Suggestions & Game Enhancements - Additional protocol for chat related account bans

Print Page | Close Window

Additional protocol for chat related account bans

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=11236
Printed Date: 27 Mar 2026 at 02:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Additional protocol for chat related account bans

Posted By: Smopecakes
Subject: Additional protocol for chat related account bans
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2025 at 17:17

Without referring to the details of a recent ban, I feel deeply uncomfortable talking in GC with the current situation. I would like account bans that are primarily related to chat behaviour to have a protocol to provide players with reasonable assurance that they won't be too easily banned for chatting.

There's no doubt that the current chat moderator has been an immense improvement over the previous regime. On the other hand, due to the tight rules about giving details about bans or discussing them in the chat or forums there is no way for players to generally know what a person was banned for. I cannot feel comfortable talking in GC at this time.

Personally, I would very much like any chat related account ban to require confirmation by player vote, if a petition with enough support to trigger it was submitted. I would promote that a supermajority vote be required to trigger an account ban, and otherwise there would simply be a permanent chat ban.

Alternately I would feel alright if a ban like that required the unanimous support of four GMs. To me, three GMs would be the minimum.

I would also request that any protocol be retroactively applied to the recent ban.

Replies:

Posted By: Zenrath1
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2025 at 17:43

Agreed. I wasn’t there when it happened, so I won’t pretend to know every detail. But from what I’ve heard, it sounds like something was taken out of context, and the relationship between the players involved wasn’t considered. That kind of response makes it harder to feel safe speaking in GC.

I’ve already been given a one-hour chat ban in the past for a joke that made perfect sense in context. It wasn’t offensive, and no one took issue with it at the time. Still, it was punished without and a warning given, even though given the context there was no lesson I could learn from it. Since then, I’ve seen other players make openly toxic or insulting comments without any sign of consequences.

Since then, I did bring up other comments directly to Duran, he told me that he does not always apply the rules the same way. That kind of inconsistency opens the door to bias. It means players are not being held to a shared standard, and decisions can depend too much on a single GM’s judgment. That creates an uneven playing field where some get silenced for nothing, while others are allowed to push boundaries without issue.

This isn’t how a healthy community functions. If a joke between friends can lead to a ban, but targeted harassment is ignored, people stop feeling safe to participate at all. A better system is needed. Whether it’s a player petition, a voting process, or a requirement that more than one GM agree on major decisions, something has to change. At the very least, moderation should be consistent and fair.

GM Duran — 2025-05-24 5:20 PMSaturday, May 24, 2025 5:20 PM

If I silenced every one of you for calling each other names you’d all be silenced for years.

Posted By: willd elff
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2025 at 18:12

I don't think we should get to vote... the Devs have clearly said this is "THIER" game and we are allowed to play it .. If we don't follow the rules as they see fit then it is up to them... That being said I stick to what I said earlier about all of us showing a bit more etiquette .. even me

Posted By: Othello
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2025 at 20:18

Although I understand your point, Smopecakes, I'm strictly against the idea of letting players vote. I mean, we aren't in "The Werewolves of Millers Hollow" and although that isn't the intention of your suggestion, it is quite likely that certain players would at least try to get rid of unwelcome opponents if this opportunity arose. (Even the supermajority does not change this, as votes can be obtained through blackmail or simply through eloquence.)
In my opinion, anyone who has to make decisions will occasionally make the wrong ones, but this applies to groups of people just as much as it does to individuals.
Please also bear in mind that bureaucratisation of the process within the group of developers would definitely mean more work, which could then not be put into the development of the game.
Perhaps there is a way to publish the exact reasons for old chat bans in anonymised form in order to provide insight, but I think the developers have made it very clear that they do not want to and will not publish the reasons under names.
Last but not least, I would like to refer to the https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/code-of-conduct-rules-updated-6feb2018_topic31.html" rel="nofollow - code of conduct . Even though there is still some room for interpretation within these rules, as I think has been shown in detail here, it does set out some very clear red lines, which can help each individual decide whether what they want to say could have unpleasant consequences for them.

Posted By: Zenrath1
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2025 at 23:59

Yeah, having players vote people out... would be problematic at best. That said, the Devs could at least check with a player to make sure that they aren't misunderstanding something. I would hate to see more players banned because of an inside joke that the Devs didn't understand because they don't have all of the context.

Also, as per Duran's comment to me, they don't stricly follow the code of conduct. So, it's more like suggestions to guide a conduct than it is a code.

Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2025 at 01:18

To describe the voting concept in the positive form that I'm thinking of, it's not players voting someone out. If someone is nominated by the Dev process for an account ban for chat behaviour there would then be an opportunity for a sufficient petition to trigger a vote. It should be a reasonable bar to avoid the extra process and administration when unnecessary.

In that vote 1/3rd of players would be able to prevent the account ban if they felt that the chat conduct didn't warrant a full ban. I would like to know, if my account was on the chopping block, that other players with the experience of having the game as a part of their life would be able to vote against it.

I could see another possible approach being reasonably detailed timelines and specifics about what led to an account ban when it's for chat behaviour. It's very difficult to have both the possibility of account bans for chat and no official details about specific bans. I would prefer a player input mechanism, but in that case at least I would have a clear idea of what lies in Schrodinger's chat ban box.

I do understand the Devs deal with a lot of unwarranted criticism - in particular, revealing details would both be work and an invitation for commentary. I feel that the commentary is inevitable, especially for a game that so uniquely becomes an extension of people's worlds.

Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2025 at 03:50

iirc, the developers have stated in the past that player concerns regarding other players' conduct, including in chat, increase substantially prior to competition such as alliance "wars." This suggests that players themselves are not in the best position to make or confirm decisions regarding chat bans, as meta-game actions may be at work.

Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2025 at 17:38

There do seem to be only a few potentially similar cases I can think of, like Russ and Brian. Even if I might have just GC silenced Russ myself there can be no doubt he serially busted TOS. Brian I disagreed with more but he certainly invested great effort into his ban, entirely derailing the announcement of the biggest stat update in a decade

The fact that this one felt out of the blue is a clue that it's very unlikely it was off the cuff