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

[John Buehler]

Ananda Dawnsinger writes:

> 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.

So if I were to create an environment that attracts a different group
of players, I might be able to limit the numbers of grief actions.
Any group contains some number of individuals who are interested in
grief.  I suspect that the groups of players that are being attracted
to current games have an unattractively high percentage of grief
players.

>     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.

I assume by 'pressuring', you mean all forms of encouragement.  And
let's assume that I'm not after attracting the brilliant, but the
generally more sedate crowd that has interest in the world, but isn't
trying to do something momentus.  As for teenager and adult, I'm not
too concerned with age groups so much as maturity level - and the
intensity of entertainment that the players are after.  Intensity is
bad for a virtual world, in my opinion, unless is it carefully
presented.  For example, if a player understands very clearly when the
game will be intense and when it will not be, intensity is possible.
Not unlike the intensity of a movie experience (2 hours).  Or the
intensity of an amusement park ride (2 minutes).  The 'player'
prepares themselves to transition into the experience and then out of
it.  The boundaries are clear.

>     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.

Gang effects would be nasty.  Haven't thought much about that.

>     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.

No wipes.  Retention of user investment is critical.  This is an axiom
of software design, game or not.  If my operation relies on any need
to destroy player investment in the game, I deserve what I get from
them.  I am committing grief upon them.  Why shouldn't they want to
commit grief back?

>     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.

Yeah, I'm definitely interested in moderating the intensity of
involvement with the game itself.  Unfortunately, players will still
be sucked into the social element, which will be just as strong as any
other online venue.  I may have to do things to intentionally damage
that experience.  This may sound nuts, but I want players who are
content with their real world relationships, not those who are seeking
to form virtual ones becuase of some hole in their lives.  Other games
can do that for them.

>     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.

Not much I can do about this except, as above, attempt to structure my
entertainment experience such that it does not attract inordinate
numbers of such people.

> 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.

If I were able to attract the types of players that I'd like to, I
might accept heavy use of moderation in order to deal with grief
players.  But heavy moderation suggests to me that I haven't succeeded
in my goals.  In the general scheme of things, I assume that
identities can be discovered, permitting effective banning.

> 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.

Assuming that the virtual community thinks that it is truly *in*
Middle Earth and that the genre enforces a certain rule of behavior,
sure.  Players will be lulled into a false sense of security.  If the
genre suggests that chaos is lurking around every corner, then they
are prepared for disruption.  This is the same as being prepared for
the exhiliration of an amusement park ride.  I don't want my players
getting overly immersed in my world, and part of the payoff is that
when a disruption occurs, they may be able to deal with it well enough
to continue enjoying my virtual world.

There's no question in my mind that real grief players will tend to
cause my real players to go away.  But at no time would I be working
to annoy players in the first place.  Those that declare war on me
would be treated with respect and kid gloves.  If they persist, they
are banned, with the company's apologies.

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

I'll pass on that one.

> 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.

The only anonymity that I'm interested in eliminating is in knowing
who the player is.  I don't care about knowing their name or anything
else.  I just need to know who to bill and that a given player is
'this guy'.  If I ban that player, and I see 'this guy' trying to get
a new account or character or whatever, I deny entrance.  He has been
recognized.  This is somewhat like a bouncer at a club.  Somebody gets
unruly and they are banned by the club. In the future, the bouncers
prevent that guy from getting back in.  The bouncer knows him by his
face only.  He doesn't know what his name is, where he lives or
whether he's a Republican or a Democrat.  It's just the guy that isn't
let into the club.

> 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.

This is not membership in a voluntary group.  This is membership in a
mandatory group: the group of people who are lining up to get into my
virtual world.  One of the prices of admission is your identity,
guaranteed by some technology or process.  That might be biometrics,
and it might be a one-on-one interview with me.

> 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.

Nothing's perfect.  Reduction of grief players is the goal.  I'm not
out to wage war with my players.  If I have a grief player so intent
on ruining gameplay that he's willing to get changes of identity in
real life, then it's time to pursue legal recourse.

> 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!

I'm not sure what I'd do about such extreme behavior.

>> 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.

Clever applications of psychology only involve truth as far as I'm
concerned.  Lack of truth in interacting with people can only produce
functional outcomes, but it doesn't help the grief player at all.
That has to be the goal of dealing with griefers.  Dissuade them from
future actions against the game community because they realize that
the game community does not want to be their enemy.  No bribery.  No
lies.  No threats.  Truth only.  And if that doesn't work, then
action.

>> 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.

I'm sorry to hear that you believe that utopianism is a waste of time.
The world is what you make of it.  If you don't believe in utopianism,
then you won't work towards it.  My world view is different,
permitting me to approach gameplay issues and grief players in
particular in a different way.  Perhaps impractically, perhaps more
effectively.  Time will tell.

> 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.

I can give you the answer, but it's:

  1. Off topic

  2. You'd never agree with it because it is so counter to current
  American attitudes.

Feel free to contact me via email if you really care to know my
thoughts on the topic.

JB


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