
1) I spend too much goddamn time here
2) GS has an existing policy in place that has worked and has not caused undue heightened drama as a result. More shit might be happening more now, but it's not because of their policy of secrecy.
3) Incarnate has specifically told me that unfortunately it all boils down to resources in the end. So I know that he thinks this is important, but not AS important as many other things... and when such a time comes that he actually has more resources to throw at this problem, I trust he'll do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what is said in this thread.
1) I spend too much goddamn time here
2) GS has an existing policy in place that has worked and has not caused undue heightened drama as a result. More shit might be happening more now, but it's not because of their policy of secrecy.
3) Incarnate has specifically told me that unfortunately it all boils down to resources in the end. So I know that he thinks this is important, but not AS important as many other things... and when such a time comes that he actually has more resources to throw at this problem, I trust he'll do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what is said in this thread.
cellsafe That idea is just looney! It destroys the one form of spontaneous-event-generation and marketing we have!
The destruction is necessary. In response an existing form of event generation and marketing would be utilized (news) and could be extended to short term expiring events.
No need for moderators, and communication gets refocused into a more participation oriented role as well as boosting the role of existing in-game mechanisms which fosters better game-immersion.
Win for all. Putting an end to the irc channel-like mentality of the game is a win both for game play and for game publicity. This can only be done by not having an irc environment in the game, moderation isn't the answer because it's not that the irc-ish channel method is being abused by players that is the problem, the problem is that it exists in the game at all.
The destruction is necessary. In response an existing form of event generation and marketing would be utilized (news) and could be extended to short term expiring events.
No need for moderators, and communication gets refocused into a more participation oriented role as well as boosting the role of existing in-game mechanisms which fosters better game-immersion.
Win for all. Putting an end to the irc channel-like mentality of the game is a win both for game play and for game publicity. This can only be done by not having an irc environment in the game, moderation isn't the answer because it's not that the irc-ish channel method is being abused by players that is the problem, the problem is that it exists in the game at all.