Staff, I want an open dialogue.

[deskoft]

That's really cool guys, thank you. We appreciate you!

[Jingo]

Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.

But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.

I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.

Staff do handle complaint resolution and player discipline fairly, though - with significant discussion among staff, poring over game logs, efforts to "connect dots" in more elaborate player breaches, etc. We don't have a rigidly-defined process for it, but only because every situation is different. Note that you (general you) not liking the results of this resolution does not mean it was not conducted fairly, though it could mean that the situation requires additional discussion so that it can be better understood.

Forget about whether the decision is fair for a moment. Instead, consider just how frustrating it is when you're expected to make due with feedback that doesn't address your question or offer any specifics. And THEN consider how insulting it is when you the request is closed the moment you point out some of these problems. And any further pursuit results in punishment. At that point I think a player can be forgiven for thinking the system can not even provide the fair decision in the first place.

[Is Friday]

Jimmy let it go.

[SuchDragonWow]

Nergal, we can all appreciate what the staff of this game has done to take some of the more obscure taboo of Arm and make them into defined rules.  I can see you've tried your best.  Along those lines, I would like to ask you a question. 

Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?

I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player.  I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.

[Nergal]

Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?

No.

[Nergal]

Not that I want to air out my beef with staff.

But please don't be giving players the impression that we have a judicious even-handed process for complaint resolution and player discipline. I think that's just a recipe for disappointment.

I'm not even knocking staff here, as my own expectations are probably too high. I'm sympathetic to the fact that staff are vastly more interested in administrating and adding to the game. Staff shouldn't need to be play camp counselor when an aggrieved player is aggrieved.

Staff do handle complaint resolution and player discipline fairly, though - with significant discussion among staff, poring over game logs, efforts to "connect dots" in more elaborate player breaches, etc. We don't have a rigidly-defined process for it, but only because every situation is different. Note that you (general you) not liking the results of this resolution does not mean it was not conducted fairly, though it could mean that the situation requires additional discussion so that it can be better understood.

Forget about whether the decision is fair for a moment. Instead, consider just how frustrating it is when you're expected to make due with feedback that doesn't address your question or offer any specifics. And THEN consider how insulting it is when you the request is closed the moment you point out some of these problems. And any further pursuit results in punishment. At that point I think a player can be forgiven for thinking the system can not even provide the fair decision in the first place.

Resolution to a problem can be both frustrating and fair. That's essentially the definition of compromise.

I realize that closing a request seems abrupt to people. But we do leave requests open to give players a chance to respond and we do let players open new requests to continue discussion if they feel a specific point or points wasn't addressed in the past request - the new request should focus on those points. One thing we don't allow is for the same request to be submitted repeatedly after a judgment has been made on it. Leaving a request open forever would be frustrating in that there is no final decision from staff at all there.

[sleepyhead]

Nergal, we can all appreciate what the staff of this game has done to take some of the more obscure taboo of Arm and make them into defined rules.  I can see you've tried your best.  Along those lines, I would like to ask you a question. 

Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?

I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player.  I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.

It was likely me that told you that because that is the way it appeared to me at the time, but I was told this was not the case upon pursuing it.

[Narf]

Is the Armageddon staff enlisting players to rat out other players?

I can't recall if I saw this policy posted on this forum somewhere, but it was definitely told to me by a player.  I couldn't tell you if its hearsay, so I'll go ahead and ask since we have this dialogue.

Is there an explicit difference between 'ratting someone out' and filing a player complaint?

[BadSkeelz]

Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300

I'm going to go ahead and reluctantly lock this thread after I get a last word in. Annoying, I know, but this is the official staff position and I would rather not have it overrun by less useful advice.

That said: ignoring OOC chatter is good advice, but not good enough alone. Alone, it's simply a way to let people who use OOC unfairly to continue to do so without your knowledge. It's extremely advantageous to people who engage in improper OOC communication because you're taking yourself out as a possible leak to staff and making the OOC game stronger. The real game is ruined by unfair OOC players even more easily if you ignore it without reporting it.

So if you do know about it, it's your duty to the game to report it. You will not get in trouble for reporting something, even if you accidentally or purposefully implicate yourself. As I said, you will earn the trust of staff and help the game as a whole. You could possibly get in trouble if you do not report someone, if that someone (or somebody else) goes on to report you first. We take great care to protect the identity of someone who reports something to staff, to the extent that we only do as much as we can without revealing the complainant, as we understand that will make OOC friendships awkward. We also take great care to determine the veracity of whatever evidence we get as well as its source.

The sad truth is that more of staff's time and resources have been nudged into revealing and shutting down OOC behavior. It's not an inordinate amount, but it's certainly more than it was a few years ago. We're not going to let it distract us from other things we're doing to make the game great.

Ultimately, it is in your best interest as well as in the game's best interest to shut down OOC gossip and coordination by reporting it, with evidence, and then ignoring it if necessary.

That said, would reporting OOC chatter gain us Communication Karma or is there going to be a new category?

[titansfan]

I've been a lot more motivated to try new things with sponsored roles of late, and by that, I mean, actually apply for them and go for it. Haven't been lucky on the receiving end, but staff's positive direction lately has really spurred me to want to try and work closely with them again. BRING ON THOSE SPONSORED ROLES!

[Akaramu]

Maybe we can steer the discussion in a better direction since it has derailed a bit. What frustrates staff, and what can players do to help make staff want to stay as volunteers longer? It seems a little one-sided to only talk about player complaints here.

[SuchDragonWow]

It was likely me that told you that because that is the way it appeared to me at the time, but I was told this was not the case upon pursuing it.

If you are who I think you are, then yes, you would know.

Is there an explicit difference between 'ratting someone out' and filing a player complaint?

Uh, yes.  I would think, at the very least, a player complaint has a useful purpose in curbing harassment.

Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300

This is precisely the post I was thinking about.  And I find it strange, considering staff went through all the trouble of posting the rules clearly, and outlining their policies, to create more transparency between players and the administration.  Yet, this idea of suggesting players tattle on each other is something you seem to project on those who are already in the meat grinder, and on the bookend of a locked thread about OOC collusion.

I'm just wondering, why, if this is your policy and method of handling infractions to the rules, is this not posted in the rules section?  You've gone to lengths to give each punishment variable a specific, no-nonsense answer, so why the pussyfooting about this?

[LauraMars]

Removed a few posts dealing with personal gossip - that's not really what this thread is for, and doesn't contribute much to the discussion. While I'm sure all involved meant nothing malicious, such remarks could easily be misconstrued.

[BadSkeelz]

@SDW:  I think the "problem" with Nergal's post is that it seems to conflate OOC abuse (the original topic of that thread) with ALL OOC "chatter" or player-to-player communication. I don't want to speculate on whether this was intended, but on reflection I think it's definitely part of how I perceived Nergal's message. As someone who dies chatter I suppose it was disheartening to be lumped in with behavior I don't identify with or condone.

[Nergal]

Whenever I speak about Staff wanting players to "rat each other out," (more facetiously but not entirely un-seriously) this is the post I have in mind:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52147.msg976300.html#msg976300

I'm going to go ahead and reluctantly lock this thread after I get a last word in. Annoying, I know, but this is the official staff position and I would rather not have it overrun by less useful advice.

That said: ignoring OOC chatter is good advice, but not good enough alone. Alone, it's simply a way to let people who use OOC unfairly to continue to do so without your knowledge. It's extremely advantageous to people who engage in improper OOC communication because you're taking yourself out as a possible leak to staff and making the OOC game stronger. The real game is ruined by unfair OOC players even more easily if you ignore it without reporting it.

So if you do know about it, it's your duty to the game to report it. You will not get in trouble for reporting something, even if you accidentally or purposefully implicate yourself. As I said, you will earn the trust of staff and help the game as a whole. You could possibly get in trouble if you do not report someone, if that someone (or somebody else) goes on to report you first. We take great care to protect the identity of someone who reports something to staff, to the extent that we only do as much as we can without revealing the complainant, as we understand that will make OOC friendships awkward. We also take great care to determine the veracity of whatever evidence we get as well as its source.

The sad truth is that more of staff's time and resources have been nudged into revealing and shutting down OOC behavior. It's not an inordinate amount, but it's certainly more than it was a few years ago. We're not going to let it distract us from other things we're doing to make the game great.

Ultimately, it is in your best interest as well as in the game's best interest to shut down OOC gossip and coordination by reporting it, with evidence, and then ignoring it if necessary.

That said, would reporting OOC chatter gain us Communication Karma or is there going to be a new category?

That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.

[Nergal]

@SDW:  I think the "problem" with Nergal's post is that it seems to conflate OOC abuse (the original topic of that thread) with ALL OOC "chatter" or player-to-player communication. I don't want to speculate on whether this was intended, but on reflection I think it's definitely part of how I perceived Nergal's message. As someone who dies chatter I suppose it was disheartening to be lumped in with behavior I don't identify with or condone.

I specifically stated "improper" OOC communication (as in, OOC abuse) in my post.

[BadSkeelz]

Nergal, my impression from your posts on the subject is that you consider all OOC communication to be improper.

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51862.msg965775.html#msg965775

While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

That was the context in which I read your later Reporting post and made my interpretations of it.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't think I'll say any more on this subject. This is just my personal example of how posts can lead to perceptions that might appear absurd to the original poster. Especially when I think there's just a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties (Which is not to diminish your prerogative to set rules fitting your own interpretation).

[SuchDragonWow]

That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.

It's funny you say that.  That is almost the very reason for my disgruntlement with the game, lately.  You see, someone shared with me a response you gave via the request tool.  I didn't ask them to, but they must have felt they needed someone else to see it.  It's also not against the rules to do that, so I don't feel at all bad about knowing what was said.

Because that correspondence belongs to someone else, I do not want to post it, here, but the message was, to paraphrase:

"You can earn more trust from us by snitching on other players who are breaking the rules.  If it is good information, it might negate some of your punishment."

I don't know this person all that well, but I'm not convinced they would fabricate such a thing.  Did you say it?  The thing is, that person had just been force stored, so it's obvious you had them by the short hairs, here.  So, possible rewards might be, what?  Unstoring their character?  What about staff's repeated equation of trust to karma?

[sleepyhead]

I can't talk too specifically about what happened with me because it might hurt other people. For the same of open dialogue I will say that I was punished for OOC talk and when I appealed, I was told that some or all of the punishment might be walked back if I sent logs of people engaging in inappropriate OOC talk, and that I would not be punished further even if those logs showed me engaging in that behavior. I found that sketchy and sent in a staff complaint. The response assured me that I had misinterpreted the staff member in question so I left it at that. If staff say they do not want to recruit informants then I choose to believe them. I was glad they were willing to state explicitly that a tattling culture is not what they want. I will never get back what I lost (including enthusiasm for the game) but I am glad for that part of things.

Edit: SDW's paraphrase is consistent with the way I read the message. It did indeed specify that 'good' information could be traded for lenience. Again, though, I am satisfied with staff saying on record that they don't want snitches. As they like to say, it was resolved even if it wasn't resolved in a way that was pleasing to me.

[sleepyhead]

Also it was a staff member that I trust and that I truly believe cares about the player base that reassured me that there was a misunderstanding. That helped ease my feelings about the matter as well.

[SuchDragonWow]

Ok, well, let's reasonably assume I don't know any staff, and I don't know what the hell any of this means beyond that correspondence.  I'd like someone to explain it, and since there is a post on the GDB about it, this is a good a place as any.

[sleepyhead]

Just trying to explain my perspective, past and present, since something to do with me was brought up.

P.S. I wasn't saying that I knew the staff member that resolved my complaint personally. I just liked and trusted them as a staff member.

[Nergal]

Nergal, my impression from your posts on the subject is that you consider all OOC communication to be improper.

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51862.msg965775.html#msg965775

While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

That was the context in which I read your later Reporting post and made my interpretations of it.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't think I'll say any more on this subject. This is just my personal example of how posts can lead to perceptions that might appear absurd to the original poster. Especially when I think there's just a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties (Which is not to diminish your prerogative to set rules fitting your own interpretation).

My point there was that someone could conceivably piece together damaging information on a plot by getting bits of information that multiple players think is innocuous, and considering all the parts as a whole. So yes, chatter can lead to something bad if people are talking about IC goings-on in the game. But friends talking to each other about non-IC stuff is not bad at all. Why would anyone think that it is?

[Nergal]

That post was a call to encourage people to file player complaints if they notice rule breaches, not at all an attempt to recruit players to rat others out. When I see a suggestion of the latter my mind goes to paying informants with karma. That's just absurd.

It's funny you say that.  That is almost the very reason for my disgruntlement with the game, lately.  You see, someone shared with me a response you gave via the request tool.  I didn't ask them to, but they must have felt they needed someone else to see it.  It's also not against the rules to do that, so I don't feel at all bad about knowing what was said.

Because that correspondence belongs to someone else, I do not want to post it, here, but the message was, to paraphrase:

"You can earn more trust from us by snitching on other players who are breaking the rules.  If it is good information, it might negate some of your punishment."

I don't know this person all that well, but I'm not convinced they would fabricate such a thing.  Did you say it?  The thing is, that person had just been force stored, so it's obvious you had them by the short hairs, here.  So, possible rewards might be, what?  Unstoring their character?  What about staff's repeated equation of trust to karma?

I'm not going to comment on another player's specific situation, as I stated multiple times in this thread. It should suffice to say that neither I nor any other staff member ever offered rewards to any player for turning in information suggesting that another player broke game rules, and we don't intend to do so in the future. Personally speaking, I feel that the "reward" for making a legitimate player complaint on bad OOC behavior is making the game a little more clear of such behavior.

This whole situation just goes to show how players sometimes foment their own disgruntlement through misinterpretation, failing to ask for clarification, and assuming the worst of a staff correspondence - and in your case, a staff correspondence that wasn't even directed at you. In other words, players sometimes look for something to be mad about, without having access to facts. I would discourage players from doing that, and inform their opinion on staff based on their own interactions with staff. Reacting to rumors and request snippets is the exact opposite of having clear thoughts on a subject.

[Riev]

Take this as tongue in cheek;

"Don't get disappointed about what happens to other players, you'll never know the staff side of the story." - To me, this says "Wherever you get your information, its probably wrong, and we know more about the situation so just trust us.".

"Inform your opinion based on your own reactions with staff" sounds real nice, until the caveat "Don't let what OTHER staff have done in the past, inform how you deal with them now".




I don't want it to sound like whining, but at what point is "I or someone I know has been seriously wronged" an okay thing to believe? If Nyr did it, well he's not a staff anymore. Don't distrust staff because Nyr did something. If Nergal did something? Don't distrust Brokkr for it. Is that what you're saying?

Because honestly, the staff churn is so constant that at no point will any of you be held responsible for a thing.