Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 4: Cyber-bullying

I suppose this could be placed withing the metagaming section because it often takes the form of bringing something from outside the game into the game, but it isn't necessarily restricted to that.


Let's start with what bullying is when it comes to Diplomacy or any other game.  What we're not talking about is bullying as part of the game.  In other words, some players can be quite... forceful... in their negotiations.  This isn't what we're talking about.

Cyber-bullying is about threatening people with things outside the game to get things done in the game or, in some cases I've seen simple threats of violence.

The most likely threat is when a player will threaten another with persistent attacks when they come across each other in games.  This is metagaming, really: it's no different to planning to work together in future games.

However I've seen threats of violence.  It's sometimes linked to people from the same school.  But I've seen threats to find and kill the other person, to kill their families, etc.  And a common one is to hassle people across other websites.

Now, I know we're talking about internet play and this means you're always going to come across these types of idiots.  Angry little people who don't know how to deal with difficulties.  Let's face it, if you get this angry over a game, there's something wrong with you.

Intellectually, we also know that these idiots wouldn't have a clue about how to do what they're threatening to do in the real world.  And they probably like the gonads to do it.  But it is in no way acceptable in a game.

It also isn't acceptable on a site's forum.  I've been on one site where a number of members were allowed to hassle others.  One example of this was where a member of the forum was posting verses from the Bible regularly and being targeted by at least one member.

Personally I can be very critical of religion and especially when someone is proselytising.  However, when this is consistent and was accompanied by harassing someone across the forum, as it was in this case, this is clearly bullying.  And it was the same people seeking to troll others on the forum with whom they disagreed.

That was a while ago, though, and since then the mods on that forum have grown a pair and stopped this behaviour.  Freedom of speech, yes, but abuse of freedoms should always be stamped on.

Bullying also includes racism, sexism, language which is aimed at abuse towards sexual orientation, etc.  This is something that some players either haven't grown out of: online sites tend to have a large number of younger members.  But there are bigots, too.  Nasty or scared little people.

Any form of persistent harassment shouldn't be a part of this hobby and the best sites won't allow it.  This might offend some people who simply believe you can say what you want.  Some people believe that there are no limits if it's about upsetting someone in a game.  There are... or there should be.


THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a  Supply Centre Scoring  (SCS) system. I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome: England - 12 SCs Russia - 9 SCs Turkey - 8 SCs Italy - 5 SCs France , Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is: A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points. A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on ...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...

Tournament Scoring - Part 1: Tournament Games are Variants

Tournaments have come to be a big part of Diplomacy, whether face-to-face or online.  If you're running a tournament you need to be able to find a winner, and so a scoring system has to be introduced.  In this series of posts I'm going to look at different types of scoring systems and discuss the pros and cons of each one.  And I'll end the series by discussing my own, as yet, prototype system. The first thing to be aware of is that a scoring system will change the way people play the game.  It has to do.  If you're playing and you need to do well then you need to play to the system.  This means that the way the system affects the way Diplomacy is played. Tournament games are already a variant of Dip.  Ideally, they wouldn't be.  Players would be able to play x  number of games and play them as they would any other game.  In FTF play, you'd expect the game to run until they're finished or time runs out.  Online, there should ...