Out of Character and you... the grey of grey areas.

[Jinxed]

Metagaming is the problem that is as old as roleplay itself.
I, personally, spent most of my time roleplaying on other projects so perhaps I can provide outsider's insight.

First of all, let us establish basic terminology.
Metagame is when player uses OOC information in IC, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "OOC abuse" in future.
Metagame is also inciting other players to use that information, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "inciting" in future.
Metagame is also OOC cooperation between two players to avoid IC consequences or maximise IC gains, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "being a douche" in future.

First, I need to express that I do not agree with non-disclosure policy you got here.
The point of it to prevent players from OOC abuse, right? Well, it is going to do anything but that.
Because it is a forbidden apple and has completely opposite effect - it encourages players to discuss storylines privately. And discuss they will, regardless of currect policy. Because human is a social animal and sharing information, perception of that information is important social function.
Let me provide the example from some other project I recently attended.
Players are allowed to create and maintain the "storylet threads" on forums, where they post novels (and ocasionally short cartoons/comics) about their characters. Quite often revealing crucial plot points. From the top of my head I can recall a story about torture and mutilation - names of all participating parties were shared there.
What stops players from using that information to OOC abuse - to find those characters who attacked the victim and punish them? Common decency.
People /are/ capable of separating IC from OOC, if they are not treated like children and notrestricted from expressing and sharing their creativity.
As well, if that happens in public - it has much less chances to actually incite the abuse, where private conversation is the atmosphere where abuse and potentionally cooperation may form.
I am not saying that that particular community that I mention is perfect and no one ever OOC abused, but this leads us to the next point.
And no, that is not inciting - because storyteller did not incite anyone to act ICly on that story. All they did was share it.

Second, it is up to you, administration, and us, the players, to create a strong standing morale principle - not to abuse OOC.
Example that you provided, where player was provided with crucial plotline information and /his character murdered another character only because of OOC tip/ - that is completely unacceptable behavior, which shows the person who is incapable to separate himself from his character. Strict and swift disciplinary action is in order.
Ability to separate self from character and, by extent, to separate IC information from OOC information are basics of roleplay. And if player fails to show this ability - it is up to players to teach him and up to administration to punish if major occurence happens.

Third, about being a douche.
Punishable by permament ban on most projects I attended. This is complete disrespect towards administration, other players and themselves.
Consequences are part of the story and by avoiding them cooperating players rob both themselves and other players from experiencing the consequences, ruining the atmosphere and unavoidably lowering the standarts of character-to-character communication, cheapening the relationships between characters formed.
I also find it disturbing that you mentioned being aware of that happening frequently, but not mentioning taking action when witnessing such behavior.


Lastly, about human nature.
As pointed out in OP, metagaming on subconcious level is a common problem.
If I, for example, share a story about my character being tortured by characters X and Y - it /will/ alter the relationships between third party characters and all parties involved in the story.
Some characters will /suddenly/ feel despised by meek victim character or feel unreasonable simpathy towards them.
Other characters will avoid interaction with X and Y to some extent.
This is basic human psychology of being unable to unsee what has been seen, no matter how hard they try - it will influence player's decisions.
But this can and must be minimised by each player to best of their ability and it is administration's duty to assist players in that by the method of treat and threat.

If you seek a more comprehensible feedback, this is how I see an optimal solution:
-Lift the rule about sharing IC information on forums publically partially. Allow players to share their stories if following conditions are met:
a) All players involved do not subject that story being exposed to public
b) It should not involve /major/ plot twists. Some secrets are just too tempting.
That would create visibility for discussions that are already happening secretly and those who find themselves unable to resist temptation to metagame are not forced to visit those threads.
-Enforce rules and be vigilant. Metagaming happens now and will happen in the future regardless if you decide to heed the advice above. In any case, players need to know that there will be consequences for any breach of the rules and that if said breach occured - it will be revealed sooner or later.

[LauraMars]

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

[Lizzie]

Once upon a time I used to be the recipient and the giver of IC information from/to a mixed bag of players. This was when I was fairly new, perhaps well into a few years' worth of playing. Over time though, I noticed I was deleting players from my buddy list, because the *nature* of the info they were sharing with me was stuff I didn't want to know about. The player of a Lirathan (YEARS ago) would tell me all the nifty mindbender stuff she was experiencing, copying/pasting actual screen-scroll so I could see it myself, because it was such a "neato" thing she just had to share it. The first couple of times, I agreed - it was definitely neato and I appreciated being "let in on the secret." But eventually it started spoiling my enjoyment of discovery in the game because I was able to see who was saying what about whom, and my character was involved in some of the plotlines. Rather than tell her to stop telling me this stuff (because it was obvious that she was thrilled to tell it to me), I just removed her from my buddy list entirely.

Another, back when I was brand new to the game, implied to other people that she was the reason I was playing (she wasn't). And then she proceeded to instruct me in AIM about how I should act around her character, because her character was important, because her character was kanking a templar being played by a staffer and he was giving her all the cool shit and influence, and she could make sure I got involved in stuff and didn't get PKed. That, to me, was just SO cheesy and convoluted I deleted her as well. She ended up on staff for some period of time and had some uber-high-karma roles.

On the other hand, there are plotlines that previous characters have been involved with, that I've talked *about* outside the game. Did we plan stuff? Nope, not at all. It was mostly silly comments like "hey that chick at the bar, she's tousled haired and curvy with breasts. Let's kill her." "kekekeke u first haha" - stuff like that. Or when their character beat the shit out of mine in sparring, I might IM them and say "I hate you" and they'd laugh, and then we'd claim our characters are each going to win Arm and be the boss of the other. Mostly because it'd be really bad form to talk like that IN the game, but the players are getting giggles about it outside the game.

On the third hand, there were times "back in the stone age" when I was so new to the magick system I really didn't grasp how to even TRY and figure out spell combos. I'm not all that great with those kinds of puzzles in the first place, and now we're talking about words that aren't even normal English words being put into cohesive sentences. And then I got the apostrophe placement all wrong so I wasn't able to do a damned thing with my first mage. So I "asked a friend" (this was before the helper system) and they gave me the answer. It really wasn't intuitive at all, but that's how it was, and my character had no one ICly to ask about that particular thing. It was partly a syntax issue but at the time, everyone was all "Find out IC" about EVERYTHING so there was no way in hell I was going to ask the staff and lose my karma or get scolded for asking.

I think the problem though, in the game, is that there exist players who aren't going to use the information to help them roleplay better, or simply because it's "neato information" that they have no intention of DOING anything with ICly. They're going to use it to win, or to beat someone else, or to out someone else, or to get one over on someone else, or to learn the best times to rob someone's apartment, etc. etc. etc. The min-maxing won't ever stop, it happens in ALL games, whether you allow it or not.

Honestly, if my character was killed because two people colluded outside the game - as long as I DON'T find out about it OOCly, I have no problem with it. Ignorance is bliss, I can carry on believing that everything that happened IC was the result of IC plotlines. Once I discover that the reason my character was killed is because players were planning it outside the game, that's when I get the sour taste in my mouth. There's nothing anyone can -do- about it, really.

[Drayab]

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

+1

That's an excellent ideal to hold to, Laura. I wish everyone saw it that way.

[Delirium]

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

Laura hit the nail on the head for me. It's a learning curve, too, I think, as much as a personality trait. Learning to roleplay like that, and how rewarding it is.

On staff side, I can't really say what the best solution is, but treating each other courteously and thoughtfully (staff and player alike) goes a very long way.

[Ath]

Wait, or are you saying you're asking me not to do so? Now I'm confused.

I was asking you not to bring things up, as I know your situation and I know you're passionate about it.  If you are willing to provide constructive feedback without bringing too much of personal emotions in, I'm fine with that.

[Beethoven]

Probably best if I don't. I do think people would be surprised to know what is going on, but it'll just be my side of the story and no one else will get to chime in because staff aren't allowed to discuss my account details. And I know some people have heard some malicious lies about me, so I don't want to stir up drama.

I also don't want to attempt to dominate the thread (not that I could if I tried), but I believe that staff's frustration over not being able to control the spread of OOC information or the abuse thereof has led to a very toxic culture, and I believe this culture is more likely to drive people away than witnessing OOC collusion/cheating (which I loathe and am not excusing for a moment.)

We don't have that many people playing right now, and I don't expect there to be a huge RPI popularity boom in the next few years. Disciplining bad players is healthy and all, but I think we should do our best to avoid alienating players who actually care about the game. Cracking down on OOC communication is not so important that we should let upstanding players get caught up in the collateral.

If things continue to be pushed in the direction they've been being pushed, it's going to tear the community apart.

I don't know if I'll ever play again, but I still care about this game and I want to see it survive. I still want to fight for it even if I never create another character. I've given years of my life and poured so much heart into this game, and I think some people have such tunnel vision that they can't see the damage they're doing.

[Jingo]

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

Laura hit the nail on the head for me. It's a learning curve, too, I think, as much as a personality trait. Learning to roleplay like that, and how rewarding it is.

On staff side, I can't really say what the best solution is, but treating each other courteously and thoughtfully (staff and player alike) goes a very long way.

I sure wish the "villains" didn't have to deal with the godawful metaplay that seems to follow like a swarm of flies.

But I'm skeptical about applying literary tropes to Arm in the first place. Armageddon isn't about narrative arcs, heroic journeys and the like. It's about setting up a scene for interesting things to happen. The mark of a good player isn't how well they model "villainy" or "heroism"; it's how they open up opportunities for scenes for variety of action to happen inside them.

Armageddon turns turns stale when those scenes are shut down by players before they even happen. When players are too busy being a "Hero", stomping around and cutting off cool scenes and cool plots before they can happen.

[BadSkeelz]

I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

[Ath]

Deleted because you didn't follow my initial post's request and for not being nice..  -Ath

Alright. Allow me to elaborate without vague-booking.

Beethoven's case is particularly disheartening because I know for fact they they're the kind of person I'd want to see on staff.

I can think of several community members that are guilty of more or less the same on a daily basis. I can't out them because they're either friends or we have friends in common.

I've also seen the same on the player level too.

Maybe so, but everyone is responsible for their actions, even if they are not intentional.  We are very strict on this, especially with our staff.  Some player may thing we show favorites among staff, but that isn't the true at all.  If anything, we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Anyhow, that's hear nor there...  this is a personal situation we are discussing and not the topic of this discussion.

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

This is what the topic is primarily about.

Lizzie,
You make a lot of good points, but I get to see it when you get unfairly treated when you don't know about it.  I hate it, I don't want your character to die because someone connected OOC.  Maybe you were a part of a plot I was running, maybe you were a key player, but your opponents worked together OOC to have you killed.  It doesn't even matter the amount of information they shared about the situation, anything that would give them an unfair advantage.  I get angry about that... I get upset.  My fun is ruined.  I enjoy seeing players have fun, and if they are effected negatively due to someone being unfair, I hate it.

Beethoven,
Thank you for keeping the personal situation out, and I am sorry to hear that lies are being spread.  If you have anyone that questions you on it, you're welcome to have them send in a request and we can handle it.  Pretty much everything else you have to say I disagree with.  Everyone has been stating that we don't have as many people playing, but we've compared the numbers, it's nothing as significant as you state.  We're getting new players all the time, just because we haven't posted the stats on it in awhile, doesn't mean it's happening.  I know quite a few players that have been burned by OOC information being spread about their characters or events in game, I have seen staff also burned by it... you don't see the other side of it, and sadly you're right, I cannot share much on them as I do respect others privacy.  Tunnel vision goes both ways... once again, this is getting off topic and not the purpose of this thread.  I wouldn't be opening this thread if I didn't care about this community and wanted to make sure it survived.  I ask you once again, if you cannot keep it constructive, please do not post in this thread.

I'm going to state this again, the topic is to try to talk about OOC Communication that give an unfair advantage to another, be it intentionally or unintentional.  As some have already state, simple chit chat happens, information is much looser on the GDB than it has ever been before.  Please try to keep on topic.

[Ath]

I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

I don't agree... I'm bringing up the topic because it has been a concern.  What sucks is that I cannot talk about the situation that happen staff side that most players will never see.  Plots have been completely ruined, players have quit playing, staff members have been hurt because of it.  If anything I feel that we have been more lenient than it was years before.  I do agree with you, we cannot police or prevent, but we can encourage better behavior and make it obvious as to what it can do to anyone that play in this game.  How it can be harmful and not even realizing.  It's like reading the D&D Adventure as a player before the DM ever gets to run it, or more accurately, talking to a player that has played through the adventure before and being told all the secrets in the book prior to running it with you rown DM.  To me, that ruins the excitement of the unknown, and it may ruin the surprises the DM has in store for his players.

[Beethoven]

I do think I'm being constructive and on-topic. I'm letting you know that the current policy is doing nothing to stop the kind of OOC sharing you're talking about, the kind that is actually harmful to the game, and is actually encouraging it because all kinds of OOC communication, both harmful and harmless, are treated equally under a rule that very few people truly take seriously. I don't see how that is irrelevant, but if you want me off the thread, then adios.

[Patuk]

So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

[Feco]

Rather than "cracking down," or something like that, I'd rather staff just be courteous, understanding, careful, and unassuming.  Basically, don't accuse people of cheating unless there is overwhelming evidence that they are.  Maybe don't even mention it to them, or put it on their account notes, unless it's really obvious -- these sorts of things can really upset players.  Staff can't monitor everything, and there's always a chance they'll have missed some IC scene which can make actions appear OOC in nature.

I'm not saying that staff are not these wonderful things, or that anyone is suggesting to ramp up rules, or that people get accused of cheating without evidence.  Rather, I'm just making a general statement about how I think these things should be handled (not considering how they are or are not handled now).

We can't have a perfect system.  We're either too weak, and cheaters slip through the cracks, or we're too harsh, and we falsely label good players as cheaters.  If we have to choose, I'd rather a few cheaters slip through the cracks, and I'd rather everyone (potential cheaters included) be approached politely, and without any accusatory tones.

Not very helpful, because I think the way it's run now is probably fine.  That said, I've never been involved in a cheating/OOC issue, so I don't exactly know how it's handled, in truth.

[Kankman]

Players telling other players things about what goes on in game, OOC, ruins the game for other people.

Don't be a meanie, don't harsh my mellow.

It's not about breaking immersion. It's about breaking plots.

Tell your non-Armageddon friends and family the cool stories, get them hooked, then stop telling them things about the game.

We have a pact. We're all adults playing make-believe.

Can we not just all agree the first rule of Armageddon is that you don't talk about what happens in Armageddon?

[whitt]

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

This I disagree with.  I would much rather have an open line of communication between staff and players where staff and players could feel free to open up a request that says, "Hey, can we talk to you about this?  Something seems fishy"  and then open and honest communication happens.  This requires a level of curiosity in the beginning, rather than a rush to judgement.  On both sides.

With the above suggestion?  The only communication comes from a standard of belief - You are wrong.  We "are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure".   There is no room for explanation or communication.  In truth, I believe this is where the breakdown actually occurs.  When staff and players (probably more than staff) believe the other party is 100% wrong and only "communicate" accordingly - complete with threats and iron-fist punishment.  

In the instances where I have done something IG that appeared less than completely legit I totally appreciated the conversation with staff about what happened.  I don't know that either side was entirely thrilled with the outcome, but had I just been banned because of it?  I doubt I would have expended the energy to try again, leaving with belief just as adamant that I hadn't done anything wrong.

[Malifaxis]

OK, I've been on both sides of the fence.  I'm going to try to remain coherent while barfing out a ton of thoughts on a very complex issue in a rapidly dwindling amount of lunch time.

First:  There is a big reason that Staff are heavy handed in coming down on people.  It's beccause it is DEVASTATING to staff from a morale standpoint when someone chatters about some fucking way cool plotline and ruins it.  Devastating.  That is *not* too strong of a word, I know, because I felt it.  It hurts you in your fucking feels place.  There is a TON of work that goes in to even getting approval for a plotline, not even counting all the building, all the work, the plotting outlines, the branches of possible plot trees... and just like GM'ing a paper game, it almost never goes as planned.  But it's always fun, as long as it is continuing.  It is fun right up until some Delerak Wannabe fucks everything sideways so he can win.  Staff members have been hurt by this in the past.  Let me bold that so it's understood.  Spilling sekrit plot related OOC shit that ruins a plot hurts the staff members that help make this game fun.  So *of course* they are defensive about it.  They don't want to be hurt by trying to make something awesome for you.  Being hurt makes people reactionary, and a staffer reaction is quite a fucking thing (to paraquote Snatch.)

Does this make that heavy handed reaction fair?  Absolutely not.  But try to remember that there is a reason that they use a god-sized hammer.

Second:  All the chatter about how people want to share experiences about things they love?  100% true.  Fucking fuckballs is this true.  I have, in the past, lived with other Armageddon players.  On more than one occasion.  And there have been times where I have sat down to dinner across from a very good friend that my character was actively fucking over in game... and I couldn't tell them about it.  GODS did I want to.  But I didn't, I held on to it, and the game was so much better for all parties for my silence.  It is fucking difficult to keep silent about something you love, but it is motherfucking worth it.  It takes self control, discipline, and an earnest desire to see the game be better to do this, but please try to.  It is goddamn worth the pay off.

Third:  I absolutely 100% disagree with the "make sure you have 100% certainty before you come at a player."  No.  No no goddamn no.  There is no way to get 100% certainty, so doing this is only going to open the sluice gates of fuckery.  But a lighter hand is needed in many instances.  As per my first point, a heavy hand is often used because of people who have fucked up in the past.  That heavy hand gets results, but it is not often the best tool.  In the past, I found that reaching out proactively as a staff member and saying, "Hey, look, we see this thing going on, we have this evidence but we're looking to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you please try to explain your actions/words/emotes/mudsex and let us know what is going on?  You are a good player (all players should be treated as good players until proven otherwise) and we are worried that maybe there's something bad going on here."

Fourth:  As a personal note.... Ath, thank you for opening up this discussion.  I really think it is something that maybe should have happened a while ago, and that a lot of good can come out of this.  Kudos, man, for this thread.

... There was something else I wanted to bring up, but I'm now out of my lunch break and need to get back to the grind.  I'm excited to see what else comes up in this thread.

[Feco]

Third:  I absolutely 100% disagree with the "make sure you have 100% certainty before you come at a player."  No.  No no goddamn no.  There is no way to get 100% certainty, so doing this is only going to open the sluice gates of fuckery.  But a lighter hand is needed in many instances.  As per my first point, a heavy hand is often used because of people who have fucked up in the past.  That heavy hand gets results, but it is not often the best tool.  In the past, I found that reaching out proactively as a staff member and saying, "Hey, look, we see this thing going on, we have this evidence but we're looking to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you please try to explain your actions/words/emotes/mudsex and let us know what is going on?  You are a good player (all players should be treated as good players until proven otherwise) and we are worried that maybe there's something bad going on here."

This is more or less the approach I was advocating in my post.  Just wanted to say that.

[Drayab]

I also agree on the point of not requiring a 100% certainty standard of evidence because that only happens in fairy-tale land. I'm not a lawyer, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Whatever that means in practice...

[Ath]

So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

The thing is, in almost all the cases that I have seen before, there was sure fire evidence... most staff are even wary to do things even when there is concrete evidence.  I mean seriously, we'll have logs and we'll ask a person about the events and they they will lie about it to our face.  We'll even go... are you sure that you don't want to talk about this further with us?  The problem is if we don't do something, it's just going to continue happen.  The issue is most don't believe we have evidence and that we are blowing smoke out our ass.  The issue is the situations with those that have prior evidence against them and they might be doing it again.  I don't have clear evidence but if I don't put a stop to what they are doing, it could have significant impact upon those that are just trying to have fun.  If I let it slide, they get away with it and the players that are harmed by it may just quit because of what happened if they find out about.  Would you just let it happen?  Would you let these players have their fun ruined because of other players who have evidence against them colluding prior, and could be doing it again?

In no way am I trying to encourage cracking down on anything.  If anything I'm trying to make it blatantly obvious the damage that can be caused by Harmful OOC Information that is spread.

Players telling other players things about what goes on in game, OOC, ruins the game for other people.

Don't be a meanie, don't harsh my mellow.

It's not about breaking immersion. It's about breaking plots.

Tell your non-Armageddon friends and family the cool stories, get them hooked, then stop telling them things about the game.

We have a pact. We're all adults playing make-believe.

Can we not just all agree the first rule of Armageddon is that you don't talk about what happens in Armageddon?

Agreed.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

This I disagree with.  I would much rather have an open line of communication between staff and players where staff and players could feel free to open up a request that says, "Hey, can we talk to you about this?  Something seems fishy"  and then open and honest communication happens.  This requires a level of curiosity in the beginning, rather than a rush to judgement.  On both sides.

With the above suggestion?  The only communication comes from a standard of belief - You are wrong.  We "are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure".   There is no room for explanation or communication.  In truth, I believe this is where the breakdown actually occurs.  When staff and players (probably more than staff) believe the other party is 100% wrong and only "communicate" accordingly - complete with threats and iron-fist punishment.  

In the instances where I have done something IG that appeared less than completely legit I totally appreciated the conversation with staff about what happened.  I don't know that either side was entirely thrilled with the outcome, but had I just been banned because of it?  I doubt I would have expended the energy to try again, leaving with belief just as adamant that I hadn't done anything wrong.

I welcome anyone to come to us with suspicious information.  I'd rather be informed and do nothing, then not be informed and do something.

[BadSkeelz]

I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

I don't agree... I'm bringing up the topic because it has been a concern.  What sucks is that I cannot talk about the situation that happen staff side that most players will never see.  Plots have been completely ruined, players have quit playing, staff members have been hurt because of it.  If anything I feel that we have been more lenient than it was years before.  I do agree with you, we cannot police or prevent, but we can encourage better behavior and make it obvious as to what it can do to anyone that play in this game.  How it can be harmful and not even realizing.  It's like reading the D&D Adventure as a player before the DM ever gets to run it, or more accurately, talking to a player that has played through the adventure before and being told all the secrets in the book prior to running it with you rown DM.  To me, that ruins the excitement of the unknown, and it may ruin the surprises the DM has in store for his players.

I'm aware of a couple "completely ruined" plots and players quitting (who almost always seem to come back). My advice is for everyone to get over themselves.

All the "ruined plots" I've seen should have ended in PC bloodbaths. Instead, someone freaks out because they die, they bitch around OOC, which freaks out more players and Staff. What could have been a healthy churning over of characters instead becomes a round of force-storage and calcification of the game world.

Maybe staff have to start playing like referees instead of DMs. Assume players are competitive, playing to win, and inherently shitty. Watch out for the most flagrant fouls and punish those. Discourage OOC communication by all means, so as to ensure as level playing field as possible, but Staff reactions to OOC communication seem to get in the way of the game as much as safeguard it. Referee the game and approve new characters when necessary.

(Of course, it could just be that the really shit players, like people who coordinated over AIM to cover up the murder of a PC in a VNPC-populated area), just get banned or are smart enough not to tout their shittiness. This makes it appear that most reactions are overreactions when in fact they're not. The playerbase at large just hears about the overreactions more. I suspect this is closer to the truth.)

I don't know. This topic always just seems to offer a chance for people to get outraged. Just assume everyone is bad, roll a warrior and prioritize strength.

[Feco]

Maybe staff have to start playing like referees instead of DMs. Assume players are competitive, playing to win, and inherently shitty. Watch out for the most flagrant fouls and punish those. Discourage OOC communication by all means, so as to ensure as level playing field as possible, but Staff reactions to OOC communication seem to get in the way of the game as much as safeguard it. Referee the game and approve new characters when necessary.

I dunno.  Like I said above, I'd totally rather staff and players consider each other to be generally good.  I'd rather a shitty person assumed good than a good person assumed shitty.

I also sort of like the DMish nature of staff at the moment.  This is bordering on another topic (how plots are run, etc.), but they're more DM-like than when I started playing in 2010, but not as DM-like as I hear they were well before that.  I like where we're at.

[Patuk]

I may have been misrepresenting my thoughts here.

I also agree on the point of not requiring a 100% certainty standard of evidence because that only happens in fairy-tale land. I'm not a lawyer, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Whatever that means in practice...

.. Is exactly what I'm looking for. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Still.

So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

The thing is, in almost all the cases that I have seen before, there was sure fire evidence... most staff are even wary to do things even when there is concrete evidence.  I mean seriously, we'll have logs and we'll ask a person about the events and they they will lie about it to our face.  We'll even go... are you sure that you don't want to talk about this further with us?  The problem is if we don't do something, it's just going to continue happen.  The issue is most don't believe we have evidence and that we are blowing smoke out our ass.  The issue is the situations with those that have prior evidence against them and they might be doing it again.  I don't have clear evidence but if I don't put a stop to what they are doing, it could have significant impact upon those that are just trying to have fun.  If I let it slide, they get away with it and the players that are harmed by it may just quit because of what happened if they find out about.  Would you just let it happen?  Would you let these players have their fun ruined because of other players who have evidence against them colluding prior, and could be doing it again?

I didn't stop reading after the bolded part, but I might as well have? If there's sure fire evidence, your job here is done. Case closed. I do think people breaking the rules should be punished. Despite that, I also think hounding those who haven't isn't worth catching one or two cheaters for.

[BadSkeelz]

I dunno.  Like I said above, I'd totally rather staff and players consider each other to be generally good.  I'd rather a shitty person assumed good than a good person assumed shitty.

I also sort of like the DMish nature of staff at the moment.  This is bordering on another topic (how plots are run, etc.), but they're more DM-like than when I started playing in 2010, but not as DM-like as I hear they were well before that.  I like where we're at.

Ideally players would grow up a bit and stop talking about plots (and not flip the fuck out whenever they get ganked) so Staff can loosen up a bit and everyone treats everyone like adults.

[Large Hero]

Here are my opinions.

There are two different discussions here.

One is this: some people do use OOC communication to help them 'win' this (unwinnable) game.

Their goal is to get an advantage over other players. I imagine some of the reasons they do this: they think they're better than other players, and deserve to have more fun and success. Or maybe roleplaying isn't really their goal; instead, they play to service some power fantasy, and they're unwilling to have that fantasy threatened by other players.

So they cheat, and they share information that everyone agrees is cheating, such as, 'hey I'm going to Amos's apartment, be ready to help if it goes to combat,' 'this PC is a secret Krathi and killed me,' or 'I passed out from the Way in the desert, 5 rooms west and 6 rooms north of the gates, come save me!,' or 'let's have a meeting IC where I'll tell you all the reasons to hate this PC and then we'll have a reason to kill them together, as we've OOCly discussed wanting to do.'

I don't think the above needs to be discussed much. The above isn't cool, and I'd hope everyone who plays shares the opinion. We should discourage this behavior when we talk to other players who try to engage us in it. Staff should punish this behavior when it's discovered and they have actionable evidence. Nobody should be using OOC communication to get an advantage in the game. This is cut and dry.

I'll call the above collusion.

From Wikipedia:

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

(In the context of our game, the right defrauded by this behavior is the right of a player to be able to play purely IC, purely within the game, and not have their efforts undermined OOCly.)



I think the second discussion, the greyer area, is more useful to focus on.

That grey area is this: some people talk about the game as a social experience. Other players have given reasons why. Some have no other outlet for discussing a hobby they love. For others, it's funny to talk about that last sparring mishap. Generally, this sort of talk is borne out of positive emotions. The goal isn't to get an advantage in the game. The goal is to create a connection with another player over their shared, niche hobby.

I'll call the above talking.

A few points about talking:

1. The line between collusion and talking can become blurry. When you choose to talk with another player, you are making a judgment. You are (or should be, if you're not a dickhead) judging that what you're saying will not damage the experience of other players. But this judgment can often be so hard to get right, even regarding very innocent discussions!

An example:

Cindy and Joe are talking about Armageddon. Cindy has decided it's harmless to talk about what happens in the Gaj, because it's such a public location. She and Joe have shared funny anecdotes before.

Cindy: "Lol. Did you see what Amosa said in the Gaj, when 10 other PCs were around? It was so funny. She's hilarious."
Joe: "No, my PC wasn't there."
Cindy: "Amosa got up on a table and was dancing, and told this joke about Malik that made me seriously LOL."

Harmless, right? But what if...
* Unknown to Cindy, Joe's PC and Amosa are allies of Malik, and Amosa was being careful not to disparage Malik in Joe's PC's presence? (Even if it's a public place, this is still a distinction and is Amosa's choice.)
* Amosa is trying to play a character with multiple personalities, and has decided to only RP in a very serious manner around Joe's PC? (A silly example, but possible.)
* Joe's PC was in the North, hiding from Amosa, who he knows is a Whiran and wants to kill him, which is unknown to Cindy?

Dozens of scenarios can be concocted where two players, who only wanted to harmlessly talk about the game and share a laugh, wind up unintentionally damaging the experience of another player.

As players with limited information, we cannot know what dots can be connected by another player when we share harmless talk, and how this might impact their experience. Perhaps more importantly, we can't know how our talk might impact the experience of players you are not speaking to, such as Amosa's player in this example.


2. Talking is always going to happen. People are going to talk about this game with their friends who play this game. Humans are humans, and they're going to talk about their shared experiences, regardless of how others feel about their doing so. As others have said, the internet cannot be policed. Staff cannot control what people choose to say in private, and attempts to do so will only create bad feelings. The game would be better off if nothing that happened inside the game was ever discussed, but this is a pipe dream.

3. It is ultimately up to players to decide what they will talk about, and what they won't. It's up to each individual to decide how close they want to get to the blurry line. It's up to each individual to make the judgment calls about what's safe to say without impacting another player's experience (hopefully we all care about this). If this crosses the line from harmless talk into harming another player's experience, or even collusion for advantage, players need to recognize that and stop. [To be clear: I'm saying it's up to each individual to make these calls because many are going to, regardless of the rules staff sets.]


Because it's really up to the player community to self-police (other than obvious breaches where staff have actionable evidence), I'd like to suggest that we as players draw up a community-defined code of conduct that we agree to follow when we talk about the game. It's ultimately up to each individual to follow it or not, but it may be useful to have guidelines we can reach some consensus on. What do people think?