Banning From Events

[Oshova]

So, something has happened in private recently that really irked me. Not just that it happened, but that it happened behind closed doors. I feel like communication and discussion are the best ways to keep a healthy scene, so I thought I would bring it to you all as a topic for discussion. I will keep names out of it (unless the people involved decide otherwise). I did originally post about this on Twitter, but 140 characters isn't the best way to have a discussion.

So, recently a player was banned from an event. This is a player that has never had a warning at an event (and has been to many of them over a long period of time), let alone been Disqualified from any. But it is a player that the TO has a personal problem with. The player bought a ticket for an event the TO was organising, only to be told that the ticket had been refunded and that they weren't welcome at the event or any other events run by that TO. The reason given was that the TO felt that they couldn't in good conscience have that player there and pair them against other players, when they (the TO) wouldn't want to play against them themselves.

Now, there are 2 key parts to this. The validity of banning a player from your event for the reason stated (they don't like playing against them), and having all of this happen behind closed doors, with no discussion with other parties.

Some other key things to consider here are: This is a ranked events, which are supposed to be open to everyone (although reasonable exceptions could be made for disruptive players, or players with bad histories), and the TO is a henchman (so should be acting in the best interest of the community, not in a possibly biased way).

 

So yeah, please discuss =]

[mythicFOX]

Very interesting topic. I'm going to mull this over a bit before posting my personal thoughts. 

I just wanted to add upfront that I agree with Tim that this conversation can only remain productive and useful where we're talking in principal rather than about specific individuals. 

 

[theshepherd]

Banning someone from an event should be a final resort, used only after every other option has been exhausted.

If someone has been warned and still causes trouble then a ban might be an option. But if said person has been banned just because they're not friends with the TO then that is out of order. If you just want to play your friend set up a closed casual play day not a tournament.

People are always going to clash but the point of being a grown adult is to understand how to react like an adult in these situations.

I'm sure there are plenty of other factors to this that I don't know but on the surface banning someone who has done nothing wrong because you don't like who they are is only a short step away from banning someone because you don't like what they are.

 

(not 100% any of that is actually English or makes complete sense but its been a long day)

[ProximoCoal]

The sad thing is I can probably guess who is involved without names.

We all have flaws. I have many. However it is our responsibility to look for the best in others and not blame people for our games not being as enjoyable as they could be. 

Wargames almost always require 2 people. The difference in approach you find from gamers is a big part of what makes tournament games so exciting. This difference is what also causes conflict. It is the responsibility of both players to try and meet in the middle ground and understand how the other player acts from their point of view. 

This is an ideal. I am well aware. I know for some it is difficult to reach that middle ground. For some they are already trying very hard to be more accepting and basically don't have any more room to budge. At that point we are bound to find people who don't like playing each other and, to be honest, that makes me really sad.

However, though this conflict is inevitable I would hate for one person not to recognise that 1. It's partly their fault or 2. That everyone else will not enjoy playing them. Therefore I think that this sort of banning should be out of the question without a great deal of supporting evidence (basically an exception and not a rule). 

At the end of the day if the shoe was on the other foot, would this henchman be happy having been denied the opportunity to show they are a good person and enjoy their games? I doubt it.

[Clousseau]

Firstly thank you to Oshova for bringing this out in the open. that can't have been an easy decision.

I can also guess the people involved, but that's totally irrelevant.

To tackle the second point first, I always try to resolve any issues, or tackle them, in private. In the majority of cases the discussion only needs to be between the people directly involved. If it goes public after that it won't be from me. Why in private? - because that discussion does not need to be in public and I respect each and every player's opinion and hope they respect my decision in the matter.

The first point - banning someone for personal reasons, is totally out of order and goes totally against the principles of running a public event, which is that the players come first. Have an issue with a player? Either resolve it (preferred) or put it to one side for 8 hours. Why should your opinion be imposed on others.

As to a situation where an event is not freely open to all, well, to me quite simply its then an 'invite' event and not ranked. That's harsh on the players that attend of course.

All points in the above posts are valid, and worded better than I could.

[ukrocky]

Just to partly play devil's advocate and also to get across the side I've not yet seen.

 

I in part agree with what Dave and Connor have said, and can fully see their points and some of my brain definitely agrees with it all, but as said, to play devil's advocate:

 

If I was to run an event, I would want the event to be as enjoyable for all players as possible, as well as for myself as a TO. I would not run an event where I would actively be at the event not liking someone at the event. I would want to enjoy the experience and is part of the reason I very seldom run events as I prefer to play. If I was to run a Warhammer event nowadays there would be certain people I *would* say no to, as well as certain people I would talk to prior to them attending. There are people in this community, as well as myself in the past, who do not play in the same spirit as a lot of the community and need to realise that it's just a game. Some people push the limits, some people don't get on. That's human nature.

 

If the TO in question has reasons to not allow someone to their event, it is well within their rights and I do not believe they should be witch-hunted over it. I can see the points of those above, and I do believe that wargaming is a hobby for all and should be all inclusive, but if certain people have true differences, then that is for both of them to reflect on and either address themselves, or between one another, and not for the community to decide in my opinion.

 

P.S. I have no idea who's involved, nor am I particularly interested. There are certain people I enjoy playing in malifaux, there are certain people I would have words with prior to an event if I was to run one, but there is no one off the top of my head I would outright say no to in malifaux at present, which is one excellent aspect of the wyrd-verse, as there are very few malicious people, especially compared to some others I've seen in my many years of tournamenting.

P.P.S. I would put me 5 years ago in the category of sometimes pushing too far and would likely have appreciated a word in advance back then. I'm a delight nowadays.

 

[LunarSol]

I've had a bit of experience with something similar, and to put a little in the TOs corner, its worth noting that this may not be the full extent of closed door communication.  It's very possible that the TO has had players come to them in private with concerns and may even have players who are unwilling to participate in the event if the offending player is present.  The TO may be facing a choice of cutting one player to save 2 or more.

That said, its really not the right way forward.  I think one of the silver linings of these sort of situations is that they're a great opportunity for players to learn to take advantage of the TO who much of the time sacrifices their day to be a figurehead rather than a properly utilized resource.  What I have done in the past in these situations is instill in the rest of the community the idea that at no point should they argue with their opponent.  If contention exists, call me as the TO, let me help make neutral measurements and provide rulings (and suffer the ire of whoever I rule against, particularly if I'm wrong).  

There is no point of contention to small for a third party arbiter to assist with and the more you utilize the TO for small moments, the less difficult it is to include them in major disagreements.  As a TO, I'm generally bored and wishing I was participating in all the cool games going on around me.  It is not a burden to include me in your fun.

Most of the time, that's all that's really needed to keep an abrasive personality from escalating into a negative game.  In the rare instance its not, its a great way to have the TO aware of situations so they can make a fair call when things do get out of hand.  There's nothing worse than hearing about issues after an event is over because its really not fair to act on a player based on hearsay.   If I'm involved from the beginning I can hopefully put a stop to things ahead of time and if not, well, I've got plenty of actual evidence to support a legitimate ban.

[ProximoCoal]

I can definitely understand your points Craig, but I think the difficulties arrive when you need to establish a line between those who have had many complaints about them and personal bias. Perhaps if someone has been removed or reported in an event before then fair enough but otherwise I cannot in good conscience let this act as a precedent. 

[OldManMyke]

I guess I am out of step with other folks here as I believe that the role of the TO is absolute and if they choose to exclude someone from their event then they are totally within their rights to do so.   It's their event and their rules.  If people are upset about it or feel that the TO is wrong then they will vote in the usual way - with their cash - and not go to the event, or more probably - not go to any of that TOs events again. 

I also don't think Henchmen status is an issue here.  Henchmen are responsible for building the game in the area that we are henchmen for.  If you think allowing a player to come to your event will upset the balance of that community (LGS or club) then, again. you have to have the right to not allow that person.

On the rankings issue I don't care, I gave up worrying about that when I handed the rankings on, its really up to Kai to decide as ultimately - regardless of what we might think - he is the final arbiter of what gets included.  It is worth pointing out though that as TOs we are in charge of who goes to the masters due to the good standing clause in the masters criteria.  If I decided to DQ a player at Nationals for example (for whatever reason, perhaps their BO offended me) then that player can't go to the masters, regardless of what position they are in on the ranking table.  Something to think about.

What I don't like about this is the fact that its all been done n a manner that seemed to suggest that the TO didn't want folks to find out about this. When this was on twitter yesterday afternoon I had no idea of the personalities involved - though I now do know - and felt then, as I still do now, that it should be done in the open.  If you are going to ban somebody from your events then you, as  a TO, need to be clear about what you have done and why (as I said about i don't actually care about the reasons, your event, your rules).  Otherwise it degenerates into a game of Chinese whispers. 

 

 

[solkan]

trial in absentia.

Quote

In common law legal systems, the phrase is more than a spatial description. In these systems it suggests a recognition of a violation to a defendant's right to be present in court proceedings in a criminal trial. Conviction in a trial in which a defendant is not present to answer the charges is held to be a violation of natural justice. Specifically, it violates the second principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem (hear the other party).

 

As far as I can tell, that applies to both parts of this discussion, both the specifics that you all seem to be dancing around concerning the TO not being present in this discussion to defend the actions and for how the ban is reported to have been issued; and the abstract principles being discussed.

 

[Clousseau]

1 hour ago, solkan said:

trial in absentia.

 

As far as I can tell, that applies to both parts of this discussion, both the specifics that you all seem to be dancing around concerning the TO not being present in this discussion to defend the actions and for how the ban is reported to have been issued; and the abstract principles being discussed.

 

A good point. The TO involved would of course be welcome to make his point here, but by doing so would reveal his identity, which is something we've been avoiding

[SurreyLee]

As a fledgling TO without henchman status, i'm not sure banning a player because I don't like them sits right with me. If they had proven disruptive in the past then maybe i'd make it clear to them that if this behaviour is repeated they may well run the risk of being DQ'd, however IMO i'd be putting on an event for the community. It's only fair to put some personality issues aside. Do I like everyone i've met in the scene? No. Do I respect and get on with them as much as possible when gaming? Yes. Why? Because to do otherwise means i've become possibly the thing about them i dislike. 

If a tourney is ranked, and again, my opinion, then it should truly be open to all parties. 

I think not only this, but it's all very reactionary. If you REALLY don't want someone to come to your tourney, have the decency to take them aside before you even put tickets up for sale and explain your situation. 

Anyway, tickets for BITEFAU2 are still available at Chessington on the the 22.10.16 and all are welcome. Even @Zac might stay around for this one.....

[Snezzley]

If this becomes common place I'll never be able to go to another tournament tho? Mike can I still come to showdown even though my face may offend many there? 

[OldManMyke]

Yes Snezz, you are always welcome.  

[mythicFOX]

I've thought long and hard about this.  I'll start by saying I respect the opinions of all the other posters above. Here are my thoughts;

 

People have talked about trials and evidence.  We have no governing body or systems which would facilitate anything resembling a fair trial. The only trial we’re capable of having is one by public opinion, on the internet.  These have a close to zero chance of achieving a just result, and would probably render any actual evidence irrelevant in the face of the ensuing popularity contest. Being unpopular doesn't make you wrong.

Instead of having a governing body with committees making regulations we have a simpler system;  the TO’s word is law, moderated by players voting with their feet.  That’s a system which has served us well.  Where a TO has observed a pattern of behavior they believe is inappropriate they have every right to deny someone entry to their event. Full stop.  I've never met a TO I think would take a decision like this lightly or due to a personal vendetta.

That takes me to the real meat of the issue; what should happen in full view of the public?  

I think the well-meaning assertion of some in this thread that the TO should make public that they've refused someone entry to their event is really dangerous.  Publicly dragging someone’s name through the mud is actually a much more serious matter than refusing them entry. Either party can of coarse choose to make the issue public, but it’s my firm view that barring the most exceptional of circumstances the choice should be made by the player and not by the TO.

If it were me that had been banned (and thankfully it isn't) I would think long and hard about if I was confident in exposing my history and conduct to public scrutiny and debate. 

 

TLDR:  TO’s word is law and have every right to refuse entry. Our TO's shouldn't be in the business of naming and shaming players.
 

All very much IMHO.

[ProximoCoal]

James makes an extremely good point about publicly shaming people. It destroys lives.

However this also denies the ability for me to actually vote with my feet. I won't know if someone has been banned. 

It is also true as others have already said that this has no legitimate power. I would say that the point of this was not to pass judgement but simply to influence those involved, here and in the future. 

Mike also has the right of it that due to the rules given before he has the power to ban players from the masters for bad bo etc. However I would suggest that this would actually function like the Queens powers, public uproar would simply over rule the decision.

At the end of the day if both parties keep this secret there is nothing anyone can do, but if players are banned for what is seemed as suspect reasons (I guess Kai makes the decision)  then I personally would like Kai to not allow the results in the rankings (it is treated as an invitational).

[Kogan Style]

38 minutes ago, ProximoCoal said:

At the end of the day if both parties keep this secret there is nothing anyone can do, but if players are banned for what is seemed as suspect reasons (I guess Kai makes the decision)  then I personally would like Kai to not allow the results in the rankings (it is treated as an invitational).

Even where other tournament attendees have no knowledge of the banning or the people involved and are attending an event that is advertised as a Ranked Tournament? I think such a course of action would be more detrimental to the scene as a whole than the impact of one member who has been fairly/unfairly banned. If that player was banned from more events would all those events now be treated as Invitationals until the ban became blanket across the UK and the person had left the tournament scene?? 

Using Mike's example - were he to DQ someone over BO and ban them from any tournament he ran - would all subsequent tournaments run by Mike publicly state they are Invitationals and not ranked? Would Mike be happy to forego one of the biggest draws to tournaments just to keep Mr Stinky Pits out? Would the store hosting the event be happy to see potentially reduced numbers just to keep Mr Stinky Pits out?

I think that course of action puts too much pressure on Kai as a decision maker (of rankings eligibility), and creates a collision course between TO's who ban players but want to run Ranked Events (which attract the most attendees) and the Rankings system.  I think we should take the Rankings out of this discussion and centre it on the conduct of TO's and players. 

I would like to think that Master's eligibility would be decided by a group of TOs so that any one TO with a personal bias doesn't use the power granted by the community to punish someone at a community level (I think the Master's weekend is a community celebration of the scene and achievements over the past 12 months, much like the Nationals is the biggest community gathering/event). At an individual event level, the TO's word is law and if they feel the correct approach is to ban an individual then they are entitled to do so. Other TO's should be able to discuss the reasons for the banning and communicate/act appropriately (whether that is extending the ban to their events if justified, or taking remedial steps to resolve the issue with the particular player and TO) 

As per Mythic Fox - all IMHO

 

 

[Psientologist]

A lot of good points have been made here, before I say anything one thing I believe needs to be cleared up.

Banning from an event vs being DQ'd or being banned due to a previous DQ are surely totally different and really the only reason ranked vs invitational (or whatever your preferred terms are) is being brought up. 

My opinion is as such.

As a TO I withhold the right to run my event in anyway I see fit, if I don't want someone there for reasons I deem worth they are not invited.

However, not that will we know each case but as the TO you have to take a good look at yourself and ask if it's worth the stand.

This community is one of the nicest and most welcoming but that does not need to mean we must like everyone. However if you are just TO'ing this person/people you don't like where you barely have to interact just "man up" for lack of a better term.

I also though think that if you are as the TO being picky with whom you allow at your event then you should not be ranking it.

Not everyone cares anyway and if you do then you need to deal with what ranking may bring (in my experience it changes nothing).

I say this because the rankings are inclusive as I believe the scene is.

I don't believe any names should be named unless a player has been DQ'd for actual harmful reasons, I include cheating in this, BO not so much, the word will spread on it's own for that.

I understand that some people are saying they do not want to attend the event of a TO who is banning people based on their own personal issues.

This becomes a problem that I'm not sure how we solve. Only real way is again if the TO "man's up" but that could create a "flame war".

My final lazy point here is, if you're a TO and you want to avoid certain people, get your tickets sold before they get the chance haha

Anyway I'm bored of this already, apologies   for any spelling/grammar errors, typing on the train is hard!

[Wake of Godzilla]

Some great opinions above - all very valid, making it hard to say one is right and another is wrong.

Just out of interest, a lot has been said about the TO having a personal issue with the player, but what if the TO was reacting to feedback from other players that have signed up to the event rather thank being a personal issue? Does that change anything? 

[Psientologist]

2 hours ago, Wake of Godzilla said:

Some great opinions above - all very valid, making it hard to say one is right and another is wrong.

Just out of interest, a lot has been said about the TO having a personal issue with the player, but what if the TO was reacting to feedback from other players that have signed up to the event rather thank being a personal issue? Does that change anything? 

Potentially.

That could just seen as bullying, however I'd say the same thing to those players, just grow up haha

This is why I would almost post a list of attendees. If several people come to the TO then when they see this person appear on the list then maybe it warrants investigation.

An interesting "what if?" for sure but people will speak with their feet/wallet.

Also I don't believe this is the situation that's happening here.

[LunarSol]

I'd definitely contact the individual privately before making anything public.  There's no reason it should become a public thing unless they want it to be.  In general though, its important to form a dialog with a problem player and work with them so that if it comes to banning, its easy to make clear that it was a last resort.

In general, if I get complaints about a player I will pull them aside with the following information:

1. I have received complaints
2. I am not assuming the player is at fault, nor am I taking action on things I've simply heard of
3. I will suggest calling me as soon as they get into a disagreement or a potentially contentious situation simply so I can be a neutral observer.
4. Make it clear that I will be watching their games closer so that I can get a better idea of what's going on, whether its a problem we need to discuss further OR to be able defend them if I hear complaints in the future.

Generally, that starts a path that fixes things.  Either the player shapes up or continues to cause problems that I am more directly involved in, causing the escalation to occur with me directly instead of forcing me to act as a proxy for other players.  

The important thing though is just that "call the TO" culture for all sides.  Most competitive events have a dedicated referee after all and most minis games play well with a judge on hand to answer any questions and make any of those iffy calls regarding close measurements and iffy LOS.  I implore players to call me when they're about to do anything high stakes or involving complex rule interactions simply because having a neutral pair of hands makes things run smoother.  It's just best for everyone to have the TO involved and from the other side, its a much better day for the TO when they're constantly helping even with minor things.

[ProximoCoal]

2 hours ago, Wake of Godzilla said:

Some great opinions above - all very valid, making it hard to say one is right and another is wrong.

Just out of interest, a lot has been said about the TO having a personal issue with the player, but what if the TO was reacting to feedback from other players that have signed up to the event rather thank being a personal issue? Does that change anything? 

I think this is completely different and totally acceptable. I would prefer decisions to be open though.

 

[Clousseau]

LunarSol hits the nail on the head regarding concerns about a player during an event (or post event with actions prior to the next event).

Regarding the Masters, that event is currently in the care of myself and MythicFox.

[NoMoreMrNiceKai]

I think a TO needs to put personal feelings to one side. It does not help the community. I personally have someone that comes to my events that I don't get on with. However other people in the community do get on with them. It would not be fair for me to exclude them from an event for personal reasons. Plus, as a TO there is little chance of me having to play that player and therefore be across a table from them for a couple of hours. At most we need to have random 1 minute interactions through the event, but nothing that is going to cause a meltdown. 

15 hours ago, OldManMyke said:

Its really up to Kai to decide as ultimately - regardless of what we might think - he is the final arbiter of what gets included.  

Only once have i ever changed an event's standings. This was only because I was attending and was aware of the shenanigans that went on at it. When a TO submits a rankings request, the is an element of trust between us that it is a valid tournament to rank. I have fallen foul of the unwritten rules myself (before running the rankings). All the site says is:

• All games will be played with a master. No Henchmen led games
• Minimum number of players for a ranking event will be 8

That leaves a lot open to interpretation. I will be updating this with the things missed later this week. One of which will be "Open events only". I feel, if a person is banned because they cheated in a previous event, or punched someone in the face - then fine. But basing it on whether or on you like someone - when does that stop? "I don't like the top 20 because they win too much, so i will secretly tell them all I am banning them. Make it easier for everyone else". I am glad I am not the only one to feel this way.

[Joel]

So what now constitutes a level of behaviour that is acceptable or unacceptable Kai? Are there levels of acceptability? What are they?

Who makes those decisions? Who enforces them?

who is to say that this is banning we are tip-toeing around is to do with a "dislike" of a player and not something more? 

No person or body exists to make these calls beyond individual TOs. If you think that such a body needs to exist, this might be a useful discussion at a future point.

if any TO has witnessed behaviour that they deem as unacceptable, should they not act on it? 

If TOs need guidance, who will write and supply this guidance? 

Where does the line between personal issue and actual problem exist, and who draws that line?

should it be the person running the rankings? Individual TOs? A council of the wise? Whoever posts most in a forum thread? 

Im afraid i don't  have any answers, just lots of questions. 

I can say that in our current system, the authority lies with the TO, and what you propose changes that. I think that a lot of questions need to be asked, and discussed, first.