Let’s talk about blacklists

[Menalque]

I think it’s more like the latter. What do you think?

Or more specifically — maybe in some games it’s because of the former, but with those hyper reactive players, they do tend to get banned so the solution we currently have works on them. For players who specifically cannot interact with other particular players, it’s more like the sodium chlorine thing, and here there is no official recourse, only the assumption that people will behave in good faith and respect blacklists. We don’t tolerate “let’s hope people behave well” for other issues, so why do we here?

[Isis]

I feel like I need to get involved in more toxic fights to get a good idea of how they work

[Nahdia]

ego

[Nahdia]

i have noticed more issues with this more recently. in Newbie 2016, which i just ran to completion, I had someone replace in only to find out they knew they were on another player in the game's blacklist. That second player ended up replacing out.

Ultimately I don't think it makes sense to force replace people in order to enforce blacklists. That said, I do wonder if it might be a positive change if it was made standard for moderators to ask their players to submit blacklists when a game starts, that way you can avoid the problem of one player replacing in causing another to dip out feeling cheated.

[Menalque]

I feel like I need to get involved in more toxic fights to get a good idea of how they work

Would not recommend, 0/10

[Menalque]

Ultimately I don't think it makes sense to force replace people in order to enforce blacklists.

Why not? Would that not have resolved the issue in 2016?

[Ircher]

I think the current system is fine. If a moderator wants to enforce their own blacklist, they can do so through wisdom of the moderator; being blacklisted seems a reasonable enough reason to get rejected by WOTM. (Now if the rejection is challenged, the moderator in question should provide a reasonable reason for the blacklisting, but most people will respect WOTM rejections without raising a fuss.) Similarly, wisdom of the crowd can enforce player blacklists.

As for replacements, I'm of the opinion that beggars cannot be choosers. Finding replacements tends to be a big enough ordeal as-is. Arbitrarily rejecting replacements (or worse allowing them then replacing them) because they are blacklisted just disincentivizes people from replacing in. The only reasonable rejections for replacements (in this context) is if the player in question was WOTC'd during signups or is on the moderator's blacklist as these are the only really enforceable ones.

I think having the site moderation not take a more explicitly supportive stance with regards to blacklisting is reasonable for a few reasons. First, it will generate a lot of administrative overhead. List moderators have enough duties as-is and trying to enforce blacklists on a wider scale (when other options already exist--see the first paragraph) does not seem like a good use of their time. In addition, Blair brings up a good point about abusing it. You may argue that this would not be a problem, but that rarely is a case in practice. People like to bend and stretch the rules as much as they can, and unless the moderation team is very clear on what kind of blacklists are reasonable/unreasonable, people will point to the established guidelines and argue that what they're trying isn't illegal. (New mods in the normal queue are a good example of this.) Lastly, as Blair points out as well, blacklists tend to be made for reasons that fall short of ban-worthy behavior. If the behavior is so egregious that the site moderation should get involved, then it is likely worth a ban.

[Xtoxm]

unless someone is so actively toxic that they should probably just be site-banned in the first place.

but they dont
its extremely difficult to get banned on this site, and when bans do come in theyre usually very brief

[Nahdia]

I just... eh, I don't know. Maybe my logic isn't consistent here. But my impulse was to ask the player "can you tough it out?", since it seemed like the other person was willing to do so.

Like, if you could PROVE that the person replacing in is doing it specifically to harass the player with the blacklist, yes, absolutely force replace them. But that kind of intent seems hard to prove short of them outright saying it.

[Xtoxm]

i think its stupid that toxic players have the power to make a player who doesnt want to play with them replace out by replacing in, and i'd rather that decision not be left to individual mods since usually the response is "im not going to let you WOT1, sorry"

[Ircher]

i think its stupid that toxic players have the power to make a player who doesnt want to play with them replace out by replacing in, and i'd rather that decision not be left to individual mods since usually the response is "im not going to let you WOT1, sorry"

If they are intentionally doing that, that can be considered harassment, which can get the player banned. In addition, as I pointed out in my previous post, mods shouldn't be picky about replacements because they are hard to come by as-is.

[Menalque]

I just... eh, I don't know. Maybe my logic isn't consistent here. But my impulse was to ask the player "can you tough it out?", since it seemed like the other person was willing to do so.

I guess I disagree that the “tougher” should be catered for > the “weaker”. I also think these are not particularly useful terms to use in talking about it as I think it’s less about “can I tough this out?” and more “is this person inevitably going to provoke me into the point where I cross a line?”

[Menalque]

In addition, as I pointed out in my previous post, mods shouldn't be picky about replacements because they are hard to come by as-is.

I will respond to your longer post tomorrow when I’m not on my phone and it’s not 3am but is there any basis for this? Generally the replacement queue moves pretty quickly, and in the case being described it’s likely they’d have to do more replacements anyway. Either of the player who already was playing, of others who leave as the game becomes toxic and fighting starts, or of the second followed by the first.

[Nahdia]

I just... eh, I don't know. Maybe my logic isn't consistent here. But my impulse was to ask the player "can you tough it out?", since it seemed like the other person was willing to do so.

I guess I disagree that the “tougher” should be catered for > the “weaker”. I also think these are not particularly useful terms to use in talking about it as I think it’s less about “can I tough this out?” and more “is this person inevitably going to provoke me into the point where I cross a line?”

i mean, i agree. i guess im sort of just erring more towards the passive "allow conditions that make someone need to replace out" as opposed to the active "force replace someone". trolly problem logic. but it does feel bad to have to tell a player that just replaced in, something i consider a gracious act, that im actually going to be kicking them out, especially if theyve already begun reading through the game. like, there's always the possibility that they just didn't realize a player who had them blacklisted was in the game. i dont always read the full playerlist of games i offer to replace into (tho tbf, im not blacklisted by anyone as far as im aware).

but to ircher's point, if accepting one player as a replacement is just going to result in another player tapping out, it's really no more burdensome to not take the first player and keep seeking a different replacement. in fact if anything it's preferable from the perspective that replacing fewer slots is better for game health.

[skitter30]

The problem comes that if someone has no respect for another player or for site norms surrounding blacklists, then the official moderation policy means that there is not a sufficiently strong site rule basis for enforcement, which is exactly what is needed in cases where blacklists are being violated.

i think that mods should be willing to enforce players' blacklists, in a first come first serve sort of fashion

suppose we have player A and player B, who always get in a thing if they're in the same game, and A blacklists B

if A signs up for a game first, and then B signs up, A should be able to tell the mod to keep B out of the game.

and if A is already in a game, and B reps in, A should be able to tell the mod that they've blacklisted B and request B that B not rep in

(aside this is partially why i dislike secret alts, it's very hard to avoid people if you don't know that the account is someone you're trying to avoid)

[skitter30]

if A signs up for a game first, and then B signs up, A should be able to tell the mod to keep B out of the game.

and if A is already in a game, and B reps in, A should be able to tell the mod that they've blacklisted B and request B that B not rep in

maybe not the first one

but the second one ... it's awful to be an in a game that you're enjoying, have someone you've blacklisted rep-in, and then be forced to decide if you want the game to be a toxic mess or rep out

[RadiantCowbells]

I'm gonna join all your games Skitter get rekt

[skitter30]

either everyone's blacklists need to be public (which i think would make some people uncomfortable), every single player has to provide the moderator with their blacklist, or the replaced-in player is subject to getting kicked out. and that's all assuming the system doesn't get abused for strategy.

i guess i don't think that blacklists need to be public

but if i've blacklisted A and they rep into a game i'm in (which i've joined knowing they weren't in), and i know that if we're in the same game it'll turn into a shitshow, i don't think the onus should be on me to rep out at that point to avoid that, i think the situation ought to be explained to the mod and A should not rep-in in the first place

[Nahdia]

The problem comes that if someone has no respect for another player or for site norms surrounding blacklists, then the official moderation policy means that there is not a sufficiently strong site rule basis for enforcement, which is exactly what is needed in cases where blacklists are being violated.

i think that mods should be willing to enforce players' blacklists, in a first come first serve sort of fashion

suppose we have player A and player B, who always get in a thing if they're in the same game, and A blacklists B

if A signs up for a game first, and then B signs up, A should be able to tell the mod to keep B out of the game.

many mods do this, it's called WotC or Wot1 based on how many people they need to hear from to reject an /in. I don't usually advertise that I offer it but if my game were in sign-ups and someone were to tell me that someone who signed up after them is a person they have blacklisted and it seems they have good reason for it, I'm not above rejecting the later in.

[skitter30]

like i've been on the receiving end of this a few times
there were like two people on-site that if we were in the same game it tended to turn out ... not well
i actively avoided games these people are in

so like then i'm in a game that i'm enjoying, which i've made sure such people are not in. they replace in. it promptly turns into a toxic mess, just as i knew it would

i feel like by not joining a game they /inned for (or are already in if we're talking about me replacing in) in i did my part to avoid the toxic interaction, and having it forced upon me in middle of a game puts me in an incredibly uncomfortable situation that i feel like i already went to reasonable lengths to avoid

[Blair]

i guess i don't think that blacklists need to be public

i feel like by not joining a game they /inned for (or are already in if we're talking about me replacing in) in i did my part to avoid the toxic interaction, and having it forced upon me in middle of a game puts me in an incredibly uncomfortable situation that i feel like i already went to reasonable lengths to avoid

Where this gets somewhat messy is the fact that sometimes (often, in my experience), if the blacklist is private, it isn't exactly mutually agreed that you can't coexist together. The other player may not see the combination as particularly toxic (some players have a higher tolerance for this than others), so now you have a situation where Player B replaces into Player A's game and Player A has secretly blacklisted them, and Player B doesn't realize there is a "serious" problem until they're half-way through their catch-up post and they get a PM from the mod "Sorry, you are being force-replaced - someone in this game has blacklisted you."

If they're going to be site-enforced, they kind of have to be public. They would also have to be non-arbitrary, as has already been discussed.

(I realize this is not the case with the situation that prompted the creation of this thread)

[Porkens]

BaM

[Datisi]

either everyone's blacklists need to be public (which i think would make some people uncomfortable), every single player has to provide the moderator with their blacklist, or the replaced-in player is subject to getting kicked out. and that's all assuming the system doesn't get abused for strategy.

i guess i don't think that blacklists need to be public

but if i've blacklisted A and they rep into a game i'm in (which i've joined knowing they weren't in), and i know that if we're in the same game it'll turn into a shitshow, i don't think the onus should be on me to rep out at that point to avoid that, i think the situation ought to be explained to the mod and A should not rep-in in the first place

i didn't say the onus should be on you in that case, and i agree in the perfect world player A should have never repped into the game in the first place. also i agree that in a very simple situation such as "i told X not to join games i'm in, X knowingly repped into a game i was in shortly after" X is in the wrong and needs to leave.

however, i'm pointing out the flaws because i'm not sure the proposed system is a great solution either.

if blacklists were legally enforecable, then i think there should be an official blacklist for each player. and other than the issue of how to communicate that list to the moderator (because none of three options above i think are perfect) what's the process of someone making it onto a blacklist? if there's a legal process of review with the site mods, that's extra work on already limited time. (but to be fair, i know next to nothing about how site moderation works, so i can't say if this would be doable) or anyone can add anyone onto the blacklist for any reason, which i think is just asking to be abused

like i understand "gamemod, handle on case-by-case basis as you will" is not the best solution, but i don't know if this would be ~better~

[Ramcius]

I'd agree with one condition - Player A has to prove a proof of Player B inciting toxicity. If it's player A, who dislikes Player B and is provoking them and then it turns into toxic shitfest, then it's unfair for Player B, they haven't done anything to be declined of the game they wanted to play

Also, first come, first served rule isn't really fair - punishing someone for being busy at a certain time, while other person wasn't busy

[Ythan]

Why should that player not simply be banned from games?