Hi everyone,
I'm glad to see a dialogue going. I think the most productive way forward is to talk about what would have to happen to effect Stan's release, and if those options are feasible and satisfying to all the stake-holders.
Before going further down that road, it might be useful to add my own experience of the situation for everyone's consideration. This is going to be a long message, broken down into sections, so please skip to any section that interests you, or down to the bottom for the TL;DR summary.
MY REASONS FOR GETTING INVOLVED:
I'm interested in AF as a gaming community, but also for the social experiment component. Can a self-governing community work, and work well? Can it solve its social conflicts with more efficiency, justice and dignity than other top-down/centralized models? I have no prior relationship with Stan, but I hope that as this community develops through trial and error over time, our errors arise from too much patience and tolerance, instead of too little.
MY EXPERIENCE OF THIS SITUATION:
I've had a couple of long conversations with Stan over the past couple of days--each one lasting about two hours. During these conversations we talked about all of these incidents and other, more general topics related to how different people get along in online communities.
FIRST IMPRISONMENT:
As some of you know, I briefly imprisoned Stan myself on the evening of Friday, Jan. 31, not only because of the many in-game disruptions up until that point (and one event that bled over into the real world), but also because I didn't see that Stan was being sufficiently considerate of efforts to discuss and resolve these issues.
After our first lengthy discussion, I set him free, returned his items, and provided him with additional items and assistance, as a gesture of my good faith. I didn't set any terms for his release beyond 1) not speaking to Zeppelin's brother in chat, and 2) a general understanding that his behavior up until that point had not been committed out of malice. To be clear, yes, we later talked about how some of his actions were intentional, and showed poor judgment (as Stan mentions in the original post), but not meant to be mean-spirited. I believe that is true.
We did not discuss how others might respond to his actions going forward, nor did I give any indication that I spoke for anyone but myself (which I don't).
SECOND IMPRISONMENT:
I was disappointed to see him continue to needle Savannah afterward, and I don't dispute the legitimacy of the second imprisonment by Commander. Nor do I dispute the propriety of a longer period of imprisonment.
However, I was sad to see Stan's property looted in the immediate, highly-charged aftermath of the event. I don't necessarily dispute the idea that a material penalty was improper, but that was not the context in which the seizure occurred. It appears that it was based on the position that he was now gone forever, and so it only remained to carve up the wealth left behind. Even when there is complete certainty that someone is imprisoned without parole, and there's no question that the assets must be disposed of somehow, I think this process should not occur during the heat of the moment.
I feel the same way about the subsequent repeat killings, which might be a useful tool to chase someone off the server entirely under certain circumstances, but didn't seem to me like it came from a level-headed place as it actually went down. It was super late, people were fed up. I understand.
STAN'S APPEAL:
The next day, Stan messaged me for assistance and we had our second long conversation. I said that I thought the forum was the best place to make an appeal, and that's how this thread came about. We talked for a couple hours about a lot of things, including the need to try to look at situations from others' point of view, and building trust not through words, but through actions over time.
He fully engaged the conversation and wrote his apology/appeal in his own words. I reminded him to include the event with Danger's horse, and suggested that he invite people to suggest terms of release. That's the extent of my involvement with the appeal. After that, I advised him to take a step back from the situation and cool off for a day or more.
I would like to reiterate what Savannah said. It's easy to become cynical about the sincerity of strangers on the internet, but I also want to publicly commend Stan for posting this apology. Yes, he wants out. That can cloud one's ability to interpret intent. But even taking that into consideration, he could have approached this topic in any manner of unproductive ways, and chose this route instead.
TO COMMANDER:
As Stan's jailor, you obviously play a pivotal role in determining his future status. First, let me say again that I agree with you putting him in the cooler. Regardless of his intent to cause physical harm, the TNT event showed poor judgment and an unacceptably negligent level of consideration for others. My question is: Should the imprisonment be forever?
It seems to me that what you're fundamentally after is an environment free not only of serious griefing (property destruction, theft, non-consensual PvP, etc.), but also free of chronic drama, disruptions and nuisances--especially when it's intentional (and everyone agrees that at least some of it was intentional). I couldn't agree more with that vision of the community.
I hope you would also agree that it would be at least a little odd to impose the same punishment on a chronic low-level nuisance as would be imposed on a malicious griefer who, say, turned someone's base into a crater, jacked all their loot, and bed-camped them for hours.
In view of that, I hope you (and everyone) will explore other ideas on the spectrum of crime, punishment and restitution laid out below.
OTHER OPTIONS POSSIBLY AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PEARL SYSTEM:
The pearl system includes interesting commands that aren't displayed on the site. First, the distance a prisoner can travel from his jailor can be set by the jailor (/ppsetdist <playername> <distance>). This means a prisoner can be given complete mobility in the Overworld while still being subject to the jailor's pearl powers.
The prisoner's ability to speak, place blocks, and damage other players and mobs can also be set by the jailor. If these commands are available to us, I hope they move us one step closer to a a viable model for parole.
Does the jailor have to be online for the prisoner to move about the world? I don't know, but probably. If so, one or more parole officers (PO) could be appointed to hold the pearl so the parolee can play. If the POs violate the jailor's terms while holding the pearl, then they too would be penalized as well. I know Stan plays with Joe and Pro, and communicates with them outside MC, so they might be good candidates if they're interested. I'd be willing to consider the role myself. Yes, there will be some inconvenience to the prisoner, but that's unavoidable.
(NOTE TO INTANGIR: If these commands are not available to us, I would love to see them restored. They would add powerful tools and fascinating nuance to the community's self-policing powers).
Other options exist, in addition to, or instead of the pearl-parole model described here.
RECIDIVISM INSURANCE:
How will victims of repeat offenses be compensated, and who will compensate them? Players who vouch for the prisoner should contribute to a fund that will go to the victims of any further harm caused by the prisoner they've insured, for the duration of the parole period (or longer). I will contribute to such a fund if there is interest in pursuing this option. If the jailor is not also a victim, I don't believe the jailor should receive compensation (except for the pearl spent, as noted below), for fear of creating a hostage/ransom incentive via the pearl system. It creates a systemic conflict of interest.
LIMITATIONS ON MOVEMENT, CHAT AND ACTION:
The prisoner agrees to limits on all of these things. In Stan's case, I would propose a temporary ban from OC, to insure minimal drama in that area--even if unintended--and that he establish a new home no closer than 1 kilometer from OC. He is otherwise free to move around the world, but not to enter OC for X number of days (30? 60? 90?).
COMPENSATION:
In this case, Stan's assets have already been seized, so I think in this case, a material penalty has already been applied. I think that penalty is too steep, and I would leave it to the consciences of those who seized those assets to decide, but if calling it even is what it takes to come to an arrangement, I wouldn't press the issue. Also, the jailor should receive a pearl to replace the one spent. The pearl can come from the prisoner, or someone who vouches for the prisoner (see below). I'll give Commander a pearl if need be.
A FINITE SENTENCE WITH A KNOWN END:
Another simple option is a publicly known end to the imprisonment. A period of imprisonment followed by a period of probation seems like a more proportionate response to the offenses involved. At the low end, I would suggest time already served. At the high end, I wouldn't recommend anything more than one week from the initial imprisonment date.
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSEQUENCES FOR RECIDIVISM:
It should be made crystal clear to all stake-holders (and probably to the general public), prior to the prisoner's release what the consequences will be for further offenses. In this case, for example: further trespassing or nuisances combined with a demonstrated unwillingness to resolve them will be followed by longer imprisonment (1-3 months). More severe actions, such as block-placement griefing, theft or property destruction, or any non-consensual combat, will result in final, permanent imprisonment.
EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY:
Out of respect for any parolees, ourselves, and the mission of this community, no one will provoke, goad, taunt or otherwise interfere with a parolee during a probationary period (and hopefully not afterward either). Further conflicts will be thoroughly screenshotted and offered on request as evidence of wrong-doing. That said, the parolee understands that no actions from other players excuse violations of parole terms.
TL;DR
- My interest is in helping this community be as just and efficient as possible.
- I think it was appropriate to pearl Stan, but want to explore other options for duration.
- I believe Stan will make a sincere effort to be a peaceful member of the community.
- If I'm mistaken, I will help out any further victims.
- This case presents an opportunity to develop a parole system based on many good options.
- These are not just my thoughts on Stan's case, but on crime & punishment in general.
