Again, I am not going to get into why this nation ban was given or whether it was justified etc., but there are still some aspects to this episode which I feel are legitimate for discussion, and there are a few points I would like to raise.
Turning to
cm9997's post on the RP Law Query Thread:
cm9997 wrote:Aquinas. Yes and Yes. I think more communication would have been helpful and it’s something to take into account for next time.
For the reasons I outlined
here, I do feel Spencer did not get an entirely fair ride in Jelbania, and you appear here to acknowledge this. Would you be prepared to offer him an apology for a degree of inconsiderateness on your behalf towards him during his time in Jelbania? I personally feel this needs to be heard, and would help to clear the air a lot.
I also happen to think Spencer could apologise for certain things, but you are the Moderator after all, so if you do feel an apology on your part is in order, then perhaps you should go first.
cm9997 wrote:However, without referencing every forum thread related to House Spencer and Jelbania, I do also believe there was a sufficient amount of assistance and explanation available.
I did see those discussions, and what I generally saw was Moderators and a few others disputing with him over what the rules allowed. Unfortunately, the rules concerned were of limited assistance, because as Moderation has now graciously acknowledged, they are "confusing and not fit for purpose".
Given this, it is difficult to be too surprised that he found the "assistance and explanation" unhelpful, or even that he resented it. When you guys were discussing with Spencer, what you were saying to him probably began to sound less like "What we are saying is right because of what is clearly explained in the rules" and more like "We are right because we have been around longer than you and we know better than you". He quoted you personally as saying to him "you stepped in as a new player acting as if you knew the game better than many experienced players who are more familiar with both the game rules and the rp situation in Jelbania". Did you actually say that to him? However good your intentions, that kind of language is bound to come off as dismissive and condescending, focusing as it does not on what he did or what arguments he made, but on the experience "status" you perceive him as having in the community.
To use a soccer ("football" to us Brits!) analogy, if a player disputes with the referee in the middle of a game, and he disputes for long enough and causes delay for long enough, then he will probably get the red card. The lesson being that in the middle of the game, you respect the referee's verdict - however just you feel your cause for complaint is. Perhaps what happened here was something like this, I don't know. I'm not trying to crucify Moderation over this, and I certainly appreciate they were under pressure, with an important and well-developed RP going on at the time. However, some issues have emerged from this which rather alarm me, although I am relieved we are beginning to see signs Moderation recognises the problems.
cm9997 wrote:Spencer, I’m happy to discuss this with you any time but please do so in a civil way. The manner in which queries have been expressed has not been conductive in a respectful environment.
Whilst I don't disagree with that, again, I think you need to recognise that your actions and inactions contributed towards his frustration and that the issue has not been just with his attitude towards you, but also yours towards him.
*
A closing remark: I propose a new convention (not a new rule) of
No-Seat-Blocking-Without-Communication, or NSBWC. Of course, it is always a good idea to communicate with players, but this is especially important if you are employing tactics which deny seats to opposing players for significant periods of time. With regards to what happened in Jelbania, the seat-blocking was arguably controversial, but the
combination of the seat-blocking and the poor communication is what, at least from my perspective, made the whole thing really problematic.
Perhaps Moderators and RP committee members would be willing to agree, in future, to personally follow a No-Seat-Blocking-Without-Communication convention? I'm not necessarily expecting an immediate answer to that, of course, but I do hope the Moderators and RP committee members will at least consider holding an internal discussion on this.
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm