Hi, I'm Asche. I've just recently returned to the game after getting burnt out, and its been my longest break in a while. But, on an off, Arm has been a part of my life for almost five years now. I don't really agree with the directions its been going in the last couple years especially, and I think the declining playerbase might be an indicator of that. But here is the thing: I genuinely love this game, and I sincerely want to see it have a Renaissance. But I don't think its on the track for one.
Now for the bit that will likely get me banned. I'm a member of the shadowboard. Not a prominent one, I'm mainly a lurker, but I found them pretty shortly after finding Arm, and I keep up with them because, to be frank, I wanted to discuss Arm in a setting that felt less policed. And really, how could I not have found them? They're the first result when you type in 'Armageddon Mud Forums.' Unlike many of the people on that forum, I don't really feel spite against staff. And thats what I feel it is, honestly. Its not an organized vendetta, its a bunch of passive aggressive nerds who feel, justified or not, slighted by the community that they came to love, and want to be able to discuss it openly without the fear of reprisal. And thats important, because I feel like if the staff were more open with the playerbase, there wouldn't even BE a shadowboard.
I don't think staff are villains, and I understand that feeling attacked for every effort and hounded for every mistake would be grating to even the best-natured people. To come up with a plot and then have it mocked incessantly because it wasn't novel-quality, turned into a meme of terrible storytelling? Thats gotta feel pretty shitty. But, and this is important, I think this highly negative sentiment is the product of many years of growing distance between the staff and the playerbase, a perception of apathy and condescension from on high that is only going to naturally culminate in condescension. Not once, in the years I've been on this forum, have I ever seen staff, individually or collectively come forward and say, "We're sorry." I don't really think anyone expects staff to be perfect, and theres going to be complainers even if you are. But all we, as players, want to know is that you care, not just about the game in a meta sense, but about the people who are giving countless hours of their lives to this game. A simple acknowledgement when a mistake is made, and a promise to try to do better, or to take the game in a new direction, would do WONDERS. Instead, you actively ban people who have played the game for years just because they went to a forum where they can say the things you won't allow them to.
I consider myself a neutral party. No staff has ever attacked me, and the biggest slight I've ever got from them is being denied karma, or being a bit pedantic. I don't really have a problem with any of you. But I know there is a community that does, and they didn't pop out of nowhere. And yeah, they can be reactionary, defeatist, and even cruel. But you're not serving the best interests of the game by hunting them. I want this game to be around in ten years. I want to see it improve, to the point I'm willing to risk my account being deleted just to talk about it. I want a real dialogue between this community and those who feel scorned by it. Because the truth is, we're the same community, just fractured by perceived injustices. And whether they are baseless or not, we don't help the situation by not addressing them openly. Make an account on the Shadowboard. One openly staff. Just talk to them, without any aggression, and I think you'll be surprised by how easily this community improves. I know they'll be surprised to see you.
WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH CYBER ASCII TERRORISTS
For every person who'd be willing to partake in civil discourse, you have 10 jcarters who can't afford their meds and would be frothing at the mouth.
At least here all of us who can't afford our meds are safely caged up.
Quote from: Malken on March 03, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH CYBER ASCII TERRORISTS
For every person who'd be willing to partake in civil discourse, you have 10 jcarters who can't afford their meds and would be frothing at the mouth.
At least here all of us who can't afford our meds are safely caged up.
Even if that were true, and we both know its an exaggeration I think, thats 1/11 people on that board who might feel reinvigorated to come back to the game. And the people who aren't on that board but feeling disheartened by the current state of it not leaving. Even as a purely cynical PR move, it makes sense. We can treat each other like human beings, and the game will improve for it.
Sounds like pretty standard victim complex stuff. Get over yourselves and play for your own enjoyment, you'll have more fun.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 05:28:54 PM
Quote from: Malken on March 03, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH CYBER ASCII TERRORISTS
For every person who'd be willing to partake in civil discourse, you have 10 jcarters who can't afford their meds and would be frothing at the mouth.
At least here all of us who can't afford our meds are safely caged up.
Even if that were true, and we both know its an exaggeration I think, thats 1/11 people on that board who might feel reinvigorated to come back to the game. And the people who aren't on that board but feeling disheartened by the current state of it not leaving. Even as a purely cynical PR move, it makes sense. We can treat each other like human beings, and the game will improve for it.
Yeah, they should give it a shot just to see how quickly it turns into a shitshow and then we'd know once and for all how impossible communication between both asylums are. I'm picturing the underground courtroom presided by Scarecrow in Dark Knight Rises.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 03, 2017, 05:35:20 PM
Sounds like pretty standard victim complex stuff. Get over yourselves and play for your own enjoyment, you'll have more fun.
I think everyone already does this, or tries best as they can. Why else would anyone play a game? For most of us, though, this isn't just any game - it elicits a great deal of emotion, positive and negative, for many different reasons. I don't know about you, but I've never cried over stuff that happened in World of Warcraft. This is what makes Armageddon MUD unique, and awesome. It's also what makes players be vocal, and frustrated, and stubborn at times. And what makes them come back after ten year breaks. Because they care.
I'd like to see where this thread goes before I say anything else... or not. I hope it stays civil and doesn't have to get locked.
I contend that more dialogue is always better than less.
That being said, I think that the staff contribute a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears to all of us who play. I think asking for an apology for something non-specific is a little ridiculous. I am not saying they are perfect, but nobody is. I think their efforts in making this game the amazing ride that it is more than make up for whatever issues a person could have with them.
Quote from: Melkor on March 03, 2017, 05:49:10 PM
I contend that more dialogue is always better than less.
That being said, I think that the staff contribute a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears to all of us who play. I think asking for an apology for something non-specific is a little ridiculous. I am not saying they are perfect, but nobody is. I think their efforts in making this game the amazing ride that it is more than make up for whatever issues a person could have with them.
Wasn't really demanding they make some broad apology so much as noting I've never seen them offer one, even right after something happened that the vast majority of the playerbase disapproved of, or in hindsight of a poor move on their part. And never acknowledging fault is kind of a big deal in terms of relationships, no matter how much one 'contributes.' The fact of the matter is, the game is suffering, and people are leaving. Guilt trips, passive aggression and manhunts aren't what we need right now, coming from ANYONE. I empathize with the people who spend a ton of effort making this game run. I also empathize with they people who have played this game twice as long as me and given countless hours of fun, comedy and drama to other players who are permanently banned because they participate in a forum that isn't sanctioned from on high. These things are not mutually exclusive, and decrying either one isn't the right path to take.
In part staff tended to do this on occasion via Ath's threads. Having an open conversation with the playerbase, I mean.
But in all honesty. Jcarter's forum participants have lost any of my sympathetic neutrality when they began posting information that was the result of a hack/direct breach of promise. At that point they turned from a fringe society of disgruntled, but still regular people, to a group that wishes the game ill. And if you choose to participate there, you are validating their actions.
How do you envision this dialogue? Between whom? Clearly not you and staff, because then you'd have this conversation in a request tool. Do you want another one of those player meetings on IRC that they periodically host?
I really enjoyed Ath's threads. Those should have been real eye openers for both players and staff. Whether players and staff have drawn good conclusions from them I cannot judge. A dialogue is always good. But personally? In my non-staff opinion? A dialogue between staff and participants of Jcarter's forums would too validate the unrepented hacking of the website/blatant leak.
There is going to be a social cost to being a part of that community whether you like it or not. Is everyone there an asshole? Maybe not all of them. But the open disregard for the rules of the game, petty personal attacks, attempts at cyberbullying and the all around shitty attitude gives it the reputation it deserves.
And I say that as a guy that's got a tonne of unresolved beef with staff.
I think 'why have player numbers dropped, and what can we all do about it?' would be a valid topic for discussion. As long as it stays civil. Because the game needs good players, and good players in turn become future staffers who keep the game running. Maybe I spent too much time working in customer retention but this particular issue is close to my heart.
Let's not make this thread about that other forum. I doubt anything good would come from that kind of discussion.
Quote from: Dar on March 03, 2017, 05:59:11 PM
In part staff tended to do this on occasion via Ath's threads. Having an open conversation with the playerbase, I mean.
But in all honesty. Jcarter's forum participants have lost any of my sympathetic neutrality when they began posting information that was the result of a hack/direct breach of promise. At that point they turned from a fringe society of disgruntled, but still regular people, to a group that wishes the game ill. And if you choose to participate there, you are validating their actions.
How do you envision this dialogue? Between whom? Clearly not you and staff, because then you'd have this conversation in a request tool. Do you want another one of those player meetings on IRC that they periodically host?
I really enjoyed Ath's threads. Those should have been real eye openers for both players and staff. Whether players and staff have drawn good conclusions from them I cannot judge. A dialogue is always good. But personally? In my non-staff opinion? A dialogue between staff and participants of Jcarter's forums would too validate the unrepented hacking of the website/blatant leak.
To be completely frank, if I went the route of making this a private message, I'm certain the chances of me getting banned with no response would rise to about 100%. By letting people see this, and asking openly, I at least make their response public. You can call that manipulation, but I'm genuinely just asking to be heard without being instantly banned. Even if the breach you note was done with intent to harm others, which I don't see any evidence of, it would be a few members, and not necessarily embody the will of that board. A lot of people on the shadowboard just want answers to their questions that aren't 'find out IC! :)', or a place to talk about a bad move without feeling like they'll lose all their karma for doing so. As to how it could be done, I suggested they approach, let the owner know who they are, and start a thread. If thats not an option, and this account continues to exist, I'll probably make a thread on the Shadowboard asking for their questions, filter them to the useful ones to provoke a dialogue, and post them here. I want to see this game improve, and I'm going to take the steps I can to see that happen.
There's that victim complex I was talking about again.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 06:06:54 PM
I think 'why have player numbers dropped, and what can we all do about it?' would be a valid topic for discussion. As long as it stays civil. Because the game needs good players, and good players in turn become future staffers who keep the game running. Maybe I spent too much time working in customer retention but this particular issue is close to my heart.
Let's not make this thread about that other forum. I doubt anything good would come from that kind of discussion.
Agreed, but it would need to be a new thread. This one's irrevocably about another topic (i.e. "Why are staff so mean to me").
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 03, 2017, 06:14:01 PM
Agreed, but it would need to be a new thread. This one's irrevocably about another topic (i.e. "Why are staff so mean to me").
LOL!
Be nice, Skeelz. :P
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 03, 2017, 06:14:01 PM
There's that victim complex I was talking about again.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 06:06:54 PM
I think 'why have player numbers dropped, and what can we all do about it?' would be a valid topic for discussion. As long as it stays civil. Because the game needs good players, and good players in turn become future staffers who keep the game running. Maybe I spent too much time working in customer retention but this particular issue is close to my heart.
Let's not make this thread about that other forum. I doubt anything good would come from that kind of discussion.
Agreed, but it would need to be a new thread. This one's irrevocably about another topic (i.e. "Why are staff so mean to me").
I've already noted I've never had a problem with staff. Other people have. This is about the game being in decline, and hopefully catching it before it passes a point of no return. I think this is an effective way to do so. Actively removing experienced players because of who they associate with out of character is about the worst possible move I can imagine to promote retention. My position is, if we want Arm around in a decade, not a shadow of its former self, things need to change, and people need to stop feeling alienated. The Shadowboard is what we need to address to tackle that. Its not a separate issue.
Unless there's been a change in staff policy recently, you're not going to get banned for saying you went on the evil-GDB.
I haven't peeked at that swamp since sometime last year but I recall a whole bunch of people who weren't interested in a discussion and attacked anyone who said anything positive about the game.
Any good faith effort by staff (last year's Tablelands plot, playable gith, etc?) gets dismantled and denigrated. Nothing is viewed through the lens of "wow look, they're trying to do something neat for us." It's all viewed through forty layers of cynicism and salt.
The real kicker is when the game staff are viewed as a monolith who are somehow accountable for all the actions of every past staffer. You're mad that someone six years ago docked your karma for something you don't agree with even though they haven't been on the staff team in years? Better hold that grudge forever! (this is a hypothetical example)
Ugh. I urge staff not to respond to this. You can ask me why, but I'm not sure I have a better answer than the taste of Asche in my mouth is awful.
There's not a real request buried in the original post up there. Beyond the vague desire for staff to make 'A simple acknowledgement when a mistake is made, a promise to try and do better, or to take the game in a new direction'
I've seen staff acknowledge mistakes, are they apologizing to YOU for denying you karma, or being pedantic? They shouldn't have to.
You want a promise to try and do better? I don't think people who ARE trying and succeeding in doing better need to make a promise to better. Now who's being pedantic.
And just because you don't like the direction 'it's been going' in the last couple years doesn't mean you can justifiably ignore that fact that IS going a new direction in your next paragraph down. Stuff's changing, awesome stuff imo, I've seen a lot of code changes be added, so many that I haven't even been able to try all of the new stuff that's come out. In fact, just today some shit went down that I started to get pissed about. Something disappeared under my nose, and my first instinct was 'Great, something profitable and fun for me just got ret-conned' and I had to step back and realize /that/ was reactionary, and may not be the case at all. I'm going to 'open a dialogue' with them in a report since it's IC sensitive info, and find out whether or not I'm blowing it out of proportion. Fuck, for all I know, they may be trying to rope me into a plot since I pr... why am I explaining myself to you?
My Main Argument: You're asking for stuff that's already there, AND claiming to be a neutral party asking for staff to open a discussion with those who feel slighted. Not you, someone else.
And how should they do this? You're asking them to access a site that's known to be malicious, and not just troll-filled and flamey, but Actively, illegally, 'dangerous to your computer' malicious.
Here's the thing, every single one of us, perhaps staff too, can be, in your own words, 'reactionary, defeatist, and cruel' ESPECIALLY ME, but, and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have all the details on this, didn't they engage in criminal activity /against/ staff and players here?
I don't see any dignity in your requests, Asche, and I think staff opening a dialogue here, or on jkcarter's forums would just be an attempt to add dignity where there is none. If there's people on those boards who truly want to speak freely, AND engage in a healthy discourse with staff, I suggest they create their own forums, and attempt to do so there.
Krath, I shouldn't have to feel like there's a chance I might get hacked just because I'm speaking so vehemently against them, does that make sense to you? Staff have never wronged me to the point I feel actually threatened.
Edited to add:
I'm so angry about this that I could:
A) start my own forums
B) Bitch, whine, and complain for six pages
C) Hack your computer and violate the law and your privacy
D) Only A and B because no matter how much I disagree with someone I can still RESPECT them at the same time, which is the basis for any rational, productive dialogue, the kind you're trying to ask for currently.
E) Continue trying to explain this at the sake of my own sanity.
The answer is D.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 06:41:19 PM
Ugh. I urge staff not to respond to this. You can ask me why, but I'm not sure I have a better answer than the taste of Asche in my mouth is awful.
There's not a real request buried in the original post up there. Beyond the vague desire for staff to make 'A simple acknowledgement when a mistake is made, a promise to try and do better, or to take the game in a new direction'
I've seen staff acknowledge mistakes, are they apologizing to YOU for denying you karma, or being pedantic? They shouldn't have to.
You want a promise to try and do better? I don't think people who ARE trying and succeeding in doing better need to make a promise to better. Now who's being pedantic.
And just because you don't like the direction 'it's been going' in the last couple years doesn't mean you can justifiably ignore that fact that IS going a new direction in your next paragraph down. Stuff's changing, awesome stuff imo, I've seen a lot of code changes be added, so many that I haven't even been able to try all of the new stuff that's come out. In fact, just today some shit went down that I started to get pissed about. Something disappeared under my nose, and my first instinct was 'Great, something profitable and fun for me just got ret-conned' and I had to step back and realize /that/ was reactionary, and may not be the case at all. I'm going to 'open a dialogue' with them in a report since it's IC sensitive info, and find out whether or not I'm blowing it out of proportion. Fuck, for all I know, they may be trying to rope me into a plot since I pr... why am I explaining myself to you?
My Main Argument: You're asking for stuff that's already there, AND claiming to be a neutral party asking for staff to open a discussion with those who feel slighted. Not you, someone else.
And how should they do this? You're asking them to access a site that's known to be malicious, and not just troll-filled and flamey, but Actively, illegally, 'dangerous to your computer' malicious.
Here's the thing, every single one of us, perhaps staff too, can be, in your own words, 'reactionary, defeatist, and cruel' ESPECIALLY ME, but, and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have all the details on this, didn't they engage in criminal activity /against/ staff and players here?
I don't see any dignity in your requests, Asche, and I think staff opening a dialogue here, or on jkcarter's forums would just be an attempt to add dignity where there is none. If there's people on those boards who truly want to speak freely, AND engage in a healthy discourse with staff, I suggest they create their own forums, and attempt to do so there.
Krath, I shouldn't have to feel like there's a chance I might get hacked just because I'm speaking so vehemently against them, does that make sense to you? Staff have never wronged me to the point I feel actually threatened.
I'm... kind of confused where you're getting any of that from what I wrote. I mean, I pretty clearly spelled out what I was advocating for. Making an account on the shadow board and hashing things out like adults. Where people are getting this desire for simpering apologies, I'm really not sure. Frankly, half your post seems... unrelated.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:08:33 PM
Even if the breach you note was done with intent to harm others, which I don't see any evidence of, it would be a few members, and not necessarily embody the will of that board. A lot of people on the shadowboard just want answers to their questions that aren't 'find out IC! :)', or a place to talk about a bad move without feeling like they'll lose all their karma for doing so. As to how it could be done, I suggested they approach, let the owner know who they are, and start a thread. If thats not an option, and this account continues to exist, I'll probably make a thread on the Shadowboard asking for their questions, filter them to the useful ones to provoke a dialogue, and post them here. I want to see this game improve, and I'm going to take the steps I can to see that happen.
So this 'is' then a dialogue between staff and jcarter's forums? Then in my personal opinion? No. Let's not have that dialogue. Any action that involves the word "breach", or "hack" in it, is by its own very definition harmful. It is actually a very sad and disappointing experiment. On one hand we have a very heavily moderated forum. On another we have a non-moderated forum in its entirety. Are human beings capable of acting civil and self administrating without a big heavy axe over their heads? That hack/breach and following jeering support of that hack/breach answers that question.
Which is in my opinion very disappointing to me. I am by my own very nature, very liberal and abhor any sort of external moderation. I also enjoy the idea of having a method of critique outside the control of the one being criticized. But that method is not Jcarter's forums, for it exhausted it's capital of being neutral by validating hostile actions directed towards the game.
I like the idea of a dialogue though. I too have noticed a drop in the playerbase lately and would love to figure a way to fix it. I would just prefer this dialogue to happen without acknowledging those that by their actions, or direct and indirect support of these actions, have lost their right of being acknowledged. Not sure if this sentiment makes any sense to anyone. It's just my own personal opinion.
Quote from: Dar on March 03, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:08:33 PM
Even if the breach you note was done with intent to harm others, which I don't see any evidence of, it would be a few members, and not necessarily embody the will of that board. A lot of people on the shadowboard just want answers to their questions that aren't 'find out IC! :)', or a place to talk about a bad move without feeling like they'll lose all their karma for doing so. As to how it could be done, I suggested they approach, let the owner know who they are, and start a thread. If thats not an option, and this account continues to exist, I'll probably make a thread on the Shadowboard asking for their questions, filter them to the useful ones to provoke a dialogue, and post them here. I want to see this game improve, and I'm going to take the steps I can to see that happen.
So this 'is' then a dialogue between staff and jcarter's forums? Then in my personal opinion? No. Let's not have that dialogue. Any action that involves the word "breach", or "hack" in it, is by its own very definition harmful. It is actually a very sad and disappointing experiment. On one hand we have a very heavily moderated forum. On another we have a non-moderated forum in its entirety. Are human beings capable of acting civil and self administrating without a big heavy axe over their heads? That hack/breach and following jeering support of that hack/breach answers that question.
Which is in my opinion very disappointing to me. I am by my own very nature, very liberal and abhor any sort of external moderation. I also enjoy the idea of having a method of critique outside the control of the one being criticized. But that method is not Jcarter's forums, for it exhausted it's capital of being neutral by validating hostile actions directed towards the game.
I like the idea of a dialogue though. I too have noticed a drop in the playerbase lately and would love to figure a way to fix it. I would just prefer this dialogue to happen without acknowledging those that by their actions, or direct and indirect support of these actions, have lost their right of being acknowledged. Not sure if this sentiment makes any sense to anyone. It's just my own personal opinion.
I don't really agree with the concept of people who have 'lost their right to be acknowledged'. If Literal Hitler spent 10 years on this game, I'd feel the need to give them a chance were I running it. Thats just my own view. Making ill-willed villain out of the entire shadowboard is no different than making villains out of staff. At the end of the day, we're all regular human beings who have a common interest in the bettering of the game, and probably want to see it prosper. Theres really not a better common ground to work from.
Raptor_Dan is apparently having a stroke, and would like to remind all helpers: Do not feed trolls, those who do it intentionally, nor those who have no self-awareness. It's not healthy.
Also, If you are talking with someone and that person suddenly begins to behave unusually, you may hesitate to say something. After all, you don't want to embarrass the other person. But acting F.A.S.T. could help to save his or her life. Certain, sudden changes in behavior may be signs of a stroke. This quick tool from the American Stroke Association can help you identify a stroke in yourself or another person.
If you notice the symptoms below, dial 9-1-1 immediately and ask that the person be taken to the nearest stroke treatment center.
F – Face drooping. Is one side of the person's face drooping or numb? When he or she smiles, is the smile uneven?
A – Arm weakness. Is the person experiencing weakness or numbness in one arm? Have the person raise both arms. Does one of the arms drift downward?
S – Speech difficulty. Is the person's speech suddenly slurred or hard to understand? Is he or she unable to speak? Ask the person to repeat a simple sentence. Can he or she repeat it back?
T – Time to call 9-1-1. If any of these symptoms are present, dial 9-1-1 immediately. Check the time so you can report when the symptoms began.
(https://i.imgflip.com/1kqrgl.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/1kqrgl)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Disclaimer: Raptor_Dan is not ACTUALLY having a stroke, he's just unable to deal at the moment, and chose humor, instead of blind rage.
I don't want the shadowboard crowd to be happy. I want them to go away and move on with their lives.
I argue with staff and complain about things as much as the next guy, but I also go about it in the appropriate ways and with a respectful attitude. We get along pretty well I think. it's the difference between advocating as a "citizen" of Armageddon vs. giving up that citizenship up in some act of protest. I don't have much sympathy for those who choose the later.
If you want an open dialogue, open a request tool discussion. You don't need "protection" by doing this kind of thing in the open, and it just makes you seem like you're after "attention" not "protection". This is further reinforced by not stating what specific directions or choices you find objectionable that would trigger a meaningful discussion. You want an apology? For what? And why does having that apology on the GDB matter to you? These are rhetorical questions by the way... no need to respond.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:52:40 PM
At the end of the day, we're all regular human beings who have a common interest in the bettering of the game, and probably want to see it prosper. Theres really not a better common ground to work from.
What blocks reconciliation or "betterment" of the game has to do with something which I feel is almost irreconcilable: Feelings. Firstly and of the primary importance to all sides are how people feel. First, people feel. Then they think. Then they re-act or act. When strong feelings arise, they suck up more of our ability to act and think clearly. We say and do things that on later reflection (if we're willing to reflect and put aside our feelings for a goal) we would never had said or done. Such is the case between members of the respective communities. I don't think that, as a whole, there will ever be joint agreement or work.
I kind of see it as the divide between Democrats and Republicans within the current United States. Each side wants what is "best" for the States, but both are completely convinced that nothing the other side wants can ever be good, even if the idea is mutually shared.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:52:40 PM
Quote from: Dar on March 03, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:08:33 PM
Even if the breach you note was done with intent to harm others, which I don't see any evidence of, it would be a few members, and not necessarily embody the will of that board. A lot of people on the shadowboard just want answers to their questions that aren't 'find out IC! :)', or a place to talk about a bad move without feeling like they'll lose all their karma for doing so. As to how it could be done, I suggested they approach, let the owner know who they are, and start a thread. If thats not an option, and this account continues to exist, I'll probably make a thread on the Shadowboard asking for their questions, filter them to the useful ones to provoke a dialogue, and post them here. I want to see this game improve, and I'm going to take the steps I can to see that happen.
So this 'is' then a dialogue between staff and jcarter's forums? Then in my personal opinion? No. Let's not have that dialogue. Any action that involves the word "breach", or "hack" in it, is by its own very definition harmful. It is actually a very sad and disappointing experiment. On one hand we have a very heavily moderated forum. On another we have a non-moderated forum in its entirety. Are human beings capable of acting civil and self administrating without a big heavy axe over their heads? That hack/breach and following jeering support of that hack/breach answers that question.
Which is in my opinion very disappointing to me. I am by my own very nature, very liberal and abhor any sort of external moderation. I also enjoy the idea of having a method of critique outside the control of the one being criticized. But that method is not Jcarter's forums, for it exhausted it's capital of being neutral by validating hostile actions directed towards the game.
I like the idea of a dialogue though. I too have noticed a drop in the playerbase lately and would love to figure a way to fix it. I would just prefer this dialogue to happen without acknowledging those that by their actions, or direct and indirect support of these actions, have lost their right of being acknowledged. Not sure if this sentiment makes any sense to anyone. It's just my own personal opinion.
I don't really agree with the concept of people who have 'lost their right to be acknowledged'. If Literal Hitler spent 10 years on this game, I'd feel the need to give them a chance were I running it. Thats just my own view. Making ill-willed villain out of the entire shadowboard is no different than making villains out of staff. At the end of the day, we're all regular human beings who have a common interest in the bettering of the game, and probably want to see it prosper. Theres really not a better common ground to work from.
there are people on that board who have repeatedly expressed their desire to negatively impact the game and that their only wish is to watch it burn
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:45:57 PM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 06:41:19 PM
Ugh. I urge staff not to respond to this. You can ask me why, but I'm not sure I have a better answer than the taste of Asche in my mouth is awful.
There's not a real request buried in the original post up there. Beyond the vague desire for staff to make 'A simple acknowledgement when a mistake is made, a promise to try and do better, or to take the game in a new direction'
I've seen staff acknowledge mistakes, are they apologizing to YOU for denying you karma, or being pedantic[/b]? They shouldn't have to.
You want a promise to try and do better? I don't think people who ARE trying and succeeding in doing better need to make a promise to better. Now who's being pedantic.
And just because you don't like the direction 'it's been going' in the last couple years doesn't mean you can justifiably ignore that fact that IS going a new direction in your next paragraph down. Stuff's changing, awesome stuff imo, I've seen a lot of code changes be added, so many that I haven't even been able to try all of the new stuff that's come out. In fact, just today some shit went down that I started to get pissed about. Something disappeared under my nose, and my first instinct was 'Great, something profitable and fun for me just got ret-conned' and I had to step back and realize /that/ was reactionary, and may not be the case at all. I'm going to 'open a dialogue' with them in a report since it's IC sensitive info, and find out whether or not I'm blowing it out of proportion. Fuck, for all I know, they may be trying to rope me into a plot since I pr... why am I explaining myself to you?
My Main Argument: You're asking for stuff that's already there, AND claiming to be a neutral party asking for staff to open a discussion with those who feel slighted. Not you, someone else.
And how should they do this? You're asking them to access a site that's known to be malicious, and not just troll-filled and flamey, but Actively, illegally, 'dangerous to your computer' malicious.
Here's the thing, every single one of us, perhaps staff too, can be, in your own words, 'reactionary, defeatist, and cruel' ESPECIALLY ME, but, and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have all the details on this, didn't they engage in criminal activity /against/ staff and players here?
I don't see any dignity in your requests, Asche, and I think staff opening a dialogue here, or on jkcarter's forums would just be an attempt to add dignity where there is none. If there's people on those boards who truly want to speak freely, AND engage in a healthy discourse with staff, I suggest they create their own forums, and attempt to do so there.
Krath, I shouldn't have to feel like there's a chance I might get hacked just because I'm speaking so vehemently against them, does that make sense to you? Staff have never wronged me to the point I feel actually threatened.
I'm... kind of confused where you're getting any of that from what I wrote. I mean, I pretty clearly spelled out what I was advocating for. Making an account on the shadow board and hashing things out like adults. Where people are getting this desire for simpering apologies, I'm really not sure. Frankly, half your post seems... unrelated.
Ok uh... let me try and break it down. I bolded the parts in my post above, which you quoted, and below, are parts from your post, bolded.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 05:09:22 PM
Hi, I'm Asche. I've just recently returned to the game after getting burnt out, and its been my longest break in a while. But, on an off, Arm has been a part of my life for almost five years now. I don't really agree with the directions its been going in the last couple years especially, and I think the declining playerbase might be an indicator of that. But here is the thing: I genuinely love this game, and I sincerely want to see it have a Renaissance. But I don't think its on the track for one.
......
But, and this is important, I think this highly negative sentiment is the product of many years of growing distance between the staff and the playerbase, a perception of apathy and condescension from on high that is only going to naturally culminate in condescension. Not once, in the years I've been on this forum, have I ever seen staff, individually or collectively come forward and say, "We're sorry." I don't really think anyone expects staff to be perfect, and theres going to be complainers even if you are. But all we, as players, want to know is that you care, not just about the game in a meta sense, but about the people who are giving countless hours of their lives to this game. A simple acknowledgement when a mistake is made, and a promise to try to do better, or to take the game in a new direction, would do WONDERS. Instead, you actively ban people who have played the game for years just because they went to a forum where they can say the things you won't allow them to.
I consider myself a neutral party. No staff has ever attacked me, and the biggest slight I've ever got from them is being denied karma, or being a bit pedantic. I don't really have a problem with any of you. But I know there is a community that does, and they didn't pop out of nowhere. And yeah, they can be reactionary, defeatist, and even cruel. But you're not serving the best interests of the game by hunting them. I want this game to be around in ten years. I want to see it improve, to the point I'm willing to risk my account being deleted just to talk about it. I want a real dialogue between this community and those who feel scorned by it. Because the truth is, we're the same community, just fractured by perceived injustices. And whether they are baseless or not, we don't help the situation by not addressing them openly. Make an account on the Shadowboard. One openly staff. Just talk to them, without any aggression, and I think you'll be surprised by how easily this community improves. I know they'll be surprised to see you.
I mean, looking over your original post, AGAIN, and my post, and then your response about not being sure where I got what I did from what you wrote fills me with incredible bewilderment. I mean, do you really not see how I got any of that, or am I just having a fucking stroke here?
Kay Dan, I'm going to make this really simple. How I PERSONALLY feel towards staff and the direction the game is going is separate from how others think about it, and the steps we need to take to bridge the gap between them and the rest of the community. I am advocating we reach out to people who are not me, and am discussing ways to approach that. This isn't about me.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/211/814/a1c.jpg)
Right now, I feel as certain GDBers are about as hostile towards Asche as Shadowboarders are towards staff. Can't we just have a civil discussion about player numbers and how to improve them? ::)
Do we really have to pick on this guy and have massive quote boxes all over the thread instead of trying to actually discuss something that affects all of us (active player numbers)?
Come on, guys, you are better than this.
Quote from: HavokBlue on March 03, 2017, 07:06:29 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:52:40 PM
Quote from: Dar on March 03, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 06:08:33 PM
Even if the breach you note was done with intent to harm others, which I don't see any evidence of, it would be a few members, and not necessarily embody the will of that board. A lot of people on the shadowboard just want answers to their questions that aren't 'find out IC! :)', or a place to talk about a bad move without feeling like they'll lose all their karma for doing so. As to how it could be done, I suggested they approach, let the owner know who they are, and start a thread. If thats not an option, and this account continues to exist, I'll probably make a thread on the Shadowboard asking for their questions, filter them to the useful ones to provoke a dialogue, and post them here. I want to see this game improve, and I'm going to take the steps I can to see that happen.
So this 'is' then a dialogue between staff and jcarter's forums? Then in my personal opinion? No. Let's not have that dialogue. Any action that involves the word "breach", or "hack" in it, is by its own very definition harmful. It is actually a very sad and disappointing experiment. On one hand we have a very heavily moderated forum. On another we have a non-moderated forum in its entirety. Are human beings capable of acting civil and self administrating without a big heavy axe over their heads? That hack/breach and following jeering support of that hack/breach answers that question.
Which is in my opinion very disappointing to me. I am by my own very nature, very liberal and abhor any sort of external moderation. I also enjoy the idea of having a method of critique outside the control of the one being criticized. But that method is not Jcarter's forums, for it exhausted it's capital of being neutral by validating hostile actions directed towards the game.
I like the idea of a dialogue though. I too have noticed a drop in the playerbase lately and would love to figure a way to fix it. I would just prefer this dialogue to happen without acknowledging those that by their actions, or direct and indirect support of these actions, have lost their right of being acknowledged. Not sure if this sentiment makes any sense to anyone. It's just my own personal opinion.
I don't really agree with the concept of people who have 'lost their right to be acknowledged'. If Literal Hitler spent 10 years on this game, I'd feel the need to give them a chance were I running it. Thats just my own view. Making ill-willed villain out of the entire shadowboard is no different than making villains out of staff. At the end of the day, we're all regular human beings who have a common interest in the bettering of the game, and probably want to see it prosper. Theres really not a better common ground to work from.
there are people on that board who have repeatedly expressed their desire to negatively impact the game and that their only wish is to watch it burn
I'm going to ask for a source to even one person on the board explicitly saying they hope the game fails. Most of the board loves Arm, even if they do despise the staff.
So, you want us to comb through the verboden board to give you a source of them being malicious? No.
I'm no longer a member of that board, and yet, I have at least one friend there. I honestly don't know the identities of people who post there, but I feel at times they've been right, and they've been wrong, too. It's just people, don't be so goddamn sycophantic. Maybe addressing the playerbase as a whole is a healthier alternative for the game, re: bans, but as far as I'm concerned, the whole us vs them, staff vs shadow, whatever the hell you call this cognitive dissonance of an online argument, whatever it is, is not healthy, and I'm sure it's high time grown adults had a conversation with likewise grown adults and get the fuck over some shit.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 07:10:59 PM
Right now, I feel as certain GDBers are about as hostile towards Asche as Shadowboarders are towards staff. Can't we just have a civil discussion about player numbers and how to improve them? ::)
Do we really have to pick on this guy and have massive quote boxes all over the thread instead of trying to actually discuss something that affects all of us (active player numbers)?
Come on, guys, you are better than this.
I'm trying to back out, I really am. It took me a moment to find the appropriate meme to express my insanity, and I am now having a cigarette and trying to cool down. I have really strong feelings about this, and, because of that, am perhaps not the best person to talk to him.
You're right though, player retention is really important. Phew, not one insult. I made it.
Quote from: Melkor on March 03, 2017, 07:18:28 PM
So, you want us to comb through the verboden board to give you a source of them being malicious? No.
If its actually repeatedly expressed, it wouldn't be difficult. Hell, they've got a search option. The point is, most of the board would be happy to see Arm shift gears in a better direction. And if they saw that we were working towards that, a not-insignificant number of them would likely show interest in the game again. Many of them are skilled roleplayers, former movers and shakers within our community, who were heading plots before I was even playing. We'd benefit from having them back in-game.
Why uh... Why do you think Arm isn't heading in a good direction? What's going on that's making you think it's getting worse, and not better?
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
Why uh... Why do you think Arm isn't heading in a good direction? What's going on that's making you think it's getting worse, and not better?
A declining playerbase and a lack of retention?
People cry too much, here and there.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Wa.
Quote from: WarriorPoet on March 03, 2017, 07:44:25 PM
People cry too much, here and there.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Wa.
Yeah, y'all just need to get back to the muthafuckas and the bone swordz and all that jazz.
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 07:36:48 PM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
Why uh... Why do you think Arm isn't heading in a good direction? What's going on that's making you think it's getting worse, and not better?
A declining playerbase and a lack of retention?
I'm not certain that's happening in substantial numbers, and if it is, (which I still doubt) there can be more reasons than 'Arm is getting worse'. One explanation could be the decline in text-games period. I've seen just as many 'Hi, I'm a newbie and ...' posts as I have 'I'm a veteran player, goodbye', and the farewell posts are usually quoting reasons like life, work, and kids as reasons for them leaving.
The only positive thing I can say in response right now is I'm glad you're trying and, that said, I'm bowing out of this conversation before I further validate Akaramu's concerns, unless I see some other constructive criticisms I can respond to.
I won't dispute that player numbers are down (we're averaging mid30s from 50s a year or so ago), but I think it's arguable that it's solely due to any sort of staff attitude or widespread persecution. I think a lot of people who go to the shadowboards are definitely prone to acting the martyr, but I don't think they're the majority of players who no longer play.
The question is "Why are player numbers down," not "Why are staff driving players away." The latter is only a partial answer applicable to some players (with varying degrees of justification from both sides. I know plenty of people who have some cognitive dissonance, complaining about staff actions when they themselves admit to doing rule-breaking behavior).
O-kay.
I think that some of you were focusing way too much on other things Asche have said, rather than what he's been trying to say is his point, which is to open up a dialogue between staff and players who have felt spited (Shadowboarders?). That'd be a commendable move, in my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's an idea that wouldn't end in splinters, in the end. These are past players who have felt spurned (reasonably or not, I've only ever seen a single perspective) and have been feeling so for, I don't know, years by now.
I've seen some hostility towards staff from the shadow boards. Discussion is healthy — as long as it's kept civil and both sides have the other side's perspective in mind. It might be unfair to say this, but some certain folks might not be able to keep things polite.
Maybe it'd be better to personally speak with some of these ex-players, privately (email, etc.). I know that's much to ask for, though, so never mind that.
Anyway, I have a question for you, Asche (and I'm sorry if it's already been answered and I completely missed it!): What would this dialogue be about, preferably, if it were to be opened?
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 07:36:48 PM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
Why uh... Why do you think Arm isn't heading in a good direction? What's going on that's making you think it's getting worse, and not better?
A declining playerbase and a lack of retention?
Why do you think the playerbase is declining? What could staff (and players) do to bring the numbers back up?
It seems maybe a little too easy to assume that the closure of Tuluk has something to do with it. As far as I know, numbers were already dwindling before Tuluk's closure, which is at least part of the reason it was made unavailable for play.
I'm also going to take a bold stance and say no Staff will respond to this thread until it's time to lock it. Because why should they? Staff have always maintained that the best place to have an open dialogue is the request tool, and that if you don't believe that (as Asche does not, thinking it'd just get them banned) then Staff is not under any obligation to come to you.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 08:00:42 PM
It seems maybe a little too easy to assume that the closure of Tuluk has something to do with it. As far as I know, numbers were already dwindling before Tuluk's closure, which is at least part of the reason it was made unavailable for play.
Numbers actually shot up after Tuluk's closure. Personally I believe this is because there were world-changing and publicized events in game. People were interested to see what was going on, and glad to find they could become involved in things relatively easily. That surge has faded over time.
I think there's also a malaise in certain parts of the playerbase/game world that nothing can actually get done by players and/or that Staff are not interested in supporting that part of the world. This is particularly worrisome to me as it has a lot of potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Players don't feel like they can do anything or that nothing happens, stop logging in, and miss the opportunities that Staff are actually giving them. Staff get discouraged at lack of Player uptake of their opportunities and stop providing them. More players think nothing happens or can happen, rinse repeat...
My advice would be to cut back on OOC discussion of the game (including the forums) because it just invariably leads to demoralizing discussions, at least in my experience. Ironically, you'd also miss out on some rather unpleasant or demoralizing staff attitudes displayed on the GDB in the last couple of months.
Quote from: azuriolinist on March 03, 2017, 08:00:21 PM
O-kay.
I think that some of you were focusing way too much on other things Asche have said, rather than what he's been trying to say is his point, which is to open up a dialogue between staff and players who have felt spited (Shadowboarders?). That'd be a commendable move, in my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's an idea that wouldn't end in splinters, in the end. These are past players who have felt spurned (reasonably or not, I've only ever seen a single perspective) and have been feeling so for, I don't know, years by now.
I've seen some hostility towards staff from the shadow boards. Discussion is healthy — as long as it's kept civil and both sides have the other side's perspective in mind. It might be unfair to say this, but some certain folks might not be able to keep things polite.
Maybe it'd be better to personally speak with some of these ex-players, privately (email, etc.). I know that's much to ask for, though, so never mind that.
Anyway, I have a question for you, Asche (and I'm sorry if it's already been answered and I completely missed it!): What would this dialogue be about, preferably, if it were to be opened?
I'm not the person who knows all the concerns of the players on that board, and I don't have the perspective of the staff nor experience with the game to know what all the most pressing issues are. Players banned three years ago after an RPT may not care much about Tuluk's closure. I'd imagine it would be a sort of 'ask us anything' on their board, with responses not being passive aggressive. Not consoling or yielding, either. Just honest discourse about what happened, why, etc. If that doesn't happen, and I don't get banned, I'll probably just come to them and openly ask what they'd like to address with staff, openly. Then I'd post it here. I genuinely think that if staff at least portrays itself as approachable, and looking to mend this, a bunch of players will come with open arms. Not all. Maybe not most. But enough to get a handful of good players more active? I'm almost certain.
hrm. At the risk of getting a, "Why dont you do that yourself statement", I think it would be nice to have someone post a "What questions/issues would you want discussed if a Staff/Player Meeting were to happen. A separate thread not polluted by shadow board, but one that addresses a real issue.
I don't understand why people are even upset by Asche's request. This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask and he's being incredibly respectful.
Even though someone doesn't agree with your opinion on matters, doesn't mean they should be spoken down to because it 'hurts your fee fees'.
I think the game is doing great, but if he feels like it's going down for some reason, maybe it would be better to understand why people who dislike the game dislike it and why they aren't playing anymore, if it's the case.
I mean, jeez, Asche just wants an open conversation. Stop shitposting.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 08:00:42 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 07:36:48 PM
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 03, 2017, 07:34:53 PM
Why uh... Why do you think Arm isn't heading in a good direction? What's going on that's making you think it's getting worse, and not better?
A declining playerbase and a lack of retention?
Why do you think the playerbase is declining? What could staff (and players) do to bring the numbers back up?
It seems maybe a little too easy to assume that the closure of Tuluk has something to do with it. As far as I know, numbers were already dwindling before Tuluk's closure, which is at least part of the reason it was made unavailable for play.
What I'm about to say actually IS colored by my own perceptions, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think it also applies to a lot of people. The GDB is, quite frankly, a little stifling. Anyone who has played this game for any length of time knows that your karma can be taken away, or your account banned if staff considers you a 'troll,' and while I do think they've gotten better about that sort of thing, I think anyone being honest knows that censorship through punishment is a very common tactic on the GDB. The fact that someone had to make a shadowboard that houses the majority of existing criticisms about the game kinda proves that.
From a non-staff criticism that would be impacting retention, the ambiguity in Arm's mechanics is a MAJOR factor. I'm very happy to see the skills, general rank and maximum potential listed in the new help files for subguilds, but the fact is, the bulk of the game has a series of advantages established players have over new ones, and questions are often redirected to a 'find out IC <3' that is more frustrating than anything, particularly when the question is one that is basically impossible to phrase IC. Seriously, what advantages do I get knowing the skill list of a warrior, and what branches when, and what the kick skill does mechanically, other than getting to plan out the character I want and knowing what I'll get? And yet, posting that information is a bannable offense in a game already dwindling in active players? Its absurd. The advantage of already knowing where to get free water and which clans provide which options is already strong enough, but with advanced subguilds, elementalist subguilds and basic knowledge hidden behind a wall of vagueness, its harder than ever in the history of arm to be a new player and still be competitive. Theres a gap that WILL affect your competency and is made even wider through intentional obfuscation. When I joined, a warrior was a warrior. Now, that assassin may have a subguild that lets him start with parry, or magically heal his wounds. As a brand new player, why would I play a game that doesn't seem to want to let me catch up, and labels me a villain for daring to ask someone who already knows?
And, if I'm on the shadowboard, which I almost certainly am just by searching for Arm forum, why would I stay in a game where a player who has been at it for ten years is claiming he was banned just for being found out her visited this forum?
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 08:45:47 PM
with advanced subguilds, elementalist subguilds and basic knowledge hidden behind a wall of vagueness, its harder than ever in the history of arm to be a new player and still be competitive.
Here's a major hitch in your perspective. If you are playing Armageddon to be 'competitive,' you are playing the wrong game. This is not a competitive game. This is a collaborative game. If your goal in playing is to 'win,' or be better than other
players (as opposed to characters, for the sake of story), or to defeat
players, as opposed to your goal being to create a better collaborative roleplaying experience for you and your fellow players, you're doing yourself and them a disservice.
If you would like to experience a competitive thrill through gaming, I suggest you play games such as chess, basketball, organized jiu-jitsu, Magic: the Gathering, Dota 2, Settlers of Catan, or other games designed to be competitive. You'll have more fun.
I don't think the game's mechanical opacity drives away new players we very much want to keep. People aren't playing MUDs in 2017 to have an amazing coded/PvE/PvP experience. People play MMOs for that (or other games that are designed for it, such as some I just listed). The newbies we want are those who are interested in roleplaying.
The extension of the above as it applies to your thread and OP: a community focused on becoming codedly powerful, competition, what PCs are codedly strongest, plot spoilers (I have personally had the then-current activities of at least one of my characters spoiled on the jcarter forum) and so on, has no legitimacy as a representative forum for a game that is really about collaboration and roleplaying.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you've gotta love the cunty replies. Some of you have zero backbone, and for that, there should be a reckoning -- even if it's with yours truly.
Modified to also agree with Large Hero. I will admit some bias because he's a true friend of mine, but one thing I know about LH, when he's not raging mad, he's talking straight sense.
(http://i.imgur.com/0N3tJ7H.gif)
Y'know, if you think some kinda IG mechanic should be public knowledge, submit a request or an idea in game.
I had some damn good times recently being ignorant of what skills I would get, though. It felt kind of like I was getting a random subguild, with the touched guild I picked. It was still a great roleplaying experience though, and honestly
one I never would have had if I had known what skills I would get with the touched subguild.What that makes me want, though, is more flexibility and perhaps randomness in character creation, with the subguilds.
Staff can choose to update these helpfiles in the future. They have shown many times that they can do that.
Quote from: Large Hero on March 03, 2017, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 08:45:47 PM
with advanced subguilds, elementalist subguilds and basic knowledge hidden behind a wall of vagueness, its harder than ever in the history of arm to be a new player and still be competitive.
Here's a major hitch in your perspective. If you are playing Armageddon to be 'competitive,' you are playing the wrong game. This is not a competitive game. This is a collaborative game. If your goal in playing is to 'win,' or be better than other players (as opposed to characters, for the sake of story), or to defeat players, as opposed to your goal being to create a better collaborative roleplaying experience for you and your fellow players, you're doing yourself and them a disservice.
If you would like to experience a competitive thrill through gaming, I suggest you play games such as chess, basketball, organized jiu-jitsu, Magic: the Gathering, Dota 2, Settlers of Catan, or other games designed to be competitive. You'll have more fun.
I don't think the game's mechanical opacity drives away new players we very much want to keep. People aren't playing MUDs in 2017 to have an amazing coded/PvE/PvP experience. People play MMOs for that (or other games that are designed for it, such as some I just listed). The newbies we want are those who are interested in roleplaying.
The extension of the above as it applies to your thread and OP: a community focused on becoming codedly powerful, competition, what PCs are codedly strongest, plot spoilers (I have personally had the then-current activities of at least one of my characters spoiled on the jcarter forum) and so on, has no legitimacy as a representative forum for a game that is really about collaboration and roleplaying.
This is the most important post so far, basically encapsulates the root of the problem: people being immature about some pretty simple house rules that staff wants to keep, and which I can agree with. If you disagree with the rules so much you don't want to play and choose to remain banned.. then, that's your choice. The rest of us continue to function fine in game without having all those IG secrets spoiled for us.
fyi, http://mudstats.com/World/ArmageddonMUD does not suggest player numbers have declined much - in particular, see average number of players connected by season. If someone was statistically inclined, they could try to normalize the trend against the general trend of MUDs declining.
I share the opinion of the OP that it would be nice to clear the air and discuss concerns openly.
Honestly, my experience with staff overall has been so-so. I don't blame them - it's a game. I'm not committing nearly the energy that they are, so I'm not going to begrudge them work-life balance.
Every individual interaction has been awesome. However, I've been involved with a key clan where the staffer was AWOL for a couple months, which is disappointing. Publishing metrics on how long requests to clans are taking might help? I had a request sit open for over a month one time, which seems like a really long time when you're playing actively. And I know (from the shadowboards) that a similar pattern earlier led to at least one player in said clan quitting the game a few months before I joined.
As I understand it, some frustration revolves around how the staff enforces the game world with powerful NPCs. I get that. I've actually benefited from staff backup probably more than most. Ideally, staff backup comes through indirect support of powerful PCs (e.g., nobles get coin which buys influence with templars), rather than overt "animate badass and kill person shaking things up"...
There have been outreach attempts and reconciliation efforts in the past.
I remember an open amnesty attempt not that long ago - regardless of the conditions of a player's departure or their status, if they wished to return they were asked to open a request tool ticket and agree to play the rules that every other player agreed to abide by. All could be copacetic.
I heard we got a pretty healthy dose of returnees. I'd be curious how many of them stayed, how many eventually faded out and how many had to be separated from the game again for whatever various reasons.
Quote from: Large Hero on March 03, 2017, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: Asche on March 03, 2017, 08:45:47 PM
with advanced subguilds, elementalist subguilds and basic knowledge hidden behind a wall of vagueness, its harder than ever in the history of arm to be a new player and still be competitive.
Here's a major hitch in your perspective. If you are playing Armageddon to be 'competitive,' you are playing the wrong game. This is not a competitive game. This is a collaborative game. If your goal in playing is to 'win,' or be better than other players (as opposed to characters, for the sake of story), or to defeat players, as opposed to your goal being to create a better collaborative roleplaying experience for you and your fellow players, you're doing yourself and them a disservice.
If you would like to experience a competitive thrill through gaming, I suggest you play games such as chess, basketball, organized jiu-jitsu, Magic: the Gathering, Dota 2, Settlers of Catan, or other games designed to be competitive. You'll have more fun.
I don't think the game's mechanical opacity drives away new players we very much want to keep. People aren't playing MUDs in 2017 to have an amazing coded/PvE/PvP experience. People play MMOs for that (or other games that are designed for it, such as some I just listed). The newbies we want are those who are interested in roleplaying.
The extension of the above as it applies to your thread and OP: a community focused on becoming codedly powerful, competition, what PCs are codedly strongest, plot spoilers (I have personally had the then-current activities of at least one of my characters spoiled on the jcarter forum) and so on, has no legitimacy as a representative forum for a game that is really about collaboration and roleplaying.
First, I'm discussing things that halt player retention, not necessarily personal desires. With the exception of one elementalist who lived long enough to get strong, I've never had a mechanically powerful character. Two, powerful does not mean lacking in roleplay. If someone has to cover themselves in rocks and get drunk to get strong because thats what the code demands, that doesn't mean they're bad roleplayers. Third, the idea that power isn't something to aim for is silly when you consider that karma is explicitly divided into levels of power. There is a reason sorcerers were above templars, and the advanced subguilds are just straight power boosts. Karma is literally a measure of staff trust, and all it does is buy you access to stronger races and class options. You could view half-giants and delves as 'roleplaying opportunities,' but a half-giant is NOT a more in-depth role than a dwarf pursuing his focus, played properly. Karma buys you power. Towing the line buys you power. Progressing my character is not something I should be punished or looked down upon for pursuing, especially when virtually no one comes out of the box competent at their job.
Contrary to what some people believe, staff do enjoy an open dialogue. I'll try to touch on a few points mentioned throughout the thread, but with the understanding that staff have a policy on not discussing specific players' situations.
In the past I've been pretty neutral toward jcarter's forum, and have expressed those feelings openly, on the GDB. In the interest of getting this reply posted I'm not going to look back through my own post history to find evidence of this right now, but I may come back later to edit my post with links. Basically the gist of my opinion of that forum, which I have posted on the GDB previously, is pretty simple: players don't have a right to judge the forum or its users if they themselves read it regularly or even post on it. By extension, many people who post about the jcarter forum's "evils" on the GDB are themselves posters, or people who read the forum. It doesn't even take much proof to make this statement, other than the number of unique accounts and weekly views which are readily accessible on jcarter's forum's front page. However, jcarter's forum is harmful when it reveals plot information. I don't particularly care about code information except for magick and psionics, and have been supportive of releasing more information on how the more mundane things work during my tenure as an admin and producer, even getting into fairly in-depth code discussions with some of our more code-minded (but still very capable in roleplay) players.
The simple rule of "if it offends you, don't look" can and should apply to players. Unfortunately, this is the internet, and 99% of the people need something to be outraged about if they're going to be on it.
Of course, it goes the other way as well. The endless outrage from certain people on jcarter's forum is unrelenting, and frankly, a little sad if the posters there don't play the game anymore. That's why I've come to assume that most of the jcarter forum posters - especially the most vehemently hateful ones - play Armageddon. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. It just means that they're here, like everyone else, and should be treated like any other player.
One aspect in which jcarter forum posters are treated like other players is in the expectation that they follow the rules of the game. The game rules have grown less opaque over the years, and were revised relatively recently. When we want players to follow the rules, we do what we can to encourage following the rules, and discourage rule-breaking.
That being said, there was indeed a ban wave in which multiple players were banned for rule-breaking. Most of the players agreed to cease their rule-breaking and delete their accounts on jcarter's forum, which was sufficient for being unbanned. The ban wave begun because a couple of jcarter board posters were using their access to the game to collect in-character information and spread it, harming plots, and staff as a body felt that it was in the interest of the game's integrity to shut that down. There were also other things going on that I can't comment on here.
I would estimate that we lost a total of two or three players to the most recent bans directly. It is not a number I am concerned about, and I don't feel we lost players who were bringing any semblance of quality roleplay to the game. That's not an insult to their ability to roleplay, but simply an observation on their general behavior.
We've lost a handful of jcarter board posters-slash-players to past bans because we were simply incapable of having a dialogue with them. We tried to be open and received vitriol in response. I hate to hide behind the "staff are volunteers" mantra and generally refuse to do it, but to put it frankly, staff did not sign up to counsel people with anger issues and/or the mentally ill. Additionally, staff are allowed to get angry at people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and own up to the understanding that what they did broke the game's rules. The relationship is best served by severing it, with a ban.
And I will say that bans are ineffective. People come back all the time, evading their ban in sometimes clever ways. I would not mind banned players coming back to Armageddon if they are willing to use it as an opportunity to reset their relationship with staff, but that also means actually behaving according to the game's rules. But staff do get the final say in deciding who gets to play and who does not. You'll have to take me at my word when I say that we're pretty responsible with this power, and we go by the rules listed on the website/helpfiles.
The fact of the matter is that we have a very small class of jaded veterans who no longer put in effort to roleplay, and mostly work to stir the pot via out-of-game back-channels, a much larger class of new players who are either excellent roleplayers or at least put in a lot of effort to roleplay, and an even bigger class of veterans (some jaded, some not) who are good roleplayers and who do understand why there are rules on not sharing plot information (the majority of players). I prefer the latter two groups over the former. And again, that is not a knock on anyone, but an observation as a staff member of a roleplaying game with an interest in preserving roleplay. The roleplayers come first, and the people who break rules don't get catered to. They can get back to roleplaying or they can simply leave. I am fine with the player count decreasing to an extent if the overall quality of RP increases.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 03, 2017, 08:00:42 PM
Why do you think the playerbase is declining? What could staff (and players) do to bring the numbers back up?
Because it's a type of game that was popular in the 1995's when graphics were either non-existent or most people couldn't afford them. We are now in 2017 and our gaming choices are now hundredfold. The sane people have moved on with the next generation of games. The few left are clinging to text-based muds often for very specific and personal reasons other than 'This is a good game!'.
What I mean is that the slow and perhaps steady drop in number of players is probably perfectly normal considering that this game is almost 30 year old.
As for how to improve player numbers, voting helps. Word of mouth is excellent, if you know people who are into (or might be into) roleplaying.
As for what staff can do, I think we could be more on top of requests and we should continue updating the game in terms of code changes and such. We should run plots occasionally and empower players to run their own, though this is already something we do. I've been on break for the past couple of weeks but I have a big project in the works that I hope to get out before Valve releases Half Life 3.
Edit: What Malken says above is true though. We have a great deal of competition. What we offer is very specific, and fairly unique in the world of roleplaying. If there was an "Armageddon With Graphics" run by CCP or Blizzard or something, we'd be dead. Fortunately there isn't, and we're still here.
"I don't particularly care about code information except for magick and psionics, and have been supportive of releasing more information on how the more mundane things work during my tenure as an admin and producer, even getting into fairly in-depth code discussions with some of our more code-minded (but still very capable in roleplay) players."
Does that mean we could get more information on how warrior/weapon skills work? It still confuses me.
As for shadowboards...I don't read it.
Anymore.
I used to be very min max heavy, now I'm just roleplay heavy with a side of "I know what I'm doing and not to go overboard".
Sometimes, in an open dialogue, the answer is "no," and you fucking suck it up and move on.
Quote from: Synthesis on March 04, 2017, 12:52:44 AM
Sometimes, in an open dialogue, the answer is "no," and you fucking suck it up and move on.
I remember a time when there was player staff meeting, everyone would logon and be taken to a specific room with all the avatars of the staff. There was a item that would be passed around to those that wished to ask the staff a question, if you had the item, I forget what it was, some kind of totem you would be the one that was allowed to speak and ask your question. I enjoyed those meeting we would hear the new ideas coming up, questions would be asked and answered we all had masks to wear to cover out characters identity :) It promoted closeness between players and staff a mutual respect that they cared enough to hear our questions and respond, and we cared enough to be there in support, to listen to the staffs concerns and issues with certain things. Idk why I brought this up I was reading this post and it popped into my head :)
Would like to see player-staff meetings once in a while as well.
In the spirit of the open dialogue theme, here are some other thoughts:
1. I would love it if there were OOC meetings between clan storytellers and their clan leaders maybe once every few months or so. Back and forth discussions on the request tool are nice and all, but there's a big difference between a live conversation and request tool pen-pal talk. I think this would probably improve collaboration between sponsored roles and staff, leading to more frequent and more exciting plots. Even a 30 minute talk could greatly improve things.
2. Exit surveys when a leadership role ends via character death and/or storage. The survey should come 72 hours after the death/storage, to reduce the human emotion elements and provide more rationale and hopefully actionable feedback. There are things I would love to say to my past clan staff, but I don't want to write a random rant at them. If there was a structured, normal way of asking for this kind of feedback I think everyone would benefit, the staff most of all! Ideally, these surveys should come from Admins and they can share bits and pieces with storytellers if they think its relevant. The goal being, if the player is just whining...don't bog down the storyteller with the whining crap. If there's actually good constructive feedback, then share.
Having tried a wide variety of games, and staffing in a couple of them, including one where staff hold weekly meetings with the players and every single action is done for the énjoyment of a population, I can confidently say that I came back to Armageddon again because I realized this is the game I wanted. I originally left for a plethora of reasons, many of them unrelated to the game nor staff, except the fact that at the time the fact that I cannot build my own house bothered me to no extent. So I tried other games, I staffed in some, I tried systems, I thought about systems and did a lot of other stuff. Here are some reflections I drew from them:
1) I think that keeping steady communication between a regular playerbase and a team of volunteers is unrealistic. Staffing is hard as shit, and when you establish a constant channel where the staff answers your every single request, posts on your every single threat, it becomes really weary. Mistakes will be done, but at the end of the day YOU could be one of them and when YOU are in their shoes, the game changes: it can suck. You love the game, you know the problems, you WANT to fix them, but you just don't know the path. Some things are impossible. This is not a corporation. This is a game paid and led by volunteers. They can't live to serve us, either. There are some priorities.
2) Regarding censorship and karma, this is not a democracy either. IMHO a staff should define what kind of game they want and work towards it. Censoring people who are affecting your game is perfectly valid considering that (A) this is free and (B) it is a game that relies on collaboration.
3) Declining numbers -is- a problem I have seen though. Armageddon a couple of years ago had way more players. The problem I'm finding is that sometimes you can spend a lot of time not finding any RP at any of the taverns. I think the text-based community has declined but there are some games out there with 100-or-so players. Retention is really not entirely up to the staff unless it's a code-based issue. They obviously have a hand in it, but ultimately retention is up to us, the players.
Sure, Armageddon is not a game where you're usually helping out people, but one of my favorite hobbies is to help out newbies. I'm not doing it nowadays because I'm still getting back into the game, but helping newbies grows the playerbase. Showing them a side of the game they would not get in without you is so pleasing. Seeing them stick around after your character dies and enjoy the game is the best.
Sometimes, it's easy to find guilt in others. Armageddon is a game where staff does everything I wanted them to do in the other games I tried. They run stories. They handle NPCs. They give the story a sense of direction. Sometimes, they might do mistakes, but if we are talking about player retention it is definitely something each and every one of us can do.
EDIT: I'm against player-staff meetings. I just can't imagine the workload for this game. Having to host a weekly meeting is another obligation that keeps them away from playing their own characters, creating their own plots, animating their own NPCs. I want them to have time to do what they like and create the game they want, not PR around. They are listening, it's just hard to answer requests on a daily basis. It gets absolutely weary.
There are loads of free text based browser games on offer, including Torn and Achaea. I don't know how the interfaces differ to ours, but their number suggests that text is not a dying genre. I guess Planescape may prove that, one way or the other.
Can MUDs in general be listed on the browsers?
I like your post Deskie. I think infrequent (annual?) player staff meetings could be managed.
When you take in all at once the complaints on jcarter's board (shadow board sounds idiotic) plus related threads on tmc forums, it paints a very negative picture of this entity called Armageddon Staff. I don't mean the random psychotic ramblings either, I mean the well documented screenshots of requests, with context, logs, etc. They give credit to the words like venomous and vitriolic that sometimes get thrown around those circles.
But the thing is, it didn't happen all at once, it was spread over many years People won't pick up on that when they read through it all. And Armageddon Staff isn't even a thing. There is no entity. IT has never done anything to anyone. There were a dozen or so people twenty years ago, new ones ten years ago, and a different dozen or so now, and they're all just players. JUST PLAYERS. To my knowledge the board of armageddoncorp never hired a new CEO because of her amazing performance at adventureco. So to hold grudges against the current crop of volunteers for the nasty way somebody else reacted to a stressful encounter a decade ago is a losing position. Are they a THEM to you? They're not. They're the players that happened, at the time new blood was needed, to have both the time and the inclination to step into a new moniker in order to pull the strings that make your hobby work. It's admirable work. But it doesn't fundamentally change who they are. That's... not always a good thing, though. We've seen bad ones come, but they always go.
That said, the jcarterites aren't just yipping for no reason but attention. There's truth in their criticism of gdb censorship. I witnessed this firsthand and was frankly shocked at the hamhanded edits to an innocuous post on this board. There's truth to their sporadic complaints that some staff members have been unnecessarily scornful. I can't speak for the butts in the seats right now, but in the past there's been a lot of behind-the-scenes mockery and eye-rolling that can't help but bleed through request resolutions. Maybe that's not the case any more, but with an ever-cycling roster, chances are good that somebody behind the keyboard is kind of a jerk.
It's unfortunate that the righteousness of their cause is horribly offset by the leaked wiki. What's worse is that jcarter repeatedly defends the forum as nothing but a place to 'hang out and vent' while smirkingly archiving the leak under the claim that it's not his job to make sure people aren't shitty. What I'm saying is, there are two types there: people who really love this game but think the atmosphere here is kind of dickish, and people who love to hate this game because they think everyone here is absolutely a total dick, and they only want to mock and deride and get a rise out of the GDB and the administration.
Don't reach out to the jcarter board, because engaging the latter would only fuel more derision. I can imagine trying to calmly and politely reason with a mentally unstable person who is determined to undermine you for the sake of lolz -- I don't have to imagine, actually, I already have a two year old. If I wasn't bound by legal responsibility, brain chemicals, and genuine love, I might have angrily told her to fuck off long ago. Encountering grown-up trolls you don't care about can only end in a "fuck off." They'll get their rise out of you and post screenshots of how unhinged it makes you look. However, the former group, the people that want to be a part of the community and play by (the spirit of) the rules, they ought to be retained in every way possible.
Rather than reaching out to their board, make an internal effort to instill a lasting ideology of fellowship within both the ranks of staff and the players at large. Do this by appointing someone to be a sort of PR advisor. Somebody who is good at engaging strangers with more than brusque bluster. This somebody, by prioritizing ooc player interaction above all other staff duties, could act as a touchstone for how other staff members see themselves relative to other players.
Then, quit needlessly censoring minor things that are uncomfortable on the GDB. Let the players come back and get answers here that go beyond "find out ic", answers that could put them on the same playing field as people like myself, who could have an immensely unfair advantage because of the decades of secrets we're forbidden from sharing. Start a story-sharing thread of badassitude where old secrets get uncovered.
I'm starting to ramble and it's super late so I'll end it with this, hoping the whole thing still makes sense: while I read through this thread I thought about apms both big and small. I've only seen one person hesitate to reveal who he'd played in the past. I've never heard anybody say "Oh, that cave? Sorry, find out ic," or "you guys actually have it all wrong but I'm not going to tell you how parry REALLY works because it's code you don't need to know". I believe some crusty old veterans once told me, when I was still newish, all about adventures in advanced magick interplanar travel, with two overlords (producers) sitting nearby nodding as they listened. Nobody cared. No karma got docked. Passion for Arm awesomeness was at an all-time high and I wanted to wake up a zalanthan more than ever. Keep the current events quiet and there's nothing to ruin, because it's easy to put SPOILERS in a thread title.
We're going to continue to enforce the rules of the GDB. If that is taken as "censorship" that is unfortunate, but it's not censorship. Let's bear in mind that censorship is usually charged in the context of a government body eliminating expression that is unfavorable to the government. Let's pretend that staff are the government and players are the citizens of a country called, say, Armerica.
If we censored threads unfavorable to the government of Armerica, this thread wouldn't be here, for one, and I wouldn't be posting in it, I would be deleting it. So it's always a bit of a head-scratcher when people assume that the mean old staff are going to delete a thread because it's argumentative. The whole point of a forum is that some topics are going to be argumentative, some are going to be complimentary, and others are going to fall in between. That's the exact opposite of censorship, that is maintaining an open, clean dialogue.
Unfortunately, the staff/player divide has led to players believing that they cannot have an open dialogue with staff, therefore there is no point in discussing something on the GDB. There's a lot of reasons for that belief, but it is false, as is demonstrated in this thread, and others that I and other staff have been engaged in in the past. I'm not sure what more staff need to do to dispel the notion that we are not approachable.
Rule enforcement goes hand-in-hand with maintaining a clean dialogue. We do not "censor" threads and posts that discuss IC plot information or very specific code information, because those things don't go against the Armerican government. They go against the Armerican citizens. We delete them to preserve the community's setting, and players have the expectation of not having to read about their IC machinations and magickal/psionic abilities on the forum.
I'm going to stop saying Armerican now.
I could support posting more about why a post is locked/deleted, but that goes into publicly discussing player issues and extending the discussion of a moderated topic. So I will try to explain staff's reasoning for a few recent moderation efforts without going too in depth.
The last few posts that have been moderated, were moderated because:
- Two banned players circumvented their ban with an alternate account to sockpuppet in favor of themselves
- A player posted vitriolic nonsense with no apparent intention to have an open dialogue, but rather to troll players and staff
- A player tried to get dirt on a player fiasco that led to force-storage of two characters nine years ago, and staff felt that was potentially harassing to those players
- A player wished a politician would be killed (the last thing we need is Secret Service attention, really, especially with an alternative community that has in the past been willing to make bogus reports about our game and community)
- Various incidents where Rule 2 is broken (be respectful of one another)
That's a handful of incidents over the past three months. The truth is moderation does not happen often, and we let a lot slide. But, yeah, we're going to keep this forum civil. Making the GDB a free-for-all is not the answer to the community's woes, whatever they may be. Letting up a little isn't really possible or practical, not because we don't want to, but because we do the bare minimum already.
Quote from: Nergal on March 04, 2017, 09:28:15 AMThe last few posts that have been moderated, were moderated because...
I 100% agree that those posts fall under 'moderation' rather than 'censorship', but I've witnessed the deletion of a series of posts in a fairly recent thread. None of which seemed to fall under that list at all. I'm going to echo Bahliker's thoughts here because the posts I read were innocuous, and didn't discuss any IC information or specific code information. I actually had the urge to screenshot the last of that train of posts after the deletion wave, or whatever it was, started because, hey, they might not exist in an hour? And, what do you know, they were gone later.
What I mean to say is, whether or not some in the community of the jcarter/shadowboards are 'wrong' in some level, what I've seen has me inclined to agree that...
Quote from: Bahliker on March 04, 2017, 04:51:13 AMThere's truth in their criticism of gdb censorship.
Edit: On another note, I'd like to add that I much appreciate your taking the time to share a staffer's perspective, Nergal! The first page had me disheartened and uninclined to take part in the discussion but some of your posts have helped expand my view of the way things are going.
If it happened in the past couple of weeks, I don't know about it because I was on break for personal reasons. Either way, I would guess that there was other rule-breaking which I forgot to list. I was going off the top of my head based on what I remember moderating in the past few months (it was not a lot, so it's easy to remember).
As for the topic of player-staff meetings, I'm pretty neutral about them. As a player I didn't find them any more or less useful than asking staff on the GDB or through the request tool. I would say that meetings create an air of openness and you get to hear people's accents (if the meeting is on Teamspeak), but other than that it isn't any different from non-live media. As a staff member my opinion on them is generally the same. It's a good way to appear to conduct outreach to players, but the key word there is "appear to". Personally I think it's below the staff body to do things that appear to be helpful for the sake of appearances. We should do things that are genuinely helpful, and a part of that is fostering reasonable discussion in general. It may be helpful to some players to talk to staff live, but arguably there are players and staff who prefer non-live discussion so that they can get their thoughts together in a coherent way. Some people may feel put on-the-spot if they have to ask or answer a question within a few minutes or less. But I don't see any effective difference between a live chat and a not-live chat, except that the former is more personal.
I will say that we have tried to live-chat people in private for the sake of fostering that personal air and trying to get to the bottom of a problem. The results have been mixed. Again, some players benefit from that setting and some do not. One player used it as an opportunity to troll staff and cement our low opinion of them, but it didn't affect our willingness to treat other players the same way, if we think it would be more effective than an e-mail.
I have been moderated and banned and still have no problems having an open dialogue via requests. It just takes a lot longer to get replies. I do not have what I consider a bad relationship with staff just because I am openly in disagreement on things or because I criticize their actions on some levels (I support them on others).
Given the number of times I've seen a post in other places about 'home court advantage', the press of the OP for staff to go over to those other places to argue seems like a dumb idea; what you're really looking for is a publicity stunt, and it's completely unnecessary. Changing venue because you haven't changed their minds in the past doesn't fix a thing.
While I think moderation on the GDB has increased, I also think the amount of stuff being talked about on the GDB is both more profuse and more direct, and we as players have taken stances that are less about dialogue and more about winning which makes a lot of threads spiral out.
I can understand a lot of complaints. I can't understand the weight put behind them or the 'mission' that they seem to adopt afterwards. It reads less as 'love of the game' as is often professed and more as insistence on being right and insisting that grave injustices have been dealt to them. It's like someone is going from DnD circle to DnD circle to talk shit about a DM and refuse to play in that DnD circle anymore; that's your choice, if you don't like the DM, but in the end, you're a vengeful anti-DnD'er. Just play the game you love so much and if you must, roll your eyes at things that happen. Sometimes, bitching about things can be fun because we're all critics on some level, but when you view the level of disagreement players have with each other, you really shouldn't get too wrinkled up over having a level of disagreement with staff either.
Edit: I think that a lot of this is people being too attached to their arguments. Just because I think my logic is more sound in a matter doesn't mean everyone will agree with it, utterly blown away by my powers of observation and intuition. Just because they end up disagreeing with me doesn't make the dialogue 'closed'. 'No' doesn't mean they didn't listen, nor does it mean that all future communication is forever tainted by said communication. While it can be frustrating to feel justified in a point of view and receive the 'end of discussion'...I fail to see why continuing to disagree over it endlessly would make it better.
I've been told "no" bluntly, before, in requests. I've also broken rules in game and been told, essentially, "that's bad, we're disappointed, don't do this anymore." I've been, in hindsight, unnecessarily rude with staff in some requests. I've straight up told staff in requests that I think they were being unreasonable and wrong, and doing things that were IMO bad for the game. I've had at least one staff member hand a request off to somebody else because they didn't want to continue discussing it with me (in hindsight, I see it was because of the tone I was taking).
But I've had at least one sponsored role after that behavior, and I've had productive dialogues with staff after that behavior.
I think the difference is you have to be 1) willing to come to the table and say, "whatever happened before, how can we make progress on the current matter at hand, and how can we make both parties happy" and 2) give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in text, about their tone and intentions.
It's real easy to assume someone is being a jerk in text. I've found that giving people a little benefit of the doubt goes a long way.
TL;DR: even if you've been a prick to staff in the past, if you make an effort to not be a prick today, they will probably have an honest dialogue with you. I have experienced this personally.
Amazingly, staff seem to respond with respect when you treat them with respect. They tend to be unhappy when you are disrespectful. Imagine that.
I appreciate the staff response. I think its a little condescending to call all the people you banned sub-par roleplayers not contributing anything, Nergal. I mean, one of them claims to have been high-karma. Isn't that kinda the Arm seal of quality? You're telling me the bulk of players you ban are bad roleplayers, even though you ban them for reasons unrelated to roleplaying? I'll be frank, that just seems... unlikely, looking at the general quality of established players in Arm I've seen in-game.
Quote from: Nergal on March 03, 2017, 11:00:03 PM
I hate to hide behind the "staff are volunteers" mantra and generally refuse to do it, but to put it frankly, staff did not sign up to counsel people with anger issues and/or the mentally ill. Additionally, staff are allowed to get angry at people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and own up to the understanding that what they did broke the game's rules.
I feel I have to speak up at this point, because I'm pretty sure there are several players with mental / psychological issues playing this game who mean no harm and just want to have fun. No, it isn't staff's job to counsel those people about their psychological issues. However, staff should be aware that because this game and community is such an emotionally charged environment for players, especially those who might not be able to enjoy fulfilling real lives, they have a responsibility to communicate in a way that leads to de-escalation and doesn't needlessly trigger those people.
Because staff potentially has the power to really ruin someone's day, especially someone who is unreasonably attached to this game / community for escape reasons. I know because of the way I was triggered 3 years ago, and how I felt afterward, and for how long I kept feeling that way. I'm an autist. I get stupidly obsessed with stuff sometimes, and when something makes me feel bad and I can't address or resolve it with real life communication options, I'm going to feel bad about it for a long, long time. It's silly but that's how my brain works and there is no 'off' switch for it.
Quote from: Bahliker on March 04, 2017, 04:51:13 AM
truth to their sporadic complaints that some staff members have been unnecessarily scornful. I can't speak for the butts in the seats right now, but in the past there's been a lot of behind-the-scenes mockery and eye-rolling that can't help but bleed through request resolutions. Maybe that's not the case any more, but with an ever-cycling roster, chances are good that somebody behind the keyboard is kind of a jerk.
Yes. It absolutely does happen. Especially when a particular staffer doesn't like a particular player.
De-escalation is easy. I learned this while working a helpdesk job where people literally screamed their rage at me, called me names because they didn't understand the instructions I was giving them, or demanded to talk to a male technician because they thought there was no way in hell a woman would be able to understand and solve their internet issue.
Note: none of this is aimed at Nergal or any staff member in particular. I'd just like to share my experiences with de-escalation and deling with unreasonably angry people.1) Tell the person you understand how they feel and why they're upset, even if you don't. It gives them the impression that the person on the other end cares (even if they actually don't) and it's usually much easier to have a productive conversation afterward. Even if it boils down to 'no'. A player will be much more accepting of a 'no' if they feel they're being taken seriously and understand the reason behind the no. Some players, like me, are a little dense sometimes and don't understand the reasons for the no until it's spelled out in baby blocks - anyone who wants to communicate with me has to be incredibly blunt and direct or else I won't get it. But good communication will solve anything.
2) Don't respond to snark with snark, ever. If someone's being unreasonable and / or disrespectful, simply ignore what they just said and move the conversation to a point / argument that's worth discussing. If they figure out that their BS is being calmly ignored and staff doesn't rise to their bait, they'll eventually get the point and adjust their tone.
3) At least pretend to try and understand why the angry customer is frustrated / angry. It's probably not your fault, but they might have good reasons for feeling the way they feel right that moment, even if their reason is a stupid misunderstanding about the way something was communicated.
Other thoughts for better player-staff communication:Let players voice reasonable, constructive criticism about broad, general issues on the GDB. If players are being told to keep their 'negativity' to requests, it can give an impression of censorship. Requests should be used when the player has concerns about something personal that affects only them, not when they're concerned about a general change.
Don't ever force store characters if the player and their character have done nothing harmful to the game and not broken any rules. Especially not without hearing them out and taking their side of the story seriously. In the past I felt, and more than once, that forced storage was used a bit heavy-handedly. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes players leave the game. Maybe staff already stopped doing this. If so, :-*
Announce big, game-altering changes in advance and give players a chance to share their thoughts before these changes are made. I'm sure staff wants to run a game that as many players as possible can enjoy.
Quote from: Asche on March 04, 2017, 03:34:25 PM
I appreciate the staff response. I think its a little condescending to call all the people you banned sub-par roleplayers not contributing anything, Nergal. I mean, one of them claims to have been high-karma. Isn't that kinda the Arm seal of quality? You're telling me the bulk of players you ban are bad roleplayers, even though you ban them for reasons unrelated to roleplaying? I'll be frank, that just seems... unlikely, looking at the general quality of established players in Arm I've seen in-game.
Let's say that it's true that a banned player has high karma. Well, there's a reason the karma system is under review - it's increasingly been shown that it doesn't accurately reflect skill and effort. Also, good players turn bad. I don't think it's condescending to say that all of the banned players who are still banned weren't trying to roleplay - it's just a statement of fact. As a staff member I'm able to watch what players are doing with their characters, and it just so happens that players who tend to lean toward skilling up and random NPC killing are also players who tend to break rules. It's almost as if players with little regard for the game will show their lack of regard in every aspect of their interactions with the community.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 04, 2017, 03:35:24 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 03, 2017, 11:00:03 PM
I hate to hide behind the "staff are volunteers" mantra and generally refuse to do it, but to put it frankly, staff did not sign up to counsel people with anger issues and/or the mentally ill. Additionally, staff are allowed to get angry at people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and own up to the understanding that what they did broke the game's rules.
I feel I have to speak up at this point, because I'm pretty sure there are several players with mental / psychological issues playing this game who mean no harm and just want to have fun. No, it isn't staff's job to counsel those people about their psychological issues. However, staff should be aware that because this game and community is such an emotionally charged environment for players, especially those who might not be able to enjoy fulfilling real lives, they have a responsibility to communicate in a way that leads to de-escalation and doesn't needlessly trigger those people.
Because staff potentially has the power to really ruin someone's day, especially someone who is unreasonably attached to this game / community for escape reasons. I know because of the way I was triggered 3 years ago, and how I felt afterward, and for how long I kept feeling that way. I'm an autist. I get stupidly obsessed with stuff sometimes, and when something makes me feel bad and I can't address or resolve it with real life communication options, I'm going to feel bad about it for a long, long time. It's silly but that's how my brain works and there is no 'off' switch for it.
Absolutely - and my intent is not to belittle those people. But there is a huge difference between those people and the people who are banned for raging against staff, breaking character to rage OOC at players, and stuff like that. There's a difference between struggling with issues on your own and working to resolve those issues, and letting those issues take control of all of your actions. I made it a point to tell people who cannot control themselves to look at the ban as a break, and to give themselves time to help themselves, because the game was clearly an unhealthy influence for them.
Sadly this is one of those situations that would best be clarified by posting request logs, and I don't plan on embarrassing players like that.
Quote
Other thoughts for better player-staff communication:
Let players voice reasonable, constructive criticism about broad, general issues on the GDB. If players are being told to keep their 'negativity' to requests, it can give an impression of censorship. Requests should be used when the player has concerns about something personal that affects only them, not when they're concerned about a general change.
Don't ever force store characters if the player and their character have done nothing harmful to the game and not broken any rules. Especially not without hearing them out and taking their side of the story seriously. In the past I felt, and more than once, that forced storage was used a bit heavy-handedly. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes players leave the game. Maybe staff already stopped doing this. If so, :-*
Announce big, game-altering changes in advance and give players a chance to share their thoughts before these changes are made. I'm sure staff wants to run a game that as many players as possible can enjoy.
Again - reasonable, constructive criticism is allowed on the GDB. Players aren't told to keep "negativity" to requests - they're told to keep specific player or character issues to requests. We don't want an environment where players are criticizing each other over specific or general things happening in-game.
Storage is used in accordance to the rules of the game, so random force-storage is not an issue here. When people say they were force-stored for no reason, they're generally lying. It also happens so rarely that it is practically a non-issue.
We do like the idea of sharing plans with players. Resistance to these changes is acceptable, though dealing with players who do not want any sort of change at all - or on the flip side, players who only want changes that benefit their character, or their style of play - is exceedingly difficult. The game needs to move forward. That means things are going to be changed, sometimes whether players like it or not, though staff always hope players will like it eventually, once they have time to assess the changes for themselves. Sometimes forum discussion on a change doesn't do it proper justice, because there is no in-practice experience to back it up.
In the discussion thread about the plot lottery, a staff member (I don't remember who) asked players to keep negativity out of the thread and send requests instead. But I can't find that thread now, looks like it's gone. Oh well.
Anyway, thanks for all the detailed responses! I'm glad this turned into a discussion thread after all... see? De-escalation. I did it. ;)
I rarely make input on the GDB but that was quite well put Nergal, thanks for the insights on staff policy and your own opinions. I would like to state many players have taken slight in the past from staff policies and actions, not to drop any names, but would you be willing to address any of their general issues with the game/staff in a public forum (I.E the GDB) as long as it didn't delve into IC territory?
In Nergal's signature, you can find a link to vote, and, atm, we only need a few more votes to be bumped up to either 8 or 9. Player retention and dwindling numbers, and all that.
Quote from: yousuff on March 04, 2017, 04:29:11 PM
I rarely make input on the GDB but that was quite well put Nergal, thanks for the insights on staff policy and your own opinions. I would like to state many players have taken slight in the past from staff policies and actions, not to drop any names, but would you be willing to address any of their general issues with the game/staff in a public forum (I.E the GDB) as long as it didn't delve into IC territory?
Sure, as long as it doesn't delve into IC territory or a specific player's account or information. Though I will also say that if it doesn't pertain to the current staff team's policies and actions then it's probably not relevant. We can't do anything about old conflicts and grudges, because they're old. What we can do is improve while moving forward.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 04, 2017, 04:26:47 PM
In the discussion thread about the plot lottery, a staff member (I don't remember who) asked players to keep negativity out of the thread and send requests instead. But I can't find that thread now, looks like it's gone. Oh well.
Anyway, thanks for all the detailed responses! I'm glad this turned into a discussion thread after all... see? De-escalation. I did it. ;)
Just so your statement won't be quoted as Truth, the thread is still there. But don't unpeel your de-escalation, keep up the good work!
The game is unique. As a totally new player I can say - Armageddon may have RENAISSANCE! I joined after years of play in different muds from Iron Realms.
As for downsides: sometimes online client doesn't work and it makes wrong feeling the servers are down and game doesn't work. That's the reason I joined only now. Before that - when I was checking topmudistes and mudconnecter I thought the game is dead, because of not working online client.
Maybe you need to put warning for new players (somewhere on the page with online client), that if online client doesn't work - it doesn't mean game is not working. Or the best - fix it, so it'd work always.
It's hard for players of this game. We don't really have anyone to talk to and gripe to. Most friends and family don't understand this game and never will. The only people who can really understand are other Arm players, but grievances against staff made on the GDB get met with "take it to the request tool," and grievances over the request tool often end in ways that are frustrating to the one complaining, since the request tool isn't really for venting. I understand that the GDB isn't really for venting, either, and that's okay, but it does cause people to look elsewhere. And that's probably a big part of why jcarter's forum is as salty as it is. A place to vent is one of the great unmet needs of the community, notwithstanding the fact that I'm not convinced the need is very meetable in an official capacity.
Staff have each other to gripe to, but players have to either reach out to other players or keep quiet about it, which is hard when you're angry or frustrated or sad. So I get where people are coming from when they run to jcarter's forum. I do. I would have probably done the same thing fewer years ago than I would like to admit. And during my most recent beef with staff (a beef that is still stewing in a delicious broth of hurt feelings), I reached out to (non-shadowboard) people I shouldn't have reached out to, and that actually lost me friends. Because it isn't all about you and your grievances, I've learned. Other people are affected when you tell stories--people who might take their privacy more seriously than you do. Tailoring them out of the story may not be enough, because people in this community are great at putting two and two together and filling in the missing pieces.
I don't really have an answer for people who need to tell their stories. I guess I just want to say that I feel your pain. I know what it's like to feel like you're being silenced because of the way this community is. But before you go and post all your problems with staff on jcarter's forum, I think you should ask yourself what it's really going to accomplish. Do you truly believe it will improve the community, or will it turn new players off from a game they might have liked because they got a biased picture of what player-staff relations are really like? (And yes, it is going to be a biased picture, because people feel a more urgent need to complain than to give praise, and they certainly don't feel inclined to post when they feel neutrally about a person or interaction.) Is it going to help those staff members or players you feel need improvement, or is it going to further divide players and staff and create distrust?
If you determine that these kinds of posts are damaging to the game, is it worth it to you? Is it worth it if you burn bridges with staff? Isn't it just a game that you should ultimately judge by its fun value rather than making it a moral issue?
Is it better to see the game suffer if it falls short? Is it even better to see it die than go in a direction that you feel is unfun, stifling, or whatever else?
I can't answer any of those questions for anyone, but those are the kinds of questions you should probably ask yourself before you post your latest unfair request log. And it really may be truly unfair, but you have to consider whether or not it's important to post it, or if it'll just feel good. And it does feel good, but validation is a fickle mistress, and it's likely you'll only work yourself up more.
I say all of this as a person whose problems with staff will probably never heal. I have to force myself to play now, even though my character is [deliberately] little more than a glorified NPC that pops in when the clan needs a little flavor. I will probably always have to swallow back a bad taste in my mouth when I go to log in. I have retired my main account forever and have cut myself off from the community. And yet I still don't think it's a good idea to go to jcarter's forum and vent--not that I think I'm better than anyone who does that. I just asked myself the questions above and decided it wasn't worth it. As certain staff like to say, the issue was resolved, albeit in a way I did not like. I have to weigh whether playing is still fun for me, and I have had to come to terms with all of that on my own. The people on jcarter's forum can't help you or me with that. Most likely, they will just rile us up so we feel emboldened to be even more rash to staff or to other players, and burn more bridges we may have not carefully considered whether or not we should burn.
P.S. More in line with the OP, I don't think it's a good idea for staff to "open a dialogue" on jcarter's turf. When I see admins from other games posting "officially" on third party sites as their admin handles, it always makes me cringe. It never looks professional, and often the content isn't professional, either. As much as I would like to see players and staff casting aside their differences and coming together over a game most of us would agree is great, I don't think it would do much more than harm the staff's image and give the saltiest posters over at the unofficial boards more content to pick apart.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 05, 2017, 03:33:51 AM
It's hard for players of this game. We don't really have anyone to talk to and gripe to. Most friends and family don't understand this game and never will.
My nerdy D&D tabletop group is actually very interested in my Armageddon stories even though they don't play. Do you have a tabletop group?
Quote from: Nergal on March 04, 2017, 04:00:43 PM
Storage is used in accordance to the rules of the game, so random force-storage is not an issue here. When people say they were force-stored for no reason, they're generally lying. It also happens so rarely that it is practically a non-issue.
I was force stored twice, both times I hadn't broken any game rules whatsoever.
The first time my clan members wanted to PK me but couldn't because of my offpeak playtimes. Staff never told me the reason, they said 'we can tell you're not enjoying the role', which wasn't true. I would have been cool with this storage if staff told me the reason, but instead I quit the game and only found out the reason much later. I was also a total newb and way too inexperienced for this role, but too stubborn to admit it. Still, I liked the character.
The second time I was force stored, I also hadn't broken any rules whatsoever. I was frustrated with being lifesworn to a clan where everyone played other times than I did, and I had no idea what was going on with the clan. I was completely left on my own with my first ever military leadership role and a character who knew nothing about leading people because no one was showing her to do it. (I know how to lead, but felt it wasn't fair for that character to be really good at it unless she had a good example to learn from). I also wasn't allowed to resolve certain issues on my own without the leader PC who never logged in during my times. I was basically force stored because the staffer in charge didn't feel like helping me resolve the situation in a fair, enjoyable (for me) way, and I frankly felt kind of bullied for reasons I won't get into because... that's the stuff that triggered me 3 years ago and I'm hesitant to dip my brain back into it. It felt like the storage was to shut up my frustrated, desperate pleas of 'please help me enjoy this role again, because I love the character'.
That character was 100% loyal to her clan and the worst thing she ever did was to let a recruit act up with her because she didn't know how to be a military leader. Judging by the way she was treated by animated NPCs (and I was treated in request responses) you'd think she killed a templar.
One time I was threatened with forced storage because of something I didn't do and had no control over. I had been reporting (thing that was happening to me and I had no control over) for some time, but was told to stop seeing things until it escalated so much that a bunch of people complained. I had to appeal to the Producers so the actual ingame logs would get looked at - to prove my innocence. If I hadn't known that appealing to the Producers was even possible, I might have turned into one of those bitter, venomous players who vent against staff. Because I was 100% innocent and the logs, once someone actually looked at them, proved it.
I didn't want to bring this up but I felt I had to, to give a voice to everyone who was ever treated unfairly by staff. In my experience, it's not that uncommon. And it makes people quit.
I only know how force-storage is used from my own experience as a staff member. If it happened more than two and a half years ago I'm not going to be able to personally recall situations where it was used badly.
Do I doubt that it was used badly in the distant past? Of course not - I know that the staff body as a whole has only become more fair over the years, not less. This is measurable in things like rules for staff avatar behavior, better-refined GDB and game rules, standards for building objects, rooms, and NPCs, helping all players with equal effort, and more. Over the past decade or so we've gone from a game that was essentially staff's sandbox to one where the staff are held accountable for what they do by other players on the GDB and by staff in private discussions. And I feel like players who have been here longer sometimes forget that the staff body has changed over the years, and attribute past injustices to the current staff team, or hold grudges that they are not willing to let go of, or remain suspicious that new staff just adopt the same behavior as the old staff (or that new staff are even the same person as old staff).
On the flip side, players need to be accountable as much as staff are. It's important to remember that staff are also players. That's why there are rules, and that's why they are followed and used carefully by the staff - now more careful than ever. Just as there can't be a situation where players are held accountable but not staff, there can't be a situation where staff are held accountable but not the players. Everyone needs to play by the rules, and trust that they're playing by the rules, unless legitimate evidence is presented otherwise.
So I would urge people who felt they've been treated unjustly in the past to give the staff a second chance, and hold dialogue with staff. If you want to appeal a ban or overturn a staff judgment, a polite message arguing your case can make a world of difference. If you have access to the request tool, feel free to use that. Otherwise e-mail producers(at)armageddon(dot)org, or e-mail me directly at nergal(at)armageddon(dot)org.
I got force stored in a similar situation once akaramu. I was trying to have my PC join the bardic circles but she had some unfortunate events halfway through the process and when I wrote upset character reports saying I was so miserable as that PC that I was debating storing her. Nyr went ahead and just force stored me and added a helpful note that I was mentally ill and to seek help.
What that taught me is that staff are not good at dealing with player angst. The severity of unhappiness with a character is hard to measure when all you have are words describing the problems.
Never had a force storage since that character because I make sure to self evaluate my overall desire to keep playing before I write my reports now. I am unhappy with characters plenty of times still, for reasons often like you said; nothing happening, stagnant plot, loss of a key other character for a goal, etc. But rather than go into a long winded report about my suffering, I try to make my requests action oriented. "Staff, this character would be better for me if *blank.* Can that be possible?" Or just submit a storage request, or submit no request at all. Following this rule, for myself, has led to a much smoother playing experience as well as smoother interactions with staff.
Quote from: Harmless on March 05, 2017, 11:09:04 AM
But rather than go into a long winded report about my suffering, I try to make my requests action oriented. "Staff, this character would be better for me if *blank.* Can that be possible?" Or just submit a storage request, or submit no request at all. Following this rule, for myself, has led to a much smoother playing experience as well as smoother interactions with staff.
Just before getting force stored, I tried using my character's accumulated wealth (several thousand sid) to bribe clan NPCs and do something about her situation.
But whatever. It's old stuff, I eventually got over it and my current clan staff is great. If I submitted a request about it all, I don't know what the benefit would be except maybe to rectify potentially unfair and one-sided account notes, and I don't know if old account notes are worth having to go through it all again.
Maybe Staff should be made to pass some sort of psychological evaluation considering that staff comes from the pool of players we have left and apparently (from what I'm reading) a lot of our players suffer from one form of mental illness or another. As the pool of players diminish and that choices for future staff must come from that diminished pool, chances are there's a few "nutjobs" in there once in a while.
To assume that Staff are trained to deal with every players' mental issues as to not trigger them is absolutely ridiculous. We always see the bad stuff from Staff side when someone gets banned or kicked out of the game for a while - I'd love to see some cases where Staff had to deal with nutjobs completely losing it, I bet the ratio they have to deal with compared to what us players have to deal with when Staff completely loses it is insane.
Of course, they have and should still be held to much higher standard than us crazy peons simply playing the game.
Re-hashing old things that former staff were involved in is fine (if somewhat irrelevant as we move forward), but let's be clear: misrepresenting what happened in the past, accidentally or on purpose, isn't going to fly if we want to have an honest and open discussion. Harmless, if you have some concerns about that situation in 2013 I'd suggest going over your requests from that time period and determining for yourself if that was really said to you. If you have additional concerns after that review, feel free to contact me and we can hash it out.
We do want players to have fun, though. If players are not having fun, using the request tool to ask for advice is acceptable. But there are also limits to what staff can do, here. We can't make a character "click" for the player. We can't reduce legitimate IC tension caused by other PCs.
As for old account notes, we don't pay them any mind if more current account notes or basic observation of a player countermand them. If a player was somehow bad in 2015, and good in 2016, we're going to focus on the fact that they're a good player.
Quote from: Malken on March 05, 2017, 11:37:28 AM
To assume that Staff are trained to deal with every players' mental issues as to not trigger them is absolutely ridiculous.
It is, and no one said any such thing. All we want is for staff to use a neutral, level-headed tone of communication and be open to questions and feedback. Use simple de-escalation techniques where necessary. Which should already be the case. Because when someone like me feels bullied (and it took a lot to make me feel that way, I don't trigger over snark or being told no), I can't just walk away and feel fine. It's going to make me really miserable for a really long time. I've been bullied plenty in real life, I don't need more of it online now that my life is finally fine and comfortable.
Quote from: Malken on March 05, 2017, 11:37:28 AM
Maybe Staff should be made to pass some sort of psychological evaluation considering that staff comes from the pool of players we have left and apparently (from what I'm reading) a lot of our players suffer from one form of mental illness or another. As the pool of players diminish and that choices for future staff must come from that diminished pool, chances are there's a few "nutjobs" in there once in a while.
To assume that Staff are trained to deal with every players' mental issues as to not trigger them is absolutely ridiculous. We always see the bad stuff from Staff side when someone gets banned or kicked out of the game for a while - I'd love to see some cases where Staff had to deal with nutjobs completely losing it, I bet the ratio they have to deal with compared to what us players have to deal with when Staff completely loses it is insane.
Of course, they have and should still be held to much higher standard than us crazy peons simply playing the game.
When we put out a call for new staff, we typically consider their applications, interview a subset of the applicants, then determine who should be onboarded or not through discussion among staff. If a player is problematic in one way or another, that's a lot of hurdles to clear before they can become staff. Compare to some other MUDs where players can become staff as long as they can write and there's an opening. We have different needs, and those needs demand a more bureaucratic and careful process.
In any case, we're not going to display instances of where staff had to communicate with people who did not apparently want to communicate in a rational manner, for two reasons: 1) we respect their privacy as a player, even if they are now banned, and 2) copies of request tool correspondence can easily be dismissed as falsified. This goes both ways, of course - players who post their correspondences with staff are not always telling the whole story or posting the entirety of the correspondence word-for-word.
I have old grievances. I was treated unfairly. If I think about it, I suddenly feel as angry and bitter as I did when it was happening, but it's been a few years now!
So I just don't think about it.
Except on the rare occasion that something brings it up, like threads like this, where I feel like I should contribute.
The thing is, in the years since, I have had a hell of a good time.
It was a close thing. But I'm glad I stuck it out. Staff's awesome now. Game's awesome.
I miss Tuluk. I miss the war. I miss things.... but there are still great things! I miss players that have gone on...but there are still great players!
As far as being able to openly bitch about the staff or game on the GDB, that's one of those things that sounds good in theory but in practice won't work out well. People are people. And maybe it wouldn't all be bitching about staff or the game but there would be a lot of that, because when you are upset you want to vent. We all like to have people validate our feelings. Other people would join in...some would be on your side, but some would mock you. That's just going to get ugly and really make no one feel better except the trolls.
Staff would get jaded. Jaded staff isn't fun for anyone.
So for my part, I think the way it is is the way it will work the best.
Thanks for the reply Nergal. I have absolutely no desire to rehash that incident, it isn't a problem anymore for me. Maybe I did take the situation too personally then anyway, I am not trying to say that staff were totally wrong for what they did. It was kind of a shock at the time but nothing even remotely like that scenario has come up since I began following my "no pointless bitching to staff" policy.
In response to Akaramu: No, I do not have a tabletop group. I have never played a tabletop RPG because I never had friends who were into that kind of thing.
I feel like this is off topic now, but most of my tabletop group play Arm, so I can't talk to them about it :(
It kills me.
I have just passed my two year mark and I have never once felt targeted or belittled by staff. Even when things are going absolutely horribly for me or the answer is a straight up no, staff have, I felt, gone out of their way to be supportive and/or kind. I've had some problems that needed staff involvement and I think they did a wonderful job listening and asking smart questions that made it clear they actually cared what was going on. I'm not saything this to brag, but because I want other people to know that you can have a positive staff relationship by being polite and expressing gratitude for what they DO do for you. Staffing looks like an enormous job, don't let it be a thankless one too.
Regarding the OP... if shadow board members want to come back and, as you have, open a PRODUCTIVE dialogue with staff, let them. You're here doing it. I'm certain others can find a way as well. That said, you get out of the world what you put into it. There's going to have to be a lot of self moderating going on, likely on both sides, to make such an attempt successful. From what I gather there just isn't the interest over there in coming back and being a productive and reasonable part of the game. There seems to be too much seething resentment and hostility for them to put aside and move on. If someone has been posting hostilely about a game for 1, 2, 5, or more years, is it really all that reasonable to think that their position will change once they are given a chance to return? That just doesn't feel likely to me.
staff once made me clean all the toilets in grand central station with my tongue and threw me into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades
where do i seek compensation?
Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.
But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.
I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.
I've been playing for about a year and a half now, off and on, and almost all of my interactions with staff have been pretty good.
Hell, I had something at one point that was really ruining my RP and I think staff had actually started handling before I even filed my complaint about it. I was like 'WOAH.'.
Not to mention the lengths staff have gone through in order to help me with some things and where it was me who gave up, not them giving up on me.
So, I personally think staff is open and there for us to the extent that they can be without ruining the game for us, and it is us who ruin it for us in the long-term by either expecting more from them or just refusing to work with what we are given.
Really appreciate the calm and measured responses from Nergal. Emotions run high in this game. The investment is high and it feels real sometimes, which is why it's so fun. So I think it's important for staff to be thick-skinned and able to defuse tension rather than add to it whenever possible. Not gonna claim to be particularly thick-skinned or good at defusing situations myself.
Incidentally, it's also helpful to set expectations clearly and consistently rather than staffers randomly going by their own pet peeves. I remember a long time ago (must've been like 2007), I pickpocketed something, probably while hiding in a crowded bar. Some staffer flipped out about how I should've emoted it all out. I'm sorry, I've had tendonitis issues and I'm not going to emote all the time, especially if there's a 95% chance nobody can see my emotes. And I might even even avoid emoting if I think a player is going to flip out and make my character's already difficult task even more difficult because I drew extra attention to my character's unobtrusive maneuver. Typing out tons of stuff all the time is just tedious and unhealthy. Setting up a good mix of aliases to descriptive emotes for certain situations can alleviate that, although it can be difficult to make those fit the situation.
I know that I've heard some best practices about burglary, by the way, which involves not removing furniture. It might be better to circulate these types of things in OOC best practices guidelines rather than GDB threads or surprise account notes. Might be common sense, but still...
The whole weapon skill complaint is also interesting. I am getting the sense that some of the combat skills are worked in non-intuitive ways. Never cared much about it, but definitely felt the impact of playing characters for many days only to get rocked by probably younger characters who knew how to work their skills properly. But I never thought much about it, because I've never been real into grinding or sparring a lot.
On that note spend enough days played as a combat pc and you just end up being reasonably powerful. Its the nature of the code, it just happens.
Quote from: Jingo on March 05, 2017, 06:59:40 PM
Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.
But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.
I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.
Staff do handle complaint resolution and player discipline fairly, though - with significant discussion among staff, poring over game logs, efforts to "connect dots" in more elaborate player breaches, etc. We don't have a rigidly-defined process for it, but only because every situation is different. Note that you (general you) not liking the results of this resolution does not mean it was not conducted fairly, though it could mean that the situation requires additional discussion so that it can be better understood.
But you are right in that we are definitely way more interested in making progress on the game and making fun things up for people to do in-game. The storytellers are consistently engaged in plots and they do not handle discipline at all, beyond reporting what they observe. Admins and producers only handle discipline when necessary.
At the end of the day, we're all adults here. Staff are going to presume that an individual player is open to reasonable discussion until proven otherwise. We do our best to maintain contact and dialogue with a player. It's on the player to meet staff halfway and not burn the bridge. That being said, bridge-burning in and of itself is extremely rare. So for the vast majority of cases, these awkward moments go very smoothly.
At least someone is attempting to quell the "uprising" that is "some people feel slighted". I have a lot comments about things, and how things "were" done, but I'll just drop this little anecdote.
I once played a Jihaen Templar, in Tuluk. There was a bit of a mess, the entire staff that "approved" me quit, and I was left to Nyr (who, honestly, was fine with me in that role). However, I stored because I felt I wasn't the person he wanted in the role, and I had no support as our times didn't match up.
A while later, there was another Templar call, and I was considering re-applying, since staff had rotated and it wasn't Nyr covering the whole sphere. So I poked onto the (then) online docs on the website that were password protected, to try and get some inspiration for the role, see if it really was something I wanted to do. Unbeknownst to me, some other people were accessing the online docs as well, who shouldn't have been.
I got imm-poofed by One Who Shall Not Be Named and it wasn't a questioning. It wasn't a calm interview. It was a staffer threatening to perma-ban me from the game, because they 'knew' I was handing out the password to people, and 'had IP addresses to confirm I was accessing them myself'. I felt both persecuted, and that nothing I was saying was taken into account. Staff "knew" this, and "knew" that, and even after I tried to explain, it seemed as though clearly I was an untrustworthy player.
This was some time ago, but this staffer still exists, and I'm sure the situation would happen again if the docs weren't "better" controlled by the GDB. I've had a real hard time trusting staff since then, and it isn't easy to "just get over it".
Quote from: Riev on March 06, 2017, 10:27:47 AM
At least someone is attempting to quell the "uprising" that is "some people feel slighted". I have a lot comments about things, and how things "were" done, but I'll just drop this little anecdote.
I once played a Jihaen Templar, in Tuluk. There was a bit of a mess, the entire staff that "approved" me quit, and I was left to Nyr (who, honestly, was fine with me in that role). However, I stored because I felt I wasn't the person he wanted in the role, and I had no support as our times didn't match up.
A while later, there was another Templar call, and I was considering re-applying, since staff had rotated and it wasn't Nyr covering the whole sphere. So I poked onto the (then) online docs on the website that were password protected, to try and get some inspiration for the role, see if it really was something I wanted to do. Unbeknownst to me, some other people were accessing the online docs as well, who shouldn't have been.
I got imm-poofed by One Who Shall Not Be Named and it wasn't a questioning. It wasn't a calm interview. It was a staffer threatening to perma-ban me from the game, because they 'knew' I was handing out the password to people, and 'had IP addresses to confirm I was accessing them myself'. I felt both persecuted, and that nothing I was saying was taken into account. Staff "knew" this, and "knew" that, and even after I tried to explain, it seemed as though clearly I was an untrustworthy player.
This was some time ago, but this staffer still exists, and I'm sure the situation would happen again if the docs weren't "better" controlled by the GDB. I've had a real hard time trusting staff since then, and it isn't easy to "just get over it".
That's kinda fucked up tbh.
Quote from: Riev on March 06, 2017, 10:27:47 AM
At least someone is attempting to quell the "uprising" that is "some people feel slighted". I have a lot comments about things, and how things "were" done, but I'll just drop this little anecdote.
I once played a Jihaen Templar, in Tuluk. There was a bit of a mess, the entire staff that "approved" me quit, and I was left to Nyr (who, honestly, was fine with me in that role). However, I stored because I felt I wasn't the person he wanted in the role, and I had no support as our times didn't match up.
A while later, there was another Templar call, and I was considering re-applying, since staff had rotated and it wasn't Nyr covering the whole sphere. So I poked onto the (then) online docs on the website that were password protected, to try and get some inspiration for the role, see if it really was something I wanted to do. Unbeknownst to me, some other people were accessing the online docs as well, who shouldn't have been.
I got imm-poofed by One Who Shall Not Be Named and it wasn't a questioning. It wasn't a calm interview. It was a staffer threatening to perma-ban me from the game, because they 'knew' I was handing out the password to people, and 'had IP addresses to confirm I was accessing them myself'. I felt both persecuted, and that nothing I was saying was taken into account. Staff "knew" this, and "knew" that, and even after I tried to explain, it seemed as though clearly I was an untrustworthy player.
This was some time ago, but this staffer still exists, and I'm sure the situation would happen again if the docs weren't "better" controlled by the GDB. I've had a real hard time trusting staff since then, and it isn't easy to "just get over it".
Sorry, I don't really know anything about that situation. All I can say is that I don't see any reference to it in your account notes or player notes, so it's almost certainly forgotten about on our end. Like I said earlier in the thread, feel free to discuss it with me via e-mail or expound further here.
I think that one of the problem is that every six months we are told that 'things are better' than they used to be staff-wise and that problems from the past shouldn't be repeated again in the future because X or Y was put in place to prevent this. Then a few months later someone posts a log or a post of an example of a Staff member totally losing it once more and we are once again told six months later that things are much better than they used to be.
I appreciate that you are posting in this thread Nergal, and of course, you cannot be blamed for what happened with different staff members or in the past, but I hope you understand that we, as players, are overly cynical when we are told that Staff are much easier to communicate with nowadays and that they are willing to listen to the complains that we may have.
Just as an example, I and many other have had their Staff complaint against Nyr being answered by Nyr himself, I mean, come on. Then we often hear about Nessalin (who I have nothing against) but who seems to be part of a totally different Staff team and never communicates with the rest of the team when he makes a decision. These are still lingering examples/gossips/stories that don't go away very easily and that tends to linger FOR A REASON.
Also, thank you for not locking/deleting this thread, there's some iffy stuff being talked about that would have been locked away a long time ago under different circumstances/staff members.
No problem. I don't plan on locking/deleting the thread as long as discussion remains civil.
We have self-imposed rules that state that staff complaints can't be resolved by the staff member they are directed at. These rules are relatively new (within the past couple years). Generally speaking, staff complaints are only resolved by producers. Sometimes that is not always possible - for example, if only one producer is on duty at a given time and a staff complaint comes in against them. Or if a request is asking for the response of a particular staff member and isn't a "complaint" per se. Or if a staff complaint is directed at the entire staff team, or no specific staff member.
Unfortunately the system isn't perfect. But I stand by my statement that things are improving and that players are treated fairly in accordance with the effort they put in to dialogue.
There are 73,373 requests going back to 2006, and 277 are staff complaints. That's less than a half of a percent of all correspondences on file in the past eleven years - if even all of them were mishandled, there's very little mishandling happening. It is very easy to be cynical and very hard to be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that you hear about the 0.01% of the times when communication breaks down, and even then you only hear one side of it. You generally don't hear about 99.9% of the times that communication goes smoothly. That is because it is human nature to focus on bad news, and not make a show of patting ourselves on the back when we do things correctly.
Quote from: Malken on March 06, 2017, 11:55:44 AM
Also, thank you for not locking/deleting this thread, there's some iffy stuff being talked about that would have been locked away a long time ago under different circumstances/staff members.
Things are getting better!
Lol. Just throwing this out there, I am NOT one of those players that are easy to talk to, imho, and I constantly shit-mail the staff just to be a dick. It's funny, to me, that Staff likely can't confirm or deny this without going into details. (I'm a little drunk off bloodless, so bear with me, I think I have a point.) Oh, yes, I remember now. Okay, some stuff is hard to get over, and we're all 'Unresolved, unresolved!' and 'I can't just /get over it/'. Well, don't get over it. Keep documentation of all interaction (Always, always, log everything in game that you can.) And, periodically, there will be chances, like right now because of this open dialogue thread, (I don't agree with Asche's wishes, but I'll be damned if it didn't turn into a good thing) that you CAN get some hope at a resolution by starting up the conversation with, 'Hey, some shit went down, and I don't feel good about it. What can we do?'
Things never get better one-sidedly, and if they're going to get better, we have to approach things with that expectation in mind. Text might be a hard format to decipher tone, (I'm screaming at the top of my lungs right now), but it can sometimes be glaringly obvious when someone expects nothing good to happen, and it doesn't actually help the situation... Hmmm.... I'm wondering now if that was a clear or coherent point. (Seriously, like, a pint of blood)
Thanks Nergal, for being all administrator/producer/staff like, and also for not reporting me for those horrid emails I sent you when I was drunk. Also for continuing this discussion like an adult.
For more info on Raptor_Dan's maturity, please check the following website:
http://cycles.westinmathies.com/Info_Pages.asp?ptype=Velociraptor_Cycl
Quote from: Nergal on March 06, 2017, 12:51:12 PM
It is very easy to be cynical and very hard to be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that you hear about the 0.01% of the times when communication breaks down, and even then you only hear one side of it. You generally don't hear about 99.9% of the times that communication goes smoothly. That is because it is human nature to focus on bad news, and not make a show of patting ourselves on the back when we do things correctly.
True and I totally believe that.
I'd be a liiiittle wary of looking at number of requests and drawing conclusions strictly from that. I'm sure I'm not the only player who prefers to just officially not talk to Staff, whether because I don't think my irritations are grounds for a formal complaint or I just don't think it'd accomplish anything. The latter's especially true when the root cause are just personality or playstyle differences.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 06, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
I'd be a liiiittle wary of looking at number of requests and drawing conclusions strictly from that. I'm sure I'm not the only player who prefers to just officially not talk to Staff, whether because I don't think my irritations are grounds for a formal complaint or I just don't think it'd accomplish anything. The latter's especially true when the root cause are just personality or playstyle differences.
Yeah but I think this is what we also do in general. Like if something minor happens to me, instead of complaining and having to deal with the complaint department, a manager or a return service, I'll just say fuck it instead of having to deal with what could be a bad experience. If I find a hair in my soup I'll probably just say fuck it and not eat the soup instead of calling the manager and risk making things worse for me (the waiter might then be totally upset and spit in my new soup, who knows!).
Not trying to make it sound like Staff are saints but I think it's human nature that we usually try to avoid what could turn into a shitty experience, especially if we've experienced it before.
I also much prefer not to deal with Staff unless I -really- have to and then I just assume I'll get a bad experience out of it 85% of the time.
I have had issues with only two staff since I started in 2007ish?
And yet I still find myself not communicating with them unless I'm in a sponsored role. I fully understand this means they can't really have an opinion of me as a player, but I prefer to come and go without bios every week on an unplanned pc. It's also why I like playing elves, dwarves, and half giants as I don't have to really touch base with anyone unless I have to. My point is, staff don't have to be bad for some people to simply not want to send in requests or reports a ton unless absolutely necessary. The staff are a metric ton better than they used to be and they do deserve credit for that.
The lack of player base I believe is greatly due to a pessimistic view our current player base gives on a general basis here in the gdb. We need to work towards improvement without being condescending.
Same goes for staff, but I feel many more players are disrespectful than staff.
Quote from: Nergal on March 06, 2017, 12:51:12 PM
There are 73,373 requests going back to 2006, and 277 are staff complaints. That's less than a half of a percent of all correspondences on file in the past eleven years - if even all of them were mishandled, there's very little mishandling happening. It is very easy to be cynical and very hard to be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that you hear about the 0.01% of the times when communication breaks down, and even then you only hear one side of it. You generally don't hear about 99.9% of the times that communication goes smoothly. That is because it is human nature to focus on bad news, and not make a show of patting ourselves on the back when we do things correctly.
Its a bit misleading, as BadSkeelz said, to look at the data this way. 8 Sponsored roles (sometimes in just one city) account for a weekly report, over 52weeks x 10 years.
Not to mention, I know PERSONALLY that sometimes if I have a complaint, I would never file it, because of rumors that the person I'm complaining about gets to shut it down (not anymore, granted). If you've had 277 complaints, and they came from 5 people? That's a problem. If they came from 50+? There's a REAL problem.
I can't measure something that doesn't happen, e.g. how often players hesitate to submit a request or how many players don't talk to staff out of fear of getting an undesirable response, because there's no count of people who log into the request tool and have second thoughts about writing something and no count of players who don't submit requests. All I can tell you is based on what actually happens, based on people who do do things, and who do try to communicate.
The truth is you don't know what sort of response you'll get unless you actually attempt to communicate. So my word of advice would be to actually try, and judge for yourself how that works out for you, instead of going off the experience of others and your experience with past staff as a measure of what will always happen 100% of the time.
No, but you can not mis-represent the data and say "Look how few requests we get". I know it's not on purpose, but the way you represent the data suggests that so few people complain that its almost a non-issue. If you want to get a true representation of the data, find out how many of those 277 "complaints" that got filed were from unique users.
And yes, we can't "know" how things are going to be, going forward. Things are getting better, but staff has to know they'll always be haunted by the past. Especially when we aren't talking about Sanvean-past, we're talking within 5years.
I brought up the data not to say that so few people complain that it's a non-issue, but very specifically:
Quoteif even all of them were mishandled, there's very little mishandling happening.
Every complaint is potentially an issue. I am not trying to minimize anything about the number of complaints, I am trying to say that by and large, staff handle requests responsibly, and that it would be rather silly to assume that all 277 staff complaints we have gotten were just brushed aside.
I suppose the definition of "mishandling" would have to be determined, first, because 277 lodged complaints over a 10 year span in a game that has 200 unique players on average seems atrocious to me. However, I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of them are because the same player/user submits 4-5 whereas others only get a complaint in a rare once-in-a-while.
To me, the "mishandling" isn't in the requests. You handle thousands of requests, clearly they aren't being brushed off. But the "Complaint" category has had some mis-handling in the past, been brushed aside, taken as "just an over-emotional player looking to 'get their way'". I know I've had problems with staff because they tell me that things are a certain way, ICly, and yet someone in game tells me "they've never done it that way" (see smuggling and argosies).
Again though, 277 lodged complaints against staff over 10 years... that's 27 complains a year. 2 a month. I'm pretty certain most of the, ebb and flow around particular ban-waves, but that's a lot of complaints.
Complaints absolutely vary on the amount of merit they hold. Without posting specific examples, plenty of complaints are submitted just as a last fuck-you to troll staff on the way out the door. Those are handled with the same regard as complaints with actual merit, and generate the same discussion on the back-end.
Going beyond that would take us to the impasse of having to post examples to explain things further, which I'm not willing to do. I will agree with you that the past does loom over things. I'm not sure what I can say to make someone feel better if they feel that things are done the same way as five years ago, or even one year ago, or if someone feels so traumatized or bitter by how things were done in the past that they're not willing to accept amends in the future. The flip-side to this sentiment would be if staff had a problematic player in the past and proceeded to treat all players as problem players. That doesn't seem fair at all, does it? So why is it fair to firmly hold the opinion that the past informs the present in negative ways?
I'd wager a not insignificant chunk of "complaints" take place in Character Reports as well, where it's a back and forth. Certainly those have been the scene of my more contentious staff discussions.
Quote from: Nergal on March 06, 2017, 04:32:18 PM
The flip-side to this sentiment would be if staff had a problematic player in the past and proceeded to treat all players as problem players. That doesn't seem fair at all, does it? So why is it fair to firmly hold the opinion that the past informs the present in negative ways?
Strictly speaking, because you as staff are part of an organization whose behavior represents the whole of the organization. We are your customers. Your consumers. While the model is different in that we produce and consume products (plots) from other players, staff are supposed to be representative of what the players should expect for their investment.
I know it seems rather pedantic, but "we're all players" is a decent enough saying, until it matters that we are NOT all players. Some of us are staff members, who voluntarily took the reins to be better, to serve the community and the organization. Over time, things HAVE gotten better and its clear that at certain times, the 'higher ups' actually take the game seriously.
If you were in Customer Service, no it would not be fair to "assume" all clients are idiots because one or two bad apples drive you nuts. However, if you are a terribly bad representative of Customer Service, the "good" customers can only assume you have bad business practices and are unlikely too call. *cough* Comcast *cough
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 06, 2017, 04:34:20 PM
I'd wager a not insignificant chunk of "complaints" take place in Character Reports as well, where it's a back and forth. Certainly those have been the scene of my more contentious staff discussions.
This.
We should also consider that staff gets to have 'water cooler chat' that players don't have access to. It stands to reason that when in doubt, staff will side with staff over a player, and could be another reason why some players don't file staff complaints.
"The flip-side to this sentiment would be if staff had a problematic player in the past and proceeded to treat all players as problem players. That doesn't seem fair at all, does it? So why is it fair to firmly hold the opinion that the past informs the present in negative ways?"
I was under the assumption people were talking about treating staff who treated them like poo like poo. Or just avoiding them to avoid the poo.
Not
"Nergal was mean to me therefor I hate Rath"
Or maybe I missread.
As for why there might not be as many staff complaints.
Simply saying that staff won't work on their own complaint doesn't take away the fact that staff is staff. I'm not saying there is some huge conspiracy where all staff wants to kill my half elf psionicist defiler but I am saying that they probably do.
My criminal law/ex police chief teacher said it best.
"Whenever we had a complaint we would have someone outside of our station come and review it to avoid looking biased. We could have done it our selves but we didn't"
....
Though usually this space would be filled with the "So what do we do" part.
I have no idea. Less Tektolnes himself starts doing staff complaints.
WHOA this thread is happening. Cool.
I've been playing for 13 years. (On and Off)
My biggest complaint (and i've said this multiple times via staff request) is some areas of the game that were legendary status that I really wanted to explore (It wasn't easy starting at 13?) are no longer around, or at least the original places. Ok. I'll live.
I've had some amazing times with the staff. I also know that a lot of the staff I have seen are players that I have had amazing good RP with in the past. Good storytellers. I've also had staff comment on my account, tell me i'm a sub-par role player, and pretty much tell me they regret other staff decisions to see me in certain roles (sponsored). Shit I could choose to either grow from or absorb negatively. I've even had other players here (ones still around) personally attack my career and insult my military service because they disagreed with something I was saying, be it about the game or politically. People can be dicks, folks. You just gotta have grit sometime. You show yourself to the world sometimes it swings.
I also know some of those players I really enjoyed left and have a presence on the shadowboards (And staff? Wasn't Jcarter a staff member??). I don't go and engage them there because of the ramifications potentially here. I know I miss at least a few of them. I am curious about what their population is at this point.
I'm a little frustrated about some of the long term players I notice pretending the numbers isn't an issue. - Although, for me the game is not being ruined or anything by lower numbers.
You can invest significant periods of time with other people and actually make friendships you roleplay through, its a game, but an invested one with a unique model. People here have made real life connections, friendships, marriages, etc.
I feel like I notice the staff being far more receptive in recent years. I see nergal out in the streets doing work a lot. I see staff currently being communicative via w/e petty ass request I send into them. I see Ness dropping updates on the staff forum, submission requests, code updates. Things we should rightly be offering some major props for, even though we are having growing pains.
One day maybe we can talk about Tuluk again ; I feel like the game lost a lot during those decisions being made, and I felt very much that they were forced decisions that left a lot of northern players with a real, juicy shit feeling in their mouth afterwards.
What I see here is a long train of years of communications between staff and players who want to pretend sometimes they aren't the same humans trying to facilitate the same game. Things aren't -in the past-, or now, or in the future, they are. We're still doing this together or the game is dead, right? And I see staff setting their boundaries but pretty much having the dialogue without saying "We are having dem dialogues how bout dah"
As for OP request ;
Asche, it sounds like some of those folks abroad can put in requests and maybe hash some things out if they want to return. I will defend the volunteers on staff and the GDB on one point... These people ARE volunteers no matter how they got their positions, and they aren't sponges for anger absorption. Yes, staff could be better sometimes about 'de-escalation' via responses. We ALL KNOW which staff generally weren't good at that, no biggie. Maybe that wasn't their strength.
It looks like shadowboard folks that didn't outright pillage, plunder, and hack have an opportunity here. Mission accomplished?
Quote from: Riev on March 06, 2017, 03:41:55 PM
Things are getting better, but staff has to know they'll always be haunted by the past.
This prompted me to respond.
I'm Wystan. I'm a newer member of staff, having been on a little less than 6 months. However, I have read requests and complaints going back years. My aim was specifically to learn from the mistakes of the past so I don't repeat them.
It's true that members of staff over the years have made mistakes. Members of staff will make mistakes in the future. My own share of mistakes will be among them. We are, like everyone, fallible humans. We won't always be perfect. We can only try to be fair, try to hold each other accountable, try to reach consensus on solutions, seriously consider player objections and feedback, and hope that when we do make a mistake, the player remains open to repairing the relationship.
I can tell you that today's staff does hold each other accountable. We don't shy from voicing our concern when one of us feels an issue could be resolved with greater sensitivity or fairness. And we do solicit feedback from our colleagues when making decisions. There is not often a need to voice concerns, however. I've been impressed with how much today's staff cares about the player experience. My fellow staff members and I want you to feel empowered, respected, and listened to. This won't happen 100% of the time, but we do try. We do value you and want your experience to be a good one.
It would be naive for me to think the mistakes of the past don't still rent space in the heads of some players. I accept that's something we will have to struggle against, regardless of how fair it may be that a past I didn't participate in may color interactions I have with players.
But I urge you to accept that "staff" isn't a monolith. Staff rosters change, staff policies change, staff culture changes, and individuals on staff grow over time.
What I need from you is to trust me when I say staff culture, and the game, is heading in a positive direction. I wouldn't spend my time on it if it wasn't, and I wouldn't ask you to spend your time on it either.
If you've been burned, give it another chance. Just play the game and try to have fun. We'll support you, and I bet you will.
Thanks for sharing, Wystan. Much appreciated.
I appreciate the insight into staff-side, Wystan. However, it does seem like sometimes staff members take things personally when a player screws up and the focus becomes "how do we punish this person" rather than "how can we make a crap situation better?" Don't get me wrong, sometimes punishment is the best way to handle something, but I think if a player shows a genuine willingness to improve and make amends, all punishment serves to do is sour their experience and make the aforementioned crap situation even crappier.
I think one way to help improve that bad taste that is created is to give a player a small amount of choice about what kind of punishment they will receive. That makes them feel less like they are being marched into time out by the ear and more like they are a part of an adult discussion over how to handle discipline. For example, you might give a player a choice between a short-term ban and force storage.
But...maybe that's why I am not staff.
EDIT: Actually, before I am corrected--I know exactly why I am not staff and it's because I screwed up in the recent past.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 06, 2017, 05:51:21 PM
Thanks for sharing, Wystan. Much appreciated.
Much love for the young blood.
Wystan's words echo what many of mine would have been. The other words are:
I've been playing this MUD for over 20 years. I've been on staff for just over two years. I've been impressed with what is in place for staff, and just how accountable they are. I've also come to appreciate that to keep staff as a whole maintaining a professional demeanor means that players will not get a view into the decision making process.
For 90%+ of the time I have spent here, I have been where you are as a player. I get that it can be frustrating. None of us want it to be frustrating. Sometimes we simply can't tell you the piece that might make it a little less frustrating for you. Sometimes we are just being human, and making the little and large errors/omissions/differentdecisions that come along with that.
Just while I have been on staff, we've had several different Producers. Only one of the Admins is the same as when I started. I started as Southern Staff (still am in that group) and the entire staffing team for Southern except for myself has changed (a couple of times). This has introduced a lot of new ideas, and a lot of different perspectives on things. And that makes me excited for the future.
That's really cool guys, thank you. We appreciate you!
Quote from: Nergal on March 06, 2017, 06:52:02 AM
Quote from: Jingo on March 05, 2017, 06:59:40 PM
Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.
But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.
I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.
Staff do handle complaint resolution and player discipline fairly, though - with significant discussion among staff, poring over game logs, efforts to "connect dots" in more elaborate player breaches, etc. We don't have a rigidly-defined process for it, but only because every situation is different. Note that you (general you) not liking the results of this resolution does not mean it was not conducted fairly, though it could mean that the situation requires additional discussion so that it can be better understood.
Forget about whether the decision is fair for a moment. Instead, consider just how frustrating it is when you're expected to make due with feedback that doesn't address your question or offer any specifics. And THEN consider how insulting it is when you the request is closed the moment you point out some of these problems. And any further pursuit results in punishment. At that point I think a player can be forgiven for thinking the system can not even provide the fair decision in the first place.
Jimmy let it go.
Nergal, we can all appreciate what the staff of this game has done to take some of the more obscure taboo of Arm and make them into defined rules. I can see you've tried your best. Along those lines, I would like to ask you a question.
Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?
I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player. I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 07, 2017, 03:55:43 AM
Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?
No.
Quote from: Jingo on March 07, 2017, 02:00:57 AM
Quote from: Nergal on March 06, 2017, 06:52:02 AM
Quote from: Jingo on March 05, 2017, 06:59:40 PM
Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.
But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.
I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.
Staff do handle complaint resolution and player discipline fairly, though - with significant discussion among staff, poring over game logs, efforts to "connect dots" in more elaborate player breaches, etc. We don't have a rigidly-defined process for it, but only because every situation is different. Note that you (general you) not liking the results of this resolution does not mean it was not conducted fairly, though it could mean that the situation requires additional discussion so that it can be better understood.
Forget about whether the decision is fair for a moment. Instead, consider just how frustrating it is when you're expected to make due with feedback that doesn't address your question or offer any specifics. And THEN consider how insulting it is when you the request is closed the moment you point out some of these problems. And any further pursuit results in punishment. At that point I think a player can be forgiven for thinking the system can not even provide the fair decision in the first place.
Resolution to a problem can be both frustrating and fair. That's essentially the definition of compromise.
I realize that closing a request seems abrupt to people. But we do leave requests open to give players a chance to respond and we do let players open new requests to continue discussion if they feel a specific point or points wasn't addressed in the past request - the new request should focus on those points. One thing we don't allow is for the same request to be submitted repeatedly after a judgment has been made on it. Leaving a request open forever would be frustrating in that there is no final decision from staff at all there.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 07, 2017, 03:55:43 AM
Nergal, we can all appreciate what the staff of this game has done to take some of the more obscure taboo of Arm and make them into defined rules. I can see you've tried your best. Along those lines, I would like to ask you a question.
Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?
I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player. I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.
It was likely me that told you that because that is the way it appeared to me at the time, but I was told this was not the case upon pursuing it.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 07, 2017, 03:55:43 AM
Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?
I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player. I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.
Is there an explicit difference between 'ratting someone out' and filing a player complaint?
Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300
Quote from: Nergal
I'm going to go ahead and reluctantly lock this thread after I get a last word in. Annoying, I know, but this is the official staff position and I would rather not have it overrun by less useful advice.
That said: ignoring OOC chatter is good advice, but not good enough alone. Alone, it's simply a way to let people who use OOC unfairly to continue to do so without your knowledge. It's extremely advantageous to people who engage in improper OOC communication because you're taking yourself out as a possible leak to staff and making the OOC game stronger. The real game is ruined by unfair OOC players even more easily if you ignore it without reporting it.
So if you do know about it, it's your duty to the game to report it. You will not get in trouble for reporting something, even if you accidentally or purposefully implicate yourself. As I said, you will earn the trust of staff and help the game as a whole. You could possibly get in trouble if you do not report someone, if that someone (or somebody else) goes on to report you first. We take great care to protect the identity of someone who reports something to staff, to the extent that we only do as much as we can without revealing the complainant, as we understand that will make OOC friendships awkward. We also take great care to determine the veracity of whatever evidence we get as well as its source.
The sad truth is that more of staff's time and resources have been nudged into revealing and shutting down OOC behavior. It's not an inordinate amount, but it's certainly more than it was a few years ago. We're not going to let it distract us from other things we're doing to make the game great.
Ultimately, it is in your best interest as well as in the game's best interest to shut down OOC gossip and coordination by reporting it, with evidence, and then ignoring it if necessary.
That said, would reporting OOC chatter gain us Communication Karma or is there going to be a new category?
I've been a lot more motivated to try new things with sponsored roles of late, and by that, I mean, actually apply for them and go for it. Haven't been lucky on the receiving end, but staff's positive direction lately has really spurred me to want to try and work closely with them again. BRING ON THOSE SPONSORED ROLES!
Maybe we can steer the discussion in a better direction since it has derailed a bit. What frustrates staff, and what can players do to help make staff want to stay as volunteers longer? It seems a little one-sided to only talk about player complaints here.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 07, 2017, 10:49:07 AM
It was likely me that told you that because that is the way it appeared to me at the time, but I was told this was not the case upon pursuing it.
If you are who I think you are, then yes, you would know.
Quote from: Narf on March 07, 2017, 12:50:41 PM
Is there an explicit difference between 'ratting someone out' and filing a player complaint?
Uh, yes. I would think, at the very least, a player complaint has a useful purpose in curbing harassment.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 07, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300
This is precisely the post I was thinking about. And I find it strange, considering staff went through all the trouble of posting the rules clearly, and outlining their policies, to create more transparency between players and the administration. Yet, this idea of suggesting players tattle on each other is something you seem to project on those who are already in the meat grinder, and on the bookend of a locked thread about OOC collusion.
I'm just wondering, why, if this is your policy and method of handling infractions to the rules, is this not posted in the rules section? You've gone to lengths to give each punishment variable a specific, no-nonsense answer, so why the pussyfooting about this?
Removed a few posts dealing with personal gossip - that's not really what this thread is for, and doesn't contribute much to the discussion. While I'm sure all involved meant nothing malicious, such remarks could easily be misconstrued.
@SDW: I think the "problem" with Nergal's post is that it seems to conflate OOC abuse (the original topic of that thread) with ALL OOC "chatter" or player-to-player communication. I don't want to speculate on whether this was intended, but on reflection I think it's definitely part of how I perceived Nergal's message. As someone who dies chatter I suppose it was disheartening to be lumped in with behavior I don't identify with or condone.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 07, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300
Quote from: Nergal
I'm going to go ahead and reluctantly lock this thread after I get a last word in. Annoying, I know, but this is the official staff position and I would rather not have it overrun by less useful advice.
That said: ignoring OOC chatter is good advice, but not good enough alone. Alone, it's simply a way to let people who use OOC unfairly to continue to do so without your knowledge. It's extremely advantageous to people who engage in improper OOC communication because you're taking yourself out as a possible leak to staff and making the OOC game stronger. The real game is ruined by unfair OOC players even more easily if you ignore it without reporting it.
So if you do know about it, it's your duty to the game to report it. You will not get in trouble for reporting something, even if you accidentally or purposefully implicate yourself. As I said, you will earn the trust of staff and help the game as a whole. You could possibly get in trouble if you do not report someone, if that someone (or somebody else) goes on to report you first. We take great care to protect the identity of someone who reports something to staff, to the extent that we only do as much as we can without revealing the complainant, as we understand that will make OOC friendships awkward. We also take great care to determine the veracity of whatever evidence we get as well as its source.
The sad truth is that more of staff's time and resources have been nudged into revealing and shutting down OOC behavior. It's not an inordinate amount, but it's certainly more than it was a few years ago. We're not going to let it distract us from other things we're doing to make the game great.
Ultimately, it is in your best interest as well as in the game's best interest to shut down OOC gossip and coordination by reporting it, with evidence, and then ignoring it if necessary.
That said, would reporting OOC chatter gain us Communication Karma or is there going to be a new category?
That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 07, 2017, 02:58:42 PM
@SDW: I think the "problem" with Nergal's post is that it seems to conflate OOC abuse (the original topic of that thread) with ALL OOC "chatter" or player-to-player communication. I don't want to speculate on whether this was intended, but on reflection I think it's definitely part of how I perceived Nergal's message. As someone who dies chatter I suppose it was disheartening to be lumped in with behavior I don't identify with or condone.
I specifically stated "improper" OOC communication (as in, OOC abuse) in my post.
Nergal, my impression from your posts on the subject is that you consider all OOC communication to be improper.
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51862.msg965775.html#msg965775
QuoteWhile I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.
That was the context in which I read your later Reporting post and made my interpretations of it.
I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't think I'll say any more on this subject. This is just my personal example of how posts can lead to perceptions that might appear absurd to the original poster. Especially when I think there's just a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties (Which is not to diminish your prerogative to set rules fitting your own interpretation).
Quote from: Nergal on March 07, 2017, 03:01:08 PM
That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.
It's funny you say that. That is almost the very reason for my disgruntlement with the game, lately. You see, someone shared with me a response you gave via the request tool. I didn't ask them to, but they must have felt they needed someone else to see it. It's also not against the rules to do that, so I don't feel at all bad about knowing what was said.
Because that correspondence belongs to someone else, I do not want to post it, here, but the message was, to paraphrase:
"You can earn more trust from us by snitching on other players who are breaking the rules. If it is good information, it might negate some of your punishment."
I don't know this person all that well, but I'm not convinced they would fabricate such a thing. Did you say it? The thing is, that person had just been force stored, so it's obvious you had them by the short hairs, here. So, possible rewards might be, what? Unstoring their character? What about staff's repeated equation of trust to karma?
I can't talk too specifically about what happened with me because it might hurt other people. For the same of open dialogue I will say that I was punished for OOC talk and when I appealed, I was told that some or all of the punishment might be walked back if I sent logs of people engaging in inappropriate OOC talk, and that I would not be punished further even if those logs showed me engaging in that behavior. I found that sketchy and sent in a staff complaint. The response assured me that I had misinterpreted the staff member in question so I left it at that. If staff say they do not want to recruit informants then I choose to believe them. I was glad they were willing to state explicitly that a tattling culture is not what they want. I will never get back what I lost (including enthusiasm for the game) but I am glad for that part of things.
Edit: SDW's paraphrase is consistent with the way I read the message. It did indeed specify that 'good' information could be traded for lenience. Again, though, I am satisfied with staff saying on record that they don't want snitches. As they like to say, it was resolved even if it wasn't resolved in a way that was pleasing to me.
Also it was a staff member that I trust and that I truly believe cares about the player base that reassured me that there was a misunderstanding. That helped ease my feelings about the matter as well.
Ok, well, let's reasonably assume I don't know any staff, and I don't know what the hell any of this means beyond that correspondence. I'd like someone to explain it, and since there is a post on the GDB about it, this is a good a place as any.
Just trying to explain my perspective, past and present, since something to do with me was brought up.
P.S. I wasn't saying that I knew the staff member that resolved my complaint personally. I just liked and trusted them as a staff member.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 07, 2017, 03:16:48 PM
Nergal, my impression from your posts on the subject is that you consider all OOC communication to be improper.
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51862.msg965775.html#msg965775
QuoteWhile I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.
That was the context in which I read your later Reporting post and made my interpretations of it.
I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't think I'll say any more on this subject. This is just my personal example of how posts can lead to perceptions that might appear absurd to the original poster. Especially when I think there's just a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties (Which is not to diminish your prerogative to set rules fitting your own interpretation).
My point there was that someone could conceivably piece together damaging information on a plot by getting bits of information that multiple players think is innocuous, and considering all the parts as a whole. So yes, chatter can lead to something bad if people are talking about IC goings-on in the game. But friends talking to each other about non-IC stuff is not bad at all. Why would anyone think that it is?
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 07, 2017, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 07, 2017, 03:01:08 PM
That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.
It's funny you say that. That is almost the very reason for my disgruntlement with the game, lately. You see, someone shared with me a response you gave via the request tool. I didn't ask them to, but they must have felt they needed someone else to see it. It's also not against the rules to do that, so I don't feel at all bad about knowing what was said.
Because that correspondence belongs to someone else, I do not want to post it, here, but the message was, to paraphrase:
"You can earn more trust from us by snitching on other players who are breaking the rules. If it is good information, it might negate some of your punishment."
I don't know this person all that well, but I'm not convinced they would fabricate such a thing. Did you say it? The thing is, that person had just been force stored, so it's obvious you had them by the short hairs, here. So, possible rewards might be, what? Unstoring their character? What about staff's repeated equation of trust to karma?
I'm not going to comment on another player's specific situation, as I stated multiple times in this thread. It should suffice to say that neither I nor any other staff member ever offered rewards to any player for turning in information suggesting that another player broke game rules, and we don't intend to do so in the future. Personally speaking, I feel that the "reward" for making a legitimate player complaint on bad OOC behavior is making the game a little more clear of such behavior.
This whole situation just goes to show how players sometimes foment their own disgruntlement through misinterpretation, failing to ask for clarification, and assuming the worst of a staff correspondence - and in your case, a staff correspondence that wasn't even directed at you. In other words, players sometimes look for something to be mad about, without having access to facts. I would discourage players from doing that, and inform their opinion on staff based on their own interactions with staff. Reacting to rumors and request snippets is the exact opposite of having clear thoughts on a subject.
Take this as tongue in cheek;
"Don't get disappointed about what happens to other players, you'll never know the staff side of the story." - To me, this says "Wherever you get your information, its probably wrong, and we know more about the situation so just trust us.".
"Inform your opinion based on your own reactions with staff" sounds real nice, until the caveat "Don't let what OTHER staff have done in the past, inform how you deal with them now".
I don't want it to sound like whining, but at what point is "I or someone I know has been seriously wronged" an okay thing to believe? If Nyr did it, well he's not a staff anymore. Don't distrust staff because Nyr did something. If Nergal did something? Don't distrust Brokkr for it. Is that what you're saying?
Because honestly, the staff churn is so constant that at no point will any of you be held responsible for a thing.
Quote from: Nergal on March 07, 2017, 04:04:28 PM
This whole situation just goes to show how players sometimes foment their own disgruntlement through misinterpretation, failing to ask for clarification, and assuming the worst of a staff correspondence - and in your case, a staff correspondence that wasn't even directed at you. In other words, players sometimes look for something to be mad about, without having access to facts. I would discourage players from doing that, and inform their opinion on staff based on their own interactions with staff. Reacting to rumors and request snippets is the exact opposite of having clear thoughts on a subject.
Maybe so, but I'm not looking for a reason to be angry. I'm not even sure my experience could be called anger, at all. I've had bad correspondence with staff, just like, I'm sure, almost anyone has had. I've had great correspondence, too. This isn't about me assuming the worst of a staff correspondence. It's reading what you said, word for word, and seeing a pretty clear statement. One that you seemed to underline in a later thread about OOC collusion.
You see, I don't think you should use the idea of offering staff's trust in exchange for the gain of more rule breakers. Staff's trust has consistently been equated to the concept of karma. I just don't think it's right, and I can't be the only one.
I also don't like the idea of snitches, and I'm glad recruiting them isn't a thing. I'd say that as long as no one acts on information they shouldn't have, there's no problem. And if they do, it should be possible to catch them, right?
Of course if a huge secret plot has been spoiled then the damage is already done. :-\
I give no fucks if there are narks among you.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 07, 2017, 04:54:15 PM
I give no fucks if there are narks among you.
It's spelled narc, as in narcotics, referencing a tactic where an institution uses a person's addiction as leverage to get what it wants. But yeah, I'm not surprised some people would feel that way.
You should probably google my spelling before correcting it to make sure it's not one of those if/or things.
But yeah. I rarely discuss the game with people, and when I do, if I got approached about it, I'd be able to explain exactly why with confidence and feel fine. Because I'm thinking about it beforehand.
If you're trying to word things in such a way to make staff 'the institution' and breaking the rule 'leverage' with no further elaboration on what that relationship exactly entails, i.e. Freedom of communication vs forming unmonitored conduits for selective information, then I think you're letting your bias direct you a little hard. Unless there is no bias, in which case you'd acknowledge it's really not that hard to avoid to talking about the game with people who may not be aware of the things you're talking about, and thus it's really not that hard to avoid someone narking. OOPS. NARCING.
edit: Basically. If you have another player reporting you for it, that probably means that they either blundered in on information they didn't want to hear, or had someone directly start rattling off information to them. The moment someone starts asking me 'What's this thing all about' or 'How do I get here?', I'm already gauging what can be related and what can't, and I assume you'd do the same. If not, then yeah...you might have a problem with this.
With my shallow interactions with other players, I'm not really concerned. But having been involved in some things that suddenly had falsities all around it spread around in a public place, then actually acted on and referenced to me in game as a result, yeah. It's not as hunky dory as people make it sound in regards to the 'we draw this line too hard' place. All I care about is that punishment doesn't come impulsively and investigations of it are rigorous and without bias.
Edit again: With reflection, it should be noted that I'm actually kind of liberal on what is/isn't bad OOC information. If we could reference that thread where Nergal posted examples of it, you'd see that I didn't think either of them were particularly major infractions. I have no problems with 'Can you log on?'. I have no problems with 'No you dum dum, you can't do that with that skill.' What I do have problems with is 'This plot is only going this way because <random IC information that displays you don't know what you're talking about and just want to rant>, or 'If you do that, I'll have my character do this, so you should do that with confidence.' But the important part is that there is a line, regardless of where you think it is, and if you're continually feeling like you're overstepping the 'acknowledged' line, you should probably check your own behavior rather than call it a bad policy. This may be because I communicate less about IC events and more about OOC game direction, etc, with other players, as a general rule.
I stretched a couple feet and grabbed my webster's, because Google, lol. I stand corrected. That must be how the plebs spell it.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see some of your own colorful interpretations. No, I referred to staff as an administration. It seems to mostly fill that capacity. The institution could be my interpretation of an inquisition, if not just a characterizing reference to my comparison of 'ratting each other out'. You know, if I was trying to word things.
But then, I would've also been calling you crackheads.
I can't say I'm entirely satisfied, but I'm going to take a leap of faith here, and open a request. Thanks, at least, for your time, Nergal.
I think the amount of time any staffer spends policing problematic players is significantly less than most people think.
Quote from: Nergal on March 07, 2017, 03:54:12 PM
My point there was that someone could conceivably piece together damaging information on a plot by getting bits of information that multiple players think is innocuous, and considering all the parts as a whole. So yes, chatter can lead to something bad if people are talking about IC goings-on in the game. But friends talking to each other about non-IC stuff is not bad at all. Why would anyone think that it is?
Because "Non-IC stuff" is a nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything to me except for Code. What would you define as "non-IC stuff"? Personally I see only a few subjects for Armageddon discussions
1) Past characters
2) Future characters
3) Code
4) The Game World (culture, RP, etc.)
5) Current PCs, whether yours or others.
These are all problematic in different ways. While talking about past exploits is generally safe, some PCs live so damn long that old revelations might have surprisingly relevance. I'm personally leery of talking seriously about Future PCs because I don't want to pre-emptively out myself. I also find those discussions generally discouraging because you run in to practical limits very quickly. Code is a grey area, I feel like I break a rule whenever I talk about it but by this point I don't particularly care about that rule. Even discussions about the gameworld and culture always seem to implicitly (or explicitly) refer to current characters and whether behavior fits.
Most Arm discussions I have are about what people recently did, are doing at the moment, or hoping to attempt in the immediate future. It's the most interesting and stimulating. I would also firmly categorize it as the IC discussions. In the rules laid out in Staff posts I don't see any real ground for discussing the game in its current shape or form without stepping over the "non-IC" line. So I don't see any room to really talk about the game without violating one rule or another.
There's also a sixth subject, or maybe a subset of #5: Staff behavior. This is personally my least favorite because it's almost always discouraging, but I want to hear my friends out if they feel aggrieved, even if I don't agree.
Quote from: HavokBlue on March 07, 2017, 05:27:34 PM
I think the amount of time any staffer spends policing problematic players is significantly less than most people think.
I have to agree quite firmly with this, but only due to my own experiences. I recently had a small issue with staff, now resolved, but pretty much every other use of the request tool has been at least not unpleasant, (if being denied spec apps can be counted as being not unpleasant) to the point where I dont consider myself to have had any more than maybe 20 mins of problem time since what was it I started in 2014?
BadSkeelz:
Discussing current PCs and what they are doing or going to do is against the spirit of the game. It also happens a lot, yes. The point it's considered rule-breaking is when that discussion is taken toward coordination.
Okay: A long time ago, I made a player clan before they were called player clans!
Borderline: My PC is trying to set up a player clan!
Not okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?
My concern is with the "not okay" behavior, and with "borderline" behavior that trends toward "not okay" behavior over time.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 07, 2017, 05:13:39 PM
I can't say I'm entirely satisfied, but I'm going to take a leap of faith here, and open a request. Thanks, at least, for your time, Nergal.
Out of curiosity, what would make you entirely satisfied? Nergal already admitted that there were many mistakes made in the past, that there would probably be some made in the future (human nature and all), he's answering all the questions/comments and he's saying (along with a couple of other Staff) that there's a real tight process in place to make sure that past mistakes are not repeated again in the future.
Quote from: Nergal on March 07, 2017, 06:35:07 PM
BadSkeelz:
Discussing current PCs and what they are doing or going to do is against the spirit of the game. It also happens a lot, yes. The point it's considered rule-breaking is when that discussion is taken toward coordination.
Okay: A long time ago, I made a player clan before they were called player clans!
Borderline: My PC is trying to set up a player clan!
Not okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?
My concern is with the "not okay" behavior, and with "borderline" behavior that trends toward "not okay" behavior over time.
Thank you for elaborating.
Quote from: Malken on March 07, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
Out of curiosity, what would make you entirely satisfied?
To not give a shit about this game. But I guess I've played too long, now.
QuoteNot okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?
I always disagree with this part, as we have in the past. I point to why: It seems to be a personal preference on your part, due to me having a history in the game of playing with RL friends of mine, ala my account notes. That was always explained to me until this administration as 'If you're going to play with your friends, that's fine, but make sure you play within the theme of the game rather than allowing an OOC rush to push you in that direction.' The most notable iteration of this was me creating mul warriors to try and be a general for someone's magickal character but I was in unfamiliar territory and kept dying. So they told me that if I failed, at least try something else that would take longer, but make a more interesting story out of their meeting/joining.
The strict hardline against inviting people you enjoy playing with is, I believe, the result of cracking down on tribes, families, etc, and I simply don't agree that it's damaging to the game unless they are not actively playing their characters, but playing with each other versus everyone else via proxy characters.
Hard to monitor, certainly, but ultimately a big turnoff when you're told your allowance of enjoying the game is contingent on not playing with people you know.
Hi,
I've written and rewritten this a few times.
Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.
I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.
Thanks,
Reiloth
You know, I've not read that post by Nergal that got linked earlier. As well as those few other statements about the whole, "Report the ooc chatter to earn trust" variety. I do not know how accurate all that is.
All I can say is that I find it troublesome. To quote Alistair Cooke. It's worse then immoral, it's a mistake. (Who I think stole this from Stalin. Something like, "It's worse then treason, it's a mistake." But anyway ... digress)
I personally do not want to discuss it further. Whether it's true, or a whole big giant jump of assumptions. I personally am going to assume that it's not true, simply because it prevents me from foaming at the mouth in righteous fury.
There is no need to say anything, deny anything, or confirm anything. No matter what will be said, there will be people who will believe it. Ignore it. Disbelieve it. And some who will quote it out of context to prove some whatever point they're itching to prove. Reality, Sanity, and Self-Respect be damned.
all I ask is even if there was some kind of a temptation to go in that direction, is that you stop. Because in my opinion, while this may cure an infection in this community, it will do so by slicing that community into tiny parts via a giant rusty cleaver with bits of rotten old meat stuck in the notches of it's dull edge.
I also recommend others who, whether out of righteousness, curiosity, or hyena like need to 'haw haw', are trying to wheedle out commentary about it. I dont think you'll manage to achieve anything of substance. This issue will be either proven true, or proven false by action, not rhetoric.
Let's keep the Corruption and Betrayal in the stories of Zalanthas, not it's players.
Aside all that. Some ... sizeable chunk of grievances here seem to be stemming from a churn of rumor mill and tendency to jump to conclusions. It's understandable. A player is a singular entity that deals with an organized group that communicates within itself. We all worry that the person we are speaking to is judging us. Some to smaller degree. Some to greater. We worry ten times as much, when the entity that is out there judging us is an entity of many people that discusses 'us' in private and has the power to directly affect a lot of our effort with consequences spreading throughout 'no joke' years. Because of that worry, the tendency to jump to conclusions in a negative way 'should' be understandable. It is up to each individual person to choose how they deal with people while in such a position.
It is often assumed that people in leadership sponsored roles are the ones who have the greatest of the Staff trust. They are trusted not only to ... not order their npcs to kill people indiscriminately. Not only to act according to the theme of the game, but also (in my understanding) to use the power, position, and authority that they have been granted straight from chargen to improve the game. Bring fun and entertainment to other players. That's how I always understood the main role of a sponsored role to be. To be the sources of new content/color/theme for other players. Even if sometimes it involved killing characters in most graphic, sadistic, and gory way. It's also in part why I am staying the fuck away from sponsored roles. My IRL time is limited enough. To play a role that's geared to bring more fun in for others instead of myself? Fuck that shit. Well, being a staff member is the ultimate sponsored role. But in the end ... the goals are the same. I'll leave it to staff members to decide if they are successful in their roles.
All I ask of the players is to play. Don't allow your own fears, occasional inadequacy in skills of diplomacy, or that not so distant hum of negativity to truly affect you. In the end, the game is fun. And the only thing that truly makes it fun are the players playing with ... umh, other players. So fucking play already, you bunch of whiny maggots!
Arghem. I mean ... umh.
Please vote?
You know, I've been "butt-hurt" by staff in the past. I've also behaved badly at times, upon reflection. I've also been completely and utterly misunderstood and not even been asked to explain myself, at one point. I never stopped playing though.
This is a really fun game. That's why I've been playing it for so long. Even with the changes that I absolutely positively loathe - it's still a fun diversion for a few hours every night, and it beats the hell out of watching TV.
I've apped for staff almost every single time they've had a call for it. I've been turned down every time. I've apped for many of the sponsored roles they've posted about - and I've been turned down for all but three, ever, in my 13 or 14 years of playing. I've been banned, I've had posting privileges revoked, I've been no-wished a few times, I've been brought into a staffer's room for an OOC scolding, I've sent staff complaints, etc. etc. etc. And still, I continue to play and have managed to earn karma and play some amazing roles with some amazing roleplayers.
This game has gone through a lot of changes. Some of them I like. Some of them I can't stand. The reason I got hooked into playing after I started, is no longer an option for me to play. It's still a fun game though, and at the end of the day, that's really all that matters. Not whether the staff is being fair to you, or unfair, or if you got PKed legitimately or if someone cheated, or if you want a wagon and they won't let you have one. Is the game fun? Yes? Then play. No? Then don't. That's really all it comes down to, and everything else is just noise.
Regarding OOC communication: I think the only important OOC communication for the health of the game is scheduling/planning playtimes/RPTs. I hope staff considers some form of the many-suggested "playtime scheduling assistant" that has been talked about a lot on the GDB. Something where you can tell other characters when you intend to log in in the future, so they can try to make it as well to meet up with you. If it was done entirely with in-game commands, that'd be best. Suggestions where it can be done with the Way, or messengers that you paid coin to, whatever the case.. it'd help to reduce the need to be aware of who someone is played by. You could comfortably function in a clan without posting on the GDB clan board.. it'd reduce concerns for people wanting to play as antagonists, but who were formerly in a well-populated clan. Etc. It'd have a lot of benefits, I think, and also maybe help to reduce some of the paranoia.
Quote from: Harmless on March 08, 2017, 01:25:37 AM
Regarding OOC communication: I think the only important OOC communication for the health of the game is scheduling/planning playtimes/RPTs. I hope staff considers some form of the many-suggested "playtime scheduling assistant" that has been talked about a lot on the GDB. Something where you can tell other characters when you intend to log in in the future, so they can try to make it as well to meet up with you. If it was done entirely with in-game commands, that'd be best.
YES! PCs being able to find each other more easily = more RP. I've always wanted something like what you suggest. It would be the coolest addition since, well... illustrations! ;D
Related to what I interpret the tone of Reilith's post to be:
I find that often times, veterans have the hardest time with staff, because after 10+ years playing this game they have certain expectations. "I was able to do that 5 years ago, why can't I do it now?" and "But it used to be that if it happened ICly, staff would assist in making sure it was represented".
I know my mentor to the game, who left quite some time ago now, did so because they felt the game wasn't the same as it used to be. Because of how they played, and how influential they were ICly and OOCly, they got into a pretty powerful position on a string of characters. To the point where one fell into an auto-kill hole and died, another got force stored because of reasons I can't go into, and another got force-killed because they were a living representation of all that is good, and kept preferring the RP of the bad guys.
But what got them most annoyed was that things weren't possible, that used to be. Templars used to make virtual deals that resulted in chests of coin being brought in as taxes from tribes. There were a number of disagreements over "what" is possible, and what isn't, and it turned into staff (basically) accusing them of being a whiner and complainer, and that they had to follow the rules if they wanted to keep playing.
Veterans deserve a modicum of respect, because we lose many of them to RL issues. They are the only ones who can guide the newbies to be the new generation, but they are being pushed off and away because they don't conform to the new Authority.
Quote from: Riev on March 08, 2017, 09:49:07 AM
Related to what I interpret the tone of Reilith's post to be:
I find that often times, veterans have the hardest time with staff, because after 10+ years playing this game they have certain expectations. "I was able to do that 5 years ago, why can't I do it now?" and "But it used to be that if it happened ICly, staff would assist in making sure it was represented".
I know my mentor to the game, who left quite some time ago now, did so because they felt the game wasn't the same as it used to be. Because of how they played, and how influential they were ICly and OOCly, they got into a pretty powerful position on a string of characters. To the point where one fell into an auto-kill hole and died, another got force stored because of reasons I can't go into, and another got force-killed because they were a living representation of all that is good, and kept preferring the RP of the bad guys.
But what got them most annoyed was that things weren't possible, that used to be. Templars used to make virtual deals that resulted in chests of coin being brought in as taxes from tribes. There were a number of disagreements over "what" is possible, and what isn't, and it turned into staff (basically) accusing them of being a whiner and complainer, and that they had to follow the rules if they wanted to keep playing.
Veterans deserve a modicum of respect, because we lose many of them to RL issues. They are the only ones who can guide the newbies to be the new generation, but they are being pushed off and away because they don't conform to the new Authority.
But isn't a large percentage (if not all) of the "new authority" veteran-players themselves?
Not necessarily, though its possible. Staff are often picked for their account notes, proven willingness and ability to keep IC and OOC separate, fit to the schedule, and have a proven track record of being accountable. You don't need to be a 10+ year veteran to do that.
And also related, EP, I think many of the Veterans that DO leave, had been staff before. I think as staff, you voluntarily lift the veil on what the world is, and could be, and maybe that leads to veterans "knowing" something can be done, and struggling to reconcile the fact that current administration won't allow it. Maybe.
But no, I don't think you have to be a long-term vet to be staff. At all.
Quote from: Reiloth on March 07, 2017, 08:16:02 PM
Hi,
I've written and rewritten this a few times.
Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.
I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.
Thanks,
Reiloth
Same.
Quote from: Case on March 08, 2017, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: Reiloth on March 07, 2017, 08:16:02 PM
Hi,
I've written and rewritten this a few times.
Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.
I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.
Thanks,
Reiloth
Same.
qft :/
I'm not trying to be a contrarian or argumentative, nor am I trying to be a staff pet, but based on my experiences, I can't imagine what it is staff could have done to drive players away like that .. and I interact with staff a lot. I put in waaaaay too many requests, and wish up what I assume is a fair amount.
The "worst" interactions I've had with staff have been radio silence. Even then, though, I always assumed that this was because (1) they were just having behind the scenes convos about my stuff, or (2) they were just busy doing other shit, which happens to me all the time.
This is in 7 years of playing, too. Not really a small amount of time. What sort of shit could possibly lead to this game-leaving response?
@Riev: I guess you're right, I think I had a kind of different time-frame in my head for what a "veteran" would be.
I sometimes feel tempted to reply more to this thread, but my interactions with staff tends to be few and far between (and positive) besides the odd special app as I tend to stay away from sponsored roles/leadership positions/big plots. (Hopefully this'll change over the next year though).
I'm happy to see such open conversation and opinion-airing on staff-player dynamics. First time I've seen it on the GDB. :)
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
This is in 7 years of playing, too. Not really a small amount of time. What sort of shit could possibly lead to this game-leaving response?
You could be more imaginative. I'm not saying these things HAVE happened, but:
- Shutting down a long-running personal PC plot because it 'would affect too many things'.
- Being told you will be forcibly stored because a (v)NPC saw you doing something a RL month ago.
- BEING forcibly stored because you did something against documentation, but hadn't been informed or given a course of correction.
- Working hard to get something changed in game, having PC leadership behind your efforts, and materials/other PCs involved, only to be told "your character hasn't been around long enough in an OOC manner to affect this change".
- Having a staff-played (n)PC kill your character as part of a plot you only stepped in to the RL day before, by joining a clan (ex: Joining Salarr, they won't pay the Guild, Guild sends message by killing new recruits)
Some of these have happened. Some of them haven't. Others are partial truths. All of them, in my opinion, would cause someone to leave the game.
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
I put in waaaaay too many requests, and wish up what I assume is a fair amount.
(http://i.imgur.com/bbJv4xW.gif)
I don't know if it's your intention Rathustra but you kind of look like you're high-fiving the first poster to disagree with the "Staff interactions soured me on the game narrative." It doesn't really help Feco's cause.
Frankly I think Staff post way too much on the GDB as staff.
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
I'm not trying to be a contrarian or argumentative, nor am I trying to be a staff pet, but based on my experiences, I can't imagine what it is staff could have done to drive players away like that .. and I interact with staff a lot. I put in waaaaay too many requests, and wish up what I assume is a fair amount.
I can imagine it. However, I'm happy to say that for many, many years - after the first force storage, which was actually kind of justified except for the terrible miscommunication about why it had to happen - I had nothing but pleasant interactions with staff. I don't know how many years, but it must have been something like 5 or 6, until like... 2010 maybe?
Quote from: Reiloth on March 07, 2017, 08:16:02 PM
I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past.
This, 10 times. If this was true, I never would have had to appeal to the Producers to prove my innocence in that one case. And if staff had trusted my character reports from the beginning, and not just after the Producers went digging, a lot of things... would have gone much smoother for everyone involved.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 08, 2017, 11:17:04 AM
I don't know if it's your intention Rathustra but you kind of look like you're high-fiving the first poster to disagree with the "Staff interactions soured me on the game narrative." It doesn't really help Feco's cause.
Frankly I think Staff post way too much on the GDB as staff.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions about staff's motivations, you kind of look like you totally missed Rathustra's joke ...
Yeah, I know, it's about Feco's amount of requests.
I still think it's a distracting post to make, at best.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 08, 2017, 11:24:21 AM
Yeah, I know, it's about Feco's amount of requests.
I still think it's a distracting post to make, at best.
Write a staff complaint then, and as a bonus you'll get to see what kind of response you get and if that thread led to any useful changes in how Staff handles those complaints heheh
I've never filed one before so I'm afraid any comparison would be lost on me.
I know that any disgruntlement that I personally feel towards staff is really just my dissatisfaction with the game at large, and they provide a useful personified target. I know I haven't had any real negative interactions through the request tool because it's been almost a year since I seriously used it. I get more bummed out because my friends are bummed out.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 08, 2017, 11:46:41 AM
I know that any disgruntlement that I personally feel towards staff is really just my dissatisfaction with the game at large, and they provide a useful personified target. I know I haven't had any real negative interactions through the request tool because it's been almost a year since I seriously used it. I get more bummed out because my friends are bummed out.
I feel the same.
I don't really have any negative comments to make about Staff but at the same time I have absolutely no interest in playing the game again because there's a general 'blah' atmosphere that's been slowly persisting with the game in general.
I personally do not think the game is in a persistent blah. If anything its because some players are dead set that the staff are ruining the game/out to get them/etc etc and they are being extremely vocal about it in a pessimistic way. That's what puts the game in the gutter. This dialogue here has been the first remotely 'positive' open discussion I've seen from either side in a LONG time. The first step is steering into positivity and understanding, second step is continued build up of the positive environment.
I've loved this game in every one of its changes for different reasons. Now it's time for veterans to bring the player side to life and let staff do their thing. Does this mean don't question things? No, questioning is good, be open and be curious. Does this mean staff can make no mistakes? No they ares human and they will, but we need to be clear when something upsets us and why. I know I want to start something up that brings fun to the game, not sit back and complain.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
I'm not trying to be a contrarian or argumentative, nor am I trying to be a staff pet, but based on my experiences, I can't imagine what it is staff could have done to drive players away like that .. and I interact with staff a lot. I put in waaaaay too many requests, and wish up what I assume is a fair amount.
The "worst" interactions I've had with staff have been radio silence. Even then, though, I always assumed that this was because (1) they were just having behind the scenes convos about my stuff, or (2) they were just busy doing other shit, which happens to me all the time.
This is in 7 years of playing, too. Not really a small amount of time. What sort of shit could possibly lead to this game-leaving response?
Example: I had a PC force stored, though I broke no rules of the game.
Staff Hardline: "We don't store PCs unless they break a rule of the game".
How does that engender trust with the community?
Example: Staff asks for my side of a story. I give my side of the story, taking the time to really go through it.
Staff: "We don't believe you. These are flimsy excuses."
How do you respond to that?
These are gross over simplifications, but I understand 'airing dirty laundry' on the GDB is poor form. Alluding to vague details also comes off as bashing Staff instead of giving honest feedback. However -- Staff Complaints yield zero results, as Staff isn't accountable to the player community (the player community can't force store a Staff member). So with a zero sum game, I feel the only option is to call out Staff on being hypocritical.
Another example -- I was banned from the GDB for a week after stating 'maybe we should post our opinions on the shadow board, then'. I've never posted on the Shadow Board, but was banned for alluding to possibly posting on the shadow board. After attempting to post a retort to my ban on an alternate account, both accounts were banned for a month. I was told in my ban message it was 'unwise' to post such hyperbole, especially considering I am an ex-Staff member.
There are three veterans that I can count that have left the game in the last couple of months due to their interactions with Staff (among other things, like, life) -- Does Staff have an honest, heartfelt response to this, or are they going to just post GIF memes?
Quote from: titansfan on March 08, 2017, 12:48:44 PM
I personally do not think the game is in a persistent blah. If anything its because some players are dead set that the staff are ruining the game/out to get them/etc etc and they are being extremely vocal about it in a pessimistic way. That's what puts the game in the gutter. This dialogue here has been the first remotely 'positive' open discussion I've seen from either side in a LONG time. The first step is steering into positivity and understanding, second step is continued build up of the positive environment.
I've loved this game in every one of its changes for different reasons. Now it's time for veterans to bring the player side to life and let staff do their thing. Does this mean don't question things? No, questioning is good, be open and be curious. Does this mean staff can make no mistakes? No they ares human and they will, but we need to be clear when something upsets us and why. I know I want to start something up that brings fun to the game, not sit back and complain.
Just my two cents.
The problem with dissatisfaction is that it builds up over time. It's never just one bad interaction or one change we disagree with. I don't think code changes even have a lot to do with player dissatisfaction. I think the perceived stagnation of the game world (for which Staff can be held at least partially responsible) and the Meta Plot is a bigger issue. For a couple of years now there's been fitful or localized progression (which is great if you're there to see it), but also what looked like Staff impetus to keep players on relatively narrow rails. For players who wanted to be the changemakers, it's discouraging. For players who want to just go along for the ride, it's discouraging to hear Staff don't want to run plots for the clan because we didn't meet expectations of behavior on the previous one. I think these are a minority of actions in the grand scheme of things, but negativity adds up and has a lot of inertia.
Even though I know for a fact that there are Staff and players making things happen in game, I personally find it difficult to log in and go find those things. Ironically the only thing that gets me in to the game recently is OOC prodding to login and see something unknown.
I want to continue playing Arm, but between this malaise of mine, lack of inspiration, and a slew of games that do a lot of things better it's tough to find my own motivation.
Quote from: titansfan on March 08, 2017, 12:48:44 PM
I personally do not think the game is in a persistent blah.
Just my two cents.
That's your opinion and unfortunately, your opinion alone that the game is doing well isn't going to get me back into the game. Before I even think about dedicating the amount of hours required to even start enjoying Armageddon on a daily/weekly basis, I need to 'feel' that my investment will be worth it. I gauge this kind of feeling from what I read on the GDB and from what my friends tell me (no, no big secrets, don't worry - beside, is there even any big secrets to talk about??). If the general 'feeling' of the GDB and that my friends are that nothing is happening in the game and that Arm has slowly turned into a giant and very well-described chatroom, then it certainly doesn't make me even want to try it out again. If all I see on the GDB are the usual parties/card games/auctions RPTs, then no, that doesn't want to make me want to log into the game either.
I need to 'feel' like something is happening, something grand or something super interesting that I just want to be part of it. I haven't felt that way in months and each time I give the game another shot, I just end up bored and as disappointed as I was before creating another character to give it yet another shot.
Storytellers should be made to tell a story, not to
react to player's stories. They are storytellers, not story-reactors (man, this is beautiful, I'm totally trademarking this line)
Thanks for sharing, everyone.
Also:
Quote from: Rathustra on March 08, 2017, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
I put in waaaaay too many requests, and wish up what I assume is a fair amount.
(http://i.imgur.com/bbJv4xW.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/Aws2q6D.gif)
I feel the only good solution now is yearly staff elections. But we're going to need some good protections against voter fraud ...
(http://luckypuppy.net/BLOG/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gorilla-Thought.jpg)
#BannedPlayersMatter
because I only need one shitpost in a thread:
Quote from: Melkor on March 08, 2017, 02:13:42 PM
You know millions of illegals will skew the votes, right?
:D
We're going to build a firewall and make Iron Realms pay for it.
You know millions of illegals will skew the votes, right?
:D
Regarding this whole issue..
Staff and players are all people. We all have the potential for great good and great dick-faceness. As a player, I try to do right in my own behavior, apologize if I fuck up, appreciate the staff when they are (frequently) awesome, shrug it off if they wrong me. I enjoy the game, so I will play. Worst case scenario, if conditions become too stifling for me, I could always take another decade-long hiatus.
Everyone should be more understanding with each other and put petty bullshit aside. The game is worth it.
Also this "blah" thing hurts my feelings because I like to play characters that shake things up.
Actually, it doesn't hurt my feelings, because I'm not a baby. But, it does make me wonder what people who feel "blah" are doing different than me.
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 02:18:06 PM
Also this "blah" thing hurts my feelings because I like to play characters that shake things up.
Actually, it doesn't hurt my feelings, because I'm not a baby. But, it does make me wonder what people who feel "blah" are doing different than me.
I'm going with "having different experiences both in game, and in life, that alters their perceptions of this game they play as an avocation".
Don't feel bad that people feel this game is in a malaise. There are SUPPOSEDLY 200 unique people who play the game. People are putting expectations on a game they love, that shouldn't be there. They are of the belief that this game they have played for years will continue to have the same draw and pull as it did when they were new.
Dungeons and Dragons is interesting with new additions, classes, rulesets, dungeons, etc. Arm has (and this isn't necessarily a complaint) had none of these, instead receiving massive reductions in order to "concentrate" the world a bit more. Some people are justifiably upset that the things they believed were possible once, no longer are, or that the things they HAVE done before have been taken away without a perceived benefit to the loss.
Armageddon is the anti-game. You have to write weekly reports if you want to be noticed AT ALL. You have to engender yourself to other people as well as the overseers of the world (staff). You're limited by what you can accomplish NOT by your skillset or personal abilities, but by some arbitrary ceiling put in place for flavor. But what it offers is absolutely unmatched roleplaying standards for the MUD world, and the best-run multiplayer Perma-death game I can think of (outside of Pathfinder).
I feel where staff get disconnected, is that they BY NECESSITY have to treat the game as work, and non-Producers basically have all the power of an ant in comparison to their Overlords. The whole administrative system went from Game-based to Corporate-based where those with the most involvement and drive are forced to wait on those whose interests in making decisions has waned.
Number of positive interactions with staff compared to negative ones over the 7+ years I have actively played over >40 PCs:
- Over 50 or so good replies to reports that encouraged me to at least keep going -- 5 or so amazing replies to reports which either asked me questions or gave advice and even guidelines for how to proceed or gave good answers to my questions -- vs maybe 10 or so not helpful (very short) or even discouraging replies, with only 2 or 3 replies being so negative that I wanted to just say fuck it, why do I bother? (All those supernegative replies were from a former staffyr
- At least 5 good experiences with imm animations, forced thinks/feels/flashbacks, or other imm interaction while in game -- no idea if this is a lot or a little -- sometimes for flavor, sometimes to facilitate clan activity. NO negative experiences with imm animations
- Over half a dozen accepted special app/extended app (mostly extended apps) -- just one declined Drovian app way back in the day, I now agree I was not really ready to play that role then.
- Maybe at most one rolecall application acceptances -- a handful of rejected ones, I don't care much about this really, but some players might get concerned about favoritism for rolecalls. It is not a problem for me, I enjoy elves and breeds and so on so much that I don't think I missed out
- half a dozen useful question request responses, maybe 2 or 3 snarky question request replies, nothing major there really, I chuckled, etc.
- two Rejected helper applications, dunno why staff doesn't want me nowadays, the first rejection was over some heated posts I did on the GDB within the year of my application so that is readonable.
- fair karma review replies. I didn't always get more karma on the request, but I did often enough to feel like my karma has generally been appropriate and fair for the last few years. FYI I have never gotten more than 4 karma (not gonna give the exact number) and I don't request karma review as often as is possible, I only did a request if I felt I had played enough since the last review to merit looking for signs of progress. So no complaints here
- Finally, one threat of forced storage (it was appropriate and I complied with that warning and the rest of that chara ter's life went dandy and even earned me positive account notes) and one actual forced storage (felt like staff was misunderdtanding the level of grief I was feeling over the character and looked too much into how I was emotionally handling of the IC events around that character based on analyzing my playtimes and what have you), both of whicg I learned from and haven't had any repeat incidents of that sort for 4 years now.
- maybe 4 or 5 PCs, at most, who were killed by imm spawned, imm animated NPCs, usually as a part of RPTs, sometimes as executions in the arena, and so on. I actually take this as a mark of pride, because in every instance those characters had storied lives and made impacts on dozens if not more other PCs. Staff even sent me a nice long farewell reply to a request after my first arena executed PC, congratulating me on having killed a few other PCs to end some plotlines, being involved in a criminal group, and ending it all with a bang, as well as recognition of the irony that the justification for execution was actually the one murder that assassin didn't commit. It was painful and intense initially but those thoughtful replies to my requests make a permanent difference in how I handled the loss of months of work on a PC. The staffers who sent me these thoughtful replies have all gotten staff kudos from me.
By sharing this I am illustrating how though there were negative things with staff, a lot of the negativity ended up being a useful lesson for me as a player and maybe even as a person, and that the overwhelming majority of experiences were positive.
I think burnout on player and staff sides is a huge problem here. I agree with everyone who wants more intrigue, more events, more changes, more options. (Malken) I think that staff need to think of new solutions to rulebreaking trends besides banning sprees, such as addressing the root cause of rulebreaking from a policy side rather than ramping up punishments on an already fragile playerbase, and I think the players could all use a step back and re analysis of the real issue here: we want to roleplay and to have meaningful stories told, we want a healthy community and game, and we want to matter. A lot of this can be done by us without any input from staff at all. Maybe we need more in depth discussion about the barriers to accomplishing these goals which may require bending the "discuss IC events" rule so that we can problem solve the stagnation and ennui. The vague allusions on this thread don't seem specific enough for changes to player AND staff behavior to happen.
Quote from: Feco on March 08, 2017, 02:18:06 PM
Actually, it doesn't hurt my feelings, because I'm not a baby. But, it does make me wonder what people who feel "blah" are doing different than me.
Playing For Honor.
It's true.
"Another example -- I was banned from the GDB for a week after stating 'maybe we should post our opinions on the shadow board, then'. I've never posted on the Shadow Board, but was banned for alluding to possibly posting on the shadow board. After attempting to post a retort to my ban on an alternate account, both accounts were banned for a month. I was told in my ban message it was 'unwise' to post such hyperbole, especially considering I am an ex-Staff member.
"
Didn't Nergal post something saying they don't ban people for posting over there or something but they do but they don't?
The only time I've been banned from the forums was when I took part in killing random Arm thoughts because of shit posting.
I've only been force stored once for breaking the rules. I've never been threatened with storage or anything like that.
I've read staff replies from things on the spooky shadow board and some of the things on there were kinda shitty to read. I could go full on conspiracy and suggest they are edited but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and think that people are shitty sometimes.
Why can't we all just be nice to each other.
I've been playing this game since the mid 90s off and on.
I've seen somethings 'good' (favorable to me) and 'bad' (not favorable to me) from staff over all those years. Me's salon might be the only one who I remember from when I first made a character.
Anyway, I'm going to say I only read maybe half this thread, I just wanted to say something that may be a non sequitur but I think applies.
I've been a DM/GM for about 22 years. I once ran a game for 10 people and it was a nightmare even with a co-GM. I can't imagine what it is like to do this with the largest split the group scenario possible even with all the co-GM people on staff.
I mean it has to be a nightmare most of the time.
I like to keep that in mind now that I have had that revelation when I get a response that seems curt or cutting. Cause I kind of get it from my own experiences.
Also text is the worst manner in which to convey tone in communication. Give responses the benefit of the doubt.
I'm willing to bet staffers have lost some of the fun and joy of the game since they have become staff. So...just realize they are sacrificing the time they could be playing to try to entertain you?
My random 2 sids.
I'm completely okay with debating with staff on their decisions and policies and viewpoints on the game.
I'm completely not okay with calling the longstanding rules of the game dumb altogether, accusing staff of purposely fucking things up, people telling each other that the game is dying because they didn't get what they want, etc.
And therein lies the root of this thread, I think. I generally have no problem getting 'open dialogue', it's just very frustrating when something can be very clear to me, but see the opposite of that vision of mine come to pass or be held more highly. And as I said in my other post, I think that happens just as often with other players on the GDB as it does with staff, if not more...so I'm not sure why there's an expectation for staffers to see everything exactly the same way as every single player when there's so much diversity in our playerbase that we argue for pages on whether or not Zalanthans wipe shit with their left or right hand.
Edit: It should be noted that the 'tone' of staff has indeed shifted drastically in my perception from days of yore. That's something I would change if I could, but that's kind of weird thing to ask of a cycling staff. My solution has been to be comfortable with my contribution to the game as me, and to only really engage staff in my events when necessary, or on a volunteer-to-do-work basis. It means that my personal relationship with them is generally more distant, but it also means I'm a lot less subject to taking things poorly. Of course, this may be because I'm okay with not having broad sweeping impacts on the game-world. People like to play that up as if it was so easy before and it's not anymore, but it never really was. The main difference is just that -small- change has been notarized to the point of being sluggish, making change itself a bad goal, and fitting into what's in place a more easily satisfied one.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 08, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
... My solution has been to be comfortable with my contribution to the game as me, and to only really engage staff in my events when necessary, or on a volunteer-to-do-work basis. It means that my personal relationship with them is generally more distant, but it also means I'm a lot less subject to taking things poorly. Of course, this may be because I'm okay with not having broad sweeping impacts on the game-world...
I scrolled over most of the arguing, especially any time I noticed a big generalization, speculation, something really vague, etc. It made the last three pages quite easy to read, skipping those.
Can BadSkeelz, Extraplanar, and Lizzie give me an estimation of how this, heh, 'open dialogue' is going so far? That'd give me a good cross section, methinks.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 08, 2017, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 08, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
... My solution has been to be comfortable with my contribution to the game as me, and to only really engage staff in my events when necessary, or on a volunteer-to-do-work basis. It means that my personal relationship with them is generally more distant, but it also means I'm a lot less subject to taking things poorly. Of course, this may be because I'm okay with not having broad sweeping impacts on the game-world...
I scrolled over most of the arguing, especially any time I noticed a big generalization, speculation, something really vague, etc. It made the last three pages quite easy to read, skipping those.
Can BadSkeelz, Extraplanar, and Lizzie give me an estimation of how this, heh, 'open dialogue' is going so far? That'd give me a good cross section, methinks.
We've had "discussions" like this several times in the past. It's going pretty much how it always does. Every once in awhile people feel the need to vent. So they do. And that's fine. The thread will likely be dead before the weekend is over, because threads like these never last all that long. They just crop up a year or two later, with the same general complaints. It shouldn't be surprising really, since this is pretty much what happens on any game forum. It's not exclusive to Armageddon.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 08, 2017, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 08, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
... My solution has been to be comfortable with my contribution to the game as me, and to only really engage staff in my events when necessary, or on a volunteer-to-do-work basis. It means that my personal relationship with them is generally more distant, but it also means I'm a lot less subject to taking things poorly. Of course, this may be because I'm okay with not having broad sweeping impacts on the game-world...
I scrolled over most of the arguing, especially any time I noticed a big generalization, speculation, something really vague, etc. It made the last three pages quite easy to read, skipping those.
Can BadSkeelz, Extraplanar, and Lizzie give me an estimation of how this, heh, 'open dialogue' is going so far? That'd give me a good cross section, methinks.
roughly this:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/gsDkdhjje8Xra/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPtVnq4tGCuEhAA/giphy.gif)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/9d9e45e4bab7d553e798feff4613ca6c/tumblr_np1k4eyu6u1tr6pz0o1_250.gif)
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on March 08, 2017, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 08, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
... My solution has been to be comfortable with my contribution to the game as me, and to only really engage staff in my events when necessary, or on a volunteer-to-do-work basis. It means that my personal relationship with them is generally more distant, but it also means I'm a lot less subject to taking things poorly. Of course, this may be because I'm okay with not having broad sweeping impacts on the game-world...
I scrolled over most of the arguing, especially any time I noticed a big generalization, speculation, something really vague, etc. It made the last three pages quite easy to read, skipping those.
Can BadSkeelz, Extraplanar, and Lizzie give me an estimation of how this, heh, 'open dialogue' is going so far? That'd give me a good cross section, methinks.
Meh. Like Lizzie says, these threads come periodically. I would read Riev's posts if you want a more concise summation of one form of dissatisfaction. Not necessarily mine, but one I've seen in others too frequently of late.
Me? I don't know whether I'll play Stellaris or For Honor when I get home.
I feel like some people will never be happy unless staff steps up and says "yes, we're corrupt horrible people who hate you and want to make your life miserable," and then they'll say, "AH HA, I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!", and then... well... then what?
The level of paranoia I see from some players is far beyond what I've ever, in my grouchiest moments, applied to staff.
Believe me, I've had it out with staff - you should see the way Nyr and I duked it out. You should've seen the grouchy griping and bitching I've done. Heck, you can, go look at my posts from a couple years ago. I've been there, and I've done that, the "being mad at the nebulous entity that is staff" thing. There's things I still get kinda angry about, years later, if I dwell on it, and start talking about it. So... I don't do that. That sort of stuff belongs in the past. Forgive, forget. That goes for both players and staff.
You can be angry that Tommy messed up your brand new couch when he got really drunk and puked on it, or you can realize shit happens and Tommy did pay for it to be cleaned so why hold it against him five years later? People make mistakes.
Thing is, there isn't a whole lot being angry will accomplish. Yeah, you can write in a request, and air things out - and that can be good, really, if you can keep a civil tongue and if your goal is actually to clear the air. In the end, though, the only thing that will help is this: be like Elsa and let that shit go. And that part, the letting go, is what I think people have so much trouble with.
If you let it go, and realize that hey, maybe that sense of drama and vindication just isn't worth it, you'll be happier.
Sometimes, we get frustrated because we've been around for Ages(tm) and we remember things being this way, that way, the other way, and I do think that's something both camps can be aware of, and try to modulate some; when things change behind the scenes, make sure players know, if it will effect the way they've been used to operating - and veterans, just realize that the game is going to evolve in the 20+ years of its existence, and you can either accept that, and work with it... or not.
Sometimes, it's frustration that the game just doesn't fit in our life like it used to, for whatever reason it boils down to.
It's not always easy to remember the good stuff when it's human nature to focus on the bad. Moments of frustration or imperfect wording or differences of opinion over this or that get blown up to enormous magnification while all the good things get forgotten, or ignored. On both sides of the aisle. I've been accused of meaning ill when I actually meant well - of insulting people when I was trying to give honest, constructive feedback, and due to phrasing and timing, it was taken the opposite - it happens. Let it go.
So. I've seen a lot of positive come out of the current staff administration, and while I may have opinions or suggestions or disagreements with them, I've never felt punished for that. That's not very satisfying if I was someone looking for an excuse to be angry, or looking for justification to be still stewing over past hurts, but it's very satisfying if you're trying to...
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/02888c453c3377420689ba7a0838a77c/tumblr_nj5g0aOJkM1r83d7lo1_540.gif)
So that's my advice to people pursuing an - let's be honest - ultimately pointless agenda among nerds on the internet.
I suppose the moral of the story is -- Every time this discussion comes up, it's usually surrounding a few veteran players leaving the game. Some of those players end up having enough distance from their issues with Staff that they end up coming back and sticking to playing the game. Maybe they'll be back in a year or two, or ten (in the case of Melkor). Maybe they won't. Losing players and veterans of this caliber makes to lessen the game itself. It seems a shame it's mostly due to attrition and butting heads with Staff.
It's ultimately a player's decision if they are going to continue playing ArmageddonMUD -- But on this two way street, there is quite a bit Staff could do to help their player retention and there is always work they could do with their optics (both in the request tool, and on the forum). Pushing players to the point of quitting is a net negative for the game, the players, and Staff. Maintaining an easy-going, kind, understanding attitude on both sides leads to a net positive.
I hope Staff takes a look at some of these grievances and discuss amongst themselves how they might better approach their communication with the player-base, via the Request Tool, directly with players. We can all spin a pretty picture on the GDB (or a picture that best suits us, myself included).
Also fuck magick.
Well, you a lot of you guys seem very happy with things. I'll just drop it. Or let it go. Whatever.
edited out a next level meme
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/ead95d67421b8ff46d3777dbc1b5b2ed/tumblr_myxiq7MsmT1rs11txo4_r1_250.gif)
I can't force myself to be enthusiastic about the game anymore. Of course, that street goes two ways. Staff can't make me be enthusiastic, either. I don't think I expect anyone from staff to say they are rotten, corrupt people, though. I guess I just want to see a commitment to empathy and a steering away from a punitive focus and towards nurturing a positive environment. Punishment should be geared towards preventing problems in the future, not towards proving power over someone or lessening their enjoyment of the game or hurting their experience. I'm not saying that's staff's mindset, but I do think they could keep the real purpose of punishment more in mind. They could reach out to players who feel slighted and at least show them that they understand their frustration and try to work with them to find a fair solution. I know some people will never think anything is fair if it doesn't go 100% their way, but I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about reasonable people who love this game and make an attempt to be communicative with staff and not antagonize.
I think we have enough players popping in and saying, "Look, it's hard to be staff. You should appreciate what they do and cut them some slack." I agree, but I don't think that every criticism I or others make of staff should have to be "balanced out" in that way. Any staff reading my request history will see that I have always tried my best to be respectful and understanding of the work load. I think I have said and done plenty to prove that I don't just have it out for staff and I'm not just looking for reasons to be angry and hate them.
I would be delighted to move on and forget about all of it. I'm trying to do that now. However, this thread exists and is relevant to my feelings about the game right now, so I'm posting on it.
Edit to add: It would be easy to look at my situation and think that sleepyhead is just a spoiled brat. I had six karma and I now have five--still way more than many will ever have. Big whoop. I had one character out of dozens stored that was a privilege to play to begin with. I was told I could work to earn back my karma and that I am still considered to be a good player overall. Maybe I am just hard to please. Maybe I do just want things to go exactly my way or I throw a tantrum. But I know there are others who have more reasonable complaints, and being able to listen to constructive criticism and evaluate it is important for any relationship, including the staff-player relationship.
I've been pretty sick the past few days, and it's only getting worse, hence the lack of replies to this thread today. Sorry. I'm going to pop on to write a message now though.
So what I've noticed the past couple of years, and while studying similar issues, is that in a society which trends toward equal treatment for all, the people who were previously treated better than everyone else begin to feel discriminated against when they are treated equally to the people that were previously treated worse than everyone else.
It's no secret that longtime players of Armageddon and players that staff liked were given boons that other players did not get. I'm talking beyond the (ideally) meritocratic scale of the karma system, to outright favoritism on the side. When these players found that the rules are beginning to apply to them in ways they hadn't before, they tended to get annoyed that their special treatment was gone. Although equality is, on its face, a good thing, it's only really good for those who stand to gain from it, and not so much for those who stand to lose (except, perhaps, in their conscience).
So one main consequence of the game's administration becoming fairer (and as a side-effect, more bureaucratic) is that people who used to be able to cut the line, so to speak, weren't able to cut the line anymore. People who used to be able to get staff to look away when they broke a rule or when they outright lied about what they did or didn't do, weren't able to do that anymore.
A lot of veterans that leave due to unfair treatment are really leaving due to less favorable treatment - but they're getting the same treatment that newer players get, which is truly fair, though understandably frustrating to a player that once held privilege. And it still takes into account the length of time they put into the game, for example, by having the benefit of the doubt for an 8k player that breaks the rules just once. But when it keeps happening over and over, or when someone in a sponsored or otherwise limited role breaks the rules at all, it becomes a problem that staff needs to address and can't just be swept under the rug like it used to be. I'm slightly sympathetic toward that, but I think it's vastly preferable for the interests of retention to not have a privileged class of players that are judged differently from everyone else when they do something wrong.
I am, however, very sympathetic to veterans that just don't "feel it" anymore - who think the game itself is failing or stagnant, rather than the bureaucracy surrounding it. I think players who feel this way should say what they wish staff and other players would do to fix this problem, rather than just state it as fact. This goes beyond rule enforcement and communication with staff, to what's actually happening (or not happening) in game.
Delirium, I would be happy with an outcome that falls one (much less snarky) step short of that.
Please...
Stop pretending that every time a trusted, experienced, level-headed player expresses outrage over being steamrolled by a hamfisted staff decision, they're just being whiny.
Stop being okay with them leaving over it.
Stop reacting with a brush-off and a shrug to these numerous grievances over a dozen years, to the prevalent belief across the larger MUD community that Armageddon's single greatest flaw is its staff attitude.
Please stop insisting that it's the fault of the wronged player for taking their game too seriously. That mentality goes both ways. Cool your jets when you see a player doing dumb stuff. Say yes to lame ideas more often. Backspace across that store command the next time you think a plot went the wrong way and completely getting rid of it seems like an easy shortcut to fairness.
Loosen the moderation some. In October I joined the "what ever happened to" thread with two names. Nergal deleted one. No explanation. It wasn't exactly Voldemort, guys. I thought nothing of it at the time but after hearing "we don't moderate except when someone breaks the rules," I started to wonder. When does that actually apply? The same goes for the statement about force storage. Knowing some storage circumstances, I ask, "do they really believe that was AT ALL right, or does the secretive nature of the request tool mean they don't even have to care?"
Please reflect, guys. There's no reason not to take a step back and reconsider, at least for a few minutes, the remaining fragments of a possibly harmful staff culture.
Without remembering your post, it was likely the name of a living character.
We're not going to discuss other players' situations on the GDB, as I've said multiple times. It would be appreciated if players, in turn, did not discuss their side of the story as if it was the only one, as this takes advantage of the fact that we're not going to have a counter-argument trying to explain, out of protecting player privacy.
If that character still lives I'll eat my hat. And nobody would even say so anyway, violating the rules about still-living characters, so why not just leave it unanswered? The point is, a heavy hand is used with less thought and careful regard than you seem to think.
I've seen post disappear that I then essentially repeat (maybe cut out a curse word or two) and they stick around. I don't have a ton of faith in the evenness of GDB moderating. Hell, I've never even been banned and I'm a neanderthal. Is it because I tend to adhere closer to Staff-line/"conventional wisdom" than others in some subjects (like whether to care about long-banned but crazy vindictive players)? Maybe.
Quote from: Nergal on March 08, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
I've been pretty sick the past few days, and it's only getting worse, hence the lack of replies to this thread today. Sorry. I'm going to pop on to write a message now though.
I'm sorry. I'm in the same boat as you right now, and it's no fun. Get well soon.
Quote from: Nergal on March 08, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
So what I've noticed the past couple of years, and while studying similar issues, is that in a society which trends toward equal treatment for all, the people who were previously treated better than everyone else begin to feel discriminated against when they are treated equally to the people that were previously treated worse than everyone else.
I think you are right. I am no doubt one of those. I have acknowledged that I am a bit of a spoiled Arm brat who cries the first time she gets her dolly (deservedly) taken away. I'm sure that's a factor with others as well.
Quote from: Nergal on March 08, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
It's no secret that longtime players of Armageddon and players that staff liked were given boons that other players did not get. I'm talking beyond the (ideally) meritocratic scale of the karma system, to outright favoritism on the side. When these players found that the rules are beginning to apply to them in ways they hadn't before, they tended to get annoyed that their special treatment was gone. Although equality is, on its face, a good thing, it's only really good for those who stand to gain from it, and not so much for those who stand to lose (except, perhaps, in their conscience).
So one main consequence of the game's administration becoming fairer (and as a side-effect, more bureaucratic) is that people who used to be able to cut the line, so to speak, weren't able to cut the line anymore. People who used to be able to get staff to look away when they broke a rule or when they outright lied about what they did or didn't do, weren't able to do that anymore.
A lot of veterans that leave due to unfair treatment are really leaving due to less favorable treatment - but they're getting the same treatment that newer players get, which is truly fair, though understandably frustrating to a player that once held privilege. And it still takes into account the length of time they put into the game, for example, by having the benefit of the doubt for an 8k player that breaks the rules just once. But when it keeps happening over and over, or when someone in a sponsored or otherwise limited role breaks the rules at all, it becomes a problem that staff needs to address and can't just be swept under the rug like it used to be. I'm slightly sympathetic toward that, but I think it's vastly preferable for the interests of retention to not have a privileged class of players that are judged differently from everyone else when they do something wrong.
Are you sure it's all fair, though? Just because things are done according to a system doesn't mean the system itself is fair. I understand that a big reason you guys updated the rules recently was so that everyone knows where they stand and what happens when a rule is broken, so that no one can say they were treated unfairly. But reading those rules just makes me feel that the atmosphere here is oppressive and unforgiving. Is that what we want in the name of equal treatment?
I don't think there should be a privileged class of players, even if sometimes it makes me feel like I've had my dolly taken away. I think every player should be given the benefit of the doubt. However, I do think that a player's history should matter--if a person hasn't had any prior black marks, if they've always been respectful, if they've always tried to work with staff in a positive way without being demanding, shouldn't that count for something? I don't think we should hold people's prior behavior against them if they've made an effort to change, but I also think if someone has shown themselves to be a good person we should be assuming the worst of them. Here "assuming the worst" would mean insisting that you need to punish someone severely (or in a way they interpret as severely) in order to stop the behavior. Whether they are teacher's pets or not, I would personally advocate cutting players slack if they have shown themselves to be honest, forthcoming people that care about the state of the game.
Maybe that's unfair or favoritist. I don't know. But it seems a lot more human, and I think we need that humanity.
Quote from: Nergal on March 08, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
I am, however, very sympathetic to veterans that just don't "feel it" anymore - who think the game itself is failing or stagnant, rather than the bureaucracy surrounding it. I think players who feel this way should say what they wish staff and other players would do to fix this problem, rather than just state it as fact. This goes beyond rule enforcement and communication with staff, to what's actually happening (or not happening) in game.
So you would prefer if people communicated in a less overbearing "I'm-right-and-you're-wrong" way? The way people phrase things matters and makes an impression? Great. I think we are all in agreement here.
(Sorry for the snark, but I couldn't resist. Guess it's kind of ironic that I tried to make a point about being polite and sensitive by being an asshole, but oh well.)
Bahliker: The point is that posters would draw attention to the fact that the character was still alive or had very recently died, whatever the case may be (whether you believe me is irrelevant to me - it's the only reason I'd moderate that thread, so make of my reasoning what you will).
Not every moderation is for rule-breaking, though every rule-breaking does get moderated. Not every moderation carries with it a punishment either. Sometimes we do need to suppress discussion of a character that is alive but no one knows is alive. In other words, don't take a post edit personally, and ask questions if it's unclear why a post was edited instead of letting it stew in your head for several months that you were wronged somehow.
I think the moral of the story is that we're too damn invested in the game not to get worked up over it.
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-how-much-more-grievous-are-the-consequences-of-anger-than-the-causes-of-it-marcus-aurelius-8688.jpg)
Nergal, if you want to discuss other reasons why players leave the game, should we make a separate thread for discussing all the clan/city/race removals over time and discuss that, because that is also a very commonly cited reason for players leaving.
This thread is focused so far on staff/player trust and communication, so maybe it should be a new thread.
Most of my enthusiasm left with the magick main guilds. I've never seen myself as an excellent RPer but I did like to RP to fill in the time I wasn't skill grinding because that's where I get a lot of my enjoyment.
I've pretty much dropped Arm for a different mud at this point that I can skill grind in. I miss branching but it's not too hard to get skills on the new mud.
I know I haven't been around long enough to be spoiled, I think it's been about 3 years since I started playing. I just have 0 interest in noble/merchant characters or interactions with them, and that really seems to be where the game is headed. I'll just keep logging in sporadically to farm skills when I'm bored and to see what's going on. I continue to check these boards with hopes that there will be changes to the magick guilds or some other addition to the game that excites me.
Not sure if you're plain oblivious or too feverish to remember straight. I don't think you're outright lying. So I'll say get well soon. I too have been ill and it's such a miserable thing.
I wouldn't say I stewed about this. I assumed that it had to do with an uncomfortable situation caused by a problem player (the guy was a tool) and put it out of mind. Until this thread, and your claims herein, when it became clear that the only self-policing going on amounts to you saying that everything is fine and we just need to check our privilege.
Is this not why people go to jcarters forum? Raising issues in private isn't raising issues at all, and discussing them publicly, here, nets us little more than a firm denial that there's any current wrongndoing.
Quote from: Bahliker on March 08, 2017, 08:04:52 PM
Delirium, I would be happy with an outcome that falls one (much less snarky) step short of that.
See...? Phrasing! (Are we still doing phrasing?)
I was trying to be lighthearted and straightfoward and it was taken as being snarky - so - that just goes to show.
If you have a legitimate gripe - and they absolutely do exist - then discuss it with staff. Stay levelheaded, stay polite, and you WILL make progress. But staff is not our punching dummy (and players are not staff's punching dummy, either). We all get frustrated, and ideally, we should handle that however it most effectively keeps us from doing and saying unwise things... but staying frustrated is problematic. Staying frustrated over something that has happened and can't be changed is self-defeating. Grandstanding about it on the GDB isn't really going to accomplish anything but cause people to oooh and aaah and break out the popcorn. That's of course, like, my opinion, man.
Quote from: Bahliker on March 08, 2017, 08:45:37 PM
Not sure if you're plain oblivious or too feverish to remember straight. I don't think you're outright lying. So I'll say get well soon. I too have been ill and it's such a miserable thing.
I wouldn't say I stewed about this. I assumed that it had to do with an uncomfortable situation caused by a problem player (the guy was a tool) and put it out of mind. Until this thread, and your claims herein, when it became clear that the only self-policing going on amounts to you saying that everything is fine and we just need to check our privilege.
Is this not why people go to jcarters forum? Raising issues in private isn't raising issues at all, and discussing them publicly, here, nets us little more than a firm denial that there's any current wrongndoing.
It's disappointing that that's what you got out of my effort to dialogue with you and with players here but I can accept that you disagree. I have said multiple times that staff are still imperfect and need a responsible playerbase to check our power through reasonable discourse.
Alrighty. So. Here's my observation of this thread so far.
Some people are molified by the staff response.
Some are not.
Some are unmollified, because they are unmollifiable (it's a word. Shut up).
Some are unmollified, because Staff's response of, "It's not really as bad as some are trying to portray" is not enough for them. In some cases this is due to specific instances that they've been part of that, perhaps only in their heads, show direct proof that it really is as bad as some are trying to portray.
To deal with this problem one requires more information. Providing more information is complicated, because these are public forums and staff tends not to air their own AND other player's dirty laundry in public. So their only real tangible response is, "Let's discuss this in requests".
I assume some believe that taking the grievances to requests is not an option, mainly because they think that once the discussion is in private, it'll get steamrolled, request resolved, and nothing achieved. Some believe that because their uncle's brother twice removed said that's going to happen. Some, I assume, say that because it was their own personal experience.
This is putting us at an impasse. Some people are not happy and some of those people love the game enough to want to discuss solutions to these problems. But a proper discussion on the GDB is difficult due to the amount of sensitive, personal, and individually targeted information that requires to be discussed.
What is the solution? I'm not asking how staff should change. I'm sorry, but I dont think any of us, staff included, truly know how and into what. We have an idea. But color that idea with everyone elses ideas, plus some emotion, plus some reluctance, plus some grandiose lack of being reasonable, add some desire to see it all burn, and it's a mess that will produce no clear result, or course of action.
What can we do to have a dialogue that offers the amount of information needed? Do we need that dialogue?
What if current players provide a blanket full permission to have their laundry aired out. Request conversation review in public. Is anyone willing to volunteer? The grieved person would describe their situation and problem as they know it, with staff permission, paste the request tool conversations regarding this. Provide as much backstory as they are capable. And then staff would provide their side of the story regarding this situation. There is a risk that the player will be embarrassed. We often see ourselves as righteous, and Staff might dunk that player into the depths of shit, by simply choosing not to hold back the information that they possess/logged. We might lose this player. Or ... perhaps vindicate them. We might also ruin some secret sides of ongoing plots. But ... if all the participants are willing, then perhaps it's a sacrifice that needs to be made. Just this one time. Just this one thread.
This by the way, has happened with me IRL. When an employee of mine often griped about a certain situation enough to begin causing disharmony amongst staff. I've simply laid out that employee's own actions, no holding back. Things that the person thought to be unknown, while the management knew well and simply chose not to allow those things influence anything, due to pointlessness of it all. This has embarrassed the person greatly. Enough for him to leave within a few months, just due to the sheer loss of popularity amongst his peers. By refraining to participate in that person's rhetoric, I was protecting that very person. Mainly because he did some very good work.
I'm not saying that this is the situation with people here. But ... you know. Think of these possibilities if you were to let's say volunteer to be the person to have this public laundry airing discorse with staff regarding a request tool interaction that made you either lose heart in the game, become demotivated to login, or quit the game completely.
Would it be possible? Would this be desired? To have a few "example" conversations. Like Railoth's situation and whatever is it that made him lose heart. Just a step by step examination. First, we'd begin by getting approvals and agreements. First from Railoth, then from other players potentially involved. Then an approval and agreement from staff to allow the players to post necessary information here. Then Reiloth's own explanation of what happened, how did it happen, what was discussed, what conclusions made, what actions taken, and finally ... the results. Then an equally detailed explanation from Staff. With explanation of why such and such decision was made, perhaps some logs of discussions regarding the issue. And then once everything is aired out, we'll let the playerbase read it and decide for themselves if this loss of morale is actually fictional and self generated, or there are true reasons for it.
I dont suggest we do this over every grievance. But if a few of them get posted, chewed out, and demonstrated. Then perhaps the playerbase will clue in that at the end of things, the staff is actually dealing with situations well. And we should stop second guessing shit with our own limited knowledge, and our own limitless emotion, and just let everyone do their part.
Am I making any at all sense in what I'm proposing here? I'm not even certain.
I think the discourse has been reasonable enough. I hope everything said so far is considered going forward. I apologize for attacking you there re: being feverish or oblivious. You frustrate me, because it seems that you're blindly discrediting each complaint, each attempt at reasonable discourse, as either veteran players upset about losing privilege, or as mentally unstable players just trying to get under your skin, or as uninformed players upset about something because they can't know the whole story. At the same time that you say the system is fair, you say that the staff is imperfect and still makes mistakes. These mistakes seem kinda frequent for a fair system. I contend that the system is largely overlooked and that lingering elements of a contentious culture lead otherwise rational and fun-seeking people to willfully make those mistakes.
I don't know man, just say we will do better, don't dismiss people's complaints out of hand, and I'll be happy and quiet.
Quote from: Bahliker on March 08, 2017, 09:32:03 PM
I think the discourse has been reasonable enough. I hope everything said so far is considered going forward. I apologize for attacking you there re: being feverish or oblivious. You frustrate me, because it seems that you're blindly discrediting each complaint, each attempt at reasonable discourse, as either veteran players upset about losing privilege, or as mentally unstable players just trying to get under your skin, or as uninformed players upset about something because they can't know the whole story. At the same time that you say the system is fair, you say that the staff is imperfect and still makes mistakes. These mistakes seem kinda frequent for a fair system. I contend that the system is largely overlooked and that lingering elements of a contentious culture lead otherwise rational and fun-seeking people to willfully make those mistakes.
I don't know man, just say we will do better, don't dismiss people's complaints out of hand, and I'll be happy and quiet.
I didn't get that at all from Nergal's posts. I see that he made statements to that effect but the context in which he said them is different from what you seem to be "accusing" him of. It's almost as though you were cherry-picking bits and pieces of his post, to support the interpretation you -want- to have, rather than seeing the whole for what it actually is. I don't know if you did that on purpose or not, but that's what I'm getting from -your- post. And I think Nergal is being pretty patient, if he is interpreting it the same way I am. I'd have zero patience for that, if it was directed toward me.
As for Dar - the only way the staff would be able to even consider your suggestion, were in isolated situations that had zero effect on any OTHER player/character, in game or out of game. I'm guessing Reiloth was playing a character involved in something, that involved other characters, played by other players. And something happened. Discussing it openly would require discussing more than just Reiloth's part in it, and it would also be revealing things to players that might still have characters who were involved in the situation.
Do we really want to turn the game into a GDB expose on "what this player did or did not do?" I mean other than for the juicy gossip aspect of it, it's really none of our business. I know I wouldn't want my situations aired publically by someone else. And if new players showed up and the latest page was page 11, and the conversation was already going on and they never got a chance to see the "I agree to this conversation about my account and character history" part on page 10, don't you THINK it'd scare them away? It'd scare the piss out of me, that's for sure. I'd never start playing a game where I risk being humiliated by the staff on a public forum for making stupid mistakes.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 08, 2017, 09:52:22 PM
Do we really want to turn the game into a GDB expose on "what this player did or did not do?" I mean other than for the juicy gossip aspect of it, it's really none of our business. I know I wouldn't want my situations aired publically by someone else. And if new players showed up and the latest page was page 11, and the conversation was already going on and they never got a chance to see the "I agree to this conversation about my account and character history" part on page 10, don't you THINK it'd scare them away? It'd scare the piss out of me, that's for sure. I'd never start playing a game where I risk being humiliated by the staff on a public forum for making stupid mistakes.
Do we? I dont know? I find this whole thread silly. But Railoth, Harmless, SuchDragonWow are players I respect. In some instances, these players taught me how to be better. Or at least made me think, "Mmm. I should really try to make as much effort as these do ... naaaaaaaaaaaah" Point is, they are solid players. Solid players that made the game fun for 'many'. And from what I'm reading, they're not overflowing with happiness. So ... I dont know. I'm personally okey. But ... feels like we should do 'something'. Suggestions welcome, Lizzie.
While I don't think your idea would work, Dar, you hit the nail on the head with the root of the problem. Transparency is necessary for real fairness. Opacity is necessary for the game to function as designed. Game admins don't have to be fair, but there's no reason not to be. Or to expect them to be. Or to culminate the reactions to a series of questionable decisions into a public discussion about it all.
Having the discussion here is important. It'll happen somewhere.
People's situations are all interconnected. It would be extremely hard to allow your own dirty laundry to be assured in public without betraying someone who didn't necessarily give consent.
EDIT: Tl;dr Saying a lot of veterans are slowly going away due to their interactions with staff is the result of preferential treatment going away is demeaning, misdirecting, and a prime example of being overly defensive to the point that it will hurt relationships with other players. Some people leaving have had plenty of communication scenarios of all types, enough to know the difference between good and bad interactions from staff. Please don't do that.
Eh. I will say I find the reasoning of 'Some people are just upset that they're not being shown preferential treatment' to be a...very inaccurate synposis. That's not what's been described. And you're free to disagree, but I've seen some behaviors and decisions that were pretty preferential via staff's chosen involvement in certain things and their reaction to having wrenches thrown into those things they're involved in. I've seen non-bugs described as bugs because they didn't work the way you wanted them to at a certain time, despite said code being long-lasting and resulting in poor results before and there being a huge amount of ways for that situation to be avoided; but suddenly, in this case, it was justified as something other than what it's always been, which is player error. This is dangerous when it creates precedence, which some of these actions have and do, which leads to further entanglement down the line when that new standard is asked to apply to a bunch of new things. (Yes, this has to be vague.)
There is a reason that I tend to call the current staff arbitrary, and it's because in watching the course of changes, seeing decisions made, and seeing the discourse, I have a hard time finding a true standard at this point. If someone asked me OOC about a death they had that was iffy, I can no longer tell them whether a resurrection is or isn't likely. If someone asked me in OOC if they could make this plot happen, I can no longer tell them reliably if it would be well-received or not. If someone asked me in OOC if they could get a decent conversation about this change, I can no longer tell them if they'll get it or just get shut down in two sentences after waiting for two weeks. Because it's going both ways on all of these things. I think that kind of inconsistency, whether it's preferential or not, leads to grievances, whether it be with in-game actions, out of game actions, GDB actions, or anything.
But as I've been saying, I'm not holding you to some golden standard of perfect behavior. That would be silly. But the perception of these sorts of things don't just spring up and explode out of nowhere. It's not a board of people (who gripe about everything) stirring up unrest, it's people wanting you to realize that you can acknowledge your fallibility all you like, but when you treat them poorly and then defend it until they just stop talking about it or until you get frustrated and say no more talking it doesn't leave confidence in future interactions. That's it.
As far as what to actually -do- about it, who knows? But I do know when you have a movement of veterans all moving away over time, these are not people saying 'You aren't giving me preferential treatment anymore'. They know the shit of this jungle. Every veteran I know has situations they -know- they got slapped down because they deserved it. We accept that fallibility, we try to correct it. Just...try to do the same, I guess, with more than lip-service? Build relationships. Do the long conversations staff used to do with us over email, but with your request tool, rather than just shutting it down. Hell. Don't let them stew over their request for 2 weeks about it.
Reiterating. I'm not much of a dissenter because I keep my distance, but dismissing the concerns of people who have played for 10, 15, and 20 years as 'they stopped getting preferential treatment' is pretty low. I'm a little buzzed, so some of that wording may be off. Forgive that please, because it really is meant to be less aggressive and more...like pointing out a situation where you've done exactly what people have already complained about in the thread. No one holds this golden standard of where staff does everything they want and never comes after them, so the complaint that something happened is probably more based in a real situation than a perspective shift on their part.
It's true, I'm not 'overflowing with happiness.' My own personal angst is just some sweeping decisions/changes staff made that I frankly wish were reversed. Should be obvious what those are. However, those things are balanced with the goodies staff have handed out. Since I tend to be long lived it's kept me busy enough that I can overlook the losses the game has had, but I will never forget them. Those are disagreements with staff, but in their actions they have been polite enough and understanding at least of our sorrows. Some of that understanding led to more gifts, like a new spell. I know that content is coming slowly, but it's at a pace that works for me, since I take so long to explore new game content anyway.
But yeah. I'm not overflowing with happiness, for sure.
Quote from: Nergal on March 08, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
I've been pretty sick the past few days, and it's only getting worse, hence the lack of replies to this thread today. Sorry. I'm going to pop on to write a message now though.
So what I've noticed the past couple of years, and while studying similar issues, is that in a society which trends toward equal treatment for all, the people who were previously treated better than everyone else begin to feel discriminated against when they are treated equally to the people that were previously treated worse than everyone else.
It's no secret that longtime players of Armageddon and players that staff liked were given boons that other players did not get. I'm talking beyond the (ideally) meritocratic scale of the karma system, to outright favoritism on the side. When these players found that the rules are beginning to apply to them in ways they hadn't before, they tended to get annoyed that their special treatment was gone. Although equality is, on its face, a good thing, it's only really good for those who stand to gain from it, and not so much for those who stand to lose (except, perhaps, in their conscience).
So one main consequence of the game's administration becoming fairer (and as a side-effect, more bureaucratic) is that people who used to be able to cut the line, so to speak, weren't able to cut the line anymore. People who used to be able to get staff to look away when they broke a rule or when they outright lied about what they did or didn't do, weren't able to do that anymore.
A lot of veterans that leave due to unfair treatment are really leaving due to less favorable treatment - but they're getting the same treatment that newer players get, which is truly fair, though understandably frustrating to a player that once held privilege. And it still takes into account the length of time they put into the game, for example, by having the benefit of the doubt for an 8k player that breaks the rules just once. But when it keeps happening over and over, or when someone in a sponsored or otherwise limited role breaks the rules at all, it becomes a problem that staff needs to address and can't just be swept under the rug like it used to be. I'm slightly sympathetic toward that, but I think it's vastly preferable for the interests of retention to not have a privileged class of players that are judged differently from everyone else when they do something wrong.
I am, however, very sympathetic to veterans that just don't "feel it" anymore - who think the game itself is failing or stagnant, rather than the bureaucracy surrounding it. I think players who feel this way should say what they wish staff and other players would do to fix this problem, rather than just state it as fact. This goes beyond rule enforcement and communication with staff, to what's actually happening (or not happening) in game.
Hi Nergal,
I bolded the relevant bits of your response. A few quick questions:
Am I a liar?
Am I an 8 Karma Player (And Ex-Staffer) who is a one time liar, or a habitual liar?
Is it shocking that someone would be upset when you force stored a PC of theirs when they didn't break any of the rules of the game? When they asked for clarification if a Staff policy had changed?
Is it preferential treatment to respond politely (and with detail) to a request for clarification from Staff, to only be called a liar, that these are 'flimsy excuses', and that asking for clarification to a Staff policy is considered 'letting accusations fly'?
The confusing thing about your statements here (beyond a 'truly fair' system, which lets be honest -- The players should be the judge of that, not the Staff) is that you are basically saying 'people who have 8 karma are treated with preference over people without 8 karma'. Isn't that exactly the point of earning karma? You are earning trust with Staff? You are able to play guilds and races that are otherwise unavailable to people who do not have the same level of karma (trust)?
I understand that you are looking into revamping the karma system -- but saying that people with 8 Karma are basically 'privileged' and treated 'preferentially' is putting the onus on them, almost shaming them for having 8 karma. It makes them wonder -- Did I earn karma because of my merit, or am I being perceived as some sort of 'Staff Pet'? Your statements here completely refute the veracity of the karma system as a whole.
The onus is on you, as Staff, to either trust players or not to trust them, and to accord them the merit of karma earned, or not. I think it's absolutely bogus that you think there are 8 Karma players that are one time liars, habitual liars, and abusers of their positions. It's incredibly crass of you to say this, not only of me, but of other recently departed veterans. The onus is on you to treat everyone fairly, with empathy, and kindness. Given the opportunity to be punitive, you should resort to methods that make the party aware of why a decision was made, and how they can improve in the future, instead of slamming the door in their face and saying "Sorry that didn't work out for you".
If my recent treatment is an indication of your new truly fair system -- Good luck holding on to new or veteran players.
By the way -- I have absolutely nothing to hide, and would have no problem with the entire recent request chain being revealed. I think it would be a pretty troubling read for many people. However, out of respect for other players, I wouldn't, and won't, in any respect. I'm not going to pop up on the Shadow Boards suddenly with 'all the info'.
Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.
I need to support Reiloth here. I'm also a former staffer and though I've personally never had a significant problem with the administration I have witnessed a decline in staff-player relations which, despite the Shadowboard madness, I think is primarily due to staff culture.
I don't know exactly what the malignancy is but it's there. It was there when I staffed (and I probably contributed to it). Hell, it was there long before I even started playing, but it's definitely gotten worse in the past few years.
Nergal, I think many players and staff have tried to fix the problem and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. People are speaking up more and more not because they are merely disgruntled or disenchanted - they're actively trying to keep this ship from sinking. The fact is that players can only change so much. There is a big culture problem staff side which really is on you and the other producers, administrators, and storytellers to fix.
How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?
Quote from: Yam on March 09, 2017, 03:26:35 AM
I need to support Reiloth here. I'm also a former staffer and though I've personally never had a significant problem with the administration I have witnessed a decline in staff-player relations which, despite the Shadowboard madness, I think is primarily due to staff culture.
I don't know exactly what the malignancy is but it's there. It was there when I staffed (and I probably contributed to it). Hell, it was there long before I even started playing, but it's definitely gotten worse in the past few years.
Nergal, I think many players and staff have tried to fix the problem and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. People are speaking up more and more not because they are merely disgruntled or disenchanted - they're actively trying to keep this ship from sinking. The fact is that players can only change so much. There is a big culture problem staff side which really is on you and the other producers, administrators, and storytellers to fix.
How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?
Best post of the thread.
I think Nergal is definitely seeing trends. But he's also missing trends. The trends he's missing, things he's leaving out, are the things that people here on the GDB are harping on. The things he's seeing, the people posting here are complaining aren't the problem. And yet - they are. They are one of a few problems, and Nergal is definitely seeing it.
Here:
1. The game has changed and what used to be acceptable or at least tolerable is not acceptable anymore. So the people who used to get away with things because they had proven trustworthy in other ways, are no longer being allowed to get away with them. This speaks to a previous post or two in this very thread, when someone said something about how for years, people could do this that and the other, but all of a sudden they find themselves banned for it.
2. Nergal specified that "a lot of" veterans leave for that. He didn't say all. So Reiloth, relax. If it doesn't apply to you, then you're not among the group Nergal refers to as "a lot of" veterans. You're among the other veterans. He's not calling you a liar. I, however, am calling you overly defensive. You don't even need to read between the lines. Just read the lines themselves and you'll see that if you weren't banned for doing something you'd been able to do before, then this part of his post has nothing to do with you.
3. I think what Nergal is missing most, is that a lot of the stagnation is caused by veterans who are gone. No matter why they're gone, they're gone. And our game is stagnating because of it. Staff members leave and have to be replaced, and you're culling the new staff from the better players that are still active. That leaves us with fewer better players to play with. This means that the remaining better players have to be the leaders - all the time. They have to run the clans. All the time. They have to spark interest for others. All the time. They really can't just relax and play an uninvolved independent nobody, because it ends up being a solo experience. Previously, an independent nobody stood a good chance of getting caught up in someone ELSE's plotlines. Now, not so much, because chances are, they ARE the other person who would be making "someone else's plotlines" and they just don't feel like doing it this time around.
A player can only be "on" only so often before they have to sit back and say "okay it's your turn. Entertain me." And if there isn't anyone else around with the capacity to do that - things stagnate.
So the solution to the problem of stagnation is to figure out a way to get some of these veterans back. My personal recommendation is one that no one likes, even though I think it's fine. CREATE rolls with some of those veterans in mind, and invite them back to play those roles. GIVE them preferential treatment. I've posted this previously, either in this thread or another. But I believe 100% in the concept of preferential treatment for trusted players. There SHOULD be a different set of rules for them, because they have proven they can handle it responsibly. GIVE that full-on sorcerer main-guild role to a player. Let that other player be that true Whiran. To hell with the rules of "fairness" - if he can suck Templar Amos out of Tuluk, onto a mountain, and take over his corpse and send it back animated, and act the part out believably enough to convince his fellow Tulukis, then he's doing a GOOD JOB and should be commended for it - not have the spell nerfed due to being overpowered.
Spells aren't overpowered. Non-judicious use of spells are overpowered. If someone abuses a spell, don't let them play that role anymore, and give it to someone else. Don't just take the spell away from everyone.
This is what I perceive as being the problem. The game gets changed whenever someone abuses something. You ban the player, and the game is changed to forbid anyone else from abusing it. And all the people who weren't abusing it, or had no interest in abusing it, or wanted to be the victim of someone abusing it just to see it for the coolness factor - are deprived of that opportunity.
You don't have to ban the player. You just tell the player "yes, the code allows you to do that but I'm asking you not to because we consider that particular use of the code abusive." If they do it again, store the character and don't let them play that particular option again for awhile until someone else has a chance to "lead by example."
Announce that you're going to do this on a going-forward basis, stick with it, be sincere, really mean it. Send out e-mails to those you have banned for these kinds of infractions, letting them know you still mean that they shouldn't use the code in ways it wasn't actually intended to be used anymore. Let them know that they may come back - their FIRST return character will have no karma, no special app. If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.
This should appease all the players who think "that player did bad things and my character suffered for it, ban him!" and it should appease all the players who think "I just did what everyone else did and I got banned for it!"
This will address ONLY a certain type of player who is no longer playing. It won't address any of the other ones.
For players who were members of the other forum - well if they never shit-posted there, or went on diatribes, or copied/pasted account notes or e-mails from/to staff, then I say just send them a sincere apology. You can liken it to a carousel. The motor was burning, the ride was going too fast for the staff to be able to accurately and fairly keep track. So you had to shut it down and kick the riders off. Now that you've given the motor a chance to cool off, you can start it back up. And you are SORRY that you chose them to be the riders on that ride with the motor that was already starting to burn when you started it up that day.
Welcome back, if you want to be, you can return with whatever karma you had prior to the fallout, and we hope you will allow us this do-over.
And - seriously - allow players to play full-on sorcerers, full-on whirans, full nilazis, rukkians, krathis and vivaduans. If you have to restrict it to speclal-app or sponsored-role-invite-only even if they have the karma for them, then fine. But please return them to the list of possible roles.
"How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?"
I feel like there are two sides to this thread with little inbetween besides the occasional "I think staff is doing -something not very significant- wrong but they could fix that ily staff"
1: The quote from above
2: The "staff are volunteers things are getting better don't worry about anything" side.
Maybe even a third "I don't really care for the situation" side.
Seeing as people seemed to have extremely shitty interactions with staff it's no surprise they'd lean to the first little number, and I don't know if most people who are on the second 'side' have had shitty interactions with staff but I don't really care for it.
I'm glad people have had good interactions with staff and greatly respect them.
I'm not glad that people have had absolutely shitty interactions with staff that completely go against every post Nergal has put up.
I'm not glad Nergal seems to be mass deflecting things
-"Was years ago" This implies the problem doesn't really persist
-"Just want to be treated the same as before" This implies that issues don't exist at all
-Other stuff
Most of the situations people seem to be mad about aren't "I used to be able to get a wagon wheres my wagon waaaahhhh"
It's
"I spent time and effort and was told by staff I could get a wagon and they said fuck off"
Or maybe they should have been told from the very first character report they couldn't get a wagon?
Maybe it isn't even the whole wagon thing. Maybe it's an exchange with staff, as in Reiloth's case.
Maybe it's being killed by a staff vnpc because no other pc is strong enough to kill yours and the 'vnpc world' would have had to take care of you, even though your own characters wouldn't ever be able to get that strong.
There's a lot of good stuff in this thread and it seems to have remained civil, which I like.
Someone that made a rollcall on the forums for 'rinthi elves advertised his roll call on the shadowboards, which I thought was pretty funny.
Will he get banned for that?
He hasn't shared any information on his rollcall.
If I got on some other forum and said "hey guys I'm playing this cool game named Arm come join and play with my elf" Would I get banned, if the first case would lead to me getting banned?
" If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.
"
I think this is a very good idea.
Doesn't look like something that would happen.
Quote from: Reiloth on March 09, 2017, 01:05:26 AM
Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.
I cannot stress enough that we already do this. I will however amend my previous statement on force-storage. While force-storage is always done according to rules, it is also very rarely used to take a character out of the game that should be out, e.g. to kill a character that should be dead but used improper means to avoid death. I can think off the top of my head of about 5 instances of this in the past ten years - that is how rare it is.
That is all I really have to say on the subject, and I didn't want to bring that up because it trends into the "specific case" issue that I wanted to avoid out of respect for players' privacy and immersion here, that I'd hoped people with a legitimate concern would contact staff for clarification about. Since that's not happening, I've said it outright.
If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
Quote from: Reiloth on March 09, 2017, 01:05:26 AM
Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.
I cannot stress enough that we already do this.
If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.
I don't believe you. If you are interested in changing my mind, how about you take the effort and email me.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 09, 2017, 06:46:54 AM
I think Nergal is definitely seeing trends. But he's also missing trends. The trends he's missing, things he's leaving out, are the things that people here on the GDB are harping on. The things he's seeing, the people posting here are complaining aren't the problem. And yet - they are. They are one of a few problems, and Nergal is definitely seeing it.
Here:
1. The game has changed and what used to be acceptable or at least tolerable is not acceptable anymore. So the people who used to get away with things because they had proven trustworthy in other ways, are no longer being allowed to get away with them. This speaks to a previous post or two in this very thread, when someone said something about how for years, people could do this that and the other, but all of a sudden they find themselves banned for it.
2. Nergal specified that "a lot of" veterans leave for that. He didn't say all. So Reiloth, relax. If it doesn't apply to you, then you're not among the group Nergal refers to as "a lot of" veterans. You're among the other veterans. He's not calling you a liar. I, however, am calling you overly defensive. You don't even need to read between the lines. Just read the lines themselves and you'll see that if you weren't banned for doing something you'd been able to do before, then this part of his post has nothing to do with you.
3. I think what Nergal is missing most, is that a lot of the stagnation is caused by veterans who are gone. No matter why they're gone, they're gone. And our game is stagnating because of it. Staff members leave and have to be replaced, and you're culling the new staff from the better players that are still active. That leaves us with fewer better players to play with. This means that the remaining better players have to be the leaders - all the time. They have to run the clans. All the time. They have to spark interest for others. All the time. They really can't just relax and play an uninvolved independent nobody, because it ends up being a solo experience. Previously, an independent nobody stood a good chance of getting caught up in someone ELSE's plotlines. Now, not so much, because chances are, they ARE the other person who would be making "someone else's plotlines" and they just don't feel like doing it this time around.
A player can only be "on" only so often before they have to sit back and say "okay it's your turn. Entertain me." And if there isn't anyone else around with the capacity to do that - things stagnate.
So the solution to the problem of stagnation is to figure out a way to get some of these veterans back. My personal recommendation is one that no one likes, even though I think it's fine. CREATE rolls with some of those veterans in mind, and invite them back to play those roles. GIVE them preferential treatment. I've posted this previously, either in this thread or another. But I believe 100% in the concept of preferential treatment for trusted players. There SHOULD be a different set of rules for them, because they have proven they can handle it responsibly. GIVE that full-on sorcerer main-guild role to a player. Let that other player be that true Whiran. To hell with the rules of "fairness" - if he can suck Templar Amos out of Tuluk, onto a mountain, and take over his corpse and send it back animated, and act the part out believably enough to convince his fellow Tulukis, then he's doing a GOOD JOB and should be commended for it - not have the spell nerfed due to being overpowered.
Spells aren't overpowered. Non-judicious use of spells are overpowered. If someone abuses a spell, don't let them play that role anymore, and give it to someone else. Don't just take the spell away from everyone.
This is what I perceive as being the problem. The game gets changed whenever someone abuses something. You ban the player, and the game is changed to forbid anyone else from abusing it. And all the people who weren't abusing it, or had no interest in abusing it, or wanted to be the victim of someone abusing it just to see it for the coolness factor - are deprived of that opportunity.
You don't have to ban the player. You just tell the player "yes, the code allows you to do that but I'm asking you not to because we consider that particular use of the code abusive." If they do it again, store the character and don't let them play that particular option again for awhile until someone else has a chance to "lead by example."
Announce that you're going to do this on a going-forward basis, stick with it, be sincere, really mean it. Send out e-mails to those you have banned for these kinds of infractions, letting them know you still mean that they shouldn't use the code in ways it wasn't actually intended to be used anymore. Let them know that they may come back - their FIRST return character will have no karma, no special app. If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.
This should appease all the players who think "that player did bad things and my character suffered for it, ban him!" and it should appease all the players who think "I just did what everyone else did and I got banned for it!"
This will address ONLY a certain type of player who is no longer playing. It won't address any of the other ones.
For players who were members of the other forum - well if they never shit-posted there, or went on diatribes, or copied/pasted account notes or e-mails from/to staff, then I say just send them a sincere apology. You can liken it to a carousel. The motor was burning, the ride was going too fast for the staff to be able to accurately and fairly keep track. So you had to shut it down and kick the riders off. Now that you've given the motor a chance to cool off, you can start it back up. And you are SORRY that you chose them to be the riders on that ride with the motor that was already starting to burn when you started it up that day.
Welcome back, if you want to be, you can return with whatever karma you had prior to the fallout, and we hope you will allow us this do-over.
And - seriously - allow players to play full-on sorcerers, full-on whirans, full nilazis, rukkians, krathis and vivaduans. If you have to restrict it to speclal-app or sponsored-role-invite-only even if they have the karma for them, then fine. But please return them to the list of possible roles.
Best post of the thread, imo.
Playing a good leader is hard and not always fun. If someone is generating plots and fun for half the playerbase, and is consistently active, I'd say it's OKAY for them to have their dolly. It's okay for them to break through the glass ceiling and craft a wagon or whatever. Give them vanity items, skill boosts, spells they couldn't otherwise get on their CURRENT character. Rewarding these players, who put in the work and spin the carousel for everyone else, is favoritism for the very best reasons I could think of, and perfectly acceptable imo.
These players, and what they do, are good for the game. We need them. And we need them back.
I also 100% support inviting them back with super special sponsored roles.
Quote from: Reiloth on March 09, 2017, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
Quote from: Reiloth on March 09, 2017, 01:05:26 AM
Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.
I cannot stress enough that we already do this.
If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.
I don't believe you. If you are interested in changing my mind, how about you take the effort and email me.
I've edted my post to better reflect what I'm trying to say:
---
I cannot stress enough that we already do this. I will however amend my previous statement on force-storage. While force-storage is always done according to rules, it is also very rarely used to take a character out of the game that should be out, e.g. to kill a character that should be dead but used improper means to avoid death. I can think off the top of my head of about 5 instances of this in the past ten years - that is how rare it is.
That is all I really have to say on the subject, and I didn't want to bring that up because it trends into the "specific case" issue that I wanted to avoid out of respect for players' privacy and immersion here, that I'd hoped people with a legitimate concern would contact staff for clarification about. Since that's not happening, I've said it outright.
If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.
---
Though to be frank, if you're going into this not believing me, I'm not going to be set on changing your mind. In fact, I'm not set on changing anyone's mind here. I'm set on explaining staff actions within my ability and within the principles and guidelines staff have. It's up to you (general you) to take what is said and think for yourself.
I would believe you if you showed an ounce of humility in admitting the grievances brought up here have legitimacy.
Instead, veterans with 8 Karma are privileged brats.
Interesting amendment. Would you have amended without being called out on it?
Adding to my post above - here's a suggestion for preventing a situation where 10 leader / plot generating players would be eligible for dollies and special rewards, too many for staff to handle.
Instead of having a plot raffle, announce that there will be 3 (or however many staff can handle) 'player spotlight' positions at any given time. The three active players who generate the most fun and plots for others are eligible for a spotlight position and will hold it for X amount of time, and during that time, will get super special staff attention from staff as a whole - so there would be no 'staffer X's favorite player'. The entire staff team would choose these players together.
After X amount of time, the spotlight could switch to different players if they are more eligible than the previous ones.
Possible criteria for choosing spotlights:
-How active is the player (playtimes / consistency)
-How many PCs (rough estimate) are affected by their plots
-Etc.
Or you could randomly choose the winners from a pool of 10, or however many are eligible. Consistent activity should be a requirement though.
Quote from: Reiloth on March 09, 2017, 08:58:59 AM
I would believe you if you showed an ounce of humility in admitting the grievances brought up here have legitimacy.
Instead, veterans with 8 Karma are privileged brats.
Interesting amendment. Would you have amended without being called out on it?
I'm not sure why you're trying to insult me or why you're sticking words into my mouth. I already explained I did not include it previously because I felt it would give too much of a hint to other players on who aggrieved people in this thread played. Would you prefer that staff simply gave information on players' private cases openly? I can assure you the discussion would be significantly more messy if we did not have any qualms about that. But we do, so we do withhold information from time to time to keep things civil.
I want to see Reiloth's request and answers. He says staff called him a liar when he presented his facts.
I'm willing to think that Reiloth may be exaggerating a tad but since he rage-quit for a reason right after posting how amazing Armageddon was and how exciting it currently is and that all should be playing it, there has to be something more than just Reiloth having a random fit for being told 'no'.
Let Reiloth post about his situation then.
Was it done according to the rules?
Was he stored according to the rules?
Is it even related to that?
Nergal says "Yes it's always done like that"
People say it obviously isn't?
So who's the liar here?
"Would you prefer that staff simply gave information on players' private cases openly?"
If both people agree then why would it matter much?
Quote from: Jihelu
What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?
That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me
That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: Jihelu
What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?
That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me
That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".
Oh...
I'll edit my post then, thanks for the clarification.
I do think there's definitely some animosity between Reiloth and staff, and unfortunately the situation is unlikely to turn public so whichever side was wrong, will be wrong in private.
The privacy of the Request Tool is necessary. Yes. I believe that in far more cases than not. However, "take it to the Request Tool" really seems to be a Clarion Call to browbeat and make claims as an entity, to a single person. Its very daunting.
On staff's side, I WILL say a particular recent staffer of mine was VERY open about my first reports about how <the thing I wanted> was VERY unlikely to happen, which I could then respond with "Yes, I understand. Its something the CHARACTER wants, and wishes for, but I know OOCly its very unlikely to happen". And it didn't, and I knew it, but it was nice to hear it right from the beginning.
I'm a little chafed by the "people want to be treated like they were before" because while I understand what Nergal means, it was a number of veterans who made the world come alive, usually through that privilege and favoritism that made their characters feel so alive. Nothing says "follow this guy" more than a few room echoes from staff.
I have a serious question, though
Nergal mentioned that we, as players, have to keep staff honest. Can you describe the manner in which we are capable of keeping staff honest? What tools do we have, when situations cannot be made public, there is no "internal affairs" or "non-staff arbitrators" who can come in and seem neutral? I'm not being snarky, I want to know the tools you feel we have, so that we can discuss and use them openly.
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: Jihelu
What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?
That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me
That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".
Historically this isn't 100% accurate. Some have been told (in less than cordial terms) that "If you continue this path, you'll be promoted, and players cannot be Red Robes/High Templars/etc." Which, yes, is an option, but it sounds more like "You want to follow your characters path, but at a certain point your character will be beyond the play of you, as a player, so you're stored".
Its less "You asked for this" and more "You didn't prevent this"
Well, that kinda sucks even more.
As he said historically I'm going to assume this isn't the case most of the time, or atleast hope so, but I'd hate to be playing a Templar well and get a message saying "Hey you should be careful or you'll get promoted which means killed" In the 'I can't play this character' again sense.
I'm not a fan of the 'too powerful to play' mentality but that isn't what this thread is about so I'll refrain from mentioning it again.
Quote from: Riev on March 09, 2017, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: Jihelu
What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?
That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me
That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".
Historically this isn't 100% accurate. Some have been told (in less than cordial terms) that "If you continue this path, you'll be promoted, and players cannot be Red Robes/High Templars/etc." Which, yes, is an option, but it sounds more like "You want to follow your characters path, but at a certain point your character will be beyond the play of you, as a player, so you're stored".
Its less "You asked for this" and more "You didn't prevent this"
The one instance I can think of that happening, it was a case of a humanoid PC following a path that would result in them no longer being humanoid - and thus unplayable. And yes, it's another of those instances where I didn't want to say anything before to prevent speculation on "no longer humanoid" but now suddenly have to.
I'm guessing you're talking about half/full elemental?*
Is that even sensitive information? It hints/mentions it on the old site. About 'becoming one' or whatever the quote says
Then again I guess it's mentioned on the old site and I'd be more inclined to be mad if it was mentioned on the newer docs, especially if it didn't say "hey maybe becoming an elemental being is a bad idea (get storerinod)"
*If it's not OH BOYYYYYYYYY thats some juicy lore stuff.
In which case I can see why you wouldn't mention it.
I'd like to point out something that we might be losing sight of in all this sound and fury.
Players and staff have always had arguments like these. In fact, abuse was a lot more rampant Back In The Day.
Yes, a lot more Cool Stuff happened - but it often led nowhere, or was fairly arbitrary - and led to a lot of complaints while it was happening. It's only looking back, through rose colored lenses, that those days are looked on with so much fondness.
While I'm not a fan of cumbersome bureaucracy and red tape, and while the system we may have now is not perfect, and should absolutely continue to be evaluated and adjusted as time goes on - perhaps even loosened up some! - things are better.
MUCH better. It is far easier to hold people (including staff) accountable these days.
You can actually have a dialogue with staff - you can send in reports and have records of them - dude, I remember the days of sending in emails never getting a response whatsoever, or even a "read report"! Of losing plots entirely because of that.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that while things may not be perfect let's remember they were never perfect.
There was a free and loose sort of fun anarchy to "ye olden days", but let's not forget the downsides in our nostalgia for the upsides. It's funny really, as time passes, the annoyances get forgotten and the fun memories remain, and vice versa.
Disagreements happen and staff can make mistakes just as players do - and both sides should own up to it when they do. However, your approach matters. If you're angry, bitter, if you're unwilling to compromise, nothing good will come of it.
Quote from: Jihelu on March 09, 2017, 10:19:23 AM
I'm guessing you're talking about half/full elemental?*
If its the situation I'm thinking of, no, and that one... while the player was massively upset, I can understand the reasoning behind it. Even the player eventually got over it and understood, they just disliked that their attraction to someone's RP (despite them being a "baddie") was what got them there.
Things HAVE gotten better with "lateral" moves and such for Templars. Coming up with things you are the "go to" guy for is a great help, but there's only so much "You come to me if you want to do any... property purchases!" before it gets a bit redundant. Qynar in Tuluk was a start, but there wasn't enough care, competition, or short-term noticeable change (man though, Red Sun Commons. So good).
I just wanted to point out the "You aren't stored BECAUSE you're a Red Robe. You're stored because players cannot PLAY Red Robes" idea. In the past, it was never put forward as a "If you continue to do this, we will have to store you because at that level, we don't allow Players to represent the character". In my limited experience, its more of a "okay if that's what you want, here are the consquences; storage".
""okay if that's what you want, here are the consquences; storage"."
Which I think is kinda poopy. I can't think of a single game that hurts you for becoming strong.
It is what it is I guess....
I'd like to know what Nergal meant, and Riev mentioned last page, about players policing* the staff.
Since we apparently can't air dirty laundry, do we just go on the forums and say "Staff was mean to me" and get told "uh no they actually weren't"
It seems this thread has been a lot of
"Staff does this"
"But they don't"
"Well I didn't want to hurt anyones feelings but here's this ONE TIME where it happened differently look at what you made me do, exposing such a thing"
*Keeping staff honest, policing, same thing probably.
Idk
I feel like Nergal has been lowkey rude this entire time but I think it's more just of his typing style. I think it's just the dirty laundry comment.
It's in the same way I feel people think I'm highkey rude all the time but I'm only trying to be shittily funny ;.;
Players can hold staff accountable through staff complaints, through posting in threads like this one, through writing reviews on MUD listings, and probably other ways I can't really think of right now.
I'm not sure how my posts read as rude. I'm trying to hold a dialogue with players. If players would generally prefer that I stop trying to talk to players and address their concerns then I will stop.
So our ways of keeping staff honest are telling staff privately.
Posting in this thread where you may stop posting in.
Or writing reviews that let the game die.
This isn't very good.
Staff complaints generate discussion staff-side on behavior and can spark change in how staff does things if something a staff member did was truly wrong.
I'll stop posting in the thread if players want me to. I get the sense from having to consistently reiterate what I'm saying that my presence here is not helpful. I would rather continue to post if players want to continue the discussion.
Reviews on anything help publicize an issue, and I recommend writing a negative review of the game if you think it deserves one. I would suggest exhausting all other options first, of course, but I'm not going to lie and say it's not an option aggrieved players have. (I recommend writing a positive review of the game if you think it deserves one, too.)
Not posting is definitely not going to help anything.
Outside of that I'm finding that I'm more or less starting to repeat my self because no one's replies are changing.
I'd like to know about Reiloth's situation. Is it up to him whether he posts about it or not? Is it against the rules for him to post what happened?
If it is, I'm completely fine with him not posting about it in specifics if he doesn't want to.
If he isn't allowed to, I think people knowing about situations akin to his or his in general would be needed/nifty/useful.
It's not specifically against the rules to post about a discussion between players and staff, though such a post can be against rule #2 and/or #5 depending on the content of the post and how it is edited. http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.0.html
Understand that if specifics on a situation are discussed, staff will take that as an invitation to reply in-kind.
"5. Do not post sensitive game information, including information about your character, other characters, plots, or magick/psionic mechanics."
So he could post about in the -whatever- as long as it doesn't directly relate IC?
Meaning back and forths and what not, if I'm reading this right.
So if me and Nergal started arguing in request tool about my character, I would not be able to post anything that IS about my character but IS about us going back and forth.
Is this correct?
I kind of feel bad for you, Nergal, because you're the only Staff member (aside from two new ones who I had never heard about before they posted here) actually speaking with the plebs. And to be honest, even though you hold the title of Producer, I don't think you matter much in the grand scheme of things compared to Nessalin and Adhira, who, in my honest opinion, probably could go against 3/4 of the rest of the Staff and apply whatever set of rules they want without asking the rest of the staff members what they think about it and no one could do anything about it.
Before you it was Nyr who held that role.
I also want to see Reiloth's situation exposed - if he was truly called a liar for exposing his side of the story, then this is pretty bad. If he was exaggerating, then chances are that most other people saying they have truly bad experiences with Staff in the last year or so are also exaggerating.
Otherwise, I'll think it's just BS as usual from both sides and that this thread will eventually die out and nothing will have changed.
My last final stab at this thread...
Negativity breeds negativity. See also: sneaky hate spiral.
I'm out. The game is so much more fun without the GDB.
Quote from: Delirium on March 09, 2017, 12:25:02 PM
I'm out. The game is so much more fun without the GDB.
Stop saying things like that - with all due respect, nobody cares. Reiloth was posting on how amazing the game was prior to having a bad experience with staff and then proceeded to swear that he was gone for good and changed his pwd to make sure of it. Then he pops back into this thread just a few days later.
You're 'out' of the GDB or this thread until you also have your next bad experience with Staff and then you'll probably share your complaint with us like the rest of these posters are currently doing - you just don't have any -recent- bad experiences to speak of so it's easy to come and preach to the posters here how we should act for the greater good of the game.
You, like most of us, had tantrums on the GDB and while you may currently have learned how to deal with it, you're just a bad experience away from your next GDB tantrum.
Said with peace and love because I have absolutely nothing against you but I know how the human mind works :)
this is why sponsored roles are the best
QuoteI'm not sure how my posts read as rude. I'm trying to hold a dialogue with players. If players would generally prefer that I stop trying to talk to players and address their concerns then I will stop.
I don't envy you. My posts/communiques also come off as far more aggressive than I want them to, which has led to things between me and staff before. I'm trying to contribute in ways that are not witch-hunty, which is likely how this feels about now. Mostly, I think it would be very healthy to drop a nod of public acknowledgement and a public 'press conference' post that is not about defending staff position, but explaining the current ethos for it and why it can be abrasive. Issue simple apologies in private to those who you think you may have given the perception that they were slighted, but don't invite them being able to bully you; anyone who wants to bully staff is a problem, but those who want to reconcile and reach common ground are not. Undo some long-term or permanent bans that are based on GDB behavior. The GDB, for what it is, does not need to be people with matching ideologies or perspectives, and if people get pissed off at each other, that's a-ok. We all need thicker skin, not a staff team that coddles us like a big brother on discussion forums. All other forms of moderation I consider fine and necessary (i.e. Keeping discussions on topic, removing outright flame posts with a message why but not necessarily a ban so much as a public acknowledgement/shaming [Removed Armaddict's post for baiting and flaming staff], IC info, etc etc etc).
Then consider something new. If the big deal here is transparency, and we're having issues with jcarter's forum because of what purpose it serves for players vs what some of those players use it for where it is harmful for the game, you could consider a player-run subforum that requires approval from a player-elected player before the posts show up, one topic for each staffer, and it's a public review forum for staffers to know how they're being perceived. -- There should be no staff replies in this thread, but they can open up request-tool dialogues with posters to resolve issues, leading to edits and additions.
Edit: Note, this would be an awesome way to remove staff kudos from the request tool and have it become public instead.
That's a weird one, but I'm not pushing for it. I'm saying we should emphasize a change that addresses concerns that are brought up consistently, but balance it between the needs of both sides. The request tool, while nice, is just a crappy medium for a lot of people at this point, and maintaining privacy seems to be increasing unrest and removing discourse rather than promoting it.
This was sent to me a by a user on the forums, I've heavily edited things to remove information of current pcs. I'm also going to vague the fuck out of the first 'situation' as pc's may have been there, but not so much that it becomes hard to follow.
If this is true, which I see now reason for them to lie, this is heavily fucked up.
"I was (Shadowboard username). It was ironically, (Ex admin) the storyteller, along with another storyteller erasing the entire content of a post I made and actively mocking me which led me to the shadow forums, the complete stripping of my karma and the subsequent ban. I still get my posts deleted when I post a picture of who I am in the player photos thread. And there's places where it's responded to by others that haven't been deleted, a silent testament to the formerly existing post. That said, I want badly to respond to the dialogue thread, but know it will be deleted again, no surprise, and I would likely be banned again, no surprise. Here's a few of the things that've happened to me in the past six months. These are less than a year old so I can't post them, of COURSE.
Staff animated an npc that demanded a necklace from my character and called her a whore an extreme amount of times. When other pcs came to the rescue soldiers were animated to say they didn't give a fuck. This was followed by an animated of a bartender to tell me I was fucking a pc in the roastpits and to talk about about how she was dressed. My character wore only leather and cotton which covered her from chin to ankle, wrist to wrist. When I put in a complaint about it, Nergal told me she should have expected that response due to how she was dressed (covered chin to ankle) and how she was acting (only pc she'd been intimate with was her current mate as she was actually a rape victim from her bio and they were in a committed monogamous relationship).
Then, on my very NEXT pc, I had an npc byn sergeant animated to come into the latrines and tell my female pc to suck his cock as that was all she was good for. She pointed him toward a pc in the unit who was actually whoring on the side but male, and was told, and I quote 'You're all whores'."
If any part of this contained relevant ic info feel free to edit it.
If I wind up banned or something that'd be rather inconvenient so pls no.
Seeing as I removed all references of names from the first situation outside of pcs that may have been there, and if the first situation is removed for that reason that's a okay with me, there shouldn't be any sensitive info there.
The second part is pretty straight forward and seeing as it only includes a staff animation and a pc that is now dead/stored I don't see how that could be considered sensitive.
If anything, this all seems kinda sexist/anti-zalanthiasish.
Quote from: Jihelu on March 09, 2017, 01:27:04 PM
This was sent to me a by a user on the forums, I've heavily edited things to remove information of current pcs. I'm also going to vague the fuck out of the first 'situation' as pc's may have been there, but not so much that it becomes hard to follow.
If this is true, which I see now reason for them to lie, this is heavily fucked up.
"I was (Shadowboard username). It was ironically, (Ex admin) the storyteller, along with another storyteller erasing the entire content of a post I made and actively mocking me which led me to the shadow forums, the complete stripping of my karma and the subsequent ban. I still get my posts deleted when I post a picture of who I am in the player photos thread. And there's places where it's responded to by others that haven't been deleted, a silent testament to the formerly existing post. That said, I want badly to respond to the dialogue thread, but know it will be deleted again, no surprise, and I would likely be banned again, no surprise. Here's a few of the things that've happened to me in the past six months. These are less than a year old so I can't post them, of COURSE.
Staff animated an npc that demanded a necklace from my character and called her a whore an extreme amount of times. When other pcs came to the rescue soldiers were animated to say they didn't give a fuck. This was followed by an animated of a bartender to tell me I was fucking a pc in the roastpits and to talk about about how she was dressed. My character wore only leather and cotton which covered her from chin to ankle, wrist to wrist. When I put in a complaint about it, Nergal told me she should have expected that response due to how she was dressed (covered chin to ankle) and how she was acting (only pc she'd been intimate with was her current mate as she was actually a rape victim from her bio and they were in a committed monogamous relationship).
Then, on my very NEXT pc, I had an npc byn sergeant animated to come into the latrines and tell my female pc to suck his cock as that was all she was good for. She pointed him toward a pc in the unit who was actually whoring on the side but male, and was told, and I quote 'You're all whores'."
If any part of this contained relevant ic info feel free to edit it.
If I wind up banned or something that'd be rather inconvenient so pls no.
Seeing as I removed all references of names from the first situation outside of pcs that may have been there, and if the first situation is removed for that reason that's a okay with me, there shouldn't be any sensitive info there.
The second part is pretty straight forward and seeing as it only includes a staff animation and a pc that is now dead/stored I don't see how that could be considered sensitive.
If anything, this all seems kinda sexist/anti-zalanthiasish.
Wow. I am not even sure where to begin with that. Considering that I have pushed gender equality pretty heavily on the GDB and through animations in-game I'm disappointed that I'd be accused of sexist behavior.
I am familiar with who sent you that PM because I'm familiar with that narrative when it was sent in as a request. But that is not an accurate description of what happened at all. I'm not going to embarrass the player by reiterating what they were told via request, but I definitely did not say that to the player and a cursory inspection of my response to the player will reveal that, should the player wish to re-read that.
It should suffice to say that staff absolutely do not engage in sexist behavior in-game.
Just from the way it is written, there's no way I can take Jihelu's posted 'example' seriously.
That kind of post is why it'll be hard to take future examples more seriously.
I mean, come on.
It doesn't seem like it targeted YOU, Nergal. And, tongue in cheek, I don't believe any staff would purposefully come in and be an asshole like that, specifically because staff animations don't tend to come in the form of NPCs anymore, if ever at all.
What is more likely (IF STAFF WERE INVOLVED) is that they created a new regular PC to fuck with another player, outside of their multi-login.
Its still shitty behavior, and its nice to see soldiers "not caring" but I've seen soldiers care a whole lot about lesser problems.
I don't think the story rings true at all. That is my totally uninformed opinion, which of course has no gravity because I know nothing about the situation.
I guess the only reason I'm saying this is so that people don't think all people who complain about staff interactions are willing to grasp at any possible straw or story to demonize staff.
Well, now I'm damnably curious. What exactly went down? That's a pretty hefty thing to set aside as 'nonsense' and only give a vague 'that is not how it happened' and expect people to be sated with. I mean, I understand respecting the person's privacy, but this is a legitimately vitrol-packed indiction, my dude.
Some more details would allow for a better sifter so that we can tell the spice from the stones, you dig?
It's hard to believe that a NPC would be animated for the specific purpose of browbeating a PC into surrendering their necklace unless it was made from metal or actually a templar's medallion. If there isn't more to this story that was deliberately left out then I'd be very disappointed.
I feel like if something like that actually happened I would have heard about it through the grapevine by now. Especially the purported incidents with other player witnesses.
I'm guessing the PC engaged in public sex, which is looked down on by the owner of the place they're doing it.
But "from what you're wearing" and "yeah well listen to this person because you did stuff in my cooking pits I didn't like" seem like the worst reasons to animate an NPC. But it wouldn't be the first time someone who engaged in public, in your face mudsex or craziness got focused on either by staff or players who recognize them. I can think of a few players who have been OOCly targeted like that.
Quote from: Jihelu on March 09, 2017, 01:27:04 PM
This was sent to me a by a user on the forums, I've heavily edited things to remove information of current pcs. I'm also going to vague the fuck out of the first 'situation' as pc's may have been there, but not so much that it becomes hard to follow.
If this is true, which I see now reason for them to lie, this is heavily fucked up.
"I was (Shadowboard username). It was ironically, (Ex admin) the storyteller, along with another storyteller erasing the entire content of a post I made and actively mocking me which led me to the shadow forums, the complete stripping of my karma and the subsequent ban. I still get my posts deleted when I post a picture of who I am in the player photos thread. And there's places where it's responded to by others that haven't been deleted, a silent testament to the formerly existing post. That said, I want badly to respond to the dialogue thread, but know it will be deleted again, no surprise, and I would likely be banned again, no surprise. Here's a few of the things that've happened to me in the past six months. These are less than a year old so I can't post them, of COURSE.
Staff animated an npc that demanded a necklace from my character and called her a whore an extreme amount of times. When other pcs came to the rescue soldiers were animated to say they didn't give a fuck. This was followed by an animated of a bartender to tell me I was fucking a pc in the roastpits and to talk about about how she was dressed. My character wore only leather and cotton which covered her from chin to ankle, wrist to wrist. When I put in a complaint about it, Nergal told me she should have expected that response due to how she was dressed (covered chin to ankle) and how she was acting (only pc she'd been intimate with was her current mate as she was actually a rape victim from her bio and they were in a committed monogamous relationship).
Then, on my very NEXT pc, I had an npc byn sergeant animated to come into the latrines and tell my female pc to suck his cock as that was all she was good for. She pointed him toward a pc in the unit who was actually whoring on the side but male, and was told, and I quote 'You're all whores'."
If any part of this contained relevant ic info feel free to edit it.
If I wind up banned or something that'd be rather inconvenient so pls no.
Seeing as I removed all references of names from the first situation outside of pcs that may have been there, and if the first situation is removed for that reason that's a okay with me, there shouldn't be any sensitive info there.
The second part is pretty straight forward and seeing as it only includes a staff animation and a pc that is now dead/stored I don't see how that could be considered sensitive.
If anything, this all seems kinda sexist/anti-zalanthiasish.
I do not support this statement and I think it's piggy backing on legitimate issues.
Quote from: Malken on March 09, 2017, 01:48:36 PM
Just from the way it is written, there's no way I can take Jihelu's posted 'example' seriously.
That kind of post is why it'll be hard to take future examples more seriously.
I mean, come on.
I'm not exactly the greatest writer, also I had to change so much of the first post to keep things sensitive.
I'm reading through the logs she sent and I'll make some reply.
There is a lot of "You're too big for your britches"talk in the log.
Literally "Don't wear expensive stuff" It's 75 coins and looks like this
"Meant to be wrapped around the waist and tied, this long skirt of
ruby-dyed cotton drapes beautifully around the legs in loose folds. The
nature of the closing gives the skirt a diagonal slit up the side to expose
the wearer's leg when they walk. A faint print of darker red diamonds has
been batiked onto the fabric, giving the dull crimson cotton shimmer and
depth when viewed from a distance. "
I guess because the person saw a side of leg they decided to threaten them and decided that trying to rob them is the best choice.
Even though whores, literal sex workers, walk around the gaj semi-naked and walking off with people.
"over something that your average Allanaki would experience quite regularly if they acted and dressed like " From Nergal.
""Don't care. She ain't an advisor, eh? Ain't matter none to me. She looks too rich for her britches. Or her whore skirt."" From the animation if I'm right with who's who.
" "You just workin' to get in her skirt, aye? She shouldn't be dresst like a noble's whore, eh?""
Same as before.
"I'm guessing the PC engaged in public sex, which is looked down on by the owner of the place they're doing it."
They hadn't.
""Gonna fight for some silky wench?"" From the npc, talking about the person not wearing any silk.
The necklace that the npc wanted to steal from her was a horror-carved, black-pearl collar, not that it means much.
The character her self wore jewerly made of rubies, the cheaper ones, and I'm not seeing where "These silky wench" insults are really coming from. Though that's mostly subjective.
To be honest the situation seems less 'as bad' as I thought it was but it's mostly /strange/ to me now. I haven't seen a log or anything of the second incident so I can't say for sure.
You're getting bad information second-hand from someone with a habit of stirring the pot out-of-game - a habit I thought we had worked past and rebuilt trust over, but apparently not - and believing it blindly, which is how conflicts like this tend to start in the first place.
Please just stop. You are dragging down the level of the conversation and bringing the thread closer to locking.
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 01:45:38 PM
I definitely did not say that to the player and a cursory inspection of my response to the player will reveal that, should the player wish to re-read that.
(http://i.imgur.com/LaxAJPM.png)
Now, I've blacked out the rest of the request and anything else that could reveal much of anything, but I'm very curious how you could say that you did not say that, when you said that exactly.
Someone messaged me saying they were harassed ic/by staff and showed me a log showing it, found my self more confused than anything because of how the animation was, and posted about it.
If that gets the thread locked, how can we talk about anything?
Quote from: Jihelu on March 09, 2017, 03:32:46 PM
"over something that your average Allanaki would experience quite regularly if they acted and dressed like " From Nergal.
Are you familiar with Allanaki culture, Jihelu? The women wear long skirts and long sleeves. They don't show leg or cleavage, and look down on northern women who do. One of my PCs from about 10 years or so ago got a similar reaction (without the robbing) in the trader's inn because my PC was wearing a skimpy northern dress. However, she was aware she bought the wrong dress, and after the NPC, ran off flustered to change into something more appropriate. I thought the NPC animation was realistic.
""The character her self wore jewerly made of rubies, the cheaper ones, and I'm not seeing where "These silky wench" insults are really coming from. Though that's mostly subjective.""
There are NO cheap rubies in Zalanthas. They all sell for like 200 coins each, which is a small fortune for a lot of people in the south. And yes, a character without social status, who was flaunting both their legs and their expensive jewelry, would get negative attention.
My commoners never wear silk or expensive jewelry for that reason. It's a culture thing. I'm glad the world's culture setting is being enforced. I don't get why anyone is upset about it.
I hope we can go back to legitimate issues now because this is a massive derail.
I feel I should publicly apologize to sleepyhead for making their case in the open. I hadn't talked to you since that time, and it wasn't my business to bring it up here in public. We both know there's more to that story that absolutely doesn't belong here, and I did my best to keep it trim to the concern I had, and perhaps wrongly assumed, others would have, too.
Going a step further, I think after reading Jihelu's post, I can see how it probably wouldn't be helpful to roll out vague information, but there's a specific post Nergal made pertaining to it only a little more than a month ago.
I'm happy to see people come forward, and talk this out like adults. I'm not as pleased that I more or less threw sleepyhead under the bus. Again, sorry.
grammatical edit
Bardlyone, you blacked out the context of the request response and cherry-picked a portion of a sentence. As reasonable as it would be for me to post the context for you, I am not going to. It suffices to say that the context of the request accurately explains staff's position was focused on Allanaki culture, not your character's equipment.
Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.
(http://i.imgur.com/vC92vkM.gif)
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 09, 2017, 03:49:57 PM
I feel I should publicly apologize to sleepyhead, for making their case in the open. I hadn't talked to you since that time, and it wasn't my business to bring it up here in public. We both know there's more to that story that absolutely doesn't belong here, and I did my best to keep it trim to the concern I had, and perhaps wrongly assumed, others would have, too.
Going a step further, I think after reading Jihelu's post, I can see how it probably wouldn't be helpful to roll out vague information, but there's a specific post Nergal made pertaining to it only a little more than a month ago.
I'm happy to see people come forward, and talk this out like adults. I'm less pleased that I more or less threw sleepyhead under the bus. Again, sorry.
It's okay (as far as I am concerned). I did the same thing before without thinking when I was upset about the incident. I hope no one was negatively affected, and if they were, I'm sorry if I've contributed.
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 03:51:59 PM
Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.
Nergal, I just want to point out that the bold portion of this quote could be entirely left out, and it conveys a much more helpful message.
We all need to simmer down from 13.5 out of 10 to atleast a 6 and a half.
I might've been there during some of this stuff with BardlyOne's character. I wasn't involved - but I think I was logged in with my PC and either heard about it ICly or saw bits of it from nearby? Either way - yeah definitely BO is cherry-picking. This was definitely about the culture's fashion choices vs. her choices. Her character was dressed inappropriately for a) a southerner and b) a southerner hanging out in the cockroach-infested roasting pits of the Gaj.
I've had characters dressed inappropriately for it too and I fully expect my characters to be chastized, or at least made fun of, for it. Sometimes they are. Sometimes not. But I don't think I can imagine EVER being personally upset when I know damned well that my character's choices are not adhering to the cultural norms with regards to clothing and jewelry.
And whoever said there's no such thing as a cheap ruby - damned straight. Rubies are precious gems in the game. So are emeralds and diamonds. If you wear them in the Gaj, don't be surprised if you get ribbed about it ICly. You probably won't, but don't be surprised if you do.
We're a few pages past these quotes now, but I still wanted to respond to them.
Quote from: Bahliker on March 08, 2017, 09:32:03 PM
I hope everything said so far is considered going forward.
Speaking for myself, I've read every post in this thread and have taken them seriously.
Quote
I don't know man, just say we will do better, don't dismiss people's complaints out of hand, and I'll be happy and quiet.
We do want to do better and we want players to feel complaints are given a fair hearing. I think the best way to achieve this in the current system is for staff to actively hold each other accountable. I know that answer isn't reassuring to some players. That's understandable. However, as Dar says, making the complaint process more transparent is complicated and can easily become more harmful than helpful.
The problem of incomplete information is a big one. From what I've seen, I feel several complainants would have been satisfied (or would have accepted their culpability) if they had access to all information relevant to their case. However, providing a player with all relevant information often compromises the privacy or IC play of another player.
Compromising the privacy or IC play of other players sucks. It's difficult to conceive of improved systems not involving this. What are your opinions?
Great to hear from you, Wystan. How well would you say lower staff can hold producers accountable? I'm not asking this looking for a specific answer, nor am I asking this based on the problems I've had with a Producer in the past. I'm just curious as to what checks and balances may exist (outside of the system for staff complaints against a Producer, which I'm already aware of)
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 09, 2017, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 03:51:59 PM
Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.
Nergal, I just want to point out that the bold portion of this quote could be entirely left out, and it conveys a much more helpful message.
I dunno, I think Nergal might have a point in this case. Sometimes you have to call it for what it is. Especially when future damages are on the line. Spreading disinformation is immensely harmful to discussions. It's not always consciously done, either, if you get too wrapped up in your interpretation of events.
The only way we'd know for sure who's being untruthful would be for the full records to be posted. And I don't really want to ask that because I don't really care.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 09, 2017, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 03:51:59 PM
Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.
Nergal, I just want to point out that the bold portion of this quote could be entirely left out, and it conveys a much more helpful message.
If a player is lying, I will call it lying. It taints the discussion because it is extremely easy to lie about a situation when staff cannot and will not drop the hammer in the form of full context on the situation. It also tears apart player-staff trust, which is what the thread is about. When players lie about their experiences with staff to other players to gin up out-of-game conflict, how can there be any reasonable discussion on how staff interact with players?
It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that you accept bullshit as a truth.
This thread is becoming a dumpster fire.
Some posters want to air their grievances or felt heard. So, they post their interpretation of events to try and make their grievances seem as dramatic and eye popping as possible. Staff are handcuffed by policy and can't refute these claims with facts. Nothing good can come from this.
Guess what? Even if they choose to post facts, the 'wronged' party is not going to accept that. They're going to say there's more to the story. There is no resolution that works in the public eye.
The only resolution that works is if players reach out to staff and talk out the problem one on one. And even that is handcuffed by the request tool being the WORST medium of resolving differences, because they leave no room for any of the normal social signals we rely on to feel better about things like tone of voice, facial features, etc. and its a platform that's completely controlled by staff. They decide when the 'request is resolved', they decide when to respond and who else gets to see it...etc....
In short, I don't see these differences being resolved anytime soon. So I don't see the point of this thread.
Quote from: Wystan on March 09, 2017, 04:14:27 PM
The problem of incomplete information is a big one. From what I've seen, I feel several complainants would have been satisfied (or would have accepted their culpability) if they had access to all information relevant to their case. However, providing a player with all relevant information often compromises the privacy or IC play of another player.
Compromising the privacy or IC play of other players sucks. It's difficult to conceive of improved systems not involving this. What are your opinions?
Can staff ever be sure they have ALL the relevant information, though?
It has been my experience that staff pays close attention to character reports and won't necessarily verify logs of what happened ingame if the information provided by all involved players seems sufficient. It has also been my experience that established clan PCs, who are more 'valuable' to the clan and run more plots, are considered more... believable? Is that the right word? Than a newer PC who runs fewer plots.
Let's say (hypothetical situation) players A and B are in a clan together and have been for a while. Their plots are many and awesome. They're also friends out of game, something staff isn't aware of.
Player C joins much later, and catches player A acting against clan documentation.
Player A denies this.
Player B, because they are A's OOC friend, says player C is lying.
Player C gets told to stop making things up.
The waters get even more murky when the effects of inappropriate behavior aren't immediately visible or noticeable ingame. For instance...
Players A and B are OOC friends and have an OOC beef with player C. They both report an IC reason for why they want to kill player C, something that never actually happened.
Player C gets PKed and doesn't know why. Staff believes they know the reason, but the ingame logs aren't checked. The fact that event X, the IC reason for the PK, never happened, remains shrouded in mystery.
I'm aware that sifting through ingame logs to verify stuff is immensely time-consuming and I don't have any solution. But stuff like the above can and does happen.
Which is why I support a less punitive approach, where players are given the benefit of the doubt more often, overall.
If you submit logs with your reports of anti-documentation behavior (I also try to give approximate timestamps) that would probably help.
Although my preferred solution to (perceived) bad behavior in game is to just PK the character responsible. Then the only report you have to make to staff is a PK report.
I don't think I've tried to be overly dramatic or eye popping.
But anyway, wizturbo, if you think the request tool is the worst method for resolving these kinds of conflicts, maybe you could steer this dumpster fire of a thread towards possible alternatives that might nurture more positive outcomes.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 09, 2017, 04:38:04 PM
If you submit logs with your reports of anti-documentation behavior (I also try to give approximate timestamps) that would probably help.
True, my first example could have been easily resolved. I should have come up with a better one. :)
Just sayin', staff don't always know everything.
I'd like to give some advice to any posters in the future who bring up sensitive information. By sensitive subjects, I specifically mean, subjects which they or others feel strongly about.
First, please be very specific in your wording. Saying, "I didn't say that," leaves a lot of room to be interpreted as to what 'that' is. This also allows people who quote you saying you didn't say something to not have any leeway with the quotes they are using. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two excellent writers who have posted in this thread, and I think one of them has taken a break from the game, so not all of us communicate as clearly and eloquently as them.
Second, if your post contains a problem of yours that is very important to you, or a thorn in your side, and you are seeking resolution, please preview it, then take a ten minute step back before you post, come back and reread it while attempting to view it from the perspective of someone who is just now reading it, and ask yourself these questions: Does it require viewing multiple posts above it to be comprehensive and understandable? Is your point clear and concise, and have you stated your point in a thesis sentence of sorts? Would it be very easy to misconstrue your point?
Third, please recognize that we are mired in bureaucracy, in regards to the way staff, players, helpers, and outsiders interact and resolve things. This requires a lot of 'paperwork' so to speak. This is one reason why I encourage everyone to log and record absolutely everything. Damning evidence is always in the action, not in the responses to the action. I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, not staff, and not players, but trying to offer, in my humble opinion, advice that will make these interactions run more smoothly.
Fourth, there is a way for someone to be absolutely correct when stating something. Using 'I feel', 'I believe', and 'I think' at the beginning of your sentence ensures that no one can refute, precisely, the truth in what you are saying. It also adds a new dimension to the conversation at hand. Allow me to elaborate...
"I believe you said this exact thing to me," changes the argument from one of a matter of proving each other wrong, to a matter of clarifying one's intentions. "I feel I was wronged, and that this was inappropriate," changes the argument from one of defense and offense, to a matter of peacefully resolving a situation.
I believe nobody here, not one of us, wants any person involved to feel badly, or treated unfairly, or wrongly accused, or misunderstood. I feel this 100% true. (I didn't say 'feel like shit', because, as I point out below, it leaves way too much up to interpretation.)
Fifth, if we're going to get into the semantics of how things are worded, and the intent behind those words, we need to avoid colloquialisms and vague words. Nergal, Jihelu, and multiple others in my opinion, have done a good job of this so far, with a few minor exceptions. Please be mindful of it moving forward.
Lastly, Bardlyone, Riev, and others I think, have been asked to send in a request to further their attempts at resolution. I think you should all do so, for the sake of bureaucracy. Nergal, if you feel that posting what you have referred to as 'dirty laundry' would embarrass a player, but also bring about a resolution, I suggest you ask them which they'd prefer, and whether or not it would actually embarrass them.
Disclaimer: I've forgone all of my ridiculous behavior which comes with the persona of Raptor_Dan, in an effort to be more clear, and straightforward. I'm genuinely trying to help within the confines of what is acceptable to everyone here, though it's within my power, I BELIEVE, to go outside of those confines and do things which I really don't want to do. So far, I've followed all rules, kept this discussion and my involvement strictly to the GDB, and I sincerely want this thread to not end in being locked, but end in a situation where everyone who has posted comes out feeling satisfied, and more in tune with each other. Everyone.
Now, I'm going to step back and wait a while, and try to look at this from multiple perspectives. I'm available for PM'ing, and will try to respond to any request of me from anyone, in PMs, or on this thread. I'll also be thinking of 'possible alternatives' to the request tool 'that might nurture more positive outcomes.'
Quote from: wizturbo on March 09, 2017, 04:30:36 PM
This thread is becoming a dumpster fire.
How? A sentiment like this just takes all of the wind out of a heartfelt post like Wystan's. I don't think Nergal or Wystan would be posting here if they didn't perceive a problem and want to make it right. It could be very easy to just lock this thread, and tell us to love it or shove it.
Quote from: wizturbo on March 09, 2017, 04:30:36 PM
In short, I don't see these differences being resolved anytime soon. So I don't see the point of this thread.
If that's your contribution to the discussion, that's fine by me. You're not alone!
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on March 09, 2017, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 09, 2017, 03:51:59 PM
Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.
Nergal, I just want to point out that the bold portion of this quote could be entirely left out, and it conveys a much more helpful message.
If a player is lying, I will call it lying. It taints the discussion because it is extremely easy to lie about a situation when staff cannot and will not drop the hammer in the form of full context on the situation. It also tears apart player-staff trust, which is what the thread is about. When players lie about their experiences with staff to other players to gin up out-of-game conflict, how can there be any reasonable discussion on how staff interact with players?
It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that you accept bullshit as a truth.
I don't know who is telling the truth about anything, because I don't have all the information. I also believe people are right when they say that, because of the design of this game and how it treats information, that makes this scenario difficult to handle. The only thing that catches my eye is that you seem unwilling to embarrass or break trust with players by making their correspondences public, but you're perfectly okay with calling them a liar in public. I don't particularly understand that, and I don't see why it's necessary.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 09, 2017, 04:44:37 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 09, 2017, 04:38:04 PM
If you submit logs with your reports of anti-documentation behavior (I also try to give approximate timestamps) that would probably help.
True, my first example could have been easily resolved. I should have come up with a better one. :)
Just sayin', staff don't always know everything.
That's why it's on players to do their best to provide full context. Then we just have to hope Staff are doing their part of following up. A complaint without a log is little more than hearsay.
There are historical examples of Staff not doing their due diligence, and there's always going to be accusations of it occurring in the present. If you really think you need to take things public, take everything public: no black outs, no interpretation, no insinuations. If you've truly been wronged it should be apparent.
Live chat of some form would be better. Voice chat significant better.
And I wasn't pointing fingers individuals on the thread that are making things more dramatic. It's just human nature to tell the side of the story with a certain amount of bias. Some bias will be small, others large.
Unfortunately, by not pointing fingers it just means everyone assumes you're pointing at them. And just so I'm clear, my last couple of posts have been in response to bardleyone and her claim, which I find dubious and inflammatory and detrimental to the discussion. I don't even like to consider it in the same category of grievances I've heard from other players due to how it was presented.
Quote from: wizturbo on March 09, 2017, 04:55:54 PM
Live chat of some form would be better. Voice chat significant better.
I don't know about that - a forum discussion lets everyone be heard regardless of when real life allows them to participate. And some players might be uncomfortable with voice chat, especially those who don't have a strong grasp on English.
That said, I think staff podcasts would be a fabulous idea and I'd listen to all of them.
Maybe staff could give players a choice between a QuickTopic discussion (kind of like the ones used in forum Mafia for night talk), a logged live chat, or a recorded voice chat. (This could be proposed by staff or players during a request tool exchange)
You know, I'm really at a loss, here. I submitted a Staff Complaint as I was asked to do, and I got the answer I expected. I would encourage people to carry on their discussion, but things remain unchanged for me. C'est la vie.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:06:11 PM
Maybe staff could give players a choice between a QuickTopic discussion (kind of like the ones used in forum Mafia for night talk), a logged live chat, or a recorded voice chat. (This could be proposed by staff or players during a request tool exchange)
I believe additional discussion venues were discussed earlier in this thread. According to staff, reports have been mixed.
Quote from: Nergal on March 04, 2017, 10:46:41 AM
I will say that we have tried to live-chat people in private for the sake of fostering that personal air and trying to get to the bottom of a problem. The results have been mixed. Again, some players benefit from that setting and some do not. One player used it as an opportunity to troll staff and cement our low opinion of them, but it didn't affect our willingness to treat other players the same way, if we think it would be more effective than an e-mail.
If you want one, I think staff will try and accommodate you.
On the derail:
I empathize, because this is a common problem with the 'intrusion' (don't read too much into that, because staff animation is good) of an animated npc. It happens when someone notices something that should be different as per documentation. However, since it's not a blanket occurrence happening across the board, it's taken as persecution instead, which makes everything a lot more heated. I am -mostly- accustomed to it, to where I get irritated but recognize it for what it was. I was minorly upset by this same thing happening to me somewhat recently, only it resulted in actual death. It was helpful for me to open up a dialogue with staff on my expectations, establishing an understanding of why, and it felt liberating to simply explain what I thought would have worked out better to establish the documentation. But it wasn't persecution, it -was- the game world coming to life around me to react to choices that had been made, even if they weren't all mine.
This is an example of when I've had positive dialogue, right down to wishes as the thing was occurring, but I admit that in the heat of moment and in contemplation of what it resulted in, it can be disheartening. I just think that's something you should be prepared for in a permadeath game. As note to staff in this particular event though, I'd urge you to anticipate that persecution-type of feeling, particularly where some people have been forced into niches/areas/roles that they don't normally play by the slow, but steady shutdown of diverse options to play. This might be sexist to say (sorry if so), but some people might want to play women who wear skirts and look pretty. That was more manageable when there were areas accepting of that. So realize that some people might feel like they're in a scenario where enjoyment is far beyond reach because their options were taken away, and in trying to adapt it, they get a feeling of being singled out among a crowd that doesn't care. While this is a specific statement tailored to this derail, I think that steady removal of options has led to this fundamental break in understanding on a larger scale, as well. We're all just trying to make things work, I think.
QuoteIn short, I don't see these differences being resolved anytime soon. So I don't see the point of this thread.
It's discussion. The same as people discussing their grievances with magick changes, or shifting foci of the game, or anything else. There have been plenty of valid posts, and more importantly, some people with bad outlooks are getting a chance to not feel like they're alone in a council chamber with a board of directors staring them down over the top of a high desk. You don't have to agree with other posters, that's fine, but I don't see people who disagree with your ideas going into your threads saying it's pointless and not helpful. There are some ideas I'm fond of, but more than anything, it allows the mass of players to see the reactions of an administrator to grievances, and it allows staff to, as a whole, hear the 'state of the playerbase', rather than viewing it as isolated incidents. By responses, that's how it was being handled before, which was unhealthy in trying to to stave off shaky confidence from a significant portion of players. Got any ideas how to help the playerbase and staff regain confidence with each other, or just want to say it's not a good endeavor?
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 09, 2017, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: Nergal on March 04, 2017, 10:46:41 AM
I will say that we have tried to live-chat people in private for the sake of fostering that personal air and trying to get to the bottom of a problem. The results have been mixed. Again, some players benefit from that setting and some do not. One player used it as an opportunity to troll staff and cement our low opinion of them, but it didn't affect our willingness to treat other players the same way, if we think it would be more effective than an e-mail.
If you want one, I think staff will try and accommodate you.
Yeah, I have to second this. I think they would.
I hope this doesn't discourage staff from animating NPCs.
It's one of my favorite surprises, when it happens.
Quote from: Feco on March 09, 2017, 05:27:27 PM
I hope this doesn't discourage staff from animating NPCs.
It's one of my favorite surprises, when it happens.
Yes.
Even if it's just a rat. Actually, a rat animation was one of the things that hooked me on the game when I was playing my first ever PC. I thought, wow, this game is cool. The staff animates rats to interact with PCs! I had never seen this happen in another MUD, at least not outside of big HRPT style events.
I guess the important issue for me is...well, you'll see. I'm sure you'll be able to tell which punishment was afforded me, and even though I may have deserved it, I still felt that it could have been handled more sensitively.
Certain punishments feel very harsh. I understand why staff feel the need to enact discipline fairly and even-handedly across the board, but I wonder if their current hardline policies are helping or hindering. Obviously the #1 worst punishment is a permanent ban. Staff already claim to administer this punishment very rarely and I agree with this policy. I would argue that the second worst punishment--potentially far worse than a temporary ban--is force storage. I think these two punishments should be doled out very, very conservatively. The thing that makes force storage particularly unfair is that some people are playing throwaway characters that they couldn't possibly care less about and were probably going to suicide anyway, and other people are playing characters that they are pouring their heart and soul into. To take away the latter is far more devastating than to take away the former. I think it would be an interesting idea to give players who are really in the 'tokhouse a choice between a temporary ban and force storage. Obviously this wouldn't work so well for sponsored roles, but those come with the understanding that force storage is a little more of a tangible risk, so I'm okay with that, as long as staff are respectful to the player of the sponsored role.
You can always earn back karma and you will always have the chance to gather more positive account notes to eclipse the negative. Temporary bans run their course and IC punishments can be worked with and perhaps woven into an even more exciting story...but a force stored character can never be earned back.
I think that when staff decide force storage IS the only option, it should be something that is communicated empathetically to the player, even if the player isn't staff's absolute favorite that day. And a chance to wrap up the character's story with a death scene would be a great silver lining. I know that some might say this would be a lot of staff time spent on someone who is being punished rather than rewarded, but if it shows someone that staff don't hate them just because they broke a rule and have to be disciplined, shows a commitment to story, shows that staff care about players in general, and most importantly, prevents someone from getting a bad taste in their mouth and quitting forever.
When we roll up characters on Arm, it's with the understanding that we could be randomly stabbed to death by some PC without ever knowing why, or killed by some animal out in the wilderness, or die of dehydration, or hell, even get ganked by chalton while AFK. What we don't expect is to be told that we're not allowed to ever log into that character again, and that their story is heretofore closed forever. I guess it was supposed to sting--that's why it's a punishment. I just felt like it wasn't treated with the gravity it needed to be treated with. Two lines informing me I was force-stored in a response to my character report. Request declined. Done.
This isn't about whether or not there were extra factors involved that show I deserved the punishment. I have stated that I very well might have. In fact, I felt bad about what I had done and was about to store anyway. So let's not make this about me and my situation and the things I've left out, because I've left them out to protect other entangled people.
To me this is about force storage as a punitive measure and how it should be treated with the weight it deserves, even if that changes only how staff talk to players when administering this punishment rather than how often it's administered. Force storage is against the story-driven spirit of Armageddon, and it hurts a lot more than death by typo. All I ask is that staff be sensitive to that and how much it means to some people to have someone's story cut short forever because of OOC reasons, however good those OOC reasons are.
What a conundrum. It seems staff observations of their dealings with the playerbase seem to be satisfactory. While some percentage of the playerbase advocates that it really isn't.
Both sides agree that airing out dirty laundry in public is less then warranted. So instead the two polar opposite opinions are advocating themselves, but are incapable of providing anything concrete.
When things like that happen. The most common result is lack of anything changing. Would this be a correct assimption? Have this thread, the posts here, the messages aired, had it succeeded in changing/improving anything? Was anyone educated? Will anything change?
Note. I do not know if it "needs" to change. Does it?
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 04:20:03 PM
Great to hear from you, Wystan. How well would you say lower staff can hold producers accountable? I'm not asking this looking for a specific answer, nor am I asking this based on the problems I've had with a Producer in the past. I'm just curious as to what checks and balances may exist (outside of the system for staff complaints against a Producer, which I'm already aware of)
There isn't a formal system. Most decisions, especially contentious ones, are discussed before a decision is made and communicated to a player. I feel there has been, in these discussions, a genuine desire to find the best course of action. The accountability comes from weighing in on those discussions.
Quote from: Dar on March 09, 2017, 05:34:46 PM
Note. I do not know if it "needs" to change. Does it?
I'd say what Lizzie outlined in the post I quoted needs to change. If it did, I 100% believe it would have a hugely positive impact on plots and player activity.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 09, 2017, 04:36:06 PM
Can staff ever be sure they have ALL the relevant information, though?
It has been my experience that staff pays close attention to character reports and won't necessarily verify logs of what happened ingame if the information provided by all involved players seems sufficient. It has also been my experience that established clan PCs, who are more 'valuable' to the clan and run more plots, are considered more... believable? Is that the right word? Than a newer PC who run
From what I have seen, logs are checked very, very frequently. I can't recall a murky situation where we proceeded despite not having a key piece of information.
We don't take the word of one player over another. We investigate.
Quote from: Wystan on March 09, 2017, 05:41:49 PM
From what I have seen, logs are checked very, very frequently. I can't recall a murky situation where we proceeded despite not having a key piece of information.
We don't take the word of one player over another. We investigate.
Thanks good to hear. Thanks!
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:34:25 PM
About Forced Storage
These are very interesting thoughts on forced storage, sleepyhead. Well put.
I can see a lot of merit to making Forced Storage the #2 punishment in terms of severeness, right below Permanent Ban. A temporary ban from the game (leaving your character waiting) can act as an incentive for good behavior if the character is something the player wants to come back to. We're anxious to return because we miss the game and what we could be doing. With a stored character, that bridge has been burned.
sleepyhead, your character was force-stored, according to you. You feel it was unfair, the way it came about. You want to discuss it, and you want to convince people to side with you.
BUT WE CANNOT. The staff will not show us their side of what happened and having only your side - whether complete with logs or vague references - isn't going to prove a thing. In fact, by pushing it here on the GDB, you're starting to convince ME (personally) that you probably did a bunch of things, were warned about them, disregarded the warnings, or possibly complained about them and demanded a discussion - and finally something happened to break the camel's back and your character was stored.
Since the staff isn't going to tell us what happened, and even if you got into detail we'd only see what YOU have chosen to provide us - there's no point in trying to convince us that you were treated unfairly. We won't know if you were or not.
Geez, Lizzie, maybe I did all those things, but I deliberately said more than one time I don't want to make this about me and whether or not I deserved being force stored. Maybe I did deserve it. Maybe I pushed staff to the absolute brink of their patience and they finally felt there was no reasonable way out besides force storage. You can believe that about me and it doesn't change a thing about what I said. I'm here to talk about force storage and how it should be treated very seriously, not about my specific situation. The only reason I bring up my situation is because it led me to experience first-hand what the force-storage of a beloved character is like.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:51:03 PM
Geez, Lizzie, maybe I did all those things, but I deliberately said more than one time I don't want to make this about me and whether or not I deserved being force stored. Maybe I did deserve it. Maybe I pushed staff to the absolute brink of their patience and they finally felt there was no reasonable way out besides force storage. You can believe that about me and it doesn't change a thing about what I said. I'm here to talk about force storage and how it should be treated very seriously, not about my specific situation. The only reason I bring up my situation is because it led me to experience first-hand what the force-storage of a beloved character is like.
But if that's what happened, then force-storage was a perfectly reasonable resolution. When a player pushes and pushes, and the staff says "no" and the player says "why" and the staff answers them and the player says "but" and the staff says "Sorry answer is still no" and the player says "wait what about" and the staff says "no" - eventually the staff says "you're done."
I have no problem with that, and if that's what is happening, then I think it's working as it should.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:34:25 PM
I just felt like it wasn't treated with the gravity it needed to be treated with. Two lines informing me I was force-stored in a response to my character report. Request declined. Done.
This kind of thing sucks, for both parties.
I used to be the 'ban hammer' for World of Warcraft way back in the day. I banned hundreds of players, and reviewed the bans of hundreds more when they inevitably appealed. When people break rules they rarely own up to it. They lie, they blame others, or they make empty threats. The only thing you can rely on is the facts, and you can't always share the facts because then you're giving away your tools of detecting their rule breaking.
When I first started, I'd spend a lot of time writing each banned account a detailed message explaining why they were banned in as much detail as I could, showing them proof in the cases where wouldn't reveal our detection methods, and responding to their multiple replies. After a little while on that job though, I found that despite all the effort I put into explaining things it rarely resulted in a better outcome so those responses got shorter and shorter until they eventually were just a copy/paste response and instead I spent all that time writing more detailed account notes for any other agent that might have to dig up this account in the future.
Given the scale of Armageddon, that jaded approach is certainly not the right answer, but I can totally sympathize with staff who've been doing this for a long time and have seen it all.
Regardless of sleepyhead's personal circumstances, they do raise valid discussion points about whether Forced Storage is used appropriately or most effectively as an enforcement tool.
What is the purpose of Forced Storage? On its surface it's to remove a disruptive character from the game world. Griefers should be force-stored because their behavior is negatively impacting others. But should characters that are going against documents be forced stored? Or should the game world's reactions (via animations, marching orders to authority-position players, etc.) be escalated until the anti-doc player's character A) conforms to documents or B) experiences a lethal reaction to going against the grain of the game world?
By using the gameworld to punish characters, instead of bans and storages to punish players, more fodder for IC action is created. "Bad" behavior can be the catalyst to which "Good" roleplay responds to.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 09, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:51:03 PM
Geez, Lizzie, maybe I did all those things, but I deliberately said more than one time I don't want to make this about me and whether or not I deserved being force stored. Maybe I did deserve it. Maybe I pushed staff to the absolute brink of their patience and they finally felt there was no reasonable way out besides force storage. You can believe that about me and it doesn't change a thing about what I said. I'm here to talk about force storage and how it should be treated very seriously, not about my specific situation. The only reason I bring up my situation is because it led me to experience first-hand what the force-storage of a beloved character is like.
But if that's what happened, then force-storage was a perfectly reasonable resolution. When a player pushes and pushes, and the staff says "no" and the player says "why" and the staff answers them and the player says "but" and the staff says "Sorry answer is still no" and the player says "wait what about" and the staff says "no" - eventually the staff says "you're done."
I have no problem with that, and if that's what is happening, then I think it's working as it should.
My opinion is that force storage should be treated seriously and with a lot of gravity. I don't see why that has anything to do with whether or not I personally deserved to be force stored. If I was the only one ever to be treated brusquely regarding my character being stored, then great! I am happy with that. You are making it about me and I really never asked anyone to empathize personally with my situation, because they don't know it. My situation is done and that character is gone for good, but I'm trying to advocate for other players who will be disciplined with force storage who may or may not deserve it as much as I did.
Quotethe staff says "no" - eventually the staff says "you're done."
End correspondence, not IC characters. Banning or storing for OOC communications is not in my 'ideal' camp either. Just end the communication.
I too have had a character force stored. It didn't feel unfair, it seemed about right based on my actions. Perhaps my case was more clear cut, but it really didn't seem like a huge deal for me.
My character was force stored for specifically stated reasons. Those reasons suggested staff believed my continued playing of the character could be potentially harmful to the game. So it wasn't just that staff wanted to teach me who's boss or punish me for bad roleplay--at least not on the surface, anyway. I can't read their minds or anything. I just want to put that out there for the sake of being fair to staff and not painting myself as the innocent victim of an unfair policy.
Regardless of my personal situation, though, if you go to the rules page it lists force storage several times as a potential punishment for things that do not necessarily have anything to do with a player's continued playing of a character being harmful to the game.
Quote from: lostinspace on March 09, 2017, 06:00:16 PM
I too have had a character force stored. It didn't feel unfair, it seemed about right based on my actions. Perhaps my case was more clear cut, but it really didn't seem like a huge deal for me.
Well, that's exactly one reason I believe the punishment to be unfair. For some players, and some characters, it's going to sting a lot more than others. I've played some characters that having force stored would feel like a gift. "Great, now I don't have to put in a request and wait." And some players have played a million characters and feel that way about all their characters these days--just a drop in the bucket. And some other players are a lot better at shrugging and moving on in general. And some players exhaust themselves emotionally with every single character. Staff doesn't (and can't) take that into account when force storing someone as a punishment.
Quote from: Dar on March 09, 2017, 05:34:46 PM
What a conundrum. It seems staff observations of their dealings with the playerbase seem to be satisfactory. While some percentage of the playerbase advocates that it really isn't.
Both sides agree that airing out dirty laundry in public is less then warranted. So instead the two polar opposite opinions are advocating themselves, but are incapable of providing anything concrete.
When things like that happen. The most common result is lack of anything changing. Would this be a correct assimption? Have this thread, the posts here, the messages aired, had it succeeded in changing/improving anything? Was anyone educated? Will anything change?
Note. I do not know if it "needs" to change. Does it?
Some organizations use customer satisfaction surveys to discover their users' experiences were. It's a good means of getting feedback on if they are doing a good job or not. There will be a lot of feedback that's not useful, but it's a good way to identify problems.
Though having staff be in more direct contact with players in addressing their concerns and needs would be more preferable. I understand personal direct contact, even through email/request tool exchanges may be beyond the scope of staff capability. The surveys seem like a realistic idea.
I think it's important we remember the game is a collaboration between everyone involved and that while we may have different roles in the collaboration, the game is diminished without everyone.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 06:06:08 PM
Well, that's exactly one reason I believe the punishment to be unfair. For some players, and some characters, it's going to sting a lot more than others. I've played some characters that having force stored would feel like a gift. "Great, now I don't have to put in a request and wait." And some players have played a million characters and feel that way about all their characters these days--just a drop in the bucket. And some other players are a lot better at shrugging and moving on in general. And some players exhaust themselves emotionally with every single character. Staff doesn't (and can't) take that into account when force storing someone as a punishment.
While I agree that force storage will obviously affect people differently I don't see how that makes it unfair. WHO does it shouldn't matter at all, but rather WHAT was done. If there are just clear guidelines on WHAT behavior will result in force storage then that should be the end of it. As you said they can't take all of that into account anyways, so I don't see how it's unfair.
If I had a few kids but only one of them cared a thing about playing video games, and I made a rule that if any of them didn't do their chores they'd lose video game privileges, it would be unfair because the two non-gaming kids would not give a crap about the punishment, whereas the one gaming kid would be very affected.
That's why I think that when possible, a choice between a temp ban and character storage would be nice. It wouldn't be ideal because yeah, there would be some people who would say "Store Amos; I was about to Silt Sea him anyway" while others would say "Temp ban me; I won't even notice because I'm about to go on vacation," it would prevent people being emotionally affected beyond what is reasonably intended by the punishment.
And if that's not possible, I've stated before that I'd be happy just knowing that when staff communicates that it's unfortunately necessary to store someone's (possibly beloved) character, they do it sensitively. I'm not saying write up a flowery epitaph about how great the character was and how Zalanthas will feel their loss, but something more than "we've decided to store X because you did Y" would be nice.
I think in general a temp ban more evenly affects people across the board no matter their emotional investment. No matter how much heart people pour into individual PCs, we know all players like to play this game and would probably be a little irritated by having the choice to play the game taken away for a while. You can also adjust the length of the ban as needed for different levels of severity, whereas you can't go "I'm going to store your next three characters" or "I'm going to store the next character that you care about." If the one being temp-banned broke a rule (which they probably did since they're being punished) then it gives them time to think about it (hopefully not just stew.)
Quote from: wizturbo on March 09, 2017, 05:54:39 PM
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 05:34:25 PM
I just felt like it wasn't treated with the gravity it needed to be treated with. Two lines informing me I was force-stored in a response to my character report. Request declined. Done.
This kind of thing sucks, for both parties.
I used to be the 'ban hammer' for World of Warcraft way back in the day. I banned hundreds of players, and reviewed the bans of hundreds more when they inevitably appealed. When people break rules they rarely own up to it. They lie, they blame others, or they make empty threats. The only thing you can rely on is the facts, and you can't always share the facts because then you're giving away your tools of detecting their rule breaking.
When I first started, I'd spend a lot of time writing each banned account a detailed message explaining why they were banned in as much detail as I could, showing them proof in the cases where wouldn't reveal our detection methods, and responding to their multiple replies. After a little while on that job though, I found that despite all the effort I put into explaining things it rarely resulted in a better outcome so those responses got shorter and shorter until they eventually were just a copy/paste response and instead I spent all that time writing more detailed account notes for any other agent that might have to dig up this account in the future.
Given the scale of Armageddon, that jaded approach is certainly not the right answer, but I can totally sympathize with staff who've been doing this for a long time and have seen it all.
There's definitely an element of justified cynicism built up through interactions with a small number of players who manage to drive even the most coolheaded staffers to enraged madness. I think that cynicism eventually leaks out and covers the entire playerbase.
I don't blame staff for shifting to a hardline after repeated interactions with genuinely shit players. I just think something should be done to recognize and curtail it because it has been driving away non-shit players for several years now.
Edit: I don't think anyone is a shit player in perpetuity. We all go through shit phases and deserve multiple chances to improve after the shit phase has passed. I think staff largely does give shits second, third, fourth, etc... chances. I also think that staff sometimes goes into shit-mode against players who aren't being shits. This is one of the problems.
Well that's a shame. It's not legible even when I copied to MS Paint and enlarged it.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 06:58:27 PM
If I had a few kids but only one of them cared a thing about playing video games, and I made a rule that if any of them didn't do their chores they'd lose video game privileges, it would be unfair because the two non-gaming kids would not give a crap about the punishment, whereas the one gaming kid would be very affected.
That's why I think that when possible, a choice between a temp ban and character storage would be nice. It wouldn't be ideal because yeah, there would be some people who would say "Store Amos; I was about to Silt Sea him anyway" while others would say "Temp ban me; I won't even notice because I'm about to go on vacation," it would prevent people being emotionally affected beyond what is reasonably intended by the punishment.
And if that's not possible, I've stated before that I'd be happy just knowing that when staff communicates that it's unfortunately necessary to store someone's (possibly beloved) character, they do it sensitively. I'm not saying write up a flowery epitaph about how great the character was and how Zalanthas will feel their loss, but something more than "we've decided to store X because you did Y" would be nice.
I think in general a temp ban more evenly affects people across the board no matter their emotional investment. No matter how much heart people pour into individual PCs, we know all players like to play this game and would probably be a little irritated by having the choice to play the game taken away for a while. You can also adjust the length of the ban as needed for different levels of severity, whereas you can't go "I'm going to store your next three characters" or "I'm going to store the next character that you care about." If the one being temp-banned broke a rule (which they probably did since they're being punished) then it gives them time to think about it (hopefully not just stew.)
OOC Punishments like Force Storage should be reserved for OOC crimes - code abuse, griefing, or other disruptive behavior that cannot be explained away in IC terms. I would prefer people who run afoul of Staff in the request tool get temporarily banned so that their character remains hostage while they have the time to cool off and reflect. If a
character is breaking the social rules of Zalanthas (including by being too powerful or just too fucking
weird), I would absolutely prefer the game world come alive and put them in their place.
I'm going to use Tuluki sexual mores and their enforcement as an example of the downsides of force-storage. Not only is it more psychologically punitive towards players punished, it can be very disruptive to the immersion of players who aren't being punished.
In Tuluk, commoners, nobles, and templars all belonged to different castes. One of the big social taboos of Tuluk was that you could not have sexual relations across caste lines (except for slaves, since they're more furniture than people). It's my understanding that characters who broke this taboo would be force-stored. I never liked this course of action. I would much rather have the characters disappeared and
killed in secret. While the fates of these characters appear identical from the outside ("Faithful Derp and Chosen Derpina have disappeared, don't talk about it), to the players involved I like to imagine the sting would be lessened. You, the player, are not being force-stored because you (The player) broke a rule, your
character was killed because
they broke a rule. The former is an OOC punishment directed at you; the latter is the natural result of playing Armageddon. We're trained to expect and celebrate character deaths as the result of their (really our) fuck-ups. It hurts at the time, but I hope we can all look back at our dead characters and laugh at the circumstances. ("Yeah, I didn't know what a spider nest looks like so I rode in to one" "Yeah well, I literally sexed myself to death!")
For the player-characters who knew the force-stored PCs, they're also less affected. They are given IC circumstances to react and respond to. You can roleplay with a body, you can't roleplay with a PC who is virtually still around but no longer a part of the narrative. It is very hard to roleplay around another character (a character that might be very important to your own) suddenly vanishing for purely OOC reasons. This is especially important now: Tuluk at least had the IC tradition of disappearances to gloss over such punishments.
I think force-storage is especially stupid for when a character becomes too powerful. For GMH, Templars, and Nobles, sure, I can see some reasoning because there's supposedly not a lot of non-virtualized Tasks for Red Robe-equivalents to do in game. Debatable, but I can see the logic. But if a Sorcerer or Raider Boss or other rogue entity becomes so powerful we're told the only option is to force-store him? Why not animate something even
more powerful and kill that PC? Even the most twinked out spam-casting skill-grinding sorcerer-mul-psionicist asshat is leagues below a Black Robe or Sand Lord or other offscreen Magickal Badass that are just waiting to be animated.
For the record, I too have had a character force stored that I disagreed with and it caused me to take a break from the game for a few years. I'm comfortable airing the exact emails here, but honestly they're pretty boring and I've since mended things with the staffer in question.
I had a PC stored "for inactivity" when I had previously told my clan staff I was going away on vacation. In the middle of my vacation I got an email saying "why haven't you logged on for a couple weeks" and then shortly after, another that said "we're storing you for inactivity." I was so annoyed with what I saw as a basic inability to remember player communications/communicate with players that I didn't even appeal the storage and just didn't come back for a couple years. Or worse yet, I feared maybe they'd disliked me all along and were just waiting for an excuse to have me gone from the role.
Ages later, I talked to the staffer in question--now long since retired--on Facebook and he admitted he was going through some shit IRL and just straight up forgot my email about the vacation. He was mortified. This is one of those examples where people really do mean what they say when they say the request tool--for all its bureaucracy--makes things SO MUCH BETTER. My 2+ RL year played character would not have been stored if people had just been able to look up my last request and see "oh yeah Fathi said she's traveling for a while and will be back on this day."
The reason why I am posting all this now is not to stir up old drama--quite the opposite in fact, I've got nothing but fond memories of my interactions with this particular staffer since then. But it's a prime example of how one bad communication can lead to years of bad blood on a player's part.
I think it's a good thing for both players and staff to keep in mind when interacting with each other: staffers, sometimes you might forget things or overlook things or have your actions totally misinterpreted by players because of the necessary veil between players and staff.
I feared Staffer X was just a fucking asshole who'd been looking for an excuse to get rid of me all along and had callously disregarded my vacation so he had an excuse to store my character. I was so pissy I did not even ask for clarification. But I'm pretty sure my PC wouldn't have been unstored anyhow because by the time I got back from my holiday they'd apped in a replacement for her. So I may very well have become one of those jaded vets who never returned to the game because of a simple error.
If I had to suggest any sort of solution to the communication issues that seem to lead to a lot of player dissatisfaction (and I mean bad communication on the part of staff and players both, it's a two-way street) it's that perhaps there could be some sort of appointed staffer who's a "player advocate" or a staff member specifically assigned to assist in reviewing complaints alongside the Producers.
It'd be a rotating person whose job is solely to read over all the requests in question and provide feedback with a special eye toward the players' side of things. It might be more trouble than it's worth, but that's a position we have in the healthcare field where I worked for a long time. Every clinic has a patient advocate or someone who liaises between the doctors and insurance companies or patients and hospital admin staff to help untangle things and keep tempers from flaring when shit gets testy.
All I can really say is that in my personal experience, I have felt pretty personally wronged over stuff like that force storage and I'd probably still have a chip on my shoulder if I hadn't happened to Facebook it up with that staffer ages later. He messaged me like "oh my god, you played __ years ago! I loved her so much!" and it blew my mind because I was like "you LOVED her?? you stored me against my will you complete asscrack!"
I choose not to be salty about that screwup anymore because mistakes happen. But a pattern of mistakes--or a pattern of behaviour that leads toward players starting to feel over a period of years that they are being singled out--does deserve looking at, I think. I'm just not sure what the ultimate answer is.
+1
Another post I have to agree with BadSkeelz on. IC actions should have IC consequences, and OOC actions should have OOC consequences. I'm one of those 'for the sake of the story' people, and when chars are killed off or punished for their actions, IG, it only furthers the story.
Edited to add: I just reread Fathi's post. I like the idea of a 'Player-to-Staff' advocate. I have a substantial amount of Karma, a char I really, really, really love playing right now, numerous kudos recently, (I only mention that because it makes me feel as I'm involving players and driving the game forward) and....
I'd be willing to give all of that up, and stop playing completely for the sake of transparency and non-bais, in order to be said advocate. I have years of customer service experience, and, imho, a good demeanor and attitude when dealing with both staff and players in my official helper capacity.
I'd stop enjoying ARM myself, in order to help others enjoy it more, that's how much I love this game. Should I send in a request, do this idea sound feasible or workable, or even like a good idea?
I don't see why a sorcerer who becomes THAT powerful can't build a new city, and become its sorcerer-king. Or try. Or even try to usurp Tek, or Muk Utep, or raise Steinal, or release Luirs Dragonthrall from his grave. Especially if his player involves more PCs in the attempt, and generates plotlines. Yes, it'll require that Storytellers have to - participate in the story. But that's probably something they would LOVE to do, isn't it? Rather than answer requests, make custom silk-and-ruby-engraved doilies for master merchants, animate random rat #47 for shits and giggles - wouldn't they WANT to bring Tek or a black robe or two to life? Or build a few Steinal rooms on the fly and let the Sorcerer and his minions find some of its remains? Or something really awesome and amazing like that? I know I'd be all over it, if I were a Storyteller.
I do agree that force storage shouldn't be used in those cases, BadSkeelz. I'm iffy about it being used in cases of rule-breaking as well, except when it's deemed absolutely necessary to remove the character. But that's just my opinion and admittedly very biased by my own experiences.
But despite the fact that force storage is obviously a very personal issue to me, it's just symptomatic of what I believe is a focus that is too punitive in nature.
Sometimes good players do bad things and need to be reprimanded or disciplined. If you discipline them so harshly or coldly that they quit, you can say, "Well, I didn't ask them to quit. They made that decision."
At what point, though, do you have to admit you're partially responsible for the choice they made? Maybe you could have done something differently. Maybe you could have said something differently. Maybe you could have listened better and made an attempt to compromise or reconcile.
Or maybe you feel that you did as much as could be reasonably expected. Maybe the person was way out of line. Maybe any attempt to placate them would have been too lenient according to the rules. And the list goes on--take your pick. I guess the next question you have to ask yourselves as arbiters is: is it worth it? Is it enough to be "right" when being "right" is driving people away? If they got away with just a little more than they should have, but they stayed and contributed to a game that isn't exactly the wave of the future, might that be justifiable in its own way?
I'm not what I'd consider a great player, nor have I exactly quit, so I'm not talking about myself here by any means. There are others whom I know to be great players, though, who have quit because of staff interactions. I'm willing to grant that some of them WERE used to being treated with unfair favoritism and kid gloves, and they didn't like their dollies taken away, but even still I imagine something could have been done to ease their minds. I doubt all of them were unreasonable and unable to be pleased unless they were immediately given full sorcerer noble roles (exaggeration for comedic effect.)
We're a small community and I think we can make that into a strength. Staff here is able to listen to people and empathize with them a lot better than Blizzard admins. I'm sure it's emotionally exhausting to put forth that effort with every player, especially when some of them are jerks who rub it in your faces. And you know, many staff are wonderful at making me feel welcomed and wanted and I don't want to diminish that at all. But it only takes one or two terrible experiences to sour everything.
Sometimes we need things to feel a little...warmer, even when we're in the wrong. Sometimes especially when we're in the wrong, because we're feeling beaten down and humiliated and guilty. The request tool is cold by its very nature so I feel like going a little out of your way to make up for that would help. Maybe it's too much to ask given staff workload and the emotional burden they already have to bear, I dunno. But those are my humble thoughts on things from a player's perspective, never having had to deal with the stuff staff has to deal with.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 09, 2017, 07:31:30 PM
I don't see why a sorcerer who becomes THAT powerful can't build a new city, and become its sorcerer-king. Or try. Or even try to usurp Tek, or Muk Utep, or raise Steinal, or release Luirs Dragonthrall from his grave. Especially if his player involves more PCs in the attempt, and generates plotlines. Yes, it'll require that Storytellers have to - participate in the story. But that's probably something they would LOVE to do, isn't it? Rather than answer requests, make custom silk-and-ruby-engraved doilies for master merchants, animate random rat #47 for shits and giggles - wouldn't they WANT to bring Tek or a black robe or two to life? Or build a few Steinal rooms on the fly and let the Sorcerer and his minions find some of its remains? Or something really awesome and amazing like that? I know I'd be all over it, if I were a Storyteller.
I think it has something to do with the fact that, while the game might just appear as text and simplistic mechanics to us the players, it takes a lot of fucking code work and time to actually add anything to the game world. When in doubt, blame Game Architecture, not Staff apathy. Even if it's not true I think it's a healthier state of mind to be in. We're making do as best we can, not stifling each other.
I don't even think of Force Storage as punishment, just removal of a character that shouldn't exist in the game. When I was force stored that was just because the character didn't deserve to be alive because I was being twinky. The karma I lost for playing that way was the punishment which is how it should be. I agree with BadSkeelz (for maybe the first time ever) post below and in fact all 1 of my force storages fell neatly into one of the categories he defined.
Quote from: lostinspace on March 09, 2017, 07:37:18 PM
I don't even think of Force Storage as punishment, just removal of a character that shouldn't exist in the game. When I was force stored that was just because the character didn't deserve to be alive because I was being twinky. The karma I lost for playing that way was the punishment which is how it should be. I agree with BadSkeelz (for maybe the first time ever) post below and in fact all 1 of my force storages fell neatly into one of the categories he defined.
I would have thrown your twinky PC in to the arena or killed it with a mob, so someone could loot your shit. Wouldn't we want "shit characters" to be the fertilizer in which better things can grow than just flushed away?
Quote from: Fathi
I'm just not sure what the ultimate answer is.
Kill more PCs?
I'm glad you shrugged it off so easily. It made me quit and my effort to come back has been half-hearted at best. Maybe the game is best populated by lostinspaces who can roll with the force-storage punches and not sleepyheads who cry when their dollies are taken away, but it's just the way I feel about it.
For the sake of openness (hopefully not too much openness, though) the stated reason for my being force-stored was that I shared some IC information OOCly, and it was thought that due to who my character was, I would have far too much access to IC information that I might subsequently spread around OOCly. I know the big picture involved more than that and I hope no one is upset that I am giving an incomplete snapshot, but that was the reason for the force storage bit and when I inquired I was told that was all there was to that part of the punishment.
EDIT: I was also told that this particular kind of character was held to higher standards and I failed to meet those standards due to my communicating OOCly.
So I hope that proves that I am not here to portray myself as an innocent victim or misrepresent the reason I was force stored. I wouldn't be saying as much as I have said except it was brought up for me, but now that it's been discussed somewhat, I want to make sure that both staff and players know I'm not trying to play the woe is me I didn't do anything wrong card.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 09, 2017, 07:41:18 PM
Quote from: lostinspace on March 09, 2017, 07:37:18 PM
I don't even think of Force Storage as punishment, just removal of a character that shouldn't exist in the game. When I was force stored that was just because the character didn't deserve to be alive because I was being twinky. The karma I lost for playing that way was the punishment which is how it should be. I agree with BadSkeelz (for maybe the first time ever) post below and in fact all 1 of my force storages fell neatly into one of the categories he defined.
I would have thrown your twinky PC in to the arena or killed it with a mob, so someone could loot your shit. Wouldn't we want "shit characters" to be the fertilizer in which better things can grow than just flushed away?
The force storage happened after an attempt to kill me that I twinked out of, which is the reason I was force stored, I did unrealistic things that just happened to be inside the limits of the code.
Quote from: sleepyhead on March 09, 2017, 07:42:02 PM
I'm glad you shrugged it off so easily. It made me quit and my effort to come back has been half-hearted at best. Maybe the game is best populated by lostinspaces who can roll with the force-storage punches and not sleepyheads who cry when their dollies are taken away, but it's just the way I feel about it.
I play much less for other reasons that just aren't force storage related, primarily the removal of content like full guild witches and Tuluk.
Quote from: lostinspace on March 09, 2017, 07:46:41 PM
The force storage happened after an attempt to kill me that I twinked out of, which is the reason I was force stored, I did unrealistic things that just happened to be inside the limits of the code.
I would have just given you uncurable Terradin as you fled. If staff want to kill your character, there will be no escape.
That probably would have worked on sleepyhead too. Though personally I don't really care about others sharing IC information (which I know is an opinion I do not share with Staff) simply because I don't see any information that can be passed along that can't be outfought with good skills and good stats. You can't skill up over AIM and if you kill me with poison or magick how am I to know it was coordinated? All the same to me.
Anyway, I digress. As long as information sharing is taboo, that's definitely a grey area that doesn't fall neatly in to the IC Crimes/OOC Crimes division.
Edit: I guess if you want to remove a character, staff, kill them. That's my recommendation.
I thought the information I shared was rather harmless but it ended up causing a great deal of harm indeed. I knew I was breaking a rule, whether I agree with that rule or not, so I can't argue with being confronted and punished for it, but I don't think I deserved to have my character thrown haphazardly into the garbage with a two-line response to my character report. Even if I was about to store them out of shame anyway.
But it really isn't about me. It's about how staff (in my opinion) should try to shift to a more human and empathetic policy of dealing with people, even people they aren't pleased with at the moment, whether it's because they're breaking rules or being a thorn in their side or whatever.
What do you say to the people who already think we already have a pretty human and empathetic policy? If you had to write the storage notice to yourself, what more would you say that Staff did not? (I don't want you to answer, I'm just posing a hypothetical.)
It's funny how different we can feel about a situation when our seppuku is interrupted by another rushing in to the room and cutting our head off prematurely.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 09, 2017, 08:05:21 PM
What do you say to the people who already think we already have a pretty human and empathetic policy?
I guess I'd say I'm glad that's the case and I'm glad my expectations were just unreasonably high due to my own emotional investment in the situation. I know it is difficult for me to look at it clearly because of how disheartening the whole thing was, and even more difficult for me to look at it from staff's perspective. All I hope is that it sparks a discussion about force storage and the way force storage is communicated to a player. If I'm wrong and it's being done as well as it can be done, so be it. I may never be able to believe it because I got my dolly taken away, but you can't please everyone.
Sleepyhead, I think part of the problem with trying to develop a one-size-fits-all policy for that sort of thing is that the people who play this game are all pretty different. What makes one person feel better would make another feel victimised or pitied.
There was a famous GDB discussion a while ago about why staff never have plots where they mess with people's virtual kids/family members anymore, because one staffer had a baby-snatching plot and the player in question reacted HORRIBLY to having her virtual child kidnapped. Whereas players like myself would be like shit, that sounds awesome, take my stupid baby and let's see how this plays out.
Or for example when staff kill PCs instead of storing them. I had a character killed in a staff plot once and it was AWESOME, but it's very easy to see how other people would see that as "staff killed my PC" and assume there might be ill will or worry that they were breaking the rules or something rather than just "I indulged in some IC behaviour that led to a murder."
People have different sensitivities to each other. Different levels of sensitivity. I empathise a lot with the staff members who have to try to figure out how to send those difficult request responses because it must be tough trying to figure out what works for one person vs. another.
I think a good one-size-fits-all policy would to give a player a choice between force storage and a temp ban. Giving people a little more agency and a built-in opportunity for compromise would help smooth the feathers of those who are being threatened with either punishment. I know sometimes that will not be possible and it may not always be clear where to draw that line, but I think it's worth considering.
Some may say it's not worth it to extend that kind of choice to someone who broke a rule, but I say it is as long as they're a player worth keeping.
Other ways of helping soothe the wound would be to give someone a date by which their character will be stored so they can log in, say their goodbyes and whine about being "transferred" or whatever, or helping people set up a death scene. Again, worth it if they're a player worth keeping.
Phrasing things in a more diplomatic way is just what I propose if all other ideas are deemed not worth implementing. You're definitely right that not everyone wants things phrased the same way, so it's not ideal. But it's...something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmpU_73CXxU
I don't think Forced storage should ever be dropped on the sinner in game. I don't mean the world killing you, but something like this. For myself anyway, I couldn't think of anything worse.
A staff member sends:
"**** [You have done OOC shit.] As such, Armageddon's producers have unanimously decided to ban you from the game and the GDB."
A staff member sends:
"This ban may be appealed."
124 116 101 standing sneaking armed->[rYou have been put into storage.
%%% Disconnected from server.
Ah, I recall that message.
I took a short break from the game, maybe a month or two?, then I came back.
Said I was sorry.
Asked for my character back....
And I actually got it back.
I was pleasantly surprised and was more than ready to make a new character. That character later went on to be my richest, I think, character and he was the only *still too recent* that I've ever really enjoyed.
I'm thankful I got to play that character.
Staff could have easily told me that I couldn't be unbanned, and that my character would stay stored.
But they didn't.
I've been scouring the request tool for some request exchange that I found displeasing. And here's one that I personally didnt like. It uhh ... well, it pales in comparison to that whole sexism truth/false stuff that's been quoted earlier. But the point of it all is that I felt the conversation to be unfinished and abrupt. I just happened to not really give a shit? But it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth.
QuoteRequest:
Heya, folks.
It's been ... awhile since I've been to labyrinth in such a capacity. I noticed that some forage spots that used to be in labyrinth are gone. Gan Zein's Bazaar seems to be redescribed as picked clean. So I get that. But now, the top of the garbage pit is no longer forageable as well, despite the mdesc of the room saying otherwise. Is that due to some IG events, or buggy?
Response:
What are you expecting to forage?
My answer:
Basically artifact related objects.
Pieces of bone. Tattered parchments/waterskins, Skulls. Bones. Broken Tiles. rocks, teeth, etc.
In retrospect, I guess it was done to discourage the ease of gicker operation in the labyrinth, but it was done at the price of common sense. It's a garbage heap. It's ruins. It should be one of the primary spots where rats of animal and human kind alike would scrounge for tidbids of livelyhood.
Request Resolution with a Final Response:
There are still artifact foraging spots but they are in harder to reach and/or more dangerous locations. The entire city is full of old stuff laying around, it just has to be the right kind of old stuff in order to fall into the realm of "useful magickal components."
Your Question request has been resolved.
And in reality, the staff in question was in the right to close the discussion. I mean in the end of it all, he stated, "It was decided to move foraging spots to more dangerous/hard to reach places. Case closed.
But I felt slighted, because the decision didnt make sense. There was no IG event that caused the change, nor was mdesc of the room changed. I had all these arguments, but the request thread was resolved and closed. So personally ... I felt slighted. Even though it made absolute sense. The mere fact that it was less a discussion, and more a statement of a decision.
Was I truly slighted? Or was I unduly sensitive to this? This is very minor, but a slight is a slight is a slight. Is the general displeasure of communication with staff of the playerbase falls under "these" types of 'bad taste in the mouth' cases. Cases that are too minor to really gripe about, but still leave a tainted mark on our minds. Or do most people who're displeased had conversations that are significantly, incomparably worse?
I have no qualms with that exchange. Terse or short is not generally impolite to me.
HOWEVER.
In conversations where I feel like there's more to say, but it's suddenly closed, I don't feel -slighted-, just have a brief frustration of 'Dammit. Another request.' And then I do it and I'm fine.
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 03:47:02 AM
And in reality, the staff in question was in the right to close the discussion. I mean in the end of it all, he stated, "It was decided to move foraging spots to more dangerous/hard to reach places. Case closed.
But I felt slighted, because the decision didnt make sense. There was no IG event that caused the change, nor was mdesc of the room changed. I had all these arguments, but the request thread was resolved and closed. So personally ... I felt slighted. Even though it made absolute sense. The mere fact that it was less a discussion, and more a statement of a decision.
As someone who has run and built MUDs, and worked in the game industry, even...this is what would fall under "game design" and it isn't a slight to anyone. With something like a MUD, you often time see quest reworks, or things get moved, and this is because the information becomes stale. Either players are playing through again and already know where everything is, or important things have been leaked and are becoming too common and you're messing up the 'economy' so to speak of what should be rare/uncommon/common. In some of these cases, I don't think an IG reason is necessary.
If the area still has spots you can forage, it's still a littered place. Room descriptions should be updated to reflect any changes in the environment, but it's not a real change of the environment, from another point of view.
As far as feeling slighted because this wasn't discussed with you personally, it's not a personal thing. To take it personally is actually a symptom of our culture where we have problems with narcissism and entitlement (really, there are multiple, full studies). Of course, being that that is true, that also does not exempt Staff from having the same problems. I don't see any evidence of mistreatment in their response to you in this case, though.
Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.
While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.
FWIW, Dar, I don't see anything wrong with that exchange. And it makes sense to me that all the easy and safe foraging spots would eventually give up less and less loot because in the Labyrinth, people pick over anything valuable. I do think that should be reflected in the room descs, though.
However, I can see how it might have felt to you, wondering if they'd changed those things specifically because of your character etc.
Quote from: Jeax on March 10, 2017, 04:14:54 AM
Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.
While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.
It also completely doesn't happen most of the time because... curtness, and closed requests, and rejection of any further discussion. At least 3+ years ago, I don't know about now.
Dar the line that you seem to be stuck on is this one at the end:
QuoteYour Question request has been resolved.
So hopefully you'll be comforted in knowing that's a stock (canned) line that shows up when the staff member hits the "resolved" button. It's nothing they typed out specifically to you. Everyone with a resolved request gets that line.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
Quote from: Jeax on March 10, 2017, 04:14:54 AM
Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.
While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.
It also completely doesn't happen most of the time because... curtness, and closed requests, and rejection of any further discussion. At least 3+ years ago, I don't know about now.
Closed door meetings are an infinitely poor policy. They are for privacy, but when there are actual disputes, a closed door meeting will always go in the favor of whoever has the upper hand in the scenario. For example, if you're called into your manager's office, he can screw you over as badly as he wants, and as long as he is able to isolate the scenario, nothing happens except you are abused. Your manager can also be perfectly fair, but as long as no one is able to be privvy to the meeting under the name of "privacy" no one can know for sure.
Of course in "real life" we are protected from this by documentation and the legal system. Official decrees are usually written (which our requests are, and saved in a database) and we can then choose to take that information and go present it to peers, judge, lawyers, etc (i.e., third parties).
A court or tribunal is the only way to prevent an oppressor from oppressing. You have to have the ability to expose an entity to something besides the entity itself to ensure fairness.
My expectation would be that if we developed this ability, it would make both Staff and players more considerate of what they are doing and saying. To illustrate my point, I know for a fact that many such stories that are phrased like "I got Nyr'd" are incredibly one-sided stories that victimize the person telling it. And this is the same problem. If there was an ability for a player to say "I'm opening a case against Staff" and published all "evidence"...they would be found liars. Or in the case of Staff abuse, Staff would have no ways to hide what they had done if they actually had mistreated someone.
But short of this ability, there is no way to prevent corruption.
All that being said, I have talked to Nergal specifically a lot, even before he was Nergal, and I would trust him with handling anything. I don't think he here (or ever) is doing this. But that doesn't mean some people don't do it sometimes. The power of staying hidden is a corrupting power.
Yeah. I'd like to add that I opened a request about some of the stuff I brought in this thread and got a very fair and satisfactory response to it. I have faith in the staff roster of today.
We keep coming back to the game, because we love it, and even when staff harm us physically (storage) or mentally (terse, unfair request tool treatment), we keep coming back. When some people finally find their voices, and discuss what they personally have felt like, everyone says "get over it" or "well that happened years ago and its okay now".
Its rare. Holy shit, its rare, but staff of the past HAVE broken the trust of some players. Replace all the staff you want, tell us that things have changed, but we'll still remember the people in your same position that broke that trust initially. We don't get to dock your karma. We don't get to force-store your PCs. But in your position you can potentially abuse us the same way we were before, and that's not as simple as "get over it".
Personally? I haven't been wronged nearly as bad as other people, besides a "I thought you were a better roleplayer than this" and "We discussed this, I told you how it will be, and you still aren't listening". I think besides the documentation incident, the only time I've had a real fume with staff was when my Jihaen did something, the players took it a next step, and before staff read MY report on it, they read ANOTHER Templars report, and chastised me immediately. In fact:
As a Jihaen Templar, there was a serious dispute in the Tuluki Arena public sparring grounds. This is back when they were open, of course. Someone who worked closely with a Lirathan was getting into heated public arguments with a no-name commoner of ill-repute, and knowing this Lirathan associate as I did, I suggested they let the heat off in the ring. Let the true Art show who is right, and if Muk Utep truly favors this associate as I suspected, the issue would be resolved. My hope was that the associate would win hands down, and either the situation would be ended, or the loser would take it as a personal plot and be interesting down the line. However, instead, they chose suicide by combat, and refused to fall back, flee, or disengage. The Lirathan associate, as well, did not want to appear weak in front of a Templar, so the other man died. It wasn't how I wanted it to go, and I submitted a request soon after.
However, the Associate talked to his Lirathan before staff read my report, and they either contacted staff directly, or staff took their reports more seriously, because I was told I was acting very much unlike a Templar, that's not allowed, what made me think I could do it, etc etc. Rather than read my report, which I THINK (I don't remember) explained my side. Once they read it, they understood and more politely explained their reasoning. Rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, or even check to see if I reported the situation, I was immediately confronted with staff knowing half the situation. Does that happen now? Honestly, I doubt it, with all the red tape staff has to wade through. But it did happen. And it could happen again. I've had a few other leaders since then, but I'm always afraid to make a decision because historically, staff don't trust me. (Again, I have like 4 karma so they DO trust me. But the facts, and how I feel, aren't always in sync)
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2017, 08:04:24 AM
Yeah. I'd like to add that I opened a request about some of the stuff I brought in this thread and got a very fair and satisfactory response to it. I have faith in the staff roster of today.
That's good. I, too, like the majority of the Staff today. It is very clear that work has been done Staff-side to lower the amount of Staff abuse, and I think that's all positive change. Like the Death Star, though, everything has its fatal flaw, and in my case I am afraid there rather is no resolution to the only issue I've ever really had with Staff. The resolution is moreso "pretend it didn't happen, or don't play the game" and I am trying to overcome that at present and invest fully as a player again (I left for about 2 years).
Edit: It becomes apparent to me that if after such a long time I still feel so strongly like this behavior was completely uncalled for, perhaps it would be beneficial to meet with someone on Staff. If anyone reads this and is interested in doing that, you know where to find me.
In light of my experiences, if I were to make any suggestions, it would likely be things that I wish our government would do. And that would be something similar to this:
1. I think all Staffers should play the game, or don't Staff actively. You have to be connected to your playerbase and see the people. This could also probably be accomplished by regular monitoring of players and a good solid amount of animation, since this would also connect you with at least your clan(s). The reasoning for this would be much the same as it is in government: when you have folks that take office, the day they take office they are quite connected, most likely. However, over the years they don't really live in the same world as everyone else, and eventually not only do they lose track of information they are supposed to know (like when our government tried to make it a law that all encryption had to be reversible--this is by definition contrary to what encryption is) but they also just can't connect fully with their "subjects". If an authority and a subject don't live in the same world, how can they communicate? How can what is passed be relevant to what the people need or want? And so on.
As an addition to #1, it's also much harder to abuse or treat poorly people you know as people. When they become "players" versus people YOU have played with, it's easier to distance yourself from them and you end up with less communal results. This is why road rage is a thing, and the Internet is a meaner and more open place: because of anonymity and personal distance. This helps not remove, but mitigate, that factor of our psyche.
2. Do something like term limits. The level of authority and influence one possesses should rotate within certain circles. As systems normally work, it's more like bubbles. There are team rotations so people don't favoritism teams, but there are no sinking bubbles. Once you rise, you rise and stay there. Combined with #1, this can be dangerous, and it has been the death of many MUDs (don't read more into that than I am saying--I am literally just saying it has killed games, thus it is dangerous). Sinking bubbles are also important for another reason: many leaders develop feelings of isolation and ultimately burn out. They begin to feel like no one is on their side. Relieving the pressure of high leadership and letting other people take over can be a healing process. Specifically our Staff run into the danger of just becoming jaded by repeatedly having to deal with troublesome players, or dealing with the stress of trying to orchestrate X, Y, and Z. Pass the plate around, and this alleviates itself.
While I think these would be great changes, I don't expect to actually see them happen. It goes against our programming in a capitalist society.
But overall, I am pleased. Armageddon has definitely had the opportunity to kick the bucket over the years, and it hasn't. I would venture to say at some points it has certainly hobbled, but it has made it through, and that can only be because people navigated it.
Quote from: Riev on March 10, 2017, 09:53:24 AM
As a Jihaen Templar, there was a serious dispute in the Tuluki Arena public sparring grounds. This is back when they were open, of course. Someone who worked closely with a Lirathan was getting into heated public arguments with a no-name commoner of ill-repute, and knowing this Lirathan associate as I did, I suggested they let the heat off in the ring. Let the true Art show who is right, and if Muk Utep truly favors this associate as I suspected, the issue would be resolved. My hope was that the associate would win hands down, and either the situation would be ended, or the loser would take it as a personal plot and be interesting down the line. However, instead, they chose suicide by combat, and refused to fall back, flee, or disengage. The Lirathan associate, as well, did not want to appear weak in front of a Templar, so the other man died. It wasn't how I wanted it to go, and I submitted a request soon after.
However, the Associate talked to his Lirathan before staff read my report, and they either contacted staff directly, or staff took their reports more seriously, because I was told I was acting very much unlike a Templar, that's not allowed, what made me think I could do it, etc etc. Rather than read my report, which I THINK (I don't remember) explained my side. Once they read it, they understood and more politely explained their reasoning. Rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, or even check to see if I reported the situation, I was immediately confronted with staff knowing half the situation. Does that happen now? Honestly, I doubt it, with all the red tape staff has to wade through. But it did happen. And it could happen again. I've had a few other leaders since then, but I'm always afraid to make a decision because historically, staff don't trust me. (Again, I have like 4 karma so they DO trust me. But the facts, and how I feel, aren't always in sync)
Maybe we're thinking of different situations, but in the one I'm aware of from July 2010, staff acted on their own initial incomplete understanding of the situation or the report of another Lirathan (or the associate). I know I didn't report about it other than expressing IC opinions in hindsight when staff already knew more about what had happened. Sucks that they were wrong and put the hammer down like that, but knee jerk reactions happen and I'm glad things cooled down. Templar PCs doing un-Templary things can - and have - become a big problem real quick so I would assume the reaction says more about staff experience with other PCs than what they think/thought of you.
To address the elephant in the room, now the log which made a player feel staff had been ICly sexist toward her been posted on j-carter.org can we talk about it or do we have to pretend that we all don't go on that site and haven't read it?
Quote from: Jeax on March 10, 2017, 10:01:24 AM
1. I think all Staffers should play the game, or don't Staff actively. You have to be connected to your playerbase and see the people. This could also probably be accomplished by regular monitoring of players and a good solid amount of animation, since this would also connect you with at least your clan(s).
2. Do something like term limits. The level of authority and influence one possesses should rotate within certain circles. As systems normally work, it's more like bubbles.
Regarding #1 - Staff do have the option to play a PC so long as they are not part of any clans they oversee, and are not allowed to take leadership positions while on staff. Some staff have even stepped down so they can take sponsored roles.
Regarding #2 - The only reason I can't see this working is that we have such a serious grip on keeping the mystery. Staff pull back the veil. They know the story of the World, they know where the Thralls are buried (as it were). They know staff processes, what gets discussed, what can and can't be done. If we had a rotation, eventually it'd mean that newbies coming into the game will have ZERO idea versus people who have quite literally seen and done it all.
I like the idea of rotating staff, maybe something like story arcs? Hire on certain staff to assist with running a VERY particular story arc. From beginning to end, that is what they as a Storyteller are brought on for. When the arc is done, they go back to being regular players. Not only would this "increase staff plot" potential, but it would possibly give the Producer/Team Leader staff a slight break while people focus on this new occurrence.
It would also increase the dialogue because players who are interested in being staff, but maybe don't fit in with the culture that has been cultivated over years and years, will still be able to occasionally provide a "new look" into a discussion that is going on. If Adhira hasn't played the game in years (not targeting, just using an example), and she has a hardset stance on a discussion, maybe someone who has been playing in the past year can provide new information.
Quote from: Riev on March 10, 2017, 10:33:49 AM
Regarding #1 - Staff do have the option to play a PC so long as they are not part of any clans they oversee, and are not allowed to take leadership positions while on staff. Some staff have even stepped down so they can take sponsored roles.
Regarding #2 - The only reason I can't see this working is that we have such a serious grip on keeping the mystery. Staff pull back the veil. They know the story of the World, they know where the Thralls are buried (as it were). They know staff processes, what gets discussed, what can and can't be done. If we had a rotation, eventually it'd mean that newbies coming into the game will have ZERO idea versus people who have quite literally seen and done it all.
For #1: Yes, they have the option, and those rules are part of what I was referring to as being put into place to negate Staff abuse. I'm saying it should be a requirement to play X amount if you are going to actively Staff in any capacity, whether that is building, storytelling, coding or administration.
For #2: I don't see that this matters a whole lot. You have plenty of Legends playing the game that have seen Staff-side, know the lore, know where secret things are, and part of the reason you're allowed on Staff in the first place is because you're considered trustworthy. Even though I know where some crazy stuff is, I don't go playing my current character like he knows where it is. I also know pretty much the whole story behind magick and how it works, but I'm not off trying to become a sorcerer, either, nor does my character know anything about it. It's just self-control with your RP. And so if anything, I think players with this sort of knowledge are responsible for boosting the experience of the newbies. As of late, when I spot someone that I suspect is new or hasn't played a lot of roles, I try to find something to involve them in that my character would naturally involve someone in.
I think this could almost be considered part of the role of any Staffer. In my opinion, part of (or all of) the job of Staff is to accommodate and make pleasurable the playing of players. Whatever that looks like for them in their current status.
Quote from: Lutagar on March 10, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
To address the elephant in the room, now the log which made a player feel staff had been ICly sexist toward her been posted on j-carter.org can we talk about it or do we have to pretend that we all don't go on that site and haven't read it?
False premise on this statement is that we all saw the scene as incredibly fucked up. Like I said earlier, there's a persecution complex that has to be overcome whenever the bad things start happening. We do it with templars. We do it with nobles. We do it with staff. They have power, we like to challenge and nitpick and suddenly hold a way higher standard than we normally do because it's happening to us.
I've got two 'quit' scenarios based on this in the last 3 or 4 years. Not quitting the game, but quitting out of the game to file a complaint/report/stew on it. But the reality is that having a mugger show up to threaten a fight at me is tons of fun and out of the norm of what I get out of the game nowadays. Now if they'd done what happened to me twelve years ago or so, and had the same NPC come at me and die four or five times in a row until they got me, I'd be pissed.
If anything, I'm disappointed that it resulted in suicide rather than people dealing with it and making a big war out of it for other people to join in on. Calling the 'sexism' card on it is basically a push for us to turn PG-13 because of the persecution complex. Sorry. I'm fine with sexual innuendo, and I think the call for 'I even gave them the name for someone else' is misdirection. Someone is taking all the interactions way too personally, and civil discourse over those fine lines is entirely fine, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for out of it; no more saying 'suck my cock'? No more saying 'you're all whores'? No more decisions that a big ruby might stand out in the Gaj enough for some dumb fucker to try something?
I'm not lacking empathy. But I think it's actually pretty minor and completely overblown in comparison to other people's direct communications that have resulted in bans or storage where it's more clearly unnecessary. I don't disagree with the communication that was given.
No, everything was not handled perfectly (nothing is). But -way- more important than this is the gripe that people want more interactions from storytellers and more conflict, until such a time that it doesn't end up the way they want it and you promote an air of 'The only time you should ever do something is when it all goes well and swell for the people involved', which is just an impossible task and results in fear of interacting with players.
Just read that log. The dwarf was a player, right?
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 07:00:28 PM
Just read that log. The dwarf was a player, right?
If I recall the dwarf was the animation
What a weird and conflicting situation.
Bardlyone posted a log on Jcarter's forum to elucidate her point of view stated in this thread.
She did. Although at least for me, I believe it is a significant overreaction on 'her' part. As long as that dwarf was a PC and not an animation. If the dwarf was an animation, then ... for shame. If dwarf was an animation then it demonstrated every bad angle of gameplay. It was against theme, against zalanthan mentality. it demonstrated rail roadment of plots. It was bad. it was very bad.
But all that aside. She posted on Jcarter's forum. Which is in my opinion, an unacceptable thing. By doing so, she validated hacking and a culture of spite. By doing so, she turned a 'peaceful demonstration' with a (potentially) valid point to argue into a shop destroying riot with a point that can be easily disregarded due to all those burning broken window displays. Even if the point is the most righteous of all.
This resulted in her being banned. So in conclusion, the winner is .... nobody. Every single person invested in the well being of this MUD, from Staff, to Bardlyone, to anyone else, myself included, have totally and completely failed and sucks ass. I imagine some bitter individual out there who doesnt even play, but loves to spread dissent over aspects he/she is still touchy about is overjoyed with these results. Big Whoop.
At the same time, the posting of the log made it public, albeit in a limited amount and is actually a pretty good example of a Staff/Player interaction that is not hurting any other player if made public. That log and this case would have been a good one to dissect and discuss, in order to find a way to keep both the playerbase content, motivated, and having fun. As well as Staff efficient, motivated, and enjoying their role.
This is a clusterfuck in which 'every' party, player 'and' staff, have managed to do exactly the worst thing possible.
Quote from: Jihelu on March 10, 2017, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 07:00:28 PM
Just read that log. The dwarf was a player, right?
If I recall the dwarf was the animation
Are you sure? Were you present? I honestly honestly honestly prefer to think it wasnt. I would probably only believe it, if Staff themselves confirmed this. If that dwarf was really an npc, I am ... beyond dissapointed. That was baaaad play. Bardlyone's own play was shit. Suicidal and choice of attire and so on. But that dwarf ... oh my god.
And the amount of times the word 'whore' is mentioned is making me cringe. In Zalanthas, whoring is legal and accepted and marriages are rare and limited to nobility and tribals. They might have as well kept saying 'Bynner', instead of 'whore'.
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 08:50:39 PM
stuff
She tried posting it in this thread, and it was deleted within three minutes.
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
Quote from: Jihelu on March 10, 2017, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Dar on March 10, 2017, 07:00:28 PM
Just read that log. The dwarf was a player, right?
If I recall the dwarf was the animation
Are you sure? Were you present? I honestly honestly honestly prefer to think it wasnt. I would probably only believe it, if Staff themselves confirmed this. If that dwarf was really an npc, I am ... beyond dissapointed. That was baaaad play. Bardlyone's own play was shit. Suicidal and choice of attire and so on. But that dwarf ... oh my god.
And the amount of times the word 'whore' is mentioned is making me cringe. In Zalanthas, whoring is legal and accepted and marriages are rare and limited to nobility and tribals. They might have as well kept saying 'Bynner', instead of 'whore'.
I wasn't present but in her message to me on the forums, our forums, that's what she said.
I, except in the case of actual degradation of the game, abhor banning. If someone refuses to stop running around fucking up the game IC so that the hardline staff policy of 'no resurrections' or 'We can't change that' becomes the inability to balance the player actions, you ban them. That is not a liberal usage, that takes a lot of conscious effort and lack of care for the basis of roleplay.
Banning for anything else is ridiculous. That is my 2 cents on the topic of removing my pool of players to have access to. The ooc reaction to IC events of 'ban that motherfucker' has not happened for me in nearly two decades with this game. It's a game, a multiplayer one, and I will avoid those characters I do not enjoy, and the more people whose paths intersect with mine (sometimes negatively), the better.
Edit:
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/stop-banning-people.jpg)
Considering that staff do not discuss specifics on player issues in public, what do the players posting here hope to get out of discussing a one-sided posting of a log?
Are you hoping staff will crack on our policy on discussing these matters with anyone but the player(s) involved? That's not going to happen. But let's not pretend that bardlyone's actions aren't out in the open, either. Any one of you could read up on what she's done over the past few years if you care to, or if you were one of the lucky few she was in contact with on the side. We gave her a chance to play despite everything, which is obvious considering she was playing again in the first place. And now we're here.
Are you hoping for some sort of concession on the rules? That's not on the table IMO. When a player commits one or more bannable offenses, particularly if repeated after warnings/other discipline, they get banned. That isn't going to change.
These are offenses that may result in banning, particularly if repeated, to sum up the rules list:
- Failing to try to roleplay
- Failing to ask for consent before proceeding with sex/torture RP
- Pursuing any sort of rape plotline
- Disrupting play by attempting to play with the same group of players across multiple PCs after being warned away from them
- Sharing IC information to attain an IC advantage for oneself or for another player or coordinate an IC action
- Multiplaying
- Using a bot/script to "play" the game for you
- Behaving exceptionally badly on the GDB (we're talking about breaking actual laws, here)
Hint: To get banned, you have to do one of these repeatedly. No exceptions. Not even the worst player gets banned without doing one of these twice. And even then, the first ban is almost always temporary.
Banning is a last resort as it is. Scaling back its use even further is impossible because of how little it's already used.
Completely disingenuous.
That log harmed nothing but a reputation that did not filter to IC events, and thus, placed little harm on the integrity of the game or the characters involved. It swung in your favor until finding that an OOC -dialogue- led to complete removal of access to the game. That was total self-sabotage on your part.
There's a reason I listed the bannable offenses. "Posting a log" isn't one of them.
I suppose that falls under the privacy act, which of those reasons was actually used. That's not a skepticism, that's me acknowledging that you're not going to tell me.
However, I think you really need to realize just how poorly this looks at that point and find an action that demonstrates disagreements and grievances will not lead to a banning. That is part of the juggling act that is being alluded to in this thread as the divide grows that requires some modification of protocol and behavior on the staff side. When I also have grievances (although minor enough that I don't consider the relationship broken), such things give me a hard time in future interactions.
I stand by that banning is incredibly severe, and should be reserved for situations where the integrity of the game itself is compromised -and- actively damaging players and their characters involved. GDB bans are looser, because a lot of us say shitty things all the time, and is not necessary for a good gameplay experience.
Edit: You guys really need to consider changing policy on public information. In light of a lot of things being discussed elsewhere with reliable frequency, announcing bans and staff position on them as protocol might be wise. Or something of that nature. Something to go against, at least.
Wow. I thought things actually had changed. I hope you don't delete your own posts, Nergal. I may be a complete asshat, but I'm still capable of seeing what's going on here, even from this thread alone. Consider me another veteran lost. Sorry to the players whose stories this affects.
This has been a futile attempt to help.
Man for the longest time I thought I was the biggest, jaded butthurt cynic around here.
If someone happens to break a rule and is a disgruntled player as well, they are not somehow immune to punishment.
My job is to help run the game. The "juggling act" cuts both ways here. What you're saying makes sense - staff should change what they do to reflect the playerbase's needs and wants. So let's imagine staff applying a softer touch to angrier players who also happen to be breaking the rules. What happens then? I can tell you that we'll get called out by good, honest players who follow the rules for turning a blind eye toward people actively spoiling the game. Player complaints will increase. And we'll be back to where we are now.
My point is that "the playerbase" isn't just one bloc. The "Staff-Player Divide" ignores that there are divisions between players as well. Players who follow the rules and expect an unspoiled game where they can RP on an even playing field expect staff to take out the trash and the cheaters. Players have different interests - and things that bother them, and things that neither bother nor interest them - and serving all of those interests equally is an impossibility. So we have to prioritize: the most basic thing we can and should do is maintain a roleplaying environment free from the hindrances of OOC discussion influencing IC play. The second thing we should do is keep things fun and new. And everything else will fall into place.
The last group, the players who break the rules, head off to jcarter to discuss their one side of the story with ~5 regular posters who don't care about the game so much that they're happy to show how little they care about the game by constantly discussing the game.
My suggestion to players: think for yourselves. What makes more sense: that the staff plotted among one another to mess with a player we were on the mend with over a period of months, breaking our own rules on starting plots to harm characters and the overall setting, and then covered it up? Or that a player with a long and publicly well-documented history of subversive activities toward the game misinterpreted information, falsified information, broke rules, got banned, and posted some other story as an excuse?
Hint: If it was choice #1 we would've just not banned the player and then pretended everything was normal.
Thread locked. This conversation cannot continue without staff breaking its own rules on sharing information on other players, and that's not a road I am comfortable with going down.
If that's a deal-breaker for you, leave the game. If instead you want to rationally dissent then think of a way to do that that isn't trolly.