Shattered Kingdoms

I think the punishment was fair based on the situation at hand. I could have easily seen Dulrik not banning them for it if the characters were not throw way characters, and if the people involved actually cared about the ban.

Punishments seem inconsistant at times because everything is situational. I'd much rather have a flexible policy on punishments because if Dulrik would have just taken these characters abilities to belong in a cabal or level cursed them it wouldn't have mattered because they were just going to be deleted anyways. If there would have been a set policy only allowing for a level reduction or something along those lines in place, Dulrik wouldn't have been able to issue any reasonable punishment against someone who was just going to destroy the character in the end anyways.

Icey was actually interested in playing the game again which is what makes me sad about the ban situation. He was also aware that the bug was going to be reported since he's the one that found it and told other people so they could report it.

IMHO:

Normally, I would agree that a perma-ban (or even a "long term" ban) seems a bit excessive. Although, D has a point, just deleting a throwaway character is no punishment at all.

As I see it there should be five factors used in determining the degree of punishment. The first three would be used to determine the "base line" (for lack of better term) punishment, those three things being: severity of infraction, intention, and result of infraction (or for those that enjoy philosophical ethical theories: action, intention, and result). The last two factors adjust the "base line" punishment, these being effectiveness of punishment (EoP) and assessment of the player's risk to repeat in a rules violation (AoPR).

The descriptions for the five determining factors are as follows.
1. Action - What rule was broken and how. For example, a bug that gives your character a free +1 MR is not the same as a bug giving your character extra Att points.

2. Intention - Why the player broke the rule and with what knowledge. For example, a player that happens on a bug and abuses it for a while is different then a player who creates/designs a character to exploit a bug.

3. Result - What was the overall effect of the players breaking the rule. For example, a player that abuses a bug to spam train continual light is different then a player using that same bug to crash the mud.

4. EoP - Basically, once the first three are uses to establish the "base line" for the infraction, that "base line" is then evaluated to make sure the punishment meets the intended goals. For example, deletion of a "throw away" character is effectively no punishment as a perma-ban for a typo is excessive.

5. AoPR - This last step is to determine the chances that this player will again act in a way that is detrimental to the game. For example, Assume player X uses a spamming method to harass player Y. If player X has a history of violating the rules, shows remorse (or lack of), etc. would then affect the end punishment. Obviously, the higher the risk of another occurrence the greater the punishment.

In this specific case I can understand how exploiting an infinite exp. bug would be considered a high level infraction. Also, the player knowingly and willingly broke the rules. Although, the actual impact on the game from this abuse seems to be minimal (possibly due to being caught). Therefore, I see the "base line" as deletion of all characters involved in the bug abuse.

Now applying EoP to the "base line” shows that this character falls into the "throw away character" definition. Therefore, the punishment is ineffective and must be adjusted. My solution is "SK-probation". "SK-probation" would mean being limited to one character at any given time. That character would also be prohibited from joining a faction or getting F3 in a faith until the "SK-probation" was lifted. Violation of the "SK-probation" would be immediate perma-ban.

Next we apply the AoPR. According to D, the player showed no remorse and if anything was offered that would mitigate a higher risk assessment it has not been discussed that I have read. Therefore, I will assume until I learn, none was offered. That being the case, I can understand the reason to site-ban. A player that knowingly and willingly breaks the rules and then give the administration little reason to have faith that said player will change; cutting the ties with that player must be done.

On a personal note, I've always liked Mr.P. If I didn't get the feeling he didn't care, I would be more moved to disagree with the site ban. If he really wanted to remain a part of the game, then some other form of punishment *cough* SK-probation *cough* would be better for the player, the game, and the community at large. I can believe his actions were taken without any malevolence, such as setting a PL record (which I still believe is held by Melinko sp?). This being the case, I find the situation a bit more unfortunate because a simple email seeking approval with the promise to delete the character after he earn his bragging rights might have avoided this situation completely.

Lastly, if this site ban negatively impacts Java in any way I think another solution should be found....even if she only wants to play one hour a year. Chicks as kewl as Java deserve special treatment and rights. Just like Sklz, Cannibal, and I enjoy for being among beautiful people (btw keep your eyes open for the '09 SK swimsuit calendar. The cover has Sklz, Cannibal, and EZE on the hood of an ’85 Camaro in speedos with D behind the wheel wearing a Magnum P.I. Hawiian shirt).

Lei Kung

Ah, the return of Lei_Kung's long winded posts.

Sorry, some habbits die hard....other don't seem to die.

Very nice post, RJ.

Very correct for the most part.

The one thing that is missing is the person delivering the punishment. Every single person has a wildly different frame of reference on what is punishable, what isn't, and how much of a punishment is needed.

Basically, SK probation would have been more than sufficent with a deletion of all characters. Neither person involved really has any "priors", and while neither of them really care a whole hell of a lot, I think it still has bearing on punishments at large.

There's a centerfold of me doing inappropriate things with the tailpipe of that car.

Little something for the ladies.

Good post as always RJ.

Hahahaha... I freaking <3 you too, RJ. I think seeing the people I know so well in those sort of 'situations' might scar me or I'd ask where to buy one.

Honestly, I would expect nothing less than a full ban for doing this knowingly with a throw-away character. As people have already said there is no other form of punishment really. And if the persons obviously don'tt care then what does it even matter? Also, isn't it known that bans are not necessarily permanent if the person makes an effort to change? It is a kind of 'probation' already isn't it? That seems entirely reasonable to me.

I still don't believe this is a permaban. I think in a couple months time, if mrp and icey don't try to hide behind new ips and play again, they will be allowed back if they assure Durlik they will respect the rules and the imm staff and play fair.

I believe Dulrik will give them a second chance. He didn't put this game out for he world to enjoy for free just to lock people out. I think they can and likely will be allowed to come back if they demostrate that they will obey the rules.

All this talk about Perma ban, to me that's excessive. I think they will be allowed back in time. Are they site banned? Yes. Do they deserve to be? Yes. Is it permanent? I do not believe so.