Bring the Hammer?

I am in favor of aggressive tactics in stopping an argument when politeness fails to do anything. Not many of the officers were aggressive when I served in IVV -- we had only one real enforcer, a schoolteacher / raid leader and our policies favored an anti-militaristic approach.

I believe that sometimes, to protect people from themselves, you have to shut them up even if it turns their anger at you. Even if it steps all over their "right to free speech." (Technically, in a private setting like a guild, it can be argued that no one has the right to say whatever they want without consequence.)

Right after I graduated high school, I became an instant messenger junkie for an entire summer.

I chatted with my friends and one boy in particular. He was younger than me, Catholic, and embittered by it. He had formed his own beliefs out of little more than retaliation against the church, and while I'm not Catholic I do share quite a few core values with them.

So we argued. And by the time it got to "You grew up in a religious bubble" (sure, that's what made my mom cry and my dad have a heart attack in Texas -- a bubble), by the time it got personal, it was already too late to salvage our friendship.

I don't instant message anymore. At all. Ever.

I still feel that it's a guild leader's responsibility and privilege to stop conversations when they start to get out of hand. Screw allowing people to say what they need to say -- all that's doing is giving people room to be angry and hurt each other, and that isn't free speech. It's breaking down trust and destroying respect.

There are some situations where you can't stop someone from doing something stupid. A friend of mine insisted on going back to a boyfriend who'd degraded her as a woman and a person, and I couldn't do anything but express my worry to her, pray it would be different this time, and offer my shoulder if she needed it in the future.

But if you have the technical capabilities to stop people from saying stupid crap on your forums or in your guild (locking a thread or demoting to probationary no-gchat status), is it also your responsibility to exercise that power and force them to think about what they're doing? Not just hurting themselves with their own choices but hurting others around them -- hurting their relationships and their reputation.

When I was an officer, we were afraid to take a hard line with people. "If we call him out for spouting crap, he'll gquit." That was always our excuse. We didn't want anyone to gquit.

It was an excuse I hated.

Yes, we want people to stay, we care about everyone (even the high maintenance crowd), but if we can't rein in members who are causing disruptions and showing disrespect to others because they'll gquit in a huff if we try... who the hell cares?

The people who don't spout crap in gchat deserve to be thought of as well. You can't keep catering to the problem cases, keep babying them because they'll leave if you do anything even hinting at punishment.

If a guild keeps catering to the problem cases, the regular members will leave. They will get frustrated by the continued disruptions, get fed up because no one ever takes care of them, and they'll leave to find a guild that does.

I am in favor of playing tiptoe political games most of the time, but sometimes I truly believe the best decision is to bring the hammer to shut people up until they calm down. Because some people don't listen to anything but force. And like my instant messenger friend, some people just don't know when to stop.

---------------------------

Beth Blevins is a former officer in In Vino Veritas.

She's a writer, avid blogger, and hates arguing.

Beth's been married since her junior year of college.