Quote:I don't care if these people have the worst lives in the world at home.

Then, in my eyes, you're a horrible human being.

Quote:Kids shouldn't be on the internet in the first place unless they have gotten to a point in their life where they can act mature enough.

I could just easily say somebody shouldn't be running a server unless they're willing to actually deal with issues instead of pushing them under the carpet.

Quote:If someone has problems offline and wants to bring them online to harm other people or cause trouble they have no place online.

You either lack any trace of empathy, or any trace of psychological understanding. How people feel and how people act are often inseperable.
For many people, online is the only place for them to go. I've known many kids online who were "trouble makers" who were actually suffering
from seriously disability; very often autism or advanced aspergers. You just want vengence on these kids because they annoy you. You have little
interest in doing the right thing, as you pointed out, you don't care.

I'm sorry if I come across as very angry, but your morals or lack thereof digust me. As a person who's been through fairly indescribable emotional
issues and has had no place to go online, I can sympathise with these children. You probably could to; you just don't want to as it would mean
accepting you're wrong, as far as I can tell.

Quote:The topics of having a bad life offline is not our problem and not our reasonability to baby sit, they can see a doctor or a school consoler.

That's not an excuse to mistreat them. As I pointed out, you're making their problems worse. Not everyone can afford a doctor or counseller, and they can't
always solve their problems. I was seeing a psychologist for a long time and there was little they could do for me.

Quote:I don’t see what your point is about peoples offline lives having a relevance for administers of game servers putting up with their acting’s.

You seem to be dodging my point - that you should, or should have someone who can actually talk with them, reason them. I'm assuming this server is quite
small if it's the "first ban" so there's no reason that the admin spending his time wonderring how to ban someone couldn't spend that time on reaching
a more mature solution.

Quote:If you are repeatedly banning a user and they keep coming back to cause trouble you have no other option but to contact their ISP.

Or talk to them. There are times when there is no other option; but I can count the amount of times I've seen an admin have someone talk to trouble
members, in a serious and empathic manner, on one hand.

Quote:Online is real life. People who don't recognise this deserve to have their ISP cut their connection. I won't take harassment and abuse in person, or over the phone, so I won't take it online. In-game warning first, then a site ban if necessary, and then a letter to their ISP if that wasn't sufficient.

Why is it that when people make these arguments ignore just about everything I say that was already in retort to this very line of thinking?
It demonstrates, to me, that your thinking is fueled by vengence, not reason.
Who says they deserve to have their ISP cut? What is your reasoning for that? Because they don't agree with your baseless statement you're pushing as fact, they should
have their internet access cut?

Online is not real life. It's a very shaky social construct were the majority of people act vastly different to how they would in real life. It is not fair or ethical to compare the two.

If internet was real life, we'd have some kind of freedom of speech instead of this "private property" nonsense.

Quote:A) Bad behavior is bad behavior, it doesn't matter what excuse the user has. "My parents beat me." So what? That doesn't make their behavior acceptable. They are still problem users, and should still be banned.

I like how the main defense against my argument is "I don't care about human beings I don't understand!". Why is not acceptable?
Moreover, why is your behaviour acceptable? No action is entirely isolated - banning someone can often have more consequences for them
as their presence has for you. It's important to actually analyse situations and make decisions based on context and root out alternate
solutions. If you don't have the time and manpower for this rather simple task, then you shouldn't be running a large server in the first place.

With all the bad behaviour talk, you'd swear the internet was stuck in a 1950's British schoolhouse. Am I the only one who's
disturbed that online, unless you're a server owner, you have no rights whatsoever?

Quote:That's not an excuse to mistreat them.

Banning someone from an online game or community is not mistreating them any more than refusing them access to my house at a birthday party. It's invite only - if you have some sort of problem that makes you unable to play nicely with the other kids, it's a shame for you, but I'd be perfectly entitled to refuse to give you an invite. It's not my problem, and very few would ever generally try to claim that it was.

Someone repeatedly interfering with the running of an online game or service is also probably breaking certain laws. I happen to think those laws are generally reasonable, and that reporting such breaches, where necessary, is a fair response. If the person in question has a good reason for breaking the law in this way, it will presumably come out in court.

Quote:

Quote:Online is real life. People who don't recognise this deserve to have their ISP cut their connection. I won't take harassment and abuse in person, or over the phone, so I won't take it online. In-game warning first, then a site ban if necessary, and then a letter to their ISP if that wasn't sufficient.

Why is it that when people make these arguments ignore just about everything I say that was already in retort to this very line of thinking?
It demonstrates, to me, that your thinking is fueled by vengence, not reason.
Who says they deserve to have their ISP cut? What is your reasoning for that? Because they don't agree with your baseless statement you're pushing as fact, they should have their internet access cut?

I didn't ignore what you said, I just think it's wrong, and from what else you've said, somewhat egocentric. I would also appreciate you not throwing accusations around or misrepresenting me - at no point did I link the decision to punish a player with their agreement with my statement or not, and you know this.

You see, when someone causes trouble on my game, your immediate thought is to protect them from excessive punishment, which you think they may not deserve, based on extenuating circumstances which may or may not exist. However, my immediate thought is to protect the vast majority of innocent players from harassment and trouble that they definitely do not deserve.

Yet you seem to think my duty should be towards the troublemaker, and in investing my time on them. Presumably you think this because, as you said, you were "seeing a psychologist for a long time and there was little they could do". I'm sorry to hear that, but that is no excuse to take out your problems on others, nor should it morally compel others to make excuses for your misbehaviour, especially not to the detriment of the other members of the community who do not exhibit such behaviour.

Besides which, your argument is on poor psychological ground. Paying special attention to the troublemaker is effectively rewarding that anti-social behaviour, and punishing those who cooperate with the system. To reduce the occurence of a behaviour, it should be punished, not rewarded. That's been a pretty much universal finding of every psychological theory of learning.

Quote:Online is not real life. It's a very shaky social construct were the majority of people act vastly different to how they would in real life.

People act totally differently in many situations. For example, people in large crowds act differently to individuals. People act differently on the phone to how they act face to face. People act differently when under the influence of certain drugs or alcohol. Some people act differently depending on what day of the month it is. Being online is just another of these situations. It doesn't excuse all anti-social behaviour, nor does it make that anti-social behaviour any less upsetting for many victims.

Quote:If internet was real life, we'd have some kind of freedom of speech instead of this "private property" nonsense.

Just as with real life, freedom [of speech] does not mean you can do or say anything you like in any situation you like. There are restrictions on how you interact with others, and particularly on actions and words that can cause harm to others, and when you break those rules you can be refused access to places and platforms, and if you persist, you can even have society take away your liberty for the protection of others. Online is no different.

Quote:Original post by nemesisgeek
BTW, IP bans don't work very well. I've got Verizon DSL and my IP *usually* begins with a 72 or a 71, but everything below that is DHCP and totally unpredictable.

To ban you from my game, I could easily block "*.nwrknj.east.verizon.net". Renew all you like, but the chance of you getting a hostname outside the Newark/NJ range is slim.

People keep perpetuating the myth that 'dynamic' IP addresses mean 'totally random' IP addresses , and indeed hostnames. This isn't remotely true except perhaps for AOL. Most games are not so massive that they can't afford to exclude a few potential good customers in order to keep out one definitely bad customer that is annoying many other good customers. It's just a balance you have to decide for yourself.

Quote:Banning someone from an online game or community is not mistreating them any more than refusing them access to my house at a birthday party.

That's a complete fallacy. You are completely ignoring any knock on effects of either situation.

A forum is not a house. A game is not a house. A house is a place where a person lives, a truly private space. A forum or online game is openly accessible and advertised to the public, a house is not. A house costs an awful lot of money, and quite a bit of time to keep organised - servers these days are relatively cheap and many forums are free to begin with, and admins are lazy and just warn or ban at the first sign of a problem. I once made a list of no less than ten major reasons why comparing a house to a forum is ridiculous and logically(and therefore objectively) wrong. Metaphors aren't perfect but "House" has to be one of the most horrible ones I've ever encountered. Why are you emotionally weighting something like that when you care little for the emotions of people you report to their ISPs, anyway?

Then there's the practicality problem - if we go by our ridiculous reasoning - EVERYWHERE online is a "house". There are no public spaces, no parks, no meeting places. No neutral ground. Yes, you can still get in trouble for certain things in those places, but it happens much less often,
therefore the rules are relatively much more lax than those online. We also have basic rights in real life we do not have online
due to this practicality issue. There is nothing to stop homophobia from becoming a very popular stance online because the internet's
thinking is generally dicatated by viral memes - look how fast and wide things like "Chuck Norris" spread - your house metaphor
is much the same. It's not based on reasoning, but being a form of illogical thinking that's easy on the brain.

You are no better than the "You wouldn't steal a car" crowd - as long as people continue to use this wholly fallacious "house"
idea, I will never take their arguments seriously. You do not push metaphors that can be easily proven to be irrelevant and false.

Banning someone is legally justified, but not always morally justified. If you care about rules and not people, fine. But it's
not morally or logically defensible.

There are times when it is not morally excusable to not invite somone to a party too - what if they're a best friend that has been great
to you, but you treat them like crap? Do you think that's okay? Nothing like that is absolute. From a philosophical standpoint, it's completely inappropriate to hide
behind any one "thing" other than logic.

People who make these arguments pay absolutely no attention to how their illogic can warp all kinds of situations.

Again, legal justification, not moral justification. I think you need to remove your head from your programming once in a while
and start looking at people instead of numbers.

Quote:It's invite only

It's not. I can openly join a forum or download and buy an online game and play it. I do not recieve an invite, I put either my time or money, or both, into it.

Quote:It's not my problem, and very few would ever generally try to claim that it was.

If you ban someone for a reason that is not excusable; because they or their views are unpopular(but not inherently offensive as racism, homophobia would be, relativists often blur this line though) because the admin doesn't like them or a minority they're part of, or because they're a quicker way to dealing with a much bigger problem. I'd say that these clauses make up at least 50% of bans ever set.
And that's being EXTREMELY generous. If you think of the finality of a ban, it seems ludicrous that people are so irresponsible with them.

Quote:If the person in question has a good reason for breaking the law in this way, it will presumably come out in court.

That really doesn't matter. What an "American" mentality. As I pointed out, most of these people are troubled kids - the fact that they have legal action of ANY kind against them, whether it stands or not, is enough to get them in serious trouble with their parents, and seriously mocked by their friends.

If you consider yourself a decent human being, you would consider this. I think a lot of this is European Female thinking vs.
American Male(note that the "American Male" attitude is dominant online due to the US being so prevelant on it, you need not be American or even Male to have the attitude that is normally found with it's namesake), but if you're going on your "no excuse" logic, we shouldn't even be considerring that.

Quote:Paying special attention to the troublemaker is effectively rewarding that anti-social behaviour, and punishing those who cooperate with the system.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Troublemakers are always paid attention to on psychological terms. They're often
sent to the psychiatrists or psychologists, and people AMAZINGLY often try things other than self righteous punishment.

You are not rewarding their behaviour. You are showing them a decent level of respect, therefore giving them a reason to respect others.
I myself have little reason to respect most people online due to this selfish, arrogant way of thinking being prelevant, and it's difficult
to keep tact for that reason. If your thinking falls in line with the norm, you don't have to think about it.

Banning someone makes the problem worse. You are just giving another person, another server owner, a problem to deal with, and making a kid who probably just wants a little respect to begin with even worse off.

Quote:To reduce the occurence of a behaviour, it should be punished, not rewarded. That's been a pretty much universal finding of every psychological theory of learning.

If you punish someone's who's obviously upset, you will make them more upset.
This is basic psychology and I'm astonished you can't grasp this.
I am an advocate of censoring the "Opinions" of homophobes and racists when the are little but shit-flinging, but only after you try to reason with them(and it's still many steps below banning). You might not get anywhere - but you're giving them a frame of reference to know they did something wrong if they do get banned or censored. An angry kid who kids banned just like that will only be more angry. Do you honestly thing some guy running wrong shouting "HEY FUCKER FUCK YOU" will consider what he did wrong when he was banned? He'll just be more frustrated you blocked his access to his game! He won't think the same way you do.

I do believe one of the best ways to deal with these kids though, as well as reasoning with them, is to make fun of them incessantly. Mockery is the fastest way to make a particualr behaviour type online unpopular.

You're also dodging the fact that it's STILL appropriate behaviour to talk to people. You're coming up with excuses to defend your own morals that allow you to dodge actually trying to understand someone for a minute.

By your logic, there should be no diplomacy. Any country which is "troublesome" should be bombed. This is morally acceptable through your reasoning. Diplomacy gives trouble making countries attention, rewarding and not punishing behaviour.

Yet historical precedence mostly proves you wrong and me right.

Again, you're stuck in the 1950s. Let's start beating our kids into submission!

Quote:Being online is just another of these situations. It doesn't excuse all anti-social behaviour, nor does it make that anti-social behaviour any less upsetting for many victims.

Again, if online is real life, why do non-server owners have almost no real rights whatsoever? Why do people often get ejected from social situations on a whim?


Online is not comparable to any real life situation, because it's anonymous and lacks any form of blatant emotional weight.

This is probably the reason you are making such morally abhorrant arguments to begin with - you cannot grasp how things affect others, and what is the best path to take.

Quote:There are restrictions on how you interact with others, and particularly on actions and words that can cause harm to others, and when you break those rules you can be refused access to places and platforms, and if you persist, you can even have society take away your liberty for the protection of others. Online is no different.

Online is absolutely different. You can, quite literally, be banned from forums for being homosexual, or far more often, for declaring homophobia wrong according to objective facts. This would NEVER happen in real life. People do and say things which cause situations that would very rarely happen in real life. This is what often sparks "problem users" to begin with - people putting their views across in horribly offensive manners, who are defended by the staff due to technicality. That drives
someone nuts.

Have you heard about the new Transformers movie? If you go to Michael Bay or Don Murphy's board, the official places for discussing the movie, if you complain about it or express opinions against their fan-disregarding decisions, you will be ejected. Many of the "unofficial" TF boards seem to have taken a similiar policy thanks to the production staff cleverly manipulating the fans and demonising those who disagree with them. Would anything this ridiculous happen in real life?

People do not get ejected from social situations at the sheer rate at which they do online.

The main comparison between online and offline is that the people that end up in power are usually corrupt and incompetent.

Quote:Original post by Kittie Rose
A forum or online game is openly accessible and advertised to the public, a house is not.

Uhh, Not if the forum in question is for a paid membership; then thats not very public at all now is it?
PWNED!

Being on a forum is not a right, it is a privelege.

Yes, 'EVERYWHERE' on the internet is a 'house', if you have a problem with that, go download Freenet and set yourself up as a server node.

Banning someone is not designed to 'hurt' or 'mistreat' them as you interpret it, but to Protect the other users. Consider that the needs of the many outweight the needs of just one emotionally unstable jerkoff.


P.S. kudos for being the most hilarious troll i've seen in a while

Quote:Original post by Kittie Rose
Online is not comparable to any real life situation, because it's anonymous and lacks any form of blatant emotional weight.

Doesn't that undermine your entire arguemnt of morality and social responsibility and wtf etc...?

not comparable to life = real life morals do not apply
no emotional weight = no emotional harm done by banning

Quote:Original post by Kittie Rose
Bla bla

I don't care why the offending user offends. That's his problem, not mine. I do care for the majority of my players though, and if their game experience gets bad because of the troublesome user, then you can bet your ass I'm going to get rid of him.

Running a game is not exactly doing charity.
If someone messed up your front door every friday and you had to replace it, would you go to the offender and ask him why he did it, each time? Wow.

That's lame and another full time job.

[Edited by - SymLinked on October 26, 2006 12:34:39 PM]