Tweet
It's a bigger problem to ban someone from a game over text. The words of a troll I can ?ignore and their text does not infringe on my freedom or take away my choice. Whereas a ban infringes on peoples freedom and takes away their choice. So what's actually more problematic are the people asking to ban other players, in 20 years of playing subspace i never demanded anyone be banned from the game. And I've had whole communities insulting me, attacking me, none stop. So I'd actually argue the people asking for bans are up to no good, they want to actually harm others due to some vendetta, they really aren't moral people themselves, and so they have no moral high ground. And they are too prideful with too much ego to use ?ignore, or otherwise they thrive on the conflict. Because otherwise their problems would go away by permanently ?ignoring a player.
Basically when you introduce bans, you introduce intolerance. And you're no longer saying subspace is "a game where you meet people from all over the world and then kill them", but rather it's a game shaped by a few players who only want the people they like interacting with, in "their" game. So with bans subspace is run by a few people with like minds who are yes people to each other. Usually elitists/league players since they are prioritized in every zone. Also notice it's always the same people who are staff in every zone who decide everything. As a side note: A lot of trench wars mods I've never seen before back in 1997, 2002, 2006? when were their names created? what are all their aliases etc?
If we got new players daily, then no matter how many players were banned that a specific group of players didn't like it would be hard for that group of players to make a game based only on people they like - since the amount of new players arriving daily would be overwhelming. So bans would still be morally problematic in the case of many new players but at least it wouldn't be possible for a group of players to shape the game in their image.
Also remember, few players in subspace are actually innocent, we've even had staff and net ops who did crummy stuff back in 2002, like take down whole zones because of some personal vendetta with someone. And that's the person who became staff and oversees network bans? lol. These people calling to ban others often engage in the same if not worse behaviour and they get to judge other people as being bad for the game? 10 minutes later after successfully banning someone/getting someone banned they basically engage in the same behaviour if not worse. So a ban would make more sense if there was no double standard or hypocrisy, but in zones like pro league or hockey zone, double standards and hypocrisy is all you will find. And many of those players play in trench wars or staff in trench wars.
So to me a ban is always morally problematic. However, I disagree with aliasing, and ?ignore evading. I've never done this in subspace either. I've always had one name and used it. I've even had people who decide who is staff telling me I can be TW staff, BUT I must change my name, and I refused. That's how against aliasing I am. And the reason I never ?ignore evade is because I've always been in agreement that if ?ignore doesn't work bans become necessary. So if proven that the person is aliased to harass a specific person who ?ignored them, that might be one of the few legitimate reasons for a ban.
Plus ignore and silence are bans on the persons text already. Their presence in the zone shouldn't matter to you if that already solves the problem. Silence would be stopping a problem, whereas banning is considered punishment, because silence exists as an option. And punishment is not a good deterrent, it's not healthy and not as effective as other means, for example treating people like human beings is a way to actually deter bad behaviour. And similarly if it's true that silences can be evaded, so can bans, so you actually solved nothing in the end really. The silence system should work like the ban system, silencing a player based on IP, MAC ID, username, all known aliases previously recorded for that player and so on. It should have already been basically up to par with the ban system, and if it's not, then the proper response is to get development on it until it is, not to enforce bans.
Basically when you introduce bans, you introduce intolerance. And you're no longer saying subspace is "a game where you meet people from all over the world and then kill them", but rather it's a game shaped by a few players who only want the people they like interacting with, in "their" game. So with bans subspace is run by a few people with like minds who are yes people to each other. Usually elitists/league players since they are prioritized in every zone. Also notice it's always the same people who are staff in every zone who decide everything. As a side note: A lot of trench wars mods I've never seen before back in 1997, 2002, 2006? when were their names created? what are all their aliases etc?
If we got new players daily, then no matter how many players were banned that a specific group of players didn't like it would be hard for that group of players to make a game based only on people they like - since the amount of new players arriving daily would be overwhelming. So bans would still be morally problematic in the case of many new players but at least it wouldn't be possible for a group of players to shape the game in their image.
Also remember, few players in subspace are actually innocent, we've even had staff and net ops who did crummy stuff back in 2002, like take down whole zones because of some personal vendetta with someone. And that's the person who became staff and oversees network bans? lol. These people calling to ban others often engage in the same if not worse behaviour and they get to judge other people as being bad for the game? 10 minutes later after successfully banning someone/getting someone banned they basically engage in the same behaviour if not worse. So a ban would make more sense if there was no double standard or hypocrisy, but in zones like pro league or hockey zone, double standards and hypocrisy is all you will find. And many of those players play in trench wars or staff in trench wars.
So to me a ban is always morally problematic. However, I disagree with aliasing, and ?ignore evading. I've never done this in subspace either. I've always had one name and used it. I've even had people who decide who is staff telling me I can be TW staff, BUT I must change my name, and I refused. That's how against aliasing I am. And the reason I never ?ignore evade is because I've always been in agreement that if ?ignore doesn't work bans become necessary. So if proven that the person is aliased to harass a specific person who ?ignored them, that might be one of the few legitimate reasons for a ban.
Plus ignore and silence are bans on the persons text already. Their presence in the zone shouldn't matter to you if that already solves the problem. Silence would be stopping a problem, whereas banning is considered punishment, because silence exists as an option. And punishment is not a good deterrent, it's not healthy and not as effective as other means, for example treating people like human beings is a way to actually deter bad behaviour. And similarly if it's true that silences can be evaded, so can bans, so you actually solved nothing in the end really. The silence system should work like the ban system, silencing a player based on IP, MAC ID, username, all known aliases previously recorded for that player and so on. It should have already been basically up to par with the ban system, and if it's not, then the proper response is to get development on it until it is, not to enforce bans.
Comment