I don't have the logs handy thanks to a computer switch, but there was an example some years ago with Jhyrbian and two other common visitors to the Realm of the Dead forming a low-level PK perma, ganging anyone that moves, and going through their usual routine of all-caps OOC taunting.

I did a little case study on that. The day they got denied, they killed about 10 unique lowbies (as in, excluding multi-kills). Three observations:

1) All 10 logged off soon after a death. A couple got killed twice, the rest left after one.

2) All of those sites stayed dormant for days. In other words, the players logged off and (as far as I could tell) stayed away in the short term.

3) Several (I want to say 3 or 4) of those sites stayed dormant. As far as I could tell, those players left and didn't come back. None of these players had long histories with us, and going from the limited information we logged at the time, they didn't stand out as skilled.

Had Jhyrbian had rules problems before? Definitely. Was he allowed back after each one, eventually if not immediately? Yes. Is he alone in this? No.

If one takes a laissez faire attitude towards obnoxious players (which I assert has been CF's stance longer than I have been on staff), one wagers that the gains outweigh the losses I'm describing, perhaps by:

1) One may hope that the obnoxious players reform their behavior over time. Counterpoint: If I made a list of the more problematic game or forum presences today, it would almost exclusively consist of people that have been playing for years. I'd have more trouble thinking of more than a couple exemplary players who were previously long-term problems.

2) One may hope that fostering a hard-edged culture (and accepting that it will entail more players going over the line periodically) will draw in other players looking for a high-challenge environment. I feel we've tried this approach, intentionally or not, and it merely perpetuates the problem a 'generation' later. It's akin to the phenomenon of hazing, where people who absorb a lot of abuse feel more inclined to dish it out when they are able to. Counterpoint: You can instead aim to foster a high-challenge environment while enforcing a strict code of conduct.

3) One may hope that 'any press is good press', and that trolls and drama queens keep the forums busy, which keeps people checking often, which keeps the game in the front of their mind. Counterpoint: I think the present forums are terrible for attracting new players, and they waste a lot of staff energy that could be channeled into more productive avenues. I think ignoring the forums is a worse approach-- you'd save on wasted time, but you compound the train-wreck effect. Unfortunately, it's the easy approach (moderating any Internet forum is typically unpleasant and unappreciated work), and that's why some staff simply don't post.

4) Being very laissez faire has the inherent advantage of consuming few resources in the immediate term. Counterpoint: Most offenders are repeat offenders. If you ask many of our "champion" (to borrow a term from the sprawling thread) players about their rules history, they usually can honestly answer that they've either never been to the Realm of the Dead, or they went there once or twice for stupid stuff and cleaned up their act soon after. In the long term, you might save integrated time and energy by "trimming some branches", to borrow Stunna's term.

I'd encourage people again to peruse the 'party analogy' thread from 2003: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=34742&mesg_id=34742&page=40

We'd like to have a big party, but there's a reason big parties have a few bouncers who will show troublemakers the door. Now, the guy who just got thrown out may make a lot of noise about how the bouncer is a fascist, or a power-abusing jerk, or that he bounced the wrong guy, or that someone else was a bad party guest too. But the bouncer's responsibility is to make what is going on inside the party better.

I'd assert (without proof, or necessarily any implied endorsement by my colleagues) that CF would profit from more bouncings.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com