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

[BadSkeelz]

Taven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

The OOC coordination between Houses C and B only occurred afterward when they were trying to follow-up.

[Dar]

I missed it too. But I've just read this entire thread in one sitting.  Can someone quote the part about them using ooc to coordinate the actual kill?

[Taven]

Taven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

The OOC coordination between Houses C and B only occurred afterward when they were trying to follow-up.

I missed it too. But I've just read this entire thread in one sitting.  Can someone quote the part about them using ooc to coordinate the actual kill?

That's how I read the story and Nergal's comments that OOC was making it easier to coordinate actions, as well as that this wasn't your run of the mill murder, corruption, and betrayal. I thought there was a specific piece that stated it more clearly, but I'd have to dig to find it.

Perhaps staff can elaborate more on the OOC piece of it, since we all seem to be reading it differently. Nergal and/or staff, could you please elaborate on the OOC in the example story? I think that would clear the discussion up a lot.

[Taven]

Taven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

Yeah, this wasn't my read on the story at all. I don't think staff was worried about House A finding out. I agree with your assessment that it was blatantly obvious who was behind it, looking at things from a strictly IC perspective.

[Beethoven]

[edited into oblivion]

[Dar]

I dont know what you're talking about. Odds are, many dont. You're just mindscrewing yourself into your own discomfort.  We do that a lot. Especially when faced with factors that are unknowns. Best advice? Dont do it. Eat some ice cream. Kill thy neighbour. Just do whatever gets your mind off things.

[Synthesis]

I told myself I wasn't going to participate on the GDB anymore since I'm not playing and am trying to let go of Arm, but I have found it far too tempting to read this topic. I feel the need to say that I am extremely uncomfortable with this current discussion. While it is iinteresting and probably helpful to bring up this case, I can see that a lot of people on this thread know exactly who is being talked about.

I'm glad that Nergal is trying to be vague, but that very vagueness is leading to people speculating on exactly what kind of cheating was or wasn't going on, and Nergal has basically forbidden the participants from identifying (and thus defending) themselves. Now we have specific players being publicly branded as cheaters and the nature of that cheating discussed and argued about among the community. To me this is not okay. The people involved were confronted and the matter was handled as staff saw fit. They don't need to be called out and made an example of much later. It would be different if everyone didn't seem to know which clans and players are being brought up,  but they do.

Public humiliation is a time-honored mode of punishment.

[Jihelu]

"it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. "
I mean it kind of does.

[BadSkeelz]

"it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. "
I mean it kind of does.

If my PC is attacked by two others in an alley, whether that attack was coordinated via the Way or AIM makes no difference to me. In that moment I have only my skills, stats, and equipment to rely on. I will either be killed, or kill them and continue to play my character. Except now I have a good IC story to share.

Coordinating OOC is still a shitty thing to do and should not be done, don't get me wrong. Not only does it rob your enemies a chance at interception (however remote that might be), you're really selling yourself short. You're missing out on the chance to explore your character's psyche, to engage in a meaningful exchange with other player-characters. OOC coordination is self-abuse.

[wizturbo]

Anyone who thinks OOC communications in the plot Nergal posted didn't dramatically change the outcome is severely underestimating the power of information.

There's a very big difference between suspecting something is true, and knowing something is true.  The lack of small, critical pieces of information makes a huge difference.  It's like cheating on an exam and saying "well, I knew it was A anyway, so its okay I peeked at the answer key when the teacher wasn't looking".  

I was tangentially involved in that plot line (with significantly more information than most PCs could have access to given my position) and I thought the entire situation was really, really weird in how played out.  Now I know why.  Everyone was chit-chatting OOC about it.  

If I spent countless hours running that plot as a staff member, it would certainly take the wind out of my sails and make me far less enthusiastic about trying out anything like that again in the future.  When plots filled with conflict translate into players abusing the rules to one up each other, players quitting the game in frustration, and general hard feelings all around it doesn't feel like it's certainly doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend my time working on.

[BadSkeelz]

Anyone who thinks OOC communications in the plot Nergal posted didn't dramatically change the outcome is severely underestimating the power of information.

There's a very big difference between suspecting something is true, and knowing something is true.  The lack of small, critical pieces of information makes a huge difference.  It's like cheating on an exam and saying "well, I knew it was A anyway, so its okay I peeked at the answer key when the teacher wasn't looking".  

I was tangentially involved in that plot line (with significantly more information than most PCs could have access to given my position) and I thought the entire situation was really, really weird in how played out.  Now I know why.  Everyone was chit-chatting OOC about it.  

If I spent countless hours running that plot as a staff member, it would certainly take the wind out of my sails and make me far less enthusiastic about trying out anything like that again in the future.  When plots filled with conflict translate into players abusing the rules to one up each other, players quitting the game in frustration, and general hard feelings all around it doesn't feel like it's certainly doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend my time working on.

If by "OOC communications dramatically changed the outcome" you mean "OOC communications provided an out for the plot to be shut down before you had 2-3 clans decimated by PVP warfare," then yes, I agree. The plot definitely went off the rails once the first big post-PK OOC outburst occurred and died with a whimper. The whole episode is murky and frustrating to look at.

Maybe it's just a philosophical difference on my part. I saw more than enough evidence in game to justify the massive retaliatory campaign reaction that did not occur. I guess I just think it's better to over-react than not react at all, and there was plenty of things in game to react to.

[Duskdrake]

Am I understanding things wrong, or in that story is the only evidence of OOC collusion for IC events the fact that they sent similar requests in?

Because sure, actually planning things out OOC would be bad, but if the only piece of evidence was those requests, then why is the immediate assumption that they obviously plotted all the IC events OOC? I could easily imagine a case where two friends end up teaming up IC, and then at some point talk OOCly about feeling like the staff aren't being fair in their support, all without having used OOC to actually bring benefits to their characters.

If that really was the only evidence, and staff assumed that because they'd talked at all about IC events at some point that they were clearly using OOC communication for all its potential advantages, then that seems like a pretty big example of assuming someone's guilty right out of the gate. If their characters acted in an appropriate manner, if their teaming up was entirely reasonable given the events of the plot, if they still plotted things out between their characters, then why should a coordinated request sent about an out of character issue be such damning evidence?

I don't know, it seems like a lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that two friends who speak about IG current events -must- be using their chatter to coordinate things between their characters, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Though given all the people who seem to think so, maybe I'm missing something? I don't know, I genuinely feel like I am.

[Beethoven]

[edited into oblivion]

[wizturbo]

If by "OOC communications dramatically changed the outcome" you mean "OOC communications provided an out for the plot to be shut down before you had 2-3 clans decimated by PVP warfare," then yes, I agree. The plot definitely went off the rails once the first big post-PK OOC outburst occurred and died with a whimper. The whole episode is murky and frustrating to look at.

How could it be a fair PvP contest under these conditions?  

1.  The retaliatory war you dream of is based on OOC information.  Would "A" risk everything when they don't even know "B" or "C" was behind the attack?  Could "A" have used it as an excuse to justify a war with B & C?  Sure!  But "A" has no idea if they can actually win that war, unless "A" factors in the OOC knowledge on the size of the PC portions of those clans involved and the relative age of the characters in those clans.

2.  How could you conduct a PvP fight when some players are actively cheating by sharing information?  Let's pretend "B" has an amazing spy network that's sharing information ICly about everything "A" is doing.  Wouldn't "B" have a huge advantage?  Well, that advantage is completely negated when "A" just uses AIM to share everything.   Spies don't pick up any information, because the conversations didn't happen in-game.  

I don't know if you've ever played EvE online, but the vast majority of major conflicts in that game are resolved by out-of-game activities.   There are some big space battles, but for every space battle there's some major thing that happens through "espionage" which has nothing to do with EvE the video game and everything to do with EvE the meta game.  The EvE community has embraced this meta gaming because there is really no way to regulate it, but it takes any semblance of roleplaying completely out of the equation from my perspective.  That's the path I don't want Armageddon to take.

You could call it a slippery slope, but I don't see how people talking on mumble about things as they happen is much different than an EvE online war, a WoW battleground, or any other number games where roleplaying is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of importance.

[wizturbo]

Maybe this is a gross mischaracterization based on my obvious bitterness, but what I am seeing boils down to this.

Nergal: Look at how OOC communication ruins plots! For example, this one time these players were communicating OOCly, so I ruined their plot.

That isn't how I read the situation.  I read it as OOC communication ruined core pieces of a plot where it would have been irresponsible to let it continue.

Also, if you want my speculation on the matter, the OOC communication ruined more than pieces of the plot.  It ruined the motivation of some players and staff involved in doing the work to keep that plot running.

[BadSkeelz]

How could it be a fair PvP contest under these conditions?  

1.  The retaliatory war you dream of is based on OOC information.  Would "A" risk everything when they don't even know "B" or "C" was behind the attack?  Could "A" have used it as an excuse to justify a war with B & C?  Sure!  But "A" has no idea if they can actually win that war, unless "A" factors in the OOC knowledge on the size of the PC portions of those clans involved and the relative age of the characters in those clans.

By this logic, any time you're sizing up a potential PVP encounter you're guilty of using OOC knowledge. We all size up other PCs based on how old they are, how much they could potentially have twinked up, what their guilds might be.

Regarding risk, House A wouldn't be risking everything either, just the small contingent represented by PCs who had a personal stake in the conflict.  House A 's PCs certainly could have assumed who did it, they could have looked at the members of that particular opposing crew, and judged that their own crew was capable of wiping it out. None of these Houses would have actually destroyed each other, as you can't attack the virtual crews of a House. But if you kill enough of the PC population, it stand to reason that the Virtual portions of the House would react - ideally by negotiating an end to the conflict once one House had established local dominance. Or by spawning a shit ton of NPCs and killing you in return. Either way it's better than doing nothing.

2.  How could you conduct a PvP fight when some players are actively cheating by sharing information?  Let's pretend "B" has an amazing spy network that's sharing information ICly about everything "A" is doing.  Wouldn't "B" have a huge advantage?  Well, that advantage is completely negated when "A" just uses AIM to share everything.   Spies don't pick up any information, because the conversations didn't happen in-game.  

If B's network is so good, then they either have someone in the clan forums or capable of observing the compound. OOC communication only provides anonymity up to a point. At some point your PC actually has to log in to the game and attempt to do something. That's when you become visible to spies and counter-attacking.

A spy network is also pointless if you don't have the coded muscle to do anything with the information it provides.

I don't know if you've ever played EvE online, but the vast majority of major conflicts in that game are resolved by out-of-game activities.   There are some big space battles, but for every space battle there's some major thing that happens through "espionage" which has nothing to do with EvE the video game and everything to do with EvE the meta game.  The EvE community has embraced this meta gaming because there is really no way to regulate it, but it takes any semblance of roleplaying completely out of the equation from my perspective.  That's the path I don't want Armageddon to take.

I agree that EvE is boring as shit to play. I would argue that we're already at that point with Armageddon. It just so happens that our form of metaplay seems to be geared towards finding ways to shut down any actual in-game conflict and perpetuate the status quo, unless someone in a privileged position feels like running a plot.

Also, if you want my speculation on the matter, the OOC communication ruined more than pieces of the plot.  It ruined the motivation of some players and staff involved in doing the work to keep that plot running.

I agree that this is the real moral of Nergal's example.

Edit: Also, the retaliatory war would not be based on OOC information.

There were IC confrontations between the clans. There was IC motive. There was an IC act. It didn't take a genius to connect the IC dots. All of that would be enough justification for a group of characters to decide to go fuck up another group of characters. Maybe it would be the wrong assumption, but just because someone talked OOC would not have invalidated the IC reasoning.

[Beethoven]

[edited into oblivion]

Eh. It's late and I'm upset. I shouldn't even be posting.

[Duskdrake]

The player of House C's leader was known to have coordinated requests in the past with other players, and it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated too. When questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

I reread the story again, and unless I'm missing something, the only evidence that B and C actually did what everyone is accusing them of (using OOC chat to bypass espionage, using it for faster, more readily available communication on IC matters, etc.) is that "it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated, too." In other words, from how it sounds, two characters did things that made sense under IC circumstances, but because of an admitted assumption that those things that made sense IC -might- have been facilitated through OOC means, everything was ruined?

Again, some people seem to know more about this event, and maybe there's some really damning evidence or something being left out, but if this is the sort of evidence being cited as "concrete proof" by staff when players are being approached about this sort of thing, then players definitely aren't being treated as being innocent until proven otherwise. Few people will dispute the -potential- for OOC communication to mess things up, but jumping from "they talked OOCly about IC things and coordinated a request" to "they clearly colluded on IC actions for the purpose of trying to win in a way that was actively detrimental to the plot" seems like a problematic leap to take without more evidence then it not being "too much of a stretch to assume."

At various other points in the thread, the distinction has been made between communicating and getting IC information OOCly, and actually using it for IC benefit. Unless I'm way off (and I might be), this would all seem to suggest that the presence of OOC communication is being automatically assumed to mean that the players in question are breaking the OOC/IC wall. I just don't think that's an assumption that's at all reasonable to make.

[wizturbo]

How are staff supposed to know every detail?  I don't think they hav installed keyloggers on the people involved (or would he need recording devices too?).  Staff saw clear signs of collusion, between people that apparently already had account notes for collusion in the past, shortly after an entire major plot point was spoiled by OOC communications.  Sure, it's possible that all of these pieces of OOC information that were shared weren't enough to spoil the plot, but evidence of cheating is there.

Exactly what gave staff the clue that collusion was taking place is irrelevant, they're not going to share those facts, and some people aren't going to agree with their interpretation of those facts even if they do.  The appearance of wrongdoing does just as much damage as the wrongdoing itself.

If a professor gives a final exam to a class and later finds photocopies of the answer key in the class room's trash can, what should that professor do?  It's possible no one used these answer key's to cheat.  It's possible, but it wouldn't be fair to let the test scores stand.  In a university, the professor would force everyone to retake the exam or base grades off the performance prior to the exam.  This isn't a university.  The professor decided to say "fuck you guys" and went and played some Fallout 4 with their free time instead.  Sounds like some of the students in this analogy decided to go take their ball and play elsewhere too.

[Beethoven]

I deleted my comment, wizturbo. I'm just upset about largely unrelated things and it's late.

[wizturbo]

I deleted my comment, wizturbo. I'm just upset about largely unrelated things and it's late.

Okay.  Editing mine not to quote you then.  <3

[Armaddict]

How is Nergal supposed to know every detail?  I don't think Nergal has installed keyloggers on the people involved.  He saw clear signs of collusion, shortly after an entire major plot point was spoiled by OOC communications.

You keep saying that, but you've had it pointed out several times that the story itself says nothing of proof of collusion until after the fact.  That's when they found out.  Then they looked back and all the things that were fine and made sense prior were suddenly regarded as broken.

This is not to say that I agree with Skeelz in that coordination OOC is okay instead of IC; I've said numerous times I disagree.  But people still keep saying 'clear evidence' as if that's a given, and all these posts are talking about exactly why that isn't clear evidence.

To rephrase; We've made it okay to be friendly.   That's been established.  Even to talk about the game world.  That's okay.  The game is fine.  Just not IC events.

So you keep asserting that this was Player of B and Player of C in contact, as admitted, to say 'Let's do this and this and this and fuck over House A, because they fucked us over.'  Now, the IC action in that is sensible; the ooc discussion of it rather than IC is bad for aforementioned reasons.

But suppose it was Player B and Player C getting in contact a long time before, being friendly, but not talking much, then this plot arises, they talk more, but not about making plans aside from 'Oh, I'll see you on tomorrow, right?'  However, after things happen, they see a blockade in their efforts, and they ask if the other person got the similar response from staff or similar treatment.  At this point, this is OOC discussion about IC things, right?  But did this just ruin the plot, when they get in contact through their own requests and present the same cases and ask for the same things?

Case A, where the relationship is being used specifically to fuck over House A, makes sense, but makes some shortcuts.  It follows IC logic, but it turns things 'gamey'...they need to keep those meetings going IC for the fairness to remain intact.  Case B, though, still 'proves' the relationship, but that's not really collusion.  However, it still fits the narrative of the story presented, and also shows in no way a change to the plot itself.  

You're reading it strictly the first way.  I'm reading it and wondering if it was possible it was the second way, but got jumped on as if it was the first way. For it to be -only- the first way requires evidence/parts of narrative that were not given to us.  And that is why there's been 2 pages of discussion arguing over it; I'm not trying to brow-beat here, but I've become very wary of the 'We can tell easily' stance for this reason, and I happen to see far more harm in punishing innocent people for it than somewhat-kind-of-maybe-guilty people going free.  I feel that way about much more serious cases of justice in real life, I'm certainly going to feel that way about the video game.

Meanwhile, this entire thread is about how to fix this conundrum for both sides.  And so this issue comes up, based on whether or not a staffer should pre-emptively end their own plots based on finding out that some of the people are in contact with each other.  For me, I've known that OOC communication has run rampant for a long, long time.  So has collusion (some collusion, to some level, is perfectly fine with me; sometimes, I want to play with my friends, dammit! ).  I think it should be dealt with where it can be.  But I don't think we should be going on an inquisition about it where overzealously rooting it out and ending plots over it is worth it.  Even in the case of the -original- example...that plot played out.  It just got cheated out of a twist in it.  Don't stop plots over it, there are still plenty of other people to enjoy it.  The only reason to stop it is if it -had- to go a certain way, in which case it just doesn't fit the criteria of what our plots are supposed to be like for a long time.

[BadSkeelz]

Whooaaa. I just want to say (again) I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

People who need to coordinate OOC to succeed actually need to get good.

Edit: since I've posted enough, and my first line's already been quoted, let me just tweak it here a little:

I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about other players doing it it if you're tough and good enough in game.

It's like when an old database of IC information got leaked a few months back. If you look at it, it's your own loss.

The only thing good players have to do to let shitty players triumph is not spar enough.

[wizturbo]

I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

This applies to basically everything, both in-game and in life.  Doesn't mean it's a good solution.  Sadly, in many cases, it's the only solution though.

[Armaddict]

Whooaaa. I just want to say (again) I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

People who need to coordinate OOC to succeed actually need to get good.

Oh.  Sorry, I thought I read a post where you said you didn't give a shit.  Heh.

Anyway.  I think it's time we put this thing to the same state that we're saying we expect if they 'suspect' that we did OOC plot-ruining;

Either A) they were 100% completely right and things were handled appropriately, but we just didn't have all the information that showed it so clearly.
       B) They were 100% wrong and two friends who played the game and talked with each other got labeled, and the discipline committee are now exposed to that and we have to trust they'll try harder (the same as we're essentially saying they could have handled it differently and trust the players to not do that shit)
   or C) There's a mixture of the two, and both parties are aware of where they would have done things differently through reading some of the feedback on things, and hopefully it goes better and no one gets hurt that their time and energy spent giving us shit to do feels suddenly rigged and like they're penned in to their own creation being a crock of shit.

I think this example has had its day in the spotlight, illuminating very little aside from that indeed, players have varying degrees of firmness on what is detrimental to the game.  SHOCKING.  I'm a hardcore integrity guy, but not so hardcore that justice hurts good people unjustly.


Edited to say my spacing is bad but I'm not fixing it.