I have some serious issues with the way offensive language bans are currently being handled.
My primary concerns are as follows:
We are not told what it is we are being suspended for. Saying “you know what you did” not only isn’t always true, it doesn’t help us improve our language because the players of this game are not mind readers. To quote Gaile Gray from another thread on this subject:
GaileGrayIf I had to take a guess, I’d say that fewer than 5 people out of 100 really don’t know why they got a suspension for language.
Am I to interpret this such that one in twenty people will not only not know why they have been banned, but be unable to receive that information? This is not a good statistic. If the point of the ban is to deter future behavior of that type, the player needs to be informed of what it is that they have been banned for. Saying “you know what you did” clearly does not work for the entire set of people who have been banned, nor will it likely work for the 95% of players who might have some idea of why they have been banned. There is likely a very small number of people who unquestionably know why they were banned, but I have been in that position before and I can honestly say I’m not in it now.
Granted this “5 people out of 100” is a guess, but so what if it’s lower? Is it better if four people out of one hundred don’t know why they were banned? Is it better if it’s only one? The only truly just system of banning should leave no question as to why a ban is handed down. Zero out of one hundred people should be left questioning exactly what it is they have been reported for. Anything less than this is simply tyranny which should not be the policy of a fair set of rules.
This policy also creates an Us vs. Them mentality between those in support of it and those who believe its unfair. The problem with this is that those in support of it would like to argue that they have a moral high ground, but as far as I can tell they’re as subject to condescending, snide and sarcastic behavior as any other person would be. Probably more so because they believe they have a moral high ground. Does this policy affect them fairly? I personally doubt it. Why would it? As long as they don’t swear they can act as antagonistically as they want, so it would seem. In this case how does this policy actually make the community better? It’s simply a source of argumentation which is going to lead to more bans and negative community response.
If people are banned for participating in, but not instigating an argument, then the ban is demonstrably treating a symptom of a bad community and not the cause. A person who supports this policy is more likely to report than a person who does not, even if both are at fault for toxic behavior but the ban itself will not reflect this.
In short I believe that this kind of system does not fulfill the purpose of creating a better community because it does not accurately target or isolate problematic elements of a community. Reformation, not punishment, should be the way to create a better community and this policy does not help reform. It is arguable that it even punishes on a fair basis because of who will be getting reported, and for what. I may have more to say about this at a future time but I have been drinking since before I began typing this and I no longer trust my ability to write with clarity.
(edited by Turtles All The Way Down.5608)