wankgate | 250: this is the death wankgate has always deserved

250: this is the death wankgate has always deserved

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Inspired by the above conversation: what do you think is the best policy for the common DWRP modding situation where a player comes to you with a complaint supported by private evidence (eg caps from a private Plurk or Discord conversation) but the player does not want the person they're complaining about to know they went to the mods?

Do you:
- Keep the person's identity and therefore the specific evidence confidential, but describe the situation to the accused and get their take;
- Take action based exclusively on the caps, the person accused just gets to hear the final decision;
- Tell the complainant you can't protect their identity, tell the accused exactly what went down and get their specific response;
- Something else?

I think it's a mix, tbh. I've seen enough doctored screencaps and groups ganging up on people to know that 'he said/she said' isn't always the best way to go. If someone is bothered enough to point a finger and insist that player B not be allowed to play in a game that isn't player A's, but the mod's, then player A needs to be able to suck it up and admit it's their complaint. They have every right to ban/block player B if they have issues, and I'm not saying that they automatically are in the wrong. But if they feel that strongly about being in the same game and insist on continuing to app while wanting B not to be allowed in the game, then they should be able to say 'B knows what they did and here's proof of it, so I'd like to not have to deal with them in here, thank you'. If B really is a piece of shit, then B can go fuck themselves and jabber on and have either doctored deets that are called out by A's, or they can prove that A is the one full of shit. But to make unilateral decisions based on one person without actually being willing to give the other person a chance to rebut it is an intentional move.

It's the mods game in the end and they can do what they want, but if they just kick/ban willy nilly without actually hearing both sides, that's going to garner a reputation all its own. If they're unsure, then that's when they can call in a second mod/uninvolved party to go over things if they need help deciding, but I personally just think it's bad form to allow one person to unilaterally decide that their fun means more than anyone else's and they can request a ban on someone just for eating crackers in their space. (This is excluding known wankers with histories that are already on thin ice. If it's two relatively unknown parties or someone that I've never heard of myself, I'd be willing to listen to both sides. But if Snow or Jamie or G was involved, I'd probably be more inclined to ban on the request and not dig for serious facts. In those cases, it would give me a publically valid reason other than 'I don't like these people and don't want them in my game', which some people take in a really bad way. I'm pretty pro the fact that mods should be able to blanket ban people they personally don't get along with/don't like in their own damn game)

For me it really depends on the desired outcome, too.

I've rarely seen situations where the player who complained was actually pushing for a ban. More often it's been "I want them to stop doing this thing" or "I want them to not play with me ever," and unless the behavior is way over the top a strike or opt-out is what I'm looking at as a mod.

Obviously opt-outs can't be kept private.

I would always talk to a current player in my game first before I gave them any consequence. Problem players will generally respond to criticism in ways that make the decision to kick them very easy, and players doing problematic things need to be given a very clear explanation of what the problem is and have the chance to defend themselves. Even if they have a history, they deserve to be heard if they're already in your game!

Apps from someone who's being complained about by a current player who wants them banned, I would be more open to declining with a "don't reapp" if the evidence is sufficiently damning. Current player comfort trumps new players' right to app.

Apps where one new player is complaining about the other... ehhh. I don't know either of them, I'd want to talk to both of them and check their existing rep (with my trusted friends, for preference, anoncomms as an inferior second choice because people with grudges lie on here quite frequently.)

"Problem players will generally respond to criticism in ways that make the decision to kick them very easy"

this is the truest thing. someone who can take criticism or questions about their behavior calmly and rationally is almost definitely not going to be a real problem in the game. if they fly off the handle... then the strike/ban stops being about the original complaint and starts being about how they reacted directly to a mod with no need for anyone's "side" of the story to be a question.

this is part of why I think getting both sides matters a lot. many times a person will complain and share only one side and if you get both sides and then bring it back to them they'll fly off the handle.

in my experience if someone responds to a ban quietly and politely there's a chance you've managed to let in the person who would fly off the handle instead of keeping one out. many players who aren't problem players will respect moderator rulings even if they don't really get them and will just look elsewhere for rp without a fight.

depends on how much i want to ban the person being complained about tbh. if it's someone who's been playing chicken with the rules, been kind of a dick but not enough to justify a ban, etc, then i'm not going to investigate a report too closely

To some degree it depends on what the accusation is and how extensive/convincing the evidence, but for most situations my response would be that I'm not comfortable making a modding decision with only one side of the story, so if they want to pursue the complaint I am not going to promise to keep their info confidential. The phrase "due process" feels way overblown for modding internet barbie smashing games, but that's really the best term I have. If I'm going to ban someone for behavior that I wasn't present for, I want to make sure I have as full an understanding of the situation as possible and have given the accused person a chance to defend themselves. And frankly, the whimpering anxiety chihuahuas of dwrp have collectively fantasized a really ridiculous fear of the consequences of being known to have gone to the mods. Gsai/Jess/whoever the flavor of the day is ain't gonna get you fired from your job or arrested by the cops, you babies.

Personally I'd want to be able to speak to both sides about the issue as well as third parties. I've moderated a lot as an assistant and occasionally as a primary and in my experience the "this person was a massive wanker to them for no reason undeserved" situations are far less common than "these two people simply do not get along and should avoid tagging one another because they both fucked up but have no history of this being a regular thing" situations.

We've all had bad days. Sometimes those bad days happen irl, sometimes online. If there's anyone alive who has never in their life snapped at someone or chosen to block someone or found they don't mesh with this one player, I'd be surprised.

I'd rather judge people based on patterns of behavior. Obviously if they're throwing out death threats or slurs that's an extreme, but there's nuance to be had in terms of arguments online.

I've had players who had serious issues going on irl that made them snap at someone from the stress. Family dying, medical diagnoses they received, that sort of thing. They behaved perfectly except that one time they were less than perfect and told someone to leave them alone or whatever. I've had players who just couldn't click with other players who didn't really do anything other than be a little too enthusiastic or whatever and not pick up on passive hints.

And I've seen so many reports that only include one moment or interactions with one person. Usually getting more information gives you a fuller picture and I always advocate for doing so. So, I'd always inform any players bringing issues to me that I would need to investigate it and that means talking to the person they're complaining about, among other things.

I'd hope they'd understand this means any complaints about them would give them the same chance to explain and share any further information and me being thorough about it.

anon that said "i wouldn't have given a canned response" here

this depends on the evidence given. i'll always tell the other person why they're getting banned/a strike/warning/whatever. that's out of the question, because like people above said, i need to hear both sides of the issues, i need to cover my ass, and i want everyone to understand what it's allowed or not to do in my game. so if the conversation is one on one, i'll say that i can't protect their identity. however if the private conversation was among three or more people, then yeah, i won't say who shared it with me, i can just reference the conversation itself.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

250: this is the death wankgate has always deserved

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD

Re: YOU BE THE MOD