Staff, I want an open dialogue.

[SuchDragonWow]

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.

Maybe so, but I'm not looking for a reason to be angry.  I'm not even sure my experience could be called anger, at all.  I've had bad correspondence with staff, just like, I'm sure, almost anyone has had.  I've had great correspondence, too.  This isn't about me assuming the worst of a staff correspondence.  It's reading what you said, word for word, and seeing a pretty clear statement.  One that you seemed to underline in a later thread about OOC collusion.

You see, I don't think you should use the idea of offering staff's trust in exchange for the gain of more rule breakers.  Staff's trust has consistently been equated to the concept of karma.  I just don't think it's right, and I can't be the only one.

[Akaramu]

I also don't like the idea of snitches, and I'm glad recruiting them isn't a thing. I'd say that as long as no one acts on information they shouldn't have, there's no problem. And if they do, it should be possible to catch them, right?

Of course if a huge secret plot has been spoiled then the damage is already done. 

[Armaddict]

I give no fucks if there are narks among you.

[SuchDragonWow]

I give no fucks if there are narks among you.

It's spelled narc, as in narcotics, referencing a tactic where an institution uses a person's addiction as leverage to get what it wants.  But yeah, I'm not surprised some people would feel that way.

[Armaddict]

You should probably google my spelling before correcting it to make sure it's not one of those if/or things.

But yeah.  I rarely discuss the game with people, and when I do, if I got approached about it, I'd be able to explain exactly why with confidence and feel fine.  Because I'm thinking about it beforehand.

If you're trying to word things in such a way to make staff 'the institution' and breaking the rule 'leverage' with no further elaboration on what that relationship exactly entails, i.e. Freedom of communication vs forming unmonitored conduits for selective information, then I think you're letting your bias direct you a little hard.  Unless there is no bias, in which case you'd acknowledge it's really not that hard to avoid to talking about the game with people who may not be aware of the things you're talking about, and thus it's really not that hard to avoid someone narking.  OOPS.  NARCING. 

edit:  Basically.  If you have another player reporting you for it, that probably means that they either blundered in on information they didn't want to hear, or had someone directly start rattling off information to them.  The moment someone starts asking me 'What's this thing all about' or 'How do I get here?', I'm already gauging what can be related and what can't, and I assume you'd do the same.  If not, then yeah...you might have a problem with this.

With my shallow interactions with other players, I'm not really concerned.  But having been involved in some things that suddenly had falsities all around it spread around in a public place, then actually acted on and referenced to me in game as a result, yeah.  It's not as hunky dory as people make it sound in regards to the 'we draw this line too hard' place.  All I care about is that punishment doesn't come impulsively and investigations of it are rigorous and without bias.

Edit again:  With reflection, it should be noted that I'm actually kind of liberal on what is/isn't bad OOC information.  If we could reference that thread where Nergal posted examples of it, you'd see that I didn't think either of them were particularly major infractions.  I have no problems with 'Can you log on?'.  I have no problems with 'No you dum dum, you can't do that with that skill.'  What I do have problems with is 'This plot is only going this way because <random IC information that displays you don't know what you're talking about and just want to rant>, or 'If you do that, I'll have my character do this, so you should do that with confidence.'  But the important part is that there is a line, regardless of where you think it is, and if you're continually feeling like you're overstepping the 'acknowledged' line, you should probably check your own behavior rather than call it a bad policy.  This may be because I communicate less about IC events and more about OOC game direction, etc, with other players, as a general rule.

[SuchDragonWow]

I stretched a couple feet and grabbed my webster's, because Google, lol.  I stand corrected.  That must be how the plebs spell it.

Edit:  Oh, I didn't see some of your own colorful interpretations.  No, I referred to staff as an administration.  It seems to mostly fill that capacity.  The institution could be my interpretation of an inquisition, if not just a characterizing reference to my comparison of 'ratting each other out'.  You know, if I was trying to word things.

But then, I would've also been calling you crackheads.

[SuchDragonWow]

I can't say I'm entirely satisfied, but I'm going to take a leap of faith here, and open a request.  Thanks, at least, for your time, Nergal.

[HavokBlue]

I think the amount of time any staffer spends policing problematic players is significantly less than most people think.

[BadSkeelz]

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?

Because "Non-IC stuff" is a nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything to me except for Code. What would you define as "non-IC stuff"? Personally I see only a few subjects for Armageddon discussions

1) Past characters
2) Future characters
3) Code
4) The Game World (culture, RP, etc.)
5) Current PCs, whether yours or others.

These are all problematic in different ways. While talking about past exploits is generally safe, some PCs live so damn long that old revelations might have surprisingly relevance. I'm personally leery of talking seriously about Future PCs because I don't want to pre-emptively out myself. I also find those discussions generally discouraging because you run in to practical limits very quickly. Code is a grey area, I feel like I break a rule whenever I talk about it but by this point I don't particularly care about that rule. Even discussions about the gameworld and culture always seem to implicitly (or explicitly) refer to current characters and whether behavior fits.

Most Arm discussions I have are about what people recently did, are doing at the moment, or hoping to attempt in the immediate future. It's the most interesting and stimulating. I would also firmly categorize it as the IC discussions. In the rules laid out in Staff posts I don't see any real ground for discussing the game in its current shape or form without stepping over the "non-IC" line. So I don't see any room to really talk about the game without violating one rule or another.

There's also a sixth subject, or maybe a subset of #5: Staff behavior. This is personally my least favorite because it's almost always discouraging, but I want to hear my friends out if they feel aggrieved, even if I don't agree.

[Hauwke]

I think the amount of time any staffer spends policing problematic players is significantly less than most people think.

I have to agree quite firmly with this, but only due to my own experiences. I recently had a small issue with staff, now resolved, but pretty much every other use of the request tool has been at least not unpleasant, (if being denied spec apps can be counted as being not unpleasant) to the point where I dont consider myself to have had any more than maybe 20 mins of problem time since what was it I started in 2014?

[Nergal]

BadSkeelz:
Discussing current PCs and what they are doing or going to do is against the spirit of the game. It also happens a lot, yes. The point it's considered rule-breaking is when that discussion is taken toward coordination.

Okay: A long time ago, I made a player clan before they were called player clans!
Borderline: My PC is trying to set up a player clan!
Not okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?

My concern is with the "not okay" behavior, and with "borderline" behavior that trends toward "not okay" behavior over time.

[Malken]

I can't say I'm entirely satisfied, but I'm going to take a leap of faith here, and open a request.  Thanks, at least, for your time, Nergal.

Out of curiosity, what would make you entirely satisfied? Nergal already admitted that there were many mistakes made in the past, that there would probably be some made in the future (human nature and all), he's answering all the questions/comments and he's saying (along with a couple of other Staff) that there's a real tight process in place to make sure that past mistakes are not repeated again in the future.

[BadSkeelz]

BadSkeelz:
Discussing current PCs and what they are doing or going to do is against the spirit of the game. It also happens a lot, yes. The point it's considered rule-breaking is when that discussion is taken toward coordination.

Okay: A long time ago, I made a player clan before they were called player clans!
Borderline: My PC is trying to set up a player clan!
Not okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?

My concern is with the "not okay" behavior, and with "borderline" behavior that trends toward "not okay" behavior over time.

Thank you for elaborating.

[SuchDragonWow]

Out of curiosity, what would make you entirely satisfied?

To not give a shit about this game.  But I guess I've played too long, now.

[Armaddict]

Not okay: My PC is trying to set up a player clan, but we need a hunter. Can you roll a hunter and join my player clan?

I always disagree with this part, as we have in the past.  I point to why:  It seems to be a personal preference on your part, due to me having a history in the game of playing with RL friends of mine, ala my account notes.  That was always explained to me until this administration as 'If you're going to play with your friends, that's fine, but make sure you play within the theme of the game rather than allowing an OOC rush to push you in that direction.'  The most notable iteration of this was me creating mul warriors to try and be a general for someone's magickal character but I was in unfamiliar territory and kept dying.  So they told me that if I failed, at least try something else that would take longer, but make a more interesting story out of their meeting/joining.

The strict hardline against inviting people you enjoy playing with is, I believe, the result of cracking down on tribes, families, etc, and I simply don't agree that it's damaging to the game unless they are not actively playing their characters, but playing with each other versus everyone else via proxy characters.

Hard to monitor, certainly, but ultimately a big turnoff when you're told your allowance of enjoying the game is contingent on not playing with people you know.

[Reiloth]

Hi,

I've written and rewritten this a few times.

Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.

I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.

Thanks,
Reiloth

[Dar]

You know, I've not read that post by Nergal that got linked earlier. As well as those few other statements about the whole, "Report the ooc chatter to earn trust" variety. I do not know how accurate all that is.

All I can say is that I find it troublesome. To quote Alistair Cooke. It's worse then immoral, it's a mistake.   (Who I think stole this from Stalin. Something like, "It's worse then treason, it's a mistake." But anyway ... digress)

I personally do not want to discuss it further. Whether it's true, or a whole big giant jump of assumptions. I personally am going to assume that it's not true, simply because it prevents me from foaming at the mouth in righteous fury.

There is no need to say anything, deny anything, or confirm anything. No matter what will be said, there will be people who will believe it. Ignore it. Disbelieve it. And some who will quote it out of context to prove some whatever point they're itching to prove. Reality, Sanity, and Self-Respect be damned.

all I ask is even if there was some kind of a temptation to go in that direction, is that you stop. Because in my opinion, while this may cure an infection in this community, it will do so by slicing that community into tiny parts via a giant rusty cleaver with bits of rotten old meat stuck in the notches of it's dull edge. 

I also recommend others who, whether out of righteousness, curiosity, or hyena like need to 'haw haw', are trying to wheedle out commentary about it. I dont think you'll manage to achieve anything of substance.  This issue will be either proven true, or proven false by action, not rhetoric.

Let's keep the Corruption and Betrayal in the stories of Zalanthas, not it's players.

Aside all that. Some ... sizeable chunk of grievances here seem to be stemming from a churn of rumor mill and tendency to jump to conclusions. It's understandable. A player is a singular entity that deals with an organized group that communicates within itself. We all worry that the person we are speaking to is judging us. Some to smaller degree. Some to greater.  We worry ten times as much, when the entity that is out there judging us is an entity of many people that discusses 'us' in private and has the power to directly affect a lot of our effort with consequences spreading throughout 'no joke' years. Because of that worry, the tendency to jump to conclusions in a negative way 'should' be understandable. It is up to each individual person to choose how they deal with people while in such a position.

It is often assumed that people in leadership sponsored roles are the ones who have the greatest of the Staff trust. They are trusted not only to ... not order their npcs to kill people indiscriminately. Not only to act according to the theme of the game, but also (in my understanding) to use the power, position, and authority that they have been granted straight from chargen to improve the game. Bring fun and entertainment to other players.  That's how I always understood the main role of a sponsored role to be. To be the sources of new content/color/theme for other players. Even if sometimes it involved killing characters in most graphic, sadistic, and gory way. It's also in part why I am staying the fuck away from sponsored roles. My IRL time is limited enough. To play a role that's geared to bring more fun in for others instead of myself? Fuck that shit. Well, being a staff member is the ultimate sponsored role. But in the end ... the goals are the same. I'll leave it to staff members to decide if they are successful in their roles.

All I ask of the players is to play. Don't allow your own fears, occasional inadequacy in skills of diplomacy, or that not so distant hum of negativity to truly affect you. In the end, the game is fun. And the only thing that truly makes it fun are the players playing with ... umh, other players. So fucking play already, you bunch of whiny maggots!

Arghem. I mean ... umh.

Please vote?

[Lizzie]

You know, I've been "butt-hurt" by staff in the past. I've also behaved badly at times, upon reflection. I've also been completely and utterly misunderstood and not even been asked to explain myself, at one point. I never stopped playing though.

This is a really fun game. That's why I've been playing it for so long. Even with the changes that I absolutely positively loathe - it's still a fun diversion for a few hours every night, and it beats the hell out of watching TV.

I've apped for staff almost every single time they've had a call for it. I've been turned down every time. I've apped for many of the sponsored roles they've posted about - and I've been turned down for all but three, ever, in my 13 or 14 years of playing. I've been banned, I've had posting privileges revoked, I've been no-wished a few times, I've been brought into a staffer's room for an OOC scolding, I've sent staff complaints, etc. etc. etc. And still, I continue to play and have managed to earn karma and play some amazing roles with some amazing roleplayers.

This game has gone through a lot of changes. Some of them I like. Some of them I can't stand. The reason I got hooked into playing after I started, is no longer an option for me to play. It's still a fun game though, and at the end of the day, that's really all that matters. Not whether the staff is being fair to you, or unfair, or if you got PKed legitimately or if someone cheated, or if you want a wagon and they won't let you have one. Is the game fun? Yes? Then play. No? Then don't. That's really all it comes down to, and everything else is just noise.

[Harmless]

Regarding OOC communication: I think the only important OOC communication for the health of the game is scheduling/planning playtimes/RPTs. I hope staff considers some form of the many-suggested "playtime scheduling assistant" that has been talked about a lot on the GDB. Something where you can tell other characters when you intend to log in in the future, so they can try to make it as well to meet up with you. If it was done entirely with in-game commands, that'd be best. Suggestions where it can be done with the Way, or messengers that you paid coin to, whatever the case.. it'd help to reduce the need to be aware of who someone is played by. You could comfortably function in a clan without posting on the GDB clan board.. it'd reduce concerns for people wanting to play as antagonists, but who were formerly in a well-populated clan. Etc. It'd have a lot of benefits, I think, and also maybe help to reduce some of the paranoia.

[Akaramu]

Regarding OOC communication: I think the only important OOC communication for the health of the game is scheduling/planning playtimes/RPTs. I hope staff considers some form of the many-suggested "playtime scheduling assistant" that has been talked about a lot on the GDB. Something where you can tell other characters when you intend to log in in the future, so they can try to make it as well to meet up with you. If it was done entirely with in-game commands, that'd be best.

YES! PCs being able to find each other more easily = more RP. I've always wanted something like what you suggest. It would be the coolest addition since, well... illustrations! 

[Riev]

Related to what I interpret the tone of Reilith's post to be:

I find that often times, veterans have the hardest time with staff, because after 10+ years playing this game they have certain expectations. "I was able to do that 5 years ago, why can't I do it now?" and "But it used to be that if it happened ICly, staff would assist in making sure it was represented".

I know my mentor to the game, who left quite some time ago now, did so because they felt the game wasn't the same as it used to be. Because of how they played, and how influential they were ICly and OOCly, they got into a pretty powerful position on a string of characters. To the point where one fell into an auto-kill hole and died, another got force stored because of reasons I can't go into, and another got force-killed because they were a living representation of all that is good, and kept preferring the RP of the bad guys.

But what got them most annoyed was that things weren't possible, that used to be. Templars used to make virtual deals that resulted in chests of coin being brought in as taxes from tribes. There were a number of disagreements over "what" is possible, and what isn't, and it turned into staff (basically) accusing them of being a whiner and complainer, and that they had to follow the rules if they wanted to keep playing.

Veterans deserve a modicum of respect, because we lose many of them to RL issues. They are the only ones who can guide the newbies to be the new generation, but they are being pushed off and away because they don't conform to the new Authority.

[ExtraPlanar]

Related to what I interpret the tone of Reilith's post to be:

I find that often times, veterans have the hardest time with staff, because after 10+ years playing this game they have certain expectations. "I was able to do that 5 years ago, why can't I do it now?" and "But it used to be that if it happened ICly, staff would assist in making sure it was represented".

I know my mentor to the game, who left quite some time ago now, did so because they felt the game wasn't the same as it used to be. Because of how they played, and how influential they were ICly and OOCly, they got into a pretty powerful position on a string of characters. To the point where one fell into an auto-kill hole and died, another got force stored because of reasons I can't go into, and another got force-killed because they were a living representation of all that is good, and kept preferring the RP of the bad guys.

But what got them most annoyed was that things weren't possible, that used to be. Templars used to make virtual deals that resulted in chests of coin being brought in as taxes from tribes. There were a number of disagreements over "what" is possible, and what isn't, and it turned into staff (basically) accusing them of being a whiner and complainer, and that they had to follow the rules if they wanted to keep playing.

Veterans deserve a modicum of respect, because we lose many of them to RL issues. They are the only ones who can guide the newbies to be the new generation, but they are being pushed off and away because they don't conform to the new Authority.

But isn't a large percentage (if not all) of the "new authority" veteran-players themselves?

[Riev]

Not necessarily, though its possible. Staff are often picked for their account notes, proven willingness and ability to keep IC and OOC separate, fit to the schedule, and have a proven track record of being accountable. You don't need to be a 10+ year veteran to do that.

And also related, EP, I think many of the Veterans that DO leave, had been staff before. I think as staff, you voluntarily lift the veil on what the world is, and could be, and maybe that leads to veterans "knowing" something can be done, and struggling to reconcile the fact that current administration won't allow it. Maybe.

But no, I don't think you have to be a long-term vet to be staff. At all.

[Case]

Hi,

I've written and rewritten this a few times.

Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.

I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.

Thanks,
Reiloth

Same.

[sleepyhead]

Hi,

I've written and rewritten this a few times.

Staff needs to give players the benefit of the doubt, especially veterans who have stuck around playing the game for many years.

I've left the game for good due to recent interactions with Staff -- There, I said the taboo thing. I didn't want to include it in my Grand Farewell, because I was trying to end on a positive note. Recently being asked 'What happened' by a few people, I felt it was dishonest to simply say I was moving on. That's most of it, but the push definitely came from the sour interaction I had with Staff, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I recommend Staff get on the page of being forthcoming, genuine, and honest with the player base. I also recommend they stop jumping to conclusions about a player's motivations, and take them at their word, if they've been nothing but honest, forthcoming, and empathetic towards you in the past. People make mistakes. Humility goes a long way. Apologies count for a lot.

Thanks,
Reiloth

Same.

qft :/