Should Entrapment be against the EULA?

[Solarverse]

So we see it all of the time on forums throughout the galaxy; player A: says something snide underhanded to Player B. Player B in turn says something back to Player A and crosses a line by insulting Player A for Player A's underhanded snide comment.

 

We've all seen it. We have all seen posters be passive aggressive with players, working their nerves in a deliberate way, and the poster in the receiving end of the passive aggressive posters will lash out in return. The only difference is usually that the player who lashes out, isn't so passive aggressive about it. In turn, the passive aggressive poster will take this opportunity to report the player who is straight forward in their response and get them either banned, or get them a warning from a GM.

 

I have had this happen to me, although it has been a looooong time since it has happened...but I also see it happening to other posters as well. This issue on forums of almost any gaming community isn't so bad with this community but other gaming communities are infested with this type of Entrapment behavior. Not to say it has never happened in our community, but it's fairly mild here compared to others. However, it leads me to pose the question...should Entrapment be an actionable offense? I believe it should. My reasons are as follows...

 

1: The Passive Aggressive poster uses this method as a way to use the GMs/Moderators as a weapon in their personal arsenal. They are skilled at using the EULA to their advantage and they use the loop holes within the EULA to entice their debating opponent into crossing the line.

 

2: This is almost always a deliberate act. Passive Aggressive posters in my opinion are just as toxic as the poster who responds with straight forward toxic behavior in my opinion.

 

So, should passive aggressive Entrapment tactics in a forum or in game be an actionable offense? Why would you deem it actionable? Why would you be against this being actionable? And please...keep the debate clean. Let's keep it logical and maybe use a bit of Psychology here.

[EmmySky]

Honestly, the best approach in my opinion is 'water off a ducks back'. 

 

There have been two forum posters whom I allowed to goad me into posting things that were a little overboard.  Otherwise, I usually just let it go, no need to respond.  

 

In-game its super easy to put someone on ignore for a bit and not be bothered by them.

 

I think action should be taken in extreme cases but the better solution would be for everyone to act like reasonable human beings and not engage in discussions that devolve into mud slinging arguements that will lead nowhere.  Wishful thinking on my part.  😁

[Psyonico]

Don't feed the trolls?

[Twisted Toon]

7 minutes ago, EmmySky said:

I think action should be taken in extreme cases but the better solution would be for everyone to act like reasonable human beings and not engage in discussions that devolve into mud slinging arguements that will lead nowhere.  Wishful thinking on my part.  😁

The main requirement for this would.d be for everyone to actually grow up.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has that accomplished that achievement and gotten the badge for the Responsible Adult Accolade.

[Solarverse]

3 minutes ago, Psyonico said:

Don't feed the trolls?

I think everyone feeds trolls though. I mean, they live under a bridge, they starve under there because they aren't smart enough to know that food grows on farms, not under bridges.

In all realism though, I do think everyone feeds trolls from time to time. Sometimes a troll might catch you at a bad time and even though you would normally ignore the trolls, you just couldn't that particular day. That is good advice though. However, could the same logic be applied to posters who respond with insults? If players should ignore the passive aggressive players, should we drop the offense of responding aggressively and use, "ignore them" as the response to said player?

I know it seems silly, but it's pretty much using the same logic. If we should just ignore Player A, then perhaps the same rule should apply to player B.

I feel as though Player A in this situation committed the same level of toxic behavior as Player B...which is why I feel like we either make them both just as guilty and apply the same actionable offense to them both, or we say neither offense is actionable and "just ignore them" should apply here. Although I believe by "just ignoring them" will only encourage toxic behavior, because they will know there is no consequences for doing so.

 

Personally, I do not feel just ignoring them solves much of anything, because they are still there, still being toxic and they are free to be toxic with their next victims. Ignoring them is the temporary fix, but I don't see it being the long term fix.

 

In other words, not feeding the troll is a good solution for the individual, however, it does not correct the actual problem.

[Lazarillo]

11 minutes ago, Psyonico said:

Don't feed the trolls?

I mean, the way the original post seemed to be describing, the whole idea seems to be nipping the "troll" problem in the bud before anyone can feed them in the first place.

Or at least, that's the intent.  As often seen, particularly in text, things can seem like an insult even when they're meant in a less harmful fashion, and vice-versa.

[EmmySky]

15 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

The main requirement for this would.d be for everyone to actually grow up.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has that accomplished that achievement and gotten the badge for the Responsible Adult Accolade.

That's why I carefully said responsible human being instead of responsible adult LOL some kids do play and post and sometimes I find them more reasonable than 'adults' 😁

[Solarverse]

8 minutes ago, Lazarillo said:

I mean, the way the original post seemed to be describing, the whole idea seems to be nipping the "troll" problem in the bud before anyone can feed them in the first place.

Exactly. it holds the passive aggressive player to be just as responsible for the confrontation as the player who responded with the straight forward aggression and hopefully nips it in the bud before it can get out of hand.

8 minutes ago, Lazarillo said:

As often seen, particularly in text, things can seem like an insult even when they're meant in a less harmful fashion, and vice-versa.

This is a valid statement. So the question is, how does one determine if it was an honest statement not intended to be rude, or a snide comment aimed at goading the other poster to lash out?

 

It's usually pretty easy to see when somebody is being passive aggressive in a deliberate way for me, especially when the act is done repeatedly. In times that I myself have been caught in the trap, it is usually in a situation where I have dealt with the snide comments over a period of time; even after several attempts to keep things cool. However, I think ultimately it would be up to the GM or Moderator to determine intent in any given situation. I will say this, it would be hard to tell with just a single comment in a lot of cases. It would be hard to be fair in judgement based on one comment unless the player either;

 

A: Has a history of goading posters.

or

B: Has made several attempts to goad throughout that particular thread.

[EmmySky]

15 minutes ago, Solarverse said:

I think everyone feeds trolls though. I mean, they live under a bridge, they starve under there because they aren't smart enough to know that food grows on farms, not under bridges.

In all realism though, I do think everyone feeds trolls from time to time. Sometimes a troll might catch you at a bad time and even though you would normally ignore the trolls, you just couldn't that particular day. That is good advice though. However, could the same logic be applied to posters who respond with insults? If players should ignore the passive aggressive players, should we drop the offense of responding aggressively and use, "ignore them" as the response to said player?

I know it seems silly, but it's pretty much using the same logic. If we should just ignore Player A, then perhaps the same rule should apply to player B.

I feel as though Player A in this situation committed the same level of toxic behavior as Player B...which is why I feel like we either make them both just as guilty and apply the same actionable offense to them both, or we say neither offense is actionable and "just ignore them" should apply here. Although I believe by "just ignoring them" will only encourage toxic behavior, because they will know there is no consequences for doing so.

 

Personally, I do not feel just ignoring them solves much of anything, because they are still there, still being toxic and they are free to be toxic with their next victims. Ignoring them is the temporary fix, but I don't see it being the long term fix.

 

In other words, not feeding the troll is a good solution for the individual, however, it does not correct the actual problem.

Its not our job to 'fix' people.  Took me a lot of years and a divorce to figure that out. 

 

Some people are unfixable.  They have a bone to pick with the world at large and everyone is fair game in their mind. 

 

The best we can do is not let their toxicity bleed over into our hearts and minds.  Sure, everybody has a bad day, but I make a conscious effort to offer the benefit of the doubt and greet each interaction cheerfully and with my best foot forward in the hopes that others will respond in kind.

[Redlynne]

1 hour ago, Solarverse said:

A: Has a history of goading posters.

or

B: Has made several attempts to goad throughout that particular thread.

or

C: Has already been called out by multiple other posters across multiple threads for repeatedly engaging in this behavior.

 

The part of it that I find most disappointing is the GMs who aid and abet this kind of thing by "protecting" the subversive poster while punishing the more up front poster (who is stating the already obvious) but not the subversive poster.  Allowing themselves (the GMs) to be used this way just makes it clear that their judgement isn't all that it's cracked up to be, leading to a loss of respect towards the GM(s) involved ... which once lost is difficult to regain.  What it means is that the GMs are perfectly happy with allowing the abuse of subversion to continue, because if they weren't they sanction the subverter who "created" the situation that led to the confrontation/complaint in the first place ... and it's THAT kind of permission structure that is the most insidious.

 

What's worst of all, though ... is when a GM accuses you of saying what you clearly didn't say (and you've got the quotes to prove you didn't) and the GM simply replies with a message that boils down to, "I don't care." ... as their excuse for letting the sanction stand.  That doesn't engender or rebuild respect for the GM (or their judgement) in question either.

 

Trust is a valuable commodity that can take a long time to accumulate, but which can be lost in an instant.

Squander it at your own risk.

[Solarverse]

2 minutes ago, Redlynne said:

or

😄 Has already been called out by multiple other posters across multiple threads for repeatedly engaging in this behavior.

 

The part of it that I find most disappointing is the GMs who aid and abet this kind of thing by "protecting" the subversive poster while punishing the more up front poster (who is stating the already obvious) but not the subversive poster.  Allowing themselves (the GMs) to be used this way just makes it clear that their judgement isn't all that it's cracked up to be, leading to a loss of respect towards the GM(s) involved ... which once lost is difficult to regain.  What it means is that the GMs are perfectly happy with allowing the abuse of subversion to continue, because if they weren't they sanction the subverter who "created" the situation that led to the confrontation/complaint in the first place ... and it's THAT kind of permission structure that is the most insidious.

 

What's worst of all, though ... is when a GM accuses you of saying what you clearly didn't say (and you've got the quotes to prove you didn't) and the GM simply replies with a message that boils down to, "I don't care." ... as their excuse for letting the sanction stand.  That doesn't engender or rebuild respect for the GM (or their judgement) in question either.

 

Trust is a valuable commodity that can take a long time to accumulate, but which can be lost in an instant.

Squander it at your own risk.

I agree for the most part; however I don't think we can actually place any of the blame on the GM's. The GM's are simply enforcing the rules that they are allowed to enforce, they cannot enforce any rules that are not clearly stated in the EULA or the terms and guidelines of the forums. They may personally feel that the passive aggressive poster is just as much at fault as the one who was more upfront about their stance, but since there is no current rule against being passive aggressive and manipulating posters in to crossing the line and/or using the GM's as their personal weapon against said player, the GM's honestly can't do much about it.

 

However, if a rule was created that strictly prohibits this kind of behavior, then both parties would receive the same actionable punishment rather than just the one who was goaded in to lashing out.

 

The GM's cannot enforce a rule that does not exist. They can only enforce the rules that do exist. If the rule existed, I think GM's would handle such situations very differently.

[Omega-202]

I am in no way goading anyone or trying to pick a fight in saying this:  This suggestion is ridiculous.

 

Any post with a contrary opinion that is less than perfectly polite would be at risk of facing punishment simply because someone else over reacts and lashes out?  How would this not be instantly weaponized by people just lashing out at any opinion they dislike?  

[Redlynne]

19 minutes ago, Solarverse said:

the GM's honestly can't do much about it.

They most certainly CAN do something about it.

They don't have to allow themselves to be USED by subversive manipulators in the first place.

[Solarverse]

7 minutes ago, Redlynne said:

They most certainly CAN do something about it.

They don't have to allow themselves to be USED by subversive manipulators in the first place.

I'm just trying to keep things focused on rules specifically, that's all.  🙂

 

9 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

I am in no way goading anyone or trying to pick a fight in saying this:  This suggestion is ridiculous.

 

Any post with a contrary opinion that is less than perfectly polite would be at risk of facing punishment simply because someone else over reacts and lashes out?  How would this not be instantly weaponized by people just lashing out at any opinion they dislike?  

As mentioned earlier, the goading attempt would have to be clear. Usually after several goading attempts. It's usually fairly easy to see if it was just opinion, or if it was an insult handed to somebody in a passive aggressive way. The problem is that passive aggressive people already weaponize GMs in this way, the idea is so that nobody can weaponize a GM. A GM can read through a thread of two people going back and forth and see for themselves who the actual aggressors are. If there is any doubt then obviously no action would take place...but sometimes, the passive aggressive goader is pretty obvious.

[MTeague]

3 hours ago, Solarverse said:

2: This is almost always a deliberate act.

I accept that this can be true.  "almost always".... maybe I'm giving people the benefit of too much doubt, but I want to say you're reading way too much into what people post/chat.

 

In any event, if you feel there are posters / people in chat who fit this profile, probably the best thing is just add them to an ignore list. Bam. For one right click on their name, they're out of your life. 

 

Trying to "prove" entrapment in a game chat arena ... difficult to say the least. I understand why the GM's would be loathe to take action.  They'd essentially have to become Praetorian Seers, acting as thought police and trying "read in" what someone "probably" meant.  They'd have to assume guilt until proven innocence to make any kind of dent in this behavior and but the cure would be worse than the disease. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by MTeague

[EmmySky]

Again..water off a ducks back.  Offense is most often taken and not given.  Merely refusing to engage and respond to a passive aggressive person removes any weapon they may have.  Nobody dictates how I respond other than myself.  Each poster taking personal responsibility for how they post rather than shifting thw blame like children (but he poked me first) would go a long way in solving so many problems.

[Luminara]

3 hours ago, Solarverse said:

So, should passive aggressive Entrapment tactics in a forum or in game be an actionable offense?

 

No.  People are way too thin-skinned these days, too reliant on nannies to fight their battles for them, and assholes aren't going to change because someone in a position of authority waggled a finger at them.  And special rules to control social interaction online, rules which differ from laws and regulations regarding social interaction in the real world, is a big part of the problem.  Continuing the nanny state trend isn't going to make anything better.

[Nayeh]

Ignore should be your first course of action. Stop trying to get staff members involved in trivial e-peen wars.

 

Only if the player makes efforts to bypass your ignore such as logging into an alternative account to send menacing messages or interfering with your combat.

 

 

Honestly, this is mostly a PvE game and the level of banter I've experienced throughout years of PvP gaming doesn't even compare in magnitude.

[Frostbiter]

I know I'm going to really, really regret this but I'm going to make my first post on these boards in months. As long as the rules are not evenly enforced and the moderation ignores behavior and lets stuff slide then this community will continue to be toxic. I know that's pretty funny coming from the guy that frequently tells people to fuck off but I respond to any kind of aggression with aggression. I'm broken that way from all the bad shit I've suffered in my life. I know that so I removed myself from the boards and now I've had to do it again in the ingame channels while a GM stood by and let someone bitch in one about me directly. I don't see how that is better than telling someone FU.

[Solarverse]

4 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

I know I'm going to really, really regret this but I'm going to make my first post on these boards in months. As long as the rules are not evenly enforced and the moderation ignores behavior and lets stuff slide then this community will continue to be toxic. I know that's pretty funny coming from the guy that frequently tells people to fuck off but I respond to any kind of aggression with aggression. I'm broken that way from all the bad shit I've suffered in my life. I know that so I removed myself from the boards and now I've had to do it again in the ingame channels while a GM stood by and let someone bitch in one about me directly. I don't see how that is better than telling someone FU.

To be fair, the general idea is to hold both sides equally responsible. It is each our own responsibility to keep ourselves in check. I simply feel that it is unfair that only one side gets the actionable offense while the other side slides through the cracks and gets nothing. It is my opinion that both parties should pay an equal punishment rather than the antagonized side who responded to get the actionable offense.

 

I kind of figured that this may be a controversial topic, so I am trying to approach this topic as carefully and fairly as possible. Far too often the aggressor gets off scott free while the person they antagonized gets punished. I am in the belief that both of them should be punished equally. They should both be held accountable for their actions. I know many may not agree, and this is fine. I am open to debate on this and accept all opinions even if they are not shared.

[Greycat]

Major issue - this is a text environment. We don't have our usual social cues to tell someone's being snarky or whatnot. Humor falls flat. Things are worded badly. And everyone has their own internal, subjective meters for how something is posted.

 

Example. Live forums, for some extremely frequently posted suggestions, I made up what came to be known as "copypastas." Even had a blurb in the beginning which stated, basically, "Hi, this is suggested a lot. This post is not meant as an insult, but to let everyone know what we know about this suggestion, such as dev comments, known issues, and common pros and cons." Some people still took them as insults or belittling them, which they weren't - if anything, cutting to "this is what we know, this is what we've been told, let's see if you have something to add" should have cut old arguments off at the knees. Other people took them as intended. (And yes, they did get modified with some discussions.)

 

Basically, it's hard to state in many instances if the person actually is being passive-agressive in an attempt to troll or if it's the way (generic) you read them. It's hard to come up with an objective proof that can be used.

[Zep]

What I am seeing here is a question: When someone is auctioned (banned, suspended, warned) should the whole context and conversation be looked at? On a case by case basis, if appropriate should it be determined the actioned individual was deliberately goaded, harassed, or 'tricked' the person(s) who instigated and caused the behavior also be banned, suspended, warned, and share the same 'reward' for the offensive/inappropriate/puerile/obscene behavior.

 

Thinking this way I cant see why we would not want to whole situations looked at, I am however, curious what other viewpoints might be?

 

 

[Frostbiter]

8 minutes ago, Solarverse said:

To be fair, the general idea is to hold both sides equally responsible. It is each our own responsibility to keep ourselves in check. I simply feel that it is unfair that only one side gets the actionable offense while the other side slides through the cracks and gets nothing. It is my opinion that both parties should pay an equal punishment rather than the antagonized side who responded to get the actionable offense.

 

I kind of figured that this may be a controversial topic, so I am trying to approach this topic as carefully and fairly as possible. Far too often the aggressor gets off scott free while the person they antagonized gets punished. I am in the belief that both of them should be punished equally. They should both be held accountable for their actions. I know many may not agree, and this is fine. I am open to debate on this and accept all opinions even if they are not shared.

I haven't gotten more than admonishments from the mods to be fair. I'm not trying to start anything and I don't plan on biting anyone's head off here, up until they start leveling accusations at me at least. I'll take my lumps for anything that happens after that and as I've said, I removed myself from these boards already. Not sure what else I can contribute anymore anyway. I said my piece and I'm going away again. Asshole awaaaayyyyy!

[Solarverse]

3 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

I haven't gotten more than admonishments from the mods to be fair. I'm not trying to start anything and I don't plan on biting anyone's head off here, up until they start leveling accusations at me at least. I'll take my lumps for anything that happens after that and as I've said, I removed myself from these boards already. Not sure what else I can contribute anymore anyway. I said my piece and I'm going away again. Asshole awaaaayyyyy!

Well I do thank you for your thoughts on the subject. It's good to know all view points. I don't expect this thread will change anything, but I do believe that it will be a good debate either way.  🙂

[ForeverLaxx]

It must be clear? Clear to whom? The people who want to get rid of someone? Because I've personally been a victim of a coordinated ignore chain orchestrated by someone who decided I sided with one group because of one utterance while ignoring all other words/context and convinced a slew of people I was some evil individual that didn't warrant interaction of any kind beyond an /ignore. This sort of "policing" is just going to swing things in the opposite direction, if indeed it's even far in the current direction to begin with (I don't believe it really is).

 

My take on it is that the person who lashes out at a potential "goader" isn't any better than the person goading them. It shows lack of restraint and a justification for their behavior based upon the actions of another individual they have no control over. Everyone has bad days, so that doesn't mean it's a "one-and-done" offense or anything, but maybe if someone is getting GM attention for overreacting to a potential troll post, then the post being reacted to could be reviewed at the same time? Seems more fair to me to judge all parties involved instead of just the guy yelling "leave me alone" at the person who's been subtly kicking the desk for 45 minutes.

 

Then again, this is a text medium and lots of things are taken to mean something they aren't. Some people just don't beat around the bush and get to the point directly, which often comes off as being rude or dismissive. Should that person get "punished" for not flowering up their posts? I don't think so, but in your system of mob rule that could very easily happen.