Staff, I want an open dialogue.

[Raptor_Dan]

I'd like to give some advice to any posters in the future who bring up sensitive information. By sensitive subjects, I specifically mean, subjects which they or others feel strongly about.

First, please be very specific in your wording. Saying, "I didn't say that," leaves a lot of room to be interpreted as to what 'that' is. This also allows people who quote you saying you didn't say something to not have any leeway with the quotes they are using. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two excellent writers who have posted in this thread, and I think one of them has taken a break from the game, so not all of us communicate as clearly and eloquently as them.

Second, if your post contains a problem of yours that is very important to you, or a thorn in your side, and you are seeking resolution, please preview it, then take a ten minute step back before you post, come back and reread it while attempting to view it from the perspective of someone who is just now reading it, and ask yourself these questions: Does it require viewing multiple posts above it to be comprehensive and understandable? Is your point clear and concise, and have you stated your point in a thesis sentence of sorts? Would it be very easy to misconstrue your point?

Third, please recognize that we are mired in bureaucracy, in regards to the way staff, players, helpers, and outsiders interact and resolve things. This requires a lot of 'paperwork' so to speak. This is one reason why I encourage everyone to log and record absolutely everything. Damning evidence is always in the action, not in the responses to the action. I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, not staff, and not players, but trying to offer, in my humble opinion, advice that will make these interactions run more smoothly.

Fourth, there is a way for someone to be absolutely correct when stating something. Using 'I feel', 'I believe', and 'I think' at the beginning of your sentence ensures that no one can refute, precisely, the truth in what you are saying. It also adds a new dimension to the conversation at hand. Allow me to elaborate...

"I believe you said this exact thing to me," changes the argument from one of a matter of proving each other wrong, to a matter of clarifying one's intentions. "I feel I was wronged, and that this was inappropriate," changes the argument from one of defense and offense, to a matter of peacefully resolving a situation.

I believe nobody here, not one of us, wants any person involved to feel badly, or treated unfairly, or wrongly accused, or misunderstood. I feel this 100% true. (I didn't say 'feel like shit', because, as I point out below, it leaves way too much up to interpretation.)

Fifth, if we're going to get into the semantics of how things are worded, and the intent behind those words, we need to avoid colloquialisms and vague words. Nergal, Jihelu, and multiple others in my opinion, have done a good job of this so far, with a few minor exceptions. Please be mindful of it moving forward.

Lastly, Bardlyone, Riev, and others I think, have been asked to send in a request to further their attempts at resolution. I think you should all do so, for the sake of bureaucracy. Nergal, if you feel that posting what you have referred to as 'dirty laundry' would embarrass a player, but also bring about a resolution, I suggest you ask them which they'd prefer, and whether or not it would actually embarrass them.


Disclaimer: I've forgone all of my ridiculous behavior which comes with the persona of Raptor_Dan, in an effort to be more clear, and straightforward. I'm genuinely trying to help within the confines of what is acceptable to everyone here, though it's within my power, I BELIEVE, to go outside of those confines and do things which I really don't want to do. So far, I've followed all rules, kept this discussion and my involvement strictly to the GDB, and I sincerely want this thread to not end in being locked, but end in a situation where everyone who has posted comes out feeling satisfied, and more in tune with each other. Everyone.


Now, I'm going to step back and wait a while, and try to look at this from multiple perspectives. I'm available for PM'ing, and will try to respond to any request of me from anyone, in PMs, or on this thread. I'll also be thinking of 'possible alternatives' to the request tool 'that might nurture more positive outcomes.'

[SuchDragonWow]

This thread is becoming a dumpster fire.

How?  A sentiment like this just takes all of the wind out of a heartfelt post like Wystan's.  I don't think Nergal or Wystan would be posting here if they didn't perceive a problem and want to make it right.  It could be very easy to just lock this thread, and tell us to love it or shove it.

In short, I don't see these differences being resolved anytime soon.  So I don't see the point of this thread.

If that's your contribution to the discussion, that's fine by me.  You're not alone!

Reflect on what happened in-game - I was not animating at the time, simply speaking up for the staff member who did. If it still bugs you, put in a request for clarification instead of spreading logs and lies to other players.

Nergal, I just want to point out that the bold portion of this quote could be entirely left out, and it conveys a much more helpful message.

If a player is lying, I will call it lying. It taints the discussion because it is extremely easy to lie about a situation when staff cannot and will not drop the hammer in the form of full context on the situation. It also tears apart player-staff trust, which is what the thread is about. When players lie about their experiences with staff to other players to gin up out-of-game conflict, how can there be any reasonable discussion on how staff interact with players?

It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that you accept bullshit as a truth.

I don't know who is telling the truth about anything, because I don't have all the information.  I also believe people are right when they say that, because of the design of this game and how it treats information, that makes this scenario difficult to handle.  The only thing that catches my eye is that you seem unwilling to embarrass or break trust with players by making their correspondences public, but you're perfectly okay with calling them a liar in public.  I don't particularly understand that, and I don't see why it's necessary.

[BadSkeelz]

If you submit logs with your reports of anti-documentation behavior (I also try to give approximate timestamps) that would probably help.

True, my first example could have been easily resolved. I should have come up with a better one. 

Just sayin', staff don't always know everything.

That's why it's on players to do their best to provide full context. Then we just have to hope Staff are doing their part of following up. A complaint without a log is little more than hearsay.

There are historical examples of Staff not doing their due diligence, and there's always going to be accusations of it occurring in the present. If you really think you need to take things public, take everything public: no black outs, no interpretation, no insinuations. If you've truly been wronged it should be apparent.

[wizturbo]

Live chat of some form would be better.  Voice chat significant better.

And I wasn't pointing fingers individuals on the thread that are making things more dramatic.  It's just human nature to tell the side of the story with a certain amount of bias.  Some bias will be small, others large.

[BadSkeelz]

Unfortunately, by not pointing fingers it just means everyone assumes you're pointing at them. And just so I'm clear, my last couple of posts have been in response to bardleyone and her claim, which I find dubious and inflammatory and detrimental to the discussion. I don't even like to consider it in the same category of grievances I've heard from other players due to how it was presented.

[Akaramu]

Live chat of some form would be better.  Voice chat significant better.

I don't know about that - a forum discussion lets everyone be heard regardless of when real life allows them to participate. And some players might be uncomfortable with voice chat, especially those who don't have a strong grasp on English.

That said, I think staff podcasts would be a fabulous idea and I'd listen to all of them.

[sleepyhead]

Maybe staff could give players a choice between a QuickTopic discussion (kind of like the ones used in forum Mafia for night talk), a logged live chat, or a recorded voice chat. (This could be proposed by staff or players during a request tool exchange)

[SuchDragonWow]

You know, I'm really at a loss, here.  I submitted a Staff Complaint as I was asked to do, and I got the answer I expected.  I would encourage people to carry on their discussion, but things remain unchanged for me.  C'est la vie.

[BadSkeelz]

Maybe staff could give players a choice between a QuickTopic discussion (kind of like the ones used in forum Mafia for night talk), a logged live chat, or a recorded voice chat. (This could be proposed by staff or players during a request tool exchange)

I believe additional discussion venues were discussed earlier in this thread. According to staff, reports have been mixed.

I will say that we have tried to live-chat people in private for the sake of fostering that personal air and trying to get to the bottom of a problem. The results have been mixed. Again, some players benefit from that setting and some do not. One player used it as an opportunity to troll staff and cement our low opinion of them, but it didn't affect our willingness to treat other players the same way, if we think it would be more effective than an e-mail.

If you want one, I think staff will try and accommodate you.

[Armaddict]

On the derail:
I empathize, because this is a common problem with the 'intrusion' (don't read too much into that, because staff animation is good) of an animated npc.  It happens when someone notices something that should be different as per documentation.  However, since it's not a blanket occurrence happening across the board, it's taken as persecution instead, which makes everything a lot more heated.  I am -mostly- accustomed to it, to where I get irritated but recognize it for what it was.  I was minorly upset by this same thing happening to me somewhat recently, only it resulted in actual death.  It was helpful for me to open up a dialogue with staff on my expectations, establishing an understanding of why, and it felt liberating to simply explain what I thought would have worked out better to establish the documentation.  But it wasn't persecution, it -was- the game world coming to life around me to react to choices that had been made, even if they weren't all mine.

This is an example of when I've had positive dialogue, right down to wishes as the thing was occurring, but I admit that in the heat of moment and in contemplation of what it resulted in, it can be disheartening.  I just think that's something you should be prepared for in a permadeath game.  As note to staff in this particular event though, I'd urge you to anticipate that persecution-type of feeling, particularly where some people have been forced into niches/areas/roles that they don't normally play by the slow, but steady shutdown of diverse options to play.   This might be sexist to say (sorry if so), but some people might want to play women who wear skirts and look pretty.  That was more manageable when there were areas accepting of that.  So realize that some people might feel like they're in a scenario where enjoyment is far beyond reach because their options were taken away, and in trying to adapt it, they get a feeling of being singled out among a crowd that doesn't care.  While this is a specific statement tailored to this derail, I think that steady removal of options has led to this fundamental break in understanding on a larger scale, as well. We're all just trying to make things work, I think.

In short, I don't see these differences being resolved anytime soon.  So I don't see the point of this thread.

It's discussion.  The same as people discussing their grievances with magick changes, or shifting foci of the game, or anything else.  There have been plenty of valid posts, and more importantly, some people with bad outlooks are getting a chance to not feel like they're alone in a council chamber with a board of directors staring them down over the top of a high desk.  You don't have to agree with other posters, that's fine, but I don't see people who disagree with your ideas going into your threads saying it's pointless and not helpful.  There are some ideas I'm fond of, but more than anything, it allows the mass of players to see the reactions of an administrator to grievances, and it allows staff to, as a whole, hear the 'state of the playerbase', rather than viewing it as isolated incidents.  By responses, that's how it was being handled before, which was unhealthy in trying to to stave off shaky confidence from a significant portion of players.  Got any ideas how to help the playerbase and staff regain confidence with each other, or just want to say it's not a good endeavor?

[Raptor_Dan]

I will say that we have tried to live-chat people in private for the sake of fostering that personal air and trying to get to the bottom of a problem. The results have been mixed. Again, some players benefit from that setting and some do not. One player used it as an opportunity to troll staff and cement our low opinion of them, but it didn't affect our willingness to treat other players the same way, if we think it would be more effective than an e-mail.

If you want one, I think staff will try and accommodate you.

Yeah, I have to second this. I think they would.

[Feco]

I hope this doesn't discourage staff from animating NPCs.

It's one of my favorite surprises, when it happens.

[Akaramu]

I hope this doesn't discourage staff from animating NPCs.

It's one of my favorite surprises, when it happens.

Yes.

Even if it's just a rat. Actually, a rat animation was one of the things that hooked me on the game when I was playing my first ever PC. I thought, wow, this game is cool. The staff animates rats to interact with PCs! I had never seen this happen in another MUD, at least not outside of big HRPT style events.

[sleepyhead]

I guess the important issue for me is...well, you'll see. I'm sure you'll be able to tell which punishment was afforded me, and even though I may have deserved it, I still felt that it could have been handled more sensitively.

Certain punishments feel very harsh. I understand why staff feel the need to enact discipline fairly and even-handedly across the board, but I wonder if their current hardline policies are helping or hindering. Obviously the #1 worst punishment is a permanent ban. Staff already claim to administer this punishment very rarely and I agree with this policy. I would argue that the second worst punishment--potentially far worse than a temporary ban--is force storage. I think these two punishments should be doled out very, very conservatively. The thing that makes force storage particularly unfair is that some people are playing throwaway characters that they couldn't possibly care less about and were probably going to suicide anyway, and other people are playing characters that they are pouring their heart and soul into. To take away the latter is far more devastating than to take away the former. I think it would be an interesting idea to give players who are really in the 'tokhouse a choice between a temporary ban and force storage. Obviously this wouldn't work so well for sponsored roles, but those come with the understanding that force storage is a little more of a tangible risk, so I'm okay with that, as long as staff are respectful to the player of the sponsored role.

You can always earn back karma and you will always have the chance to gather more positive account notes to eclipse the negative. Temporary bans run their course and IC punishments can be worked with and perhaps woven into an even more exciting story...but a force stored character can never be earned back.

I think that when staff decide force storage IS the only option, it should be something that is communicated empathetically to the player, even if the player isn't staff's absolute favorite that day. And a chance to wrap up the character's story with a death scene would be a great silver lining. I know that some might say this would be a lot of staff time spent on someone who is being punished rather than rewarded, but if it  shows someone that staff don't hate them just because they broke a rule and have to be disciplined, shows a commitment to story, shows that staff care about players in general, and most importantly, prevents someone from getting a bad taste in their mouth and quitting forever.

When we roll up characters on Arm, it's with the understanding that we could be randomly stabbed to death by some PC without ever knowing why, or killed by some animal out in the wilderness, or die of dehydration, or hell, even get ganked by chalton while AFK. What we don't expect is to be told that we're not allowed to ever log into that character again, and that their story is heretofore closed forever. I guess it was supposed to sting--that's why it's a punishment. I just felt like it wasn't treated with the gravity it needed to be treated with. Two lines informing me I was force-stored in a response to my character report. Request declined. Done.

This isn't about whether or not there were extra factors involved that show I deserved the punishment. I have stated that I very well might have. In fact, I felt bad about what I had done and was about to store anyway. So let's not make this about me and my situation and the things I've left out, because I've left them out to protect other entangled people.

To me this is about force storage as a punitive measure and how it should be treated with the weight it deserves, even if that changes only how staff talk to players when administering this punishment rather than how often it's administered. Force storage is against the story-driven spirit of Armageddon, and it hurts a lot more than death by typo. All I ask is that staff be sensitive to that and how much it means to some people to have someone's story cut short forever because of OOC reasons, however good those OOC reasons are.

[Dar]

What a conundrum.  It seems staff observations of their dealings with the playerbase seem to be satisfactory. While some percentage of the playerbase advocates that it really isn't.

Both sides agree that airing out dirty laundry in public is less then warranted.  So instead the two polar opposite opinions are advocating themselves, but are incapable of providing anything concrete.

When things like that happen. The most common result is lack of anything changing. Would this be a correct assimption? Have this thread, the posts here, the messages aired, had it succeeded in changing/improving anything? Was anyone educated? Will anything change?

Note. I do not know if it "needs" to change. Does it?

[Wystan]

Great to hear from you, Wystan. How well would you say lower staff can hold producers accountable? I'm not asking this looking for a specific answer, nor am I asking this based on the problems I've had with a Producer in the past. I'm just curious as to what checks and balances may exist (outside of the system for staff complaints against a Producer, which I'm already aware of)

There isn't a formal system. Most decisions, especially contentious ones, are discussed before a decision is made and communicated to a player. I feel there has been, in these discussions, a genuine desire to find the best course of action. The accountability comes from weighing in on those discussions.

[Akaramu]

Note. I do not know if it "needs" to change. Does it?

I'd say what Lizzie outlined in the post I quoted needs to change. If it did, I 100% believe it would have a hugely positive impact on plots and player activity.

[Wystan]

Can staff ever be sure they have ALL the relevant information, though?

It has been my experience that staff pays close attention to character reports and won't necessarily verify logs of what happened ingame if the information provided by all involved players seems sufficient. It has also been my experience that established clan PCs, who are more 'valuable' to the clan and run more plots, are considered more... believable? Is that the right word? Than a newer PC who run

From what I have seen, logs are checked very, very frequently. I can't recall a murky situation where we proceeded despite not having a key piece of information.

We don't take the word of one player over another. We investigate.

[Akaramu]

From what I have seen, logs are checked very, very frequently. I can't recall a murky situation where we proceeded despite not having a key piece of information.

We don't take the word of one player over another. We investigate.

Thanks good to hear. Thanks!

[BadSkeelz]

About Forced Storage

These are very interesting thoughts on forced storage, sleepyhead. Well put.

I can see a lot of merit to making Forced Storage the #2 punishment in terms of severeness, right below Permanent Ban. A temporary ban from the game (leaving your character waiting) can act as an incentive for good behavior if the character is something the player wants to come back to. We're anxious to return because we miss the game and what we could be doing. With a stored character, that bridge has been burned.

[Lizzie]

sleepyhead, your character was force-stored, according to you. You feel it was unfair, the way it came about. You want to discuss it, and you want to convince people to side with you.

BUT WE CANNOT. The staff will not show us their side of what happened and having only your side - whether complete with logs or vague references - isn't going to prove a thing. In fact, by pushing it here on the GDB, you're starting to convince ME (personally) that you probably did a bunch of things, were warned about them, disregarded the warnings, or possibly complained about them and demanded a discussion - and finally something happened to break the camel's back and your character was stored.

Since the staff isn't going to tell us what happened, and even if you got into detail we'd only see what YOU have chosen to provide us - there's no point in trying to convince us that you were treated unfairly. We won't know if you were or not.

[sleepyhead]

Geez, Lizzie, maybe I did all those things, but I deliberately said more than one time I don't want to make this about me and whether or not I deserved being force stored. Maybe I did deserve it. Maybe I pushed staff to the absolute brink of their patience and they finally felt there was no reasonable way out besides force storage. You can believe that about me and it doesn't change a thing about what I said. I'm here to talk about force storage and how it should be treated very seriously, not about my specific situation. The only reason I bring up my situation is because it led me to experience first-hand what the force-storage of a beloved character is like.

[Lizzie]

Geez, Lizzie, maybe I did all those things, but I deliberately said more than one time I don't want to make this about me and whether or not I deserved being force stored. Maybe I did deserve it. Maybe I pushed staff to the absolute brink of their patience and they finally felt there was no reasonable way out besides force storage. You can believe that about me and it doesn't change a thing about what I said. I'm here to talk about force storage and how it should be treated very seriously, not about my specific situation. The only reason I bring up my situation is because it led me to experience first-hand what the force-storage of a beloved character is like.

But if that's what happened, then force-storage was a perfectly reasonable resolution. When a player pushes and pushes, and the staff says "no" and the player says "why" and the staff answers them and the player says "but" and the staff says "Sorry answer is still no" and the player says "wait what about" and the staff says "no" - eventually the staff says "you're done."

I have no problem with that, and if that's what is happening, then I think it's working as it should.

[wizturbo]

I just felt like it wasn't treated with the gravity it needed to be treated with. Two lines informing me I was force-stored in a response to my character report. Request declined. Done.

This kind of thing sucks, for both parties.

I used to be the 'ban hammer' for World of Warcraft way back in the day.  I banned hundreds of players, and reviewed the bans of hundreds more when they inevitably appealed.   When people break rules they rarely own up to it.  They lie, they blame others, or they make empty threats.  The only thing you can rely on is the facts, and you can't always share the facts because then you're giving away your tools of detecting their rule breaking.

When I first started, I'd spend a lot of time writing each banned account a detailed message explaining why they were banned in as much detail as I could, showing them proof in the cases where wouldn't reveal our detection methods, and responding to their multiple replies.  After a little while on that job though, I found that despite all the effort I put into explaining things it rarely resulted in a better outcome so those responses got shorter and shorter until they eventually were just a copy/paste response and instead I spent all that time writing more detailed account notes for any other agent that might have to dig up this account in the future.

Given the scale of Armageddon, that jaded approach is certainly not the right answer, but I can totally sympathize with staff who've been doing this for a long time and have seen it all. 

[BadSkeelz]

Regardless of sleepyhead's personal circumstances, they do raise valid discussion points about whether Forced Storage is used appropriately or most effectively as an enforcement tool.

What is the purpose of Forced Storage? On its surface it's to remove a disruptive character from the game world. Griefers should be force-stored because their behavior is negatively impacting others. But should characters that are going against documents be forced stored? Or should the game world's reactions (via animations, marching orders to authority-position players, etc.) be escalated until the anti-doc player's character A) conforms to documents or B) experiences a lethal reaction to going against the grain of the game world?

By using the gameworld to punish characters, instead of bans and storages to punish players, more fodder for IC action is created. "Bad" behavior can be the catalyst to which "Good" roleplay responds to.