Community Concern

[Sniblet]

This is about UponASeaOfStars.

It’s also about me.

I feel like the forum side of Aurora is kind of toxic? I’m certainly not talking about “post screenshots that make you go hmm,” but I am talking about my own ban appeal process for being a serial ERPer, UASOS’s ban appeal process for being a serial power gamer, the ridiculous explosion that was the Sign Reader Gloves thread, and last and least my experience with applying for a Skrell whitelist.

What I see in common with all of these is that people don’t really seem to want to listen to each other, ever, and those with the power to lock threads and end conversations tend to jump the gun doing so.

My Skrell app was denied and locked in the same hour without a chance for taking the simple advice I was given to rework it on the spot instead of after 3 precious days (change your initials - 80 isn’t young for a Skrell - please elaborate on your backstory).

Sign Reader Gloves were widely opposed in their feature request thread for reasons that still don’t seem logically consistent to me, and nobody has shown interest in really engaging to explain their stance as much as I have.

I was contacted about an uncomfortable dick joke and mid-antag-round daybanned, with a promise of a future permaban, in the same minute, over a one-note history I didn’t know I had, then had to fight in multiple threads to get my record straightened before the whole admin action was apparently found to be a taken based on a misunderstanding.

UponASeaOfStars is not bad for the server to my knowledge in any way, appears actually interested in confirming to the rules as best as she can, and after being banned 1 minute post-contact like me, so far it’s looking like (to my dread) no one wants to let her back. Most of the rest of my post is going to be about her. She’s recent.

I don’t understand why the forums are like this. The server is fine. I love a lot of players in-game. I’ve had memorable positive interactions with characters played by players who do things here that I couldn’t see myself agreeing with in a hundred years. What’s happening?

I bring my opinion from 4-5 years with Yogstation, an LRP server poorly masquerading as an MRP server at the middle range of population count. My playtime there has dropped off since seeing Aurora, but I think the administration there is leagues smoother (and apparently people still complain that it’s too strict).

They’ve got tools that Aurora doesn’t seem to for a start, like round replays, a public ban list, an in-game OOC verb that lets players see their own notes (except those few deliberately hidden by admins), a ban appeal section that’s for seeking unbans and a staff complaints section that’s for complaints about staff behavior…

But the policies also make a lot more sense to me. Aurora’s rules are fine. Aurora’s tools appear to suck, and that should be worked on. But the enforcement itself, the most practically important part for end-users like me, feels bizarre and inefficient and worst of all unfair.

Why would you permanently ban someone and reject their appeal attempts for any reason besides “this is a shitter - they are more bad for the server than good - they don’t want to improve?”

Why does, to paraphrase UponASeaOfStars’ paraphrasing of a private admin interaction, intent not matter?

Why would you temporarily ban someone in the middle of RP when they aren’t actively continuing to cause problems?

Why is there acceptable room to ban anyone over a misunderstanding?

Why is dialogue about staff decisions restricted and constrained at every stage, from PM to appeal to aftermath, even for the target of a given decision, as if with the assumption that all staff are infallible and the criminal is always both guilty and malicious?

I love playing Aurora but I’m getting terrible impressions of the administration. I get it if it’s not a personality issue and just the way admin policy is written, but then, can anyone think about rewriting the policy?

 

I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with UASOS both in and out of game, and have felt no impression that they mean to shirk rules, or that they’re incompatible with Aurora. It seems like they’ve been warned for different missteps each time,  which tells me, as a somewhat-active Yogstation moderator, that there’s a pattern of misunderstanding, and not a malicious insistence on defying the rules. She might have a lot of notes for her time, but where I come from, quantity of notes means nothing compared to patterns that both notes and unnoted behaviors establish. What do the patterns prove: does she knowingly ignore rules? Does she act like an ass to others? Is she impolite, inconsiderate, does she try to deceive admins? Do they leave a visible negative influence on the community - do people go “fuck yeah, ban ‘em already, they’ve gotten away with the same old thing one time too many”? That’s worth a temporary or appealable ban to see if she responds to punishment. I have observed none of these, having played with her and read her complaints. What she has done, is needed rules clarified multiple times for multiple different things each time. See the divide.

 

I’m writing this while seething. If I’ve said anything unclear or unsupported, I promise I know what I’m talking about, I’ve just forgotten to tighten up the point. Ask about it and I’ll give a paragraph. Let it never be said that I can’t and won’t explain myself.

 

final notes, tldr what I think administration and forum behavior is missing:

Intent and character should matter, above all, when assessing offenses.

Listen to others. Let them talk until they’re finished, especially about things that matter to them, and never forget that you can be wrong or not saying enough to be understood yourself. (I keep having to PM people to ask about decisions that are made seconds before threadlocks.)

Presume ignorance before malice at all times, except when it’s a bald Bieselite phoronflooding.

Deliver permanent bans for shitty people. No one else deserves their fun taken away for good. This is a game. It’s meant to be enjoyed. Let it happen.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sniblet
I can’t and won’t explain myself

[KingOfThePing]

First I'd like to know why you think you have to post on someone's behalf - the person is not forum banned and can speak for themselves. 

Other than that I will only talk about one of your points which is:

25 minutes ago, Sniblet said:

UponASeaOfStars is not bad for the server to my knowledge in any way, appears actually interested in confirming to the rules as best as she can

All I say is that we all play by the same rules here and if "interested in confirming to the rules" boils down to 2 permabans within a month then maybe the person is the problem. 

Others (like myself) play here for years upon years without as much as a warning and a handful of notes. I am not the most approachable person and never was but I  able to raad and understand rules that are written down in a clear and understandable way. You also only have your own view and administration has the bigger picture. 

Sometimes the rules aren't the problem, but the people who can't follow them. Bans and appeals are no bargain - they are a punishment and should feel like it. 

[Sniblet]

I have an opinion that I would like to express. I have observed a pattern that I would like to have ended, because I think it threatens parts of the game experience that I like.

Sometimes well-meaning players run afoul of the rules a lot, especially when they’re new. I’ve been a moderator. I can name more than three specific players from Yogstation that fit this archetype. Almost all of them get better and are not, as a whole, unpleasant to play with. At least one is like this because they are autistic too. Most don’t get permabanned and appeal-denied repeatedly on offense number eight, because their offenses are small and disparate and they’re polite and understanding about it.

Why do we want people to suffer for anything other than making others suffer? We’re not talking about John Sneed, the multikeying ban evading slur-spamming idiot who never legitimately played long enough to learn how to escape an aggressive grab. We’re talking about Si’raya Mratirr, the Briefcase Bandit.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sniblet

[KingOfThePing]

The rules are clear and are binding to everyone equally. I dont know what else to tell you. It is not up for discussion.

They exist for a reason and if you start with individual favouritism then the system breaks apart. It is even specifically, clearly written, that intent does not matter when it comes to bug abuse. 

[Sniblet]

So intent should matter. If it’s an accident, that should matter. Fix the rules.

(Intent is implicit in the phrase “bug exploitation,” by the way.)

Ultimately, we’re not here to follow them, they’re here to improve the game for us. It is up for discussion. God did not write the rules.

I’m not asking for favoritism (and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth), I’m asking to recognize the difference between people we do and do not want thrown out with the trash. If that’s favoritism to you, I have settle at saying I disagree fundamentally.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sniblet

[UponASeaOfStars]

I have absolutely no problem with @Sniblet 's post, and I honestly think it's rather inspiring that they're willing to stand up and voice these concerns despite the risks of doing so. On a personal level, I appreciate it greatly - given the overwhelming laugh-reaction response to my appeal process, I'd felt rather alone and unwanted by the community. But I won't comment on my own situation, because I'd really rather like to be unbanned and I'm terrified that if I say anything at all out of line my unban request will be denied. I'll comment on the rest of it instead.

So let me ask a question -- just a hypothetical. You are a security officer on the SCCV Horizon; you arrest someone for a minor crime, and in the process of searching them, you find their PDA is unlocked and on the traitor uplink's exploitables page. None of the telecrystals have been spent, but it's clear to you, OOC, that they're an antag, and IC you could make a strong case for a black-market uplink full of blackmail material, being contraband. What do you do?

• Do you confiscate the PDA, evidence-bag it, pass it over to the investigator, and charge this fiend with i212 Contraband in addition to their i120 Littering? You could. You have the justification to, and it's what the corporate regulations tell you to do. You'd get the antag. You'd win.
• Or do you quietly close the uplink, go "LOOC: Your uplink was open dummy, I saw nothing though", hand them their PDA and fine them 40 credits for Littering, then let them go off to do antag stuff? You could do this as well. It's not what the regulations tell you to do, though... and you wouldn't get the antag. You wouldn't win.

It seems to me that although the staff and the playerbase both encourage the latter in-game (and anyone with access to the departmental hub discord can confirm that I've explicitly reminded antags 'close your uplinks or I'll do it for you smh'), the overwhelming approach out-of-character, with regards to policies and the enforcement of such, is equivalent to the former. That is to say, it is considered more important to enforce the rules to the letter than to be a kind and reasonable human. I have been explicitly told that there is no room for simple one-on-one conversation with regards to rule-breaks; that it is inappropriate to try and talk to admins about their decisions in AdminPMs or on Discord, and that the Proper Process of filing a formal staff complaint must be followed... even in situations where just sitting down for a few minutes would be faster and kinder for everyone involved. I have been explicitly told that intent does not matter, that all that matters is if you Did A Bad - not if you Meant to Do A Bad. 

As Sniblet said - the rules are an out-of-game tool that exists to improve the experience of the players. We have them because, when people follow them, it creates a better server. The end goal is not to follow the rules, but to create a better server, with the rules acting as a means to an end in that regard.

-----

The original mission statement of Aurora, long before my time, reads as follows:

Quote

1. Create a fair and fun environment for players and staff.
2. Ensure equality is clear, because everyone deserves a voice. (The primary reason everything was originally done with up/downsides, to ensure everyone felt like they had a say)
3. Build a close-up community that is willing to help others, no matter what.

When did we lose our way?

Edited February 8, 2023 by UponASeaOfStars

[Scheveningen]

I genuinely cannot believe this is the hill that was dictated to be worth dying on. An important lesson I learned from Posting Through It a fair deal of time ago is that if you write a Substack worth of grievances expecting it to be read by anyone that actually matters, expect to be disappointed because human beings are easily exhausted by very long posts. A person who generally cares less would see any of the 2000-word length hitpieces posted recently and respond with something like, "Good grief, I should log off for awhile and so should everyone else involved in this." And that would probably be mentally healthier and satisfying for that person explicitly. Instead I'm going to express some advice against my better judgement.

- Posting Through It without the aid of a communications professional is always a bad idea. 
- Things that are different are not the same. They do not bear any reason to be compared to each other.
- Being ironically or unironically hyperbolic generally does not amuse most people, and will generally lead them to not take a cited issue seriously if it is addressed and represented poorly.
- Sticking up for other people publicly has to be done cautiously and correctly, because most people associate this with also sticking up for another person's decisions, which isn't far off from being associated with endorsing the decisions another person made.
- Equating staff actions in making someone unable to play the game until they successfully conjure up a believable reason to be unbanned with "[inflicting] suffering" is definitely an interesting tactic. I would like to point out that a really terrible humanitarian crisis in Yemen is presently ongoing, such as in one case where a child between 2-4 weeks old was inducted with their mother into emergency medical care for malnutrition and a dangerously high fever. They were not able to be moved to a different facility inside the hospital by the understaffed and underequipped workers inside to try different healthcare methods because doing so would risk them dying in transit. The day of that a media reporter released this coverage regarding this story about this Yemeni mother and child, they reported that the hospital's efforts to continue stabilizing the child would end up failing. I suggest having an actually meaningful metric for what "suffering" actually is, because I think being banned from a video game community doesn't quite hit even the fucking bar of how shitty life can get for someone.

[Sniblet]

I know what I’m doing when I post a wall of text. People skim me a lot. Those genuinely interested in hearing if something is wrong (like I hope administrators responsible for punishing myself and UASOS are) would sit through it, fortunately.

All infliction of negative feeling is infliction of suffering. Children can starve without changing the definition of suffering, though it may provide perspective for someone who thinks something else is the height of suffering. I have not meant to express that a permaban from anything is the height of suffering.

I don’t know what the rest of your points have to do with me. I’m sorry, I hope you never expected me to hire a communications professional to look over my post.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sniblet

[UponASeaOfStars]

1 minute ago, Scheveningen said:

I would like to point out that a really terrible humanitarian crisis in Yemen is presently ongoing, such as in one case where a child between 2-4 weeks old was inducted with their mother into emergency medical care for malnutrition and a dangerously high fever. They were not able to be moved to a different facility inside the hospital by the understaffed and underequipped workers inside to try different healthcare methods because doing so would risk them dying in transit. The day of that a media reporter released this coverage regarding this story about this Yemeni mother and child, they reported that the hospital's efforts to continue stabilizing the child would end up failing. I suggest having an actually meaningful metric for what "suffering" actually is, because I think being banned from a video game community doesn't quite hit even the fucking bar of how shitty life can get for someone.

With the greatest of respect to the victims of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen - my heart goes out to them, truly - you are absolutely right that their suffering is orders of magnitude larger than anything on Aurora. So if we're going to use their suffering as ammunition in a discussion about a spaceman game, how about we help the Yemeni people while we're at it? The donation link is here (UNICEF). And with the greatest of respect to you, @Scheveningen... the fallacy of relative privation (aka "there are children dying in Yemen!") is a fallacy for a reason. It in no way means we can't discuss problems with Aurora.

But please, if it's a cause that you care strongly about, I highly encourage you to donate to help them instead of just using their suffering to win at spaceman forum discussions. The link I used is https://www.unicef.org.uk/donate/yemen/, but I'm sure there are other charities that can help too.

[Sniblet]

1 minute ago, Scheveningen said:

You know no one is forcing you to stay here, right?

Yes.

[Sniblet]

I know you’re probably more interested in performing for an audience right now than trying to change minds, but for all it’s worth to you (I understand - probably nothing), joking around and mocking like this is not a way to maintain my respect for what you have to say.

I don’t want to be rude. I’m just reminding you. This isn’t the place.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sniblet

[UponASeaOfStars]

Just now, Scheveningen said:

[A low-res image of a cat staring at a frying pan. The frying pan is, somehow, on fire. Above, the caption reads 'who let bro cook', with a crying emoji.]

I look forward to seeing receipts for your donation to the people of Yemen, @Scheveningen , and I'm sure the victims of the humanitarian crisis you mentioned will appreciate it too. But back on topic...

When you care about something, you want to see it become the best it can be. People that care about Aurora are willing to read through long posts. People that don't care about Aurora aren't the target audience of this post... but even then, there's a handy TL;DR at the bottom of Sniblet's first post. Now back on topic even more - unless the mission statement of Aurora has changed at some point while nobody was looking, it's not about creating a rigid and ordered environment. It's about creating a fair and fun environment.

[Zulu0009]

I think it speaks volumes to Sniblet's original point that the reply by a community member to a well-constructed point is a "who let bro cook" meme.

[Alberyk]

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

What I see in common with all of these is that people don’t really seem to want to listen to each other, ever, and those with the power to lock threads and end conversations tend to jump the gun doing so.

Make a staff complaint if you think people used their powers unfairly. Report people in the forums if they are being breaking the forums rules.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

UponASeaOfStars is not bad for the server to my knowledge in any way, appears actually interested in confirming to the rules as best as she can, and after being banned 1 minute post-contact like me, so far it’s looking like (to my dread) no one wants to let her back. Most of the rest of my post is going to be about her. She’s recent.

I already explained this in the latest staff complaint.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

a ban appeal section that’s for seeking unbans and a staff complaints section that’s for complaints about staff behavior…

We have this.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Why does, to paraphrase UponASeaOfStars’ paraphrasing of a private admin interaction, intent not matter?

Because it is literally written in the rule in question.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Why would you permanently ban someone and reject their appeal attempts for any reason besides “this is a shitter - they are more bad for the server than good - they don’t want to improve?”

That is usually why bans are reject, but each case has its own merits.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Why would you temporarily ban someone in the middle of RP when they aren’t actively continuing to cause problems?

Rules go above in character interactions, it is more important than what is going in character.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Why is dialogue about staff decisions restricted and constrained at every stage, from PM to appeal to aftermath, even for the target of a given decision, as if with the assumption that all staff are infallible and the criminal is always both guilty and malicious?

The server pms are not the best place to keep arguing for several reason, that is what the forums are about. There are example where staff actions has been overturned in complaints.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Why is there acceptable room to ban anyone over a misunderstanding?

Each case has its own merits, so it depends. No idea what this is even about.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

I love playing Aurora but I’m getting terrible impressions of the administration. I get it if it’s not a personality issue and just the way admin policy is written, but then, can anyone think about rewriting the policy?

There is a policy suggestion forums for that.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with UASOS both in and out of game, and have felt no impression that they mean to shirk rules, or that they’re incompatible with Aurora. It seems like they’ve been warned for different missteps each time,  which tells me, as a somewhat-active Yogstation moderator, that there’s a pattern of misunderstanding, and not a malicious insistence on defying the rules.

That is an assumption from someone without access to the notes and server logs. Besides, we should not take a single person's experience and considerations as the truth.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

She might have a lot of notes for her time, but where I come from, quantity of notes means nothing compared to patterns that both notes and unnoted behaviors establish.

Breaking one different rule at the time is still breaking a rule. If you keep breaking the rules, you will be punished. Thinking this way is how we ended with players with multiple permabans and up to 80 notes that were still a problem after years. This was a massive mistake by the administration that has been gladly solved.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

What do the patterns prove: does she knowingly ignore rules? Does she act like an ass to others? Is she impolite, inconsiderate, does she try to deceive admins? Do they leave a visible negative influence on the community - do people go “fuck yeah, ban ‘em already, they’ve gotten away with the same old thing one time too many”?

Already explained in the complaints.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

That’s worth a temporary or appealable ban to see if she responds to punishment.

We did that already.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

I have observed none of these, having played with her and read her complaints.

Your experience does not equal the whole situation.

2 hours ago, Sniblet said:

Deliver permanent bans for shitty people. No one else deserves their fun taken away for good. This is a game. It’s meant to be enjoyed. Let it happen.

Ultimately, we have to apply the rules to everyone, no matter if they are bad people or not. And yes, it is meant ot be enjoyed, but by everyone. Banning people make sure most people can continue to enjoy it.

1 hour ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

When did we lose our way?

If you only knew how aurora was five years ago, or when this was written. I will just leave this rule we had when the server was created (this is also two years before I joined):

Spoiler

Erotic roleplay is only allowed under the following restrictions : Also known as ERP, you MUST have the OOC consent of everyone participating in it. Any ERP that takes place must be tasteful, and strictly non-pornographic in nature; essentially involving at its most graphic what one might see in an R-rated movie. Events and public decency take a higher priority over it, that means you can and will be punished by admins ICly and/or OOCly if the ERP is deemed disruptive.

Admins have the full right to break up any and all ERP.

So, as you can see, it is a rule that says that admin can mess with people. So, without being rude or anything, you have no idea what you are talking about. If anything, we have come closer, without even being aware that these three phrases mean, to these ideals. I don't think we should even care about whatever people wrote in 2013, its influence is pretty much long gone. But, it is a bit silly to even say that we lost our way when you have been here for less than 1% of the total server existence.

Now to be clear:

Report any post you have a problem with. If you don't agree with staff action, make a staff complaint.

[Alberyk]

1 hour ago, Zulu0009 said:

I think it speaks volumes to Sniblet's original point that the reply by a community member to a well-constructed point is a "who let bro cook" meme.

It also speaks volume that you decided to point it out instead of reporting it.

[Zulu0009]

3 minutes ago, Alberyk said:

It also speaks volume that you decided to point it out instead of reporting it.

I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean and just seems like an immature quip, but sure. Seeing as the thread was locked, I had assumed that a staff member had noticed Scheveningen's unproductive and childlike behavior. Also, saying "I was here five years ago, I'm right, you're wrong" is not a particularly effective response to what was said.

[Alberyk]

3 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean and just seems like an immature quip, but sure. Seeing as the thread was locked, I had assumed that a staff member had noticed Scheveningen's unproductive and childlike behavior. Also, saying "I was here five years ago, I'm right, you're wrong" is not a particularly effective response to what was said.

The point is that you are just soapboxing instead of doing the right thing. You took the time to call them out without even reporting their behavior. There was also a considerable delay between the posts and it being locked. Report any posts you have an issue with and don't assume anything.

And yes, it is. You can't say "we were better back then" when you were not even there. I also showed you how silly the rules were. Feel free to see examples of the erp rules in action in old staff complaints.

[UponASeaOfStars]

I feel like the response of "make a staff complaint" to every criticism of the current system is indicative of the problem with the system - it is far too rigid, far too disciplinary, with not enough focus on honest, meaningful communication. It prioritises a formal judicial structure and 'punishment of offenders' over actually solving problems, and doesn't place a high enough focus on the input of the many. Vox populi, vox dei, and all that.

In the end, Aurora exists for the Aurora community - and that includes the staff team, yes, but that is not strictly limited to the staff team. It exists to provide a good experience for everyone, and if some people aren't having a good experience, why is it right to shut down discussion of that topic instead of addressing the issue directly? Regardless of how you feel about the merits of Sniblet's post, it is an undeniable fact that the way things work is imperfect. It has unintended side-effects that cause problems - dare I say, bugs. And bugs should be fixed.

There is no one-size-fits-all boot that must be licked here. I've been on the administration team of multiple servers over many years, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that every case is different, and every case requires a little special something that, in its absence, becomes greatly noticeable: humanity. We must focus not on the means-to-an-end, the rules, but on the end-in-itself, the enjoyment of the server - and to take whichever steps are necessary in order to maximise that enjoyment. For phoron griefers, that's a permaban. But for everyone else? Hey, sometimes that's just a one-on-one conversation... and yes, I know the rules don't say that's an option. That's my point. The rules do not dictate what is right and good; what is right and good (should) dictate the rules.

The reason I bring up the mission statement of the original Aurora is because, even though I wasn't there- most of us weren't there- the statement is clear, concise, and meaningful. It doesn't take a chef to be able to go "this food tastes bad", even if it takes a chef to make it taste good.

Edited February 8, 2023 by UponASeaOfStars

[KingOfThePing]

I legit can't say anything else than that you could've just not broken the rules. It's that easy. I approach my 6th year on Aurora and somehow managed to not get banned. Crazy, isn't it.

[Alberyk]

1 minute ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

I feel like the response of "make a staff complaint" to every criticism of the current system is indicative of the problem with the system - it is far too rigid, far too disciplinary, with not enough focus on honest, meaningful communication. It prioritises a formal judicial structure and 'punishment of offenders' over actually solving problems, and doesn't place a high enough focus on the input of the many. Vox populi, vox dei, and all that.

Because anything else does not work. We tried. We had people report stuff in private pms, and that proved to be a mess to track off and ended with staff and players doing totally opposite things. The forum is the best way to solve this due to several reasons, including bookkeeping. If you have a better solution, you can propose it in the policy suggestion.

2 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

In the end, Aurora exists for the Aurora community - and that includes the staff team, yes, but that is not strictly limited to the staff team. It exists to provide a good experience for everyone, and if some people aren't having a good experience, why is it right to shut down discussion of that topic instead of addressing the issue directly? Regardless of how you feel about the merits of Sniblet's post, it is an undeniable fact that the way things work is imperfect. It has unintended side-effects that cause problems - dare I say, bugs. And bugs should be fixed.

We unlocked this topic and staff is speaking to them. Unsure what you even mean here.

3 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

There is no one-size-fits-all boot that must be licked here. I've been on the administration team of multiple servers over many years, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that every case is different, and every case requires a little special something that, in its absence, becomes greatly noticeable: humanity. We must focus not on the means-to-an-end, the rules, but on the end-in-itself, the enjoyment of the server - and to take whichever steps are necessary in order to maximise that enjoyment. For phoron griefers, that's a permaban. But for everyone else? Hey, sometimes that's just a one-on-one conversation... and yes, I know the rules don't say that's an option. That's my point. The rules do not dictate what is right and good; what is right and good (should) dictate the rules.

Yes, each case is a case, but permabans should not only be issued to griefers. There is a point that you can't justify keeping letting people go and must take action. The rules should be fair.

[Zulu0009]

2 minutes ago, KingOfThePing said:

I legit can't say anything else than that you could've just not broken the rules. It's that easy. I approach my 6th year on Aurora and somehow managed to not get banned. Crazy, isn't it.

I would appreciate it if inflammatory remarks that bring absolutely nothing to the table could not be posted, especially with a staff member present. Saying "lol just don't break the rules" is a facepalm-inducing response. As Alberyk instructed, please don't, or I'll open a complaint.

6 minutes ago, UponASeaOfStars said:

I feel like the response of "make a staff complaint" to every criticism of the current system is indicative of the problem with the system - it is far too rigid, far too disciplinary, with not enough focus on honest, meaningful communication. It prioritises a formal judicial structure and 'punishment of offenders' over actually solving problems, and doesn't place a high enough focus on the input of the many. Vox populi, vox dei, and all that.

2 minutes ago, Alberyk said:

Because anything else does not work. We tried. We had people report stuff in private pms, and that proved to be a mess to track off and ended with staff and players doing totally opposite things. The forum is the best way to solve this due to several reasons, including bookkeeping. If you have a better solution, you can propose it in the policy suggestion.

This is exactly what I mean, Alberyk. You have been here for five-six-seven-twenty years, so you have the impression that old things that didn't work can no longer work whatsoever at all. During my very infamous IPC whitelist issue, I tried reaching out to staff to literally just talk about the issue, and was met with a complete wall. I couldn't even ask the reasons why it had happened, or what I could do, because I was forced to go through a staff complaint. Which, by the way, is an inherently discouraging thing to do, open a "staff complaint." Even the name sets the expectation that the person posting is the plaintiff in a legal case.

I'm gonna be honest, we don't get hundreds of new players a month. Most of the week, the highest player count is 25-30 for 3 rounds at best during American timezone hours. During the weekends, it sometimes reaches 40. I think now would be the time to start switching administrative policy to a less punitive approach and a more restorative approach. The concept that "breaking a rule: immediate punishment" is unchangeable is not realistic, not even IRL. I say this with genuine good will, I don't think the staff team is malicious, but I do think that because they've been here for so long, they/you have a warped sense of how the community can be moderated. Would a policy suggestion be considered, then, if someone were to write it? Would the staff team put it in place temporarily, as a test?

[KingOfThePing]

3 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

I would appreciate it if inflammatory remarks that bring absolutely nothing to the table could not be posted, especially with a staff member present. Saying "lol just don't break the rules" is a facepalm-inducing response. As Alberyk instructed, please don't, or I'll open a complaint.

Feel free to open a complaint, then. It does bring something to the table: not breaking the rules takes away the entire basis of the complaints. I could also say that suggesting to do favouritism regarding rule enforcing doesnt bring anything to the table. I dont know why you would think this is an "inflammatory remark" because I am 100% serious.

Read the rules and dont break them. If you think the wording of of rules should be altered or changed, open a policy suggestion. If suggesting to abide to existing rules everyone else follows is a "facepalm-inducing response" then I am not sure what else to tell you. De-facto I am saying the same thing as Alberyk - just because I dont sugar-coat it and have a yellow instead of a red username doesn't change the message.

Edited February 8, 2023 by KingOfThePing

[UponASeaOfStars]

To bring things back on topic before the thread is locked and the conversation is ended again... here are @Sniblet 's criticisms from the opening post, in a nice, easy-to-read format that doesn't involve Yemen or briefcases or cats cooking, at all. (Also, I'm going to start using greentext for the important parts so it's easier for skimreaders to keep track of.)

 

Quote

People don’t really seem to want to listen to each other, ever, and those with the power to lock threads and end conversations tend to jump the gun doing so.

Aurora’s rules are fine. Aurora’s tools appear to suck, and that should be worked on. But the enforcement itself, the most practically important part for end-users like me, feels bizarre and inefficient and worst of all unfair.

I love playing Aurora but I’m getting terrible impressions of the administration. I get it if it’s not a personality issue and just the way admin policy is written, but then, can anyone think about rewriting the policy?

Intent and character should matter, above all, when assessing offenses.

Listen to others. Let them talk until they’re finished, especially about things that matter to them, and never forget that you can be wrong or not saying enough to be understood yourself. (I keep having to PM people to ask about decisions that are made seconds before threadlocks.)

Presume ignorance before malice at all times, except when it’s a bald Bieselite phoronflooding.

Deliver permanent bans for shitty people. No one else deserves their fun taken away for good. This is a game. It’s meant to be enjoyed. Let it happen.

You can disagree with this assessment. You can disagree with the opinions stated here. But it is an objective truth that at least three people - Sniblet, myself, and Zulu (as well as at least five other people who I'm in contact with) - have expressed the same sentiments, which proves that it is not an isolated incident. This isn't just the thoughts of a fringe shadow-cabal determined to bring down Aurora through pointing out its flaws. 

The question here isn't "is this a problem?", because if it wasn't a problem, this thread wouldn't exist. The question is "how are we going to fix it?", and the answer to that isn't by fighting like children or by doubling down and going 'the rules say this, so this is how it works'.

Edited February 8, 2023 by UponASeaOfStars

[Alberyk]

7 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

This is exactly what I mean, Alberyk. You have been here for five-six-seven-twenty years, so you have the impression that old things that didn't work can no longer work whatsoever at all. During my very infamous IPC whitelist issue, I tried reaching out to staff to literally just talk about the issue, and was met with a complete wall. I couldn't even ask the reasons why it had happened, or what I could do, because I was forced to go through a staff complaint. Which, by the way, is an inherently discouraging thing to do, open a "staff complaint." Even the name sets the expectation that the person posting is the plaintiff in a legal case.

Dealing with things over pm does not change over time. It becomes a game of telephone. If you have any solution, go ahead and written it in the policy suggestion.

8 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

I'm gonna be honest, we don't get hundreds of new players a month. Most of the week, the highest player count is 25-30 for 3 rounds at best during American timezone hours. During the weekends, it sometimes reaches 40. I think now would be the time to start switching administrative policy to a less punitive approach and a more restorative approach. The concept that "breaking a rule: immediate punishment" is unchangeable is not realistic, not even IRL. I say this with genuine good will, I don't think the staff team is malicious, but I do think that because they've been here for so long, they/you have a warped sense of how the community can be moderated. Would a policy suggestion be considered, then, if someone were to write it? Would the staff team put it in place temporarily, as a test?

We speak to people a lot. I pointed out in the complaint that resulted in this topic that we spoke to this person in question 14 times before any kind of ban was applied.

[MattAtlas]

13 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

The concept that "breaking a rule: immediate punishment" is unchangeable is not realistic, not even IRL.

What part of talking to someone 14 times before applying a ban is immediate punishment?