User:Ilbelkyr/op thoughts

(I'm writing up some thoughts on how to op werewolf channels here, with some bias towards ##werewolf on freenode specifically as that's the one I op. This is my personal opinion; it is not meant as an official statement representing the ##werewolf ops.)

Opping any channel becomes harder as the channel grows in variety. This applies to social channels moreso than to topic-oriented channels, and with Werewolf being a social game at its heart, it also applies to werewolf channels. The game nature of the channel introduces additional considerations, however.

Channel disruption
Some things simply disrupt normal channel usage by mostly technical means. This includes flooding, mass highlights, etc., be it purposeful or accidental. In the case of an accident, the problem tends to be purely technical, prompting a technical solution in response if needed. This can be a kick, quiet, or whatever else resolves the issue. (A kick removes the affected user(s) from the channel, which may be undesirable. However, a quiet needs op action to undo. That said, a quick message explaining the reasoning should make either acceptable.)

Intentional disruption differs between internal and external disruption, that is, whether there is a social problem in the channel behind the disruption or not. Ops can't do much about external disruption other than use privileges to stop it; asking a network-level spammer to stop spamming your channel is highly unlikely to work.

In the case of disruption motivated by a social issue in the channel or related to it, the first step is still to resolve the immediate disruption itself (e.g. the flooding); however, it is important to address the social problem as well. At least leave other ops a note about this if you can't do it yourself due to time constraints.

Gameplay problems
The most important consideration in judging gameplay behaviour is to be aware of the specific individual's skill (or lack thereof). There is no point in punishing anyone for something they could not have known without weeks of experience; but even in the case of experienced players, mistakes happen. Some people will say to "assume good faith". Others tend to assume intentional disruption. I believe it's best to avoid making unfounded assumptions either way: if there is any doubt about something, asking the involved player about it tends to help a lot. They may have not known about something (common with new players, or people who simply forgot about something), or they may have made a mistake even though they did know. To punish the former inhibits community growth; to punish the latter alienates anyone subject to imperfection (that is, any human player, given a suitably large sample). Both of these effects amount to propagating an attitude of elitism, which I believe to be harmful to the community as a whole. Instead, help people to avoid mistakes in the future and mentor them to advance the community as a whole.

People who intentionally make bad gameplay decisions present a socially problematic behaviour which should be handled as such.

Social problems
This is the hardest kind of issue to deal with, and maybe the one with the most divided opinions on how to approach it.

Depending on your level of faith in humanity, problem people are anywhere from uncommon to exceedingly rare. This is not to say problems are seldom heard of; after all, if they were, we wouldn't need ops as much as we do.

That being said, a lot of op work does not involve op privileges as such, ideally. Instead, ops have a power greater than their technical privileges, the power of authority: as an op, some people will be more likely to listen to you and more willing to question their own behaviour when you approach them. This is a two-sided coin; while some people will indeed listen more easily, others will distrust you on the same basis. Both sides of this have a point. You will also encounter people who will treat you specially merely to gain your favor. It is important that you can talk to all these people about issues they present to the channel.

In fact, a lot of op work could be done without the technical op privileges. The authority aspect may, however, occasionally help provoke dialogue with people otherwise unwilling to listen.

A majority of social issues, while by their very nature related to people, are with people's behaviour, rather than the individuals themselves. Try to deal with problematic behaviours, not the people exhibiting them. If someone shows multiple problematic behaviours, it might be worth working on each one individually.

Additionally, you should always try to work with people, not against them. It is easy to "resolve" issues by setting a ban or similar, but that amounts to curing, or rather, hiding the symptoms. In addition, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater – you may have "solved" the problematic behaviour, but in the process, you excluded a potentially valuable participant from the channel.

Addressing issues and working with the people causing them to resolve them is hard. In fact, it might very well be the hardest part about opping a channel: spam and flooding may be annoying, but a hostile environment is actively detrimental to your channel, and it can easily affect channel regulars. In light of this, it is understandable that not every issue can be resolved the ideal way; the unfortunate consequence of this is that ops do occasionally have to resort to technically enforced sanctions. This is regrettable, but inevitable, given that ops are humans. To achieve perfect opping would require all ops to be trained therapists available 24/7 for everyone at once. Obviously, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect that, so a balance has to be found. The exact spot of this balance may vary per channel, though.

In the case that you do have to penalize users, try to minimize the penalty. Unreasonable sanctions alienate players, which is ultimately undesirable. In most cases, a ban should not be of a "you are not welcome here" nature; rather, it should be "your behaviour is not welcome here and this is the best we can currently do to avoid it showing in our channel". To ban a potential player often means to admit failure to address their behaviour otherwise.

Avoid permanently banning people. The closest I could defend would be an indefinite ban: one that does not expire by itself, but may be appealed by the banned user to show their behaviour has sufficiently changed. This is still an extreme measure.

It should go without saying, but do not ever penalize people for personal reasons. To do so is to drag a preexisting problem into the channel. Similarly, try to speak objectively when talking to people as an op, and be clear in separating personal and official views where ambiguous. A conflict between you and another player is bad enough without it turning into a conflict between the player and the channel ops.

Avoid taking sides as an op. It is acceptable to favor one position or another personally, but when acting/speaking as an op, you should clearly evaluate any incident as free from personal bias as possible.

Stay calm, and avoid getting aggressive (including passive-aggressiveness). It may be hard sometimes, but fighting fire with fire will not work. Fighting anything else with fire might "work", but you will be left with your kitchen set on fire. That is a bad thing.

Be open to feedback. You are as human as anyone else, and not above making mistakes. Accept criticism and actively consider it.

Communicate with your fellow ops. Dissenting ideas can easily cast a channel into disarray unless discussed appropriately. If at all possible, establish consensus about anything not already agreed to by everyone. Preferably establish consensus on what it is that "everyone" agrees on, too. This won't always be possible, and diversity of opinions can be a good thing as well. Do try to act as a team, rather than individually. Conflicts between ops take up time and effort better spent on resolving channel issues or simply participating in the channel, so avoid them by addressing differences earlier, even if that means agreeing to disagree.

If you follow the above guidelines, you should already be as consistent in your actions as possible. Being inconsistent easily projects an aura of favoritism. Avoid this; it lessens your credibility as an op and weakens the foundation of trust the channel should have for you. It is hard to regain trust once you have lost it.

It should go without saying that actual favoritism is out of place in opping a channel. Instead, try to use your closer connection to the involved people to talk to them about the issues on a more familiar level. You might end up resolving the issue without even invoking authority – always a good thing.