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

[listerinfiji]

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.

Sorry to keep repeating myself but I'm doing it because I consider the examples I illustrated as completely valid. If I were to name a 'famous explorer', what is to stop some people from then hunting that explorer just to say that they've killed that person?

This is the other extreme of the debate - naming anybody for any reason could potentially lead to them being singled out for attack.

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

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!).

That one gave me a chuckle - good point, well made!

I'm tiring myself out now I didn't expect so many responses so quickly!

 

[Siranui]

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

In addition to points others have raised, there is a further reason:

Because some people like to be named. It encourages them.

Infamy is the goal of many a spree killer.

 

[listerinfiji]

In addition to points others have raised, there is a further reason:

Because some people like to be named. It encourages them.

Infamy is the goal of many a spree killer.

*Grins* I agree completely on this point as it's a view I hold myself - it's why I personally would never choose to name any individual or group, as I wouldn't want to assist in building their infamy. But this doesn't alter my viewpoint on the subject it's just my own personal preference.

 

[MickyG1982]

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 - - - - -



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.

It's the internet, no need for proof, simply the accusation is enough to put players on peoples kill on sight lists in other forums.

The point is, if you want to report someone of such devious acts then you should do so through a support ticket or PM to support.

Only they can look into the logs of a particular CMDR and prove the fact one way or another.

On another point, what if you have mistakenly accused one CMDR that has a similar name to the one you want? Players then go after that innocent player instead, spoiling his or her game for simply having a name that looks the same.

Only support has access to the exact information, so only support should deal with the issue.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

The Idea is to keep the Forum a friendly and nice place. Doesn't always work out but trying is always good, letting people do naming and shaming would basicly be giving up on trying to make it a nice place.

 

[Arindor]

Sorry to keep repeating myself but I'm doing it because I consider the examples I illustrated as completely valid. If I were to name a 'famous explorer', what is to stop some people from then hunting that explorer just to say that they've killed that person?

This is the other extreme of the debate - naming anybody for any reason could potentially lead to them being singled out for attack.

It's ok, you have a valid point. I assume most players would go gunning for griefers. The amount of threads saying somehting like "Commander in a python outside Lave popping hulls" (for example) attracts players who would be more than happy to either stop that player or add to it. I remember a few threads during PB and SB stating where griefers were harrassing new players, and some of the old guard patrolled those areas to help out. No naming and shaming then, just a location.

However, you have a point regarding those named for doing good deeds, or commanders posting threads about their exploits. There's nothing stopping players from hunting them at all. However, hunting a famous explorer/trader/bounty hunter, for example, would be more difficult because, more than likely, they wouldn't hang around the same areas most of the time. But if you said "Explorer <whatisname> has just entered <location>", then I assume that could be considered naming, because it could entice people to that location to pew pew pew them.

 

[Macy]

You sound like a Lawyer

 

[mistohise]

From a forum moderation point of view, I'd imagine that it's a lot simpler for the mods to simply have a no name and shame rule than for them to have to moderate the many possible permutations of naming and shaming that might otherwise appear.
Prior experience from the way things can go on forums suggests that this is a reasonable stance to take.
Does it mean that there are probably otherwise "useful" names and shames that can't happen? Yes it probably does. But sadly the way the world is means that sometimes you can't have the nice things.