CLARITY (Name & Shame)

[Shamus The Brute]

Some further clarity please on the forums "Name & Shame" position and stance. (I did not have a chance to comment to either this thread [nor was I permitted to do the same to this recent post] on account that each was locked).

As such, I have a few questions that need answered:

1. On account of forums terms now instituted pertinent to the Name & Shame concern, can forums staff assure the community and myself in the future that no "Community Warning" announcements posted to this forums will in-turn be available to warn the community of a specific individual and/or group? If no, why not and in-turn does the forums uphold itself as the only source of warning provided to the community itself in lieu of potential threats?
2. What justification does the forums solely give to take such a stance given that it has obviously worked in the past - for TLOPO - to inform readily the TLOPO community (sure, perhaps there were some implications involved but there were also 'positives' and to deny this is to view the issue itself with a certain level of bias which does not keep an open mind about the issue as a whole)
3. To what extent are forums members given to even mention someone else's name? (I have 'two' [qty. 2] points to go on my forums account here I believe to where, if I mentioned someone's name publicly on either a thread or my profile, am I expected to receive said points and the punishment sustained thereafter if that person takes the use of their own name out-of-context and report me on account that they are offended)?

I would appreciate a fair and reasonable response to the above questions asked. Thank you.

Shamus ~

 

[Davy Darkrage]

On account of forums terms now instituted pertinent to the Name & Shame concern, can forums staff assure the community and myself in the future that no "Community Warning" announcements posted to this forums will in-turn be available to warn the community of a specific individual and/or group? If no, why not and in-turn does the forums uphold itself as the only source of warning provided to the community itself in lieu of potential threats?

Those aren't the kinds of announcements we plan ahead of time, so I can't say definitively. Hopefully not though. It's something we have only done for one particular case in 6 years, and it wasn't something we took lightly. We deliberated for some time beforehand. We appreciate all reports of potential threats, but we ask that they be reported to us privately. If we determine that a public announcement may help to mitigate the effectiveness of a threat, then that is something we would consider only after exhausting our other options. In the vast majority of cases it is likely that we have better (internal) ways to alleviate threats though, which is why we take it upon our own discretion to make such a determination.

What justification does the forums solely give to take such a stance given that it has obviously worked in the past - for TLOPO - to inform readily the TLOPO community (sure, perhaps there were some implications involved but there were also 'positives' and to deny this is to view the issue itself with a certain level of bias which does not keep an open mind about the issue as a whole)

The justification is that a large number of threads have popped up with people reporting auto-clickers or just generally rude players. While cheating and being rude to others is lame, it doesn't really pose a significant threat to anyone. There are internal ways to handle these issues, and they should be reported to in-game moderators to be dealt with privately.

To what extent are forums members given to even mention someone else's name? (I have 'two' [qty. 2] points to go on my forums account here I believe to where, if I mentioned someone's name publicly on either a thread or my profile, am I expected to receive said points and the punishment sustained thereafter if that person takes the use of their own name out-of-context and report me on account that they are offended)?

When the purpose of naming isn't to shame. It's pretty self-explanatory, really. Whether or not someone is upset or offended that you mention their name isn't really a factor one way or the other.

 

[Shamus The Brute]

Those aren't the kinds of announcements we plan ahead of time, so I can't say definitively. Hopefully not though. It is something we have only done for one particular case in 6 years, and it wasn't something we took lightly. It was deliberated for some time beforehand...

So even after deliberations are made and all options are exhausted, the forums is OK in taking action despite the fact that such action would go against it's own terms to where the rest of us must follow (and not deviate)? I mean no offense in saying this but, I don't particularly find that fair.

Granted, administrators have the right to do what they want but when explicit rules are written to the terms for everyone to follow...don't you think it serves the forums well to where, in this case, an "example" (or distinction) should be shown for such a term/rule to be followed? It may not be deliberate but, it gives me somewhat a (slight) impression that upper staff here are above the forums own terms and rules.

...Those aren't the kinds of announcements we plan ahead of time, so I can't say definitively. Hopefully not though. It is something we have only done for one particular case in 6 years, and it wasn't something we took lightly. It was deliberated for some time beforehand. We appreciate all reports of potential threats, but we ask that they be reported to us privately. If we determine that a public announcement may help to mitigate the effectiveness of a threat, then that is something we would consider only after exhausting our other options. In the vast majority of cases it is likely that we have better (internal) ways to alleviate threats though, which is why we take it upon our own discretion to make such a determination...

If you recall in that particular case, I was a member of the staff here at the time and through a forums report made which was heavily deliberated (as you say) a direct pm conversation was initiated by myself alone with said individual prior to any action taken. Therefore, I too had assisted towards some understanding of judgment ultimately decided during a time when TLOPO was just beginning but prior to the forums merging with TLOPO. I point this out because it's important to consider. Let me explain below.

If you look at this situation (as a whole) of warning the community about potential threats, you have a lack of perspective if you view the issue itself as only concerning and/or revolving around TLOPO game-play. Being that I do not even play TLOPO, tell me...how must I report viable threats to TLOPO moderators if I don't even play the remake? Because I choose to not play TLOPO but "care" still for the community, does that make my voice less substantiated than someone else's voice whom does happen to play? Granted, my situation is unique and at best not shared too readily within the community but still...you see the dilemma I hope, right?

If others whom play TLOPO share viable information with me important to trouble-making activity coming from TLOPO, what then do I do when those pirates whom I have trusted in the past with such information won't even speak to me anymore? What then, hmmm? I apologize beforehand but you mates are only kidding yourselves if you feel that TLOPO moderation will solve 100% of the trouble-making activity resulting because of TLOPO. I feel this way mostly because...others and myself are seeing things done every once in awhile without proactive urgency. Worse part is, the pirates whom "make a point" to cause trouble in-game via TLOPO understand this and feel as if they can always get away with something (simply because they recognize TLOPO 'as a whole' have far more worrisome things to think about and to concern themselves with).
*The "Name & Shame" rule here should be tossed asideespecially since I am a proponent that the accused should be permitted a chance to defend themselves publicly against the proof presented.

Thank ye.

 

[Crashalot]

I agree with Shamus here, and deny fully that I read all these replies/quotes/stuff, in that all pirates transgressing the code should be named, given a chance to explain themselves, and then hanged...

 

[Davy Darkrage]

So even after deliberations are made and all options are exhausted, the forums is OK in taking action despite the fact that such action would go against it's own terms to where the rest of us must follow (and not deviate)? I mean no offense in saying this but, I don't particularly find that fair.

Only after deliberations are made and all other options are exhausted, which was rather my point. Frankly I don't believe the public at large can be entrusted to make these considerations, not least because they don't have the same options available as we do.

Granted, administrators have the right to do what they want but when explicit rules are written to the terms for everyone to follow...don't you think it serves the forums well to where, in this case, an "example" (or distinction) should be shown for such a term/rule to be followed? It may not be deliberate but, it gives me somewhat a (slight) impression that upper staff here are above the forums own terms and rules.

In short: I do believe we should be the sole arbiters of such a decision, and I've done my best to outline why already.

Letting the public try to hold people accountable opens up a can of worms. It's exacerbated by the fact that this the internet, where people are quick to speak without thinking through their words and the implications they carry. No offense to those of you who do, but surely you can believe there are those out there who don't. While I'm not under the illusion that I or anyone are perfect, I hope we have demonstrated that we at least put a reasonable degree of forethought into what we say and do.

If you look at this situation (as a whole) of warning the community about potential threats, you have a lack of perspective if you view the issue itself as only concerning and/or revolving around TLOPO game-play. Being that I do not even play TLOPO, tell me...how must I report viable threats to TLOPO moderators if I don't even play the remake? Because I choose to not play TLOPO but "care" still for the community, does that make my voice less substantiated than someone else's voice whom does happen to play? Granted, my situation is unique and at best not shared too readily within the community but still...you see the dilemma I hope, right?

There are plenty of ways for you to get in touch about potential threats without having to step foot in game. Most if not all game moderators are here on the forums, and you may also send reports to support@tlopo.com. Thus, your voice is on equal footing regardless of whether you play the game or not.

I apologize beforehand but you mates are only kidding yourselves if you feel that TLOPO moderation will solve 100% of the trouble-making activity resulting because of TLOPO.

Sure, just as the police are kidding themselves if they think they will ever stop 100% of crime. Still, it doesn't justify vigilantism. I do think the TLOPO moderation team is capable of handling the most pressing issues (that is, issues which most negatively impact the experience of others).

I agree with Shamus here, and deny fully that I read all these replies/quotes/stuff, in that all pirates transgressing the code should be named, given a chance to explain themselves, and then hanged...

While I can appreciate the Pirate canon, I disagree. I think we left that sort of justice in the past for good reason.

 

[Crashalot]

While I can appreciate the Pirate canon, I disagree. I think we left that sort of justice in the past for good reason.

And ironically, if you understood sarcasm, you'd be disagreeing with yourself now...
Funny how that works.
Perhaps this is a topic best left to be hammered out amongst yourselves, behind the scenes.

 

[Mark Scurvyfox]

The upcoming thoughts are my own and do not reflect the thoughts or opinions of the Pirates Forums Staff team and/or anyone else's.

Shamus does bring valid points to the table regarding the whole situation of Naming & Shaming. Ultimately, how one could look up to it is merely subjective. Let me explain. TLOPO, as all of us know, is a project centred around Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean Online MMORPG game recreation. With this being said, TLOPO has followed a similar path regarding the game's audience. It has people from all kind of ages, some of them being teenagers. As half an adult here, I do understand how frustrating shaming can be for younger people. Teenagers are for the most part in an abiding hurry. It can get really hard for them to back theirselves up after being exposed to public for their misbehaviours.

I'm mostly speaking for myself here rather than anyone else. As a teenager, I used to take leave of my senses for no apparent reasons. It's hard to explain why now, because after sitting back for a long time overlooking the situations I've been through, I've came to understand how foul I have been at times. Here's a live example.

I know for a fact that sometimes you can find yourself being on the verge of getting out of control within a split second. And that's what I believe is Naming & Shaming rule all about.

People violating the pirate code should be given a chance to comply theirselves. Believe me, people can get very judgemental where proof is not enough for the other party to be treated like that. We can easily fall for it. But that's not morally right, if you want my opinion. One must also understand that the other party might not always have the chance to defend themselves for a matter of reasons. One of them being that they're not part of these forums and thus not aware they are being accused for something, if any at all.

All in all, cases that could happen to anyone, should be treated carefully before taking action. I'm not speaking for cases where (perhaps) one individual can prove to be a real threat to our community. In such instance, everyone reserves the right to know about the situation.

Now and If I'm getting things the right way, what I think we've been trying to do as Staff Members, is to keep this place a friendly atmosphere for all our members out there. From a personal aspect, I wouldn't like to see people fighting for things they don't control. We should all keep our eyes open and understand that we may not even have the right to judge people for such behaviours. No, I would never endorse such a behaviour, but it doesn't feel right to me being the one judging them either. I'd rather judge myself for my own actions and leave the rest to TLOPO management.

It's good to preserve both sides of the same dimension. I do understand that ultimately, all you want to ensure is our community's safeness and for that, I thank you @Shamus The Brute.

I'm working to the best of my abilities to keep this place a home to everyone. Be it rules or not, that's the purpose of Pirates Forums and for Mark Scurvyfox himself.

 

[Davy Darkrage]

And ironically, if you understood sarcasm, you'd be disagreeing with yourself now...

Ah, sarcasm can be a bit difficult to gauge over the internet. I've seen sillier things said with complete sincerity.

 

[Shamus The Brute]

...I'd rather judge myself for my own actions and leave the rest to TLOPO management.

As much as I respect this statement, I disagree. I disagree because the majority of TLOPO "management" (prior to the boost in TLOPO staff/forums merger) came from the TTO community. While some members of the staff did also play POTCO, I am making an assumption here that most were dedicated to TTO rather than POTCO being that I had never heard nor see any of them until the very idea of TLOPO was promoted.

Even after the forums merged with TLOPO, a few important TLOPO staff members made together a wrong decision to which they, themselves, felt compelled to apologize openly to the ex-POTCO/TLOPO community. And so...this is why I feel this issue in and of itself is sooooooooooo very important because essentially, these same people would have likely never apologized for their wrong doing if they were not held publicly accountable here via this forums by someone whom came forward with the wrong-doing. (If they were not held accountable in such a way, what motivation would have led them to do so prior to that acknowledgment)? See my point.

In truth, if you want to moderate TLOPO effectively the ex-POTCO community itself should be given the freedom to hold each other accountable and not just a few whom happen to find themselves put into a position. (I mean no disrespect to those whom serve on TLOPO's moderation staff. However, which one of you warned TLOPO about a staff member named after the 'Road Runner' [cartoon] antagonist prior to himself becoming a problem for TLOPO)?

*I just don't see it overly evil for TLOPO to rely upon the community's own insight into these matters (people whom have overly proven themselves to be both trustworthy and capable of holding people accountable without the forums going all DRAMA-LIKE ['oh, the fear']). I don't know if I can speak on behalf of other ex-POTCO players but, it's a slap to the face (and a arrow to the knee) when we - ourselves - are not trusted to do so. Essentially, isn't that what "community" is all about?

Not all pirates are unruly and fail to choose discernment.

It's good to preserve both sides of the same dimension. I do understand that ultimately, all you want to ensure is our community's safeness and for that, I thank you...

I appreciate you, my friend, for understanding that I always try to look at two-sides of an issue to where I will base my conclusion not on a whim or on-the-fly but through very careful insight and time spent pondering things. I thank you for your kindness, shown.

Ah, sarcasm can be a bit difficult to gauge over the internet. I've seen sillier things said with complete sincerity.

As have I. In addition, I have witnessed things "unsaid" which can do the same damage.

 

[deanaug]

As much as I respect this statement, I disagree. I disagree because the majority of TLOPO "management" (prior to the boost in TLOPO staff/forums merger) came from the TTO community. While some members of the staff did also play POTCO, I am making an assumption here that most were dedicated to TTO rather than POTCO being that I had never heard nor see any of them until the very idea of TLOPO was promoted.

Even after the forums merged with TLOPO, a few important TLOPO staff members made together a wrong decision to which they, themselves, felt compelled to apologize openly to the ex-POTCO/TLOPO community. And so...this is why I feel this issue in and of itself is sooooooooooo very important because essentially, these same people would have likely never apologized for their wrong doing if they were not held publicly accountable here via this forums by someone whom came forward with the wrong-doing. (If they were not held accountable in such a way, what motivation would have led them to do so prior to that acknowledgment)? See my point.

In truth, if you want to moderate TLOPO effectively the ex-POTCO community itself should be given the freedom to hold each other accountable and not just a few whom happen to find themselves put into a position. (I mean no disrespect to those whom serve on TLOPO's moderation staff. However, which one of you warned TLOPO about a staff member named after the 'Road Runner' [cartoon] antagonist prior to himself becoming a problem for TLOPO)?

*I just don't see it overly evil for TLOPO to rely upon the community's own insight into these matters (people whom have overly proven themselves to be both trustworthy and capable of holding people accountable without the forums going all DRAMA-LIKE ['oh, the fear']). I don't know if I can speak on behalf of other ex-POTCO players but, it's a slap to the face (and a arrow to the knee) when we - ourselves - are not trusted to do so. Essentially, isn't that what "community" is all about?

Not all pirates are unruly and fail to choose discernment.

I appreciate you, my friend, for understanding that I always try to look at two-sides of an issue to where I will base my conclusion not on a whim or on-the-fly but through very careful insight and time spent pondering things. I thank you for your kindness, shown.

As have I. In addition, I have witnessed things "unsaid" which can do the same damage.

1. FYI, I played POTCO from the time beta test started to the day it was shut down (Founder for the duration). Just because you have never "heard nor seen me" doesn't mean I wasn't a dedicated POTCO player; or did you make it a point to "get to know" the tens of thousands of registered POTCO players out there? Yes I did also play TTO, does that make a bad person or something?

2. I'm disappointed you are bringing up the apology by some of our staff again. I've seen you highly commend people for doing the same, without dredging it up again after-the-fact, is this because they were not die-hard POTCO players and thus don't deserve their due respect, after the public apologies you so earnestly seek?

3. Please do not undermine the capabilities of our moderation staff. Since you refuse to play TLOPO, your only exposure to moderation issues is pleas from people who have been "busted" for legit game violations, and are trying to argue they are innocent. I'm not sure what this Road Runner talk is about, but I'd like to remind you that our moderators are HUMANs who sacrifice a lot of personal time to the job, and as HUMANs they are bound to make some mistakes.

4. Not sure what your point is about the ex-POTCO players handling our moderation. Am I correct in interpreting this statement, as you only entrust this job to the "famous" pirates from days of yore? As someone who refuses to step foot in-game, how would you be able to handle the hands-on actions often required to deal with troublemakers?

5. I agree not all pirates are unruly. However, as someone down in the trenches, I assure you there are many that are.

 

[Shamus The Brute]

Below is a proposal which offers both fairness and accountability, in my opinion. (In hindsight, it provides an 'option' a viable community should be open to accepting if past problems are ever going to stay in the past):

• This forums designates a staff member (most likely a 'moderator' or higher position) to oversee a category here on the forums for victims to stake their "claim" against an individual pirate. (No claims made against a guild as a whole).
• This category can be called The Brig or the 2nd Gathering of the Brethren Court...or whatever, to distinguish it from other categories
• The victim of the claim must pm the specific staff member and thereafter share word-for-word exactly to which they would like to publicly say backed then only by proof shared with the staff member (i.e., TLOPO screenshots taken or videos shared [showing applicable time-stamp and/or comments made]) to legitimize the stake of the claim
• The forums staff member will review the claim made, decipher the legitimacy behind the victim's intention, and will convey to the victim that they will follow-up with the physical writing of the claim attributing forums "points" against the victim in addition to the complete removal of the thread (if the writing of the post deviates from what the staff member had previously reviewed)
• Once a thread claim is posted, the thread itself will immediately become locked but not before the forums staff member writes an explanation to the thread that the "accused" must contact them individually (via pm) for an opportunity to protest the claim with proof...to which the same process is repeated again (via pm) for purposes of counter-claim/apology notices immediately followed once more by the locking of the thread...and so on, and so forth
• Only the victim and the accused (if a counter-claim or an apology is chosen) can document to the thread claim other than the forums staff member overseeing the whole process

Look. Riddle me this: does "reporting" a trouble-making player (in-game) encourage them an available platform to apologize? It does not and if ye pirates are interested (in the slightest bit) to make this community greater than POTCO ever was...you're going to want to be open to the idea of allowing people that opportunity to do so if said person/pirate feels either remorse or compelled to apologize. Otherwise, a TLOPO ban if implemented only tears people further apart...and not closer together.

*It's an option which could work. But alas, ye have to be open to it (for the betterment of a harmonized community).

 

[Captain Redhorn]

No gaming company, that I am aware of, allows public shaming. Period. Another game I play, star wars the old republic, specifically has it in their TOS that public name calling is not allowed on their forums. In order to maintain a level of professionalism and positive atmosphere, we are trying to do the same. That is why we are making this rule.

Regarding the community warning about a certain individual. We, unlike professional gaming companies, are made up of volunteers and fellow gamers, all who are part of the ex-potco community. Professional gaming companies do not have issues with rival people trying to make the same game, stealing code, being doxed and swatted, or being DDoS'ed. Those reasons are why we had to put up the warning.

We are not a professional gaming company that earns revenue and sells a product, we are a community of people ran by volunteers to try to recreate a game. Everyone associated with TLOPO has tried to maintain a level of professionalism, which I think has been done very well, however our issues that come with our unique circumstances are what caused the need for a public warning.

I appreciate your interest in the well being of the community, but those who have been leading the community for years through ups and downs are still doing a great job. The conspiracy threads and all the issues you have with the game are starting to get old for me, when you aren't even willing to play the game you are posting about.

 

[Shamus The Brute]

...Professional gaming companies do not have issues with rival people trying to make the same game, stealing code, being doxed and swatted, or being DDoS'ed. Those reasons are why we had to put up the warning...

You should know Red that I actually had a role to play in the judgment which resulted towards action taken in lieu of said Warning (though I was not given opportunity to voice an opinion on the actual 'release' of said Warning). @John Foulroberts knows...I provided a few screenshots. You mates, act like I am all "new" to this forums and don't have a clue as to what had occurred and the order in which it did . (Just because a merger happened doesn't mean I haven't forgotten about the old days).

No worries though. If my opinion is to not be taken anymore (on 'any' subject matter I do bring up) despite the fact that I have the best intention perhaps I'll just let you mates do what you want and then later, perhaps remember what I had "tried" to do...and say (not to be 'all up in everyone's face' but because...I too have a voice even though I do not play TLOPO).

*Please lock this thread at any time.

 

[Johnny Mak]

It's not that your opinion isn't still valued here Shamus, as I do of course still value it. My biggest issue with this conversation is after the owner and Head Admin of the forum answered all of your questions... to complete satisfaction as far as what you asked for, you continue to act like there is a leverage point where you will get your will or aim forced in and accepted. A Developer of the game addressed you personally here, and you ignored him.
TLOPO will govern their game, and PF will continue to keep watch here. The only connection is the partnership we have. Naming and Shaming is Trolling or Flaming (according to our TOS) an actual person from sins committed in the game will never ever be a part of this forum, and as a former Staff member you should know that rule very well. Anyone that gets banned in the game for various things they did wrong (if they somehow still don't know these forums exist) knows the website for TLOPO, because they downloaded the launcher, which means they have access to Support no matter what. I've stated this many times since I came back in February, POTCO playing has no rank anymore, while i'm sure Disney appreciated all of our money, this is TLOPO...Famous or Legendary status is only praised by the friends who put stock into it for whatever it was worth back then... alot of new folks are here now who have NO IDEA who we are regardless of the claim to fame we think we have, and I have to admit, the anonymity is actually really nice... just another guy wandering around the game. Naming and Shaming Part 3 was unnecessary, and honestly should have been ended after Davy answered all your questions...twice. Dean also, personally answered you, which once again you chose to ignore. As someone who is personally running my own boot the Auto Movement with my piratey self running around, please believe everything is being handled according to how it should be. The mods aren't running around striking folks down and booting them for nothing... well not in TLOPO at least . I'm here with complete respect as usual, but your voice has been heard, and this is beating a dead horse, no matter which angle the powerpoint, argument or pie chart proves on your end.

 

[Punkin Pie]

First I'd like to say I understand and abide by our Naming and Shaming policy.

There are obviously pros and cons to Naming and Shaming.
A pro would be to warn others of an individual and to hope that as a result of the negative attention that they wouldn't do it again.
The cons about Naming and Shaming are endless. From legal reasons to emotional distress. I understand people make mistakes but also that people can change.. so putting someone's name out there for public humiliation isn't good, imo.
Sharing info among our friends can help keep each other safe from falling victim, and it may help to serve some justice.

This thread sadly seems like a final battle between right and wrong on this topic.
The fact that there are even any cons to naming and shaming someone, is enough for me to agree it's a wrong thing to do.

When people are driven by their convictions, ex: @Shamus The Brute - even with best intentions - to present ideas that they feel is the right way to handle folks who have done unsavory things, it doesn't mean their voice isn't being heard if not agreed with. Sometimes change comes about after ideas are shared and sometimes it doesn't. Squeaky wheels are good; they're not just an annoyance. They try to keep us in check and it helps us to look at things in a much broader picture. Maybe the wheel won't get the grease right now, but I'd rather have it squeaking than wheel away on it's own, leaving the wagon unbalanced (ok now I've gone a little south but, I hope I made some kind of point).

It's impossible for everyone to agree on this topic and this policy, but I feel that Davy and the staff are doing what they feel is morally right for the forums.

PS: Sorry for the grammatical horrors

 

[Creaven]

First I'd like to say I understand and abide by our Naming and Shaming policy.

There are obviously pros and cons to Naming and Shaming.
A pro would be to warn others of an individual and to hope that as a result of the negative attention that they wouldn't do it again.
The cons about Naming and Shaming are endless. From legal reasons to emotional distress. I understand people make mistakes but also that people can change.. so putting someone's name out there for public humiliation isn't good, imo.
Sharing info among our friends can help keep each other safe from falling victim, and it may help to serve some justice.

This thread sadly seems like a final battle between right and wrong on this topic.
The fact that there are even any cons to naming and shaming someone, is enough for me to agree it's a wrong thing to do.

When people are driven by their convictions, ex: @Shamus The Brute - even with best intentions - to present ideas that they feel is the right way to handle folks who have done unsavory things, it doesn't mean their voice isn't being heard if not agreed with. Sometimes change comes about after ideas are shared and sometimes it doesn't. Squeaky wheels are good; they're not just an annoyance. They try to keep us in check and it helps us to look at things in a much broader picture. Maybe the wheel won't get the grease right now, but I'd rather have it squeaking than wheel away on it's own, leaving the wagon unbalanced (ok now I've gone a little south but, I hope I made some kind of point).

It's impossible for everyone to agree on this topic and this policy, but I feel that Davy and the staff are doing what they feel is morally right for the forums.

PS: Sorry for the grammatical horrors

Can't agree more with what is being said here.

 

[Kat Five Knives]

Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Many valid points were made here, on both sides. However, the ultimate decision as to how the forums are run are up to the owner and staff of the forums. It's not that differing points of view are not appreciated. On the contrary they invoke much discussion among the staff. As Audre Lorde said, "It's not out differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences."

~Kat

 

[X Jumper]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Shamus, but it seems like you're attempting to justify "naming and shaming" as a good thing only if valid proof is presented on the basis that full awareness is raised upon the community regarding a specific individual who has done a lot of harm among players in the game. Why exactly do you think this is appropriate and won't be a problem to perform such an action? If you decided it's best to call out someone by making a post here on the forums because you've acknowledged their wrong-doings, what makes you think nothing bad will come out of the post as soon as you publish it? How would you know if the individual you're targeting has an account on the forums o? Not only would you be causing drama once that post has been published, the individual may see it, most likely get annoyed, and start an argument. That is just a waste of time of starting something that should not have begun in the first place. You wouldn't be doing any good yourself either.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but seeing this post come from someone who is recognized as a Site Founder is quite ironic and perhaps a bit disappointing, especially since a former staff member like you should be willing to accept the fact that the forums will not tolerate naming and shaming, regardless of whether you may agree with it or not. Of course, there isn't anything wrong with voicing an opinion because everyone has the right to do so. However, a lot of us fail to see how this could be a good thing for the community. In fact, you don't really seem like you're that type of person who wants to shame someone, so I don't see why you want to justify it as good.

 

[Davy Darkrage]

As much as I respect this statement, I disagree. I disagree because the majority of TLOPO "management" (prior to the boost in TLOPO staff/forums merger) came from the TTO community. While some members of the staff did also play POTCO, I am making an assumption here that most were dedicated to TTO rather than POTCO being that I had never heard nor see any of them until the very idea of TLOPO was promoted.

Some come from the TTO community, but plenty of the TLOPO team were part of the POTCO community as well. This was already brought up above, but only a small fraction of the POTCO community belong to the forums. TLOPO itself has over 60,000 registered users at this time. While I appreciate everyone who is on the forums, I don't think it's right to dismiss or exclude those who aren't as community outsiders.

In truth, if you want to moderate TLOPO effectively the ex-POTCO community itself should be given the freedom to hold each other accountable and not just a few whom happen to find themselves put into a position.

I just don't see it overly evil for TLOPO to rely upon the community's own insight into these matters (people whom have overly proven themselves to be both trustworthy and capable of holding people accountable without the forums going all DRAMA-LIKE ['oh, the fear']). I don't know if I can speak on behalf of other ex-POTCO players but, it's a slap to the face (and a arrow to the knee) when we - ourselves - are not trusted to do so. Essentially, isn't that what "community" is all about?

The TLOPO community (regardless of presence or prominence in the "ex-POTCO" community) can do their part by reporting suspicious players to staff. I don't think anything said can be construed as a desire to shun the community's insight. I just believe that the existing systems by which issues are resolved work well enough and don't have the problems that accompany public shaming.

Not all pirates are unruly and fail to choose discernment.

Sure, but those that are can often ruin things for those that aren't. And unruly people aren't the only problem with holding others publicly accountable.

Riddle me this: does "reporting" a trouble-making player (in-game) encourage them an available platform to apologize? It does not and if ye pirates are interested (in the slightest bit) to make this community greater than POTCO ever was...you're going to want to be open to the idea of allowing people that opportunity to do so if said person/pirate feels either remorse or compelled to apologize.

People are welcome to apologize for past misdeeds of their own volition, but I think if you must compel someone to apologize by calling them out publicly then it calls into question whether they are truly remorseful in the first place. To that end, I'm not really sure it's a worthwhile endeavor.

No worries though. If my opinion is to not be taken anymore (on 'any' subject matter I do bring up) despite the fact that I have the best intention perhaps I'll just let you mates do what you want and then later, perhaps remember what I had "tried" to do...and say (not to be 'all up in everyone's face' but because...I too have a voice even though I do not play TLOPO).

I tried my best to give your opinion the respect it deserves by taking time to respond to the concerns you raised (as did several others). I think it is a bit unfair to say we dismissed them outright. It just so happens that I don't agree and remain unpersuaded. I do think you have good intentions, and I'm not bothered by you sharing the way you see things.

*Please lock this thread at any time.

I'm locking this thread at your request, but if you want it reopened or have anything to add you are free to report it.

Davy

 

[Shamus The Brute]

...I mean absolutely no disrespect, but seeing this post come from someone who is recognized as a Site Founder is quite ironic and perhaps a bit disappointing, especially since a former staff member like you should be willing to accept the fact that the forums will not tolerate naming and shaming, regardless of whether you may agree with it or not. Of course, there isn't anything wrong with voicing an opinion because everyone has the right to do so. However, a lot of us fail to see how this could be a good thing for the community. In fact, you don't really seem like you're that type of person who wants to shame someone, so I don't see why you want to justify it as good.

Note: Long post below, everyone. Please don't clutter this thread any further by stating the obvious nor contributing irrelevant points-of-discussion. Thank you (and click here).

@XJumper - Myself asking for opportunity to respond to you via the (request) unlocking of this thread, I thank you for your post along with several points you do make. For the most part, I do understand your point-of-view. In retrospect, I feel a lot of people feel very much as you do about this issue. You know what? That's OK. However, may yourself and others understand that I have spent a lot of time understanding the fundamental and underlying problem which has plagued the POTCO/ex-POTCO community and so my perspective is one of which is likely unique in the fact that I don't believe too many people have done so as I have on such an extensive scale. If I am wrong about this, I will be the first to recant this statement.

From the seat of the chair I usually do write from, yourself and others may never understand why this issue alone is so important to me. Let me begin by saying:

• I have personally taken the time to research readily into the POTCO/ex-POTCO and ex-TTO community trouble-making/hacker/code-stealing problem
• Key forums staff and a few TLOPO developers/supporters within the community know this ^ (but haven't divulged this fact publicly)
• I don't support "Name & Shame"

Name & Shame is a term this forums itself coined and it does not represent in totality what I support nor what I had tried to propose. To coin this issue as such takes into account fully only the negative implications which could result and to dismiss altogether any positive implications. An attempt to coin "accountability" (as I refer to it) in such a way is lop-sided at best and what would normally be a topic-of-discussion placed on a fair/level playing-field it is being portrayed here on this thread and elsewhere as a extreme side to it. Instead, I support community policy much like I had proposed above ^ which offers still the fairness everyone wishes for in addition to some acknowledgment I feel didn't work fully for POTCO in the past and that is...in-game moderation only which excludes public action, platform, and accountability taken. OK, stay with me now please. Let's jump ahead to present day.

The shuttered, ex-POTCO community experienced it's own share of trouble-making problems and this forums actively decided to do the very thing I am proposing shall continually be done. Ironically, this action is being dismissed as something out-of-the-ordinary and unique. That fact alone isn't disputed. However, the argument I had tried to make here is based on single question: Did it work? Yes, it did work and in retrospect it remains a slap in the face to everyone whom realizes this when now we are told forums members can't do the same thing for themselves publicly all because they don't uphold a title as staff member. My apologies to this forums but, proof was shared and accountability was upheld. To reiterate this point once again, the strategy itself worked! (If people feel as if it didn't work, why then did ownership change hands to where some Doctor medic 'there' tried to tidy-up things for the purpose of promoting a more positive image over a negative one there driven from past behavior/mistake? The 'altering of action' taken there was simply due to accountability upheld here).

So back to a question you ask which compelled myself to respond: why would Shamus - a site founder - truly be supportive of such accountability? It's simple. I haven't missed the game (POTCO) so much as to dismiss the errors which were made by others in the past whom haven't already apologized. As such, a truth rarely acknowledged is that Disney was not the only faction responsible towards the shuttering and the demise of the POTCO community. It was pirates from the very player-base whom are now so eager to play TLOPO! Should they be witch-hunted now to the point to where I support them being burned to the stake? No, but they should be held accountable for any wrong-doing done within TLOPO to the point to where their affiliation with the community (on applicable platforms, namely this forums) are upheld in a way which does not make it easy for them to dismiss both their wrong-doing and the opportunity to apologize for it.

Banning a player affects only their game-play/game account used. Banning them does not lead them towards the point of feeling remorseful unless...they are highly mature and take full responsibility for their actions. For those gamers whom are waiting still to be mature online (and the ex-POTCO and ex-TTO community are full of 'em), my own research conducted online has led myself to believe that they will not feel compelled to take responsibility for their actions unless they feel too that there is much for them to lose if they don't. In the realm of both POTCO and TLOPO community affiliation, public acceptance and non-acceptance towards one's own reputation online has implications. (Take it from me, I am quite experienced with both sides of the acceptance issue and what each can do to a person. Worthy to note, I was never 'Name & Shamed' but rather instead I was held personally accountable by a few friends of mine towards 'inner feelings' I held against someone directly affiliated with TLOPO). So therefore, I am of the opinion that holding individuals accountable provides for them a nudge they would not have otherwise had. In addtion, such accountability made (with proof to back each claim) alerts the community as a whole as opposed to in-game bans which actually alert nobody! Question to keep in mind is if TLOPO bans are to rule the Caribbean, how do those bans benefit the community when players whom do wrong can still do wrong via off-game antics? Obviously, others feel differently about this point and it's ironic to me because of the overall time_wasted in dealing (overall and generally) with repeat trouble-makers and offenders.

The Shamus persona of me is not evil nor hell-bent on not forgiving people. Rather instead it is just the opposite. *But how would anyone know this unless time was taken for others to get to know me. In the same way, a public apology written provides a clue for others to understand as to the person behind the gaming character (which saves time, in my opinion). However, ask yourself how often do such apologies occur freely online without someone feeling as if they had a lot to lose if they withheld in doing so? Or instead, look at the issue in this way. Would bans generated by TLOPO moderation do the trick to curb the lack of frequency of apologies written publicly online? Wouldn't instead such individuals plead their case to a TLOPO affiliated site contesting their defense of having ever received said ban? What response by TLOPO - ye think - would be given for said individual to contest their ban? Would they not encouraged the banned player to speak with a TLOPO (support) representative privately and not publicly? Alas, does such practice permit both the banned individual and the community itself to walk away from such an experience on a positive note? If no, why not? Is it because things were done privately as opposed to publicly?

Yeah, a lot of questions still need answered and I don't necessarily feel such questions are being addressed fully by the community at-large. For what it's worth, I draw my own conclusions on the basis of the research I have conducted over the years. For those whom are steadfast in opposition to such point-of-view, how much research have they conducted during a time when POTCO was readily struggling with both hackers and trouble-making tendencies? Thanks for reading.

Shamus ~