So you fear any tool which could be implemented being used against yourself? Why?
Even in this example while better than the bar/casino one still neglects the scale and scope of a online game. Where a group of friends and team mates can exclude a fellow for their questionable behavior it's a far cry short of the dynamic at play with in a game that has millions of players across the whole world.
While it would be nice to apply peer pressure to the antics of asshats it brings a far more sinister metric to the table.
Who's moral compas do we use?
How does such a system get paid to hire enough individuals to police all the actions of the player base?
And why must cig take this upon themselves to monitor and punish individuals who's actions where deemed against a value set outside the control of cig (forum/game/event).
Honestly even the church of England had issues attempting this level of moral enforcement and they had the support of the king.
I understand the desire to right wrongs and seek justice against those whom we sympathize with. But to consolidate power into the hands of the few always brings about misery especially when it comes to issues of morality. It's why we have courts and judges and trials. It's also why the best course of action has been and will be to personally step up in the situation and call out the behavior give support in that instance to the victim and shun/humiliate the missdeeds. But there also needs to be a path forward to redemption for those shunned so that they can rejoin the group if they so choose.
So even not taking into account the scope of policing the player group with in the game owners own infrastructure to ask them to be moral cops of their player base seems near impossible. There is the added burden of what moral directives do you enforce and for whom? And you go even further down the rabbit hole you ran the gauntlet of power and its effects on individuals and how it can be used for far worse atrocities then it was originally created to cure.
Thanks for joining in the discussion, appreciate your input.
"
Who's moral compas do we use?"
The one already in the game. There are clear rules set out for in game malicious behaviour such as player on player doxxing which are not tolerated. It's already there.
"How does such a system get paid to hire enough individuals to police all the actions of the player base?"
Not to solutionise but please see my previous post on pre-emptive Exposure and having an easy and anonymous whistleblowing system. Malicious individual actions I don't know if they'd be able to do much about before they happen but if evidence from behind-closed-doors planning can be gathered and submitted and a fair unmalicious way of broadcasting can be dreamed up, not that much considering there are already such things as community managers. Remember the example this thread is inspired by is fairly specific.
"And why must cig take this upon themselves to monitor and punish individuals who's actions where deemed against a value set outside the control of cig (forum/game/event)."
Again please see my previous posts. CIG does punish individuals actions they set values against - in game. It would only be extending that community guideline to where it happens in extremeis outside of the playground as in the example this thread is about. Malicious actions performed by and against people who's only contact is the game, and who's motivations are to gain advantage in the game, get punished if they do it in game by revoking access with either suspension or ban. The same actions performed outside the game seemingly do not (I have no idea if they do/don't, do you?) - Doxxing to influence the collapse an Org doesn't suddenly not be doxxing to influence the collapse an Org because it happened on 4Chan rather than Spectrum.
I understand the fear of enforcement tools themselves being used against innocents but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that should not be much of an issue: If a new account without a game package and zero spend in the game is making false accusations, treat it with a light touch with no punishments until clear evidence is provided. If it's a backer who have been with the project from 2012 with $3k donated it's probably more likely to be legit and can swing in a little heavier. Add to that conditions such as if someone makes an accusation their account gets suspended while investigation is being made, or if it is found to be a false accusation the account making it is suspended, or make it a system you have to make a token payment via a registered bank card to make removing any anonymity for someone making a report and it's not such a vulnerable system.
Think of all CIG has innovated to make all the technical magic happen bringing the dream of SC to reality... would they really shy away from the challenge of making real innovative improvements to managing the impact of some of the more malicious members of the community too? I'd hope not but really only time will tell.
