Staff, I want an open dialogue.

[Dar]

Alrighty. So. Here's my observation of this thread so far.

Some people are molified by the staff response.

Some are not.

Some are unmollified, because they are unmollifiable (it's a word. Shut up).

Some are unmollified, because Staff's response of, "It's not really as bad as some are trying to portray" is not enough for them. In some cases this is due to specific instances that they've been part of that, perhaps only in their heads, show direct proof that it really is as bad as some are trying to portray.

To deal with this problem one requires more information. Providing more information is complicated, because these are public forums and staff tends not to air their own AND other player's dirty laundry in public. So their only real tangible response is, "Let's discuss this in requests". 

I assume some believe that taking the grievances to requests is not an option, mainly because they think that once the discussion is in private, it'll get steamrolled, request resolved, and nothing achieved. Some believe that because their uncle's brother twice removed said that's going to happen. Some, I assume, say that because it was their own personal experience.

This is putting us at an impasse. Some people are not happy and some of those people love the game enough to want to discuss solutions to these problems. But a proper discussion on the GDB is difficult due to the amount of sensitive, personal, and individually targeted information that requires to be discussed.

What is the solution? I'm not asking how staff should change. I'm sorry, but I dont think any of us, staff included, truly know how and into what. We have an idea. But color that idea with everyone elses ideas, plus some emotion, plus some reluctance, plus some grandiose lack of being reasonable, add some desire to see it all burn, and it's a mess that will produce no clear result, or course of action.

What can we do to have a dialogue that offers the amount of information needed? Do we need that dialogue?

What if current players provide a blanket full permission to have their laundry aired out. Request conversation review in public.  Is anyone willing to volunteer? The grieved person would describe their situation and problem as they know it, with staff permission, paste the request tool conversations regarding this. Provide as much backstory as they are capable. And then staff would provide their side of the story regarding this situation.  There is a risk that the player will be embarrassed. We often see ourselves as righteous, and Staff might dunk that player into the depths of shit, by simply choosing  not to hold back the information that they possess/logged. We might lose this player. Or ... perhaps vindicate them. We might also ruin some secret sides of ongoing plots. But ... if all the participants are willing, then perhaps it's a sacrifice that needs to be made. Just this one time. Just this one thread.   

This by the way, has happened with me IRL. When an employee of mine often griped about a certain situation enough to begin causing disharmony amongst staff. I've simply laid out that employee's own actions, no holding back. Things that the person thought to be unknown, while the management knew well and simply chose not to allow those things influence anything, due to pointlessness of it all. This has embarrassed the person greatly. Enough for him to leave within a few months, just due to the sheer loss of popularity amongst his peers. By refraining to participate in that person's rhetoric, I was protecting that very person. Mainly because he did some very good work. 

I'm not saying that this is the situation with people here. But ... you know. Think of these possibilities if you were to let's say volunteer to be the person to have this public laundry airing discorse with staff regarding a request tool interaction that made you either lose heart in the game, become demotivated to login, or quit the game completely.

Would it be possible? Would this be desired? To have a few "example" conversations. Like Railoth's situation and whatever is it that made him lose heart. Just a step by step examination. First, we'd begin by getting approvals and agreements. First from Railoth, then from other players potentially involved. Then an approval and agreement from staff to allow the players to post necessary information here. Then Reiloth's own explanation of what happened, how did it happen, what was discussed, what conclusions made, what actions taken, and finally ... the results. Then an equally detailed explanation from Staff. With explanation of why such and such decision was made, perhaps some logs of discussions regarding the issue.  And then once everything is aired out, we'll let the playerbase read it and decide for themselves if this loss of morale is actually fictional and self generated, or there are true reasons for it.

I dont suggest we do this over every grievance. But if a few of them get posted, chewed out, and demonstrated. Then perhaps the playerbase will clue in that at the end of things, the staff is actually dealing with situations well. And we should stop second guessing shit with our own limited knowledge, and our own limitless emotion, and just let everyone do their part.

Am I making any at all sense in what I'm proposing here? I'm not even certain.

[Bahliker]

I think the discourse has been reasonable enough. I hope everything said so far is considered going forward. I apologize for attacking you there re: being feverish or oblivious. You frustrate me, because it seems that you're blindly discrediting each complaint, each attempt at reasonable discourse, as either veteran players upset about losing privilege, or as mentally unstable players just trying to get under your skin, or as uninformed players upset about something because they can't know the whole story. At the same time that you say the system is fair, you say that the staff is imperfect and still makes mistakes. These mistakes seem kinda frequent for a fair system. I contend that the system is largely overlooked and that lingering elements of a contentious culture lead otherwise rational and fun-seeking people to willfully make those mistakes.

I don't know man, just say we will do better, don't dismiss people's complaints out of hand, and I'll be happy and quiet.

[Lizzie]

I think the discourse has been reasonable enough. I hope everything said so far is considered going forward. I apologize for attacking you there re: being feverish or oblivious. You frustrate me, because it seems that you're blindly discrediting each complaint, each attempt at reasonable discourse, as either veteran players upset about losing privilege, or as mentally unstable players just trying to get under your skin, or as uninformed players upset about something because they can't know the whole story. At the same time that you say the system is fair, you say that the staff is imperfect and still makes mistakes. These mistakes seem kinda frequent for a fair system. I contend that the system is largely overlooked and that lingering elements of a contentious culture lead otherwise rational and fun-seeking people to willfully make those mistakes.

I don't know man, just say we will do better, don't dismiss people's complaints out of hand, and I'll be happy and quiet.

I didn't get that at all from Nergal's posts. I see that he made statements to that effect but the context in which he said them is different from what you seem to be "accusing" him of. It's almost as though you were cherry-picking bits and pieces of his post, to support the interpretation you -want- to have, rather than seeing the whole for what it actually is. I don't know if you did that on purpose or not, but that's what I'm getting from -your- post. And I think Nergal is being pretty patient, if he is interpreting it the same way I am. I'd have zero patience for that, if it was directed toward me.

As for Dar - the only way the staff would be able to even consider your suggestion, were in isolated situations that had zero effect on any OTHER player/character, in game or out of game. I'm guessing Reiloth was playing a character involved in something, that involved other characters, played by other players. And something happened. Discussing it openly would require discussing more than just Reiloth's part in it, and it would also be revealing things to players that might still have characters who were involved in the situation.

Do we really want to turn the game into a GDB expose on "what this player did or did not do?" I mean other than for the juicy gossip aspect of it, it's really none of our business. I know I wouldn't want my situations aired publically by someone else. And if new players showed up and the latest page was page 11, and the conversation was already going on and they never got a chance to  see the "I agree to this conversation about my account and character history" part on page 10, don't you THINK it'd scare them away? It'd scare the piss out of me, that's for sure. I'd never start playing a game where I risk being humiliated by the staff on a public forum for making stupid mistakes.

[Dar]

Do we really want to turn the game into a GDB expose on "what this player did or did not do?" I mean other than for the juicy gossip aspect of it, it's really none of our business. I know I wouldn't want my situations aired publically by someone else. And if new players showed up and the latest page was page 11, and the conversation was already going on and they never got a chance to  see the "I agree to this conversation about my account and character history" part on page 10, don't you THINK it'd scare them away? It'd scare the piss out of me, that's for sure. I'd never start playing a game where I risk being humiliated by the staff on a public forum for making stupid mistakes.

Do we? I dont know? I find this whole thread silly. But Railoth, Harmless, SuchDragonWow are players I respect. In some instances, these players taught me how to be better. Or at least made me think, "Mmm. I should really try to make as much effort as these do ... naaaaaaaaaaaah"  Point is, they are solid players. Solid players that made the game fun for 'many'.  And from what I'm reading, they're not overflowing with happiness. So ... I dont know. I'm personally okey. But ... feels like we should do 'something'. Suggestions welcome, Lizzie.

[Bahliker]

While I don't think your idea would work, Dar, you hit the nail on the head with the root of the problem. Transparency is necessary for real fairness. Opacity is necessary for the game to function as designed. Game admins don't have to be fair, but there's no reason not to be. Or to expect them to be. Or to culminate the reactions to a series of questionable decisions into a public discussion about it all.

Having the discussion here is important. It'll happen somewhere.

[sleepyhead]

People's situations are all interconnected. It would be extremely hard to allow your own dirty laundry to be assured in public without betraying someone who didn't necessarily give consent.

[Armaddict]

EDIT:  Tl;dr Saying a lot of veterans are slowly going away due to their interactions with staff is the result of preferential treatment going away is demeaning, misdirecting, and a prime example of being overly defensive to the point that it will hurt relationships with other players.  Some people leaving have had plenty of communication scenarios of all types, enough to know the difference between good and bad interactions from staff.  Please don't do that.


Eh.  I will say I find the reasoning of 'Some people are just upset that they're not being shown preferential treatment' to be a...very inaccurate synposis.  That's not what's been described.  And you're free to disagree, but I've seen some behaviors and decisions that were pretty preferential via staff's chosen involvement in certain things and their reaction to having wrenches thrown into those things they're involved in.  I've seen non-bugs described as bugs because they didn't work the way you wanted them to at a certain time, despite said code being long-lasting and resulting in poor results before and there being a huge amount of ways for that situation to be avoided; but suddenly, in this case, it was justified as something other than what it's always been, which is player error.  This is dangerous when it creates precedence, which some of these actions have and do, which leads to further entanglement down the line when that new standard is asked to apply to a bunch of new things. (Yes, this has to be vague.)

There is a reason that I tend to call the current staff arbitrary, and it's because in watching the course of changes, seeing decisions made, and seeing the discourse, I have a hard time finding a true standard at this point.  If someone asked me OOC about a death they had that was iffy, I can no longer tell them whether a resurrection is or isn't likely.  If someone asked me in OOC if they could make this plot happen, I can no longer tell them reliably if it would be well-received or not.  If someone asked me in OOC if they could get a decent conversation about this change, I can no longer tell them if they'll get it or just get shut down in two sentences after waiting for two weeks.  Because it's going both ways on all of these things.  I think that kind of inconsistency, whether it's preferential or not, leads to grievances, whether it be with in-game actions, out of game actions, GDB actions, or anything.

But as I've been saying, I'm not holding you to some golden standard of perfect behavior.  That would be silly.  But the perception of these sorts of things don't just spring up and explode out of nowhere.  It's not a board of people (who gripe about everything) stirring up unrest, it's people wanting you to realize that you can acknowledge your fallibility all you like, but when you treat them poorly and then defend it until they just stop talking about it or until you get frustrated and say no more talking it doesn't leave confidence in future interactions.  That's it.

As far as what to actually -do- about it, who knows?  But I do know when you have a movement of veterans all moving away over time, these are not people saying 'You aren't giving me preferential treatment anymore'.  They know the shit of this jungle.  Every veteran I know has situations they -know- they got slapped down because they deserved it.  We accept that fallibility, we try to correct it.  Just...try to do the same, I guess, with more than lip-service?  Build relationships.  Do the long conversations staff used to do with us over email, but with your request tool, rather than just shutting it down.  Hell.  Don't let them stew over their request for 2 weeks about it.

Reiterating.  I'm not much of a dissenter because I keep my distance, but dismissing the concerns of people who have played for 10, 15, and 20 years as 'they stopped getting preferential treatment' is pretty low.  I'm a little buzzed, so some of that wording may be off.  Forgive that please, because it really is meant to be less aggressive and more...like pointing out a situation where you've done exactly what people have already complained about in the thread.  No one holds this golden standard of where staff does everything they want and never comes after them, so the complaint that something happened is probably more based in a real situation than a perspective shift on their part.

[Harmless]

It's true, I'm not 'overflowing with happiness.' My own personal angst is just some sweeping decisions/changes staff made that I frankly wish were reversed. Should be obvious what those are. However, those things are balanced with the goodies staff have handed out. Since I tend to be long lived it's kept me busy enough that I can overlook the losses the game has had, but I will never forget them. Those are disagreements with staff, but in their actions they have been polite enough and understanding at least of our sorrows. Some of that understanding led to more gifts, like a new spell. I know that content is coming slowly, but it's at a pace that works for me, since I take so long to explore new game content anyway.

But yeah. I'm not overflowing with happiness, for sure.

[Reiloth]

I've been pretty sick the past few days, and it's only getting worse, hence the lack of replies to this thread today. Sorry. I'm going to pop on to write a message now though.

So what I've noticed the past couple of years, and while studying similar issues, is that in a society which trends toward equal treatment for all, the people who were previously treated better than everyone else begin to feel discriminated against when they are treated equally to the people that were previously treated worse than everyone else.

It's no secret that longtime players of Armageddon and players that staff liked were given boons that other players did not get. I'm talking beyond the (ideally) meritocratic scale of the karma system, to outright favoritism on the side. When these players found that the rules are beginning to apply to them in ways they hadn't before, they tended to get annoyed that their special treatment was gone. Although equality is, on its face, a good thing, it's only really good for those who stand to gain from it, and not so much for those who stand to lose (except, perhaps, in their conscience).

So one main consequence of the game's administration becoming fairer (and as a side-effect, more bureaucratic) is that people who used to be able to cut the line, so to speak, weren't able to cut the line anymore. People who used to be able to get staff to look away when they broke a rule or when they outright lied about what they did or didn't do, weren't able to do that anymore.

A lot of veterans that leave due to unfair treatment are really leaving due to less favorable treatment - but they're getting the same treatment that newer players get, which is truly fair, though understandably frustrating to a player that once held privilege. And it still takes into account the length of time they put into the game, for example, by having the benefit of the doubt for an 8k player that breaks the rules just once. But when it keeps happening over and over, or when someone in a sponsored or otherwise limited role breaks the rules at all, it becomes a problem that staff needs to address and can't just be swept under the rug like it used to be. I'm slightly sympathetic toward that, but I think it's vastly preferable for the interests of retention to not have a privileged class of players that are judged differently from everyone else when they do something wrong.

I am, however, very sympathetic to veterans that just don't "feel it" anymore - who think the game itself is failing or stagnant, rather than the bureaucracy surrounding it. I think players who feel this way should say what they wish staff and other players would do to fix this problem, rather than just state it as fact. This goes beyond rule enforcement and communication with staff, to what's actually happening (or not happening) in game.

Hi Nergal,

I bolded the relevant bits of your response. A few quick questions:

Am I a liar?

Am I an 8 Karma Player (And Ex-Staffer) who is a one time liar, or a habitual liar?

Is it shocking that someone would be upset when you force stored a PC of theirs when they didn't break any of the rules of the game? When they asked for clarification if a Staff policy had changed?

Is it preferential treatment to respond politely (and with detail) to a request for clarification from Staff, to only be called a liar, that these are 'flimsy excuses', and that asking for clarification to a Staff policy is considered 'letting accusations fly'?

The confusing thing about your statements here (beyond a 'truly fair' system, which lets be honest -- The players should be the judge of that, not the Staff) is that you are basically saying 'people who have 8 karma are treated with preference over people without 8 karma'. Isn't that exactly the point of earning karma? You are earning trust with Staff? You are able to play guilds and races that are otherwise unavailable to people who do not have the same level of karma (trust)?

I understand that you are looking into revamping the karma system -- but saying that people with 8 Karma are basically 'privileged' and treated 'preferentially' is putting the onus on them, almost shaming them for having 8 karma. It makes them wonder -- Did I earn karma because of my merit, or am I being perceived as some sort of 'Staff Pet'? Your statements here completely refute the veracity of the karma system as a whole.

The onus is on you, as Staff, to either trust players or not to trust them, and to accord them the merit of karma earned, or not. I think it's absolutely bogus that you think there are 8 Karma players that are one time liars, habitual liars, and abusers of their positions. It's incredibly crass of you to say this, not only of me, but of other recently departed veterans. The onus is on you to treat everyone fairly, with empathy, and kindness. Given the opportunity to be punitive, you should resort to methods that make the party aware of why a decision was made, and how they can improve in the future, instead of slamming the door in their face and saying "Sorry that didn't work out for you".

If my recent treatment is an indication of your new truly fair system -- Good luck holding on to new or veteran players.

By the way -- I have absolutely nothing to hide, and would have no problem with the entire recent request chain being revealed. I think it would be a pretty troubling read for many people. However, out of respect for other players, I wouldn't, and won't, in any respect. I'm not going to pop up on the Shadow Boards suddenly with 'all the info'.

Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.

[Yam]

I need to support Reiloth here. I'm also a former staffer and though I've personally never had a significant problem with the administration I have witnessed a decline in staff-player relations which, despite the Shadowboard madness, I think is primarily due to staff culture.

I don't know exactly what the malignancy is but it's there. It was there when I staffed (and I probably contributed to it). Hell, it was there long before I even started playing, but it's definitely gotten worse in the past few years.

Nergal, I think many players and staff have tried to fix the problem and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. People are speaking up more and more not because they are merely disgruntled or disenchanted - they're actively trying to keep this ship from sinking. The fact is that players can only change so much. There is a big culture problem staff side which really is on you and the other producers, administrators, and storytellers to fix.

How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?

[manipura]

I need to support Reiloth here. I'm also a former staffer and though I've personally never had a significant problem with the administration I have witnessed a decline in staff-player relations which, despite the Shadowboard madness, I think is primarily due to staff culture.

I don't know exactly what the malignancy is but it's there. It was there when I staffed (and I probably contributed to it). Hell, it was there long before I even started playing, but it's definitely gotten worse in the past few years.

Nergal, I think many players and staff have tried to fix the problem and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. People are speaking up more and more not because they are merely disgruntled or disenchanted - they're actively trying to keep this ship from sinking. The fact is that players can only change so much. There is a big culture problem staff side which really is on you and the other producers, administrators, and storytellers to fix.

How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?

Best post of the thread.

[Lizzie]

I think Nergal is definitely seeing trends. But he's also missing trends. The trends he's missing, things he's leaving out, are the things that people here on the GDB are harping on. The things he's seeing, the people posting here are complaining aren't the problem. And yet - they are. They are one of a few problems, and Nergal is definitely seeing it.

Here:
1. The game has changed and what used to be acceptable or at least tolerable is not acceptable anymore. So the people who used to get away with things because they had proven trustworthy in other ways, are no longer being allowed to get away with them. This speaks to a previous post or two in this very thread, when someone said something about how for years, people could do this that and the other, but all of a sudden they find themselves banned for it.

2. Nergal specified that "a lot of" veterans leave for that. He didn't say all. So Reiloth, relax. If it doesn't apply to you, then you're not among the group Nergal refers to as "a lot of" veterans. You're among the other veterans. He's not calling you a liar. I, however, am calling you overly defensive. You don't even need to read between the lines. Just read the lines themselves and you'll see that if you weren't banned for doing something you'd been able to do before, then this part of his post has nothing to do with you.

3. I think what Nergal is missing most, is that a lot of the stagnation is caused by veterans who are gone. No matter why they're gone, they're gone. And our game is stagnating because of it. Staff members leave and have to be replaced, and you're culling the new staff from the better players that are still active. That leaves us with fewer better players to play with. This means that the remaining better players have to be the leaders - all the time. They have to run the clans. All the time. They have to spark interest for others. All the time. They really can't just relax and play an uninvolved independent nobody, because it ends up being a solo experience. Previously, an independent nobody stood a good chance of getting caught up in someone ELSE's plotlines. Now, not so much, because chances are, they ARE the other person who would be making "someone else's plotlines" and they just don't feel like doing it this time around.

A player can only be "on" only so often before they have to sit back and say "okay it's your turn. Entertain me." And if there isn't anyone else around with the capacity to do that - things stagnate.

So the solution to the problem of stagnation is to figure out a way to get some of these veterans back. My personal recommendation is one that no one likes, even though I think it's fine. CREATE rolls with some of those veterans in mind, and invite them back to play those roles. GIVE them preferential treatment. I've posted this previously, either in this thread or another. But I believe 100% in the concept of preferential treatment for trusted players. There SHOULD be a different set of rules for them, because they have proven they can handle it responsibly. GIVE that full-on sorcerer main-guild role to a player. Let that other player be that true Whiran. To hell with the rules of "fairness" - if he can suck Templar Amos out of Tuluk, onto a mountain, and take over his corpse and send it back animated, and act the part out believably enough to convince his fellow Tulukis, then he's doing a GOOD JOB and should be commended for it - not have the spell nerfed due to being overpowered.

Spells aren't overpowered. Non-judicious use of spells are overpowered. If someone abuses a spell, don't let them play that role anymore, and give it to someone else. Don't just take the spell away from everyone.

This is what I perceive as being the problem. The game gets changed whenever someone abuses something. You ban the player, and the game is changed to forbid anyone else from abusing it. And all the people who weren't abusing it, or had no interest in abusing it, or wanted to be the victim of someone abusing it just to see it for the coolness factor - are deprived of that opportunity.

You don't have to ban the player. You just tell the player "yes, the code allows you to do that but I'm asking you not to because we consider that particular use of the code abusive." If they do it again, store the character and don't let them play that particular option again for awhile until someone else has a chance to "lead by example."

Announce that you're going to do this on a going-forward basis, stick with it, be sincere, really mean it. Send out e-mails to those you have banned for these kinds of infractions, letting them know you still mean that they shouldn't use the code in ways it wasn't actually intended to be used anymore. Let them know that they may come back - their FIRST return character will have no karma, no special app. If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.

This should appease all the players who think "that player did bad things and my character suffered for it, ban him!" and it should appease all the players who think "I just did what everyone else did and I got banned for it!"

This will address ONLY a certain type of player who is no longer playing. It won't address any of the other ones.

For players who were members of the other forum - well if they never shit-posted there, or went on diatribes, or copied/pasted account notes or e-mails from/to staff, then I say just send them a sincere apology. You can liken it to a carousel. The motor was burning, the ride was going too fast for the staff to be able to accurately and fairly keep track. So you had to shut it down and kick the riders off. Now that you've given the motor a chance to cool off, you can start it back up. And you are SORRY that you chose them to be the riders on that ride with the motor that was already starting to burn when you started it up that day.

Welcome back, if you want to be, you can return with whatever karma you had prior to the fallout, and we hope you will allow us this do-over.

And - seriously - allow players to play full-on sorcerers, full-on whirans, full nilazis, rukkians, krathis and vivaduans. If you have to restrict it to speclal-app or sponsored-role-invite-only even if they have the karma for them, then fine. But please return them to the list of possible roles.

[Jihelu]

"How many players are going to have to tell you that something is wrong before you stop brushing it off and start listening?"

I feel like there are two sides to this thread with little inbetween besides the occasional "I think staff is doing -something not very significant- wrong but they could fix that ily staff"


1: The quote from above

2: The "staff are volunteers things are getting better don't worry about anything" side.

Maybe even a third "I don't really care for the situation" side.

Seeing as people seemed to have extremely shitty interactions with staff it's no surprise they'd lean to the first little number, and I don't know if most people who are on the second 'side' have had shitty interactions with staff but I don't really care for it.
I'm glad people have had good interactions with staff and greatly respect them.
I'm not glad that people have had absolutely shitty interactions with staff that completely go against every post Nergal has put up.

I'm not glad Nergal seems to be mass deflecting things
-"Was years ago" This implies the problem doesn't really persist
-"Just want to be treated the same as before" This implies that issues don't exist at all
-Other stuff

Most of the situations people seem to be mad about aren't "I used to be able to get a wagon wheres my wagon waaaahhhh"
It's
"I spent time and effort and was told by staff I could get a wagon and they said fuck off"
Or maybe they should have been told from the very first character report they couldn't get a wagon?

Maybe it isn't even the whole wagon thing. Maybe it's an exchange with staff, as in Reiloth's case.

Maybe it's being killed by a staff vnpc because no other pc is strong enough to kill yours and the 'vnpc world' would have had to take care of you, even though your own characters wouldn't ever be able to get that strong.

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread and it seems to have remained civil, which I like.


Someone that made a rollcall on the forums for 'rinthi elves advertised his roll call on the shadowboards, which I thought was pretty funny.
Will he get banned for that?
He hasn't shared any information on his rollcall.

If I got on some other forum and said "hey guys I'm playing this cool game named Arm come join and play with my elf" Would I get banned, if the first case would lead to me getting banned?

" If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.
"
I think this is a very good idea.
Doesn't look like something that would happen.

[Nergal]

Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.

I cannot stress enough that we already do this. I will however amend my previous statement on force-storage. While force-storage is always done according to rules, it is also very rarely used to take a character out of the game that should be out, e.g. to kill a character that should be dead but used improper means to avoid death. I can think off the top of my head of about 5 instances of this in the past ten years - that is how rare it is.

That is all I really have to say on the subject, and I didn't want to bring that up because it trends into the "specific case" issue that I wanted to avoid out of respect for players' privacy and immersion here, that I'd hoped people with a legitimate concern would contact staff for clarification about. Since that's not happening, I've said it outright.

If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.

[Reiloth]

Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.

I cannot stress enough that we already do this.

If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.

I don't believe you. If you are interested in changing my mind, how about you take the effort and email me.

[Akaramu]

I think Nergal is definitely seeing trends. But he's also missing trends. The trends he's missing, things he's leaving out, are the things that people here on the GDB are harping on. The things he's seeing, the people posting here are complaining aren't the problem. And yet - they are. They are one of a few problems, and Nergal is definitely seeing it.

Here:
1. The game has changed and what used to be acceptable or at least tolerable is not acceptable anymore. So the people who used to get away with things because they had proven trustworthy in other ways, are no longer being allowed to get away with them. This speaks to a previous post or two in this very thread, when someone said something about how for years, people could do this that and the other, but all of a sudden they find themselves banned for it.

2. Nergal specified that "a lot of" veterans leave for that. He didn't say all. So Reiloth, relax. If it doesn't apply to you, then you're not among the group Nergal refers to as "a lot of" veterans. You're among the other veterans. He's not calling you a liar. I, however, am calling you overly defensive. You don't even need to read between the lines. Just read the lines themselves and you'll see that if you weren't banned for doing something you'd been able to do before, then this part of his post has nothing to do with you.

3. I think what Nergal is missing most, is that a lot of the stagnation is caused by veterans who are gone. No matter why they're gone, they're gone. And our game is stagnating because of it. Staff members leave and have to be replaced, and you're culling the new staff from the better players that are still active. That leaves us with fewer better players to play with. This means that the remaining better players have to be the leaders - all the time. They have to run the clans. All the time. They have to spark interest for others. All the time. They really can't just relax and play an uninvolved independent nobody, because it ends up being a solo experience. Previously, an independent nobody stood a good chance of getting caught up in someone ELSE's plotlines. Now, not so much, because chances are, they ARE the other person who would be making "someone else's plotlines" and they just don't feel like doing it this time around.

A player can only be "on" only so often before they have to sit back and say "okay it's your turn. Entertain me." And if there isn't anyone else around with the capacity to do that - things stagnate.

So the solution to the problem of stagnation is to figure out a way to get some of these veterans back. My personal recommendation is one that no one likes, even though I think it's fine. CREATE rolls with some of those veterans in mind, and invite them back to play those roles. GIVE them preferential treatment. I've posted this previously, either in this thread or another. But I believe 100% in the concept of preferential treatment for trusted players. There SHOULD be a different set of rules for them, because they have proven they can handle it responsibly. GIVE that full-on sorcerer main-guild role to a player. Let that other player be that true Whiran. To hell with the rules of "fairness" - if he can suck Templar Amos out of Tuluk, onto a mountain, and take over his corpse and send it back animated, and act the part out believably enough to convince his fellow Tulukis, then he's doing a GOOD JOB and should be commended for it - not have the spell nerfed due to being overpowered.

Spells aren't overpowered. Non-judicious use of spells are overpowered. If someone abuses a spell, don't let them play that role anymore, and give it to someone else. Don't just take the spell away from everyone.

This is what I perceive as being the problem. The game gets changed whenever someone abuses something. You ban the player, and the game is changed to forbid anyone else from abusing it. And all the people who weren't abusing it, or had no interest in abusing it, or wanted to be the victim of someone abusing it just to see it for the coolness factor - are deprived of that opportunity.

You don't have to ban the player. You just tell the player "yes, the code allows you to do that but I'm asking you not to because we consider that particular use of the code abusive." If they do it again, store the character and don't let them play that particular option again for awhile until someone else has a chance to "lead by example."

Announce that you're going to do this on a going-forward basis, stick with it, be sincere, really mean it. Send out e-mails to those you have banned for these kinds of infractions, letting them know you still mean that they shouldn't use the code in ways it wasn't actually intended to be used anymore. Let them know that they may come back - their FIRST return character will have no karma, no special app. If that ONE role shows that they understand and appreciate the situation that made the staff tighten things up - they can have ALL their karma back, and be eligible for some of those special invite-only roles that you'll start offering in the future.

This should appease all the players who think "that player did bad things and my character suffered for it, ban him!" and it should appease all the players who think "I just did what everyone else did and I got banned for it!"

This will address ONLY a certain type of player who is no longer playing. It won't address any of the other ones.

For players who were members of the other forum - well if they never shit-posted there, or went on diatribes, or copied/pasted account notes or e-mails from/to staff, then I say just send them a sincere apology. You can liken it to a carousel. The motor was burning, the ride was going too fast for the staff to be able to accurately and fairly keep track. So you had to shut it down and kick the riders off. Now that you've given the motor a chance to cool off, you can start it back up. And you are SORRY that you chose them to be the riders on that ride with the motor that was already starting to burn when you started it up that day.

Welcome back, if you want to be, you can return with whatever karma you had prior to the fallout, and we hope you will allow us this do-over.

And - seriously - allow players to play full-on sorcerers, full-on whirans, full nilazis, rukkians, krathis and vivaduans. If you have to restrict it to speclal-app or sponsored-role-invite-only even if they have the karma for them, then fine. But please return them to the list of possible roles.

Best post of the thread, imo.

Playing a good leader is hard and not always fun. If someone is generating plots and fun for half the playerbase, and is consistently active, I'd say it's OKAY for them to have their dolly. It's okay for them to break through the glass ceiling and craft a wagon or whatever. Give them vanity items, skill boosts, spells they couldn't otherwise get on their CURRENT character. Rewarding these players, who put in the work and spin the carousel for everyone else, is favoritism for the very best reasons I could think of, and perfectly acceptable imo.

These players, and what they do, are good for the game. We need them. And we need them back.

I also 100% support inviting them back with super special sponsored roles.

[Nergal]

Constructive Criticism:
-Give players the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their karma.
-Don't assume you know their motivations or morals based on run logs.
-Focus on player retention instead of pretending it isn't a big deal that you are hemorrhaging good players. Pursue having conversations with players, instead of waiting for them to put in a Staff Complaint.
-Focus on the game, not on the request tool.

I cannot stress enough that we already do this.

If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.

I don't believe you. If you are interested in changing my mind, how about you take the effort and email me.

I've edted my post to better reflect what I'm trying to say:

---

I cannot stress enough that we already do this. I will however amend my previous statement on force-storage. While force-storage is always done according to rules, it is also very rarely used to take a character out of the game that should be out, e.g. to kill a character that should be dead but used improper means to avoid death. I can think off the top of my head of about 5 instances of this in the past ten years - that is how rare it is.

That is all I really have to say on the subject, and I didn't want to bring that up because it trends into the "specific case" issue that I wanted to avoid out of respect for players' privacy and immersion here, that I'd hoped people with a legitimate concern would contact staff for clarification about. Since that's not happening, I've said it outright.

If you want more information specific to your case, put in a request. I am not going to air your dirty laundry on the GDB.

---

Though to be frank, if you're going into this not believing me, I'm not going to be set on changing your mind. In fact, I'm not set on changing anyone's mind here. I'm set on explaining staff actions within my ability and within the principles and guidelines staff have. It's up to you (general you) to take what is said and think for yourself.

[Reiloth]

I would believe you if you showed an ounce of humility in admitting the grievances brought up here have legitimacy.

Instead, veterans with 8 Karma are privileged brats.

Interesting amendment. Would you have amended without being called out on it?

[Akaramu]

Adding to my post above - here's a suggestion for preventing a situation where 10 leader / plot generating players would be eligible for dollies and special rewards, too many for staff to handle.

Instead of having a plot raffle, announce that there will be 3 (or however many staff can handle) 'player spotlight' positions at any given time. The three active players who generate the most fun and plots for others are eligible for a spotlight position and will hold it for X amount of time, and during that time, will get super special staff attention from staff as a whole - so there would be no 'staffer X's favorite player'. The entire staff team would choose these players together.

After X amount of time, the spotlight could switch to different players if they are more eligible than the previous ones.

Possible criteria for choosing spotlights:

-How active is the player (playtimes / consistency)
-How many PCs (rough estimate) are affected by their plots
-Etc.

Or you could randomly choose the winners from a pool of 10, or however many are eligible. Consistent activity should be a requirement though.

[Nergal]

I would believe you if you showed an ounce of humility in admitting the grievances brought up here have legitimacy.

Instead, veterans with 8 Karma are privileged brats.

Interesting amendment. Would you have amended without being called out on it?

I'm not sure why you're trying to insult me or why you're sticking words into my mouth. I already explained I did not include it previously because I felt it would give too much of a hint to other players on who aggrieved people in this thread played. Would you prefer that staff simply gave information on players' private cases openly? I can assure you the discussion would be significantly more messy if we did not have any qualms about that. But we do, so we do withhold information from time to time to keep things civil.

[Malken]

I want to see Reiloth's request and answers. He says staff called him a liar when he presented his facts.

I'm willing to think that Reiloth may be exaggerating a tad but since he rage-quit for a reason right after posting how amazing Armageddon was and how exciting it currently is and that all should be playing it, there has to be something more than just Reiloth having a random fit for being told 'no'.

[Jihelu]

Let Reiloth post about his situation then.


Was it done according to the rules?
Was he stored according to the rules?
Is it even related to that?


Nergal says "Yes it's always done like that"

People say it obviously isn't?

So who's the liar here?



"Would you prefer that staff simply gave information on players' private cases openly?"
If both people agree then why would it matter much?

[Nergal]

What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?

That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me

That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".

[Jihelu]

What about the cases I've read where people get too powerful ic, whether that be red robes or some other sort of power.
Is it against the rules to achieve power, there for stored?

That being said those situations are ones I've read about so I've never seen it done.
So I shouldn't worry about it right?
Till it possibly happens to me

That is backwards. People don't get force-stored because they reach red-robe or senior noble or equivalent status. They express a desire to store, and the promotion becomes the reason for their disappearing from the game, assuming that the PC had earned it. It's the sponsored role equivalent of "Amos transferred to another unit".

Oh...

I'll edit my post then, thanks for the clarification.

[Riev]

I do think there's definitely some animosity between Reiloth and staff, and unfortunately the situation is unlikely to turn public so whichever side was wrong, will be wrong in private.

The privacy of the Request Tool is necessary. Yes. I believe that in far more cases than not. However, "take it to the Request Tool" really seems to be a Clarion Call to browbeat and make claims as an entity, to a single person. Its very daunting.

On staff's side, I WILL say a particular recent staffer of mine was VERY open about my first reports about how <the thing I wanted> was VERY unlikely to happen, which I could then respond with "Yes, I understand. Its something the CHARACTER wants, and wishes for, but I know OOCly its very unlikely to happen". And it didn't, and I knew it, but it was nice to hear it right from the beginning.

I'm a little chafed by the "people want to be treated like they were before" because while I understand what Nergal means, it was a number of veterans who made the world come alive, usually through that privilege and favoritism that made their characters feel so alive. Nothing says "follow this guy" more than a few room echoes from staff.

I have a serious question, though

Nergal mentioned that we, as players, have to keep staff honest. Can you describe the manner in which we are capable of keeping staff honest? What tools do we have, when situations cannot be made public, there is no "internal affairs" or "non-staff arbitrators" who can come in and seem neutral? I'm not being snarky, I want to know the tools you feel we have, so that we can discuss and use them openly.