Assembly Hall

Before I begin, I'd like to address the GMs and CSM. I have the highest respect for the work you do and this post is not an attack on you. The post represents my honest opinions, free of metagaming, roleplay or trolling, to address what I see as a process issue for the community and for the GMs. I hope you will take it in the spirit intended and allow the thread to run its course.

To the community: I am well aware that the EULA/TOS gives CCP the right to ban any individual for any reason. I trust by the end of your reading you will see why this is not relevant to my post. I am quite happy to debate the post, but please refrain from using strawman arguments.

Background

The issue of bans has been highly visible lately. I do not wish to discuss any specific bans, nor am I campaigning on behalf of any individual or group. However I have observed a number of things about the process - such as is visible from the outside - which concern me as a fair-minded player, and this post constitutes a proposal to evaluate and reform the ban process itself.

I accept that the ban process is necessarily opaque. For any number of reasons, I can see why CCP would not wish to expose the inner workings or deliberations of their decision making process. As such, all we can do as a community is trust that CCP's internal ban process is fair, objective, proportional, evidence-driven and insulated from improper influence. Unfortunately, for the first time in over ten years of playing Eve, I have been given reason to doubt that this year.

As a manager IRL, I understand the importance of setting standards and evaluating people against those standards. I understand the need for a system of warnings before disciplinary action is taken; not because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do, especially in cases where there are no clear standards. Inconsistent and arbitrary discipline, the continual invention and revision of rules, ignorance of precedent, and nepotism/favouritism are extremely destructive to a working environment, and just as destructive to an online community. Should these traits creep into CCP's processes - and there is some worry that some may be - I am certain that CCP would share the community's concern.

Now you may argue that RL HRM has no bearing on spaceships, and accuse me of trying to space-lawyer. This really isn't the case. I am not talking about rights and obligations, I am talking about basic fairness and the benefit of the doubt. In that context, the things that destroy a workplace are the same things that destroy a community; and for that reason CCP's universal right-to-ban - while acknowledged - is not relevant to the discussion.

A Responsible Ban Process

I believe that a responsible ban process should have the following qualities:

- it should be incremental and proportional; i.e. offenders should be given a chance to correct their behaviour, warnings and temp bans should be the norm and permabans should only be used in the case of repeat, incorrigible, intentional offence;

- it should be consistent, objective and evidence-driven; i.e. GM and CCP precedent should be considered, evidence and only evidence (e.g. ignoring community/celebrity pressure) should form the basis of the decision, and guilt-by-association (including IP/hardware bans which affect family members) should be eliminated;

- it should be subject to internal review and include checks and balances; i.e. no single GM should be permitted to make a permaban decision, petitions regarding any ban should be escalated to a senior and different GM from the GM who issued the ban, and Internal Affairs should review the evidence on permabans for impropriety.

It would be very worthwhile for anyone interested in the issue to review the success achieved by Riot Games in this area, as covered on Wired: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fighting-online-harassment/ . Particularly the following:





People fundamentally want to obey the rules and do not want to be banned. Skirting right up to the edge of the law is natural and something that each of us with a driving license does every day. If CCP is interested in reducing the need for bans, rather than simply banning their community into over-caution, there are some evidence-based lessons to be taken from the experience in the wider gaming community.

The debate has been had about the pros and cons of clearly describing the "lines", and CCP have made it clear that they do not intend to do so. However in the interest of reducing player uncertainty, on the understanding that Eve players come from widely differing cultural and moral backgrounds, and on the basis of the empirical evidence above, I believe it would be beneficial to publish (for example on the Eve Wiki) the precedents of circumstances leading to bans, so that players can self-educate on what is historically unacceptable and avoid that behaviour. Of course these precedents would probably need to be anonymised and generalised.

(continued)

reserved

I wouldn't say that my focus is mainly on the harassment bans Mike, though certainly those are the cases that caused me the most recent concern. I can understand your point about RMT and botting details, and of course there is no expectation that details that aided future botters should be shared, but my focus is on helping people avoid fairly implemented bans so there is some value in logging some detail, even if it needs to be pretty vague for opsec.

Re tiebreakers, I would think that a 50/50 opinion on a ban strongly indicates that it needs further thought. But ultimately my concern is that permabans could be issued unilaterally. Anything > 1 is an improvement.

The problem with "blatant infractions" is that it is still a subjective judgement. As an effective "death penalty" for a player and all their accounts (and, as implemented, anyone on their IP address or shared hardware), I would think that in the case of a person with no previous warnings or temp bans for a related offence, and especially if the offence was unprecedented, a permaban would almost never be an appropriate first step; and certainly not if implemented unilaterally without impartial appeal.

I've no expectation that CSM would get involved in the assessment of bans. This is purely a question of process and policy, and it seems appropriate that the community's representatives simply put their heads together with CCP's impartial IA to assess and reform a process which potentially has significant impact on players.

Thanks for taking the time.

Well said

I appreciate the support Steppa. One thing: it's best if we avoid discussing specific bans as that would be a good excuse to lock the thread and I'd rather not have that happen.

Voetius, could you re-read what you're disagreeing with? The proposal is for the CSM to review the ban *process*, and I explicitly said they should not be involved in specific bans where biases could come into play.

100% support in reforming the banning policy/procedures. Having had one of my buddies banned out of the blue, there is definitely a problem

While not bans specifically, the CSM does have a history of representing community concerns related to the GM department and it's processes (petitions, internal communication, etc) directly to the GM staff at the summit.

Wouldn't be out of left field for you guys to play a role here.

Nice Post.

Good luck with it.

I may be a bit tired and jaded with my arguments for the past week+ that have resulted in only circular debates from people unable or unwilling to deal with it.

Step 1 for any reform would require CCP to treat this game as a business instead of a popularity contest, but I guess the evil that they have created rules the game now. It has been working well for them for 12 years so what do I know.

Right?

Ironically this is the same GM, who holds a leadership position within the GM team, that has made such declarations as "Telling people that your alt is you will get you banned". I'm honestly shocked that this individual still retains his leadership position when he is clearly unsuitable for the job. The fact that he personally reviews the appeals of unwarranted bans that he dished out in the first place should be another nail in the coffin.