Can players be negatively ranked by other players and lose points or be eliminated from the game for any reason?

Login to vote in this poll.

First off, here is my interpretation of what a system like this would be used for: Pruning the "bad apples." There will always be certain people in the game that are just mean. They might not want to follow the rules, they might cheat the system, they might cause headaches for everyone that plays, but there is one glaring reality here; these people exist in real life, so why shouldn't they in this game?

Part of what the game should involve would be interactions with other players. Naturally, there would (or at least should!) be a large variety of players in game at any given time with all types of philosophies and mannerisms. While these players might involve the dedicated people that want to experience the game and see what a reality following the decrees would be like, it is also guaranteed that there will be players not wanting to abide by these rules. This is perfectly natural and should have a system in place to handle them. However, being able to remove them from the game entirely is down right ludicrous. This would be like making a world, where if enough of the population doesn't like somebody, then that person will be killed.

Should there be penalties? Sure! Bad people go to jails all the time, but they are not all murdered because certain people don't like them.

In another sense, penalties, fair or not fair, should not be brought down by other players, but rather by an admin (game creators). Because spite between players begin to create a kind of "salem witch hunt" in which players wildly accuse each other, and as a result you just have a bunch of complaints and players losing points, ultimately erasing the division between "bad" players and "good" players. There must be some sort of limitation to the petitioning of players, and the creators should be the supreme justice in issuing penalties.

I think the claim that eliminating a person from a game population is the same as eliminating them in real life is false. The idea of jail is more accurate: When you put someone in jail, you are putting them in a zone where they are outside of society. If we think of the game as the "inside" space, banned players are in the "outside" space. They lack no capability to interact with other players within the world unless someone intentionally contacts them through other means. When someone is in jail, they are unable to interact with members of society unless someone enters the outside zone to communicate with them. Death in real life would be the equivalent of banning them from from all games and from all modes of communication (including verbal speech) forever.

Also, the question does not necessitate eliminating a player from the game via only negative votes. The process could be moderated by game officials. If someone gets a certain negative rank, they would go into a trial system where the game officials would look at chat and activity logs in order to determine if that person has a right to continue playing the game. This way, even if you and a group of friends negatively rank a player just because you do not like him or her, they will not be immediately eliminated.

I agree with you in the sense that eliminating a player from the game because he/she isn't liked for how he plays or what he/she does is ridiculous. The world this game is built around should be promoting an idea of free thought, word, and action that helps garner a thought process to improve upon the real worlds social and political structures in place. These people who are "bad apples" are all a part of this world and should be allowed to play if nothing else than to teach tolerance for these people and attempt to convince them to play peacefully with others, not by force, but with words and ideas which eventually would hopefully lead the real world to follow the example of words over violence or in this case, just killing off that players avatar.

Negatively ranked-- sure. Lose points or eliminated-- don't think so. Plenty of states and worldbuilders abound in our world and more often than not they knock themselves off polite society anyhow. There's got to be room for these people-- I might even use Confucian thought here and say that all persons are naturally rational, simply in different ways. If the game is supposed to show people in rational settings it's got to show everyone. And that means not eliminating people from the game.

I do agree that we should be able to negatively rank players but not eliminate them from the game for any reason. If the player isn't taking the game seriously, then we should de-rank them to be fair to the other players. But what is not fair is that players should stay rational and not have the ability to just take others out of the game or take off points just because "they want to".

As a wise man once said, some men just want to see the world burn. But I think you make a good point in the last sentence (if I understand what you're saying)-- as socialist as the framework of AgoraXChange seems to be, I doubt that allowing players to choose whom to "vote off the island," so to speak, is a great idea. Again, I vote for deranking simply because I view all humans as rational as Confucius might. Simply rational in very different ways than usual. The real question is: what would the deranked, non-eliminated players be doing? Would they remain visible? Would there be options to "hide" said players? I think the role of these so-called de-ranked players could be a lot more interesting than we're talking about, though certainly we don't want to give them any "undeserved" agency.

Negatively ranking players should be allowed because that way the world can see those that are not adhering to the decrees or the manifesto of the game. But I feel that de-ranking them seems a bit much because in our current society even those that don't adhere by the laws are able to become successful and prosper. If this game is to be like the "real-world" then negatively ranking players should give them infamy and others would be aware of them.

Eliminating players should not be allowed though because that would just lead to a society comprised with players that might have similar beliefs and there would be no opposition in the intellectual world of the game. And i believe that having an opposition is what brings change in a society.

Yes, I think players who do not play the game seriously or who are not adhering to the decrees or the ideas in the manifesto should be negatively ranked or lose points. If the players of the game do not know who the "bad players" are in the game there is the chance that they will be voted into leadership roles and cause further problems. I think the game should be comprised of players who truly want to play in this political world and see if the outcome is better than the current state of our society.

I don't see why people can't exist in this world for purposes other than to make the outcome better. If everybody in the game is working toward the same goal, I don't see how the outcome would not be better than the current state of our society. By having these dissidents or dissenting voices within the game, you can better mimic reality and in turn navigate through the problems and pitfalls that do come up all the time in real life.

This is not to say that there does have to be some sort of way to combat "trolling" or purposeful griefing. This is something that has become ever more apparent. Trolling is not exclusive to simply video games, as is noted in the other reply to your comment about AIM. I don't really see a problem with inactive players. People will come and go in a video game all the time, and part of a video game is ultimately getting the most amount of people to be playing your game at one time. Purposefully deleting inactive accounts might limit your viewership and negatively impact the community. Real life circumstances happen all the time; sometimes extenuating circumstances make it so that one is unable to play games.

A good way to combat people who are intentionally sabotaging the game is to have admins on at all times of the day who are able to take complaints and take actions against those who are deemed to be violating the rules.

Your point is understood about using negative marks to potentially eliminate inactive players, however I do not feel that instituting such a system is necessary to accomplish the goal of weeding out inactive or deviant players.

Allowing such a system would only give all players a means to harm others. Although people may not see it in this way, if every player has the ability to negatively mark everyone else, then what is stopping the 'bad players' and even the good players from using this option to harm others for any kind of gain?

Here's an odd example: remember the days of AIM? early on, the system contained a warning option that could be used by member to negatively mark other 'buddies' and members in general. Every member had a warning percentage, and once it reached 100% that person would be deemed inactive for a time. My memory isn't the best on this feature specifically, but it is similar to what has been proposed. I remember people would purposefully try to get people to 100% just as a silly thing to do. Again, I'm sorry if my specifics are a little off, but for the most part, I feel this example shows how people in this game would only use such a feature to purposefully harm others 'just for fun'.

A better feature would be a report system to the site manager to report any inappropriate behaviors, which can then be handled by the site administration (similar to haw myspace and facebook handle their user reports).

I agree with you. Your example with the AIM 'warning' percentange is a really good example that portrays a similiar concept to players negatively ranking other players for the sake of eliminating others in the game. I feel like if players are given the power to negatively mark other players, this idea in itself may be overlooked at and for the most part, abused. However, I can understand if it's a player that is abusing powers such as hacking, etc; then I can understand eliminating players that are obeying the honesty/policy of the game.