Anti- Name & Shame

  • Thread starter Shamus The Brute
  • Start date
S

Shamus The Brute

To their credit, this forums and TLOPO adopts a no "name & shame" policy. I might be incorrect in saying this but the term itself was coined and then implemented by this forums to which TLOPO, too, later adopted. Overall, I hesitantly agree with such policy. (It keeps everyone 'in line' from bashing someone else. It remains a life principle I personally feel everyone should adopt within their own relationships and encounters with other people, both inside and outside of the realm of gaming). But what if such a policy alone, in and of itself, has implications upon the community not originally intended. Wouldn't we WANT to begin discussion about such implications for purpose of all of us trying to understand why such policy remains a polarized issue for some of us? Hence, this is the intent for the very reason behind this thread.

While I understand the "why" behind the name & shame policies, below remains points I do uphold. *Please share too your own thoughts and let's try to discover some common ground on this issue together. ;)

A full fledged (anti) Name & Shame policy:
  • Terminology assumes negative connotation and intent (and excludes 'positive' intent for both accountability and public warning)
  • Provides a level of protection for repeat offenders whom cause trouble
  • Provides no incentive nor pressure for trouble-makers to change (since public accountability is lost/forbidden)
  • Odds are greater that repeat offenders gain an "edge"/ballooned ego which helps no one, online
  • Unbalances the scale of good behavior conducted online (since the scale is tipped given players have option of using 'multiple identities' in-game given the # of pirate slots/accounts used by a single player)
  • Unbalances further the scale of good behavior conducted online (given players can utilize 'multiple IP addresses' to play the game versus a lone or single IP)
In conclusion, I feel that the troll whom has a goal whom played POTCO but also now plays TLOPO...knows all of this ^ and worse, remains protected! :mad: This remains an unintended implication of Name & Shame policies and I, therefore, deem it appropriate but also ineffective in resolving the very reason why it came into existence in the first place; to keep an atmosphere where players can not take advantage nor harm further other players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The largest problem with a name and shame policy is that it's to easy for the trolls to abuse and attempt to ruin players they don't like. It's not hard to alter chat logs and conversations convincingly enough to sway the opinions of the masses.

Even if the truth came out in alot of circumstances the damage can be irreparable
 
While I can understand how allowing people to name and discuss particular trolls might provide some degree of accountability for their actions, such an affordance cuts both ways. The very people it would seek to bring to light would quickly weaponize it against undeserving others.

Fundamentally, to allow naming and shaming is to allow lobbing accusations at people. Such accusations are difficult, if not impossible, to verify (especially given the relative ease of forging evidence these days, particularly for things that solely take place online). This creates a brand new opportunity for trolls to exploit, and inevitably leads to witch-hunting.

The underlying issue seems to be that there are people in-game who will go to great lengths to annoy others, and this behavior typically goes unpunished because merely being annoying is not against the TLOPO ToS. I understand this is a frustrating experience for many. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be myself, but allowing naming and shaming is only liable to make things worse.
 
A very long time ago, I brought forth the idea on this forums of a type of "brethren court" committee which would consist of seasoned, veteran players whom possess great understanding and judgment. These individuals would decipher evidence presented to them by someone whom became victimized by the words or action of another player. (The committee members would be players from the community itself and not from forums or TLOPO affiliated moderators or team members). The hope was to give the community itself the power it deserves to have some role towards the community's fate and quality of player base. It is the ground-level player, after all, whom has to tolerate on average the most crud online while seeking to try and have some fun. The idea was shot down (or just ignored).

I can't explain it. All I really "feel" though is we have the means to solve this issue together and it begins...by directly attacking the issue of (pirate) bullying/trolling instead of simply pacifying it and tying the hands of innocent players whom end up becoming victims.
 
A very long time ago, I brought forth the idea on this forums of a type of "brethren court" committee which would consist of seasoned, veteran players whom possess great understanding and judgment. These individuals would decipher evidence presented to them by someone whom became victimized by the words or action of another player. (The committee members would be players from the community itself and not from forums or TLOPO affiliated moderators or team members). The hope was to give the community itself the power it deserves to have some role towards the community's fate and quality of player base. It is the ground-level player, after all, whom has to tolerate on average the most crud online while seeking to try and have some fun. The idea was shot down (or just ignored).

I can't explain it. All I really "feel" though is we have the means to solve this issue together and it begins...by directly attacking the issue of (pirate) bullying/trolling instead of simply pacifying it and tying the hands of innocent players whom end up becoming victims.

League of legends actually used this system. It was called "The Tribunal" and it seemed to work to great affect. However their community is much much larger than ours so I'm not sure how it would work for us.

The people who were allowed to vote were picked by account standing metrics like level, number of severity of punishments as well as a few other things. The players who voted were provided various rewards for participating.

This system actually showed alot of promise and is currently undergoing maintenance with an eventual overhaul coming from what I understand.

Here's the results they got from the system so people have a bit of an idea of the effectiveness

(Keep in mind it's much easier to moderate a moba like LoL than an mmo like TLoPO)
Infographic_Tribunal.jpg
 
League of legends actually used this system. It was called "The Tribunal" and it seemed to work to great affect. However their community is much much larger than ours so I'm not sure how it would work for us.

The people who were allowed to vote were picked by account standing metrics like level, number of severity of punishments as well as a few other things. The players who voted were provided various rewards for participating.

This system actually showed alot of promise and is currently undergoing maintenance with an eventual overhaul coming from what I understand.

Here's the results they got from the system so people have a bit of an idea of the effectiveness

(Keep in mind it's much easier to moderate a moba like LoL than an mmo like TLoPO)View attachment 116878
Will take a closer look at this. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate it. ;)
 
These forums become a toxic enough environment already when that kind of stuff slips through the cracks. Please think back to this thread in particular. I was even a moderator for those forums at the time so I do know what I'm talking about. Honestly so little of the staff here even knew what was going on to even be able to provide evidence for who was wrong or right. It was a constant back and forth of "Naming and Shaming."

And even with how little I still view these forums I see this kind of stuff happen still QUITE regularly. There is no easy way to moderate it, the people being named and shamed come here to passively troll in the instances, not explicitly breaking any rules, but quite clearly just to stir things up even more. Outsiders will view this drama as, outsiders, not knowing any background on who is right or wrong, and its just off putting to say the least. This sort of thing is not desirable to be presented in the public eye.

Perhaps more should be done to stop the trouble makers, but that's another issue. Promoting a potentially toxic environment on these forums is not a smart idea.
 
Also I will add, there are many other more private communities besides the forums where its just known who these people are. I mean if you play this game regularly we all know who causes "trouble." Even people like myself who don't play much know who everyone is talking about. Again, how this is handled and moderated may need to be looked into (I've personally already shared my thoughts in appropriate threads) but that is not in the scope of a "Naming and Shaming" discussion thread.

But I feel it is in the best interest of TLOPO and these forums to keep that toxic environment off of these official and public sites.
 
...Perhaps more should be done to stop the trouble makers, but that's another issue...
For myself today, that is the goal I am most seeking. Name & Shame policy keeps coming between any sort of solution, idea, or goal I keep trying to think over in my brain though towards positive change. People propose quite strongly still the ignore/report options but I remain within the minority to say this system has yet to become fool proof, despite best efforts to draw upon such a system of moderation.

As you pointed out, OUR past could use some updated change.
 
Just to clarify my previous post there was information hidden from the players casting the votes such as player named to prevent bias
Thanks, I was going to emphasize this. Personally, I find effective crowd-sourced moderation systems very interesting (albeit a complex and unlikely undertaking for a rather small community and even smaller development team). While it does bear similarity in that it allows the community to hold each other accountable, it's ultimately very different from naming and shaming individuals on a public forum.
 
A very long time ago, I brought forth the idea on this forums of a type of "brethren court" committee which would consist of seasoned, veteran players whom possess great understanding and judgment. These individuals would decipher evidence presented to them by someone whom became victimized by the words or action of another player. (The committee members would be players from the community itself and not from forums or TLOPO affiliated moderators or team members). The hope was to give the community itself the power it deserves to have some role towards the community's fate and quality of player base. It is the ground-level player, after all, whom has to tolerate on average the most crud online while seeking to try and have some fun. The idea was shot down (or just ignored).
To me, that just sounds like a thin facade over the current moderation system. It would effectively be a second moderation team with a second set of rules. It seems that the only real distinction between moderators and the people appointed by this system lies in how they would be appointed (for which I have more questions than answers). Ultimately, the premise for implementing such a system would be that players should be punished for certain behaviors that are currently deemed inconsequential. And if that premise were to be believed, it could be handled by the systems already in place.
 
To me, that just sounds like a thin facade over the current moderation system. It would effectively be a second moderation team with a second set of rules. It seems that the only real distinction between moderators and the people appointed by this system lies in how they would be appointed (for which I have more questions than answers). Ultimately, the premise for implementing such a system would be that players should be punished for certain behaviors that are currently deemed inconsequential. And if that premise were to be believed, it could be handled by the systems already in place.
Perhaps but, with one major exception:
  • Word of mouth (for ground level players are not bound by a pre-determined set-of-rules which forbids them from speaking to one another about 'the way' someone actually is)
You eliminate the political correctiveness behind how players must relate to one another, you give them the power to hold each other accountable for the right reasons and not bad. *Those presently holding this power in their own hands rather than the community's hands, have trust issues which must be laid aside (if the culture of TLOPO is to ever surpass the culture we knew from POTCO).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Word of mouth (for ground level players are not bound by a pre-determined set-of-rules which forbids them from speaking to one another about 'the way' someone actually is)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think people are barred from sharing these things with each other in-game. They can also share them on private community platforms (like Discord), or even in personal conversations on the forums for that matter. As @Bart Gunshot said, anyone who plays the game regularly is almost certainly aware of who the people causing trouble are. This awareness only goes so far in keeping them from causing trouble though.
 
...This awareness only goes so far in keeping them from causing trouble though.
:D Because of?

On an official level and platform, the power the average player has to hold trolls accountable are restricted only to the ignore/report option. (In essence, they must rely 'fully' on someone else [in an official capacity] to make the decision for them when that decision itself should have some contribution made by the player as well whom should have said right [within an unofficial capacity via decision made by peers within a type of 'brethren court' implemented system, possibly]).

You give the average player some authority or power to hold others accountable, I guarantee you the positive implications involved would far outweigh any negative implications. WHY do I feel this way? Because a remake of "Pirates Online" belongs to all of us and not simply those whom just happen to be or to whom have found themselves to be - in charge.

Ownership (felt) towards a game is a very powerful thing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoring the issue of how to fairly appoint people to this system in a way that wouldn't just cause more unrest than it qualms, I'm not really sure what power you're suggesting they have. Would they... ban these people? Or give out permits for forum naming and shaming? Or what exactly?

In essence, they must rely 'fully' on someone else [in an official capacity] to make the decision for them when that decision itself should have some contribution made by the player as well whom should have said right [within an unofficial capacity via decision made by peers within a type of 'brethren court' implemented system, possibly]
It seems to me that they'd still rely on others making that decision for them. Only now, the others are the "Brethren Court" instead of the moderators.

You give the average player some authority or power to hold others accountable, I guarantee you the positive implications involved would far outweigh any negative implications. WHY do I feel this way? Because a remake of "Pirates Online" belongs to all of us and not simply those whom just happen to be and to whom have found themselves to be - in charge.
You know the moderators themselves were once just lowly average players, right? It's not clear why this group would be any more meaningfully representative. If the moderators are no longer considered peers, it seems like people appointed to this system probably wouldn't be either.
 
Ignoring the issue of how to fairly appoint people to this system in a way that wouldn't just cause more unrest than it qualms, I'm not really sure what power you're suggesting they have. Would they... ban these people? Give out permits for forum naming and shaming? Or what exactly?

Behavior could be voluntary and people could be accepted based off of account age, pirate level and punishment history.

If a system like this were to be put in place the members who are reviewing the case would all be able to vote on a 'deserved' punishment and when a consensus is met that punishment would be handed out by the system.

That causes another problem though, in the form of pirates who feel wronged by this system and wish to appeal to a moderator. There would be another 'Queue' for the moderators to manage....

As much as I think some improvement could be done to the current system I dunno that this is the best way to do it
 
At the risk of sounding dismissive/repetitive:

I think the problem such a system was truly designed to solve[1] doesn't exist in TLOPO. While I can understand the relevance in that, as a side effect, such a system could solve a problem some people perceive in TLOPO[2], I think there are far simpler and less disruptive solutions[3].

Moderation at scale. League is one of the most popular games in the world, with over 80 million players per month and 8 million concurrent players on any given day. Without crowd-sourcing moderation to some degree, I imagine their official moderation team would stand virtually no chance at keeping up with the sheer volume of issues.
Some people believe that players should be punished for certain behaviors that are currently deemed inconsequential by the moderators and moderation policy.
If that premise were to be believed, it could be handled by the systems already in place.
 
Ignoring the issue of how to fairly appoint people to this system in a way that wouldn't just cause more unrest than it qualms, I'm not really sure what power you're suggesting they have. Would they... ban these people? Or give out permits for forum naming and shaming? Or what exactly?


It seems to me that they'd still rely on others making that decision for them. Only now, the others are the "Brethren Court" instead of the moderators.


You know the moderators themselves were once just lowly average players, right? It's not clear why this group would be any more meaningfully representative. If the moderators are no longer considered peers, it seems like people appointed to this system probably wouldn't be either.
I see what you did there. ;) As a reminder, I don't have all the answers (hence my intent behind trying to initiate discussion about this as opposed to just doing the usual [Brute] style where everyone misconstrues my intention and chalks it off as 'confirmation bias'). idk. Perhaps such a system (i.e., the brethren court) could tally votes to create a decision to be brought forth ultimately to official moderation for concurrence and approval. It really matters not. The goal I am trying my best to convey is that if you give players the chance they may surprise you on how well they can contribute to bringing forth decisions of justice themselves (in-game), to an extent, for the purpose of game ownership.

As I recall, POTCO became at it's end a crap of a game because nobody felt compelled to have any sense of ownership over it. It became a free-for-all to which everything goes because everyone knew Disney was not sufficiently moderating. *This is not to say TLOPO is doing the same. This is to say, rather, that the greatest asset TLOPO moderators have is the eyes and ears of the ground-level player. Why not help them in a way to contribute further in lieu of the ignore/reporting options.

*In reality, whatever is decided about conclusions draw upon this thread is a win-win for me because if trolls/trouble-makers take time to read...I hope they understand the extent ;) I am willing to go to push for more "regulation" in-game because I too have a stake in the success of this remake; the impact TLOPO has upon the success of this forums. Aye! That is exactly what a sense of ownership is, is it not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top