Policy Discussion: 2011

[Majikal]

What he said.

[Lizzie]

That, and more. But I can't express more for several reasons, only one (and probably the least) of which is that some of the details are too currently IC for an explanation to make any sense.

[wizturbo]

It shouldn't "might bend" for some and not for others, it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone.  

I completely disagree with this. The game has a karma system and account notes for a reason.  If a player has shown themselves to be a problem, they should not be given certain roles where they could become abusive.  This applies to special apps, sponsered roles, karma guilds...I don't see why it shouldn't apply for positions attainable through IC actions.

[wizturbo]

So it's not that there is a glass ceiling--it's that you know there's a glass ceiling?  Because of this kind of argument, this is not the first time that I've wondered whether it's a better policy for us to just not announce anything in the way of policy and just keep everything staff-side.  You can't be unhappy about staff policies if you don't know what they are, after all...

Strangely...yes...that's what I mean Nyr.  The beauty of not telling the players internal policies is that you can also change them regularly without any hoopla surrounding it.  No announcements are required, no whining on the forums about the change, no expectations are altered.  You can even 'bend' them on a case by case basis as well, if certain conditions make that worth while.

[brytta.leofa]

< Derail that I meant to post elsewhere. >

[Rhyden]

God damnit, I so knew Malenthis was an avatar.

The idea that something is impossible, or that advancement can only go so far, or that we'll be force-stored for any reason, is a huge turn-off for players. Marauder Moe brings up an excellent point however, that it would be extremely boring as a top tier leadership position. Though I believe these positions should still be achievable, if rarely so, it should be just as rare for these positions to be force-stored. Isn't it enough already that slaves are now automatically stored?

I used to love playing leader positions but stopped altogether a while ago, because I felt like I was being "blocked" at every turn. It can't just be a coincidence that other players seem to be feeling this same sort of conflict when it comes to leadership positions, and from what it sounds like, this isn't anything new. Should leadership positions be more strictly structured so that leaders know exactly what they can or can't achieve? Should leadership positions be more flexible, to allow less "roadblocks" and more creation (or destruction) via working with staff?

I don't think there's an overall solution that will fix this. It simply seems like the way the game is structured, not every position can be plausibly played. Not everything can be achieved, or created, or destructed without some kind of major staff involvement. This said, the more boundaries are put in place, the more players will try to break them down. Simply put, the players of Armageddon want to have the idea that anything we imagine is possible, and that we can change the world, even if just a little.

Similar thread on this topic...
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,37062.0.html

[jhunter]

It shouldn't "might bend" for some and not for others, it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone.  

I completely disagree with this. The game has a karma system and account notes for a reason.  If a player has shown themselves to be a problem, they should not be given certain roles where they could become abusive.  This applies to special apps, sponsered roles, karma guilds...I don't see why it shouldn't apply for positions attainable through IC actions.

If they're abusing anything or not playing realistically then their character likely wouldn't be in a position for advancement anyway so that point is moot. My point is, they shouldn't be able to go: "I like this person and their style so I'll let things bend for them." or "No real reason they shouldn't be able to but, it's up to me and I really don't care for this person so I'm not gonna bend on it and I'll opt to keep the "ceiling" in place. The staff are not flawless superbeings. They're human and as such are just as prone to abuse their power and make unfair, biased decisions when it comes to such things regarding players.
I'm not speaking of a particlar situation where I have been denied advancement in such situations but merely pointing out the problems that leaving a "flexible ceiling" that's completely up to the staffer at the time can cause.
I say, to prevent such things, have a known cap set for everyone in regards to advancement, or have no such cap exist for anyone.

[Synthesis]

I have my doubts about whether most players are creative and/or interesting and/or knowledgeable enough to be running amok creating world-changing plots and running world-changing characters in the world I enjoy playing in.  Not that I don't enjoy playing with you...I just don't trust you.

[Adhira]

If they're abusing anything or not playing realistically then their character likely wouldn't be in a position for advancement anyway so that point is moot. My point is, they shouldn't be able to go: "I like this person and their style so I'll let things bend for them." or "No real reason they shouldn't be able to but, it's up to me and I really don't care for this person so I'm not gonna bend on it and I'll opt to keep the "ceiling" in place. The staff are not flawless superbeings. They're human and as such are just as prone to abuse their power and make unfair, biased decisions when it comes to such things regarding players.

This was not what I was saying at all. I said if the situation arose that we could support it, then it may be considered. I did not say: if I like the person and feel like promoting them.  We try very hard to make sure that our bias does not play a part and in fact that is why we have in place the current policy of playing things at the lower level. 

[Sam]

Right, that is understandable, Adhira.
Looking from the position of a player, it looks a lot like favoritism.

[jhunter]

Right, that is understandable, Adhira.
Looking from the position of a player, it looks a lot like favoritism.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I wasn't saying that's what exactly is going on. I was saying from the player's perspective it -could- be and that causes problems.

[Nao]

Forced storage? That's new, why not just uh, be traditional and kill the PC?

[Saellyn]

I feel confused when the topic of "if you get to x level of power (Templar/Noble aside) you get stored" comes into play. As the Defiler/Sorcerer bit comes into play, I guess what I want to know is, if the character is played strictly to their biography, are they going to get stored when that last magickal skill hits "master" level, or are/will there be some extenuating circumstance that forces it because the player did something -really- bad that they shouldn't have done?

Meaning, is it level of power that forces storage, or a major break in the character that isn't supported ICly?

[musashi]

As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.

So I think it's more than there are extenuating circumstances, but they don't have to be that the player did anything wrong. It happens when staff decides it's going to happen.

[Saellyn]

I'd prefer a staffers input.

[musashi]

Then post in ask the staff.

[Nyr]

As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.

So I think it's more than there are extenuating circumstances, but they don't have to be that the player did anything wrong. It happens when staff decides it's going to happen.

You understand it improperly.

[Saellyn]

This is why I would like some clarification on the issue, because I'm seeing too much... debate on the matter, I guess?

[musashi]

You understand it improperly.

Feel free to clarify. Or not. *shrug*

[Nyr]

This is why I would like some clarification on the issue, because I'm seeing too much... debate on the matter, I guess?

Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them.  I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.

If a player (for whatever reason) decides that they want to play a role in which they practice the abilities of their elementalist daily, yet at the same time, they roleplay such that they do not want to have said elemental powers (daily), at some point, it is possible that the gameworld may force your character to make a decision one way or another due to the cognitive dissonance involved as well as greater factors involving the element in question.  I won't get more particular than that because of stuff not ever player needs to know about except to discover IC, but the situation itself is about a year old.  It's one thing if the player is playing a role strictly to their biography, quite another if they were codedly doing one thing and roleplaying something else--and over a long period of time, at that.

edit to add:  it's about a year old, not over a year old, oops.  close though.

[Saellyn]

Oh. Thanks. So it basically -is- extenuating circumstances that are relatively exclusive to a certain person.

[Nyr]

Oh. Thanks. So it basically -is- extenuating circumstances that are relatively exclusive to a certain person.

It was a unique situation that I've not seen before, so yes, that's most likely accurate.

[Saellyn]

I meant that as a general catch-all "Staff will store your uberpowerful char if/when something ridiculous comes up".

[musashi]

Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them.  I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.

Perhaps you're not aware Nyr, but I'm not the only person to have had a character forced stored for an extenuating circumstance that seemed a little dodgy from a player's perspective. To date 4 other people have PM'd me to express similar experiences. Obviously I'm not going to name them because if they wanted that known they'd post for themselves.

I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.

I can't speak to anyone's experience save my own, but since you brought it up, let me add a few things to your explanation so you can see how it looks from the other person's perspective.

If a player (for whatever reason) decides that they want to play a role in which they practice the abilities of their elementalist daily, yet at the same time, they roleplay such that they do not want to have said elemental powers (daily), at some point, it is possible that the gameworld may force you into storage without the option of a choice to be made, rather than forcing you to make a choice. And it will do this in spite of the fact that your reasoning and justification for the duality was meticulously detailed in the frequent character updates that you sent in, although you received no feedback about any of it save for when you were informed of the now inevitable end of the line. I won't get more particular than that because of stuff not every player needs to know about except to discover IC, but the situation itself is about a year old.  It's one thing if the player is playing a role strictly to their biography, quite another if they were playing a role strictly to their biography and also in reaction to IC events and they keep staff in the loop about it all via emails and further biography updates.

But in any case, ok. Staff will not store your character simply for being codedly powerful. I'll take your word for it.

EDIT to add: Make that 6 players aside from me. This post apparently got the attention of two more.

[Nyr]

Okay.

Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them.  I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.

Perhaps you're not aware Nyr, but I'm not the only person to have had a character forced stored for an extenuating circumstance that seemed a little dodgy from a player's perspective. To date 4 other people have PM'd me to express similar experiences. Obviously I'm not going to name them because if they wanted that known they'd post for themselves.

Send in a request containing each one, and I'll show you the story you're missing behind each one.  I'll post it publicly here if it is deemed old enough.  They can chime in here if they'd like, too.

I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.

Pretty much untrue and baseless, but a very convenient argument when you can't post the details here, no?

I can't speak to anyone's experience save my own, but since you brought it up, let me add a few things to your explanation so you can see how it looks from the other person's perspective.

You can't even speak to your own experience without bitterness or with any objectivity.  You brought up the situation, not me.  You have had this chip on your shoulder for almost a year.  I'm sorry you've taken it personally, but there's nothing else to discuss about it.  It's documented objectively how I put it, and we went over this about a year ago.

You did have a few options open to you as we brought the world to life around you; forced storage was not the only one available.  As one of your immediate responses to us being involved was for you to max out a new spell in a few hours, we did make a determination that it would be more difficult for you to proceed in a manner that would be to your immediate liking (i.e., not death, or not storage).  In the end, you didn't even get force-stored, you suicided your PC, which was understandable given the events at the time.  It was a tragic scenario and overall, great roleplay--for the whole.  What brought up the virtual response?  Your roleplay and your coded pursuits did not match each other, and the virtual world reacted accordingly.  This doesn't mean you roleplayed badly, it just means that there were greater consequences to your actions than you expected.  I'm sorry you disagree with how the virtual world reacted, but it's not exactly your place to determine that.

I can't even come up with a slightly analogous scenario for this because of how specific your situation was.  You were hardly railroaded, though; you had choices.