Ardchoille
17-10-2005, 05:03
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A HOGSWEAT THREAD.
... though it was prompted by reading the threads concerning that event.
Summary: DEAT is not a one-size-fits-all penalty. Yet for some offences it is mandatory, ie, the Mods are obliged to impose it when a player commits that offence. I am wondering if it would be possible to fit penalties to the offender as well as to the offence.
Argument: Suppose Fredtopia is a UN-member nation that has been around since, say, 2003 and has a post-count of xx,000 and a population of yybillion.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in General, non-statistical RPs, Moderation or Gameplay, and is DEATed, he can bounce back next day as Fredistan. He loses his 'forum age', his population and his post-count, his regional delegate loses Fredtopia's endorsement, but in terms of Fredtopia's NS usage he is largely untouched. Fear of DEAT might make him change his ways if it embarrasses him, but that's it.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in the UN and is DEATed, his loss of forum age and post-count may cause slightly more embarrassment. Newcomers may not be immediately aware that he has some experience in debate and in appraising proposals. However, this will become evident from the tenor of his posts so, effectively, he is still largely untouched. Fear of DEAT might make him change his ways, but that's pretty much it.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in the stick-to-your-stats RPs (I have not tied this to a particular forum, though most would seem to be in International Incidents) and is DEATed, he loses his population, age and post-count. His loss of population means his military power is reduced. His loss of age and post-count mean he has no basis for his claims of trading power (economic stats) and his alliances are imperilled by his inability to meet financial or military obligations. Fredistan can claim to be the former Fredtopia, still in actual possession of all he once had, but any newcomer can counter by simply pointing to his visible figures. For this Fredtopia, DEAT really is the End of the Empire. He'll never want to go through that again. He'll either change his ways or drop out.
So, for many of us, DEAT = public slap on wrist. Embarrassing, but not painful. May stop misbehaviour. For another group, DEAT = major loss. Very painful. Will stop misbehaviour.
That, I think, is one of the reasons that DEATs of "stats" roleplayers seem to cause so much more upset than DEATs of other players.
Sure, life's unfair. Sure, we know the penalties. But what we don't know, when we sign up, is how serious the penalties will be to the sort of player we become.
Okay, how do we even up what is supposed to be the worst (apart from Delete On Sight) penalty in NS?
Well, for me, being banned from a specific forum (or, even worse, all forums) for a lo-o-ong time would be murder. It would really hurt to leave a favourite RP character (effectively) half-way over a barbed-wire fence for a couple of months, not to mention the effect on my RP partners, who'd have to write around the hole in the story. The guilt I'd feel about that would hurt, too, and the fear that I'd never find anyone else to RP with when I came back ... noooooo!
Probably other players from other sections of the game have different nightmares. Anyone willing to share (like, what would really terrify a devoted Issues or Tech poster)?
The point would be to create a situation where offences have a penalty that affects every player equally. Then it's the penalty that is feared, not the Mods themselves. The decision on which penalty to impose -- DEAT or Megaban -- would be based on the nation's posting history, which would be a matter of (unemotional) mathematics.
Yes, it would take more of the Mods' time. But it could save them the time and emotional strain of uproars like the present one. It might help uphold confidence in the Mods. And, because it would be such an extreme penalty to all, it's possible there'd be less need for it to ever be invoked.
(Please note that this is not a thread about how to decide whether a given offence deserves the maximum penalty. This one is about what that maximum penalty should be.)
... though it was prompted by reading the threads concerning that event.
Summary: DEAT is not a one-size-fits-all penalty. Yet for some offences it is mandatory, ie, the Mods are obliged to impose it when a player commits that offence. I am wondering if it would be possible to fit penalties to the offender as well as to the offence.
Argument: Suppose Fredtopia is a UN-member nation that has been around since, say, 2003 and has a post-count of xx,000 and a population of yybillion.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in General, non-statistical RPs, Moderation or Gameplay, and is DEATed, he can bounce back next day as Fredistan. He loses his 'forum age', his population and his post-count, his regional delegate loses Fredtopia's endorsement, but in terms of Fredtopia's NS usage he is largely untouched. Fear of DEAT might make him change his ways if it embarrasses him, but that's it.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in the UN and is DEATed, his loss of forum age and post-count may cause slightly more embarrassment. Newcomers may not be immediately aware that he has some experience in debate and in appraising proposals. However, this will become evident from the tenor of his posts so, effectively, he is still largely untouched. Fear of DEAT might make him change his ways, but that's pretty much it.
If Fredtopia posts mainly in the stick-to-your-stats RPs (I have not tied this to a particular forum, though most would seem to be in International Incidents) and is DEATed, he loses his population, age and post-count. His loss of population means his military power is reduced. His loss of age and post-count mean he has no basis for his claims of trading power (economic stats) and his alliances are imperilled by his inability to meet financial or military obligations. Fredistan can claim to be the former Fredtopia, still in actual possession of all he once had, but any newcomer can counter by simply pointing to his visible figures. For this Fredtopia, DEAT really is the End of the Empire. He'll never want to go through that again. He'll either change his ways or drop out.
So, for many of us, DEAT = public slap on wrist. Embarrassing, but not painful. May stop misbehaviour. For another group, DEAT = major loss. Very painful. Will stop misbehaviour.
That, I think, is one of the reasons that DEATs of "stats" roleplayers seem to cause so much more upset than DEATs of other players.
Sure, life's unfair. Sure, we know the penalties. But what we don't know, when we sign up, is how serious the penalties will be to the sort of player we become.
Okay, how do we even up what is supposed to be the worst (apart from Delete On Sight) penalty in NS?
Well, for me, being banned from a specific forum (or, even worse, all forums) for a lo-o-ong time would be murder. It would really hurt to leave a favourite RP character (effectively) half-way over a barbed-wire fence for a couple of months, not to mention the effect on my RP partners, who'd have to write around the hole in the story. The guilt I'd feel about that would hurt, too, and the fear that I'd never find anyone else to RP with when I came back ... noooooo!
Probably other players from other sections of the game have different nightmares. Anyone willing to share (like, what would really terrify a devoted Issues or Tech poster)?
The point would be to create a situation where offences have a penalty that affects every player equally. Then it's the penalty that is feared, not the Mods themselves. The decision on which penalty to impose -- DEAT or Megaban -- would be based on the nation's posting history, which would be a matter of (unemotional) mathematics.
Yes, it would take more of the Mods' time. But it could save them the time and emotional strain of uproars like the present one. It might help uphold confidence in the Mods. And, because it would be such an extreme penalty to all, it's possible there'd be less need for it to ever be invoked.
(Please note that this is not a thread about how to decide whether a given offence deserves the maximum penalty. This one is about what that maximum penalty should be.)