Sponsored Roles and Role Playing - Quality... what?

[Lutagar]

The only time I think OOC intervention is needed is with certain magick guilds.

You know the ones I mean. If someone playing as one of those guilds wants you dead, you're super dead.

Basically everything else can be prevented with enough precaution and care. If you find yourself in a locked room with murderous maxxed warrior, or shot with an arrow out in the salt flats, that's just le harsh armageddon.

[Armaddict]

We've all played poorly at times, especially those of us who have played powerful roles. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't accomplish anything.

Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.

The game has survived and thrived with plenty of cutthroat reactions that weren't checked out of a false pretense that killing enemies is bad for the game, and will continue to do so.  I like how you can reduce a post of mine about being self-reliant and using code instead of making everything a checklist to whining, but harping on people for killing other PC's somehow comes naturally as something other than an unrealistic expectation to float through the hostile game with the hostile authoritarian culture under constant power struggles unscathed.

The game chews up characters and spits them out, no exceptions, and the stories of individual characters are sometimes shorter, but the overall epic is still unending and the pursuit of contributing to the overall arc in a more meaningful way -is- the competitive 'winning' attitude that is repeatedly presented under false pretense.  Everyone is looking to make their mark, not just you, but not everyone gets to unless they play the game as it is.  This is not Harry Potter, this is Game of Thrones.

[BadSkeelz]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

A sponsored role is a character the same as anyone else. The threat of losing a PC every six months is something dreadful.

I have an alternative suggestion, for both those sponsored into roles and those promoted into leadership positions: Make them ICly accountable for their actions.

Are they avoiding plots that could enrich the House and prefer to kank everyone and be lazy? Then animate their superiors to speak with them. Threaten demotion. After setting expectations, if the behavior continues, demote them.

Are they actively driving players away from the clan and making it so minions cannot effectively work? Then have a superior notice and react to it. Ask them what their plans are for strengthening the clan in an IC fashion. Tell them ICly that you expect certain things.

Are they claiming they have tried to do certain things but the "Seniors" said no, when you know very well they never asked in any reports about it? Maybe have the Seniors react to that sort of a lie, if ICly appropriate, and get mad.

A lot of the time bad behavior on the part of leadership is enabled because there is no IC reaction to it. Sponsored leaders don't actually have to do anything other then bare minimum. Part of the problem is that it is better in the long run to do nothing then to attempt plots.

Plots present risk, danger, and require a lot of active work. It would be nice to see more rewards for leaders who not only successfully initiated, facilitated, or completed plots, but also for leaders who actively involve their clan members.

If you change the IC reality to where involving minions and making things happen enables leaders to feel successful, instead of likely blowing up in their face and making them worse off, you will see people trying more. If you discourage laziness and poor leadership by making the IC world react negatively, people will be more inclined to do things.

Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page

+1billion

[BadSkeelz]

We've all played poorly at times, especially those of us who have played powerful roles. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't accomplish anything.

Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.

The game has survived and thrived with plenty of cutthroat reactions that weren't checked out of a false pretense that killing enemies is bad for the game, and will continue to do so.  I like how you can reduce a post of mine about being self-reliant and using code instead of making everything a checklist to whining, but harping on people for killing other PC's somehow comes naturally as something other than an unrealistic expectation to float through the hostile game with the hostile authoritarian culture under constant power struggles unscathed.

The game chews up characters and spits them out, no exceptions, and the stories of individual characters are sometimes shorter, but the overall epic is still unending and the pursuit of contributing to the overall arc in a more meaningful way -is- the competitive 'winning' attitude that is repeatedly presented under false pretense.  Everyone is looking to make their mark, not just you, but not everyone gets to unless they play the game as it is.  This is not Harry Potter, this is Game of Thrones.

#triggered

I'm all for killing PCs. But there needs to be good reason for it. And a lot of the time the reasoning boils down to "this is a potential threat to my PC." I don't think that's good enough.

[Patuk]

We've all played poorly at times, especially those of us who have played powerful roles. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't accomplish anything.

Neither does spewing rhetoric on roleplaying ethic or repeatedly demeaning other interpretations of IC conflict and its place in the game.

'Stop talking about sponsored roles in a thread where staff ask about sponsored roles, you bastard!'

[Armaddict]

Don't act like a forum troll.  That's a response, not a trigger.

If you change the IC reality to where involving minions and making things happen enables leaders to feel successful, instead of likely blowing up in their face and making them worse off, you will see people trying more. If you discourage laziness and poor leadership by making the IC world react negatively, people will be more inclined to do things.

This is what I was getting at with staff interaction being better than punishment of the player.  Well worded indeed.

Stop talking about sponsored roles in a thread where staff ask about sponsored roles, you bastard!'

Except I was replying to the derail about how conflict 'should' be played in the game.

[Jingo]

Yay.  Another thread degrading into the generic message of 'If you're killing other PCs you're killing RP.'

Killing PCs kills conflict, not roleplay. As in the aggressive tension between player characters.

As a funny illustration, I like to think of an assassin that puts himself out of work because he's too efficient. He's so good a killing that nobody wants to be his enemy. So now he just tavern sits all day. By an objective measure he might be a good assassin and he might be a good role player. But wouldn't his player rather they still had someone to work against?

Anyone who thinks it's a great story to just have an endless conflict doesn't read a lot of literature.  They all have an ending.  The 'petty conflict' is being confused with the real conflict on multiple levels, not just the factor of escalation.  The majority of the time you get politically manipulated, conned, or hunted...that is not usually the result of a 'petty conflict' just because you didn't plan on doing anything about it.  Nor is it a reason to not trust the players playing the game, but it -is- a reason to remember why Zalanthans don't trust each other without safeguards.

Funny you bring that up. I don't view Armageddon as anything at all analogous to most fictional narrative. I don't think the decision making process people employ when playing are are the same as a book author. I think Armageddon is much closer to real life decision making. Complete with cognitive biases and the subconscious weighting of conflicting opportunities. And I'm afraid to say that I think most IC rationales for an action come into play after the decision has already been made.

I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say in the rest of your paragraph--Warning - while you were typing 9 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

[Jingo]

I'm all for killing PCs.

Trust me. This man is crazy. He'll do everything he says he will.

[BadSkeelz]

Don't act like a forum troll.  That's a response, not a trigger.

If I actually acted like a troll I would get moderated a lot more. Instead I simply tell as I see it. Some disagree, others don't.

I think Jingo's right that thinking of Armageddon playstyles like novels is the wrong way to go about it. If Game of Thrones was written like Armageddon, Ned Stark would have been killed in a bedroom, all the kings would have sat in their base until their max assassins/magickers/staff-spawned monsters could be used with absolute chance of success, and Alistair Thorne would be on a forum bitching about how a "Sponsored role mary sue bastard got a fucking staff resurrection and has a doc-breaking giant working for him."

If instead you look at Armageddon playstyle as an extension of real world thinking, it's much easier to explain why leaders don't take risk, why so many murders happen out of sight, and the game can appear to stagnate. Just because an action is reasonable does not mean it is the funnest thing to do.

I'm all for killing PCs.

Trust me. This man is crazy. He'll do everything he says he will.

At least 15 confirmed PKs, of which only 2 I regret due to them being overreactions on my part. Most were people suiciding via stupidity ("ooc: this is bullshit I have rights") or stubbornness (IC: "Respect me!!!").

[Armaddict]

Funny you bring that up. I don't view Armageddon as anything at all analogous to most fictional narrative. I don't think the decision making process people employ when playing are are the same as a book author. I think Armageddon is much closer to real life decision making. Complete with cognitive biases and the subconscious weighting of conflicting opportunities. And I'm afraid to say that I think most IC rationales for an action come into play after the decision has already been made.

I agree, but I think we were on different wavelengths.  My comparison was about the way the narrative plays out in the two stories.  In one, heinous things happen to main and beloved characters without remorse, in the name of another character's pursuits and glories and objectives, which I think is what you mean by more close to real life.

The impression I get whenever this topic comes up (which seems often to me) is that people just want the conflict to go on for eight Harry Potter books, and then whichever side was meaner to agree to be the loser.  Assuming you mean the rest of the same paragraph, I will try again:  People often accuse other players on the GDB of 'playing to win', as if they think there is a way to win the game.  But I think everyone acknowledges that the game cannot be won.  I -do- think that people are fighting to have their goals and objectives affect the overall story arc of the game more than someone's whose story is counter theirs, or in the way, which is where that conflict occurs.  When it ends, that's not a net loss, that's a progression of a character's attempts to influence the arc.

In terms of meaningless conflict, I'm in 100% agreement.  Killing just to be a badass is bad.  Killing just to be top of the mountain is -usually- bad (room for exceptions).  Killing just for progression of skills is bad.  But I put not-killing where it makes sense into the same boat, as far as unrealistic influences in the overall story arc.  I, however, am on the side where conflict is only there to be resolved, so that the next challenge can be turned to, the next segment can be progressed to, the next chapter can be told.

Just because someone is a short chapter doesn't make them a meaningless one, even to the one who ends their chapter, and sometimes that influence is just large as if they'd survived (or larger), and this is a fluid and natural way to play through the game; have the character be self-interested, as people tend to be, and react to IC events accordingly.  That does not mean arguments result in death.  That means perceived threats are as real as threats at the time, that means earning respect is a process dictated by decisions made along the path, and so on, and if it results in the decision you gotta die, that's not detracting from the game.

If I actually acted like a troll I would get moderated a lot more. Instead I simply tell as I see it.

#triggered

Sorry, I see no point to the latter quote aside from eliciting a negative response from the reader.  You may as well as just said 'he mad', likely because once again we're arguing this topic on another unrelated thread.  But I didn't like you asserting that Barzalene's disagreement must be (or was likely) because she was feeling guilty over her IC actions.

Perhaps we should take -that- topic to PM, because conflict resolution between the involved parties here has happened in several different threads now because it seems to get brought up so much.  As far as the actual topic at hand, I think Taven's post is the last useful one here, and should be where we pick up.

[Delirium]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

A sponsored role is a character the same as anyone else. The threat of losing a PC every six months is something dreadful.

I have an alternative suggestion, for both those sponsored into roles and those promoted into leadership positions: Make them ICly accountable for their actions.

Are they avoiding plots that could enrich the House and prefer to kank everyone and be lazy? Then animate their superiors to speak with them. Threaten demotion. After setting expectations, if the behavior continues, demote them.

Are they actively driving players away from the clan and making it so minions cannot effectively work? Then have a superior notice and react to it. Ask them what their plans are for strengthening the clan in an IC fashion. Tell them ICly that you expect certain things.

Are they claiming they have tried to do certain things but the "Seniors" said no, when you know very well they never asked in any reports about it? Maybe have the Seniors react to that sort of a lie, if ICly appropriate, and get mad.

A lot of the time bad behavior on the part of leadership is enabled because there is no IC reaction to it. Sponsored leaders don't actually have to do anything other then bare minimum. Part of the problem is that it is better in the long run to do nothing then to attempt plots.

Plots present risk, danger, and require a lot of active work. It would be nice to see more rewards for leaders who not only successfully initiated, facilitated, or completed plots, but also for leaders who actively involve their clan members.

If you change the IC reality to where involving minions and making things happen enables leaders to feel successful, instead of likely blowing up in their face and making them worse off, you will see people trying more. If you discourage laziness and poor leadership by making the IC world react negatively, people will be more inclined to do things.

Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page

+1billion

+2billion

[bardlyone]

stuff

Taven speaks wisdom.

[Jingo]

Now here is an idea... what if we put a time limit on sponsored roles?  (I'm shooting in the dark here, so this is just an idea.)  What if made it so that after a year or 6 months, we review the person in the role and have the choice to ask them to store or continue on?

A sponsored role is a character the same as anyone else. The threat of losing a PC every six months is something dreadful.

I have an alternative suggestion, for both those sponsored into roles and those promoted into leadership positions: Make them ICly accountable for their actions.

Are they avoiding plots that could enrich the House and prefer to kank everyone and be lazy? Then animate their superiors to speak with them. Threaten demotion. After setting expectations, if the behavior continues, demote them.

Are they actively driving players away from the clan and making it so minions cannot effectively work? Then have a superior notice and react to it. Ask them what their plans are for strengthening the clan in an IC fashion. Tell them ICly that you expect certain things.

Are they claiming they have tried to do certain things but the "Seniors" said no, when you know very well they never asked in any reports about it? Maybe have the Seniors react to that sort of a lie, if ICly appropriate, and get mad.

A lot of the time bad behavior on the part of leadership is enabled because there is no IC reaction to it. Sponsored leaders don't actually have to do anything other then bare minimum. Part of the problem is that it is better in the long run to do nothing then to attempt plots.

Plots present risk, danger, and require a lot of active work. It would be nice to see more rewards for leaders who not only successfully initiated, facilitated, or completed plots, but also for leaders who actively involve their clan members.

If you change the IC reality to where involving minions and making things happen enables leaders to feel successful, instead of likely blowing up in their face and making them worse off, you will see people trying more. If you discourage laziness and poor leadership by making the IC world react negatively, people will be more inclined to do things.

Quoting in full because it deserves to be near the top of the page

+1billion

+2billion

Isn't this already what we have though?

I like the six month ruler because it does seems like a better accountability system.

[Raptor_Dan]

I'm jumping on the "Taven's got it exactly right" bandwagon. If it IS what we have right now, I haven't seen it, not even remotely, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened at times.

[Reiloth]

Taven is exactly right in this.

But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs. Something along the lines of:

"How is everything going?"

"Are you still having fun?"

"What can we (Staff) do to help you more efficiently?"

"This is what Staff thinks you can do to have more fun, or how we want to help you."

"Here's some critique -- Don't take it personally! We had trouble understanding Plot X, and it seems you're bummed about it. Maybe we can clear the air."

"OK, have fun!"

I mean, the fact that we only have conversations with Staff members when we've "DONE SOMETHING BAD" is sort of a scary concept. Keeping conversations light and breezy goes a long way in alleviating misconceptions.

[Lizzie]

No, I don't think I'd like a 6-month check-in. At all. Even a little. I play the game because it's a fun game. I don't want, or need, to go to the guidance counselor every six months to make sure my feelings place is still happy.  I definitely don't think I'd be very happy at all, if I learned that the staff was wasting time having "happy chats" with players who - for some reason - needed someone to pat their back and say "there there, now what can we do for our widdle puddin-cheeks." I wouldn't be very happy with the playerbase for demonstrating a rather significant lack of maturity, and I wouldn't be very happy with the staff for encouraging that lack.

If I'm not happy, I'll either leave, or send a request. I've sent requests to staff "just to vent" in the past, and it was received positively. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need hand-holding. If you have a gripe, send a note. If you just need to vent, send a note. The staff will do exactly what you want them to do: acknowledge that you need to vent, affirm your validity as a human being, and let you go back to playing the game.

[Reiloth]

No, I don't think I'd like a 6-month check-in. At all. Even a little. I play the game because it's a fun game. I don't want, or need, to go to the guidance counselor every six months to make sure my feelings place is still happy.  I definitely don't think I'd be very happy at all, if I learned that the staff was wasting time having "happy chats" with players who - for some reason - needed someone to pat their back and say "there there, now what can we do for our widdle puddin-cheeks." I wouldn't be very happy with the playerbase for demonstrating a rather significant lack of maturity, and I wouldn't be very happy with the staff for encouraging that lack.

If I'm not happy, I'll either leave, or send a request. I've sent requests to staff "just to vent" in the past, and it was received positively. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need hand-holding. If you have a gripe, send a note. If you just need to vent, send a note. The staff will do exactly what you want them to do: acknowledge that you need to vent, affirm your validity as a human being, and let you go back to playing the game.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess you're the peachy always speaking everything that comes to your mind all the time kind of person?

Most of the time when people don't have an outlet to have a discussion, they keep it to themselves. If they do have an outlet for discussion, they can figure some things out. We were talking about people stagnating in roles -- Not your feelings about, err...Talking about your feelings, I guess.

Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.

[Lizzie]

This is a thread about sponsored roles. If you can be trusted to play a sponsored role, then you can be trusted with *communicating to staff* if you're not satisfied with your role. It's not the staff's job to check in on you. It's your job to check in with them. When I've played a sponsored role and I was bored/frustrated, I sent a note to the staff letting them know. If I needed advice, I sent a note asking for advice. If I needed help getting motivation, or wanted encouragement, or wanted more direction, I sent a note asking for it. That's part of -my- job, as the player of a sponsored role. It's built right into the role application - a reminder that you have to send regular reports and keep communicating with the staff.

If you have no problems, there's no reason for them to come to you and ask if you need anything. If you need something, you ask.

[Dunetrade55]

I think you're swell, Lizzie, but this conversation is being opened for a reason. Not everyone has big-boy pants, depending on who's been offended in the past, player-side and staff-side alike. The conversation here is how to improve the experience of sponsored roles, their enemies, and their minions, not to see who has the biggest pants. It wouldn't come up if there wasn't a need. If your pants are in outstanding shape, that's great! But also, seemingly, exceptional.

[Lizzie]

Agreed Dunetrader. The thread is to see how sponsored roles can be improved. I don't think they can be improved by being taken out of the game, into an OOC area once every 6 months, for an OOC conversation about how I'm doing in my role. If it gets to 6 months and there hasn't already been enough communication for staff to know how things are going, then the communication experience has already failed.

Again - it is up to the players to communicate to staff if there is something lacking in their role. And that shouldn't happen "once every 6 months." It should happen when the player is experiencing something lacking.

[Taven]

But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.

Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.

If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen. Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.

I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.


Edited to add: I would see the six-month review as something additional to IC accountability, not in lieu of it.

[Lizzie]

But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.

Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.

If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen. Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.

I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.

If it's potentially about losing a PC, or the staff getting an indication that you're no longer involved in your role, then it shouldn't happen at some arbitrarily determined time period. It should happen - when the PC's existence is at risk, or when the staff realize that the player might not be involved any longer. The whole once every 6 months? If it takes them 6 months for them to discover that I'm not involved with my PC anymore, then neither of us have been doing our jobs.

If I'm having trouble getting into my character, I might give it a week. Or two weeks. Maybe even three weeks, or if it's a particularly involved role, a month. At that point - if I'm still having trouble, the staff will get a note from me asking for help/advice/encouragement. The staff is pretty awesome with giving help/advice/encouragement to sponsored role players who are having trouble adjusting or going through a lull.

But if there is no lull, and there are no requests from players, or complaints from other players, or *specific* concerns that need to be addressed, then there's really no reason for the staff to just decide that it's been 6 months so it's time for a chat. Even if there is a lull, and there are requests, and there are specific concerns - you don't wait til the 6 month mark to address it. You address it when/as needed.

[Rokal]

As for the conflict sentiments... then take risks.  I see too many people in general in this game no longer taking risks.  This typically happens in Leadership roles and Sponsored Roles, they end up stagnating and not taking risks, and then the players around them get bored. 

You need to understand that this is a systemic problem that can't be reduced to or solved by a simple prescription like "take risks." No. I'm not going to take risks when my trust in the player next to me is at basement levels. I'm barely willing to even interact with other characters at that point.

Edit: Elaborating

The system is heavily skewed against risk taking. Players arn't willing to moderate their conflict and staff arn't willing to moderate for them. So taking risks will tend towards the loss of your character. This has an extremely powerful conditioning effect on players that I can speak to personally.

As I was trying to explain in a previous post, the incentive is to reduce conflict to as low as possible a level. Put another way, the incentive is to reduce risk to your character to such a low level too.

As much as I love taking crazy risks and seeing where it brings me, I agree with this a lot - see, in order for people to want to take risk ,there needs to be a real big reward for it to work.

Any staffer looking at my character list would see a lot of dead. Thats because I took risks.

Losing a character on this game can be losing weeks, or even months of time investment, and that alone makes people hesitant to take risks.

IMO, if there was a way that staff were able to spot these risk takers, see whats going on,  i think it'd be rather cool.

Someone who takes a huge risk and dies in the process but creates a ton of RP for others involved should definetly be acknowledged, imo.

[Dunetrade55]

EDIT: Deleted because rambling and emotional, not worth anyone's time, but not bad. Agree with Taven is an apt summary.

[Reiloth]

But, I also don't think it hurts to have a 6 month 'check in'. Instead of it sounding like a review where you might lose your PC or have that threat lingering over a PC's head, if it was just a real-time chat upstairs.

Checking in with people is the most logical way to figure out if the role is working out. Sticking your head in the sand is the best way to have someone stagnating in a role and being unable to figure out 'why they aren't doing it good'.

If it's not about potentially losing your PC, and about staff checking in to make sure that you're still involved in the role, that's something I could get behind... Provided two things happen. Both staff and players are polite and approach it courteously.

I think both staff and players get daunted by the idea of talking to the other side because they're worried about getting insulted or yelled at. That sort of environment makes everything just feel bad, and I think rudeness happens too often on both sides of the aisle. I'd personally be open to staff and players having guidelines for how to be more polite to each other, although that's a different conversation entirely. Text is a hard medium to communicate effectively in when things are emotional.

If it's potentially about losing a PC, or the staff getting an indication that you're no longer involved in your role, then it shouldn't happen at some arbitrarily determined time period. It should happen - when the PC's existence is at risk, or when the staff realize that the player might not be involved any longer. The whole once every 6 months? If it takes them 6 months for them to discover that I'm not involved with my PC anymore, then neither of us have been doing our jobs.

If I'm having trouble getting into my character, I might give it a week. Or two weeks. Maybe even three weeks, or if it's a particularly involved role, a month. At that point - if I'm still having trouble, the staff will get a note from me asking for help/advice/encouragement. The staff is pretty awesome with giving help/advice/encouragement to sponsored role players who are having trouble adjusting or going through a lull.

But if there is no lull, and there are no requests from players, or complaints from other players, or *specific* concerns that need to be addressed, then there's really no reason for the staff to just decide that it's been 6 months so it's time for a chat. Even if there is a lull, and there are requests, and there are specific concerns - you don't wait til the 6 month mark to address it. You address it when/as needed.

Staff aren't mind readers, and you're right -- They aren't there to hold your hand. Some people aren't as forthcoming as you (or overly so) because they're either too busy, or don't care enough to write a long-winded request in monologue format. A conversation, a live back and forth, can go a long way in clearing up misconceptions and not creating new ones.

I imagine Staff is busy enough keeping the ship afloat and steering in a good direction. The easier it can be (and more streamlined) to keep sponsored roles active and fun, the better. Relying on Players to send in requests if they have a problem -- Color me crazy, I doubt that happens often. They probably just stew and do their shit the way they want to do it until someone calls them on it. As you said, it's a game. Most of the time you don't want to rock the boat, let bygones be bygones, and not make a hurricane out of a rainstorm. If you bring up every issue as you perceive it every time you perceive it, I think you make unnecessary paperwork and also just...A confusing amount of need for clarification.

When there's a big enough problem, sure. I'd expect Staff to bring it up with me, or me to bring it up with them. But most of the time, you might just let it slide. It might be a nice thing to mention in a conversation, but not in a diatribe.

I'm glad you speak your mind often and loudly Lizzie (I do too). But i'm trying to address the malaise that Ath is identifying in Sponsored Leaders, and how it might be alleviated. It's great that you speak your mind often and loudly -- Many people don't.