Banning for Overly Aggressive and Uncomfortable Conduct

We want this community to be a cozy place where players don't feel like they are in an ugly sort of out-of-character competition, as if roleplay could turn abruptly and unexpectedly nasty from purely out-of-character motivations -- where people feel relatively comfortable and safe about the stories that they're telling. 

For that reason, we've banned a player whose approach was overly aggressive without warning multiple times within the span of a couple hours, who reveled in min-maxing and sought to abuse that power in PVP rather than CVC, as illustrated by violent threats made on out-of-character channels, and who generally made several other players feel vaguely uncomfortable.

There's nothing like the thrill of a good in-character conflict. But players like this can sour that vibe for everyone.

I've announced this in a discussion thread so that people can discuss this if they like. If you have any concerns about this ban, and the precedent that it sets for the community, you can discuss it here.

I don't think I was online during this, so I can't comment on the incident in question. HOWEVER, with my sleep-addled brain, I just wanted to say thank you to both you and Mistsparrow for being so dedicated to actually cultivating a positive community. I think a lot of admins go into projects like this thinking, "If we build it, they will come," and a community will just happen without them carefully setting the tone and recognizing that not every game is built for every person and that it's okay to ban someone for not being a good fit.

So thank you for having the cojones to recognize that and follow through.

I understand this early the person wasn't in-game edit: very long, if at all, however, in another game I play, the bans--account and character--are made extremely public. Especially the character, for continuity purposes, including what, if any of the character's actions we should ignore. As you work on policies here, are any of those options appealing? I don't especially worry about the account(transparency is nice), but a character disappearing can be disruptive--even if the player and character were even more-so.

From my experience, nothing ruins a community faster than admins who think they need every warm body to survive, and to adhere to strictly framed rules about punishment and banning lest they be accused of the subjectivity we are all inherently mired in at all times. Administrators declining to discipline or remove disruptive people who made others uncomfortable has caused me to leave more than one online community, and in doing that I couldn't help but feel that not acting is still taking an action - not protecting constructive players who care about the experience others around them are having from disruptive players who are less invested in the community is choosing those disruptive players over the constructive ones, whether  an administrator wants to see it that way or not. 

This game is unique in my experience and, at the risk of seeming dramatic, I think its survival depends on you guys being willing to ask people to leave if they aren't pulling in the direction the rest of us want to be going in. To quote my partner on this issue, this is a house party,  not a government. It should not be a democracy, and no one has rights to the tools offered here. By the same token it is reasonable for us to expect, as part of that social contract, to be looked after and supported like friends in your home, to a reasonable limit of your emotional and physical resources.

I appreciate the transparency, and I appreciate the care and attention to the question of whether your players feel comfortable in community spaces. I agree that it's the only way to create the environment that you describe for your community. And in general I think this is a learning process and I want to be supportive of the staff as well, and understanding that we're all just finding our way here and intent and integrity matters much more than getting any given thing just right.

The rest of what I would have said was more elegantly stated by Zahra so I won't bore you with my inferior repetition of it. ;)

I'm totally on board with this ban, and here's why it's awesome: It shows that the admin really cares about our community's well-being, rather than just focusing on the numbers in the game.

So, by putting this ban into action, the admins are telling us loud and clear that they're all about creating a healthy and enjoyable environment for all of us. This move proves that they're committed to making sure we have a great time not just in the game, but as part of this cool community. It's pretty cool to see the admin team valuing our interactions and our overall happiness over everything else. This ban shows they're taking action to address any issues that could mess with our community's good vibes.

This is a good point to make. I'm cautious about revealing the names of characters when taking this kind of punitive action because I don't want to potentially smear people or cause extra drama, especially in the case of a temporary ban. My thoughts are that the important thing about the ban is the example that it sets for everyone about what kind of community we're trying to cultivate. And I appreciate your appreciation of that, players of Zahra-Esfandiar-Nazeem!  

This ban is intended as permanent because I tried a couple times to reach out to the player (after initially taking them aside and speaking for roughly 45 minutes)... and they didn't appear to be trying to change or accepting the need to change their approach.

As you say, continuity could be an issue, but there are a few tools we can use to resolve that in-character if need be. I think through the course of alpha phase, we may have to reconsider and sort out our policies a bit, especially as it pertains to how to handle issues like this. 

I had anticipated that people would be more worried about what exactly it means to have an overly aggressive mentality, and maybe worried that if they attack someone in-game or tell a coarse joke or just somehow slightly offend someone's out-of-character sensibilities that they might be liable to be banned too. And I don't want people to worry about being banned, and shy away from natural and organic conflict in-character. I don't want people to feel guilty for making characters who are super-strong or super-smart, either.

But I hope this ban will set an example for the specific case of people who are transparently making characters as proxies to play out an aggressive out-of-character need to bully others. Please don't fixate on PVP in this fashion. We're not here for that, we're here for stories. Characters might conflict in stories. Antagonists are fine and welcome. But don't just make a character because you love pulverizing people and want to deliver sudden mechanical destruction upon all the scholars, crafters, and just normal people who are living their lives and following their stories. In the world of Avaria, there are a lot of consequences for just being violent. Power doesn't come from strength of arm or even strength of magic sometimes. Just like in the real world, if you go to the gym and lift a lot of weights, you're not suddenly the most succesful and influential person in life. If you want to play a fighter, that's cool. But combat is not necessary at all for an excellent character concept here.

When there is a new MUD that looks promising, I think a large number of people's top worry regards community management being too mild. While the circumstances that brought it about are unfortunate, a lot of people are going to be thrilled to see this post, and will no doubt be comforted by the precedent it sets. You have an immensely charming and well designed game, you all deserve to set and maintain your own standards of respect and decency. Thank you for doing so :>!

WIth the M* community at large, this was going to be a problem eventually. Players of this sort are like moths, batting around at any window with a light inside, just waiting to get in so they can start chewing holes.

It makes me pretty sad that it's such a pervasive part of this incredibly small community, but so it goes. 

What doesn't make me sad is that you, the staff, appear to understand the risk of moths and aren't taking chances. Your priorities seem straight and I appreicate your taking action. Story is the priority, being an OOC-jerk just out to power trip across a communtiy the size of a middle-sized American High school, is not. (really, there are a few thousand of us M* players and that so many are bullies is just...)

Other nailed it in their posts but I just had to load on some additional approval. 

Esfandiar's comment about it being a house party is very insightful. I've had similar thoughts but never have they been expressed as elegantly. So thanks for that! 

Quote:

" I tried a couple times to reach out to the player (after initially taking them aside and speaking for roughly 45 minutes)... and they didn't appear to be trying to change or accepting the need to change their approach."

Thank you for mentioning this.

My feelings have been complicated.  While I am in wholehearted agreement that it is not only acceptable, but necessary to ban players on the basis of "vibes," and ultimately more reassured than uncomfortable I was not without misgivings.

One, admittedly, was my anxiety that the first ever review of SoA would be "This game suuuucks.  I got banned on the first day!  Pilgrim is a hypersensitive tyrant.  Do not play."  which would annoy me, and be unfair. This is the most beautiful and thoughtfully constructed game I have ever played.  But while it absolutely rankles that anyone could disagree with my opinion, that's life.  Sometimes people disagree.

One of the things I really value here is that the staff know what they want.  They know who they want. And that who isn't Max Simultaneous Loggins.

This is not a game that benefits from greater numbers.  It is highly specific, somewhat challenging, and ultimately just not for everybody.

It isn't easy to ban someone who isn't breaking any Rules, but as Esfandiar points out the choice not to remove a player who is making someone uncomfortable is a choice to keep a player who is making someone uncomfortable.

And, frankly, that "someone" could be Staff.  A character or player may be wildly popular with other players, but if they're problematic for the staff, for whatever reason, they should be removed.  The staff works too hard to spend their time catering to players who don't, as they say "spark joy."

Which brings me to my final point, actually my original point, and why I started with the quote (yeah, that's how I roll.)  My other concern was that this ban happened summarily and without dialogue with the player.  It's anxiety provoking to think you could find yourself on the receiving end of the banhammer over a misunderstanding.  But there was a dialogue, the issue was not resolved, and that's enough.

I'd be devastated if I were asked to leave.  SoA has the eerie quality of being almost exactly the game I've always wanted to make (except that where Pilgrim started with "learn Python" I thought a good first step would be "get a degree in CS." We can see which one of us ended up with a game >.>)  I think we see eye-to-eye, but maybe we don't.  Maybe I'm projecting what I want the game to be, maybe I'm not prepared to conform to what the game actually is.  (I hope not, it seems cool.)  But even then I take comfort in the thought that I'll get 45 minutes to clarify the gap between my expectations and staff's, and if it can't be resolved, then yeah, we need to part ways.  This is not to say that I, or anyone, is owed an explanation.  On the contrary, it's seeing staff reach out to communicate even when someone is clearly not a good fit that reassures me they're not being paranoid and capricious. 

They're looking out for their players, and they're looking out for their game.  So thanks for that.  That part is the game I want to play.

Double thumbs up from me! I dread weak admins and I dread harsh admins, but this is a nice Goldilocks Zone.