Toxicity in Gameplay, and Its Implications for Gameplayers

[Elegarth]

I wish I could LIKE your post GR. Well said.

[Escade]

NSGP isn't a particularly toxic community.

Frankly, this community is rather soft compared to what's really out there.

Thought: sympathy/empathy/victimhood as political capital has stopped being something solidly controlled by Defenders and it's now free for all, everyone's trying to claim the mantle of "good guy" in a game where we're all really the bad guys.

I don't know how true the above statement is, but it's a thing I've been wondering about.

If you mean the shift from players playing bad and good (let's say raiders reveling in being bad guys or let's the NPO reveling in being "bad") then yes there's been a dramatic shift where raiders\Others also (for some reason) want to play the good guys. Partially, the reaction to "bad" guys went from this is "IC" to this is "OOC" but of course with no consistency. Players were able to say things before 2013 as jokes or in character that they cannot say anymore (unless in the right circles, it seems).

There's no "pick and choose when something is IC\OOC." Players don't get to decide, "My friend meant "I will shoot you" in a light-hearted IC way" but "My enemy meant "I will shoot you" realistically and if you don't ban them you're a toxic abuser too." Nah. Either the standard is "This is the line, no one can cross it because it transcends from character to out of character" to "Everything is in character, if you don't want to play disengage." Then there's the understanding of escalating consequences rather than "Now's the time to try to ban my enemy from the game for good." I'm not sure why players who speak so heavily about this can't merely come up with a list of "Shitty or Potentially Shitty Things Players Have Tried to Do and a Escalating Steps of Consequences for Those Behaviors."

I've seen defenders engage in the same exact type of behavior as any other group\organization\faction and no faction has a dominance on using "sympathy\empathy\victimhood" as their currency or modus operandi. The game would function better if organizations\groups\factions (whether literally factions or the faction gameplay technical suggestion) could play "evil" or "good" without players trying to weaponize it.

There's some shitty players that do so consistently though (TSP is in pretty deep with weaponizing toxicity and other issues and I'm amused at the kind of harboring that goes on there as well as the doublespeak by its most egregious representative in this thread).

Overall I think we're actually both on the same page here, but I had a bit of a kneejerk reaction to the phrasing. I think I've said it too many times already, but I apologize for misunderstandings here. I just don't want to see a scenario where anyone, on either side, gets hurt.

Once again no one is obligated to deal with anyone else's mental or other real life issues. This is a game and not the venue for that. Everyone has boundaries. Just as me putting this link here and trying to castigate everyone in this thread for not doing anything for the worlds poor is ridiculous and abusive. A manipulative player would go further and write a dispatch\blog about how "TheGildedStar harmed them in a toxic way because they refused to empathize with the poor." Or how about, "I'm poor, can you write me a check for $10,000." Are you writing me that check, TheGIldedStar? If not you are a toxic menace who lacks empathy and is inhumane. That's bullshit. You as a player in a game are not obligated to care, empathy cannot be forced, and it's perfectly fine to choose to ignore or not respond to anyone who plays the victim game or even someone who really has issues but is forcing them on someone who just wants to play a game and get away from real life issues.

Also just this:

I'm with Escade, no ifs, no buts, no conditions. There ARE players in this game I have totally stopped interacting with due to their use / abuse of supposed RL issues and mental healthcare problems to justify their actions / escape consequences. I'm not accepting this for several reasons, and this political simulator is NOT the place to bring that up / use as an excuse for poor behavior.

This is JUST WRONG.

We all have shit in RL to deal with. We all have issues in RL. We all should be MATURE and RESPONSIBLE enough to understand the separation between the world inside the game, and the world outside the game.

I can't stress enough Escade's last point: If faced with this, disengage and walk away.

Yep, disengage. If an actual standards list for the community ever came up - weaponization of "toxicity" and weaponization of mental health issues for in game benefits would be top on my list for facing some sort of escalating series of consequences.

<snip>

I just wanted to highlight this, because I thought it was a really insightful post in a thread that has pretty much just been useless drama (with the exception of the OP, and some of Escade's posts, which were also insightful). It's an interesting perspective and not really one I've ever thought much about.

I wonder if there's some way we could, as a community, move in a more IC direction to avoid having so much OOC conflict, minor or significant. I know I've sometimes struggled with the line between IC and OOC, both in my own actions and in interpreting others' actions. I do think gameplay would be a lot healthier if we were all playing characters, at least to a greater extent if not entirely. But I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish that kind of change.

I mean here's the thing at least we can acknowledge this problem. That it isn't easy. That's why I think that the response to "Was it OOC or IC?" cannot be made by mobs or partial\biased players (friends, etc) and should take some grain of "this is a competitive, heated game." "Benefit of the doubt until it becomes a pattern."

My thoughts about this have changed from before I took a break to after I came back and since then. I now think of myself as always in IC mode unless talking to the handful of people I'm close to and actually talk to about real life. Otherwise, everyone comes with a nation name\avatar\flag and is a character.

So, it's kind of simple - if the discussion if related to the imaginary nations\regions\jobs\government\ideologies\etc it's IC. If you suck at your job, then you suck at your job in this game.

If it's about my upcoming vacation or the last concert or my love life I went to it's OOC. Unless you're one of the few people I care to talk to about real life in private, it's all gameplay. The further distinction for me has been the public\private.

[Vanquaria]

There has to be consequences for those who want to be mean to others. Mainstream NSGP is a place for nice people, it is all about inclusiveness and tolerance. Be nice to others.

[Elegarth]

My thoughts about this have changed from before I took a break to after I came back and since then. I now think of myself as always in IC mode unless talking to the handful of people I'm close to and actually talk to about real life. Otherwise, everyone comes with a nation name\avatar\flag and is a character.

So, it's kind of simple - if the discussion if related to the imaginary nations\regions\jobs\government\ideologies\etc it's IC. If you suck at your job, then you suck at your job in this game.

If it's about my upcoming vacation or the last concert or my love life I went to it's OOC. Unless you're one of the few people I care to talk to about real life in private, it's all gameplay. The further distinction for me has been the public\private.

The bolded is mine. This is it. Period. This. Is. It. This is the way players like myself work this game. Yes, there are a few players I talked as the guy behind the many faces of Elegarth. Players that know me, have seen pics of my babies, know where I work, etc. Xori, LOD, Krull to name a few. And then there are a LOT of players I interact with as Elegarth. The difference is OBVIOUS.

Places like GP in the forums, or the NSGP discord server are simply IC all the time. Or should be. Period.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Places like GP in the forums, or the NSGP discord server are simply IC all the time. Or should be. Period.

Maybe you can argue that the NSGP server should be IC all the time, but in reality it isn't, and I think that's how this kind of thing gets blurred a lot there -- more than here. Of course some of that has to do with the NSGP server discussion happening in real time, without time to think before you say something, and reconsider whether that's a thing you ought to be saying. I do think there is often (not always) more restraint in forum-based communication.

But I digress. Back to the issue of the NSGP server not always being IC. It just isn't. There are channels there that are definitely for OOC discussion of gaming, music, and sports. Those channels aren't that often used though, so the more salient issue is that in #neutral_ground, there are often discussions (of a positive nature) that are OOC. We talk about what we like to cook. We talk about favorite TV shows. Occasionally people do talk about things that are happening for them in RL. That stuff just happens on the server, and I'm not sure it can ever be made to go away. Not without the NSGP server moderators cracking down on it, and then you would in all likelihood just end up with someone making a new NSGP "social" server to replace what was lost. And maybe that server will be really poorly moderated in comparison. Not sure what can be done about a cultural change that seems here to stay.

[Kurnugia]

I do not disagree that there should be a clear IC/OOC divide in NSGP. However, things arent as easy. One thing that will influence this wall is OOC stuff such as irl political convictions that influences IC stuff. This opening will inevitablly muddy the water in terms of this supposedly divide.

Furthermore, it kinda understates the diverses activities of NS. You dont think a pure RPer will take it personal when his region gets destroyed by raiders? This is just naive.

[Aclion]

You know, using terms like IC vrs OOC to refer to what is really criticism vrs abuse is a great way to muddy the waters. If you want to make GP less toxic you can start by not misusing RP terms to describe GP behavior.

[Unibot III]

There's some shitty players that do so consistently though (TSP is in pretty deep with weaponizing toxicity and other issue

A semblance of self awareness would go a long way.

[Latrovia]

How then do we hold such players accountable? Especially when many GPers are so eager to turn a blind eye to the toxic, abusive behavior of others when it benefits them. Yes this is a political game but does it really have to be so disturbingly like real-world politics? Is it truly worth driving players out of a region or worse out of the game just for power? Sadly a lot of players do say yes, behind closed doors while they come here to this forum and pretend to be decent. It doesn't matter to them. Don't give me any of that OOC/IC bs either. IC "personas" are derived from the OOC personality that created them. Few people are willing to admit this but the poor conduct they justify as being part of their IC "persona" is not a facade. Maybe they are just in part, a bad person. Maybe they're so delusional or egotistical that they can't believe they aren't the white knight they make themselves out to be.

Tbh I don't think this game is politically driven at all. If that was the case the big regions would have respect for inter regional politics and laws. There is just toxicity and we actively turn our eyes away. The ones of eyes that actually don't want to turn our eyes away, we actually put a stance and form our coalitions.

Its basically how this works. Its basically also how societies and groups in real life also work. Elitism is an evident thing in NS. The older NS players, know other old NS player, they are everywhere and they all know each other and simply pick up on the new guys. It's just the way it is? Is it nice or fair? No! Certainly not, but no one seems to care.

[Armaros]

Tbh I don't think this game is politically driven at all. If that was the case the big regions would have respect for inter regional politics and laws. There is just toxicity and we actively turn our eyes away. The ones of eyes that actually don't want to turn our eyes away, we actually put a stance and form our coalitions.

There are no real "interregional laws", there are only regional laws and a few interregional agreements between a few regions. That's it. No, we don't "turn pur eyes away", you're literally posting in a thread about toxicity. And define "our coalitions".

Its basically how this works. Its basically also how societies and groups in real life also work. Elitism is an evident thing in NS. The older NS players, know other old NS player, they are everywhere and they all know each other and simply pick up on the new guys. It's just the way it is? Is it nice or fair? No! Certainly not, but no one seems to care.

"Pick up in the new guys".

...what?
Yes, there are old players still playing and being influential figures. That doesn't mean new people don't have a chance to do things though. Just work for it.

[The Church of Satan]

Tbh I don't think this game is politically driven at all. If that was the case the big regions would have respect for inter regional politics and laws. There is just toxicity and we actively turn our eyes away. The ones of eyes that actually don't want to turn our eyes away, we actually put a stance and form our coalitions.

Its basically how this works. Its basically also how societies and groups in real life also work. Elitism is an evident thing in NS. The older NS players, know other old NS player, they are everywhere and they all know each other and simply pick up on the new guys. It's just the way it is? Is it nice or fair? No! Certainly not, but no one seems to care.

Interregional politics continue to be nothing more than a means of opportunistic mudslinging. "This region's leader said this! Now how can we spin this to make their region look bad? Because what else would I do with this?"

Yes there is inherently some element of elitism in NS. Not all veteran players discourage new players from getting involved. Some of us actively encourage new players and mentor them, help them find their place in the region.

[Big Bad Badger]

And some of us are elitist, mudslingers who encourage and mentor young players!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Tbh I don't think this game is politically driven at all. If that was the case the big regions would have respect for inter regional politics and laws. There is just toxicity and we actively turn our eyes away. The ones of eyes that actually don't want to turn our eyes away, we actually put a stance and form our coalitions.

There are no real "interregional laws", there are only regional laws and a few interregional agreements between a few regions. That's it. No, we don't "turn pur eyes away", you're literally posting in a thread about toxicity. And define "our coalitions".

Its basically how this works. Its basically also how societies and groups in real life also work. Elitism is an evident thing in NS. The older NS players, know other old NS player, they are everywhere and they all know each other and simply pick up on the new guys. It's just the way it is? Is it nice or fair? No! Certainly not, but no one seems to care.

"Pick up in the new guys".

...what?
Yes, there are old players still playing and being influential figures. That doesn't mean new people don't have a chance to do things though. Just work for it.

I think one of the largest problems in this game is how long its memory is. There are people who have been blacklisted from groups for saying a few not-nice things about other members/groups in the past, and I agree the things they said are not-nice. But surely there has to come a time when such not-nice things are just far too old to warrant a persons exclusion anymore.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think one of the largest problems in this game is how long its memory is. There are people who have been blacklisted from groups for saying a few not-nice things about other members/groups in the past, and I agree the things they said are not-nice. But surely there has to come a time when such not-nice things are just far too old to warrant a persons exclusion anymore.

Who exactly are these mystery people? Because I don't know of anyone blacklisted from mainstream gameplay regions for "saying a few not-nice things."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I think one of the largest problems in this game is how long its memory is. There are people who have been blacklisted from groups for saying a few not-nice things about other members/groups in the past, and I agree the things they said are not-nice. But surely there has to come a time when such not-nice things are just far too old to warrant a persons exclusion anymore.

Who exactly are these mystery people? Because I don't know of anyone blacklisted from mainstream gameplay regions for "saying a few not-nice things."

I'll pm you, don't want to fall foul of the good ol' defamation rule.

[Cataluna]

I'll pm you, don't want to fall foul of the good ol' defamation rule.

"Harry from Enadia did nothing wrong"

[Vanquaria]

There's too much toxicity in GP and not enuf nice people.

[King HEM]

There have been some excellent posts made already in this thread. I want to post just a little bit about my personal experience.

OOC violations are being taken seriously. This is a very good thing, because for many years in Nationstates (at least in circles I played in) players didn't have much recourse for OOC harassment unless it was a truly serious issue. Violations are taken seriously today, which is an incredibly good thing.

But, there are no agreed-upon standards of what these violations are. So it makes it extremely easy for various stakeholders (usually different off-site administrative teams) to disagree, and worse, for people to weaponize different OOC charges to further their IC ends. I mention this specifically because in my mind this is one of the worst examples of "toxicity."

We are all more connected than ever before. While instant chat has always been a part of Nationstates, it previously occurred in more "walled off" platforms like IRC, or MSN Instant Messenger that required time and effort to connect with individual people or regional servers. Neither of these clients were sophisticated enough to house regional governments or operations, so the bulk of conversation still took place on-game, or more usually, on off-site forums that are dominated by threaded conversation.

Because we are all more instant and easily accessible, it's much easier to feel very deeply about the game we are planning. For a long time, I've blamed this dynamic on Discord. And to be certain, I think Discord has some culpability at changing this game for the worst, but that's not the whole story.

We are all less separated. This seems similar to what I said above, but this observation has a lot more to do with a real life tend of technology.

When I started playing Nationstates, every single in-game interaction involved me opening my laptop, logging onto various forums, or logging onto MSN Messenger. I would then close my laptop, go to school, and be away from Nationstates for 6, 7, 8 hours. The Nationstates of 2007 was much more similar to a board game. You went home, got out the game, and then put it away.

That's not what technology is like these days. Things happen on your phone, which you always have with you. The people you exchange messages with feel very similar to the friends you text with every day. What's the difference? You might not have even met some of the people you send texts to. You might even have RL Discord servers alongside your NS ones. Oh, this is all in your pocket!

In that sense, it's much more difficult to process an IC/OOC difference. Especially when there's no manual on how to do so.

Nobody has the credibility to deal with the grey area this creates. There's no person or group of people who have the universal credibility to arbitrate issues. There's widespread disagreement between regional administrative teams on what is actionable, the in-game staff refuses to get involved in off-site issues except in the most grievous and blindingly obvious of cases, and everyone who has played this game long enough to be an arbiter has bad blood with someone.

So there's no determination of what is OOC and what is IC. What conduct goes over the line, and what conduct is toeing it. It's very easy to exploit this grey area in a myriad of ways, and even well-intentioned people aren't going to agree who is doing what for what reason. That's before you even mix in people who have pre-existing relationships or various political incentives to see something one way or another.

And when people aren't aligned with each other on what's acceptable, it's going to cause an endless friction. When friends of Example Joe sees Example Becca as a consistently toxic player, and friends of Example Becca see Example Joe as someone trying to weaponize admins to get Becca out of the game.

What's the solution? I have no earthly idea. I do think this game would be marginally better off if we all swore off Discord, but (1) I don't think that's realistic and (2) it's only the present manifestation of RL's increase in accessible technological communication. And as hard-headed as we all are, I don't think we can stop RL.

As much as I hate it, because I think the political gameplay of Nationstates should be front and center ahead of the social minutia, I do think it might be worth exploring major servers having opt-in dedicated channels for game politics where there's an understanding where things might get a bit hot under the collar.

One thing we are experimenting with in Europeia is allowing individual users to prohibit another user to engage or mention them on our Discord property, understanding that the IC/OOC divide is much harder to parse in a non-threaded environment. This might be an option as well.

Otherwise, I think we are facing the same types of challenges Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the like are. We are probably handling them even better, though, if that's any consolation—but the struggle is likely to continue. I don't think the solution can just be "be nice", because when I'm arguing with Cormac over Europeian foreign policy, I'm not going to be nice. I'm going to be ruthless. Politics is going to be a part of political gameplay. If we take that out of this game, why are we even here?

[Vanquaria]

There have been some excellent posts made already in this thread. I want to post just a little bit about my personal experience.

OOC violations are being taken seriously. This is a very good thing, because for many years in Nationstates (at least in circles I played in) players didn't have much recourse for OOC harassment unless it was a truly serious issue. Violations are taken seriously today, which is an incredibly good thing.

But, there are no agreed-upon standards of what these violations are. So it makes it extremely easy for various stakeholders (usually different off-site administrative teams) to disagree, and worse, for people to weaponize different OOC charges to further their IC ends. I mention this specifically because in my mind this is one of the worst examples of "toxicity."

We are all more connected than ever before. While instant chat has always been a part of Nationstates, it previously occurred in more "walled off" platforms like IRC, or MSN Instant Messenger that required time and effort to connect with individual people or regional servers. Neither of these clients were sophisticated enough to house regional governments or operations, so the bulk of conversation still took place on-game, or more usually, on off-site forums that are dominated by threaded conversation.

Because we are all more instant and easily accessible, it's much easier to feel very deeply about the game we are planning. For a long time, I've blamed this dynamic on Discord. And to be certain, I think Discord has some culpability at changing this game for the worst, but that's not the whole story.

We are all less separated. This seems similar to what I said above, but this observation has a lot more to do with a real life tend of technology.

When I started playing Nationstates, every single in-game interaction involved me opening my laptop, logging onto various forums, or logging onto MSN Messenger. I would then close my laptop, go to school, and be away from Nationstates for 6, 7, 8 hours. The Nationstates of 2007 was much more similar to a board game. You went home, got out the game, and then put it away.

That's not what technology is like these days. Things happen on your phone, which you always have with you. The people you exchange messages with feel very similar to the friends you text with every day. What's the difference? You might not have even met some of the people you send texts to. You might even have RL Discord servers alongside your NS ones. Oh, this is all in your pocket!

In that sense, it's much more difficult to process an IC/OOC difference. Especially when there's no manual on how to do so.

Nobody has the credibility to deal with the grey area this creates. There's no person or group of people who have the universal credibility to arbitrate issues. There's widespread disagreement between regional administrative teams on what is actionable, the in-game staff refuses to get involved in off-site issues except in the most grievous and blindingly obvious of cases, and everyone who has played this game long enough to be an arbiter has bad blood with someone.

So there's no determination of what is OOC and what is IC. What conduct goes over the line, and what conduct is toeing it. It's very easy to exploit this grey area in a myriad of ways, and even well-intentioned people aren't going to agree who is doing what for what reason. That's before you even mix in people who have pre-existing relationships or various political incentives to see something one way or another.

And when people aren't aligned with each other on what's acceptable, it's going to cause an endless friction. When friends of Example Joe sees Example Becca as a consistently toxic player, and friends of Example Becca see Example Joe as someone trying to weaponize admins to get Becca out of the game.

What's the solution? I have no earthly idea. I do think this game would be marginally better off if we all swore off Discord, but (1) I don't think that's realistic and (2) it's only the present manifestation of RL's increase in accessible technological communication. And as hard-headed as we all are, I don't think we can stop RL.

As much as I hate it, because I think the political gameplay of Nationstates should be front and center ahead of the social minutia, I do think it might be worth exploring major servers having opt-in dedicated channels for game politics where there's an understanding where things might get a bit hot under the collar.

One thing we are experimenting with in Europeia is allowing individual users to prohibit another user to engage or mention them on our Discord property, understanding that the IC/OOC divide is much harder to parse in a non-threaded environment. This might be an option as well.

Otherwise, I think we are facing the same types of challenges Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the like are. We are probably handling them even better, though, if that's any consolation—but the struggle is likely to continue. I don't think the solution can just be "be nice", because when I'm arguing with Cormac over Europeian foreign policy, I'm not going to be nice. I'm going to be ruthless. Politics is going to be a part of political gameplay. If we take that out of this game, why are we even here?

Sounds like the most boring Discord server ever no wonder GP is dying.

[King HEM]

what

[Vanquaria]

what

lmfao

[Cormactopia Prime]

One thing we are experimenting with in Europeia is allowing individual users to prohibit another user to engage or mention them on our Discord property, understanding that the IC/OOC divide is much harder to parse in a non-threaded environment. This might be an option as well.

It's one thing to allow individual users to prohibit another user from engaging them, that's probably okay provided you're also requiring the user in question not to engage the person they've prohibited from engaging them. So, for example, if Example Joe prohibits Example Becca from engaging him, Example Joe can't then spend time prodding Example Becca because Example Joe knows Example Becca can't respond. That would be an incredible abuse of such a system, so I can only assume Europeia has already accounted for it. As long as that's accounted for, a "no engagement" policy might be okay, though it seems like enforcement before things get out of hand would be a serious challenge particularly on a large platform like the NSGP server.

The much bigger issue for me is allowing individual users to prohibit another user from mentioning them. That's the kind of thing that is wide open to abuse in a political game. Can you imagine if I prohibited you from mentioning me, or vice versa? That would probably seriously impede either of us from engaging in politics in the context of this game, given how deeply intertwined you are at times in Europeia's government and particularly in its foreign affairs, one of the areas you specialize in. So I don't think prohibiting mentions is at all a realistic option. Maybe it could work within regions, though I'm skeptical it can work even there, but not on larger platforms like the NSGP server. It would just be used as a political weapon.

In other news, I wonder how long before the nations Example Joe and Example Becca appear...

Otherwise, I think we are facing the same types of challenges Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the like are. We are probably handling them even better, though, if that's any consolation—but the struggle is likely to continue. I don't think the solution can just be "be nice", because when I'm arguing with Cormac over Europeian foreign policy, I'm not going to be nice. I'm going to be ruthless. Politics is going to be a part of political gameplay. If we take that out of this game, why are we even here?

I agree with this. Whatever solutions we impose to deal with toxicity, they shouldn't come at the expense of wiping out political gameplay.

[King HEM]

It's one thing to allow individual users to prohibit another user from engaging them, that's probably okay provided you're also requiring the user in question not to engage the person they've prohibited from engaging them. So, for example, if Example Joe prohibits Example Becca from engaging him, Example Joe can't then spend time prodding Example Becca because Example Joe knows Example Becca can't respond. That would be an incredible abuse of such a system, so I can only assume Europeia has already accounted for it. As long as that's accounted for, a "no engagement" policy might be okay, though it seems like enforcement before things get out of hand would be a serious challenge particularly on a large platform like the NSGP server.

The much bigger issue for me is allowing individual users to prohibit another user from mentioning them. That's the kind of thing that is wide open to abuse in a political game. Can you imagine if I prohibited you from mentioning me, or vice versa? That would probably seriously impede either of us from engaging in politics in the context of this game, given how deeply intertwined you are at times in Europeia's government and particularly in its foreign affairs, one of the areas you specialize in. So I don't think prohibiting mentions is at all a realistic option. Maybe it could work within regions, though I'm skeptical it can work even there, but not on larger platforms like the NSGP server. It would just be used as a political weapon.

If someone requests a no contact/no engage and they are abusing the system, that no contact/no engage is going to be nulled out pretty quickly and likely with some additional consequence.

I don't know, it's an experiment so I'll report back on how it's going.

I'm not sure it would work in NSGP, much less gameplay wide. But I do think we need to see Discord as a really OOC/IC blended platform where it is really difficult to parse distinctions. That's why I greatly prefer threaded environments where the "topic" is set, and attempts to deviate from that topic to personally attack someone are really overt and obvious.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's one thing to allow individual users to prohibit another user from engaging them, that's probably okay provided you're also requiring the user in question not to engage the person they've prohibited from engaging them. So, for example, if Example Joe prohibits Example Becca from engaging him, Example Joe can't then spend time prodding Example Becca because Example Joe knows Example Becca can't respond. That would be an incredible abuse of such a system, so I can only assume Europeia has already accounted for it. As long as that's accounted for, a "no engagement" policy might be okay, though it seems like enforcement before things get out of hand would be a serious challenge particularly on a large platform like the NSGP server.

The much bigger issue for me is allowing individual users to prohibit another user from mentioning them. That's the kind of thing that is wide open to abuse in a political game. Can you imagine if I prohibited you from mentioning me, or vice versa? That would probably seriously impede either of us from engaging in politics in the context of this game, given how deeply intertwined you are at times in Europeia's government and particularly in its foreign affairs, one of the areas you specialize in. So I don't think prohibiting mentions is at all a realistic option. Maybe it could work within regions, though I'm skeptical it can work even there, but not on larger platforms like the NSGP server. It would just be used as a political weapon.

If someone requests a no contact/no engage and they are abusing the system, that no contact/no engage is going to be nulled out pretty quickly and likely with some additional consequence.

I don't know, it's an experiment so I'll report back on how it's going.

I'm not sure it would work in NSGP, much less gameplay wide. But I do think we need to see Discord as a really OOC/IC blended platform where it is really difficult to parse distinctions. That's why I greatly prefer threaded environments where the "topic" is set, and attempts to deviate from that topic to personally attack someone are really overt and obvious.

Not sure I like this really.
If people are engaging in problem behaviours, the way to sort that out is for the admin team to get to the bottom of what is going on, this no contact thing is just a sticking plaster. In addition, it could lead to some pretty bad cliques forming quite easily.

[Zyris]

What if that admin team doesnt like you, not for infractions on the server or even in that region, but for differences years prior?