State of Armageddon from a Player's Perspective

[Adhira]

FYI - I will post more on the apartments as they happen.  The original intention was merely to renovate them and to add one more set to Allanak which was lacking in space. I added the new apartment. Then as Nyr said issues came up, and Tiernan helped us out with fixing them and then added in some extra functionality we'd had on a wishlist, some of which is discretional and adds to other things the code could already do.

Like all projects there's been a slight delay for me in getting this further underway. Once I'm ready to renovate that first space I'll post what we're doing and why. There may also be some calls for submissions.

[Kryos]

Responses

I wanted to touch a bit on what Patuk's earlier posts were on, regarding responses to posts and how they sometimes are interpreted by players.  I had some trouble finding how I wanted to base what I was going to say to be impactful and fair, but I think I've finally settled on a tact.

Closed Discussion

There's a philosophical term out there called a closed discussion.  To define by example, imagine if you sat down a devout Catholic and a devout Atheist in the same room, and told them to discuss God.  As you might already expect, the problem here is that both sides come in with a strong position and no intent of letting that position change.  They will regard other people's ideas simply with an intent to discredit or dissect them.

When Nyr responded with a comment about anyone who isn't role playing not being suited to Armageddon, I felt like it was already a closed discussion.  As Patuk had said, I tried to mention that several times in both of my initial, long posts.  And when talking in the situation we are, player to staff, there's an inherent inequity involved that makes closed discussions especially costly to players.

Reciprocity

That trouble is reciprocity in the consequences of a closed discussion.  If a staff member comes into a discussion with a player with it as a closed discussion, only the player loses out of hand.  The reason being, if their ideas are not heard, the person on the staff side does not have any opportunity cost associated with that.  The player, however, loses whatever was entwined in that idea(emotional, mental, or other investment).

On the other side of it, if a player comes into a discussion with a staff member with the intent to have a closed discussion, there is a cost.  For example, if a staff member sent me a request saying, "Kryos, we saw you killing an NPC in Luirs and didn't think it felt the RP of the outpost, due to VNPC populations or <some other factor>."  If I respond with, "your opinion," and stay the course, even if it is just two opinions being vetted, I'm going to suffer consequences.

That might be not improvement to communications karma, a loss of the character, or a reprimand in the form of an account note, or a written one in the request.  In short, the balance of power in all communications lie in the hands of the game staff.

Final thoughts on CD/Reciprocity

I'm not saying that either Nyr came in with something like a closed discussion.  Further, due to the high volume of player to staff contact, with far more players than staff, brevity often has value and appropriate uses.  Efficiency is good for the players as it generates higher turnover.  I think that needs to be clear.

That being said, when its a communication such as this one, where someone's obvious invested a great deal of intellectual capital and effort into it, brevity isn't as value and can come to project the idea of a closed discussion to the player, even if its not the case or intention.

Examples of how Achievers Can Struggle

Nyr asked for some examples of how Achievers(as per my description, or yees + the inclusion of the idea of goals for the behavior) who play the game of Armageddon find a lack of support.  I'll try and list a few ones below.

Succeeded in Achieving?  Store your character.

The first large example that comes to mind is the absolute limit on PC rank and status within a clan.  If you're a Blue Robe Allanak templar who'se kicked butt, taken names of anyone you've not oppressed, and pleased the Highlord enough to be knocked up to Red Robe (something an Achiever style player would drool over) that player looses.  Yes, the character won, but there's no reward for the player, in fact, there's a harsh punishment.  

If you get the job done as an Achiever and hit a high clan rank, the plug gets pulled and you're sent back to chargen.  It'd be like beating Nefarian in vanilla WoW and instead of epic loot, you get reset to level 1.  This is a very big slap in the face to Achiever ambitions in a game.

Further this compounds with S behavior, especially A/S, as you don't get to bask in your reward.  There's examples of this in every clan I've played in, and what's more, there's facets of many clans that are extreme A draws that are simply now marked as unplayable.

I will not go into details what the facets are, as I believe that'd breach the agreement of not sharing IC info in a public manner, but I think a lot of veterans and of course staff understand what I'm pointing at here.

Hard caps of success, that are instead punishments to A, S, or both styles, and inaccessability of certain avenues of play that would draw these types.

Some Skill Based Examples

Caveat:  I'm about to talk about the guild:  Warrior a lot.  It is not because this is the only available example, but because I have the widest range of familiarity with the specific guild and so I can best reflect on its specific situation in the context of Achievement problems.  This is not an attempt to say 'buff warriors.'  I also do not think it is necessary or preferential to 'balance guilds and skills' wholesale.  Yet, there's some things to consider.


There's also some skill based examples.  Now, this is a touchy area to speak on because I have no desire to reveal information that would look poorly on my intent to follow policy.  I'll do my best to keep to what can be shared.

Generically speaking, let's look at the guild:  warrior.
"Warriors are the easiest persons to employ. They are invaluable as guards, soldiers, mercenaries, military advisors, outriders, scouts, gladiators, or even as assassins and spies. No other guild can match a warrior's combat prowess, and thus all warriors are much needed parts of any clan or mercantile operation. "

When an Achiever oriented player sees this, they likely think along the lines of, "warriors = ultimate butt kickers of the mundane guilds."  Yet, they will quickly find this is not true for a number of reasons.

The core aspect of a warrior, the ability to conduct melee combat, is one of the hardest to improve in rate and the idea of reaching peach, in the game, if not the hardest.  The first of that, the slower rate, is actually tantalizing for an Achiever, it gives a longer range of investment.  However, the second part, that it is difficult, or neigh impossible, to reach the highest end of that ability is directly against Achiever interests.

Further, other guilds get access to skills that will quickly leave the warrior finding his ability to kick butt in melee is rather lackluster.  These skills, such as the stealth or ranged abilities,  reach their peak much more rapidly, and give the possessor all the tools they need to negate that power for the warrior, they chose where, when, and at what range to engage in conflict with these skills.  

There are other skills that do this same thing when possessed or not by a character, but I think I'm already treading on thin ice regarding what's reasonable to discuss or not.  In other words, you are not getting all you think you bought in satisfying play styles.

Changes

Lastly is the power to change.  The innate ability to change the world is a very large draw for the Achiever style player, and Armageddon does not incorporate change easily.  Achievers wish to accomplish goals, A/S perhaps for recognition, pure A simply for the act of accomplishing them, A/G perhaps to undermine the goals of others in a spectacular fashion.

Additionally, this has a large impact on what I previously described as players who enjoy the Creator playstyle.  Because you cannot easily add in a medium/large fashion to the game, a great deal of their ability to engage in this is lost.  Players cannot even use some of their coded skills to accomplish finished products on a large scale (except rarely, with a great deal of waiting and the the great chance of failure).

The inverse is also true, players do not have much power to destroy things in the world, which is likely a detriment to the G, but, because they cannot, also impeding the growth and enjoyment of A and C.  If things can be destroyed, they would need to be rebuilt, and so on.

This is hardly a simple thing to fix, for quality control and code issues, but I think its worth discussing.

[Kryos]

A day late, but hopefully not a dollar short.

[Zoan]

I agree with one thing Kryos says in his post: if you kill Tektolnes, he should definitely drop a Legendary. I'd feel cheated otherwise, having gone through all those Acts.

[Kryos]

On a more idea based note:  applying into roles for new players.

SoI did this for everyone, and I think there's some value in the critical first few hours.  If players with 0 karma were able to, out of chargen, immediately join up with a 'always open' clan such as the armies, byn, and merchant houses, at the lowest rank they could avoid the early confusion and some times inability to find recruiters with overlapping play times, and instead emphasize immediately getting into the thick of the game itself.

For players who have spent a few characters and learned enough, this isn't likely valuable.  But a new player would get to skip that frustrating initial stage and shorten a deal of the confusion/time out of contact with experienced players.

[HavokBlue]

It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.

Already usually the case.

If that's already true, disregard me then

I know that I have one or two negative notes for one-off incidents I didn't find out about until I sent a request. I wish I'd seen them at the time as it would have let me know to take special care in regards to not making that same mistake again (mistakes that didn't occur to me at the time as mistakes or even conscious decisions).

I'm not particularly bothered by it in the scheme of things, but I know there are some players out there that react very negatively to things like that when they feel they weren't given a chance to tell their side of the story or even informed that they'd messed something up.

[Lizzie]

On a more idea based note:  applying into roles for new players.

SoI did this for everyone, and I think there's some value in the critical first few hours.  If players with 0 karma were able to, out of chargen, immediately join up with a 'always open' clan such as the armies, byn, and merchant houses, at the lowest rank they could avoid the early confusion and some times inability to find recruiters with overlapping play times, and instead emphasize immediately getting into the thick of the game itself.

For players who have spent a few characters and learned enough, this isn't likely valuable.  But a new player would get to skip that frustrating initial stage and shorten a deal of the confusion/time out of contact with experienced players.

Most of your points I either agree with, or are ambivalent about. This one though, I disagree. The Byn, the armies, and the merchant houses have PCs at the helm in the individual units. Those PCs are the employers; not the House at large. That's IC. OOC, if I were a Sergeant of a Byn crew, I would not be very happy about a staffer throwing some new player into my unit, without my knowledge. As someone who did play a leader in a GMH, I resented the shit out of "inheriting" someone else's bad choices for employees, from the moment I first logged in as the leader. And they weren't even new players. Not every leader *player* wants to get new players dumped on them without even so much as a "pssst- head's up." And when you impose new players on leaders in that way, that's exactly what it ends up being. An imposition. It should be something that the player of the leader sets out to do, not something that gets done to him. That makes for resentment and burnout on the part of the leader, and not much fun on the part of the new player, whose only "crime" was being thrust into a clan without the leader having a chance to be the one to hire him.

[ale six]

Succeeded in Achieving?  Store your character.

The first large example that comes to mind is the absolute limit on PC rank and status within a clan.  If you're a Blue Robe Allanak templar who'se kicked butt, taken names of anyone you've not oppressed, and pleased the Highlord enough to be knocked up to Red Robe (something an Achiever style player would drool over) that player looses.  Yes, the character won, but there's no reward for the player, in fact, there's a harsh punishment.

I don't know that I'd call storage for being awesome a "harsh punishment". It's basically acknowledging you've won the game. Your reward is the pride in having carved your name into Armageddon's history and hearing mentions of your character years later. Sure, it's sad to let go of such an accomplished character, but by and large once you reach those heights your story for all intents and purposes has already hit its climax and it's time for the curtains to come down.

There has to be a glass ceiling somewhere. Where should it be? If we allow PCs to hit Red again, they'll just be stuck and unable to hit Black. Do we allow them to hit Black? What's the point? By the time you're a Red Robe you're already so much more powerful than average PCs that it almost feels like cheating to play near them. Besides that, staying true to the game world means Red Robed templars can't exactly walk down to the tavern for a drink on a regular basis. Your soldiers in your own clan are too unimportant to meet with you. Like the Genie in Alladin, you have phenomenal cosmic power and itty bitty living space.

This isn't to say I don't think there should be promotions available for nobles and templars. (Senior nobles, in particular, I think can work out just fine - fancier title, extra money, but still easily overcome by clever junior nobles/templars.) Blue robes could likewise get additional titles and perks from the Highlord without being promoted to demigod's-ville and out of the reach of other templars. Maybe they already do? But anyway, my point is that you can take it from me that being stored for being too cool for school isn't a punishment, it's more like a badge of honor in the trophy case.

Changes

Lastly is the power to change.  The innate ability to change the world is a very large draw for the Achiever style player, and Armageddon does not incorporate change easily.  Achievers wish to accomplish goals, A/S perhaps for recognition, pure A simply for the act of accomplishing them, A/G perhaps to undermine the goals of others in a spectacular fashion.

Additionally, this has a large impact on what I previously described as players who enjoy the Creator playstyle.  Because you cannot easily add in a medium/large fashion to the game, a great deal of their ability to engage in this is lost.  Players cannot even use some of their coded skills to accomplish finished products on a large scale (except rarely, with a great deal of waiting and the the great chance of failure).

The inverse is also true, players do not have much power to destroy things in the world, which is likely a detriment to the G, but, because they cannot, also impeding the growth and enjoyment of A and C.  If things can be destroyed, they would need to be rebuilt, and so on.

This is hardly a simple thing to fix, for quality control and code issues, but I think its worth discussing.

You're right that Armageddon doesn't change easily. Maybe it's too rigid, but I'd prefer too rigid over too flexible, and here's why: to me a sense of permanency is a good thing to establish a deep and compelling setting. If every character at 50 days played could establish their own House, with their own traditions, and their own sayings, and ranks, and so on, there'd be too many to keep straight. They'd constantly be rising and falling by the wayside as players died, stored, or quit the game. I don't know for sure, but I bet it'd be a staff support nightmare, too! Now compare that to Houses with rich and storied histories like Kurac or Borsail or Lyksae. I guess I'd just rather see depth over breadth.

Anyway, I think these sorts of discussions are nice to have now and then, even if we don't agree, and thank you to staff for participating too!

[Zoan]

I think the solution to a glass ceiling is to move sideways, not upwards. Lieutenant in the Arm? Aim to become Praetorian. It's happened before (I'm an example). Senior Noble? Gain ancilliary prestige; become the warmaster, master of coin, spymaster of your House - not a direct promotion, but a title nonetheless. Senior Agent? Same as Nobles.

Achievement is what you make of it, not what the staff make of it. I don't see why staff WOULDN'T let you fluff your feathers by giving you an arbitrary gratis nobliesse, it only defines what you define it as, and holds as much authority as you yourself present to the world and they accept.

[Zoan]

To further my above point, I ONLY play characters in which my own authority is self-enforced. For a long, long time, staff have never given me any clan privileges, any coded authority, anything at all for that matter. I can say that with absolutely frank conviction I have been given nothing by staff and yet I have presided over many players and they have willingly furthered my agenda under the pretense of my charisma and force of personality. I have literally not even been in a clan.

I've had a fair amount of leadership experience and I've learned the hard way that I can be a great leader, but I had to first suffer the hard knocks and villainous decisions of my staffies to teach me the lessons I needed.

[Saellyn]

It takes so many years to reach those levels of power (senior noble, senior agent) that in and of itself is an Achievement, and personally it took me a long time to branch out to the point where I could ever consider myself capable of reaching those facets. I've grown a lot as a player, I think, and I'm a big achiever who tends to let himself down a lot in setting lofty goals and falling flat. I achieved a great goal, a while back, that really exemplified that it does take dedication to reach the point where you're just better than everybody else.

Why would you want to be a Red Robe/Black Robe anyways?

Furthermore, if you wanted to get rid of the glass ceiling... why would you ever, for all the love of all that's vile and evil, want to reach the position that -Tektolnes- or -Muk Utep- are standing on? That would be just utterly ridiculous for ANY player to achieve.


Here's an example. I played a DBZ MUD, for a while. I do, off and on, and in it you are not really limited by power. So in short order, in about a months time, we had two or three players speedmax their way to level 100 and they are currently the single most powerful PCs in the game aside from staff avatars. The problem, therein, lies in the fact that they bypassed a huge part of achieving that level - roleplay. Because it was based on RPP. Now, take all that away. What you have is a guy whose HP/Power is measured in hundred millions playing around people whose power/HP is measured in hundred thousands. This is why glass ceilings are important, for Armageddon.

I don't want to be that hundred-thousand in a game world with PCs who are hundred millions.

[Cutthroat]

Succeeded in Achieving?  Store your character.

Being stored is not a punishment, nor is it a reward. It's a "Game Over" screen which basically says "Your PC has reached a position of extreme power and/or inability to relate to, or interact with, the vast majority of PCs in a meaningful way that ICly makes sense." Staff don't promote you in order to store you - you request the storage by requesting the promotion, or other change in your PC, with the understanding of what will happen afterward.

There's already some lateral "promotions" to make up for the glass ceiling, and IIRC staff have said on the GDB in the not-too-distant past that they are looking into how to improve this aspect of a long-lived PC's life. Should there be more & improved opportunities? Certainly.

While this game has the biggest staff out of all the RPIs, it also has the biggest active playerbase by far, and many of these players do not reach the point where the glass ceiling even matters. For every PC who lives for 1+ RL year, there are 1000s of characters who die or store a few months or less after they first enter the game. The game, and the staff, understandably, optimize the experience of the game for the players of this much larger group of characters, because it is the aspect of the game players are most certain to reach. That's not to say the long-lived PCs who have earned it shouldn't get any staff attention - they should, and do, and are likely to get more if what the staff have said recently is true.

Changes

I think it's easy enough for the PCs in position to change things, to change things. But like I said above, the vast majority of characters never reach a point where they are in that position. This is arguably one of the benefits that people who are near the glass ceiling actually get - the ability to change the world around them, not only through building but also through top-tier participation in wide-spanning plots.

I would argue that IG, is easier to create than it is to destroy, despite the reverse being true in the real world, as I'd assume that staff want to focus more on adding things in than taking things away from players (although of course, things can be destroyed if it is approached properly, and even recently things have been destroyed through the efforts of players).

[Norcal]

Closed Discussion

There's a philosophical term out there called a closed discussion.  To define by example, imagine if you sat down a devout Catholic and a devout Atheist in the same room, and told them to discuss God.  As you might already expect, the problem here is that both sides come in with a strong position and no intent of letting that position change.  They will regard other people's ideas simply with an intent to discredit or dissect them.

When Nyr responded with a comment about anyone who isn't role playing not being suited to Armageddon, I felt like it was already a closed discussion.  As Patuk had said, I tried to mention that several times in both of my initial, long posts.  And when talking in the situation we are, player to staff, there's an inherent inequity involved that makes closed discussions especially costly to players.

I am posting a bit late and perhaps the discussion has moved on, but this point is interesting to me.

I do not think it is a case of closed discussion.  Arm IS an RP game. That is the most central point in it's identity. It is probably one of the most RP intensive games around.  The game is designed to be as such, and that makes it kind of a specialty game.  You do not go to a specialty tailor to buy a bit of food for tea.  And you should not expect to have any great enjoyment of Arm if you do not want to do the work that is required in an RP specialty game.

The types that were discussed early on in this thread, need to be looked at from this perspective. In that sense the discussion is not closed and the numerous posts and staff attention to the thread attest to this.  

In addition, on the types you mentioned, it should also be noted that good RP is akin to good acting. A good actor does not play her/his actual personality in a part, but rather plays the role, most likely even adopting a different personality type to stay in character.  Assigning personality types to players does not necessarily mean that those types are reflected in their characters in game. I have played what you would call a  "Griefer" who was mean and nasty and would PK at the drop of a facewrap.  I have played Dwarves whose focus made them achievers.  I have played Explorers and Creators. And I know other players who have played a multitude of types and done so much better than I.

Perhaps the list of category types is just to short? Perhaps we need to add another type; The Roleplayer.

Your points are well taken Kyros, and I thank you for starting this discussion. I see a lot of wonderful ideas and opinions.  Don't think I am being critical of you or your ideas. I just felt that we need to be sure we are framing the discussion in terms of apples to apples so to speak, and not in terms of apples to oranges.  In any case, Kudos Kyros. Kudos.

[Nyr]

That trouble is reciprocity in the consequences of a closed discussion.  If a staff member comes into a discussion with a player with it as a closed discussion, only the player loses out of hand.  The reason being, if their ideas are not heard, the person on the staff side does not have any opportunity cost associated with that.  The player, however, loses whatever was entwined in that idea(emotional, mental, or other investment).

You may espouse an opinion about how you think the game should be staffed.  Your opinion has been heard.  We on staff are not required to agree with it.  I do not agree with it.  I'm sorry you invested emotional and mental effort into this idea only to have it disagreed with, but that is life; you are not entitled to having people agree with your ideas.  It doesn't matter what person with this or that degree wrote about this or that thing.  They are not directly comparable to this style of game.  If your premise is rejected at a fairly structural level (Bartle doesn't apply to this kind of game) then what else are you left to do?  Almost every point you've made, I've made a point to address it from a staff perspective.  In your case, many a time you've skipped over specific questions or points I've made in order to rephrase your position or just change the subject.

This particular kind of conversation was perhaps doomed from the start.  You came here with opinions about something and you haven't changed them based on feedback.  In fact, your opinions are about things that you feel staff thinks, things that we on staff can refute by telling you what we actually think, because we're right here.  Great, you aren't required to change your opinion about what you think staff thinks or how you think staff members handle the game, but neither is staff required to agree with you and change their opinions, staffing style, or the like.

On the other side of it, if a player comes into a discussion with a staff member with the intent to have a closed discussion, there is a cost.  For example, if a staff member sent me a request saying, "Kryos, we saw you killing an NPC in Luirs and didn't think it felt the RP of the outpost, due to VNPC populations or <some other factor>."  If I respond with, "your opinion," and stay the course, even if it is just two opinions being vetted, I'm going to suffer consequences.

Here on the GDB, you have your hypothesis that is being rejected by staff members--however, we are willing to discuss and have a conversation about areas of improvement and clarification on previous things that have occurred or future things that are planned, and discuss how players actually enjoy this kind of game.  Since staff is staff and you are not, yes, you can at times be spitting into a hurricane; we are not required to agree with you.  Ultimately, we do staff this game, and you do not, so when disagreement occurs and you do not convince staff of your thoughts, it does inevitably become a closed discussion.  That's how it works and that's how it has worked.  You still have your opinion and you can still say staff has theirs and there's disagreement, and the ultimate answer is "well, staff opinion wins out because they staff the game."  Your opinion has been heard.  It has been disagreed with, though staff have pointed out areas we are happy to discuss and work on improvement.  Dunno what else you are really looking for.

We've had players (albeit rarely) pull the argument that you've proposed above for much crappier scenarios, wondering who we are on staff to judge them and their roleplay.  Perhaps that is also an ultimately closed discussion, yes, but there is no obligation for the player to have karma that would otherwise show they know how to handle said scenarios appropriately.  There's also no obligation for them to play the game.

That being said, when its a communication such as this one, where someone's obvious invested a great deal of intellectual capital and effort into it, brevity isn't as value and can come to project the idea of a closed discussion to the player, even if its not the case or intention.

Quantity of words does not necessarily make a good argument, nor does brevity of response necessarily make a poor rebuttal.

Succeeded in Achieving?  Store your character.

You view this as a punishment, we do not.  You tie this back to Bartle again, too.  We also do allow players to bask in their reward (at least most every time I can think of that this occurred when we promota-stored people, even when storing the "sekrit roles" from last year).  Surviving calamity and being promoted to a level in a role few PCs play to a role even fewer PCs attain virtually is commendable.

Some Skill Based Examples

Skill does not trump the proper application of skill.  Plus, the most-skilled PC warrior can still fall to roleplayed machinations.

Changes

Isar's Tree, Hlum Compound, and Tyn Dashra would all love to have that opinion.  Just because staff is required in order to achieve something largely destructive or creative doesn't mean that it is thus impossible for players.

[KankWhisperer]

I just wish Staff's responses came off as more diplomatic. What I am getting out of them is: How dare you have an opinion? And how dare you talk about it on the GDB? How dare you play our (staff's) story/game? It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion". Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- non-confrontational post.

People propose ideas and changes not as attack on Staff for the game's current state but because they like to play the game. When Staff mixes in the old "Be happy we are volunteers." or "Be happy you don't pay." or "You are free to play elsewhere." that is highly discouraging to me at least. I don't think those points should be trotted out much.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.

[manonfire]

Yeah, uh, back in the day you were liable to get Nessalin telling you to go fuck yourself.

[KankWhisperer]

Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.

You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.

[KankWhisperer]

Yeah, uh, back in the day you were liable to get Nessalin telling you to go fuck yourself.

But I never got in much trouble for anything on the GDB with Nessalin. Emailing him to say fuck you is another story and I woukdn't recommend it.

[Nyr]

That could just as easily apply the other way.

I just wish player's discussions with staff members came off as more diplomatic.  What I am getting out of them is:  How dare you disagree with my opinion?  And how dare you reply with that disagreement on the GDB, where I put it in the first place?  How dare you deign to staff our (the player's) story/game?  It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion".  Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- informative but disagreeing post and blasted as an undiplomatic asshole because you don't agree with someone.

I disagree with the premise, so I guess I'm the devil.  If discussion was desired from the start, then a hypothesis about how staff looks at the game shouldn't have been formed without actually gathering info from staff.  I'm happy to discuss other things, but there's really not a compelling argument here that makes me want to discuss Bartle types anymore.

Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.

You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.

Whose freedom to express their opinions is being curtailed here?  How is the GDB affecting you or anyone in-game?

[Fujikoma]

I'd say some of the opinions expressed on the GDB tend to attract a lot of right ons and hell yeahs from people, which may translate to certain perspectives in game that aren't taking into account circumstances and translate to little more than kneejerk reactions (though possibly in line with certain interpretations of the documentation) in game and more complaints, however, it also offers the opportunity to discuss such things before they become an issue IG, though without being able to discuss details can make things a little difficult (though I understand why specifics or even some generalized statements aren't allowed).

So yeah, I'd say it can affect things, at least from my perspective. This is just my opinion, and it may be seriously flawed.

[KankWhisperer]

That could just as easily apply the other way.

I just wish player's discussions with staff members came off as more diplomatic.  What I am getting out of them is:  How dare you disagree with my opinion?  And how dare you reply with that disagreement on the GDB, where I put it in the first place?  How dare you deign to staff our (the player's) story/game?  It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion".  Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- informative but disagreeing post and blasted as an undiplomatic asshole because you don't agree with someone.

I disagree with the premise, so I guess I'm the devil.  If discussion was desired from the start, then a hypothesis about how staff looks at the game shouldn't have been formed without actually gathering info from staff.  I'm happy to discuss other things, but there's really not a compelling argument here that makes me want to discuss Bartle types anymore.

Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.

You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.

Whose freedom to express their opinions is being curtailed here?  How is the GDB affecting you or anyone in-game?

They're not starting the discussion how you personally prefer it so you're dismissing it out of hand seemingly. So you don't want to discuss it, maybe other people do. Your post seem to me at least want to snuff it out rather than foster discussion.

As for affecting you in game, I feel you're too quick to ban personally and not being able to use GDB in clan is a big deal sometimes. Also, I thought GDB can affect your karma.

[KankWhisperer]

I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.

[whitt]

I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.

No.  No it isn't.  It's basically the only reason to even -play- the game.  So you can express opinions on the GDB and then get butt hurt when others disagree.  Murder.  Corruption.  Betrayal.  It's on the banner for crying out loud.

[/sarcasm]

(OOC: Roll vs. Willpower) Go!

ETA:  can't be properly kidding without that...

[Refugee]

That's not a bad idea, KankWhisperer.  Most of the times I've been unhappy with this game, it's over something that's happened on the GDB.  I gave it up for awhile and nearly missed a big clan RPT, but maybe just reading the clan board will do.

RPI MUDders are such a small subset of society, of gamers, of even text gamers, that we ought to cherish each other, respect each other, and not try to drive each other away.  There are so few people in the world that 'get' us and there will be fewer as you age, trust me on this.  Each is precious.