Update to our Game Moderation Strategy

[RedNub]

14 hours ago, NoahTheGamer said:

it is not hard to understand they are just changing the way moderation is done 

Yeah, honestly there is nothing to talk about, only to wish them the best in the new strategy

[Bеаn]

1 hour ago, ChrisPatrol said:

Because it's possible doesn't mean that has to be ok and the norm. Staff members still have the right to not have to take abuse, regardless of whether you say they should or not.

No one is saying it's right for staff to get abused. What I am trying to convey is that the changes implemented will not, regardless of the spin any staff member or ill-informed player wants to put on it, change the magnitude of attacks nor stop them. Yes, the person who banned said player may not get "threats" anymore - as they're hiding, but that doesn't stop the anger that was supposed to be aimed at them from being transferred onto someone else. As I've now said countless times, if someone is that angry that they'll go to the extent of abusing another human, any staff member will do. It's not hard to find a target; it's hard to find the right one.

It's occurred countless times in the Discord. Some player goes into a channel and pings numerous staff members - expressing their anger and outrage. Would hiding the person who banned them help then? No.

 

It may reduce the attack on the banner, but it most certainly will not reduce attacks on staff in general. Now, whether the sole intention of this change was to protect the feelings of those who swan around banning people - a task no one has forced them to do - and not protect the other staff members, or whether it was done with everyone's interests in mind, it's not going to work.

Although drastic, this is a real-life scenario:

There have been situations in the past where the action of one has reflected on many. There have been several police-related incidents resulting in mass hatred for the police and riots. In most cases, there's only one person to ignite the spark and start the fire, but a whole bunch of people taking the burns. One person's actions were blamed on others - regardless of their involvement or lack thereof. I can see the same happening here.

Of course, staff members deserve to be treated with respect, but you've got to understand that as part of what you do, you're going to annoy people. You've just got to grin and bear that. Hiding away from it won't make it go away. Not a single volunteer staff member is forced to do what they do. They understand how toxic the community can be before they join the team; they should be ready for whatever comes their way. If they can't handle that, then maybe they should look for something else.

It's not right, but it's life. Life isn't right. Humans will always abuse one another. There is no easy answer to that. If there was an easy answer, life would be so much sweeter. 

You've removed the person who should be on the receiving end of the anger, and now opened it up to being cast indiscriminately.   
 

2 hours ago, ^3v. said:

Yes, but the issue generally comes from people taking the punishment personally and wanting to go after the person responsible. Going after a stranger who may not have anything to do with it other than doing the same tasks in general is much less likely.

 

Yeah, no. An outraged person only picked the person who banned them previously because they were known. Now there's no one to directly blame. Just because you remove the person who banned them, does that now mean they're no longer annoyed? If removing a name is the key to anger management, you may want to share your methods with every anger management counsellor.

[Bеаn]

19 hours ago, L-DR@GO said:

Ohhhh

Finally I have touched your temper

That's interesting....

Full sentence writer...

Professor punisher

Did you throw away ur popcorn in anger.....before typing this ??

Now it has gotten to ur turn ...

Take heart bro

Its very mentally challenging to understand what you're arguing in anything you've said. I know my points may not be best received, and I accept that - I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But at least I, and mostly everyone else in this thread, have managed to construct our arguments in full sentences and without useless, immature emojis spread throughout.  

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, present them in an understandable manor - a year 1 child could do better. 

[_raffaele_]

5 hours ago, Bеаn said:

No one is ...

 

 

What i think is,

 

I think you agree that this behavior is often triggered when you have a clear target/someone to get angry with, it is difficult for this kind of behavior to happen against a random person that "did nothing to you", even if it happens it is likely to happen much less than when you know who to go against, and certainly it's a little more laborious to go find out who banned you than it is to have it printed directly in the ban,

 

There is also to be said that the punishments in game tend to be more important compared to the other forms of communication that TMP has, like Discord or the Forum,  this is also one more reason of why this happens,

 

I think that ignoring is not the solution to problems; mitigating the risk is, doing nothing when there is a problem means only continuing to encourage this behavior, i'm surprised it hasn't been done before, and i hope that TMP will continue to improve this aspect even more,

 

As far as discord is concerned, they often ping those who banned them, with this decision to hide the names of moderators in the bans surely it will reduce this behavior as well, however if it happens there are moderators on discord to take appropriate action; abuse is different from just pinging on discord because it's not just about discord, abuse affects and influences people's personal lives, this happens especially when it is triggered because of your specific action, reducing the chances of knowing who "did this to you", reduces these type of abuse,

 

Staff will always be a target, other staff members don't affect the user experience as much as a moderator can when banning a user from playing for weeks/months, it is an important difference, surely a ban is much more likely to cause these types of behaviors than other actions by other staff members in other communication channels, because in general people care more about playing games than using discord or the forum; when you are banned from the game the probability of having such reaction is much higher

[AlexDiego123]

Nice update, looking forward to it

[3v.fi]

11 hours ago, Bеаn said:

Yeah, no. An outraged person only picked the person who banned them previously because they were known. Now there's no one to directly blame. Just because you remove the person who banned them, does that now mean they're no longer annoyed? If removing a name is the key to anger management, you may want to share your methods with every anger management counsellor.

It's not about anger management or trying to make them less annoyed. It's about preventing personal vendettas that are much much more likely to develop when people can assign that direct blame to a specific person. Based on my experience doing online content moderation in various capacities for over 12 years, there's a lot less abuse aimed at the moderators when their actions are not publicly attributed to them.

[Signore_Derin]

Nice update and thnks for the information  we're looking forward  

[Bеаn]

2 hours ago, ^3v. said:

It's not about anger management or trying to make them less annoyed. It's about preventing personal vendettas that are much much more likely to develop when people can assign that direct blame to a specific person. Based on my experience doing online content moderation in various capacities for over 12 years, there's a lot less abuse aimed at the moderators when their actions are not publicly attributed to them.

 

I disagree, and that's fine. However, there's one thing I still can't understand: why now? What happened, aside from the obvious, to make management knock their heads together and decide that after 9 years of possible abuse, they've finally had enough?

 

The two "serious" incidents are, I believe, when online matters have escalated to the real world. Such incidents are only possible due to lapses in personal security. If your personal information is that discoverable, that's a serious problem - you need to fix it. Again, the removal of a name would never have prevented said users from doing what they did. It's the fact that the user's personal information was found and exploited. This is nothing to do with TruckersMP and is the sole responsibility of admins.

 

Other forms of abuse such as death threats and "I hate you," among others, differ entirely and are a "part of the job." A substantial number of moderators across numerous games receive abuse for their work, and yet, the majority of them don't hide away - FiveM is a key example of this.

 

Taking things into the real world is only possible due to personal information being findable, and minor name-calling and death threats are an inherent part of the job. Most minor (yes, I'm calling death threats minor) threats occur in the heat of the moment and won't be followed up.

 

[ChrisPatrol]

28 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

 

I disagree, and that's fine. However, there's one thing I still can't understand: why now? What happened, aside from the obvious, to make management knock their heads together and decide that after 9 years of possible abuse, they've finally had enough?

 

The two "serious" incidents are, I believe, when online matters have escalated to the real world. Such incidents are only possible due to lapses in personal security. If your personal information is that discoverable, that's a serious problem - you need to fix it. Again, the removal of a name would never have prevented said users from doing what they did. It's the fact that the user's personal information was found and exploited. This is nothing to do with TruckersMP and is the sole responsibility of admins.

 

Other forms of abuse such as death threats and "I hate you," among others, differ entirely and are a "part of the job." A substantial number of moderators across numerous games receive abuse for their work, and yet, the majority of them don't hide away - FiveM is a key example of this.

 

Because that's what's been chosen? It really should have always been the case anyways. Not sure why you even need to argue about it. In most places you're lucky to get a reason or evidence to support the ban unlike here lol.

[Bеаn]

19 minutes ago, ChrisPatrol said:

Because that's what's been chosen? It really should have always been the case anyways. Not sure why you even need to argue about it. In most places you're lucky to get a reason or evidence to support the ban unlike here lol

I don't think you understood the question. I can see that's what was chosen, I was wondering why it took so long. Most places you get a reason - not a very good ban if you haven't been given a reason. That's like being arrested and not told why.

[3v.fi]

2 hours ago, Bеаn said:

What happened

The vague way I can put it is that it crossed a line.

 

2 hours ago, Bеаn said:

If your personal information is that discoverable, that's a serious problem - you need to fix it

Requiring online alter-egos and strict opsec around them would mean a team of maybe a handful of moderators instead of the 90+ we have.

[Bеаn]

4 minutes ago, ^3v. said:

Requiring online alter-egos and strict opsec around them would mean a team of maybe a handful of moderators instead of the 90+ we have.

No one said make it a requirement, but you can't exactly moan about someone finding your personal information if its in the public domain. 

 

5 minutes ago, ^3v. said:

The vague way I can put it is that it crossed a line

Crossed a line that has nothing do with you, though. As I've said, someone finding someone's personal information and turning up at their house is down to the admin, not you. Unless, there's another matter you've not talked about?

[_raffaele_]

4 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

but you can't exactly moan about someone finding your personal information if its in the public domain

 

Out of curiosity, i don't see anything public from TMP explaining this episode, how do you know exactly how things happened and how this information was obtained?

[Bеаn]

15 minutes ago, _raffaele_ said:

Out of curiosity, i don't see anything public from TMP explaining this episode, how do you know exactly how things happened and how this information was obtained?

Use your brain, take an educated guess. How do you think someone found someone else's information? By chance? Asked them for it? Or found it? Then tell me how I guessed. 

I'll help you further - its been said countless times by staff that the incidents were brought into "real life". The most logical conclusion to draw from this information is that they turned up to their residence or turned up to their workplace. Its far less likely that someone would happen to bump into someone in the street.

Here's an example quote:
 

Quote

Prefer to use preventative measures instead of reactive ones, especially when in some cases it has escalated beyond things done online.

 

[_raffaele_]

11 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

its been said countless times by staff that the incidents were brought into "real life"

 

You are telling a story that i don't know where you saw it, TMP has never spoken publicly in details about this "episode",

 

Until TMP publishes something about this decision in more details, your "story" has the same value as a fairy tale

[Bеаn]

1 minute ago, _raffaele_ said:

Until TMP publishes something about this decision in more details, your "story" has the same value as a fairy tale

Are you blind? 
 

14 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

Prefer to use preventative measures instead of reactive ones, especially when in some cases it has escalated beyond things done online.

What do you think "beyond online" means? 

Have a link to the comment in question if you've yet to grasp it: 

 

[_raffaele_]

1 minute ago, Bеаn said:

Are you...

 

 

It means that it is not the same as your beautiful story that you created, the only thing that was mentioned was that it involved real life, you don't know anything more than that

[Bеаn]

9 minutes ago, _raffaele_ said:

It means that it is not the same as your beautiful story that you created, the only thing that was mentioned was that it involved real life, you don't know anything more than that

I, unlike some - mentioning no names. Can use our brains to fathom what may have occurred. At no point have I said you must believe me or even listen to me. Nor have I said this is definitively what happened. You've chosen to read what I've said and don't believe it, that's on you. Don't come to me saying I'm telling stories when all I've done is the same as anyone with an once of intelligence would've done. 

I'll explain my thinking once again, just in case you missed it. I read that things were taken beyond online. I then inferred that this must mean that something occurred in real life. Then, I thought, well what's the most likely real-life situation that could've occurred? Someone found someone's information and then turned up at their house and/or workplace. 

Since no staff member has told me otherwise or told I am wrong, I think its pretty safe to assume I am somewhat on the right tracks. I don't want to know exactly what happened, nor do I want to be a news source. I am saying what I believe, and that's it. If you don't believe, lovely stuff - don't read it.  

Additionally, I don't wish to turn this into an argument, so unless you've got anything constructive to say to my arguments, I kindly ask that you don't say anything at all.  My intentions with everything I've said is to get my view across, and to gauge how everybody else feels so I can gather a better understanding. I don't want this to result in playground-like arguments. 

[_raffaele_]

8 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

to fathom what may have occurred. At no point have I said you must believe me or even listen to me. Nor have I said this is definitively what happened.

 

It's assuming, you blamed the moderator and you don't even know how exactly things happened

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

I read that things were taken beyond online

 

That was enough for you to create your beautiful story

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

Since no staff member has told me otherwise or told I am wrong, I think its pretty safe to assume I am somewhat on the right tracks

 

Or is there something called privacy that is respected, and they don't go into this publicly in details; to say that it involved real life is already enough,

 

Why do they have to come and tell you that you're wrong when you're basically already wrong because you don't know anything about this episode?

[Bеаn]

10 minutes ago, _raffaele_ said:

Or is there something called privacy that is respected, and they don't go into this publicly in details

You really don't give up do you? Like a dog with a bone. Throwing accusations around like a Frisbee. 

I've told you three times now. I said what I believed. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve - seems to me you're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. 

 

10 minutes ago, _raffaele_ said:

It's assuming, you blamed the moderator and you don't even know how exactly things happened

I used my beliefs to form arguments. Within my arguments, blame was passed to all possible parties. 

As I've said, if all you want to do is spark arguments, then I kindly ask you to not. I want to engage in intelligent debate and discussion - which, until now, has occurred. I don't want to have online arguments over my own beliefs. I don't need a fact checker. 

[ChrisPatrol]

This is a preventative measure that TMP can do to help protect all staff members. That's what any responsible employer/organisation etc would do.

[Bеаn]

4 minutes ago, ChrisPatrol said:

all staff members

It doesn't protect all staff members. Only protects those who ban people or deal with reports. I get that its a preventative measure, I've not said anything to the contrary. All of my arguments have the founding belief that I don't feel it'll change much. I very much hope that I am proven wrong. I don't wish for staff members to be insulted - I just don't think said changes will have much impact. 

I disagree, you agree. They'll be things I agree on, and you disagree on. That's the whole point of discussions.   

[ChrisPatrol]

 

3 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

It doesn't protect all staff members. Only protects those who ban people or deal with reports.

You know what I meant by what I said.

[_raffaele_]

7 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

I don't understand what you're trying to achieve

 

In fact nothing, i enjoyed reading your story, even if it is fantasy

 

 

9 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

blame was passed to all possible parties

 

4 hours ago, Bеаn said:

It's the fact that the user's personal information was found and exploited. This is nothing to do with TruckersMP and is the sole responsibility of admins.

 

You stated it as a fact as if you know the story, the only party you blame is the moderator, and not the one who violated the privacy, not knowing how things went exactly,

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

I want to engage in intelligent debate and discussion

 

If you want intelligent conversations, i suggest you rely on reality and not fantasy; there's nothing intelligent about your story, just assumptions

 

[Bеаn]

Just now, ChrisPatrol said:

You know what I meant by what I said.

You said all, so I assumed you meant all staff members. I obviously assumed wrong.