[MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[Ananda Dawnsinger]

> From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com>
>
> why do grief players do what they do and can they be actively
> dissuaded?  Sneakily dissuaded?  Stopped outright?

Why do grief players do what they do?  A few reasons:

    1.  They are dissatisfied with the environment.  Though it seems
    possible that this can be solved by creating a "perfect"
    environment, this is a fool's errand, especially since many
    sources of dissatisfaction lie not in the environment but in the
    individual experiencing it.  You can minimize this issue by a)
    providing as rich and stable an environment as possible [I sense a
    followup question] and b) heavy moderation.

    2.  They have not successfully been integrated into the
    environment.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to create an
    environment that will successfully integrate all who enter it --
    the teenager and the adult, the brilliant and the dull, the
    fundamentalist and the Satanist.  The administration can pressure
    the membership into welcoming newcomers, but the eventual solution
    is, again, heavy moderation.

    3.  Their loyalty lies not with the environment but with another
    environment (e.g. a cross-game guild).  This is a relatively
    recent variation on #2 above.  One can "seduce" outlying members
    into becoming fully engaged with the community, but the
    administration will probably eventually have to ban the "gang"
    causing the problem.

    4.  Their connection with the environment has been, or will be,
    severed.  This is why grief playing increases just before a pwipe
    -- players have nothing to lose.  If you avoid major transitions
    (pwipes, moving servers, changes in fee structure) and swiftly and
    cleanly ban those who must be removed from the community, this
    issue can be minimized.

    5.  They are undergoing a life crisis that is affecting their
    ability to behave in a socially appropriate manner.  Since
    compulsive participation in the community ["addiction"] can cause
    a life crisis, designing an environment that does not breed
    compulsive behavior will be very useful here.  Heavy moderation
    and intervention will be required to deal with other cases.

    6.  They suffer from a personality disorder (or, in rare
    instances, psychosis) that affects their ability to behave in a
    socially appropriate manner.  Unfortunately, the most disruptive
    personalities -- the histrionic, narcissistic, and borderline --
    are the ones most difficult to treat.  Not having any real
    training in this area, I'm not sure what would be useful beyond
    heavy moderation and removal of problem cases.

You might notice that "heavy moderation" is a running theme.  IMO
heavy moderation is required to remove disruption by undesirable
elements.  Other techniques (light moderation, self-moderation) reach
a more dynamic equilibrium -- there is more disruption, but the
community recovers more quickly.

I think it's a Law, or damn close to it: The less disruption that
occurs in a community, the less able the community is able to deal
with disruption when it does occur.

Next topic of discussion: How does one make heavy moderation scale to
environments with tens [hundreds] of thousands of users?

> Does it take elimination of anonymity?

I think this is a mythical totem infused with far more power than it
actually possesses, simply because it is unachievable.  Not that it
wouldn't help -- and I think there is evidence that communities that
use "real names" tend to be more civil than those that rely upon
personae.  But I don't think it's a panacea.

First, it's impossible to eliminate anonymity, because anonymity is a
relative thing.  Somebody in another country is more anonymous than
somebody in your own.  Somebody 3000 miles away is more anonymous than
somebody in your own state.  Somebody who lives across town is more
anonymous than your next-door neighbor.  The check-out clerk at the
supermarket is more anonymous than your co-worker.  A casual
acquaintance is more anonymous than your best friend.

Second, membership in an online group is not mandatory.  You can opt
out at any time.  If your reputation follows you around cyberspace,
you can sell your modem.  If your reputation follows you into real
life, you can change your job and/or move (though this gets rather
painful, true).  The more optional one's membership is, the less one
is likely to value the opportunity for continued participation.

Third, identity is fluid -- not just online identity, but identity
IRL.  Many states (including California and New York) allow you to
change your name without government intervention.

What it would take is more than mere elimination of anonymity.  It
would require the ability to file effective restraining orders and to
effectively press charges against troublemakers.  After all, some
griefers attend RL player gatherings, perhaps in the hopes that
somebody will try to punch them out!

> Some clever application of psychology?

I've seen psychology work beautifully against anti-social griefers
(PKers, gang members, etc.)  If you apply just the right amount of
mockery and truth-telling at just the right time, you can turn enough
of the popular sentiment against them, and make them feel as though
it's no longer worth their while to stay in the game.  Unfortunately,
it's only effective *after* things have reached the crisis point.
Before that point, the mockers and truth-tellers are perceived as
bullies, and the griefers end up in a stronger position than they
were.

One should be able to use psychology to more effectively manage
groups, but honestly this isn't an area I know enough about to
speculate.

> A cultural change?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
That'd work...

IMO, anything that depends on a fundamental cultural change (and I
think at this point it's safe to say that the online culture isn't due
to sampling error, but is a reflection of [Western/American] culture
as a whole) is a utopia, and utopianism is a waste of time.

>> If grief playing were a MUD phenomenon, or even a gaming
>> phenomenon, there might well be compelling reason to believe that
>> there's a solution that nobody's found yet.  It's not.  "Grief
>> players" are a feature of online communities and groups in general.
>> Actually, they're a component of all communities and groups -- it's
>> just that restraining orders don't work too well online.
 
> Why, and what has to change to address it?

Explain to me how to stop a pack of privileged teenaged boys from
shooting pellet guns at elderly migrant workers, and I might be able
to tell you how to stop grief players online.

   -- Sharon

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev