New Server Rule - No Blacklisting in Parties of 3 or More
Mar 20, 2014 5:54:52 GMT
Twilight Semner and Salek like this
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 20, 2014 5:54:52 GMT
Current formulation of the rule:
Players in groups of 3 characters or more may not deny a guilded player a spot on a run if:
1: There are fewer than 10 human players involved in the party. Bots must be kicked to allow human players a spot; and
2: The player asking to join has all the bare requirements to do the run, including required level and tags (but not including gear).
The purpose of this rule is to prevent a group of players from exercising monopolistic control over runs, and to foster increased cooperation in the community.
The rule will be enforced in that light, with an eye to reasonable expectations. If the player so included is disruptive to the run, players on that run should call a DM to mediate the situation.
Banning is the potential penalty for violation of this rule, but we do not ban players lightly. We will need to see convincing evidence of both exclusion (screenshots will suffice) and a pattern of behavior. We will discuss the situation with the parties involved before any final decision is made, and give them an opportunity to explain and to rectify the situation if necessary.
//////
We are introducing a new server rule. In the past, we have kept the number of rules dealing with player treatment of other players small in number and limited to disruptive behavior, such as repeated griefing, loot logging and other behaviors that have a strong disruptive affect on the player environment. The ideal of player freedom, and especially freedom of association, has been protected even in instances where player conflict has caused negative effects on the player base. Unfortunately, with a smaller player population over all time zones, player conflict, bullying, blacklisting and other unsavory behaviors are having a larger disruptive affect on the player base as a whole.
Because of the centrality of party play on HG, blacklisting is especially damaging in a way that is unique to Higher Ground, as opposed to other MMO-style games. On most days, the server has the player base to support 2-3 Hells and higher runs at once. A player who finds himself/herself black listed because of the feelings of a small number of well-established players may literally not be able to function beyond the most basic of legendary-level runs. There is a place for negative feedback towards obnoxious player behavior. But, increasingly, black listing a reaction to petty disputes and the posting of useful feedback, rather than obnoxious behavior. Black listing of this kind is short-sighted and is often a reaction to a limited range of behaviors: a mistake during a run, a minor lapse in communication, or some other behavior more indicative of inexperience than malign intent. We have even had players blacklisted for the simple act of being dutiful and reporting possible server exploits or balance issues.
Blacklisting blocks new inexperienced players from progressing through areas and gaining tags. This can lead to players deciding to leave the server when they find they can no longer progress because a key player that begins or participates in a lot of runs will not allow them to join. This is detrimental to the server as a whole, as the rest of the server loses party members, and other runs cannot start due to lack of players - players who could have otherwise been our future veteran players. In cases where a player is truly disruptive and obnoxious, blacklisting also circumvents DM action, which may often be more appropriate and, in some cases, can be corrective to players exhibiting unwanted behaviors.
A more deleterious effect of blacklisting behavior with a small server population is that the player base is held hostage to the behaviors of a few players. It takes real strength of character to stand up to a player who is abusing their influence by using black listing behavior, but that player themselves risks being black-listed. This manifests itself in well-established and loyal players’ frustration and premature retirement, as such players are continually faced with the frustration and feelings of powerlessness in light of an unjust situation. It is simply not fair to place the burden of policing disruptive blacklisting behavior on the player base. It is difficult for individual players to stand up to this kind of behavior since they would then have to create their own parties without the blacklisting individual(s), which is difficult to do with a relatively low number of players and with players being split into many different types of runs, levels etc. In economic terms, it’s what’s known as a collective action problem.
It is not in our best interest as a community to let a few players continue to degrade our player base with their short-sighted behavior. We know from past experience, when the server is given a “break” from such players, that run creation and player cooperation flourish in their absence.
Because of these problems, we will be asking groups of three or more to allow anyone that is able (by level, tags etc.) to join a party with them. Groups of two or less are specifically excepted – if you want to dual box or partner up with someone on your own, that is still okay. This is a compromise between the community’s newly established right to be free from blacklisting, and the free association we have always defended in the past – you are free to exclude whomever you like, with up to one other player, but once a third joins you should be allowing others to co-operate and gain experience with you.
This rule does not supersede other rules, like those against leeching xp without permission. Rather, it will be enforced in light of them, using what’s known in the law as a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test. We will be enforcing this rule, similarly to other rules against player behavior (PK, etc.): with screenshots and common sense.
On a more personal note, this is something I’m doing not because I want to, but because a few disruptive players are forcing my hand. The situation has grown so absurd that even some of the players engaging in blacklisting are now afraid to post advocating nerfs, however appropriate such nerfs may be. What it boils down to, ladies and gents, is that I would rather lose the blacklisters than the good players they’re costing us. If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to vote with your feet. If we become a called-run server only, so be it. My time is increasingly scarce and precious, and I’m not going to spend it catering to a small number of players lording it over the rest of the playerbase.
I’m leaving this thread open to comments, much as an administrative agency does whenever they propose a new rule. If you can think of ways to clarify or improve this new policy, I’m all ears. Like I said, I don’t particularly like doing this; I just don’t see a better alternative. If you post criticizing the new rule, however, I ask that you follow the first rule of critical theory - you must propose a better alternative, instead of just complaining.
Thanks for reading.
Funky
Players in groups of 3 characters or more may not deny a guilded player a spot on a run if:
1: There are fewer than 10 human players involved in the party. Bots must be kicked to allow human players a spot; and
2: The player asking to join has all the bare requirements to do the run, including required level and tags (but not including gear).
The purpose of this rule is to prevent a group of players from exercising monopolistic control over runs, and to foster increased cooperation in the community.
The rule will be enforced in that light, with an eye to reasonable expectations. If the player so included is disruptive to the run, players on that run should call a DM to mediate the situation.
Banning is the potential penalty for violation of this rule, but we do not ban players lightly. We will need to see convincing evidence of both exclusion (screenshots will suffice) and a pattern of behavior. We will discuss the situation with the parties involved before any final decision is made, and give them an opportunity to explain and to rectify the situation if necessary.
//////
We are introducing a new server rule. In the past, we have kept the number of rules dealing with player treatment of other players small in number and limited to disruptive behavior, such as repeated griefing, loot logging and other behaviors that have a strong disruptive affect on the player environment. The ideal of player freedom, and especially freedom of association, has been protected even in instances where player conflict has caused negative effects on the player base. Unfortunately, with a smaller player population over all time zones, player conflict, bullying, blacklisting and other unsavory behaviors are having a larger disruptive affect on the player base as a whole.
Because of the centrality of party play on HG, blacklisting is especially damaging in a way that is unique to Higher Ground, as opposed to other MMO-style games. On most days, the server has the player base to support 2-3 Hells and higher runs at once. A player who finds himself/herself black listed because of the feelings of a small number of well-established players may literally not be able to function beyond the most basic of legendary-level runs. There is a place for negative feedback towards obnoxious player behavior. But, increasingly, black listing a reaction to petty disputes and the posting of useful feedback, rather than obnoxious behavior. Black listing of this kind is short-sighted and is often a reaction to a limited range of behaviors: a mistake during a run, a minor lapse in communication, or some other behavior more indicative of inexperience than malign intent. We have even had players blacklisted for the simple act of being dutiful and reporting possible server exploits or balance issues.
Blacklisting blocks new inexperienced players from progressing through areas and gaining tags. This can lead to players deciding to leave the server when they find they can no longer progress because a key player that begins or participates in a lot of runs will not allow them to join. This is detrimental to the server as a whole, as the rest of the server loses party members, and other runs cannot start due to lack of players - players who could have otherwise been our future veteran players. In cases where a player is truly disruptive and obnoxious, blacklisting also circumvents DM action, which may often be more appropriate and, in some cases, can be corrective to players exhibiting unwanted behaviors.
A more deleterious effect of blacklisting behavior with a small server population is that the player base is held hostage to the behaviors of a few players. It takes real strength of character to stand up to a player who is abusing their influence by using black listing behavior, but that player themselves risks being black-listed. This manifests itself in well-established and loyal players’ frustration and premature retirement, as such players are continually faced with the frustration and feelings of powerlessness in light of an unjust situation. It is simply not fair to place the burden of policing disruptive blacklisting behavior on the player base. It is difficult for individual players to stand up to this kind of behavior since they would then have to create their own parties without the blacklisting individual(s), which is difficult to do with a relatively low number of players and with players being split into many different types of runs, levels etc. In economic terms, it’s what’s known as a collective action problem.
It is not in our best interest as a community to let a few players continue to degrade our player base with their short-sighted behavior. We know from past experience, when the server is given a “break” from such players, that run creation and player cooperation flourish in their absence.
Because of these problems, we will be asking groups of three or more to allow anyone that is able (by level, tags etc.) to join a party with them. Groups of two or less are specifically excepted – if you want to dual box or partner up with someone on your own, that is still okay. This is a compromise between the community’s newly established right to be free from blacklisting, and the free association we have always defended in the past – you are free to exclude whomever you like, with up to one other player, but once a third joins you should be allowing others to co-operate and gain experience with you.
This rule does not supersede other rules, like those against leeching xp without permission. Rather, it will be enforced in light of them, using what’s known in the law as a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test. We will be enforcing this rule, similarly to other rules against player behavior (PK, etc.): with screenshots and common sense.
On a more personal note, this is something I’m doing not because I want to, but because a few disruptive players are forcing my hand. The situation has grown so absurd that even some of the players engaging in blacklisting are now afraid to post advocating nerfs, however appropriate such nerfs may be. What it boils down to, ladies and gents, is that I would rather lose the blacklisters than the good players they’re costing us. If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to vote with your feet. If we become a called-run server only, so be it. My time is increasingly scarce and precious, and I’m not going to spend it catering to a small number of players lording it over the rest of the playerbase.
I’m leaving this thread open to comments, much as an administrative agency does whenever they propose a new rule. If you can think of ways to clarify or improve this new policy, I’m all ears. Like I said, I don’t particularly like doing this; I just don’t see a better alternative. If you post criticizing the new rule, however, I ask that you follow the first rule of critical theory - you must propose a better alternative, instead of just complaining.
Thanks for reading.
Funky