IDEAS FOR RYZOM

Perhaps what is being expressed here is also the lack of transparency about the decisions of the CSR in conflicts between players, and the need for more in-depth mediation.

At the same time, the CSRs already have a lot of work to do and the mediation actions are always long and complex. For these actions to be effective, people needs to be trained in conflict management (with effective tools) and I am not sure that Winchgate want to pay this for its volunteer employees. It is even more complex because we are in a very marked intercultural context, where what may be normal in some people's culture is considered unacceptable in others. Even on language: if Deepl helps to understand each other, it also sometimes leads to misunderstandings.

I'm thinking in particular of the classic case of thefts in GHs (which, in my opinion, is one of the things at the origin of this discussion and a bigger problem than changing the name). Thefts in GHs are regular (one or two stories per year?), it multiplies tensions between groups of players. If we stay on the surface of things, here is what is perceived:
- For group A: they welcomed and trusted group B. After a while, some dissensions appeared, then group B left by stealing things in the GH, changing faction sometimes, and there were a lot of insults.
- For group B: they joined group A, to whom they brought among other things MP (by digging, hunting, etc). After a while, some dissensions appeared, they decided to leave and keeping what they felt they brought, they changed faction because it became too tense, and there were a lot of insults.
- For the CSRs: players don't get along anymore, they can't talk to each other anymore, insults are flying beyond what is tolerable and CSR need to act for bring peace. Who stole from whom? It's impossible to determine, given the arguments put forward. Some people (in group A or B) crystallize the attacks and ask for renames in the hope of escaping the popular vindictiveness/consequences of their actions (take the option you prefer). Rename are granted in the hope that the expressions of anger will subside. From an outsider's perspective, it is impossible to tell who is right from A or B. It is obvious that the conflict MUST end, no matter what.

This is almost always the case.

If we remain in a simplistic vision, only one of the 3 groups is "right"... and both A AND B will be dissatisfied.

If we enter into a logic of conflict resolution, we will start from the hypothesis that everyone is right and wrong at the same time, and we will go back and forth between all the actors involved in order to find a resolution that satisfies the maximum number of people. We will also work to create as much empathy as possible between the groups in conflict. By empathy, I mean: understanding the deep reasons that motivate the other (and which will be more complex than what I have outlined here), understanding one's own reasons, seeing how our actions have hurt the other and vice versa, exposing and explaining one's limits, hearing and understanding the limits of the other. It is more than likely that a mediation action, in this case, will end up happening not at the moment of the "theft", but very much upstream, at the moment when the groups have come together (even before the dissensions). This will bring to light the misunderstandings and unmet expectations that arose at that time. From there, everyone will be able to recognize their responsibilities and propose something that seems "right".

This is the simple version. In practice, even when everyone is willing and the problem is really "easy", a good mediation action requires hours, even days of work. It takes a lot of time to get one of the people involved to talk about what's going on from his or her point of view, then multiply that by the number of people involved in the conflict, and that's just the beginning of the work.

It's much quicker to get angry, to get annoyed, to find retaliatory actions. But punishments have limited effectiveness, they hide problems but rarely solve them.

There are already rules around name changes. We could make them more drastic, but that still wouldn't be enough to solve the underlying problem. Because even if the person who hurt you can't change his name anymore, will it prevent thefts, insults, etc. afterwards? No, that kind of thing would happen too... And the remarks show that the anonymity linked to a name change is unrealistic: all the people involved know "who is who" after less than ten days. Even with a character change from A to Z.

Would the community be interested in conflict resolution actions? Would you be willing, when you are in conflict with someone, to go to a neutral third party and ask them to help you communicate with the other person? And not just ask them to punish the other person?