doubl-catanvr
commented
5 years ago This is my first time responding in this particular proposal format, so bear with me:
To start, I disagree with several of the statements as characterized in the Issues section, or the assumptions they are founded upon.
- There are guidelines presently within our the code of conduct, but they can of course adapt as we deem necessary.
- We do have some level of control/influence to affect players from playing Catan VR. Understand that I express this not from any place of conceit--rather, our recurring dialogue with Exp7 staff invites this dynamic from them directly. They're generally eager to assist our organization, and especially while the lobby system is so basic and practically impossible to separate our league operations from the game, and have expressed as much to me directly. For example, when we took the drastic steps of banning Mickelous, he was sitting in lobbies and obstructing people from playing, and the following came straight from the top of Exp7, and I communicated it to Mickelous and the league broadly at that time: "Players disrupting the experience of other players is against our company policy and offends the development team of Experiment 7 in general. We have no tolerance for this kind of behavior and are happy to ban individuals to keep matchmaking pleasant for the community in general." -Exp7 is further incorporating a warning and ban system directly into the game (this is something they're doing also because Sony EU requires it for the upcoming PSVR version), but basically, they're building a system which pertains to enforcement. But I've talked with the devs about this as well, and it is extremely bare-bones, and I think even when this system is in place, we'll still have a role in providing context to them, when relevant or possible.
- We cannot and should not leave what qualifies as a ban open to league members/admins. Disagree, it is something we must consider as an option, while it's always a consideration of absolute last-resort.
- "Banning players will not work and no single admin should have control over what the consequences should be." It's a compound statement with two issues, thus I disagree and agree. Banning players can work, but again, it's a step we practically never take.
- Whatever our action is, we've always utilized a consensus approach, despite it not being as formalized as this.)
Side Effects: While it's helpful to acknowledge these, it should be noted that practically all of these side effects will remain, or not be resolved, even if the current proposal is adopted, unchanged, in its entirety.
On the Proposal: Responding to this proposal is difficult, because basically, the proposal is very similar to the admin group's general approach since we've needed to deal with conduct issues and disputes between members. But I think it constricts us, and detracts from some deference that our members grant us. And while we don't conduct a formal vote, we've always pursued a consensus when problems arise.
- The concept of DQ points is problematic to me. Notwithstanding the fact that I wouldn't include the term 'points' in our process for something like this, "DQ points" are simply warnings with another name, to be honest.
- The process by which we would investigate and consider levying any DQ 'strikes'(?) against anyone is very similar to our current approach. We don't vote, but we always seek consensus to the extent that admins are available to weigh in, which sometimes varies.
I guess my conclusion in response to this proposal is that it's largely similar to what we're already doing in many cases. Our processes should evolve and become more standardized, but I have reservations about some of the ways that this proposal seeks to do so, at least as far as DQ points are concerned. Philosophically, when one establishes a line, it in a sense invites people to encroach upon it with reasonable security of ramifications to some degree. Please note the deliberate way I worded our current conduct policy, it explicitly does not do so, and it implicitly affords our admin group a level of deference. This is beneficial, because truthfully, different circumstances require different types of responses.
In most cases, we've opted for a direct approach, often involving one of our admins reached out by DM to a member, depending on who has a better relationship with them for effectiveness. I spoke to Cyion to dispense with some abrasive activity of his recently. Also recently, sheff or chugach tackle a problem regarding a player who disconnects frequently, and is kind of a pain generally. At the end of the day, I'm just hesitant to cement a framework like this for several reasons, but most of all, I don't really think it goes a long way to address/solve the issues stated in the header to the proposal. I DO think some adaptation and standardization of our internal procedures is a good idea, but while this proposal might seem logical on its face, I think it could restrict us more than we would prefer, in practice.
drsii
Issue
Currently there are no guidelines regarding code of conduct during league matches. We must also keep in mind that we have no control, nor right to prevent players from playing Catan. We cannot and should not leave what qualifies as a ban open to interpretation to league members or admin staff. Banning players will not work and no single admin should have control over what the consequences should be.
Our league works within a system out of our control. Disgruntled players can adversely effect future participation and enjoyment of being in the league.
Side Effects
Proposal