Let’s talk about blacklists

[Nancy Drew 39]

Spoiler:

quote="In post 95, CreativeMod1"]Hmm okay, so with that one I'd agree that that's something bad a player did and I'd put that within a category of said player was purposely throwing the game or trolling the game

Maybe another discussion to be had could be to look at the reporting feature as a whole, should there be a report button for someone actively ruining the game? and then if someone is reported for and mods agree that said player broke those rules. Then yes being added to blacklist would be fine in that case

I also highly agree with Irchers point about people changing and having timed blacklists could be a good work around for that and I would also agree that it'd have to be longer than the ban length.

I would however argue that if a player is getting blacklisted by so many people then it'll be a lesson to them to strive to be a better person and something like this could help stop players from being toxic. It's one thing being told that you've been banned by the mods for a couple of weeks, some people might laugh and get grumpy at the system. It's a lot more powerful to be told "Players in this game don't want to play with you" I feel like that message is more likely to resonate with a player and get them to think about their actions more.[/quote]

Re: the hypothetical player acruing multiple blacklists. I think you completely missed mt point there. I was specifically referring to a situation of it being caused by either an isolated incident or something temporary and the obvious problems resulting if the hypothetical multiple blacklists were to exceed actual mod punishment for site rule violations. Iow, blacklists are user-based decisions and MS decisions are based off of sitewide rules. My point being, the twain should never be mixed, which is what the OP was presumably advocating for.

However, I do strongly support any change to the rules that would in real time, effectively reduce toxicity in games.

[Shireen Baratheon]

Hem hem...

There is another way this could be abused. What if one player seizes a spot in all of the games that are in sign-ups, in every queue for the sole purpose of keeping the players they've blacklisted out/preventing them from joining the game they really really really wanted to play in?

This is why I like Varsoon games. Varsoon understands that no player should be left out based on a single person's whim. This is also why I dislike WOTO. If you alone have a problem with someone, just replace out rather than forcing them to. As strange as it is, those you've blacklisted are people too, and if they became 'toxic' because you provoked them constantly in previous games, either due to your playstyle or baiting them, then change your attitude to avoid baiting them/inciting their toxicity, rather than booting them out because they responded in kind to your baiting. That's all.

To put in perspective, I watched a movie quite recently, and part of the plot was how a young man named Credence was constantly beaten by his foster mum. Eventually, he couldn't take it anymore and lashed out. Now, should people blame Credence for what transpired, or should they blame his foster mom, who caused him to lash out in the first place?

[Nero Cain]

Why not just pl toxic players?

[Jake The Wolfie]

My first thoughts when seeing this:
Suppose you had Player A sign up to a game. Player B, knowing that their interactions with Player A are not good, signs up anyway. Player A complains to the Game moderator.

The Game moderator should first reference which player they would rather want in (since they will be forced to deal with whatever happens) and they pick which one they prefer. If they have no preference, they should ask for the players currently signed up about who they would rather have (since they will have to play with either one.) and whoever gets a majority will stay, while the other is booted. If there is no majority among the players, they should wait until signups are full +1, then re-take the poll. If there is still no majority, they should randomize who they pick. Whoever is randomly chosen gets to stay, while the other one gets booted.
If this is the 2nd time this has happened, the Game Mod repeats the entire process up to the randomization part. They pick the player who was booted out of their last game.
If this is the 3rd, choose the player who was booted out of game 2.
etc etc.

[Nancy Drew 39]

My first thoughts when seeing this:
Suppose you had Player A sign up to a game. Player B, knowing that their interactions with Player A are not good, signs up anyway. Player A complains to the Game moderator.

The Game moderator should first reference which player they would rather want in (since they will be forced to deal with whatever happens) and they pick which one they prefer. If they have no preference, they should ask for the players currently signed up about who they would rather have (since they will have to play with either one.) and whoever gets a majority will stay, while the other is booted. If there is no majority among the players, they should wait until signups are full +1, then re-take the poll. If there is still no majority, they should randomize who they pick. Whoever is randomly chosen gets to stay, while the other one gets booted.
If this is the 2nd time this has happened, the Game Mod repeats the entire process up to the randomization part. They pick the player who was booted out of their last game.
If this is the 3rd, choose the player who was booted out of game 2.
etc etc.

Unless the mod has reason to think player A is going to be a bigger pain in the ass than player B, they should either get a valid reason from Player A and determine if Player A’s reasoning warrants kicking Player B or not and if yes, kick Player B. If not, don’t. Your solution of possibly kicking Player A who signed up first, is really not fair to Player A unless the game mod has valid reason to view Player A as a bigger problem than Player B. All things being equal, the mod either rejects Player A’s request or they kick Player B. The mod under no circumstances other than an extremely good reason, should ever kick Player A here.

[Gamma Emerald]

Are you saying player A should be able to say player B isn't allowed to sign up for games they (player A) have already signed up for?

Yes, essentially.

this does not work if Player A joins a lot of games Player B would want to play, as Player B gets shafted assuming Player A always joins before Player B would

[Gamma Emerald]

Hem hem...

There is another way this could be abused. What if one player seizes a spot in all of the games that are in sign-ups, in every queue for the sole purpose of keeping the players they've blacklisted out/preventing them from joining the game they really really really wanted to play in?

This is why I like Varsoon games. Varsoon understands that no player should be left out based on a single person's whim. This is also why I dislike WOTO. If you alone have a problem with someone, just replace out rather than forcing them to. As strange as it is, those you've blacklisted are people too, and if they became 'toxic' because you provoked them constantly in previous games, either due to your playstyle or baiting them, then change your attitude to avoid baiting them/inciting their toxicity, rather than booting them out because they responded in kind to your baiting. That's all.

To put in perspective, I watched a movie quite recently, and part of the plot was how a young man named Credence was constantly beaten by his foster mum. Eventually, he couldn't take it anymore and lashed out. Now, should people blame Credence for what transpired, or should they blame his foster mom, who caused him to lash out in the first place?

Exactly

what I was thinking.

[Jake The Wolfie]

...

Unless the mod has reason to think player A is going to be a bigger pain in the ass than player B, they should either get a valid reason from Player A and determine if Player A’s reasoning warrants kicking Player B or not and if yes, kick Player B. If not, don’t. Your solution of possibly kicking Player A who signed up first, is really not fair to Player A unless the game mod has valid reason to view Player A as a bigger problem than Player B. All things being equal, the mod either rejects Player A’s request or they kick Player B. The mod under no circumstances other than an extremely good reason, should ever kick Player A here.

If most of the players want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issue will arise.
If you want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issues will arise.

[Nancy Drew 39]

...

Unless the mod has reason to think player A is going to be a bigger pain in the ass than player B, they should either get a valid reason from Player A and determine if Player A’s reasoning warrants kicking Player B or not and if yes, kick Player B. If not, don’t. Your solution of possibly kicking Player A who signed up first, is really not fair to Player A unless the game mod has valid reason to view Player A as a bigger problem than Player B. All things being equal, the mod either rejects Player A’s request or they kick Player B. The mod under no circumstances other than an extremely good reason, should ever kick Player A here.

If most of the players want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issue will arise.
If you want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issues will arise.

Standard procedure is either to kick the player joining after the one who complained or to reject it. I would boycott such a mod’s games like you describe.

If I as a mod have a blacklist, I reject that player’s /in in in the first place. If you seriously intend to follow this as a mod, I forsee a lot of unhappy players in your future.

[Jake The Wolfie]

...

Unless the mod has reason to think player A is going to be a bigger pain in the ass than player B, they should either get a valid reason from Player A and determine if Player A’s reasoning warrants kicking Player B or not and if yes, kick Player B. If not, don’t. Your solution of possibly kicking Player A who signed up first, is really not fair to Player A unless the game mod has valid reason to view Player A as a bigger problem than Player B. All things being equal, the mod either rejects Player A’s request or they kick Player B. The mod under no circumstances other than an extremely good reason, should ever kick Player A here.

If most of the players want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issue will arise.
If you want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issues will arise.

Standard procedure is either to kick the player joining after the one who complained or to reject it. I would boycott such a mod’s games like you describe.

If I as a mod have a blacklist, I reject that player’s /in in in the first place. If you seriously intend to follow this as a mod, I forsee a lot of unhappy players in your future.

Consider: Player A knows that Player B would want to join the game, and so they join before them for the sole intent of blocking Player B's entry. Should you as the mod almost never remove Player A here as well?

[Nancy Drew 39]

...

Unless the mod has reason to think player A is going to be a bigger pain in the ass than player B, they should either get a valid reason from Player A and determine if Player A’s reasoning warrants kicking Player B or not and if yes, kick Player B. If not, don’t. Your solution of possibly kicking Player A who signed up first, is really not fair to Player A unless the game mod has valid reason to view Player A as a bigger problem than Player B. All things being equal, the mod either rejects Player A’s request or they kick Player B. The mod under no circumstances other than an extremely good reason, should ever kick Player A here.

If most of the players want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issue will arise.
If you want B over A, then kick A, otherwise issues will arise.

Standard procedure is either to kick the player joining after the one who complained or to reject it. I would boycott such a mod’s games like you describe.

If I as a mod have a blacklist, I reject that player’s /in in in the first place. If you seriously intend to follow this as a mod, I forsee a lot of unhappy players in your future.

Consider: Player A knows that Player B would want to join the game, and so they join before them for the sole intent of blocking Player B's entry. Should you as the mod almost never remove Player A here as well?

How would you even be able to determine that though? The thing is that if this hypothetical blacklist isn’t mutual, so if you really want player B, you just reject Player A’s request and they will either /out or not. If the blacklist is only on Player A’s side, then it’s assumed that Player B has no objections to Player A being in the game, so why would you kick Player A as opposed to just refusing his blacklist request on Player B?

[Ythan]

You shouldn't be trying to get someone booted from a game you'll still play if they aren't booted.

[Nancy Drew 39]

You shouldn't be trying to get someone booted from a game you'll still play if they aren't booted.

+1

I really don’t understand his thought process here.