Let's discuss incitement

At the bottom of this post I will pose a few questions to you, and I am very interested in your opinions and responses.

Last night I was in a discussion about incitement. It is my personal belief that incitement is one of the worst violations of site rules that one person can commit against another in a chat room. I am not considering at all hacking or any action that would bring the site down, disable a computer etc. I am only talking about the interaction of chat between people.

Here is a segment of rules taken from SHG, while incitement is not specifically mentioned; it is implied (spelling errors corrected for this post).


Personal attacks, abuse and profane language are not permitted.
Do not make names that would be considered slurs, adult in nature, harassing, political or religious.
Cloning names to distress and embarrass other players is harassment and will not be permitted.
Revealing personal information about another player in the lobby may be considered abuse.
This includes personal information posted in the lobbies.
Please exhibit courtesy and politeness to those around you.
You don’t have to like someone, but you are required to show respect in public.

Hacking, cheating and any other destructive behavior will result in loss of gaming privileges

There is a famous quote by Francis Bacon
“If a man be gracious and courteous to strangers it shows he is a citizen of the world” These are words to live by.
All entering these waters have one common goal, an enjoyable gaming and community experience.


Here is a segment of the rules taken from WGC; they are much more specific.

Profanity, any forms of player harassment including, but not limited to: racial, sexual or gender slurs, belittling, taunting, etc.
Continuous posting of any visible, non-visible, or repetitive text such as: flooding, scrolling, inciting, or other disruptive behaviors.
Harassment, threats, and defamation on members, volunteers, or employees of the WGC.
Exploiting the spirit of friendly play: including cheating, hacking, or other destructive behavior.
Stalling and stalking games/players and disruptive playing habits (attacks or harassment in games, etc) are deemed as violations of the terms and conditions of use.
Repeated violators may lose their chat privileges or access to the site for an unspecified amount of time, at the discretion of the site management.

Now I am going to define a few words that I feel are important. These definitions are taken from Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged Sixth Edition.

Incite is to arouse; urge; provoke; encourage, spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot. Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet”.

Inciter – In criminal law, an aider or abettor; an accessory.

Provocation is the act of inciting another to do a particular deed. That which arouses, moves, calls forth, causes, or occasions. Such conduct or actions on the part of one person towards another as tend to arouse rage, resentment, or fury in the latter against the former, and thereby causes him to do some illegal act against or in relation to the person offering the provocation.

Provocation which will reduce killing to manslaughter must be of such character as will, in mind of average reasonable man, stir resentment likely to cause violence, obscure the reason, and lead to action from passion rather than judgement. There must be a state of passion without time to cool placing defendant beyond control of his reasons. Provocation carries with it the idea of some physical aggression or some assault, which suddenly arouses heat and passion in the person assaulted.

Mitigation is to make less severe. Alleviation, reduction, abatement or diminution of a penalty or punishment imposed by law.

While the rules of the two sites are not law, and a violations of a rule is not a crime, the above meanings do apply in the context of chat. The reason I believe incitement is the worst offence is this. It first attacks someone resulting in a reaction, which in both sites is usually is a violation or a personal attack. Had the incitement not occurred, the resulting attack would not have occurred; furthermore, the legal definition of inciter states that the inciter is an accessory. In the discussion I was in last night, it was said that anything could be incitement and I do agree with that statement.

Now to the questions I would like you to answer. Given these legal definitions, how would you rate incitement? How would you apply them to incitement? If you were a token, would you take into consideration incitement as one violation or two? Would you consider on going provocation before giving a punishment and would it mitigate that punishment?

Ok Vic,

Let me begin my response by making four statements that form the basis of my understanding of how incitement can be defined and dealt with in a chat lobby:

1) Moderators are generally not bots
2) Moderators should apply sanctions on players objectively
3) Players have an 'ignore' facility available to them
4) Indiscriminate application of sanctions for 'incitement' can ruin the dynamics of 'chat'

So...to my position on your post. Incitement, as you have very clearly identified, is difficult to nail down and causes all kinds of issues within chat lobbies. I hasten to add, at this point, that the issues they cause are usually NOT to do with how players feel about the incitement that takes place, but usually to do with how moderators respond to accusations of incitement. Also, let me make clear that almost any remark that initiates a response can be regarded as a form of incitement. If all remarks are sanctioned, then it would kill any form of debate and therefore kill the dynamics of that room. Moderators must not be indiscriminate in their application of tools for incitement - they must be strategic and objective. They must identify the types of incitement that do the most damage and act ruthlessly in those cases for the good of their site.

In my opinion, moderators do not have a clear understanding of incitement and therefore often do the wrong thing. Let me give you two examples:

Example 1: Dutchee enters a lobby, where players are chatting nicely, and makes a statement. This may be one single statement that initiates a number of responses against him. By your definition, he has incited the subsequent responses - even if those responses appear as incitement in their own right. However, what generally happens in these situations is that someone (usually someone who has an agenda similar to Dutchee's) will call a moderator. This moderator will then enter the room, base his/her judgements on who has spoken the most and apply a sanction to that player. Dutchee goes unpunished and other players are left feeling angry at the injustice that has taken place - which usually causes further issues later down the line.

Example 2: Na Nashi enters the ladder room in SHG. He has often made his feelings about the admin of that room clear in other rooms. He is aware that his presence in the ladder room creates problems and it is obvious that his actions are entirely focussed on causing conflict, unease and disruption. However, he makes no clear inciting remark. The admin complains to the moderators, and the moderators say they can do nothing. Is he inciting? Is incitement always verbal? After all, he has chosen to take actions that create issues and ill-feeling.

So, those are just two examples of where incitement isn't clear cut and easy to deal with. However, in each case it is obvious that the person named has come with the clear intention to incite and create problems. Allow me now to offer some guidance on how I feel these situations can be effectively dealt with.

Moderators are not bots! They can apply judgement that is objective by reviewing the logs and identifying the root cause of issues. Moderators should not respond to the pressure that is applied to them by other players (tell them to use the ignore facility), but to use their own judgement based on the evidence that they have. If Dutchee initiated the disruption, in an otherwise calm environment, then let Dutchee be the one who is sanctioned. Similarly, Na Nashi's motives are also obvious when the evidence is reviewed with a clear mind. Therefore, Na Nashi should be sanctioned for his actions and warned that if his method of stealthy terrorism continues he will be banned from the site in question. In other words, send out a clear message to these people that the moderators are fully aware of their devious intentions and their malignant influence in a chat lobby or gaming site.

I think I have made my position quite clear. I expect moderators to apply sanctions based on evidence. Not on a snapshot of chat, but on a secure grasp of the big picture. It is because they don't do this consistently that problems ensue and sites are damaged. All too often, moderators are willing to act on the pressure that is applied on them by devious complainers - whose sole ambition in life is to create angst and conflict (e.g. Na Nashi, Tom, Dutchee, Cuttin Phart, Gamesfang etc). Moderators have to raise their game! They have to demonstrate to players that they are intelligent people who act on evidence - NOT on subjective analysis or in support of their friends. They have to command our respect. At the moment, I can honestly say, very few moderators are able to demonstrate this quality.

Spacemariner26

Space,

Thank you for your well thought out response. I think at this point in the discussion, we need to deal with the question of what is a discussion. I believe a discussion is an exchange of ideas on a particular topic, where one person puts forth an idea and another responds in a like manner supporting their views on the topic with a reasonable argument. It can be called an informal debate. I do not believe that a debate or discussion would fall under the heading of incitement, because to HAVE incitement a violation of the rules must occur. So if no violation of the rules has happened, there can be no incitement. Furthermore, that violation must be immediate, without time for the incited person to cool down. A discussion without a violation of rules is just that a discussion.

In your first example, I do believe that it is a clear-cut case of incitement. Please keep in mind the meaning of provocation. Provocation is the act of inciting another to do a particular deed. That which arouses, moves, calls forth, causes, or occasions. Such conduct or actions on the part of one person towards another as tend to arouse rage, resentment, or fury in the latter against the former, and thereby causes him to do some illegal act against or in relation to the person offering the provocation. The KEY here, I think, is the arousal of rage, resentment or fury and the resulting violation of the rules.
At this point, I would like to introduce a couple more new terms that are also extremely important when dealing with chat.

Extenuating circumstances. Such as render a delict or crime less aggravated, heinous, or reprehensible than it would otherwise be, or tend to palliate or lessen its guilt. Such circumstances may ordinarily be shown in order to reduce the punishment or damages.

I was remiss in not adding this term yesterday, but it fits nicely in this response.

Mitigating circumstances. Such as do not constitute a justification or excuse for the offense in question, but which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability. For example, mitigating circumstances, which will reduce degree of homicide to manslaughter, are the commission of the killing in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate legal provocation.

Please note that in both of these terms, the offense is only lessened, not excused. But I do agree with you that more often than not the person inciting goes unpunished and I believe that it would be beneficial to a gaming site to review their policy on incitement.

In your second example, I personally do not believe it can be considered incitement, but something completely different in nature, which I do not feel, this discussion is the place to discuss. Please do not think that what is being done is right by my refusal to deal with it here.

OK I will try to answer and tell you how I see the incitement. I agree with Vic (I know she was a plus and a good one): its the offense that is very difficult to deal with.
Incitement has 3 factors:
1.the person who incites - the inciter
2.the target (could be a player, a bunch of players, an entire room or nobody specifically in the hope somebody from the category the inciter makes a statement about will react)
3.the history of the relations between the inciter and his target, the context as we call it in the analyze of a discourse.
Lets take an example:
Player X enters
Player Y says: No wonder kids end up on streets if their mother is 24 hours a day here playing BG.
Comments: between the enter of X and the comment Y made, other players entered, others talked, so you cant really see the target of the incitement.
Player X says:
FO , Y I will not take crap from you.
The moderator reacts. You need to know the history of the 2 players involved to understand that Y was inciting. If you do, you try to tell Y to stop and pay attention to what that person is up to, while trying to talk to the person targeted to not answer, if you dont (and who can accuse a monitor for not knowing ALL the facts>) you will ask X to stop attacking a player and to watch their language. results? the friends of X will jump on Y, others will jump on the monitor, Y sits and enjoys.
The inciters are allowed to exist because players react. Each room has their own inciters. They could be easily silenced, but the human nature is to try to defend yourself or your friend.

General statements that are inciting:
Fat people take too many space in the planes.
Somebody should be an idiot to vote for republicans/democrats. etc etc.
These can make a room to explode if you are not there from the beginning to stop the fire spread.

I was a player for a long time (with no token attached to my nick), I had a player who attacked me, harassed me for years. Every time I typed something he was calling me all kind of vulgar names because he knew me well enough to understand I hate them very much. I tried to make him stop being my normal nice me, wasnt possible. I never ever called a plus in the room when he attacked me. I never ever answered him (I felt embarrassed by the other players trying to defend me because it gave the incident some proportions I didnt want to). After the zone closed, he came at wgc once, and I was like: hey nice to see you. He was surprised, i was surprised of my reaction. Later I understood. He enjoyed making me cry. It was his part in this play we see everyday developing in rooms. His character was The Inciter. I was the Victim. Time changed that and he lost his part, as I did mine. New play. New characters. No applause.

merry christmas

great post..great responses

i only see one problem. You expect moderators to read the log first
to see who did the initial inciting. Nothing wrong with that, but
incitement usually has a history , and you cant expect moderators
to keep track of that.

pls allow me an example: Space types "did you catch anything today "
when nab_Y enters a lobby.

addi types " goats are sweet animals " when maggie enters the lobby

If you dont know the history, and the reason why those remarks are made,
these sentences are pretty innocent. A moderator wont look at that as incitement
but if you spend some time in a room you would know they sure are.


how should a plus person handle this , when they receive a complaint ??



addi

Lillie,

I think you drew the line very well when you said this: “But when people get nasty and personal cause they feel they are losing the argument, well then it's becoming repetitive and narrow minded.” I think, as a plus, this situation is easier to deal with than many others. I have found that a gentle nudge to the person becoming nasty and personal often will change the behavior, or even a lobby announcement asking everyone to ease back a little often helps. It doesn’t seem to me that this situation needs to become out of hand. Things may have gotten a little heated yes, but it still started out as a discussion with no attempt to deliberately incite anyone. As a plus I wouldn’t want to have the subject change unless the downward spiral got to the degree that I could not handle it unless I used enforcement tools.

One of the things I was taught, and yes I was trained is to always use voice first and to show respect to each person I was dealing with weather it was earned or not. To give the players every opportunity to continue while still keeping the lobby free of violations. If voice did not work, the next step would be the tool that modified the behavior, but with the least invasive tool needed to correct the problem. Ex a warning, a second warning, gag, gag5, gag60. At that point, I have given the person no less than 6 chances, often more, to change their behavior. Any further tool usage would be boot tools, still keeping with the least invasive tool. Most of the time I did not need to go further than a gag60, and thankfully I never once needed a day tool.

As you pointed out Lillie, each of us is human and we develop relationships with each other. I did found one of the hardest things to do was to monitor people I consider friends, while still maintaining a fairness to the people I didn’t care as much about or did not know as well. This single fact is the reason I have not applied anywhere for any position of power. I no longer feel that I could be unbiased.

The way you would handle the situation I believe, Lillie, is correct in part. Yes, I would respectfully ask that the person incited to give me some time to get a grasp of the situation, and yes, I think getting back to that person is also key in dealing with a situation. Yes, again in taking aside the inciter dealing with that person, still respectfully, in the manner that the situation deserves. I would tell each of them if the situation ever arises again to please contact me. Where I would differ from you is in the announcing to the lobby the punishment. I do not believe in adding salt to a wound with the further embarrassment of a person; furthermore, it would show a gross lack of respect on my part for everyone involved, including the lobby. To me, to do so would in fact be inciting a riot in the lobby. The ultimate goal I think is to keep the lobby chat flowing without violations.

Peter,

I would have to ask first and foremost, is did another attack result from those initial statements. Where nab_y and Maggie incited to violate the rules. If they did, I believe there are three violations.

1. A personal attack on nab y or Maggie,
2. The incitement of each of them
3. The resulting violation by the incited

Two against one, the person doing the initial inciting has done the greater offense, to me at least. Remember I started this thread with the belief that incitement is the greater offense.

If however, there was no resulting offense, then there has only been a personal attack.

I believe, (and please remember this is just my opinion) that the numbers speak for themselves and the token dealing with that should take that into consideration.