Do You Think LL Is Too Easy On Griefers?

Jonquille, this is what the idea amounts to. Do you disagree?

coco

Pedophiles are the only instance I know of, and EVEN IN THAT CASE, they are not made to walk around with a scarlett P tattooed on their foreheads.

In all cases of rl, an individual must go to some trouble to learn the record of another person. No individual is made to walk around branded.

coco

I absolutely disagree, and I think you're a turd for making the comparison. Maybe you need a history lesson about what "crimes" those with numbers tattooed on their arms commited.

You know what else they don't do in real life?

- Have names that float over people's heads
- Fly without mechanical assistance
- Make things appear out of nowhere

So let's embrace all of those limitations, shall we!

It acually turned my stomach.

No, the examples that come close are exactly what is being proposed. Criminal records (at least of certain crimes) are already a matter of public record, particularly if people want to dig just a tiny bit.

What you suggest is about as close to what Aimee suggests as spanking a misbehaving child is close to locking them in the basement for six years and flogging them with a strap every day.

Now then, reading history is counter-productive. It's much nicer to people to make decisions without context, as we have learned.

Yet. Wait until I get into office.



In point of fact, some regulatioons require people be informed of said people automaticly.

Ah - I see where you are coming from. You are saying (and probably Aimee and Enabran would too) that the difference is the group with the tattooed arms committed no crimes, whereas criminals have.

I agree that is a distinction. But still - that is the only example I can think of (aside from Snowcrash, which I haven't read) where people actually do walk around branded. And the Scarlett Letter.

Unless, of course, you can think of another.

coco

You can't explain away a Godwinism that easily.

That was how I felt about your original suggestion.

coco

This is a valuable discussion, and I'd hate to see it derail into anarchy from folks disrespecting one another. There are several ideas being tossed around here: Maybe the answer is a hybrid solution.

I think its important to seperate the ideas of having one's diciplinary status displayed as the color of one's avatar name text, with the idea of simply having that data accessable in the first place. Today we have nothing, and many feel that's an issue.

On the one hand - Coco, you're right - folks in RL don't walk around with their police record as a part of their appearance.

On the other hand, one's police record is available in RL for those who seek it. Most of my employers in my professional career have requested a background check - which reveals any significant misdeeds I might have committed. I don't have a problem with significant crimes I may have committed to be part of the public record, as long as I'm not expected to tape them to my front door.

I agree that it might be a bit extreme to force avatars to walk around with a different color name, much like DUI offenders in Ohio have different color license plates. But I think that information, even in an abridged format (such as Aimee's color coding idea) could be available in a central location for those who wish to manually look it up.

I find your compassion for criminality to be fascinating.

Not that it's anything new or anything.

I don't have ANY compassion for criminals to speak of. I wanted the IB signs gone, remember? But I didn't want that guy banned either, and I certainly wouldn't want us all divided up into three visible, marked castes. (And I do believe in Meagan's Law.)

coco

I can think of a pretty obvious one, actually. Ever seen a prison uniform or jumpsuit? No? How about handcuffs? Not those either, huh? Shackles? House arrest anklet? Mug shots? Any of these ringing any bells?

I know, it wouldn't have been nearly as insulting to compare Aimee's idea with a prison as it was the pathetic path you chose.

Why not? Afraid of being there yourself? The only people who stand to lose are those who can't behave themselves. Personal accountability does a lot for a society. Why give a break to dirtbags?

I think they need to be a bit wider with punishments where a crime has benefitted the criminal.

Crook casino operators / theft script authors / sandbox sellers should lose the money as well as getting a temp ban.

Ad-griefers should be forced to change their name and/or the name of their business as well as getting a temp ban.

A 3 day ban can be nothing compared to a lasting advantage..

The problem with the "branding" system is that it's open to "grief grief" - where people repeatedly AR others, or try to confuse them into doing actions that can be represented as griefing, in order to get them branded. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it happened on TSO and UO, so..

This is a great point actually. Punishment should be a deterrent, not a cost of doing business!

It reminds me of the UPS trucks in New York City. Rather than spend all day trying to find parking on every block where a delivery needs to be made, they simply park illegally and eat the fines as part of the cost of doing business. Sort of missing the point of a fine

Those people are IN JAIL, Jonquille! Or on their way too it. They aren't forced to wear those things to mark them forever once they have done their time.

coco

Yes, they're IN JAIL for COMMITING CRIMES. Wearing the outfits is part of a PUNISHMENT and so they can be RECOGNIZED as CRIMINALS for COMMITING CRIMES. Once a certain amount of TIME has PASSED they are allowed to take off the UNIFORMS which BRANDED them as CRIMINALS.

I didn't see in Aimee's suggestion where she said people would be branded FOREVER. Without looking back at her post, I seem to recall her mentioning the point system, which is a ROLLING PERIOD, which means it wouldn't be FOREVER.

No, are you? Do you go around griefing people?

Two reasons: First, as one person pointed out above, all those people are not dirtbags. There are people on the forums here, now (besides myself), who don't believe that they did anything to deserve a warning here, either. As that person pointed out, the judgments aren't always perfect. And for another reason, what that other person pointed out - that it would be used to trick others.

Both of those reasons pale, though, before the fact that you don't brand people. Presumably, once a person has served their suspended time, then they will come back and not do that particular thing again. Otherwise - why not just ban them at their first offense? That would be more humane than forcing them to wear their record.

coco

Heh, in truth I only have one example but it's not appropriate to speak about it. Basically, given the chance that they're wrong and a griefer stays, or that they're wrong and a non griefer goes, I prefer the griefer stay. I realize this is probably not a popular opinion .

Precise definitions would be nice, but I'm still a little undecided about whether they are possible. At some point it all comes down to interpretation.

I'm also biased because I've never been the target of serious griefing. I also enjoyed fighting back on the few occasions when I have been griefed at all. Now I chose not to file an abuse report, but for fighting back i took a risk. At the time I didn't believe the risk was that great, but since then I've become sure it was and is a risk. That strikes me as wrong. If durring one of those encounters I had been reported, there is no way I could prove I was only responding in kind. If there were a record that could be pulled up and show it one way or the other, then I'd be perfectly happy with strict enforcement. There is not such a record. Maybe a feature suggestion there . No idea about the technical implications of keeping a running log of avatar collisions and griefable script functions.

Lax. I've been in the biz for almost two years on what it feels to be a "Game Master' for an MMORPG, and have an idea of what works and what doesn't when it comes to player enforcement, at least in my country and given our type of players. Of course, also by experience, we realized that no matter how good the idea is, if top management says "No you can't do that because it will scare potential customers so we want you to do this instead," or "No because we don't have the budget to give you the tools and manpower necessary (a lie)," then you pretty much get an enforcement system that does nothing but give the impression that they're actually doing something when they aren't really doing anything. *insert much grumbling and bitterness*

Of course it's possible that LL will have similar problems when it comes to enforcement issues. Those can make or break your game so to speak especialy in terms of profitability.


Our older enforcements are a little harsher on newbs/free accounts. Any offense done by a newb account is a permanent suspension (I'd love to see something like this for SL). If the account has gone beyond the 'promo account' period, he is then given the normal suspension according to our in-game policies. We used to give really harsh penalties involving item and zeny wipe in all servers and a level-degrader depending on the severity and how often the offense was done.

(Don't ask about our current enforcement policies. Just looking at it makes me want to cry or hurt someone)

Of course the enforcement policies will depend highly on the system, the kind game, community/kind of players, availability of tools, manpower, billing system, etc.. @_@

I just hope that SL doens't go down the path that some of us made regarding the issue. Those in-game policies are only as good if you could deliver them. The one thing though I want to see is names appearing on the police blotter. That way the public is informed (and gives us the impression that 'yes you are doing something after all!", and the person will think twice of having to repeat the offense. Plus it works as a deterrant and lessens the incidences of players calling up demanding why they were suspended and for how long. It's working so far in one of our games but we have yet to see the long term effects of it.

I know what you mean. I shot Ol Fitzcarraldo out of my sim for griefing a meeting I was hosting on my land after banning him and eject didn't work. Normally I'd just fly away but I get fussy and defensive when you mess with my guests. Whoda thought the little turd would ar me. hehe. It was worth it. He took down the grid a week later and LL banned him. Timing is everything, eh?

That's right, Enabran, I'm a dirtbag!

Aimee, bring on the Scarlet title!

Jonquille, get busy making that jumpsuit

Kate Hanks, WOOT!

Nice post, Travis. Way to bring it back home.