A reasoned discussion of the current state of Armageddon vis-a-vis Olden Times

[Adhira]

The following is part of the information that is given to new storytellers when they are joining staff.  These are from the storyteller 'probation information', there are other things that STs do, but these are the primary ones that new STs do/learn in their 3 month probation and outline the expectations our staffing team has.  You might find it interesting/helpful!

Storytellers duties:

- Approve new character applications
- Resolve requests for assigned clans, keeping to the 5 day turnaround expectations
- Login to the game port as their staff avatar on a regular basis (at least 3x per week or 10 hours).
- Respond to idb questions from staff within a 1 - 2 day timeframe.
- Report regularly on the idb on your clan group
- Animate as appropriate to support your clan group
- Animate the world to enhance ambience and environment
- Work with clan group on ongoing and in process plots/storylines
- Work on proposed/sponsored game projects

[Jave]

I think that in the last few years, staff has had a lot of good communication. I kind of rambled about it previously.

But, there's still player concerns that staff is snarky or rude at times (this came up on the very first page of this thread). I think some of that is because if you're treated rudely once, it lingers for a very long time, which can be part of it. I think the other part of it is when people only get part of the story, or only see when staff snap, instead of everything leading up to it. I get the idea that the OOC perception of staff behavior can be a lot worse then what's actually happening.

I don't think that guidelines to help staff in communication would be bad.

Personally, I also think that it wouldn't be bad for us players to also work on developing some expectations for how we address staff as well. Communication is a two-way thing. Maybe that's something us players could work on in the collaboration section, something of a "Guide to Communicating with Staff", if there's an interest in that.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have official rules in place for how staff are expected to handle players in correspondence, to codify what is already culture, but I'm doubtful it would have much impact on the perception of staff, for the same reasons you describe.

I'm actually a bit wary of having players develop some guidelines for communicating with staff though, to be honest. I worry that ritualizing the way in which staff need to be addressed and vice versa reinforces the perception of a divide between the staff and the players. I want players to feel comfortable speaking to us the way we should feel comfortable speaking to the DM of our local table top game.

The only rules I think we need to govern correspondence is a very general: Don't be an asshole.

[BadSkeelz]

Bitchy players gonna bitch.

[Jave]

I think that suggestion/desire from the playerbase really had three parts: (Your answer mostly addressed point 2, so I'll respond there!)

• A way for the playerbase to understand what steps are needed, to feel productive about requests

• Guidelines for Request Turn Around

• Inclusion/clarification on if a refusal is OOC or IC

A Way for Players to Feel More Productive About Requests

I actually think that this is fine, myself. I've never felt that there's a lot of hoops to jump through to get from point A to B. For me, requests are about keeping your staff informed and updated on what you're doing, so they can help make the world react to what you're doing, thus helping assist with plots.

But a lot of people do seem to think that there's just way too much "red tape" (the first page of this thread, the very first post, is about this). I guess I'd be curious on what people would like to do to improve things?

Or did we kind of address that? I know that one example was Patuk's tribe, but he felt that things were fine--In fact, he felt that part of the issue was that his format was massive and unformatted. Nyr talked about how the guidelines that were established to clarify what staff needed, and make the process smoother.

I think we addressed that pretty well before. Nauta as well said several times that the explanation and correspondence she received from staff about her tree issue was also perfectly fine and made sense to her. She even asked that the other folks in the thread to stop using it as an example of the red tape and inability to do things they were talking about.

I think Majikal's take on how to positively impact the game as a player said it best.

Inclusion/clarification on if a refusal is OOC or IC

What did you think about this point, Jave?

The suggestion/discussion of it was in regards to that whole pages and pages of using Nauta's tree as an example, with this as the primary post that informed the inclusion of it on the list. Basically, just a way for staff to better separate out if a response is IC or OOC.

I think that it's a very good idea to format your character reports with IC and OOC segments to avoid things getting confused. I think there are benefits to both staff and players for doing so.

For players, the benefit when staff do this is that they are less likely to take what we write about the IC reactions of the world as the Word of God. Just because a Guild Boss NPC took your money and agreed to X, doesn't mean with 100% certainty that he isn't planning to betray you. When we can tell you what's happening IC, and then also give you our clearly OOC take as well it might help players to realize that what we write about the IC world isn't always going to be the absolute truth of reality, we are just writing what we think your characters would perceive.

Example

IC: The elves of the tribe you spoke with seem very receptive to your offer and have agreed to provide an escort to the location you've requested in exchange for tribute.

OOC: We're excited to support this RPT for you just remember ... elves are gonna be elves yo.

For staff, the benefit when players do this is that we know if your character actually believes something they are saying/doing IG or if they're running a scam. This can really help us to avoid getting confused about your character's motivations and thought processes and sometimes it can make the difference between us mistakenly thinking you're being a twink about something vs role playing very well.

Example

IC: My character has agreed to show this gemmer how to craft a mon spell component in exchange for X, Y, & Z.

OOC: I've played mages before and I'm pretty sure this guy is looking for the crafting recipe for [redacted], but my current character as you know is a guild ranger and has no idea what any of this stuff is. He's just a desert elf, and is perfectly happy to scam this city bound round ear by making something up.

[Taven]

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have official rules in place for how staff are expected to handle players in correspondence, to codify what is already culture, but I'm doubtful it would have much impact on the perception of staff, for the same reasons you describe.

I'm actually a bit wary of having players develop some guidelines for communicating with staff though, to be honest. I worry that ritualizing the way in which staff need to be addressed and vice versa reinforces the perception of a divide between the staff and the players. I want players to feel comfortable speaking to us the way we should feel comfortable speaking to the DM of our local table top game.

The only rules I think we need to govern correspondence is a very general: Don't be an asshole.

I didn't mean it as a ritual or some superstitious "behave like this, or staff will get you!". More guidelines and advice, maybe even with old examples from players, or the like. For example, my advice for communicating with staff would be to never write a response when you're angry. Always wait 24 hours. If you're still mad, wait longer. That way, when responding, you have a clear and level head. Instead of raging, you can outline your points and concerns clearly.

Stuff like that. I don't know if there's an interest or not from my fellow players on that.

[Jave]

I didn't mean it as a ritual or some superstitious "behave like this, or staff will get you!". More guidelines and advice, maybe even with old examples from players, or the like. For example, my advice for communicating with staff would be to never write a response when you're angry. Always wait 24 hours. If you're still mad, wait longer. That way, when responding, you have a clear and level head. Instead of raging, you can outline your points and concerns clearly.

Stuff like that. I don't know if there's an interest or not from my fellow players on that.

I hear you. I'd like to think that these are common sense rules that govern the social interactions of grown human beings in general and wouldn't need to be spelled out.

[Taven]

I think we addressed that pretty well before. Nauta as well said several times that the explanation and correspondence she received from staff about her tree issue was also perfectly fine and made sense to her. She even asked that the other folks in the thread to stop using it as an example of the red tape and inability to do things they were talking about.

I think Majikal's take on how to positively impact the game as a player said it best.

The whole tree thing seemed a little less about what actually happened and more player's perception of how things happened. In regards to that, Nergal did make a number of posts to clarify and elaborate, which I felt really wrapped up the whole tree thing well.

I kind of saw this as a different thing, which was less about if people could accomplish anything (the primary worry with the some 2 pages of thread about the tree), and more about the requests that are required to get change. People seem to think it's a lot of work and so on. But Nyr sort of addressed it already, so unless anyone has anything else to say about it, I think we're probably good.

Inclusion/clarification on if a refusal is OOC or IC

What did you think about this point, Jave?

The suggestion/discussion of it was in regards to that whole pages and pages of using Nauta's tree as an example, with this as the primary post that informed the inclusion of it on the list. Basically, just a way for staff to better separate out if a response is IC or OOC.

I think that it's a very good idea to format your character reports with IC and OOC segments to avoid things getting confused. I think there are benefits to both staff and players for doing so.

[great examples here]

I liked your examples.

I think something worth saying as well is that as players, if it's unclear if something is IC or OOC, we can also ask for some clarification. Something my staff has done in the past is leave requests open a couple days to give time for any needed response/follow up. I don't know if this is standard practice or not, but I love it and would encourage all staff to consider it as well.

[Taven]

The following is part of the information that is given to new storytellers when they are joining staff.  These are from the storyteller 'probation information', there are other things that STs do, but these are the primary ones that new STs do/learn in their 3 month probation and outline the expectations our staffing team has.  You might find it interesting/helpful!

Thanks, that was pretty interesting! I updated the usual post to reflect this and what Jave has outlined.

[Taven]

This is all that remains unaddressed from the list:

• Make Playtimes More Available (Better for Offpeakers) - Some way that allows people to see what locale/clans are active during their playtimes. One possibility would be to publish "peaktimes" and "highest offpeak numbers" of areas per month. Note that that may not capture full numbers for areas that are traveled through, or have temporary visitors.

• Announce RPT Type and Location in Newsfeed Upon Completion - When an RPT is over and done with, stick it in the newsfeed of Armagedon that a specific area had an RPT, as well as what type (social, combat, magick, high-class, low-class, etc). Goal is to better draw attention and interest, and make it more obvious what sections are more active or what types of RPT needs are being filled.

• Adding in titles and other accomplishment-rewarding small perks - Something for PCs to accomplish and gain that may not have a huge impact. An example is a fancy title or the like, or specific higher-end seating in the arena, and so on. Possibly something staff could work to develop, alternatively something that PC leadership may be able to utilize more in their play, at their discretion.

As per usual, feel free to tackle it or not. Jave's been tackling things at an amazing pace, but if it doesn't get immediately addressed, that's okay too!

[Adhira]

Re: Adding in titles and other small perks - this is something that all clans should have felt some impact from over the last year or two. Most clan staff (STs and Admin) have put in work to try and give titles and perks that have some meaning to various clan roles.  A lot of the clans have avenues that PCs can pursue and roles/titles they can fulfill. Some also have upward movement that may not have been specifically 'advertised'

[Jave]

• Make Playtimes More Available (Better for Offpeakers) - Some way that allows people to see what locale/clans are active during their playtimes. One possibility would be to publish "peaktimes" and "highest offpeak numbers" of areas per month. Note that that may not capture full numbers for areas that are traveled through, or have temporary visitors.

I personally think it would be healthy for the game if it were easier for players to know roughly how many people are around at a given time in a given area. The point of the game is interaction after all. I wonder if there's merit in something like a self reporting database, wherein players could login with their account and answer two simple questions:

• What area of the game are they playing predominately in?
• What are their ordinary play times?

Then that information could be anonymously compiled and spit back out to the website so that a curious player could punch in their own play times and see roughly how many other people usually play at that time and in what areas. Then they could make their choices about where to take their character or where to start play with their next one.

If there's interest in such an idea I can put it onto the staff board for some further discussion.

• Announce RPT Type and Location in Newsfeed Upon Completion - When an RPT is over and done with, stick it in the newsfeed of Armagedon that a specific area had an RPT, as well as what type (social, combat, magick, high-class, low-class, etc). Goal is to better draw attention and interest, and make it more obvious what sections are more active or what types of RPT needs are being filled.

I think that this one dovetails nicely with Nergal's project of reaching out on other MUD Forums. We would probably get much more bang for our buck announcing RPTs there and on the GDB here than we would putting them in the news feed, I feel.

[Nergal]

• Advertising Plots Better - Enabling more wide-spread advertising of plots, perhaps cultivating a presence on other MUD forums to do so (ex: voting forums). The goal is to capture some of the interest and player involvement that HRPTs or larger plots have had, or enable those not currently involved with Arm to see how active it is (and thus get interested in participating)

One of our staff members is actually already working on this, due to the feedback you all provided.

Awesome! Could you elaborate at all, or is it still being finalized?

I can elaborate on it. I'm going to be handling advertising efforts for our MUD on Top Mud Sites and Mud Connector. This will involve an initial posting for the game itself as well as advertisements for player and staff run RPTs and HRPTs. This will be targeted primarily toward gaining new players, though hopefully it will also get the attention of past players as well.

Here is our advertising thread on Mud Connector: http://www.mudconnect.com/SMF/index.php?topic=79536.0
I have been waiting about a week for approval on the TMS forum, hopefully that comes in soon. I am eager to advertise our game on these MUD communities.

And here is our thread on TMS: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/advertising-players/7472-armageddonmud-murder-corruption-betrayal.html

[Taven]

And here is our thread on TMS: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/advertising-players/7472-armageddonmud-murder-corruption-betrayal.html

Updated.

For those of you wondering, I'm waiting to respond to everybody else to allow people besides myself to get a word in edge-wise. So to speak.

[Old Kank]

I think that this one dovetails nicely with Nergal's project of reaching out on other MUD Forums. We would probably get much more bang for our buck announcing RPTs there and on the GDB here than we would putting them in the news feed, I feel.

I wonder if external promotion might not be best saved for HRPTs?  I always find it discouraging to log in for an RPT, see higher-than-average numbers, and still be unable to find people or anything of excitement happening.

[Lizzie]

I think that this one dovetails nicely with Nergal's project of reaching out on other MUD Forums. We would probably get much more bang for our buck announcing RPTs there and on the GDB here than we would putting them in the news feed, I feel.

I wonder if external promotion might not be best saved for HRPTs?  I always find it discouraging to log in for an RPT, see higher-than-average numbers, and still be unable to find people or anything of excitement happening.

Personally, I'd prefer not to have brand new players show up during HRPTs with their 0-hour first character. Why? Because that's more time spent helping new players during a REALLY chaotic time, and less time actually participating in the HRPT. It's also more likely to be MORE confusing for the new player, who has never experienced a normal day in Arm, let alone an HRPT day. It's also more filtering required by the staff during a time when they're preparing for the HRPT. In addition, if the staffers who would normally approve apps, are busy DOING the HRPT, it means those brand new players are not going to get approved and logged in, in time for it. Which means they're more likely to say "eh - they couldn't just let me in right away? Screw that, I'll play something else."

[nauta]

I think that in the last few years, staff has had a lot of good communication. I kind of rambled about it previously.

But, there's still player concerns that staff is snarky or rude at times (this came up on the very first page of this thread). I think some of that is because if you're treated rudely once, it lingers for a very long time, which can be part of it. I think the other part of it is when people only get part of the story, or only see when staff snap, instead of everything leading up to it. I get the idea that the OOC perception of staff behavior can be a lot worse then what's actually happening.

I don't think that guidelines to help staff in communication would be bad.

Personally, I also think that it wouldn't be bad for us players to also work on developing some expectations for how we address staff as well. Communication is a two-way thing. Maybe that's something us players could work on in the collaboration section, something of a "Guide to Communicating with Staff", if there's an interest in that.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have official rules in place for how staff are expected to handle players in correspondence, to codify what is already culture, but I'm doubtful it would have much impact on the perception of staff, for the same reasons you describe.

[...]

The only rules I think we need to govern correspondence is a very general: Don't be an asshole.

I really appreciate Jave jumping in and having a go at this issue.  However, I'm a bit worried that Jave's responses here don't really take seriously the player concerns.  The 'perception' here is one that players have developed from actual writings we've seen written to others (my original post on the issue pointed out that there were cases of namecalling and snarkiness in a much publicized case out there on mudconnect) and written to ourselves (while I've had wonderful interactions with some staff, with other staff I've received some really demotivating and discouraging comments).  In my view, denial only fuels the fire.

Part of it is that it isn't just about being 'polite', but about being 'positive' -- I should feel that you can communicate with staff without entering into a hornet's nest of negativity -- and it is also about feeling encouraged, even inspired, to develop characters, get things going, run plots, tell stories, and so on, and not discouraged.  Yes, staff has to say 'no' a lot, and yes they have to even punish players for doing things wrong, in game or out of game.  I can't say it's a job I'd want, but ultimately the game is supposed to be about having fun in a harsh desert landscape -- the out of game experience shouldn't feel equally if not more harsh.  And it does, at least to me.

I've sent some suggestions in a recent staff complaint about cultivating an environment that is encouraging, and I applaud staff who are doing just that.

[Taven]

I really appreciate Jave jumping in and having a go at this issue.  However, I'm a bit worried that Jave's responses here don't really take seriously the player concerns.  The 'perception' here is one that players have developed from actual writings we've seen written to others (my original post on the issue pointed out that there were cases of namecalling and snarkiness in a much publicized case out there on mudconnect) and written to ourselves (while I've had wonderful interactions with some staff, with other staff I've received some really demotivating and discouraging comments).  In my view, denial only fuels the fire.

Part of it is that it isn't just about being 'polite', but about being 'positive' -- I should feel that you can communicate with staff without entering into a hornet's nest of negativity -- and it is also about feeling encouraged, even inspired, to develop characters, get things going, run plots, tell stories, and so on, and not discouraged.  Yes, staff has to say 'no' a lot, and yes they have to even punish players for doing things wrong, in game or out of game.  I can't say it's a job I'd want, but ultimately the game is supposed to be about having fun in a harsh desert landscape -- the out of game experience shouldn't feel equally if not more harsh.  And it does, at least to me.

I've sent some suggestions in a recent staff complaint about cultivating an environment that is encouraging, and I applaud staff who are doing just that.

I'm assuming you mean this post. I took Jave's comments on the staff blowing up "always at the tail end of a long stream of abuse" to acknowledge that.

Let me start by saying that everything in that situation is from a single player perspective. Staff has a policy of not responding to that sort of thing. They will not discuss player requests publicly anymore, and so the whole presentation of an issue is one sided--from the view of the person who has a gripe. But, assuming that everything posted by the jilted former player in question is true... Yes, there were definitely times when staff could have responded better. However, I'd agree that it was after "the tail end of a long stream of abuse", as Jave puts it.

It's also worth mentioning that the same former player also admits that Adhira took the time to personally speak with him on Teamspeak, after he requested a discussion. Yes, when a producer was faced with a player that was having trouble, they responded to their request for further communication (taking it beyond just the request tool), and took the time to discuss. That, to me, is incredible. To me, it shows a willingness to put in the extra time and effort.

I feel like this whole thread has really been showing the present staff attitude. I mean, staff actually addressed every point and idea that was brought up in this thread. Every single one! I haven't updated the list to show that yet (people need time to discuss!) and the answer wasn't always a yes... But I think it's incredible that staff has been so actively involved here. If things like this don't help the player perception of staff being warm, listening to ideas, and caring about players and the game, I'm not sure what will.

Final thoughts: I'm personally in favor of written-up staff guidelines on how to respond to players. I think it would be useful, and helpful. I can see Jave's point, too, though--We already have a lot of indications that staff are positive in how they react.


This post was edited to make sure the situation in question better phrased and represented. None of the portions of this post quoted in this thread were modified.

[seidhr]

At the end of the day, this game is a hobby that we all pursue (both players and staff) and it's entirely possible to go way overboard in codifying everything related to it.  We already have a ton of documentation and there's an overhead associated with maintaining it.  I literally -just- resolved a request from a player that pointed out a gap in one of the helpfiles because of a change in policy (and the policy change isn't even a recent one).

[Jihelu]

At the end of the day, this game is a hobby that we all pursue (both players and staff) and it's entirely possible to go way overboard in codifying everything related to it.  We already have a ton of documentation and there's an overhead associated with maintaining it.  I literally -just- resolved a request from a player that pointed out a gap in one of the helpfiles because of a change in policy (and the policy change isn't even a recent one).

Could I ask what the change was for funsies/reference?

[Molten Heart]

I think that this one dovetails nicely with Nergal's project of reaching out on other MUD Forums. We would probably get much more bang for our buck announcing RPTs there and on the GDB here than we would putting them in the news feed, I feel.

I wonder if external promotion might not be best saved for HRPTs?  I always find it discouraging to log in for an RPT, see higher-than-average numbers, and still be unable to find people or anything of excitement happening.

Promotions for specific events should happen weeks or more before the event actually happens, encouraging players to get into the game to establish their character before the event.

It hasn't happened before but advertising for roles for new players might interest some people. For example advertising for Byn mercenaries or other clan entry level roles.

[Jave]

Personally, I'd prefer not to have brand new players show up during HRPTs with their 0-hour first character. Why? Because that's more time spent helping new players during a REALLY chaotic time, and less time actually participating in the HRPT. It's also more likely to be MORE confusing for the new player, who has never experienced a normal day in Arm, let alone an HRPT day. It's also more filtering required by the staff during a time when they're preparing for the HRPT. In addition, if the staffers who would normally approve apps, are busy DOING the HRPT, it means those brand new players are not going to get approved and logged in, in time for it. Which means they're more likely to say "eh - they couldn't just let me in right away? Screw that, I'll play something else."

Promotions for specific events should happen weeks or more before the event actually happens, encouraging players to get into the game to establish their character before the event.

I was going to basically write this in response Lizzie, but Molten Heart already covered it. Yes of course it would be difficult for us to deal with 0 hours played newbies during an HRPT, but ideally they would have already had a month or at least a couple weeks since the HRPT announcement to get in game and try to get a handle on the basics.

[Dresan]

My suggestion is hire a storytelling, no I mean an actual creative writer. Someone who can write a detailed story to take place over a longer span of time.

Again the only storytelling on a global scale going on in this game is when there are coded changes to the game or some major policy change (closing of tuluk). Those aren't bad, they are fun times to play, but story telling shouldn't just be a result of those massive changes. It shouldn't require more then a few global emotes and IC policy changes from time to time.  I would like to see more of that over the long term. I think seeing stuff actually going on in the world whether we are apart of it or not, will make the world feel more alive, and will further inspire people to join in, or plot around it, or plot to avoid it, or just benefit from it.

[Jave]

I really appreciate Jave jumping in and having a go at this issue.  However, I'm a bit worried that Jave's responses here don't really take seriously the player concerns. [...]

I just read your staff complaint, and went through and re-read your correspondence with the staff member in question. As Taven has already pointed out, as a rule we don't air this sort of stuff publicly out of respect for both staff and player but I noticed something I think it's important to delve into: I saw nothing in that staff member's correspondence with you that came off to me as negative or hostile.

Now, I am not saying that you're an idiot, or you're being over dramatic or some other slight on your character. I'm not saying that at all. I think there is a perfectly legitimate reason for why you and I both read the same message yet came away with wildly different viewpoints: text is a terrible place to try and read someone else's emotions.

I, being on staff, interact with that staff member on more or less a daily basis. I know their personality and their way of writing much better than you do just by virtue of working closely with them, so I have a very different context from which to infer their tone when I read their writing.

When I referred to staff blowing up on people, the reply you got from the staff member in question is not counted in those examples, nor do I think you were abusing anyone to prompt such an explosion ... ... believe me ... the blow ups I was talking about are not subtle. There's no second guessing the tone of those replies.

Your complaint seems to be primarily hinged not around what the staff member said to you but the way in which you perceive that they said it. You didn't feel it was positive enough.

I don't mean to be dismissive of your concern, but this is a problem that all text based communication suffers from both in work and in personal correspondence as well as on our game. Not being able to adequately read into the tone or emotional delivery of the sender via text is a problem that goes much deeper than Armageddon MUD, it spans telecommunication as a whole, and I'm not sure how we would even begin to try and address that.

We could put guidelines in place that say be positive and concerned and sensitive and civil ... but when the difference is a difference of perception ... and the sender feels their reply was quite civil and sensitive while the receiver feels they're being raked over the coals and skinned alive, it doesn't seem to me that the guidelines would solve the issue.

I realize that this is a problem, but it's a problem multi-billion dollar commercial industries with professional customer support teams struggle with as well. No one has cracked it. The way my own company approaches the problem is to have lots of telephone follow ups to ensure that our clients know our sales team personally, their voice, their personality, etc so that when they receive emails they have a broader context from which to draw the 'tone' out of what they're reading. -- But as you can see that's not really solving the problem, it's going around it. And we still have issues! Just like how friends can get into a tiff with one another over a misread text message, despite knowing one another's personalities very well.

What I do personally to try and minimize this problem, is make it a point to force myself to read text from people in the best possible light I can even if I think I'm giving them way too much of a benefit of the doubt. I'd rather give them more credit than they deserve than the other way around.

Final thoughts: I'm personally in favor of written-up staff guidelines on how to respond to players. I think it would be useful, and helpful. I can see Jave's point, too, though--We already have a lot of indications that staff are positive in how they react.

Seidhr also pointed out another reason why I'm wary about more documentation in this regard.

[nauta]

I just read your staff complaint, and went through and re-read your correspondence with the staff member in question. As Taven has already pointed out, as a rule we don't air this sort of stuff publicly out of respect for both staff and player but I noticed something I think it's important to delve into: I saw nothing in that staff member's correspondence with you that came off to me as negative or hostile.

Probably best not to air it publicly then, right?  (Out of respect for the player.)  Just to help you out a bit, the complaint concerned a series of events, all of which I viewed as -- and which were --- negative and discouraging, to the point where I no longer have any desire to play.

[seidhr]

At the end of the day, this game is a hobby that we all pursue (both players and staff) and it's entirely possible to go way overboard in codifying everything related to it.  We already have a ton of documentation and there's an overhead associated with maintaining it.  I literally -just- resolved a request from a player that pointed out a gap in one of the helpfiles because of a change in policy (and the policy change isn't even a recent one).

Could I ask what the change was for funsies/reference?

The player pointed out that we have split Account Notes requests and Karma Review requests into two separate things.  The 'karma' help file was still referring to Account Notes requests as the way to request a review of one's karma.  This has now been updated to reference the new type of request specifically for reviewing karma.