So, my stance is probably unsurprising, considering the fact I made this thread about stricter banning, but I think MU mods are generally reasonable when banning people. In fact, I thought they were too reasonable when they made that thread, or perhaps itâs better to say that I thought they werenât acting on things that deserved to be acted on.
With that in mind, itâs also unsurprising that I completely agree with Marl. I think MUâs banning processes have been mostly fine, and the issues I had with them donât really have a relation to whatâs being discussed here. I read Helzâs posts about his ban and I think it was warranted. The lack of communication afterward is not the first time this happened on MU; I know of at least one other case where the mods refused to communicate with someone after they were permabanned, and quite frankly, in both cases, I understand.
Iâm not familiar with the main situation in this thread (Achro/Phighter); that being said, I am surprised that Phighter can eat so many bans and still not receive a permaban. You can check MUâs moderation history and notice Phighterâs name appear there quite a few times. Heâs been quite consistent for literal years, and Achro calling him a bully is unsurprising, because that is how the guy plays. And yes, I know that he plays the way that he does on purpose, but I donât think purposefully doing bannable things for any reason makes it any better.
This is something Iâve taken issue with in the past, and I understand why you think banning people = villainizing them. If someone gets a prison sentence in real life, that also looks like villainization to a degree, because the person is being removed from society at large, and there has to be a reason for that, so many would conclude that person is not to be trusted. If somebody gets banned from a site, especially one that has some reputation to uphold, itâs also natural to conclude they mustâve done something bad and they are not to be trusted. That is the unfortunate connotation which comes with punishment. It always gives some kind of negative aura.
That being said, I feel like itâs⌠unavoidable, and itâs also a matter of perception. Iâm of the opinion that as long as a reasonable justification is given (which was my primary talking point in the MU thread I created), banning people isnât villainization by intention , itâs just a matter of how other people perceive it, and I donât think that can be influenced a lot. If you say âwe like this person, theyâre fine, but they did something bad and therefore they are getting bannedâ it sounds more ridiculous and itâs also biased (âwhy would you ban them if you like them and you think theyâre fine? why are they fine and not X person?â). It also creates the issue of setting a precedent; if you say that for one player, but not the other, thatâll look like the other is being villainized. So, banning should be opinion-agnostic and based on whether rules and principles were actually broken or not.
I do think some ban descriptions make it seem like a ban is out of principle rather than because rules were broken. I definitely do believe that is a thing, and that ideally, it wouldnât be. But I also understand why.
TL;DR: I donât think banning = villainization. I agree that it seems that way, but I donât think itâs possible to negate that feeling â there just needs to be clarity in the process . My MU thread was about this and I have taken issue with the lack of evidence presented. I think itâs best to at least make your reasoning clear so that everyone knows why a person got banned. You know, like court decisions (as much as it pains me to draw this comparison, because courts and forums are far removed from each other in terms of gravity). You can come to your own conclusions after, and you may certainly feel that some of the bans were unjustified, but at least you⌠know why.
I feel like a signup ban would be better for that sort of thing. The issue was with game integrity, and a person canât destroy game integrity if they canât sign up for games. Permaban from the entire site doesnât really correlate, itâs more extreme than it needs to be. Though at the same time, I also agree with Marl that itâs probably possible to appeal the ban right now.
I think MU could use more clarity in regard to bans. I also thought this about a year ago. Yet, I donât think when theyâre banning someone, theyâre trying to send a message about peopleâs personal lives and how they view people with a history of abuse. Itâs not really about that. Itâs about whether a rule was a broken, and how extremely. I donât think theyâre 100% consistent with their banning processes, and I think they weigh a personâs attitude and responses more heavily in some cases than they do in others, which makes the moderation imperfect. But as a whole, I think itâs okay, at least in terms of approach. I do think how a person felt and why they were breaking rules is important to consider; at the same time, I donât think considering that should excuse a personâs actions 100%. Itâs a fine line, but it exists.
TL;DR:
- I honestly canât say much about Achroâs ban without extra context (I would need to read the posts from Achro and the moderation team in order to make a proper judgment);
- I think Phighter has done this sort of thing so frequently that him not getting permabanned by now is a mystery (this isnât slander, itâs objectively true that he has eaten many bans for behaving like this, just check MUâs moderation log);
- I think Helzâs ban was warranted;
- I think Storyâs ban shouldâve probably been a sign-up ban;
- I donât think MU bans are aimed to villainize people, and while I do think that some bans were made on principle rather than due to rulebreaking, I understand these cases.
