Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Laerise [PIE]]

Right, since this part of the discussion was (sensibly) moderated out of Ashars thread I'd like to bring it up in a more easily controlled environment.

What is the problem with banning for IC reasons?

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

It wasn't moderated out of the thread, and has been mentioned repeatedly there after certain posts were culled out.

Feel free to continue the discussion in the thread in question if you like, I certainly don't have a problem with it. It might even be best, considering the points made in the thread in question were likely more poignant than any that will be raised now that there's been significant anchor bias.

In my experience, asking people what's wrong with a given thing tends to produce polarized replies, rather than those optimized for drawing truthful deductions. Anything can be defended or reviled quite easily - making useful observations is rather different. It would be more useful to ask what the effects of the activity in question are.

[Matariki Rain]

I'm curious as well. Banning someone IC for IC reasons seems the normal and understandable way of doing it.

[Matariki Rain]

Finally caught up with the Catacombed post from Senn. (I dip into Backstage rather than consuming it in its entirety.)

Yes, occasionally you do ban someone for being disruptive, and that's kind of an OOC thing. And it tends to cause angst, at least in the circles I move in, because IC effects should have IC causes.

But setting your security -- VR or meatspace -- so it lets in only the people you want, or excludes the people you don't want, seems totally normal and IC.

[Major JSilva]

When I used to moderate SYNE public the only reason we banned someone ICly you could say is for being a Sansha supporter or providing false information or intel. This was more during the Live Events when we could only guess where they were occuring not so much up towards the end when the actual actos started joining the channel to alert us.

Those were the only IC reasons I could think of, apart from that people got banned for the usual asshatery, spaming, scamming, being dum

[Inara Subaka]

I'm curious as well. Banning someone IC for IC reasons seems the normal and understandable way of doing it.

I'm agreeing with Matariki here, it seems rather.... normal and level headed.

For example, when I was in PRETA a certain Sansha/cyborg-esque character came into the Skyhook and started making a fuss. When they wouldn't behave and follow the rules (including becoming violent), they were tazed, dragged out the door, and booted from channel. IIRC, a 'form letter' of some sorts, explaining the problem and possible solutions.

Ethan has banned people from the Gate for IC reasons and no one throws a fit about that. Sometimes on an individual basis, and occasionally blanket bans.

It's a natural reaction in this type of social 'community' (the capsuleers community, not the player community); if you don't agree/like/etc.. someone, you a)avoid them like the plague and b)keep them away if you have the ability (via banhammer™).

[Laerise [PIE]]

Yeah, pretty much.

I was just wondering what the heck the fuss was about it, because some people seem to get mortally offended about it, at least on the forums.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Banning individuals you don't have a problem with on a player level is one thing, though it should likely be done sparingly if at all. If you don't have an out of character problem with them, why are you banning them? Preventatively? Punitively? Then you have a player problem and you're misleading yourself about your thought process, or you have a preference that winds up giving you less than you could otherwise get.

Banning factions you don't have a problem with on a player level is nonsense. It doesn't happen because the individuals that break the mold that a given faction likes to occupy and come by are probably there to give you roleplay you wouldn't otherwise get, with which you should not have a problem, or to give you crap as a player, with which you should.

Public channels are meant to be just that.

A brief example - people used to induce consequences on themselves for acting improperly in restricted settings, going as far as literally throwing themselves out of places by narrating the NPC staff throwing them out.

When's the last time you saw that?

[Casiella]

There's a difference between a totally public channel, say, and one for an express purpose for a relatively limited audience. And that goes even further when the channel is intended to represent a physical location, where the management may well have a "persona non grata" list.

I may well like a player, but that doesn't directly imply that her character that shoots at mine would be welcomed into my salon where we discuss the intricacies of the latest developments on the front.

[Mizhara]

Like I said in the other thread, there's nothing wrong with banning for IC reasons, even if there's not a single OoC reason for it. The mechanics are simple enough. The security are told to prevent the people in question access to the place and voila. A game mechanic is used with IC means and IC reasons.

In places that are meant to be hangouts for a certain faction or people aligned to said factions without the need to deal with enemies and hostiles during said relaxation time I see far less reason and logic in not banning the IC enemies.

[Lyn Farel]

As I said somewhere else, I do not see the real point in banning someone of the channel (the player) if the character has a good reason to be banned IC. Yes ofc, the character is banned from the place, but why also removing the player's accesses to the channel (unless he has been himself a jerk, but that would be for OOC reasons) ?

[Mizhara]

Why would they need access to the channel? Sure, lurking is so much fun, but when they're barred from entry it's not exactly required? Besides, it removes the temptation, the opportunity and the potential for developing such douche moves as powerplaying yourself past security and so on.

Honestly, I don't see the problem here. Why should being banned for IC reasons be a problem?

[Orthic]

Definitely an issue that I'm torn on.

On the one hand, it makes perfect sense that a place would have sufficient security to completely bar access to certain individuals. For non-public locations, like the back rooms of a corp hang-out, this makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, it makes for some great RP when people show up where they aren't wanted. I am certainly not going to argue if someone I really don't like (IC) shows up at my place. I now have the perfect excuse to godmode them to hell and back - it's my place, it's my over the top security, traps, robots of doom, etc. They walked into the trap, they can deal with it, and I’m always up for a good fight.

For example, someone showing up in the Gate who has been IC banned is likely to get shot (reputedly, I’ve not seen it happen though I guess I’ve heard about it). On the other hand, someone showing up at the Keep seems like they’re merely going to be shown the door – with the exception of Sani Sabik folks, who may actually get to have fun being assaulted and such.

The problem then with this is in metagaming. Or, for a more commonly used term, lurking. I personally would love to see it made a rule that you can only be in an IC channel if your character is physically there. There really isn’t any way that lurking isn’t metagaming, but oh well. You see conversations happening that you shouldn’t know about IC, you choose whether or not to show up somewhere based on who’s there – again, info you don’t have IC. Rather than actually having to communicate – maybe sending messages saying “hey, I’m going to the keep, want to swing by?” – people just show up wherever and then wait to see who decides to join them.

So, for example, if I’ve got a hang-out for me and my friends, and I want to be able to talk openly with them, I don’t want my enemies lurking in the channel listening. But if they can’t join the channel until they are actually present, then it makes perfect sense for them to hear anything that’s said after they enter – and then everyone is going to notice them and clam up.

In our recent example, (not to continue abusing Seri, he just happened to illustrate it perfectly) Seri didn’t really have an IC reason to show up at the Keep. He just happened to be lurking in the channel, saw the toasters, and arrived for the express purpose of noticing them and making a stink. Now, if someone actually at the party had sent him a message saying “haha the toasters got invited and you didn’t lol” and then he had shown up to see for himself and make a stink, sure. But in this case, it was an IC action motivated by knowledge that shouldn’t have been available IC. Again, we’ve probably all done this and I don’t want to harp on Seri for it, I just want to point out the downside to all the lurking we do. There isn’t a way to describe it other than metagaming, and the only real justifications for it boil down to “metagaming is more fun/convenient.”

… what was I talking about again?

[Casiella]

I personally don't like to fisk somebody's response, so perhaps I can best illustrate with an entirely-hypothetical example.

Assume that Casiella-c is chilling in a bar that Myrhial-c owns out in Molden Heath lowsec or even Curse. We're having drinks and ogling the hot waiters or whatever. Now we get word that Arkady Sadik-[/c] wants to come have a chat. (Unlikely but, as noted, this is all pretty hypothetical.)

Are we likely to (a) say "come on in bro, pull up a chair!" and wait until he tries to tear things up, or (b) discreetly inform the local security staff that he is NOT permitted to enter, particularly if he has a bunch of Republic Justice goons in tow.

I don't think that would be an entirely unreasonable approach, in my view, and I feel confident (without speaking for him) that Arkady-p would tend to agree.

Likewise, if I-RED and friends have a "happy hour" to socialize, make some business deals, and talk about how terrible it is that Seriphyn-c is still running around making trouble for them, I expect that the staff isn't going to let him in.

Now, I suppose one could interpret some of this as godmoding. That's not entirely unreasonable, either, but I personally think that's a price to be paid in this sort of case.

[Isobel Mitar]

Personally, I do not see why banning somebody for purely IC reasons from an IC channel would generally be a problem, particularly if said channel is a comm channel (as opposed to representing a physical location).

I would find it odd if banning people from channels was impossible 20k years in the future. And given the kind of characters flying around in Eve, I can well imagine a character wanting to ban some other character.