[QUESTION FOR FDEV] Please can you shed some light on the 'name and shame' ruling?

[listerinfiji]

I had a question about 'naming and shaming' and its place (or lack of place) on this forum.

So the concept is pretty simple - one CMDR does something which other members within the community view as 'wrong' (usually an unprovoked attack). The 'wronged' CMDR comes on the forum and names the first CMDR and their actions. A mod then comes along and removes the 'offending' CMDR name from the post and issues the CMDR who started the thread with a warning.

To me this seems entirely against the spirit of ED and the rules of open play. Let me illustrate a few relevant points here:

• ED is an open world game where unprovoked attacks from one CMDR (or multiple CMDRs) on other players is accepted as allowable practice within the gameplay universe by the devs.
• Players who choose this route in game also typically defend their actions based on the above statement - from their viewpoint they are doing nothing wrong.
• Based on the action not being wrong in the views of the devs, not being wrong in the eyes of the 'offending' CMDR, and that CMDR also feeling no shame over their actions, the shame part of 'name and shame' is a highly inaccurate description of the violation of a forum rule.
• To draw a parallel with real life, if an individual is roaming free in the real world, and has murdered people, this is widely broadcast on the news. It's a warning to the public to keep away from this person for their own safety. I would suggest that naming somebody as a warning to other players to help protect their safety in ED is not really so different.
• We also have to think about what constitutes 'shame'. We are viewing shame from the eyes of people who consider it shameful to attack others without provocation. The people who commit these actions do no consider this as a shameful thing to do. Conversely, there is no issue with naming a player on the forum for other things. Let's say a CMDR is named for a discovery, the majority may not consider this shameful. However other players, who feel that the game should be spent with large amount of PVP, may view this as a shameful use of time by the CMDR. So based on this logic how is naming anybody for any purpose considered any different?

What I'm really getting at here is that the current stance being taking by FDev seems completely at odds with itself. On the one hand they are saying it is completely acceptable in game to attack other players unprovoked (which although I may not like, I do support) but at the same time they are advising us that a few specific actions mean that the CMDR cannot be named as this brings 'shame' (which I do not support, as this suggest FDev are now taking the complete opposite stance and admitting that the CMDR has in fact done something 'wrong').

I think FDev should get off the fence on this and come down on one side of this debate or the other. Either the actions are wrong and should be punishable by FDev (in which case the 'name and shame' rule is appropriate, as such issues are dealt with directly by the devs instead), or the actions are totally acceptable but then the 'name and shame' rule becomes null and void as people should be allowed to warn other people who to keep away from if they wish to protect themselves from harm.

So my question, really, is can FDev please shed some light on the above 'name and shame' ruling, taking into account my above points, and explain to the community how this ruling is considered to fairly integrate with the open world design that considers all and any actions as being fair play?

I'd particularly be interested to hear a logically constructed response from an FDev employee, for example our community manager.

Thank you to anybody who got this far for your time and patience in reading this post

 

[MassiveD]

I had a question about 'naming and shaming' and its place (or lack of place) on this forum.

So the concept is pretty simple - one CMDR does something which other members within the community view as 'wrong' (usually an unprovoked attack). The 'wronged' CMDR comes on the forum and names the first CMDR and their actions. A mod then comes along and removes the 'offending' CMDR name from the post and issues the CMDR who started the thread with a warning.

To me this seems entirely against the spirit of ED and the rules of open play. Let me illustrate a few relevant points here:

• ED is an open world game where unprovoked attacks from one CMDR (or multiple CMDRs) on other players is accepted as allowable practice within the gameplay universe by the devs.
• Players who choose this route in game also typically defend their actions based on the above statement - from their viewpoint they are doing nothing wrong.
• Based on the action not being wrong in the views of the devs, not being wrong in the eyes of the 'offending' CMDR, and that CMDR also feeling no shame over their actions, the shame part of 'name and shame' is a highly inaccurate description of the violation of a forum rule.
• To draw a parallel with real life, if an individual is roaming free in the real world, and has murdered people, this is widely broadcast on the news. It's a warning to the public to keep away from this person for their own safety. I would suggest that naming somebody as a warning to other players to help protect their safety in ED is not really so different.
• We also have to think about what constitutes 'shame'. We are viewing shame from the eyes of people who consider it shameful to attack others without provocation. The people who commit these actions do no consider this as a shameful thing to do. Conversely, there is no issue with naming a player on the forum for other things. Let's say a CMDR is named for a discovery, the majority may not consider this shameful. However other players, who feel that the game should be spent with large amount of PVP, may view this as a shameful use of time by the CMDR. So based on this logic how is naming anybody for any purpose considered any different?

What I'm really getting at here is that the current stance being taking by FDev seems completely at odds with itself. On the one hand they are saying it is completely acceptable in game to attack other players unprovoked (which although I may not like, I do support) but at the same time they are advising us that a few specific actions mean that the CMDR cannot be named as this brings 'shame' (which I do not support, as this suggest FDev are now taking the complete opposite stance and admitting that the CMDR has in fact done something 'wrong').

I think FDev should get off the fence on this and come down on one side of this debate or the other. Either the actions are wrong and should be punishable by FDev (in which case the 'name and shame' rule is appropriate, as such issues are dealt with directly by the devs instead), or the actions are totally acceptable but then the 'name and shame' rule becomes null and void as people should be allowed to warn other people who to keep away from if they wish to protect themselves from harm.

So my question, really, is can FDev please shed some light on the above 'name and shame' ruling, taking into account my above points, and explain to the community how this ruling is considered to fairly integrate with the open world design that considers all and any actions as being fair play?

I'd particularly be interested to hear a logically constructed response from an FDev employee, for example our community manager.

Thank you to anybody who got this far for your time and patience in reading this post

This rule is there to prevent witch hunts, it's working as intended.

If you feel like a player is doing something against the game rules, like cheating, or exploiting, there's the in game option allowing you to report, and also you can submit a ticket via support desk.

Exposing the player on forums does nothing more than create drama threads

 

[DarthRavadge]

Better to keep the peace.
Do you know how out of had the forum would get if everyone used it as an arena to air their personal grievances?

 

[Arindor]

Hope this helps. Point 13 is the one you want, but it's a simple rule. Don't name or shame other commanders who don't play nice:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=251032

FD do have measures in place for dealing with those players that have been reported. How effective FD are, or numbers affected by bans/warnings/etc., will not be made public.

 

[DNA-Decay]

Allegedly The Code have a bounty board out on the interwebs so you can post a personal bounty on that.

But here at home we like to keep it nice in case the vicar drops round for tea.

Which she does periodically.

 

[listerinfiji]

This rule is there to prevent witch hunts, it's working as intended.

If you feel like a player is doing something against the game rules, like cheating, or exploiting, there's the in game option allowing you to report, and also you can submit a ticket via support desk.

Exposing the player on forums does nothing more than create drama threads

That's a very broad response given that I've tried to make everything more granular from my point of view. If you look at my final point, I used an example of naming a CMDR for an exploration achievement, and pointed out that some members of the community may consider these exploits in some way a 'shameful' use of time in game by the player. Potentially naming that CMDR could lead to an (in game) witch hunt against them by others.

I'm not saying your logic is wrong, but I am saying if we follow your logic than naming any other CMDR for any reason whatsoever should be against forum rules.

 

[Leo Sagan]

Yes , please FD, allow naming and shaming so I can paint a big red target on this guy who looked at me funny outside Jameson station. He's not the honest trader he claims to be, he's a griefer, he needs to die !

 

[listerinfiji]

Hope this helps. Point 13 is the one you want, but it's a simple rule. Don't name or shame other commanders who don't play nice:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=251032

FD do have measures in place for dealing with those players that have been reported. How effective FD are, or numbers affected by bans/warnings/etc., will not be made public.

Same as my last post really - that rule doesn't specify not naming any other CMDR for any reason whatsoever. If it did then I would not have raised this debate.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yes , please FD, allow naming and shaming so I can paint a big red target on this guy who looked at me funny outside Jameson station. He's not the honest trader he claims to be, he's a griefer, he needs to die !

Another problem I guess with this is a pre-judgement on how everybody else within the community will behave/respond. I'd like to point out that, apart from on my first day playing getting out of the starter system, I've never suffered an attack from another CMDR. I have no personal reason for starting this debate, other than the fact I don't feel there is logic to the ruling (as I said it is contradictory of the nature of the game).

From my point of view if I saw a CMDR named for attacking others, I wouldn't be interested in 'hunting them down'. It would simply mean if I saw them in game I would make sure to avoid them.

 

[DarthRavadge]

So I am guessing someone ticked you off to the point that you want to rail at him publicly? Probably hoping that everyone will console you and agree how unfair it was?
In the meantime said CMDR probably doesn't even visit the forum and couldn't care less.

 

[listerinfiji]

So I am guessing someone ticked you off to the point that you want to rail at him publicly? Probably hoping that everyone will console you and agree how unfair it was?
In the meantime said CMDR probably doesn't even visit the forum and couldn't care less.

See my last post - no I do not have any individual that I personally wish to name for any reason.

EDIT: I'd also like to add as per the original post that I am not against CMDRs choosing to play the game in this way. It's an open game and I think allowing attacks on other players is the correct decision. However I have tried to compare this to real life. Actions have consequences.

 

[MassiveD]

Look buddy, your subjective opinion has been noted, however it's wrong, therefore not relevant.

We had witch hunts before, you are forgetting this is the internet.


From what I see, your question has been answered, you're welcome.

/thread

 

[listerinfiji]

Look buddy, your subjective opinion has been noted, however it's wrong, therefore not relevant.

We had witch hunts before, you are forgetting this is the internet.


From what I see, your question has been answered, you're welcome.

/thread

Well from my point of view it's wrong to simply tell somebody else that 'their opinion is wrong and hence invalid' You've shared your own opinion and although I may not agree with it I accept that it is your opinion. If you don't wish to contribute to the discussion any further then I'm not forcing or even requiring you to reply, but if you wish to reply then I'm asking you to respect that I am entitled to an opinion and that an opinion shouldn't simply be lablled 'wrong'.

 

[Shefenhow]

On the one hand they are saying it is completely acceptable in game to attack other players unprovoked (which although I may not like, I do support) but at the same time they are advising us that a few specific actions mean that the CMDR cannot be named as this brings 'shame' (which I do not support, as this suggest FDev are now taking the complete opposite stance and admitting that the CMDR has in fact done something 'wrong').

It might just mean don't shame them because FDev don't think they did anything wrong? I am not sure why you would think the reverse?

 

[MassiveD]

Well from my point of view it's wrong to simply tell somebody else that 'their opinion is wrong and hence invalid' You've shared your own opinion and although I may not agree with it I accept that it is your opinion. If you don't wish to contribute to the discussion any further then I'm not forcing or even requiring you to reply, but if you wish to reply then I'm asking you to respect that I am entitled to an opinion and that an opinion shouldn't simply be lablled 'wrong'.

No, you're right, everybody is entitled to their opinions, I'm not trying to take that away from you.

But here's the thing with opinions, they are subjective by nature.

If my opinion is that the moon is purple, that alone is not enough to make the moon purple.

Just like if my opinion is that Thou Shall Not Kill law is dumb, doesnt mean we should just throw it out the window and hope that the earths population will manage to not murder each other horribly just by using their own moral faculties.


And in this case, Thau Shall Not Name rule is in place for a very good reason, and is currently working as intended, so there is no reason fixing what isn't broken.

 

[MickyG1982]

I had a question about 'naming and shaming' and its place (or lack of place) on this forum.

So the concept is pretty simple - one CMDR does something which other members within the community view as 'wrong' (usually an unprovoked attack). The 'wronged' CMDR comes on the forum and names the first CMDR and their actions. A mod then comes along and removes the 'offending' CMDR name from the post and issues the CMDR who started the thread with a warning.

To me this seems entirely against the spirit of ED and the rules of open play. Let me illustrate a few relevant points here:

• ED is an open world game where unprovoked attacks from one CMDR (or multiple CMDRs) on other players is accepted as allowable practice within the gameplay universe by the devs.
• Players who choose this route in game also typically defend their actions based on the above statement - from their viewpoint they are doing nothing wrong.
• Based on the action not being wrong in the views of the devs, not being wrong in the eyes of the 'offending' CMDR, and that CMDR also feeling no shame over their actions, the shame part of 'name and shame' is a highly inaccurate description of the violation of a forum rule.
• To draw a parallel with real life, if an individual is roaming free in the real world, and has murdered people, this is widely broadcast on the news. It's a warning to the public to keep away from this person for their own safety. I would suggest that naming somebody as a warning to other players to help protect their safety in ED is not really so different.
• We also have to think about what constitutes 'shame'. We are viewing shame from the eyes of people who consider it shameful to attack others without provocation. The people who commit these actions do no consider this as a shameful thing to do. Conversely, there is no issue with naming a player on the forum for other things. Let's say a CMDR is named for a discovery, the majority may not consider this shameful. However other players, who feel that the game should be spent with large amount of PVP, may view this as a shameful use of time by the CMDR. So based on this logic how is naming anybody for any purpose considered any different?

What I'm really getting at here is that the current stance being taking by FDev seems completely at odds with itself. On the one hand they are saying it is completely acceptable in game to attack other players unprovoked (which although I may not like, I do support) but at the same time they are advising us that a few specific actions mean that the CMDR cannot be named as this brings 'shame' (which I do not support, as this suggest FDev are now taking the complete opposite stance and admitting that the CMDR has in fact done something 'wrong').

I think FDev should get off the fence on this and come down on one side of this debate or the other. Either the actions are wrong and should be punishable by FDev (in which case the 'name and shame' rule is appropriate, as such issues are dealt with directly by the devs instead), or the actions are totally acceptable but then the 'name and shame' rule becomes null and void as people should be allowed to warn other people who to keep away from if they wish to protect themselves from harm.

So my question, really, is can FDev please shed some light on the above 'name and shame' ruling, taking into account my above points, and explain to the community how this ruling is considered to fairly integrate with the open world design that considers all and any actions as being fair play?

I'd particularly be interested to hear a logically constructed response from an FDev employee, for example our community manager.

Thank you to anybody who got this far for your time and patience in reading this post

I could name you (or anybody else) as a pirate or combat logger etc and it might be a complete lie but tell it enough...

 

[listerinfiji]

It might just mean don't shame them because FDev don't think they did anything wrong? I am not sure why you would think the reverse?

Thanks for this one. Although I don't especially agree this is a more fairly put argument on the matter. At this point we could go further into views on right and wrong. If a majority of a community feels an action is wrong and a minority feels it is not wrong, etc etc. But I've been typing a lot already and I think you get the idea of where I am going with that one from that last sentence

I'll revert back to the murderer scenario again. If there is a murder, and that person is on the loose, and the police failed to name the suspect to the public, which then led to more members of the public being murdered, the competence of the police in this instance would be called into question, correct?

 

[xondk]

This rule is there to prevent witch hunts, it's working as intended.

If you feel like a player is doing something against the game rules, like cheating, or exploiting, there's the in game option allowing you to report, and also you can submit a ticket via support desk.

Exposing the player on forums does nothing more than create drama threads

Add that it also prevents false accusations causing witch hunts, which I've seen happen on a lot of other platforms that allow naming.

 

[listerinfiji]

No, you're right, everybody is entitled to their opinions, I'm not trying to take that away from you.

But here's the thing with opinions, they are subjective by nature.

If my opinion is that the moon is purple, that alone is not enough to make the moon purple.

Just like if my opinion is that Thou Shall Not Kill law is dumb, doesnt mean we should just throw it out the window and hope that the earths population will manage to not murder each other horribly just by using their own moral faculties.


And in this case, Thau Shall Not Name rule is in place for a very good reason, and is currently working as intended, so there is no reason fixing what isn't broken.

Oh I don't expect anything I'm saying to change the rule; indeed I expect it will always stay in place. I just wanted to express the illogic I see in it after reading so many threads with '[redacted]' (which I typed, nothing has been redacted) in them, and not knowing for myself who I should potentially avoid, and wondering why actions do not have consequences.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I could name you (or anybody else) as a pirate or combat logger etc and it might be a complete lie but tell it enough...

That you could. I'll refer back to the murder (or at least legal) scenario again - the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

 

[Arindor]

Same as my last post really - that rule doesn't specify not naming any other CMDR for any reason whatsoever. If it did then I would not have raised this debate.

One would assume the reason was obvious why there were no specific reasons mentioned in point 13. It works as a blanket ban against naming and shaming. You can't simply name another commander and shame them by accusing him/her of doing something, it's your word against theirs.

There are mechanisms in place to report behaviour that falls foul of the T&Cs, how effective those mechanisms are is another matter entirely. At the end of the day, the matter of another player's behaviour towards another is for FD to decide, and not something that could become a witch hunt on the forum.

There's nothing stopping you from saying "There's a commander at <location> running amok" (etc.), and I don't think there's anything to stop you naming a commander that did a good thing for you, but if you're unsure, just don't do it.

 

[Shefenhow]

Thanks for this one. Although I don't especially agree this is a more fairly put argument on the matter. At this point we could go further into views on right and wrong. If a majority of a community feels an action is wrong and a minority feels it is not wrong, etc etc. But I've been typing a lot already and I think you get the idea of where I am going with that one from that last sentence

I'll revert back to the murderer scenario again. If there is a murder, and that person is on the loose, and the police failed to name the suspect to the public, which then led to more members of the public being murdered, the competence of the police in this instance would be called into question, correct?

Well except its only your word he is a murderer. And if you had video evidence of him killing you, maybe you killed his brother in which case he is quite entitled to kill you (not in RL!).