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

[Ath]

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.

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...

I guess I have a hard time believing this... most are so wary of doing anything.  I do agree though with trying to be more subjective rather than objective when it comes to it.  I will have to mull over this more myself.

BadSkeelz,
I get what you're saying and you're right.  I think we should have DMs, that's what the STs are... they further plots and keep the story moving.  Admins will work to make sure the STs are supported and are able to do their jobs, and also they are the first step when it comes to being a referee, the Producers are pretty much your head referee.  

As for your second post, yes please.  I have seen a few players that were not so good about it before, but are no great with it and keep to themselves.

A lot of the consensus I am getting is that it can be a bit heavy handed.  I can understand that, but I also have seen where we have been lenient with those that were honest with us.

[Feco]

A lot of the consensus I am getting is that it can be a bit heavy handed.  I can understand that, but I also have seen where we have been lenient with those that were honest with us.

This tells me staff is doing more or less its best, and the best they can hope for is consistency in how they approach these situations.

I don't think that's a bad position to be in, at all.  I don't think we can ask much more of staff who are both volunteers and players, themselves.

[Ath]

A little more on the post by Malifaxs, Feco, and Drayab...  I have a hard time believing that players wouldn't want us to come to them with hard evidence  I guess I see the point on coming when we have suspicion first before it all, maybe nip it in the butt prior to anything happening.  I also don't want to portray a whole Big Brother is watching sorta thing either.  I guess I know I would want someone to come to me with hard evidence if I was being accused of OOC abuse.

[Malifaxis]

A little more on the post by Malifaxs, Feco, and Drayab...  I have a hard time believing that players wouldn't want us to come to them with hard evidence  I guess I see the point on coming when we have suspicion first before it all, maybe nip it in the butt prior to anything happening.  I also don't want to portray a whole Big Brother is watching sorta thing either.  I guess I know I would want someone to come to me with hard evidence if I was being accused of OOC abuse.

That is what I meant... if lack of har evidence, but solid suspicion exists.  Approaching someone in this position in a kindly fashion can help with staff/player relations, and doubles as a very effective (but still gentle) warning shot.

[Feco]

I don't think any of us were saying don't come at players with evidence.  Rather, we were saying to make sure evidence was there, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to not just throw the hard evidence at them.  Presenting facts and saying "you're cheating" is heavy handed and accusatory.

You (meaning staff) should frame the evidence and your suspicions in a way that does not assume their guilt.  Basically, you're polite, and give them a chance to explain.  They may lie, or they may not.

Ultimately you'll make your judgments based on the evidence and their testimony, for lack of better words.  If nothing else, a gentle conversation without accusations lets players know they're being watched without making them feel like "oh fuck I'm being watched."

I think malifaxis and I might disagree on when the right time to approach players is -- I would lean on having more evidence, first.  But I don't know if I'm really commited to that, at all.  There's a lot of wiggle room in what would be a good approach, here.  The important part is being courteous and pleasant to each other.

[valeria]

As a lawyer and someone who has to communicate well for a living and in my personal life, I'd like to offer some thoughts on enforcing these boundaries.

The most important thing, I think, is imparting consequences without pulling emotions into it. Yes, ruined plots hurt staff feelings (and player feelings!) but the person whose feelings have been hurt should NOT be addressing the problem.  Someone who is not involved and emotional should be addressing the problem.

Here is how I would resolve conflict in it seeming like someone is using OOC to cheat:
1) Have someone who is not involved state the position. "From our perspective, it seems that you are colluding with X OOCly, on the basis of Y evidence."
2) Ask for an explanation.
3) Have a second person who is not involved and not emotionally invested look at the evidence and explanation. Give the explanation the benefit of the doubt unless it conflicts with the evidence. Render a decision and clearly state why you have reached that decision.
4) Have a clear, escalating series of consequences. Much like the GBD rules have listed consequences. First offense, warning. Second offense, A. Third offense, B.
5) Remind the player that they can complain if they disagree and have a third, unrelatedperson address the complaint if it happens.

State your position. Do not get defensive. Do not accuse or criticize. Do not expect the player to agree that you're right. And then move on.

[Lizzie]

What I'd like to see, regarding actual violations of collusion issues: a reduction in karma or, if necessary, a ban on special apps for a period of time (including any special app currently in queue or previously approved). The reason for my opinion: you gave the player x amount of trust. He violated that trust, therefore he shouldn't be trusted with his current level of trust. Kick it back a notch, til he's demonstrated that he can be trusted again. Don't make it for a specific time period. Make it "until." Let the Producers determine whether or not "until" has been met, via incoming player complaints (or lacks thereof), under-staff observations, the players' contributions on the GDB (or lack thereof), etc.

If the player consistently abuses info when he's in a clan, instruct him that he's not allowed to actively seek a clan with his current/future characters, "until." Until he proves he can be trusted with it again. If it's a specific clan, then ban him from seeking employment with that specific clan, until. If it's any clan Player Z is playing in, then ban him from playing in any clan that other player has a character in, "until."

[LauraMars]

When it comes to enforcement of this or any other rule, I am a strong believer in open communication. Staff should communicate honestly with their players whenever possible, especially when there's a possibility that the player in question could be on the receiving end of negativity.

I say this because I believe it is very unfair to punish people without opening up a line of discussion or seeking proof. It's unfair to punish people without telling them.  An overly paranoid and untrusting atmosphere among staff, while understandable in some cases, doesn't lend an enjoyable or healthy dimension to the game.

To sum up: If staff have concerns about a player, please communicate those concerns to the player.

[Jingo]

As a lawyer and someone who has to communicate well for a living and in my personal life, I'd like to offer some thoughts on enforcing these boundaries.

The most important thing, I think, is imparting consequences without pulling emotions into it. Yes, ruined plots hurt staff feelings (and player feelings!) but the person whose feelings have been hurt should NOT be addressing the problem.  Someone who is not involved and emotional should be addressing the problem.

Here is how I would resolve conflict in it seeming like someone is using OOC to cheat:
1) Have someone who is not involved state the position. "From our perspective, it seems that you are colluding with X OOCly, on the basis of Y evidence."
2) Ask for an explanation.
3) Have a second person who is not involved and not emotionally invested look at the evidence and explanation. Give the explanation the benefit of the doubt unless it conflicts with the evidence. Render a decision and clearly state why you have reached that decision.
4) Have a clear, escalating series of consequences. Much like the GBD rules have listed consequences. First offense, warning. Second offense, A. Third offense, B.
5) Remind the player that they can complain if they disagree and have a third, unrelatedperson address the complaint if it happens.

State your position. Do not get defensive. Do not accuse or criticize. Do not expect the player to agree that you're right. And then move on.

This should be essential IMHO. I've been very confused by some of my correspondences with staff and a proper format like this would at the very least allow some clarity.

Not to pile on staff but this is the message I got when I lost Karma which more or less explains nothing.

We've seen you bring a fair amount of OOC into your play and requests to staff and feel it has impacted you negatively.  You've also been throwing around accusations of OOC when things don't happen the way you think they ought to.

Have I been colluding with other players?

Was I being an ass on the GDB?

Or was it that I was just putting too many complaints in over the request tool? Talking to staff after the fact seems to make this the primary factor.

Was it OOCly motivated behavior coming up IC?

I'm still in the dark. I don't even know.

[Ath]

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

[Malifaxis]

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

If it gets to that, pull the Hammer and bury them under 99 cords of obsidian.

But what a lot of players are currently feeling, it seems, is that first response is to place the obsidian on the neck of said player and then apply pressure.

Like Valeria said..  first offense: warning.  Second offense: Stern rebuke + penalty.  Third offense: queue up Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around."

[Drayab]

That's how it's got to be from my perspective. I don't envy staff at all for it either. I'm a college professor in real life, and the worst part of the job (other than grading) is having to bring the hammer down on cheaters. They will lie to your face. You know they're lying. You've got the evidence to prove it, but they just keep lying. Makes you feel cynical about the whole thing. I didn't get into the job to deal with cheaters, yet I have to for so many reasons. It's got to be done. At least I get paid for it!

[Riev]

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

I think the issue is still that when confronted with the possibility of doing something wrong, most people are not going to say "Oop, you got me. I was doing something wrong that I know I shouldn't be doing, but did anyways because I have no respect for you". Of course they lie. Fuck, of course even -I'd- lie about it.

Except that one time I was totally metagaming, and was caught for it. Didn't lie once about it, said I was doing it and here's the reason. I didn't get banhammered, I just stored the character because at that point, it was the only interesting thing I was doing on that character.

[Jingo]

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

I think the issue is still that when confronted with the possibility of doing something wrong, most people are not going to say "Oop, you got me. I was doing something wrong that I know I shouldn't be doing, but did anyways because I have no respect for you". Of course they lie. Fuck, of course even -I'd- lie about it.

Except that one time I was totally metagaming, and was caught for it. Didn't lie once about it, said I was doing it and here's the reason. I didn't get banhammered, I just stored the character because at that point, it was the only interesting thing I was doing on that character.

I didn't lie. In fact I think I confessed to something I wasn't even accused of.

[Lizzie]

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

If it gets to that, pull the Hammer and bury them under 99 cords of obsidian.

But what a lot of players are currently feeling, it seems, is that first response is to place the obsidian on the neck of said player and then apply pressure.

Like Valeria said..  first offense: warning.  Second offense: Stern rebuke + penalty.  Third offense: queue up Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around."

I don't think there should be a warning. The game rules ARE the warning. Everyone who plays Armageddon is already on notice. The first time it comes up - there should be a discussion to determine whether or not there is, in fact, an offense. If there is, then penalty. If it happens again, then you start handing out bans. There should ALSO be some kind of "window of forgiveness." Like - if the last negative PFile with regards to collusion was a year ago, it's time to ease up and give the player a shot at more trust. That's what I mean by "until." But I don't believe in 2-week time outs, or 6-month karma docks, or 30-day gdb suspensions. That's grade school shit, we're above that. Or at least, we should be.

[whitt]

That's how it's got to be from my perspective. I don't envy staff at all for it either. I'm a college professor in real life, and the worst part of the job (other than grading) is having to bring the hammer down on cheaters. They will lie to your face. You know they're lying. You've got the evidence to prove it, but they just keep lying. Makes you feel cynical about the whole thing. I didn't get into the job to deal with cheaters, yet I have to for so many reasons. It's got to be done. At least I get paid for it!

QFT - Dealing with the Cheaters is 100% the worst.  All I can recommend is to make sure that whoever volunteers to do this (a) isn't doing it because they thrive on the conflict, (b) has plenty of support when they need to vent their frustrations, and (c) gets rotated often and before they burn out or turned into (a).

[Armaddict]

Didn't read it all.  Basically there's a lot of what irritates me, as a player, from the staff.

Just because something appears to you as something, doesn't mean it is.  There was a recent event in my gameplay (within...the last year, I think) where some things happened, and staff came at me -with aggression-.  There was a lot of assertiveness, a lot of 'I don't trust you', and a lot of complete hand-waving at the explanations of everything that was said.  So in these last couple posts where you've been talking about hard evidence, I have a hard time believing such a thing exists.  Correlation is not causation, none of us are psychic, and if you don't like viable explanations because you believe differently or it results in things you didn't want to happen, then this whole thing becomes a wasted effort.

On the side of sharing IC info OOC, I agree that it's often detrimental.  I look at that other place from time to time.  I see a lot of unproven information, a lot of outright wrong information on both IC and OOC things, and a lot of 'Well, it doesn't matter anyway' mentalities.  This actually influences what people exposed to the information think about the game and people in it, and how they should behave in it.  So I am, altogether, very wary and 'locked tight' on information for 90% of everything.

The only place I disagree is that other 10%.  I've played this game a long time.  I've come to know a few other players that I know I can discuss things with.  Sometimes details are purposely left out as 'Hmmm, I'll wait on that, that's a surprise'.  This isn't a cesspool of information sharing, nor is it what was asserted earlier, an OOC collusion to win armageddon.  It's simply a couple people where I occasionally talk about what I'm doing, and I know they aren't using it.  I'm not part of an OOC clique, but I do have certain players that I genuinely find myself gravitating towards because I -know- I will enjoy my time around them.  Taking that away is pushing things to an extreme.  Asserting that it's some sort of unholy ooc alliance in the game is, arguably, the opposite extreme of those who have the huge anti-staff sentiment.  This is just as detrimental as anything else taken to an extreme in the game. 

To sum it all up, I didn't read every post of this.  But the original post and some of the replies since make me think that the culture of secrecy on Arm is just like anything else.  Moderation.  Don't go around sharing information, but don't forget that this is a game, too, and sometimes, players like to enjoy games -together-.  I'm sorry that your plan fell through, but players also have their plans fall through often, and sometimes, it's because of staff action or influence.  You're just in the same boat as us.

[whitt]

You're just in the same boat as us.

This isn't true at all. 

You, as a player, are welcome to pick up and drop your plans as you see fit.  The only person you are beholden to is you.  If some other player was reliant on you?  Their tough luck.  You don't spend hours, days, months making sure your plans don't meddle in other carefully laid plans of other players.  You don't need to seek approval of your actions to make sure they won't set an unhealthy precedent going forward.  You don't have to make yourself available when it's convenient for some other player just because they've decided they want to play with you.  You are the player at gigantic tabletop roleplaying game.  If you leave you'll be missed.  The game will go on.

Staff cannot pick up and drop plans as they see fit.  In fact, they may need to pick up and try to complete someone else's plans that they don't even like because they've inherited someone else's plotline and a group of players is invested in that storyline.  Don't like the players you are staffing for?  Your tough luck.  Staff will spend hours, days, and months tying their stories into the framework and history of the gameworld.  Oh... and they may have to build everything needed to represent that world, because it's not all going to be there ahead of time.  They will work with the rest of the staff to make sure they're not breaking anything they don't know about or introducing something that creates major headaches unintentionally.  Staff will make themselves available when it's convenient to the players, because that's what they've volunteered to do.  They are the DMs at the gigantic tabletop roleplaying game.  If they leave, there is no game.

To sum it all up, have your fun.  But be respectful of the effort of others, players and staff, that goes into this game you are just one part of.

[BadSkeelz]

All staff really need to do is approve characters and master crafts. Everybody else has the ability to emote what they want and kill whoever they are able. That's all you really need.

[Armaddict]

I think you're making that statement more extreme than it is (edit:  Or I just framed it badly to not properly articulate what I try again below).  Bad things happen to plans in multiplayer games.

I wasn't saying 'tough luck, ooc fucked you, get over it', I was saying that sometimes plans fall through and under the all-seeing eye of observation, sometimes assumptions get made that this was a result of ooc when it wasn't.

There was no part of that intended to be disrespectful, only an examination of how perceptions can be the real enemy here, and a caution that sometimes that disappointment in how things end up results in bad feelings about it from anyone, regardless of whether player or staff.

[Malifaxis]

While I do agree with you partially Armaddict, I have to disagree that there aren't conspiracies.  There are.  And that's really where the huge problems begin.

Look at conspiracy theorists.  Seriously... it's fucked up, but look at them.

They start with something mildly plausible while they're sane... like, say, flouride COULD potentially do some brain damage.  And then they start looking at all the potential gain from the government, and things start to make sense there.
Then from that, they jump from flouride to Chemtrails, and OMG if they're doing it to the water, they could easily do it to the sky!  The government has planes!
And thennnn it only starts to make sense that this isn't even actually being done by humans!  It's obviously the reptiloids!
And by then, they're buying stock in aluminum foil.

They start out sane.  They see some shit.  Shit starts to make sense.  And then they're seeing conspiracies everywhere.

It's the same with staff sometimes.  Sorry staff, you know I have much love, but it's true.  Once you actually come face to face as a staffer with your first super-clique of conspiring players, you start to look at every other potential player problem as a potential part of a conspiracy... and before you know it, you're trying to cover your monitor in aluminum foil.   This doesn't always happen, but it is a very good explanation of why it does happen.  

I have been the subject of the interest of The Inquisition on Armageddon.  It was VERY difficult for me to say "Look, I get where you guys are coming from, this evidence looks good, but you are seeing a pattern where there isn't one."  But I did.  And the staff listened.  They understood, and the waters were cleared.

It takes effort and understanding and communications on both sides.  This is a world we all enjoy, and all put effort in to, and it takes all of us working together to make it more enjoyable.  

There are player based grudges towards staff.  Staff see foul player evidence constantly, which turns their views darker.  We ALL need to put aside our predispositions to the other side and try to figure out a better way to do things.

That's what this thread is about... and it seems like there are some very good points being made here on both sides.

*sniff*

I FUCKING LOVE YOU GUYS!

(Okay, I realized I didn't use a single swear word during the whole damn post, and needed to edge one the fuck in there, so there it is.  My affection towards most of you is genuine.  Most of you.)

[Patuk]

Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

[BadSkeelz]

The only people you really need to drive off are those who maliciously abuse OOC collusion or other means to disrupt play for others. Of which there are like, twenty in existence.

Everyone else should just be shamed in to behaving better and smarter and knowing when to keep their mouth shut. This goes for Staff as well as players. Mistakes have to be recognized and learned from.

[Malifaxis]

Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

But it's ok for players to leave because they got fucked over by OOC cliques repeatedly?  Noted.

[Patuk]

Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

But it's ok for players to leave because they got fucked over by OOC cliques repeatedly?  Noted.

Get lost.

One solution has X people leave for this reason. Another solution has Y people leave for that reason. I think the exchange rate is a little off, you're here to fulfil your swearing quotum.