Angeldust

YouTube Twitch Facebook Instagram Discord Twitter
Steam (Windows, macOS, Linux) Windows iTunes App Store

RFC: on my moderation

in English in Forums





Bericht 1–10 van 27

1 2 3 » Volgende


OP

door

Firefly

18 dagen geleden


Past week several events transpired that make me question how to approach my moderation in Angeldust. I want to zoom in on two incidents, starting with the one I explained on yesterday's livestream, linked here: https://www.youtube.com/live/fL1bUR1WqRY?feature=shared&t=94 One (level 50+) player 'A' used a social engineering attack to get the account password from another (level 50+) player 'B'. Then A signed in to the game with player B's account and played several game sessions with it. A also signed in to the website as B, gaining access to their private messages. I think this is intolerable, unacceptable and an instant, permanent ban of player A's account. I heard rumors that A is a kid so the ban is postponed until their next misstep to allow them to mend their ways. Question 1: is this acceptable moderation on my part? Next up is my decision to treat player B as a victim. I have indications that they showed great reluctance before giving in to the social attack. It was a bad idea to ultimately share their account password, but we all have a breaking point under pressure. Question 2: is this acceptable moderation on my part? The second incident is that a (level 25+) player 'C' demolished parts of the Build Together Town Easter egg build area during the end of the build competition. @SodaMeow runs a tight ship with build permissions, so this isn't a random player coming in and removing blocks. It's a higher level player that should know better. Question 3: what moderation should I apply to this player C? If they publicly come clean about it in this topic, should they get lighter punishment? Then during the livestream another (level 25+) player 'D' decided to partially demolish an Easter egg right in front of my face while I was looking at it: https://www.youtube.com/live/fL1bUR1WqRY?feature=shared&t=980 Question 4: what moderation should I apply to this player D? If they publicly come clean about it in this topic, should they get lighter punishment? Thanks in advance for your feedback and comments. Feel free to raise other questions or issues with my moderation. Let's synchronize our expectations and make sure we're on the same page. I'm trying to learn and improve here.


# 2

door

obi-

18 dagen geleden


BAN THEM ALL ABCD ----- AB: the way you handled it seems reasonable. CD: revoke perms and reveal their names.


# 3

door

Hummm

18 dagen geleden


I will tread lightly here since these are my opinions, even thought I try to be fair and even headed in all things. A1. Independent of age, (if you're old enough to play, you're old enough to follow the TOS) A perma-ban on the first offense seems harsh, and leaves no room for: forgiveness, grace, learning, community. All admirable things. A2. yes A3. This is going to sound harsh to the "victim": there was no violation of the TOS. If you give build perms, you have given destroy perms too. A4. again, no TOS violation. Both A3 and A4 are major distractors to community, trust and relationships. The only thing worst than unsolicited modifications to a build is unsolicited land claims. Sadly, also not against the TOS. It would be generous if the perpetrator was positively identified so that the claim owner could justly remove perms.


# 4

door

Kamikaze Justice

18 dagen geleden


The obvious lesson here is... people shouldn't share their passwords with anyone. Player 'B' has been given this chance to learn a lesson not to give away his password before something worse happens to him in the real world, like having thousand$ of dollar$ withdrawn from his bank account, etc.. If Player 'B' is an innocent, but gullible person, he needs to create new passwords on every account in his life because chances are, it's the same password, and it must be assumed that a (nefarious?) person like Player 'A' will take advantage of it again. It's how identities are stolen, and lives are ruined. I'm probably missing relevant information, so I won't play judge and jury. I will leave that in FF's capable hands.


# 5

door

Kamikaze Justice

18 dagen geleden


On the second video (https://www.youtube.com/live/fL1bUR1WqRY?feature=shared&t=980), apart from the mentioned problem, I see a different possible problem. If the symbol on the egg is a Nazi symbol, or variant of it, the egg should be destroyed.


# 6

door

ShinjouChYT

18 dagen geleden


You forgot abt this ''Forgive that player and give them another chance''


# 7

door

ritpop

18 dagen geleden


i think hummm is ritgh in everything he said.


# 8

door

Zyber

18 dagen geleden


Wow. I have zero tolerance for this crap. I can't give you my thoughts, I am too polite. So I will say this. Remind people, new players especially, NEVER give that information away. Maybe send something as a reminder every now and then to players. While I feel all people deserve a second chance, this is insane!!! And Thank You FF. I have never seen a dev actually care about the community as you do. It use to be like that once upon a time, rare these days. It is nice to have a close gaming community with a dev who cares and a community watching out for each other.


# 9

door

Firefly

17 dagen geleden


Thanks for some great feedback so far. I might not agree fully with everything said so far, but that's exactly what I wanted—a learning opportunity and reading about alternate viewpoints. Here's my attempt to dig deeper into some topics that were brought up. @Hummm, on player A: I have major ethical problems with the idea that I have to happily tolerate anyone's first offense or infraction. I believe there is a certain threshold in behavior that shouldn't be tolerated at all, which is where 'zero tolerance' comes from. Pressuring players into revealing their password is one for me. Willingly signing in as another player is one for me. These actions signal to me that someone does not share the core values of respect and empathy that I want in my game's community. I can imagine even worse things that players can do that would be even further over my 'zero tolerance' threshold. Don't want to publicly inspire players to go for these, so I can share these in private if you think it might lead to an interesting further public exploration of our viewpoints. @Hummm, on player C/D: Vandalizing builds has always been against the Terms of Use, as Angeldust was 'open build' everywhere initially. The ToU lists under 'Fair play': "[You agree to] not excessively modify buildings created by players". Legally you can argue what 'excessively modifying' is, so we need defer to the judge. To me as the judge it's clear that vandalizing a build like what I saw on stream totally falls under 'excessively modifying a building by players' and can thus be grounds for sanctions. Do you agree with this? There's also the curious aspect of indirection to the case we're discussing here. Player D removed blocks in a build by @amir games live by having build permissions on a land claim of @Thyme that is effectively moderated by @(GM) SodaMeow which is the GM account of @SodaMeow who created a community building space in a video game by @Firefly. That's six accounts involved in the removal of blocks. So do we need in-land-claim block-claims so we can assign unique build permissions for each individual block coordinate to a player? Then we've successfully replicated the land claim griefing problem on a smaller scale. Which segues into the following: it's interesting to note that I also included this paragraph in the Terms of Use: "You agree to not intentionally ruin the game experience of other players in any other way not listed above. Don't do to players and buildings what you would not want to be done to you and your own buildings." That sounds like an easy way out of the ancient land claim griefing conundrum. I am terrified to open this box of Pandora. Must we? @Kamikaze Justice: I noticed the swastika-inspired shape during the livestream. I respect that this symbol was—and is—used for good in other cultures, and I don't want to take that form of expression away. Quoth Bono: "This is a song [Helter Skelter] that Charles Manson stole from The Beatles. We're stealing it back."


# 10

door

Kamikaze Justice

17 dagen geleden


FF... you can believe what you want, but the Swastika on the egg is rotated 45 degrees, which is the design on the Nazi badges, emblems, and their Nazi flags. The Buddhists, Hindus, Indians, etc., don't have their Swastikas rotated 45 degrees. With the hate against Jews on the rise, I'm not surprised that this Swastika is being accepted into your game. Let's spread the hate against the Jews... right? If the Swastika is being stolen back all the way, don't have the Swastika rotated 45 degrees. As of right not, that Swastika is a Nazi Swastika... symbol of hate and Nazi power. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Parteiadler_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_%281933–1945%29.svg/360px-Parteiadler_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_%281933–1945%29.svg.png https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/az4jut/picture29557969/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/Germany-Flags https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/8e28cf37d48ed76e5d01ec6b740461c8?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=862&cropW=1296&xPos=0&yPos=3&width=862&height=575


Bericht 1–10 van 27

1 2 3 » Volgende