Player retention and you: brainstorming

[Eurynomos]

I'll reiterate that negative account notes (when added) require the Staff member who added it to get in touch with the player of make it known via an open request.

We'd like to do something similar with good account notes. We are trying to devise a very simple method that doesn't create a bog of request tool work. I'll personally promise a resolution to it

[Desertman]

I'll reiterate that negative account notes (when added) require the Staff member who added it to get in touch with the player of make it known via an open request.

We'd like to do something similar with good account notes. We are trying to devise a very simple method that doesn't create a bog of request tool work. I'll personally promise a resolution to it

My account notes aren't stellar. I'm pretty sure I have one from where I intentionally tried to attack Halaster's avatar back in the day when he came down to reprimand me for shouting OOC for someone to save me.

That really happened....

I've never had it hold me back a single time.

[LauraMars]

I'll reiterate that negative account notes (when added) require the Staff member who added it to get in touch with the player of make it known via an open request.

I'd be a big fan of this rule if it was more consistently enforced.

[nauta]

I'll reiterate that negative account notes (when added) require the Staff member who added it to get in touch with the player of make it known via an open request.

We'd like to do something similar with good account notes. We are trying to devise a very simple method that doesn't create a bog of request tool work. I'll personally promise a resolution to it

That's great!  It's really promising to see this sort of thing, staff engagement, and so on.  From what I can tell there are two issues tangled together up above in the thread:

(1) a suggestion for improving the mechanism (automatically e-mail them, move away from the one-liner limited character system towards the report tool or something...);

(2) some worries that old account notes linger around (a perennial problem from what I can tell; staff has repeatedly said they don't take old account notes seriously, so maybe make this a policy and put it in the help file on account notes);

One tiny quibble, though, and this is just to clean up a confusion I have.  Your first sentence doesn't mesh well with seidhr's comments below. 

If you get a negative ACCOUNT note, you will get an e-mail about it.  If you get a 'questionable' or even 'negative' note on a character, you won't get a note of it until you request your account notes, but it might be brought up if you ask for feedback during regular back and forth with staff via character reporting.

And:

If we set a note on someone's ACCOUNT that is negative, they should get an e-mail about it.  If we set a note on someone's PC that is negative, we don't typically send an e-mail.

[ibusoe]

I'll reiterate that negative account notes (when added) require the Staff member who added it to get in touch with the player of make it known via an open request.

We'd like to do something similar with good account notes. We are trying to devise a very simple method that doesn't create a bog of request tool work. I'll personally promise a resolution to it

You know what might help?  If there were a couple of communication-related flags on people's accounts that they could set.

Personally, I prefer that staff who know me, be rough, direct and informal.  Staff who don't know me should be polite and informal.

Other players seem to want formality, seem to want people to be gentle with them.  That's fine.  I just don't think staff should have to waste time guessing what players want.

[Delirium]

I don't think we have to go that far, ibusoe.

Just be tactful, honest, and direct. Treat the player with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just as we should be doing with staff.

Armageddon has actually taught me a lot about how to constructively interact with people in an online format.

None of us are perfect, so I think the MOST important thing is: benefit of the doubt.

I'll use an example, a recent one - a staff member asked me to contact them to clarify problems I was having. Their initial response to my email seemed very brusque, but when I took a few deep breaths, looked at it as objectively as I could, and responded with as much honesty and tact as I could muster - it turned out a lot of our issues were simply miscommunication, and some misplaced expectations. Apologies were delivered on both sides and while it won't change the past, it made me feel a lot better about staff communication.

So it is a two way street. You cannot be hostile and reactionary to staff if you do not want them to be hostile to you... and vice versa.

[Norcal]

Presumably, if one feels it necessary to insert a negative and  non-removable comment into a permanent record and has the time to do so, they could also just as easily send an ooc to the player to tell them what they are doing is not good rp and to knock it off.  Then they could not bother writing the note unless the player does not correct the mistake.

I have been spoken to by staff like this on more than one occasion. I have no idea if they added the account note as well, but it has always resulted in a change in my play. Hopefully for the better.  Is that not the goal? More FUN?

ON THE OTHER HAND     

Having followed the arguments in this thread, and understanding more about the legitimate need for notes, and the code mechanics that make them permanent even if staff do not want it to be so, I can not see this divide being bridged. Notes are not going away, at least not as easily as some might hope.

So, perhaps we should just move on and show some trust all around?  Staff are doing many things to improve the game.  And we have some solid, dedicated players who do the same. Lets go have FUN.

[Rokal]

I don't think we have to go that far, ibusoe.

Just be tactful, honest, and direct. Treat the player with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just as we should be doing with staff.

Armageddon has actually taught me a lot about how to constructively interact with people in an online format.

None of us are perfect, so I think the MOST important thing is: benefit of the doubt.

I'll use an example, a recent one - a staff member asked me to contact them to clarify problems I was having. Their initial response to my email seemed very brusque, but when I took a few deep breaths, looked at it as objectively as I could, and responded with as much honesty and tact as I could muster - it turned out a lot of our issues were simply miscommunication, and some misplaced expectations. Apologies were delivered on both sides and while it won't change the past, it made me feel a lot better about staff communication.

So it is a two way street. You cannot be hostile and reactionary to staff if you do not want them to be hostile to you... and vice versa.

Almost every issue a player and staffer can possibly have will most likely stem from something of this. Communication is key with staff, and sometimes -miscommunication- happens. it happens to all of us, and clarifying such things in a civil fashion is the most important part of the communication process.

Miscommunication is easy to happen as no two people think exactly alike.

my opinion, anyway.

[manonfire]

Make Rathustra a Producer.

...

K good, now we've got that outta the way.

[Case]

People are way too angry about comments or criticism of their roleplays. Staff need some means to note things that occur that they don't understand, aren't happy with or are happy with. Nobody here's a perfect RPer. Some old notes should go, sure. If it can't be done right now, that's nobody's fault, but can be something worked towards.

Perhaps there could be some templated lines for some behaviours added to notes, so it removes the perceived snark or personal hostility. Maybe make a producer statement that all current PC notes or sufficiently negative notes can be requested to staff with an explanation, so people don't feel as powerless (you already can do this, but still). For noted things that are neutral, observations... split them out from positive/negative RP notes, into their own little section. It'll help remove the doubt and feelings of oppression that some people will read into them - then state that these DO NOT factor into staff decisionmaking for karma (but maybe for sponsored roles). There's a number of things that could be done to ease these tensions. I wasn't even aware it was some major source of tensions, but there you go. Nobody wants to feel permanently tainted I guess.

As a caveat, I have one visible out-of-context-but-looks-bad note, and that was on Lyvren from early on. Never came up IG and never factored in to anything as far as I know.

[Desertman]

We have DOUBLED Aardwolf's votes on TMC.

DOUBLED.

I feel an Armageddon Golden Age incoming. I'm very excited about the future over the next few months.


(I meant this for Random Thoughts. Oops. Oh well, here works!!!)

[Clearsighted]

ON THE OTHER HAND      

Having followed the arguments in this thread, and understanding more about the legitimate need for notes, and the code mechanics that make them permanent even if staff do not want it to be so, I can not see this divide being bridged. Notes are not going away, at least not as easily as some might hope.

So, perhaps we should just move on and show some trust all around?  Staff are doing many things to improve the game.  And we have some solid, dedicated players who do the same. Lets go have FUN.

I know people will break their backs around here in favor of justifying the status quo, but anything that serves to create more transparency, less bureaucracy and more trust between staff and players on Armageddon, can only be a good thing at this stage. It doesn't seem plausible that the 'benefit' of how account notes are handled currently outweighs their drawbacks and the ill feelings they encourage. This should be especially easy as we're constantly being told 'they don't matter' and 'not to worry about them'. If that's the case, and they're not some elaborate control mechanism for blacklisting people as many others have suspected, then it should be simple to make them transparent and no longer restricted to view.

And again. Many games, past and present, have done quite well without requiring such secrecy. It's possible that some aspects of staff culture have contributed to more headaches and more work than they're worth. Such as the obsessive need for being as opaque as possible in dealing with players. This is an online game. It's not a government agency, and anything that gets in the way of trust and cooperation, needs to be addressed.

And sorry, but Armageddon and its staff are long past the 'just trust us' stage. Maybe many of the current staff aren't responsible for that. But it certainly exists, and I think we all realize that there are severe trust issues in the playerbase. You want to know why Armageddon has trouble retaining players? It's not because the game isn't fun. It's because players don't trust staff. So eventually, if you care about the health of the game, you're going to want to do anything to create more trust.

At this point, that's only possible by significant and structural changes in policy. Something obvious and permanent that represents a break with past management philosophy. The feel good circle jerk 'let's all just trust each other more' mantra will only encourage and bring back the ardent GDBers. Not the sullen, silent majority.

Because whatever Armageddon's past management philosophies have been, it has not encouraged a healthy atmosphere. It's wrong to lay the blame for that on the players. Player attitudes are largely just a reaction to staff decisions. It's the same in RL companies or organizations, where the employee culture has turned toxic.

I mean, honestly. This whole thread just comes off as an excuse to pat each other on the back, how everything is actually for the best, and all past complaints to the contrary have safely been proven baseless, and there's no need to change any policies. I have personal experience, not just from ten years ago, but a few months ago, as to how completely arbitrary and unfair the staff-player dynamic can feel.

[Norcal]

I dunno about all that.

Glass seems half full to me, not half empty and I think I will go with the trust. 

At the end of a year we will compare notes and see who is having more FUN.

[Dar]

Bureaucracy and transparency are kind of one and the same in a way in Arm. I might be way off, but here's how I see it.


A storyteller sees someone doing whatever and decides to make it a lot more fun. So he animates a bunch of npcs, bends the world a little, adds a little high fantasy shtick, and makes it all fun for everyone. Perhaps some NPCs did not act like they were ment to act as per their personalities and stations, but in the end ... fun was had.

No notes were posted, no special "this character was involved in Tektolnes coup' or whatever. No mention of anything in the request tool. No mention anywhere at all. A storyteller saw a potential to have a fun scene and chose to bend the world theme to make it fun for the player.

"Zero" Bureaucracy.  "Zero" transparency. Because other staffers dont know it happened. Next time, charas approach the same NPC participants expecting a similar behavior and get something entirely different. Some PCs who lost something, or got killed during the impromptu RPT have no real closure, or even any way to track down how did they die/lose.

That's how I understand it personally. To get transparency, stuff needs to be recorded/reported/noted and eventually released to those who request it. I myself 'like' that system.

Though admittedly, I imagine it leads to a situation when some staffer wants to do something, but suddenly cant, because ... bureaucracy.


I dont really have a solution to this. I just know baking a cake and eating it too is usually a pretty bad choice of strategy to achieve anything.

[Inks]

Half full.

[Clearsighted]

Half full.

Well, it's comforting to know that the people still playing are satisfied with the levels of transparency and mutual accountability in staff-player interaction. But if you wanted to know why many people have quit playing, well, there's your answer.

There also seems to be an unhealthy undercurrent to the effect that just because Nyr is gone, and Rath is is a producer now, then magically, all concerns have been addressed. Noone's come right out and said it, but there's definitely a vibe like that around. I also know there's a certain segment of the playerbase that fixates on one or two specific staffers (whose name may or may not begin with N) as the source of all their unfairness, and if they were gone, then everything would be right as rain.

I don't think that's the case. I don't think Armageddon's problems with retaining players have anything to do with any one staffer, even if one might be a convenient scapegoat to some people. There are deep and systemic cultural problems with how Armageddon staff in general, approach interaction with the playerbase. For a game with barely 50-70 people on prime time, on a good night, and with probably ~10-15 staffers logging in every day minimum in one capacity or another...They have managed to create an extremely disproportionate amount of work for themselves.

Armageddon needs deregulation, and part of that is starting with the easy things, like say, account notes, then moving on from there. Armageddon is managed extremely inefficiently...and if people can't see that. Well. All I can say is that well-managed games don't need to brainstorm about retaining players.

[ibusoe]

Well, it's comforting to know that the people still playing are satisfied with the levels of transparency and mutual accountability in staff-player interaction. But if you wanted to know why many people have quit playing, well, there's your answer.

There also seems to be an unhealthy undercurrent to the effect that just because Nyr is gone, and Rath is is a producer now, then magically, all concerns have been addressed. Noone's come right out and said it, but there's definitely a vibe like that around. I also know there's a certain segment of the playerbase that fixates on one or two specific staffers (whose name may or may not begin with N) as the source of all their unfairness, and if they were gone, then everything would be right as rain.

I don't think that's the case. I don't think Armageddon's problems with retaining players have anything to do with any one staffer, even if one might be a convenient scapegoat to some people. There are deep and systemic cultural problems with how Armageddon staff in general, approach interaction with the playerbase. For a game with barely 50-70 people on prime time, on a good night, and with probably ~10-15 staffers logging in every day minimum in one capacity or another...They have managed to create an extremely disproportionate amount of work for themselves.

Armageddon needs deregulation, and part of that is starting with the easy things, like say, account notes, then moving on from there. Armageddon is managed extremely inefficiently...and if people can't see that. Well. All I can say is that well-managed games don't need to brainstorm about retaining players.

I can agree I'm baffled that staff should involve themselves in the Kudos process, for example.  Like where is the value added?  I can see them rubber stamping stuff, but generally shouldn't players (who want feedback from other players) receive it?

[Jingo]

I'd like to see kudos go through staff. Rather than see unsolicited messages occur between players.

[Fujikoma]

Kudos have to go through staff because otherwise IC secrets could be divulged, links to dickpicks sent, death threats, etc. through the Kudos tool if it wasn't. Sure there'd be consequences, if it were monitored, but it's important that staff be able to review that information before it's passed on.

Great job with your breed, Amos. Also, if you want my gear a scrab killed me just outside the gates.

[TheWanderer]

To further elaborate ('cause I wanted to be creative and talk about dead cats) -

You received a kudos for your play as PimpDaddyGG, TW:

"you play like a dying cat that's been sprawled out across a fifteen year old keyboard, fuckface. go die in a hole, you twinky, unoriginal piece of shit."


I can't really think of any requests that staff should just completely remove from the process.

[Fujikoma]

PimpDaddyGG, TW:

Request resolved!

Might have been a forwarding problem, however, as we sent it to your mom's email address, whoops!

[TheWanderer]

[Fujikoma]

Good thing I'm not an admin, I totally missed who that was supposedly going to.

[Taijan]

Kudos have to go through staff because otherwise IC secrets could be divulged, links to dickpicks sent, death threats, etc. through the Kudos tool if it wasn't. Sure there'd be consequences, if it were monitored, but it's important that staff be able to review that information before it's passed on.

I'm reading this with a sarcastic tone to it.  If he only knew...

[Fujikoma]

Kudos have to go through staff because otherwise IC secrets could be divulged, links to dickpicks sent, death threats, etc. through the Kudos tool if it wasn't. Sure there'd be consequences, if it were monitored, but it's important that staff be able to review that information before it's passed on.

I'm reading this with a sarcastic tone to it.  If he only knew...

That's why I'm glad I'm not on staff, I'm sure I'm not the only one who tries to send all three under the guise of kudos.