Vivi/Lovint argument

I had a chat with Vivi yesterday, I wanted to share it with you Berserker. I probably didn't help much, actually I accidentally made it worse without meaning to I think. The following is a copy of the chat. As you can see I think it brings a couple of issues forward:

1. A need to post some sort of behaviour rules, things that will get you banned/warned/whatever

2. What powers moderators have/don't have, because as you can see as soon as I mentioned 'moderator' suddenly I was 'telling Vivi what to do'. I wasn't sure myself as I explained to her. She wanted me to delete bugs and forum posts, but I'm not comfortable doing that when it's clear that someone (Berserker) already posted in those places and hasn't done so either. This should be included with the post above so that everyone knows what mods can/can't do.

3. At first I questioned your (Berserker) opinion that Vivi was ramping it up on purpose or being retaliatory. It's not that I didn't believe you, I just didn't see this behaviour myself. Now I agree wholeheartedly. I think the best thing to do is to treat them as equal culprits in this argument.

Berserker, I know you think in-game fighting is ok but I disagree if it actually does seem like outright harassment. There's a difference between playing and what Vivi is doing: she outright says to me that she's not attacking anyone else. In fact, towards the end she starts accusing me of not liking her and attempting to expand just to annoy her - which is not true as I tried to explain to her. The point is that Vivi is directly playing the game just to retaliate. There is a fine line here between playing and fighting and I think the situation should be watched carefully and if further abuse occurs by either of them, then something should be done.

... Sigh... This brings me back around to what I was saying about moderating. It's very easy for me right now to abuse powers and ban both of them. It's also very easy for them to say "it's just a game" whilst still saying each one is harassing the other. It's also very easy for no one to know right now what to do. There's no set of rules that tell us what behaviour is ok and what's not. I understand that you suggest 'fighting it out' in the game, but I think that just escalates things. It gives Vivi an excuse to continue to attack; it gives Lovint no chance to calm down and rethink.

Having said that, this is your game and perhaps I'm not the best person to suggest ideas. I can handle myself in lengthy in-depth forum discussions, but those are places where it's not about personal stakes or subjective ways of playing. I really don't know what the best solution is, because people like this will pop up from time to time no matter what you do.

Anyway... here's the chat log. (I'd posted a log of a plunder by Lover on me, we agreed to test it out. Vivi PM'd me after I posted it, sending me her own log of her attack on Lovint)

[09:34:49] vivi: Report #19013 details...
[09:35:17] vivi: interesting, no, we both have comunality as well
[09:36:02] vivi: but my attack wasn't a plunder
[09:36:22] buckwheat: vivi i guess lovint also has communality
[09:36:52] vivi: yes, that's why...not much to do than to annoy her
[09:37:17] vivi: it's impossible to do some real damage
[09:37:32] buckwheat: vivi i really don't suggest that. i think actually it's probably best to leave her alone
[09:37:55] vivi: it is a game, it isn't personal
[09:38:50] vivi: she can't speak the way she does without any consequences
[09:39:07] buckwheat: it is personal if she's taking it personally. you don't get to decide how she reacts, and frankly i don't think berserker wants the hassle of banning
people for abuse. ramping it up is not necessary
[09:39:28] buckwheat: by the way, there were consequences: she was given a warning by berserker to curb it
[09:40:04] vivi: and my problem is?
[09:40:27] buckwheat: vivi i don't understand your question
[09:40:56] vivi: i am not the one arguing....i don't even answer to her
[09:41:45] buckwheat: vivi that's good. but i think attacking her in game at this point is just going to aggravate things. that's all i'm saying
[09:42:35] vivi: attacking her is my decission, and it is a consequence of her total lack of manners
[09:42:57] vivi: btw, she is the only player i am attacking
[09:43:25] vivi: and she considers herself attacked anyway just by my expansion
[09:46:44] buckwheat: ok, but i'm just warning you that i think ramping it up is wrong, and that as a moderator i am warning you (not on behalf of berserker, just me)
that i think enough is enough
[09:47:07] vivi: you are warning me?
[09:47:31] buckwheat: i'm not happy with the comments either, but this is Enkord's house and i think berserker is wanting to avoid abuse all around
[09:48:31] vivi: than, this is the last conversation we are ever going to have...
[09:48:52] vivi: you are a player like everyone
[09:49:05] vivi: good night
[09:49:12] buckwheat: hey, "it's a game"... don't take it personally *rolls eyes* ... that works both ways you know
[09:49:55] buckwheat: berserker@3
[09:50:10] vivi: ?
[09:50:24] buckwheat: whoops, wrong chat area
[09:52:13] vivi: mediocrity is not my game....sorry; and what kind of moderator you are if you allow a player to post something entitled ''vivia bug''?
[09:52:31] vivi: for me that's says everything
[09:53:24] buckwheat: i don't know. i complained to berserker a while ago about moderation rules (ie. what to do/not to do) and got told off for it. he's now rethinking
his position and is going to outline stuff
[09:53:55] buckwheat: as for 'leaving the bug', as i said: not MY HOUSE. i don't know what the rules are, and if they wanted to remove it, they would
[09:54:04] buckwheat: i don't want to overstep my bounds
[09:55:51] buckwheat: by the way, the only reason i'm stepping in is because i personally find the comments atrocious. doesn't mean we should stoop though
[09:57:36] vivi: look buckwheat, you don't like me, in the game we are neigbors and i am in the way although i tried to expand away from you
[09:57:54] vivi: i am very straighforward
[09:58:10] vivi: and this bothers a lot of people
[09:58:49] buckwheat: i have no opinion of you, i have an opinion about this one action (the in-fighting). expansion was my goal when i created the hero, it had nothing to
do with you
[09:58:57] vivi: but we are both adults and we are playing a game
[09:59:48] vivi: expansion was my goal too, was the only possible goal at this stage for a lot of people
[10:00:27] vivi: multiplayer is not my thing either
[10:01:05] vivi: i try to keep my interactions to minimum
[10:02:32] buckwheat: look, i get it. it riled you. it annoys me too. but if there is someone abusive in the game, you take it up with berserker because he's the one who
can issue warnings and ban people.
[10:02:47] buckwheat: i just think piling on makes the game less pleasant for everyone
[10:03:30] vivi: i didn' t asked anything from you
[10:03:49] vivi: you were the one to assume the moderator role
[10:04:09] vivi: anyway, i have to go...bye
[10:04:24] buckwheat: no, i was asked. and then it got removed. and then it got put back. which is why i wanted mod rules in the first place

There are a number of other issues too. At this point, they're also interfering with other people's enjoyment of the game. Other players are being 'attacked' too: when Lovint asks for an explanation and gets one, she meets it with rude comments. Many people have expressed frustration with that, and the general argument, in the forums. 

I also think that it's a bit of a contradiction. "You can't do this here, but you can do it in the game" is giving mixed signals. I actually would like to go away and do some reading on managing game harassment, but I have a suspicion that there is something not quite right about this approach. Off the top of my head, what you are saying can be taken to mean that you are not willing to protect victims of abuse, even if they instigated an argument. What I hear you saying, and you probably don't mean to, is that so long as Vivi is defending herself in the game from comments in the forums, her behaviour can go unchecked. At what point does repeatedly attacking someone in the game stop being play, and start being abuse?

I would especially like to go read comments and thoughts by women who blog about their gaming experiences. It shows that a lot of games and their developers do very little to support those who are attacked by abuse and brush off 'in game' harassment as 'just the way the game is, boys will be boys'. I think that what you've said shares a little with those sentiments where the harm is minimised and no one is actually taken seriously.

I do think this requires a more nuanced approach, because I have to say that Lovint's comments made me feel really angry and had I not had moderator status I'm not sure I would have been as polite in response. I'm not saying I would have done what Vivi has been doing, all I'm saying is that at this moment there is no incentive not to be abusive or to retaliate. And yes, repeatedly attacking a player in game can be considered abusive I think. - The key to this is consent. A player attacks another player that's fine, yes it's part of the game. A player attacks another player, and that second person says "please leave me alone", that should be respected. I think that is true of any activity we do and not just in games. The point at which you're told to stop by the person you're doing it to should be the point at which you stop. That keeps it respectful and fun for everyone, especially those who do not wish to play PvP as much as those who do.

Actually, I think that is what is bothering me, the issue of consent. Vivi was asked to stop by Lovint, and has ignored it. That's abusive - no matter who started what. Lovint should also stop if she was asked to by Vivi. Simple as that.

Those are my half-formed thoughts on this. I have not had a moment to read your reply properly, mostly scanned it. I would like to take some time to go find discussion on gaming behaviour/abuse and see what I can learn from it, before saying more than that or responding properly to your reply.

Yes, that rudenes are among the personal issues that needs to be treated by moderators. I was not sure how bad that rudeness to others as I am not a native speaker. I only felt she really crossed the line when started talking about "mentally retarded". Maybe she crossed it earlier, I don't know but I am open to discuss that one.

We need to define what is abuse first. To me - abuse means damage. The fact that vivia attacked lovintnt many times throughout the day is not damage. It cannot be measured in terms of in-game means and thus very subjective. Sure, it might make you uncomfortable if you see the list of reports of continuous attacks, but if that bothers you so much, this is probably not your type of game.

Ok, well we're obviously not using the same definition. When I mean abuse, I mean "bad or improper treatment; maltreatment, to treat in a harmful, injurious or offensive way, to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about". I'm not referring to in-game atttacks and use of military. I am referring to personal harassment, name calling, and the like. This can extend to in-game attacks if as I said, someone has asked it to stop and is not being listened to.

As an example I refer you to one site that shows abuse as I define it:

http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/

This is one woman who plays online games who posts the continual harassment of her by men playing the game. You can see there is a difference between what I mean and what this site shows, and what you mean.

I am not going to protect victims of abuse you implied because the abuse here it's only in their heads - depends on how seriously they take things that happen in the game. On the other hand I am going to protect vicitims from concrete DAMAGE by providing them means for protection - both in-game damage and personal damage in form of insults and that's what we should focus on - analyze to exctract objective and specific things, not juggle with emotions, because each player has their own, and we are not psychologists to dive there.

I'm going to stop you right there. See above my definition of abuse. See the website I linked to. This is what I'm referring to. If you really think name calling and all that is only "in their heads" then I can not and will not help you.
Whether you believe this is "just a game" or not, people do get upset, people do get harassed, people do get threatened with rape, death and all manner of things, and to say "it's just in your head" is exactly the type of minimisation and sweeping under the carpet that I referred to above. Because we were using a different definition I'm just going to assume all you meant by this was "someone using their military to attack another player as the game is designed and that is not abuse" then I would agree with you.

It's also why I want to read more about this topic. There is a balance that needs to take place between in-game battles and outright harassment, and I think it would be important to read about how other people tackle it and how they separate the in-game stuff from the abuse I refer to.

Sigh... look I'm still working and I'll come back properly later.

I will give my cents to it.

I don't know lovintnt but i don't like this person because of his communication everywhere. Im not a native speaker and he shoulkd better know to communicate in another way. Some different player talk to me in privat chat about his discuccions here. I wasn't sure how to handle this guy. I wasn't sure to ask berserker for a punishment (im not sure if we are able to do it, button is there but i won't try it)

As a player i thought if im able to do i would help vivian in everyway i could, i had helped her with reinforcments or attacking her targets too, because i think thats the way how to handle such players like lovintnt in a game.

At moment im sad to see vivian isn't part of this test anymore, with another hero she was a neighbour of me and i had never a problem. Beside this fighting isn't a problem, sure it can be dismotivating, but just because of fighting we couldn't punish live oder lover too. Thats part of the game in stage 1 we helped together to handle such attackers. Thats what player should do and not insult others. But often insulting is the only way for some players but the effect will everytime the same: more gameattacks. Vivia did nothing wrong.

Basically what you are saying then is that *you* decide what is harassment and what is not, and not the player. So if I am being constantly attacked in game and via 'words' in the forums, and I request assistance from Enkord, if I report it to you, you may well just decide "hey, I don't think it's that bad, go away". With all due respect that's exactly what I was talking about: you and other game developers not taking the issue seriously.

Frankly, I think there is room for agreement and compromise with both our approaches, but it won't happen because you yourself have no clear defined idea of what constitutes the line either. My link to that website shows that when someone has been *repeatedly harassed in game and in chat* and *reported the matter via official channels* the game developers *still didn't take it seriously*. Because most of the game developers had the attitude of "oh well, it's just part of the game". (http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/aftermath/)  At what point do you actually *listen* to the player's concerns? And by the way, one of the reasons I linked to that site (specifically the above post) is because the policy and reporting functionality of the game wasn't very good. The main point there being that you can't just simply have a policy, you need a proper procedure that is transparent for all players to use and understand and follow. (More detail here: http://gamersagainstbigotry.org/2013/08/conversation-with-jenny-haniver/) Also, it's not just 'harassment towards a person and not in-game' as you put it. This happens directly *within* the game, over chat. 

I suspect your answer is "well, she can block the player, or report them, or mute them over audio", which is true, but the point is she shouldn't have to. Especially because her website shows it happens every time she plays.

Another good article on this:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

       "Victims don’t have the luxury of separating themselves from the crime. When it comes to online threats, “one person is feeling the reality of the Internet very viscerally: the person who is being threatened,” says Jurgenson. “It’s a lot easier for the person who made the threat—and the person who is investigating the threat—to believe that what’s happening on the Internet isn’t real.” ... [ Danielle Citron, a University of Maryland law professor ] found that Internet harassment is routinely dismissed as “harmless locker-room talk,” perpetrators as “juvenile pranksters,” and victims as “overly sensitive complainers.”

The point is, you need some sort of policy that isn't hand-wavey and vague. You need a policy that is clear and easy to enforce, and not so much involved with what you personally feel about the situation but something that can be applied objectively where most problems fit nicely within "yes" or "no" to banning or warnings.

If someone posts comments in the forums, they are worth of banning by your standards. What if the player is peacefully expanding in the game, attacking no one, but then says the exact same words in the game chat? Is that worth banning? 

And exactly how do you distinguish the effects of 'words' from 'in-game attacks'? Which is more offensive? If someone repeatedly attacks me in-game every day over a period of a month, is that ok? What about over a year? Two years? At what point does that stop being 'part of the game' and start being abusive? Or does the amount of time not matter, hey if it's in-game, it's still ok? But calling someone mentally retarded is not ok and worth banning, even if they only do it once and then apologise for it?

And right now we're discussing one player vs another. What happens when a whole gang of people start repeatedly attacking a player even after they say they want to be left alone? Do you ban the instigator, or the whole lot, or none at all so long as they're not calling names in the forums?

To be honest, I've totally gone off playing now and I'm not really interested in contributing anymore. I understand there may be some language differences but I've gone from trying to have fun playing a game to having arguments over moderation. I was really looking forward to playing TT2 but not as a multiplayer moderator arguing over whether or not someone is going over a line or not.

It's a good game, or will be once it's finished. But I have no interest in defending rules that are arbitrary and ill-defined. I really don't think you've thought it through at all. And it's why I wanted to go away and read about it because I think there's more to this than just a gut feeling of "this is unfair, this is fair". 

Like I said: some people are coming just to play by themselves. If they want to be left alone, there is no way in the game to do that. If they repeatedly attack you, the only way to "defend" is to repeatedly attack the other person, at which point you are not playing by yourself and you're not minding your own business. You are either forced to play non-peacefully or you are forced to leave the game. That's not a game I wish to play.

This is all said by the way, from experience. I have been sent death threats. I have been harassed online; which quickly lead to offline harassment too by the same person. I even went to the police about it, it was that concerning and worrying. And the one thing I learned from that is that people are far too dismissive of death threats even, let alone any other kind of harassment. There was nothing for me to do except stop doing whatever it was the person didn't want me to do (comment on a website, though the admin had banned the person threatening me that didn't stop them from spamming the site anyway). That's one of the reasons why my username is what it is, and why I changed it. The person knows that name or the variation I used to use, and I am frightened that they'll find me again with a basic search. It's at the point where I don't ever comment online using my real name. To say it's "just words" is incredibly offensive because "just words" had me scared of even going to the police because the person knew roughly where my local police station was. "Just words" are not "just words", they are very much capable of frightening you and hurting you.

So basically if you're not interested in believing a victim or dismissing their reports, then you're basically also saying "don't bother playing this game, those people who have harassed you are playing and they get to rule". Harassment is usually about upping the ante and finding more and more ways to tell you to stop playing: in this case Lovint approached you about bans or 'bugs' in order to prevent Vivi from playing the game. Vivi in return tried to get Lovint to leave the game by continually attacking her. Both were trying to stop each other from playing. That's what harassment is, it's a chilling of speech or activity. 

Who is right and who is wrong in this situation? What Lovint started it, so that makes it ok? That's ludicrous. I call someone a name, the other person beats me up for it, so it makes it my fault that they decided to hit me? And that if I want to play this game, then I should have to put up with getting beaten up because I said something I shouldn't have and have been warned not to say it again?

Guess who won: Vivi deleted her town near me thanks to me voicing my opinion about it. Lovint kept her town, but put up a fireworks demanding she was staying just to annoy Vivi. Are either one still playing? Or have they disappeared, frustrated in the fact that they were both silenced by the other? 

And you know what, all it does is push both players away to other games they *can* play by themselves or with known friends in a safe environment. Do you really want to be part of a game that actively pushes people away?

Basically in this actual situation, all you've done is ensure that two players have stopped enjoying the game and have gone somewhere else with no opportunity to redeem themselves and probably no interest in ever coming back. Everyone else is now playing, but fearful of the argument and attempting to avoid it. No one has learned anything because the two people arguing have f*d off, and the people still playing wouldn't have been the ones to start the argument in the first place. Is that what your policy is supposed to do? I doubt you want to worry about the people worth banning or warning, but the point is that you warn them for a reason: to give them a chance to try again. You've not banned either one but they've still f*d off after a warning because they have no interest in playing anymore. Why not just not have a warning policy at all, given that it was useless this time around?

What about a policy about information sharing? Do you plan on telling people if they were the targets of harassment if it's reported to you? Do you tell people before you ban them? Do you refund their money if they get banned? ... There are just so many questions and issues that might come up and I don't think a simple sentence or two about behaving nicely is sufficient.

I was on the fence about Vivi when you mentioned them ramping it up in-game. Now I think they're both wrong. And if the game has a way of blocking players, that's great but I worry about what happens if that only applies to chat. Can I block a person from attacking me? From trading with me? From expending into my territory? Seriously, how far does the in-game blocking go?

I don't doubt that you have a serious wish to keep a balance between gaming and harassment and so do I. But I really question your interest in having a policy that isn't based on what you vaguely sense is right, rather than taking a look at current discussion in the gaming world about harassment policies and/or taking people's reports to you seriously. I want to find a fair compromise between supporting the victim and punishing the player and allowing everyone to play and have fun as much as possible. But at this point in time, I've lost my interest in the game itself. I have had a particularly bad few years and this is one of my few good things that I could distract myself with. I don't have the time or energy for this really and maybe I'll come back one day when the game is closer to finished.

More reading:
http://au.ign.com/articles/2010/01/13/homophobia-and-harassment-in-the-online-gaming-age
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/codeofconduct - "Just because you’re online doesn’t mean you should be a jerk."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/good-riddance-halo-4-creators-threaten-permabans-for-sexist-comments/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/08/03/sexual-harassment-in-videogame-culture/2/

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/15/4622252/plague-of-game-dev-harassment-erodes-industry-spurs-support-groups

http://gamersagainstbigotry.org/2013/06/communication-a-reflection-on-the-microsoft-press-conference/

http://adainitiative.org/2014/01/guest-post-conference-codes-of-conduct-as-seen-from-your-world-and-mine/

By the way, Xbox doesn't determine between in-gaming attacks or anything. It just says "report someone if they're obnoxious" and "don't retaliate". Although I'm not one to say "if it's good enough for them...", I think it's worthwhile looking at and referencing other gaming codes of conduct especially as I know nothing about them myself. I think they go over the top in some areas, but note for the most part they DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE GAME AND THE CHAT/FORUMS. They simply say 'harassment', not harassment over here, or harassment over there.

And that having an actual terms of service for users to follow ensures that gamers don't feel like they're being banned or warned arbitrarily by you or moderators at whim. You don't rely on reports from players so much as you get the report, then investigate, then ban based on a TOS violation; and should there be an appeals process? Vivi didn't take me seriously for a reason: I mentioned 'moderator' and she acted like I'd just appointed myself instead of being asked to do it. (Oh yes, THAT'S why I wanted a moderator icon...)

I recognise you don't have the staff or funds of Xbox, but having a decent TOS is a good start.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/08/03/sexual-harassment-in-videogames-how-to-fix-the-problem/

Note the above link suggests players ask harassers to stop harassing them. Under your (current/future) system, that wouldn't work because you give players the ok to continue. Indeed, when I said "not cool" to Vivi, I got it thrown back in my face by her and you. If Lovint reports Vivi's behaviour, you just shrug your shoulders and say "just a game", but if Lovint is reported by Vivi for her behaviour you say "attack, attack". Your rules are hypocritical and arbitrary depending on the behaviour, when actually both sets of behaviour is wrong.

All of the above, by the way, was found in a matter of an hour or so of searching. So it's not like you can't find this discussion yourself and learn from it, instead of relying on two volunteer moderators to give you (possibly uninformed) suggestions. I'm biased yes, but at least I'm attempting to look objectively for suggestions on good policies for gaming.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

Oh my God whats happen here what is the core and the reason of this discussion? Many many words here to read and hard to understand for me. 

Let me repeat. Here vivian attack lovintnt. Lovintnt starts a discussion with vivian in his "well know style" of communication. Now vivian decide to attack more and more and lovintnt get angry and talk about harrasment based on gamefeatures. Now you talk to vivian as a mod and said he should stop attacking? Right?

Lets transcribe same behavior to the board game "Don't get angry" also known as "Sorry"or "Trouble". Some player, play this game. Lovintnt and Vivian sit on same table. Vivian is able to beat lovintnt different times and send his pieces back to the start. lovintnt get angry and start some verbal offence. Now you said Vivian shouldn't kick out lovintnt's pieces anymore because lovintnt just want roll his dice and play a bit.

I think this was a wrong handling because its part of the game to kick out some pieces of others, even if he get angry.

And now you compare gamefeatures like attacks with verbal provocation? I don't understand what the goal of this discussion should be, because you can't compare this.

Verbal provocations are not allowed, certainly sexual harassment. But the topic was another issue.