It's a sensitive topic. I'm no social science expert, but I think the 'Blacklist' system should be reviewed, maybe improved.
Theoretical changes:
"Blacklist" should be renamed as "Ignore". "Ignore" only blocks direct chat and PF. "Ignored" person will permanently see you as "busy". "Ignore" is discreet, they will not be notified you are ignoring them. You are not prevented from interacting with them (functionally same as "busy").
A "Block" feature, prevents all chat messages from appearing to each other, and blocks all blockable direct actions. "Block" must be upgraded from "ignore" and can only be done via executing action on an already "ignored" person. "Block" is not discreet, they will see you are blocking them if they attempt interaction, otherwise it is same as current "blacklist" feature. But you are also prevented from interaction with them.
A "Blacklist" feature. Must be filed in tandem with a "report player action" for documentation via GM.
Can only be implemented by GM, can only be lifted by GM, via automated ticket. The automatic functions are auto-approved, these functions include everything the current "blacklist" offers. However, if the report is investigated to be true and the offending player is flagged by multiple blacklist requests citing actual offences, GM will investigate and take action as necessary.
If action is taken, the requesting player will be "offered" additional options, and depending on the severity of the case, options of character name/image change, server transfer, two-way hard-coded concealment of in-game character and assets (yes, find a way to implement that code), and other supportive actions. May be transferred to customer support.
Theory stuff from my perspective.
The "blacklist" action is inherently a rage feature. It's own nature is not that of a positive one.
Interaction with the system from both sides can result in a "give in" mentality where you just say "f% it, people can't be helped", or "I may have been an idiot and not behaved well, but they were a%ses too". This leaves lasting spots of negativity in player's hearts. There is virtually no way but to take it and eat it. You will never want to apologize or become better in that case. You will want to help other people less. Even if you do, more prejudice will have been built in.
The game does not help by being dishonest with the system prompts. If someone has been "dismissed" from the party, they did not leave. They were kicked by the party leader. If someone has been "vote kicked", they were dismissed by the party. They were not "have been dismissed from both the party and the duty". It is indirect corporate talk. It is disgusting. It does not help. Not if the person was a bully, not if the person was bullied and not quite themselves, not if the person just needed some peace and quiet themselves from other sources, possibly from elsewhere within the game. Not if it makes the person hate the whole party, when in reality it may have been just the party leader's decision, or one particular player.
Sometimes the system doesn't help. Sometimes a PF needs to kick people for logistical reasons, but then the person is added to a "mini-blacklist" and can't even join the party again without friending them and inviting manually.
If "kicking" people, "blacklisting" people is some kind of hush-hush taboo, because it makes society worse, then adding people as "friends" left and right should make society filled with positivity. How is this any more or less toxic than using a "mute party" function? Or issuing a "behaviour warning"? How does this make players hate the game less for whatever faults it occasionally has in their designs and systems?
I know this kind of view may differ between cultures (including what we hear about Japanese "social mannerisms and correctness and pressure on the individual"), but in the end, creativity, open-mindedness, clarity and communication, less 'economic' pressure and more fairness, etc. are always facilitation of better social atmospheres than any amount of hindsight and correcting mechanisms. SE cannot pretend all the creativity and good stuff all come from them, and any oppression and frustration belong to the players, and have no place in their perfectly designed game, but which puts players fairly in their place.
There are not many things in this game that can result in the least desirable outcome for a game aka. a player quitting. But when that happens, I have no doubt it will have to do with all the politics, pressure on performance, rigid playstyles and end-game content, attentive time and emotional labour demanded of players engaging in it, lack of depth and handling in some scripts and scenarios, and in the end, "just not worth it" once weighed in player's minds. They can eliminate the toxicity, but at what cost?
It won't be easy to improve this. If I knew how I wouldn't be here, as I'd joke. But I just hope people don't take a look at it and say "meh it's what it is, it's been what it is, things are just like that".
Continue reading...
Theoretical changes:
"Blacklist" should be renamed as "Ignore". "Ignore" only blocks direct chat and PF. "Ignored" person will permanently see you as "busy". "Ignore" is discreet, they will not be notified you are ignoring them. You are not prevented from interacting with them (functionally same as "busy").
A "Block" feature, prevents all chat messages from appearing to each other, and blocks all blockable direct actions. "Block" must be upgraded from "ignore" and can only be done via executing action on an already "ignored" person. "Block" is not discreet, they will see you are blocking them if they attempt interaction, otherwise it is same as current "blacklist" feature. But you are also prevented from interaction with them.
A "Blacklist" feature. Must be filed in tandem with a "report player action" for documentation via GM.
Can only be implemented by GM, can only be lifted by GM, via automated ticket. The automatic functions are auto-approved, these functions include everything the current "blacklist" offers. However, if the report is investigated to be true and the offending player is flagged by multiple blacklist requests citing actual offences, GM will investigate and take action as necessary.
If action is taken, the requesting player will be "offered" additional options, and depending on the severity of the case, options of character name/image change, server transfer, two-way hard-coded concealment of in-game character and assets (yes, find a way to implement that code), and other supportive actions. May be transferred to customer support.
Theory stuff from my perspective.
The "blacklist" action is inherently a rage feature. It's own nature is not that of a positive one.
Interaction with the system from both sides can result in a "give in" mentality where you just say "f% it, people can't be helped", or "I may have been an idiot and not behaved well, but they were a%ses too". This leaves lasting spots of negativity in player's hearts. There is virtually no way but to take it and eat it. You will never want to apologize or become better in that case. You will want to help other people less. Even if you do, more prejudice will have been built in.
The game does not help by being dishonest with the system prompts. If someone has been "dismissed" from the party, they did not leave. They were kicked by the party leader. If someone has been "vote kicked", they were dismissed by the party. They were not "have been dismissed from both the party and the duty". It is indirect corporate talk. It is disgusting. It does not help. Not if the person was a bully, not if the person was bullied and not quite themselves, not if the person just needed some peace and quiet themselves from other sources, possibly from elsewhere within the game. Not if it makes the person hate the whole party, when in reality it may have been just the party leader's decision, or one particular player.
Sometimes the system doesn't help. Sometimes a PF needs to kick people for logistical reasons, but then the person is added to a "mini-blacklist" and can't even join the party again without friending them and inviting manually.
If "kicking" people, "blacklisting" people is some kind of hush-hush taboo, because it makes society worse, then adding people as "friends" left and right should make society filled with positivity. How is this any more or less toxic than using a "mute party" function? Or issuing a "behaviour warning"? How does this make players hate the game less for whatever faults it occasionally has in their designs and systems?
I know this kind of view may differ between cultures (including what we hear about Japanese "social mannerisms and correctness and pressure on the individual"), but in the end, creativity, open-mindedness, clarity and communication, less 'economic' pressure and more fairness, etc. are always facilitation of better social atmospheres than any amount of hindsight and correcting mechanisms. SE cannot pretend all the creativity and good stuff all come from them, and any oppression and frustration belong to the players, and have no place in their perfectly designed game, but which puts players fairly in their place.
There are not many things in this game that can result in the least desirable outcome for a game aka. a player quitting. But when that happens, I have no doubt it will have to do with all the politics, pressure on performance, rigid playstyles and end-game content, attentive time and emotional labour demanded of players engaging in it, lack of depth and handling in some scripts and scenarios, and in the end, "just not worth it" once weighed in player's minds. They can eliminate the toxicity, but at what cost?
It won't be easy to improve this. If I knew how I wouldn't be here, as I'd joke. But I just hope people don't take a look at it and say "meh it's what it is, it's been what it is, things are just like that".
Continue reading...