disposalist said:I think that's kinda semantics. Just because something is a guideline doesn't mean that going against that guideline is without consequences.
I would suggest that no one would get banned for transgressing guidelines once, twice, maybe more - depends on the action, but what guidelines (and PNP with guidelines) do is allow people to know what is 'good' or 'bad' or just problematic.
When someone feels they have been somehow 'wronged' in game and it turns out the perpetrator has ignored a guideline in doing so, the 'victim' has a basis for, politely, asking them to refrain. PNP guidelines would help avoid any kind of complaint in the first place, but if that doesn't work out...
I wouldn't suggest that, if they don't refrain or they disagree, they get banned, but, yes, they could get /reported if they continue to act in breach of the guidelines and perhaps GMs will get involved.
I wouldn't suggest that if a GM comes along and finds someone has ignored guidelines that they get out the ban hammer immediately, but it would perhaps mean a warning where the GM explains what the victim probably already explained, but in an official capacity. If they've been warned before then they get a strike. If they have multiple strikes they might get a ban, yes.
It may well be that the GM has to clarify the guidelines and explain to the 'victim' that, actually, the guidelines weren't broken. Who knows.
So, in summary, no, no one should be getting bans just for transgressing guidelines, but those guidelines can very well form a useful infrastructure for warnings and strikes leading up to a ban, yes.
Without them, you just have players /reporting everything that upsets them and overworked GMs applying whatever justice they see fit, possibly with instruction from VR, but, if players don't know those guidelines, that justice could easily seem very arbitrary and unfair.
You can't ban people for guidelines, you can't punish a person for not following a guideline the same way you think it should be followed. You can't give them a strike, a warning, or anything of that nature. If you want it to be something that can be punishable, then the ability to do any of it should not be in the game and it should be made a clear rule.
Scenario 1: Person breaks rules a few times, eventually gets banned.
Scenario 2: Person 'goes against guidelines' a few times, which leads to an eventual ban.
What is the difference?
In the way you have stated it, there is no difference, when there clearly is a difference. The example is your own words just shortened into something basic, but there it is. It's not semantics, that's the definition of a guideline; which is completely different from the definition of a rule. The guidelines you want DO NOT work, and the reason no other company uses them is because they are ineffective and they hold no weight. The systems were being clogged up with reports for things that were not going against rules, and the GMs and even the company can't do a thing about it. Again, you cannot ban a person for not following a guideline the way you think it should be followed. If you want things like Killstealing and camp stealing to be enforceable by a GM, then make it a rule that says you aren't allowed to do it, just come out and say it then. With that, then the mechanics have to reinforce this by either taking out mechanics that allow players to either killsteal or campsteal, or the game has to add in mechanics that make it near impossible to do either of those things. You CANNOT have an open world with these mechanics in place and at the same time have people be banned for guidelines because they aren't following them the way you think they should be followed; it's one or the other.
The terms "policies" and "guidelines" are beeing used in this thread like they are refering to the same thing. This is a mistake. Policies are mandatory, guidelines are not. It's important to be precise on these matters since these discussions may potentially have a deep impact on social aspects of Pantheon.
Play nice Policies are bad because peoples behaviours are nuanced and policies are almost always black and white statements, thus making any judgement based of said policies potentialy harmful, unjust and simply more trouble than they're worth.
I agree with there being Policies ONLY against hacking and major exploits, not only because of the obvious harm these issues represent but also because customer support shouldn't have to waste time dealing with /reports about silly disputs and instead focus on truly important work.
I agree about there being guidelines IF they are meant to help a newcomer to Pantheon or mmorpg's in general to get to know how a game like this generaly works socialy. That's it. Anymore than that you risk treating your customers (who I would venture to say are mostly grown men, women and young adults) like children.
If you treat people like children long enough they'll most likely start behaving like chidren. And not "well behaved" children at that.
Pantheon needs to be a game for mature people. And mature people figure out their differences between themselves, not with policies or guidelines.
Policies, guidelines, whatever, let's call them squigglybops.
VR know exactly what situations cause friction. They've been in them over the years and seen every kind of argument with all manner of justifications for the actions of both sides.
We all know there are situations that cannot be 'coded out' with a game mechanic, without 'damaging' the open world and have more nuance than a black-and-white rule can abitrate in every instance without it being overly restrictive/limiting.
The mature adults in these forums can't agree on the rights and wrongs of fundamental things like MDD or FTE and in a game that will be using a mix of the two plus other mechanics it will no doubt be largely impossible for the average player, mature adult or not, to decide 'right' from 'wrong' even if there *is* a right and a wrong.
VR can use their experience to develop and publish squigglybops that will both help new players know what the game is about and where potential issues may arise and, yes, when other players clearly act in defiance of those squiglybops it will help aggrieved players to know they are justified in challenging that behaviour and /reporting *if* they can't sort things out themselves like mature adults.
Without squigglybops, unless you have restrictive game mechanics or draconian rules (which we don't want) you are left with anarchy and constant GM appeals, or maybe not if we are lucky, but do we want to just cross our fingers and hope we don't wind up in a toxic hell, or do we want VR to take a few man-days to come up with suigglybops and save themselves many man-days of GM/CS problems and a toxic failure of a game?
I was hoping re-marketing as Squigglybops would be enough to swing your support, @stellarmind :(
Squigglybops for the win /mikedrop
disposalist said:Policies, guidelines, whatever, let's call them squigglybops.
VR know exactly what situations cause friction. They've been in them over the years and seen every kind of argument with all manner of justifications for the actions of both sides.
We all know there are situations that cannot be 'coded out' with a game mechanic, without 'damaging' the open world and have more nuance than a black-and-white rule can abitrate in every instance without it being overly restrictive/limiting.
The mature adults in these forums can't agree on the rights and wrongs of fundamental things like MDD or FTE and in a game that will be using a mix of the two plus other mechanics it will no doubt be largely impossible for the average player, mature adult or not, to decide 'right' from 'wrong' even if there *is* a right and a wrong.
VR can use their experience to develop and publish squigglybops that will both help new players know what the game is about and where potential issues may arise and, yes, when other players clearly act in defiance of those squiglybops it will help aggrieved players to know they are justified in challenging that behaviour and /reporting *if* they can't sort things out themselves like mature adults.
Without squigglybops, unless you have restrictive game mechanics or draconian rules (which we don't want) you are left with anarchy and constant GM appeals, or maybe not if we are lucky, but do we want to just cross our fingers and hope we don't wind up in a toxic hell, or do we want VR to take a few man-days to come up with suigglybops and save themselves many man-days of GM/CS problems and a toxic failure of a game?
VR has already said that they will not be taking part in the enforcement of any kind of PnP, and have already said for all intents and purposes "just police yourselves." So, already, PnP is not going to be enforced by VR or any of their staff on that basis alone, unless they change their mind on that matter (to be fair, wouldn't be the first time they've doubled-backed on a topic). Additionally, just how many resources do you expect VR to put into enforcement in the case that they do change their mind?
Sounds like you want "open world for me, but not for thee", and are not actually in favor of a true open world. Either you want a true open world, which allows Clan Dbag to essentially lock down a server because they give zero Fs about your "play nice" policy, or you want it to be enforced by VR. If you want it to be enforced by VR, then suddenly that calls into question if whether or not it is truly an "open world" game in the first place; additionally, it also calls into question why they put systems in place that allow for such situations (such as kill stealing, locking down camps, dominating markets, etc) to even happen in the first place then, if they're just going to come in and say "no you can't do that."
Because several games since EQ have already addressed and 'fixed' many of these issues -- just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't work. What you're asking for is basically "if you're being too succesful, that's a problem, and you should be punished for it." Don't want Clan Dbag to claim all the raid spots and lock down a server? Don't push for a completely open world game, then. You can ignore reality all you want, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
OCastitatisLilium said:disposalist said:Policies, guidelines, whatever, let's call them squigglybops.
VR know exactly what situations cause friction. They've been in them over the years and seen every kind of argument with all manner of justifications for the actions of both sides.
We all know there are situations that cannot be 'coded out' with a game mechanic, without 'damaging' the open world and have more nuance than a black-and-white rule can abitrate in every instance without it being overly restrictive/limiting.
The mature adults in these forums can't agree on the rights and wrongs of fundamental things like MDD or FTE and in a game that will be using a mix of the two plus other mechanics it will no doubt be largely impossible for the average player, mature adult or not, to decide 'right' from 'wrong' even if there *is* a right and a wrong.
VR can use their experience to develop and publish squigglybops that will both help new players know what the game is about and where potential issues may arise and, yes, when other players clearly act in defiance of those squiglybops it will help aggrieved players to know they are justified in challenging that behaviour and /reporting *if* they can't sort things out themselves like mature adults.
Without squigglybops, unless you have restrictive game mechanics or draconian rules (which we don't want) you are left with anarchy and constant GM appeals, or maybe not if we are lucky, but do we want to just cross our fingers and hope we don't wind up in a toxic hell, or do we want VR to take a few man-days to come up with suigglybops and save themselves many man-days of GM/CS problems and a toxic failure of a game?
VR has already said that they will not be taking part in the enforcement of any kind of PnP, and have already said for all intents and purposes "just police yourselves." So, already, PnP is not going to be enforced by VR or any of their staff on that basis alone, unless they change their mind on that matter (to be fair, wouldn't be the first time they've doubled-backed on a topic). Additionally, just how many resources do you expect VR to put into enforcement in the case that they do change their mind?
Weird, I've heard Joppa say there will be plenty of CS and GMs to sort out issues and that certain situations will be not be tolerated. I could go and dig up the roundtable transcript I suppose - he actually disagreed with Kilsin when he suggested he would train a camp stealer or something equally pseudo-PvP-esque and Joppa said that no that would not be desirable and they would look to mitigate things like that.
OCastitatisLilium said:Sounds like you want "open world for me, but not for thee", and are not actually in favor of a true open world. Either you want a true open world, which allows Clan Dbag to essentially lock down a server because they give zero Fs about your "play nice" policy, or you want it to be enforced by VR. If you want it to be enforced by VR, then suddenly that calls into question if whether or not it is truly an "open world" game in the first place; additionally, it also calls into question why they put systems in place that allow for such situations (such as kill stealing, locking down camps, dominating markets, etc) to even happen in the first place then, if they're just going to come in and say "no you can't do that."
Nah, but it sounds like you think Open World = Competition and contention rather than cooperation and shared experience. A 'true open world' doesn't have to be all anarchy or nothing. VR aren't putting systems into place that allow kill stealing as an intent, they are creating systems that support open world play. Kill stealing may result. It's a prime example of where squigglybops are needed. Those squigglybops say if you kill steal once by accident it's not a big deal. If you kill steal when initally disputing a camp it's not a huge deal unless it gets nasty. If you follow someone around and repeatedly kill steal from them that is not ok. There will be several other situations where kill stealing may be ok or may not be ok. No one will know if they have a right to complain or speak up or /report or whatever and will probably bombard GMs/CS with complaints because they *feel* wronged. Unless there are squigglybops they can reference to find out, of course.
OCastitatisLilium said:Because several games since EQ have already addressed and 'fixed' many of these issues -- just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't work. What you're asking for is basically "if you're being too succesful, that's a problem, and you should be punished for it." Don't want Clan Dbag to claim all the raid spots and lock down a server? Don't push for a completely open world game, then. You can ignore reality all you want, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Like most people, I don't equate success with domination and conflict and I don't think discouraging and/or mitigating those things constitutes either punishment of success or oppression of freedom or whateer and it certainly does not destroy the open world feel.
An Open World is ideally to be shared and enjoyed in cooperation. I'm aware some people see it as an opportunity to at the least compete and at the worst dominate and grief. I neither wish to stop that potential (as it would also degrade the potential for emergent 'good' behaviour) nor would I want it to be tolerated or tacitly encouraged.
Yes, you *can* have an open world *and* have squigglybops that even eventually result in policing and punishment. It doesn't have to be anarchy to be open. It's not that black and white.
Talking of ignoring reality and consequences: Er. Yeah. The reality is all behaviours should have consequences, but you don't just stop the potential for a behaviour because it *might* be bad, you have rules/guidelines/social norms/whatever is useful to ensure that the bad is mitigated or punished. You don't gag everyone because they might say something bad, but saying something bad still has consequences. You may be censured or punished. You will certainly be made aware that what you said was bad. If that makes people that say bad things feel less like they are in an 'open world' *shrug* fine. Poor them. Behave better next time. The rest of us still are in an open world and a much more pleasant one at that.
This is getting a bit philosophical and slightly political feeling. Ugh.
https://youtu.be/4vebn1AN6KY from 7:00. Joppa addresses the issue in 2018. Now his stance might have changed since then and of course he doesn't mention any specific policies they will have in place regarding this matter, but it does sound like they are not intending to just let the "stronger" party "win" by any and all means, just because it is possible. How they will achieve this remains to be seen.
EDIT: Re-reading some of your posts I don't think we disagree, I think maybe I've been unclear in how I've talkied about 'wanting PNP' when others have quite clear ideas about what that means and I don't. I have most of the same concerns you do.
Jobeson said: @disposalist you keep conflating everything to just be pnp. It's not. Pnp is about trying to force people to be a predefined nice. Forced sharing. It even bans RP.
Maybe implementations of it you've seen elsewhere are like that. Doesn't have to be that way here and is not the way I've described it. I even moved to talking about Squigglybops so people stop the preconceptions about PNPs, rules, guidelines, or whatever they prejudge it as. To be clear: My concept of squigglybops is not to adopt PNPs in a form that other games have used. Though I would say PNPs have served a purpose and often they are better than nothing, I agree that they have been far from perfect in other games.
Squigglebops don't *force* anything, they help *avoid* the need for that force. People can be aholes if they want, but most will see the squigglybops and think about what they do and want to 'play nice', whatever that means. If squigglybops end up in bans, it will be a long way down the line after lots of interaction with players and GMs and CS and I would hope, if they are done right, that quigglybops would avoid that degree of nastiness much more than they lead to it. It's their whole point.
Jobeson said:Don't pretend it's about training people.
I'm not pretending. Squigglybops would be about training people, partly. About awareness of what is healthy for the community and what is not.
Jobeson said:Don't pretend it's about threatening people irl. Don't pretend it's about saying racist or hate filled things. Those are not pnp issues.
I didn't. I specifically said those things would have obvious hard rules based around real world laws, not squigglybops. If I was confusing there, sorry.
Jobeson said:You want to force people to give you the camp because you want to force the game to have turns. You want to force people to sit on their hands for 8 hours so you can raid. You want to force people to respect what you call a camp. You want to force people to watch their allied npcs be slaughtered. You want what amounts to a god in the world to get involved with a petty dispute. If you want a safe place devoid of conflict play in an instance. They were designed for people like you. Seriously, no competition to hinder you. No people to be toxic.
Nope, nope, nope and nope. Squigglybops are about avoiding toxicity and needless conflict, full stop. They will make the open world *more* open, not less, because, done well, they mean you need less limiting mechanics and fewer draconian hard rules. I want the open world, I just want it to mean shared experience and opportunity to cooperate much more than it means a pseudo-PvP opportunity to dominate others. NOt that it has to be only completely one thing or the other, of course.
We all know what the real problems are and have been in MMORPGs over the years. Some clearly have in mind issues they would like to avoid and some clearly have in mind issues they want to perpetuate in Pantheon.
I try and stay away from picking out particular issues or falling on one side of them (hence my example of kill stealing includes the possibilities of alledged perpetrators being wrongly accused being resolved by Squigglybops, not just 'victims' getting 'perps' punished), but I'm sure my proclivities show occasionally. I know very well most of it is subjective and VR will just have to choose what they consider healthy for the game or not. I don't doubt in some issues they won't even fall one way or the other, but it would still be helpful for them to make Squigglybops that describe both sides of those issues and point out to players how they might approach them without causing unnecessary toxicity. You can have disagreements without it causing arguments...
Good thing that VR will have to decide. I don't envy their position in this because they will be damned if they do by those wanting conflict and contention and domination and will be damned if they don't by those wanting cooperation, sharing and avoidance pseudo-PvP.
As I've said again and again, there is a middle ground and there are some game mechanics that will help and there need not be hard rules to control everything. Squigglybops help to *avoid* excessive restrictions, they don't exacerbate that. Again I'll say: If you want freedom, squigglybops would help. To have nothing would be remiss and naive. Anarchy is not freedom.
Jobeson said: Given the first hit locks the encounter to you, it is not the stronger party but the faster party that wins.
I'm referring to what Joppa talks about in the video. "Stronger" here meaning the party willing to use any means available to force their will through. Not who hits the mob first.
But apropos that specific mechanic (hit & lock), has that been confirmed as something VR will implement?
Daalziel said:Jobeson said: Given the first hit locks the encounter to you, it is not the stronger party but the faster party that wins.I'm referring to what Joppa talks about in the video. "Stronger" here meaning the party willing to use any means available to force their will through. Not who hits the mob first.
But apropos that specific mechanic (hit & lock), has that been confirmed as something VR will implement?
Pantheon is going to be using a mix of MDD (Most Damage Done) and FTE (First To Engage) and other mechanics as far as I know, which, of course, makes it much more difficult to know what might be deemed 'bad' behaviour in any particular encounter. Squigglybops would help! Lol. Broken record here.
stellarmind said: wait i'm cleaning this system up. i think it's promising over pnp. a decentralized jury system for pvers with grievance and want community police. i can incentivize participation(1 token for every 3 cases reviewed max of 3 per day, can be adjusted depending on volume of grievance and participation) by allowing tokens to ping someone for misconduct. this effectively removes a daddy GM from having to do anything not related to TOS. it's up to the community to run the system. nobody holds absolute power. the accused is innocent until proven guilty by a 3 person majority vote, chosen at random in que for jury duty. if found guilty said player is hit with 25% all stat debuff for 1 hour. a 2nd offense 50% for 1 hour and a 3rd offense and on 75% max for 1 hour. debuff record is expunged with weekly maintenance so players deemed criminals by the pve community can choose to reform on a weekly basis. i think the data can be broken down into time stamps, proximity based on the vincinity of the accuser and the accused so it could remove the need for video recording. the server already logs all actions players up to a certain amount, so it could be ported into this system. the jury can make a call based on the data and the case the accuser had described. the accused can buy out of the penalty time by surrendering max token of the day.
ArcAge Unchained has something similar and it was laugable to see in it action. Most players would ignore the jury summon while a few would accept it every single time to just bugger the system completely. The jury saying they will accept bribes; people voting not guilty on friends/guildmates but yes on everyone else, etc. The sheer number of people being taken to court resulted in near constant jury summon spam.
It was an utterly terrible system. Players cannot, without bias, police other players. Period.
Weird that people keep saying not having PnP eases the burden on CS/GM staff when in reality the opposite is true. It adds a filter for when/what people report and even cuts down on the behaviors disallowed to begin with.
For the first few months after EverQuest’s release, we felt that a policy of non-interference in many of these matters was warranted. However, we continued to lose good players. This was not due to any deficiency or dissatisfaction in the game, but due to dissatisfaction with the treatment that they received from their fellow players, and the perceived inability of our Customer Service department to intervene. Late last year, we made a commitment to our players to begin playing an active role in many of these situations.
The intent of these policies is to provide the players with general guidelines for what is or is not acceptable behavior in EverQuest, and give them the opportunity to work out differences prior to involving the EverQuest Customer Service Staff. Naturally, in a game as multifaceted as EverQuest, we are not able to cover every possible issue that could arise as part of these policies. In these cases, it is the spirit of a rule that will prevail over any discrepancies in the letter.
Iksar said:Weird that people keep saying not having PnP eases the burden on CS/GM staff when in reality the opposite is true. It adds a filter for when/what people report and even cuts down on the behaviors disallowed to begin with.
For the first few months after EverQuest’s release, we felt that a policy of non-interference in many of these matters was warranted. However, we continued to lose good players. This was not due to any deficiency or dissatisfaction in the game, but due to dissatisfaction with the treatment that they received from their fellow players, and the perceived inability of our Customer Service department to intervene. Late last year, we made a commitment to our players to begin playing an active role in many of these situations.
The intent of these policies is to provide the players with general guidelines for what is or is not acceptable behavior in EverQuest, and give them the opportunity to work out differences prior to involving the EverQuest Customer Service Staff. Naturally, in a game as multifaceted as EverQuest, we are not able to cover every possible issue that could arise as part of these policies. In these cases, it is the spirit of a rule that will prevail over any discrepancies in the letter.
Where did you get your quote? I want to read the entire article of it, if you don't mind.
OCastitatisLilium said:Where did you get your quote? I want to read the entire article of it, if you don't mind.
You can find record of it starting page 24 here.
Iksar said:OCastitatisLilium said:Where did you get your quote? I want to read the entire article of it, if you don't mind.
You can find record of it starting page 24 here.
Ok, I read it, but it only proves that such guidelines don't work unless you have GMs/CSRs by the hundreds. All this proves is that having the community police itself doesn't work at all and you still need a GM to step in and make a choice. Besides, again you can't ban nor punish someone for mere guidelines as they are not rules. At the end of the day, it only shows that community policing doesn't work. If you want these types of things, like in the link, to be something that can be punishable; then you need to take out the ability in the game mechanics to do it, add something into the game mechanics that doesn't allow for it, and to top it off, make it an actual rule and not just a guideline. people here are saying that community policing works, when this only proves that it doesn't in the slightest.
stellarmind said: what? pnp bans rp? okay im hard against pnp now.
Lol. No, dude. It says that 'role-playing' is no excuse for being an a-hole.
You can't say "I'm allowed to ninja loot because I'm role-playing a rogue", or "I'm allowed to constantly abuse you, because I'm role-playing 'evil'".
Well, you can see it, but you'll still be breaking PNP (and being an a-hole).
OCastitatisLilium said:Iksar said:OCastitatisLilium said:Where did you get your quote? I want to read the entire article of it, if you don't mind.
You can find record of it starting page 24 here.
Ok, I read it, but it only proves that such guidelines don't work unless you have GMs/CSRs by the hundreds
Not sure where you get that from. They said they needed PNP because players were leaving due to feeling GMs/CS were unable to intervene. They don't say that PNP would mean GMs/CS would constantly *have* to intervene.
They said they wanted a policy of non-interference. My understanding is they instituted PNP so that 1) They could largely continue to not interfere because people now knew what was expected of them and 2) If they needed to intervene, their GMs and CS were more able to since they had guidelines to apply.
EQ P99 have instituted even more detailed PNP because with their very small team they have even less capacity for the need for GM/CS intervention. The PNP enable players to sort themselves out. It doesn't make *more* work for GMs/CS, it avoids it and makes is easier when it *is* necessary.
OCastitatisLilium said:All this proves is that having the community police itself doesn't work at all and you still need a GM to step in and make a choice.
Again, not sure where you get that from. Yes, Everquest found that a policy of non-interference and GMs/CS that were hardly able to intervene when needed didn't work. Community policing *on it's own* doesn't work.
PNP, they clearly thought, would work in allowing them to minimise interference, but when they had to, would ease that GM choice.
OCastitatisLilium said:Besides, again you can't ban nor punish someone for mere guidelines as they are not rules.
Yes you can. It's a private service on private servers and players implicitly sign up to the PNP (and other rules) when they play.
OCastitatisLilium said:At the end of the day, it only shows that community policing doesn't work.
No one is arguing that are they? Community policing *alone* doesn't work. I'm with you, if that's what you mean, but you seem to be conflating your opinion of PNP being useless, which I don't agree with.
OCastitatisLilium said:If you want these types of things, like in the link, to be something that can be punishable; then you need to take out the ability in the game mechanics to do it, add something into the game mechanics that doesn't allow for it
I'm confused. Surely if you use mechanics to enforce the rules there will be no need for punishing anything?
Besides that, it would ruin the open world, as a side-effect, to have such limiting mechanics. Not worth it.
There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's not a black-and-white, chaos or fascism choice. A combo of some few mechanics, some few hard rules, some PNP, some guidelines, some GM/CS action, some community policing, will work.
OCastitatisLilium said:and to top it off, make it an actual rule and not just a guideline
Potato, potaato. I now prefer calling them squigglybops.
You don't have to have draconian rules to control toxicity. Guidelines will do fine for 99.999% of people and avoid a ton of GM/CS action. If those guidelines are bent/broken repeatedly by bad actors, GMs will being to act and eventually will censure and, yes, maybe ban. You don't need mechanics that can't be broken or hard rules that if broken once mean a ban just to keep things pleasant. There will be some of those, sure, but not many hopefully.
OCastitatisLilium said:people here are saying that community policing works, when this only proves that it doesn't in the slightest.
Sorry, I really don't see people here claiming community policing (on it's own) works and I don't see proof that it can't (when combined with squigglybops).
The fact that Everquest, after a few years in business, decided they needed PNP doesn't *prove* that PNP 'fixes' MMORPG toxicity, but it also doesn't prove that is doesn't.
Double negatives are making my head hurt. You get the idea.