support More information after submitting a ticket

[Bionic_Flea]

You saying it emphatically doesn't make it so.

 

Fairness to who?  Accountability for whom?  Again, it seems to me you just want a way to throw shade at HC, or perhaps at certain players.  And THAT is precisely why moderation actions are not made public.

 

This game isn't real life.  HC isn't the police.  No one gets physically hurt and no one goes to prison.

 

This debate that you and I are having is EXACTLY what would happen if the GMs' actions were public.  You or someone else would go on debating the ethics or lack thereof of their decisions.

 

[Rudra]

59 minutes ago, Forager said:

Businesses hide the results of their internal investigations because investigating their employees is essentially investigating themselves. It's inherently unethical. If you made a complaint about Homecoming staff, it would make sense for them to do this to protect themselves.

 

But we are not employees of Homecoming. We are users, so this should be more akin to a justice system than HR policy. When you report a crime, the authorities are legally required to notify you whether the offender is charged or not, when their court date is and when they are released.

 

This is fairly basic ethics. "Offender privacy" is a laughable concept in real life, and even funnier in an anonymous online game. The only reason to avoid accountability is so that you don't have to enforce the rules consistently and fairly.

Different circumstances, different expectations. For instance, in the military we are told "praise in public, punish in private". Anyone can go to their superior at any time and make a complaint. (This is encouraged.) Said superior now has an obligation to investigate, but not to inform the complainant of anything other than "I have heard your complaint". Any disciplinary actions are done in private. If the discipline is not done in private? It is because everyone is getting hit with the discipline hammer. (And if it seems like nothing is being done? Or if the superior is complicit or shielding the offender? You can elevate to his/her/their superior. Until you can no longer elevate....)

 

You attempt to resolve things quietly. To not disrupt morale or unit cohesion any more than the original complaint already did. To find a resolution that fixes the problem if there was one without making a spectacle of it. Why? Because not only is the possible offender at risk when the disciplinary actions are taken, but so is the person that reported that person. There was a time when our group commander called a mandatory surprise Commander's Call and stated "I know you all heard the rumors about an incident. Drop it. Leave it alone. Any attempts to learn more will result in disciplinary actions." Why? Because the person that was being harassed and reported the harassment came under even more personal attacks, from others not previously involved in the situation, because the incident became known. The victim was being persecuted. By the other people in the unit. Because it was found out she had reported the problem. Our group commander. For a squadron-level reported incident. It went that far.

 

Yes, this is a video game and not the military. However, I have seen even in games where players band together against a perceived threat to one of their own from players outside their group. And reporting what actions were taken in regards to reported complaints leads to further conflict between players. Because one group of players will think the punishment was too much and others will think it wasn't enough. Not even from the involved parties, just from those that found out. Then lines will be drawn between different camps of thought on the matter.

 

I get the desire to know what happened when a player files a complaint. Especially in the case of dedicated harassment. I also understand why punitive measures employed by the GMs aren't reported to players, even if said player was the originator of the report. All I can say is document everything. Make sure you have a library of proof to provide the GMs for things like harassment. Give them ample evidence to be able to take action. Give them ample followup proof if the behavior persists so they can in good conscience take more severe actions if warranted. And understand that with how easy it is to make an account, even that probably won't be enough to finally put an end to it. (There is a reason why gold farmers in games like WoW persisted, even flourished, despite the efforts of Blizzard and other companies to shut them down.)

[Forager]

6 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Fairness to who?

 

The players.

 

6 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Accountability for whom?

 

The people in charge.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Forager

[Forager]

13 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Because one group of players will think the punishment was too much and others will think it wasn't enough.

 

That's fine.

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Forager said:

19 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Because one group of players will think the punishment was too much and others will think it wasn't enough.

 

That's fine.

You do realize this makes your stance seem to be "make the punishments known so we can all argue about it", right?

[El D]

23 minutes ago, Forager said:

The players.

 

If there's anything the internet at-large and the CoH forums in-particular have taught me, it's that users rarely understand what 'fairness' actually is. Or effective game design. To both points, they usually just reference what they personally want in any particular given moment.

 

23 minutes ago, Forager said:

The people in charge.

 

What are you going to do if they don't? 'The people who control my access to the forums, game, and accounts should let the entirety of their moderation decisions be fully assessed by the playerbase!' is a nonstarter. They have no incentive to even consider this. So where do you go from there?

Edited 14 hours ago by El D

[Forager]

6 minutes ago, El D said:

They have no incentive to even consider this.

 

Whoops. They want players to trust the system. That's what the GM said, at least.

 

If they don't want that, then of course there's no reason to be accountable.

[Laucianna]

7 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Just playing devil's advocate here, so don't kill me.

 

Let's assume HC did tell you the result.  Published the result on a log even.  How would that go?

 

1.  They investigated your complaint and disagreed for whatever reason.  It didn't look enough like Superman to generic, they looked at chat logs and found that the complainer was the aggressor, or they looked at chat logs and felt that the incident could have been role play as no clear out-of-character statement to leave the complainer alone was made.   The complainer will not be satisfied and perhaps start a series of appeals.  The accused now knows the complainer (or someone) made a complaint against him.

2.  They agree with the complaint but only issue a warning or a 24 hour ban, not the permanent ban complainer was hoping for.  The complainer will not be satisfied and perhaps start a series of appeals.  The accused now knows the complainer (or someone) made a complaint against him.  The accused is also not satisfied and appeals.

3.  They agree with the complaint and issue a permanent ban.  Complainer is satisfied but accused is not.  Accused starts a series of appeals and tells his friends that complainer got him booted . . . and then creates a new account.

 

I don't see any of those outcomes as helpful or beneficial.  It creates the potential for a new series of appeals that have to be addressed on top of addressing current problems.  It creates additional animosity between players and between players and HC.  Everyone knows the outcome but what benefit is gained?  

I wouldn't want the results publicly posted anywhere as that is just a shaming board which doesn't help anything. To me and this is just my opinion which could very much be wrong but this is how those situations would go:

1 - Complaint disregarded - Complainer understands what happened isn't an issue to the GMs and can make a decision if they still wish to play depending on what it is they complained about. Aggressor has no idea anything has happened and continues on complying with the GMs verdict without even knowing.

2 - Temp ban - Complainer is informed a temporary ban has been given and to let them know if it repeats when they get back, making the complainer feel seen and safe. Aggressor gets a temp ban due to X reason and can either decide to leave the game or stop doing X, or continuing doing X until perma ban. This has the added bonus of others who have been victim to the Aggressor but didn't feel confident reporting, to have to not worry anymore without having to do anything.

3 - Perma ban - Complainer is informed and to let them know if the person returns on an alt account and the team will handle it, making them feel safe and seen. Aggressor gets a ban and can decide to move on with their life or try to evade it and catching more bans. This has the added bonus of others who have been victim to the Aggressor but didn't feel confident reporting, to have to not worry anymore without having to do anything.

Whatever the HC team decide to do in the future is fully up to them and I will still play the game as long as I am not feeling too uncomfortable because of others, I am just making a suggestion that might help players who are victims feel a bit more seen and understood when they do complain. Also just to make sure this is clear I do love and adore the HC team, they are far from perfect as most of them eat Kheldians, but they are amazing people doing an amazing job keeping a game we all love running and super populated with content 💛

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

15 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

Also just to make sure this is clear I do love and adore the HC team, they are far from perfect as most of them eat Kheldians

 

Awww . . . we adore you too . . .

 

with lemon and a nice sauce.

Edited 13 hours ago by GM_GooglyMoogly

[Rudra]

13 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

2 - Temp ban - Complainer is informed a temporary ban has been given and to let them know if it repeats when they get back, making the complainer feel seen and safe. Aggressor gets a temp ban due to X reason and can either decide to leave the game or stop doing X, or continuing doing X until perma ban. This has the added bonus of others who have been victim to the Aggressor but didn't feel confident reporting, to have to not worry anymore without having to do anything.

Except there is absolutely no way for other possible victims to know they don't have to worry any more unless the GM publicly announces the punishment, the complainant runs around telling others of the punishment, or the banned player's friends run around telling others of the ban. You say you are against the first happening. (Which I appreciate.) The second currently isn't possible because the GMs don't tell anyone what actions they took against someone. Which leaves option 3. You may not think it, but you are asking to make option 2 possible. Which still leads to angry discussions about what happened. (Option 3 is less likely to happen because the offender is not likely to know who reported him/her/them unless the offender was only harassing a single specific player.

 

17 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

3 - Perma ban - Complainer is informed and to let them know if the person returns on an alt account and the team will handle it, making them feel safe and seen. Aggressor gets a ban and can decide to move on with their life or try to evade it and catching more bans. This has the added bonus of others who have been victim to the Aggressor but didn't feel confident reporting, to have to not worry anymore without having to do anything.

See response to #2 above.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

Awww . . . we adore you too . . .

 

with lemon and a nice sauce.

Dammit GM²! Now I want Kheldian... I mean... calamari....

[Forager]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

You do realize this makes your stance seem to be "make the punishments known so we can all argue about it", right?

 

My stance is "make the punishments known to ensure fairness and give victims of harassment peace of mind."

[Forager]

44 minutes ago, Rudra said:

You say you are against the first happening.

 

Whoops. Laucianna is not detailing 3 options. She's giving 3 example outcomes if players DO find out what happens. The first one is the GM telling the complainant that no action will be taken. 

 

44 minutes ago, Rudra said:

The second currently isn't possible because the GMs don't tell anyone what actions they took against someone.

 

Right. She is saying it should be possible and that they should tell someone what actions they took.

 

44 minutes ago, Rudra said:

You may not think it, but you are asking to make option 2 possible.

 

Umm... she does think it lol. That's exactly what she is suggesting. That's exactly what we are arguing should happen. It's not an option. It's an example of how it should work.

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Forager

[PeregrineFalcon]

The City of Heroes RETAIL team had the rule that "we don't discuss moderator actions." And the City of Heroes HOMECOMING team has decided to follow that same standard.

 

But that's not the only acceptable standard.

 

I'll give you an example: Shortly after Guild Wars 2 launched a person started complaining on social media (maybe Reddit, I forget) that the GW2 team had banned them for no reason at all, and that they were horrible people, etc., etc. Gail (the head of the of the mod team at the time) responded showing screenshots of things he'd said in game that showed him saying ridiculous racist stuff in general chat. This had the effect of not only letting people know that that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated, but it also gave people confidence that the mod team was actually responding to reports like this which kept a lot of people from doing those things in the first place.

 

Another example: whenever I play Rainbow Six Siege I constantly see messages pop up like: "Battleye just banned XxXwackynameXxX." Now I don't know much about how moderation works for Siege, but you know what I do know? I know that if I make a dumb name, or say something dumb in chat, I'm gonna get banned, so I don't do any of those things.

 

So there is a legitimate reason to show players at least some of the results of moderator actions, if not all of the details. The Homecoming team has chosen not to do that, and that's fine, but just so people understand there are other legal and acceptable ways to deal with moderation.

[Bionic_Flea]

17 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

but just so people understand there are other legal and acceptable ways to deal with moderation.

 

Since I understand that you are an actual lawyer, not just play one on TV, would you say that HC's moderation policies are illegal?  How about unethical?

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Forager said:

Whoops. Laucianna is not detailing 3 options. She's giving 3 example outcomes if players DO find out what happens. The first one is the GM telling the complainant that no action will be taken. 

If you are going to break up my comment, kindly do so in a way that makes sense. You are so eager to "Whoops!" or 'Whoopsie!" other posters that you didn't even bother to realize I did not say @Laucianna is giving three options, but that those are the three options that I see available.

[Forager]

5 hours ago, Rudra said:

If you are going to break up my comment, kindly do so in a way that makes sense. You are so eager to "Whoops!" or 'Whoopsie!" other posters that you didn't even bother to realize I did not say @Laucianna is giving three options, but that those are the three options that I see available.

 

Oh, ok I get it. You're talking about 

 

8 hours ago, Rudra said:

unless the GM publicly announces the punishment, the complainant runs around telling others of the punishment, or the banned player's friends run around telling others of the ban

 

as "3 options." In that case, yeah number 2 would totally be possible. It should be possible, because the GM should tell the victim what actions, if any, were taken.

 

8 hours ago, Rudra said:

Which still leads to angry discussions about what happened.

 

That's fine.