Staff, I want an open dialogue.

[sleepyhead]

What do you say to the people who already think we already have a pretty human and empathetic policy?

I guess I'd say I'm glad that's the case and I'm glad my expectations were just unreasonably high due to my own emotional investment in the situation. I know it is difficult for me to look at it clearly because of how disheartening the whole thing was, and even more difficult for me to look at it from staff's perspective. All I hope is that it sparks a discussion about force storage and the way force storage is communicated to a player. If I'm wrong and it's being done as well as it can be done, so be it. I may never be able to believe it because I got my dolly taken away, but you can't please everyone.

[Fathi]

Sleepyhead, I think part of the problem with trying to develop a one-size-fits-all policy for that sort of thing is that the people who play this game are all pretty different. What makes one person feel better would make another feel victimised or pitied.

There was a famous GDB discussion a while ago about why staff never have plots where they mess with people's virtual kids/family members anymore, because one staffer had a baby-snatching plot and the player in question reacted HORRIBLY to having her virtual child kidnapped. Whereas players like myself would be like shit, that sounds awesome, take my stupid baby and let's see how this plays out.

Or for example when staff kill PCs instead of storing them. I had a character killed in a staff plot once and it was AWESOME, but it's very easy to see how other people would see that as "staff killed my PC" and assume there might be ill will or worry that they were breaking the rules or something rather than just "I indulged in some IC behaviour that led to a murder."

People have different sensitivities to each other. Different levels of sensitivity. I empathise a lot with the staff members who have to try to figure out how to send those difficult request responses because it must be tough trying to figure out what works for one person vs. another.

[sleepyhead]

I think a good one-size-fits-all policy would to give a player a choice between force storage and a temp ban. Giving people a little more agency and a built-in opportunity for compromise would help smooth the feathers of those who are being threatened with either punishment. I know sometimes that will not be possible and it may not always be clear where to draw that line, but I think it's worth considering.

Some may say it's not worth it to extend that kind of choice to someone who broke a rule, but I say it is as long as they're a player worth keeping.

Other ways of helping soothe the wound would be to give someone a date by which their character will be stored so they can log in, say their goodbyes and whine about being "transferred" or whatever, or helping people set up a death scene. Again, worth it if they're a player worth keeping.

Phrasing things in a more diplomatic way is just what I propose if all other ideas are deemed not worth implementing. You're definitely right that not everyone wants things phrased the same way, so it's not ideal. But it's...something.

[TheWanderer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmpU_73CXxU

[solera]

I don't think Forced storage should ever be dropped on the sinner in game. I don't mean the world killing you, but something like this. For myself anyway, I couldn't think of anything worse.

Code Select Expand

A staff member sends:
"**** [You have done OOC shit.]  As such, Armageddon's producers have unanimously decided to ban you from the game and the GDB."

A staff member sends:
"This ban may be appealed."

124 116 101 standing sneaking armed->You have been put into storage.


%%% Disconnected from server.

[Jihelu]

Ah, I recall that message.


I took a short break from the game, maybe a month or two?, then I came back.
Said I was sorry.
Asked for my character back....


And I actually got it back.

I was pleasantly surprised and was more than ready to make a new character. That character later went on to be my richest, I think, character and he was the only *still too recent* that I've ever really enjoyed.
I'm thankful I got to play that character.

Staff could have easily told me that I couldn't be unbanned, and that my character would stay stored.
But they didn't.

[Dar]

I've been scouring the request tool for some request exchange that I found displeasing. And here's one that I personally didnt like. It uhh ... well, it pales in comparison to that whole sexism truth/false stuff that's been quoted earlier. But the point of it all is that I felt the conversation to be unfinished and abrupt.   I just happened to not really give a shit? But it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth.

Request:

Heya, folks.

It's been ... awhile since I've been to labyrinth in such a capacity. I noticed that some forage spots that used to be in labyrinth are gone. Gan Zein's Bazaar seems to be redescribed as picked clean. So I get that. But now, the top of the garbage pit is no longer forageable as well, despite the mdesc of the room saying otherwise. Is that due to some IG events, or buggy?

Response:
What are you expecting to forage?

My answer:
Basically artifact related objects.

Pieces of bone. Tattered parchments/waterskins, Skulls. Bones. Broken Tiles. rocks, teeth, etc.

In retrospect, I guess it was done to discourage the ease of gicker operation in the labyrinth, but it was done at the price of common sense. It's a garbage heap. It's ruins. It should be one of the primary spots where rats of animal and human kind alike would scrounge for tidbids of livelyhood.

Request Resolution with a Final Response:

There are still artifact foraging spots but they are in harder to reach and/or more dangerous locations.  The entire city is full of old stuff laying around, it just has to be the right kind of old stuff in order to fall into the realm of "useful magickal components."

Your Question request has been resolved.

And in reality, the staff in question was in the right to close the discussion. I mean in the end of it all, he stated, "It was decided to move foraging spots to more dangerous/hard to reach places. Case closed.

But I felt slighted, because the decision didnt make sense. There was no IG event that caused the change, nor was mdesc of the room changed. I had all these arguments, but the request thread was resolved and closed. So personally ... I felt slighted. Even though it made absolute sense. The mere fact that it was less a discussion, and more a statement of a decision.

Was I truly slighted? Or was I unduly sensitive to this? This is very minor, but a slight is a slight is a slight. Is the general displeasure of communication with staff of the playerbase falls under "these" types of 'bad taste in the mouth' cases. Cases that are too minor to really gripe about, but still leave a tainted mark on our minds. Or do most people who're displeased had conversations that are significantly, incomparably worse?

[Armaddict]

I have no qualms with that exchange.  Terse or short is not generally impolite to me.

HOWEVER.

In conversations where I feel like there's more to say, but it's suddenly closed, I don't feel -slighted-, just have a brief frustration of 'Dammit.  Another request.'  And then I do it and I'm fine.

[Jeax]

And in reality, the staff in question was in the right to close the discussion. I mean in the end of it all, he stated, "It was decided to move foraging spots to more dangerous/hard to reach places. Case closed.

But I felt slighted, because the decision didnt make sense. There was no IG event that caused the change, nor was mdesc of the room changed. I had all these arguments, but the request thread was resolved and closed. So personally ... I felt slighted. Even though it made absolute sense. The mere fact that it was less a discussion, and more a statement of a decision.

As someone who has run and built MUDs, and worked in the game industry, even...this is what would fall under "game design" and it isn't a slight to anyone. With something like a MUD, you often time see quest reworks, or things get moved, and this is because the information becomes stale. Either players are playing through again and already know where everything is, or important things have been leaked and are becoming too common and you're messing up the 'economy' so to speak of what should be rare/uncommon/common. In some of these cases, I don't think an IG reason is necessary.

If the area still has spots you can forage, it's still a littered place. Room descriptions should be updated to reflect any changes in the environment, but it's not a real change of the environment, from another point of view.

As far as feeling slighted because this wasn't discussed with you personally, it's not a personal thing. To take it personally is actually a symptom of our culture where we have problems with narcissism and entitlement (really, there are multiple, full studies). Of course, being that that is true, that also does not exempt Staff from having the same problems. I don't see any evidence of mistreatment in their response to you in this case, though.

[Jeax]

Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.

While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.

[Fathi]

FWIW, Dar, I don't see anything wrong with that exchange. And it makes sense to me that all the easy and safe foraging spots would eventually give up less and less loot because in the Labyrinth, people pick over anything valuable. I do think that should be reflected in the room descs, though.

However, I can see how it might have felt to you, wondering if they'd changed those things specifically because of your character etc.

[Akaramu]

Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.

While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.

It also completely doesn't happen most of the time because... curtness, and closed requests, and rejection of any further discussion. At least 3+ years ago, I don't know about now.

[Lizzie]

Dar the line that you seem to be stuck on is this one at the end:

Your Question request has been resolved.

So hopefully you'll be comforted in knowing that's a stock (canned) line that shows up when the staff member hits the "resolved" button. It's nothing they typed out specifically to you. Everyone with a resolved request gets that line.

[Jeax]

Really, all the issues people raise against Staff and how Staff has poorly responded at times could be resolved by everyone just sitting down in a circle with some coffee and discussing the writings of Plato, Jean-Jacques Roussaeu and looking into the Stanford Prison Experiment.

While I am joking and being a slight troll, this is also completely true.

It also completely doesn't happen most of the time because... curtness, and closed requests, and rejection of any further discussion. At least 3+ years ago, I don't know about now.

Closed door meetings are an infinitely poor policy. They are for privacy, but when there are actual disputes, a closed door meeting will always go in the favor of whoever has the upper hand in the scenario. For example, if you're called into your manager's office, he can screw you over as badly as he wants, and as long as he is able to isolate the scenario, nothing happens except you are abused. Your manager can also be perfectly fair, but as long as no one is able to be privvy to the meeting under the name of "privacy" no one can know for sure.

Of course in "real life" we are protected from this by documentation and the legal system. Official decrees are usually written (which our requests are, and saved in a database) and we can then choose to take that information and go present it to peers, judge, lawyers, etc (i.e., third parties).

A court or tribunal is the only way to prevent an oppressor from oppressing. You have to have the ability to expose an entity to something besides the entity itself to ensure fairness.

My expectation would be that if we developed this ability, it would make both Staff and players more considerate of what they are doing and saying. To illustrate my point, I know for a fact that many such stories that are phrased like "I got Nyr'd" are incredibly one-sided stories that victimize the person telling it. And this is the same problem. If there was an ability for a player to say "I'm opening a case against Staff" and published all "evidence"...they would be found liars. Or in the case of Staff abuse, Staff would have no ways to hide what they had done if they actually had mistreated someone.

But short of this ability, there is no way to prevent corruption.

All that being said, I have talked to Nergal specifically a lot, even before he was Nergal, and I would trust him with handling anything. I don't think he here (or ever) is doing this. But that doesn't mean some people don't do it sometimes. The power of staying hidden is a corrupting power.

[Akaramu]

Yeah. I'd like to add that I opened a request about some of the stuff I brought in this thread and got a very fair and satisfactory response to it. I have faith in the staff roster of today.

[Riev]

We keep coming back to the game, because we love it, and even when staff harm us physically (storage) or mentally (terse, unfair request tool treatment), we keep coming back. When some people finally find their voices, and discuss what they personally have felt like, everyone says "get over it" or "well that happened years ago and its okay now".

Its rare. Holy shit, its rare, but staff of the past HAVE broken the trust of some players. Replace all the staff you want, tell us that things have changed, but we'll still remember the people in your same position that broke that trust initially. We don't get to dock your karma. We don't get to force-store your PCs. But in your position you can potentially abuse us the same way we were before, and that's not as simple as "get over it".

Personally? I haven't been wronged nearly as bad as other people, besides a "I thought you were a better roleplayer than this" and "We discussed this, I told you how it will be, and you still aren't listening". I think besides the documentation incident, the only time I've had a real fume with staff was when my Jihaen did something, the players took it a next step, and before staff read MY report on it, they read ANOTHER Templars report, and chastised me immediately. In fact:

As a Jihaen Templar, there was a serious dispute in the Tuluki Arena public sparring grounds. This is back when they were open, of course. Someone who worked closely with a Lirathan was getting into heated public arguments with a no-name commoner of ill-repute, and knowing this Lirathan associate as I did, I suggested they let the heat off in the ring. Let the true Art show who is right, and if Muk Utep truly favors this associate as I suspected, the issue would be resolved. My hope was that the associate would win hands down, and either the situation would be ended, or the loser would take it as a personal plot and be interesting down the line. However, instead, they chose suicide by combat, and refused to fall back, flee, or disengage. The Lirathan associate, as well, did not want to appear weak in front of a Templar, so the other man died. It wasn't how I wanted it to go, and I submitted a request soon after.

However, the Associate talked to his Lirathan before staff read my report, and they either contacted staff directly, or staff took their reports more seriously, because I was told I was acting very much unlike a Templar, that's not allowed, what made me think I could do it, etc etc. Rather than read my report, which I THINK (I don't remember) explained my side. Once they read it, they understood and more politely explained their reasoning. Rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, or even check to see if I reported the situation, I was immediately confronted with staff knowing half the situation. Does that happen now? Honestly, I doubt it, with all the red tape staff has to wade through. But it did happen. And it could happen again. I've had a few other leaders since then, but I'm always afraid to make a decision because historically, staff don't trust me. (Again, I have like 4 karma so they DO trust me. But the facts, and how I feel, aren't always in sync)

[Jeax]

Yeah. I'd like to add that I opened a request about some of the stuff I brought in this thread and got a very fair and satisfactory response to it. I have faith in the staff roster of today.

That's good. I, too, like the majority of the Staff today. It is very clear that work has been done Staff-side to lower the amount of Staff abuse, and I think that's all positive change. Like the Death Star, though, everything has its fatal flaw, and in my case I am afraid there rather is no resolution to the only issue I've ever really had with Staff. The resolution is moreso "pretend it didn't happen, or don't play the game" and I am trying to overcome that at present and invest fully as a player again (I left for about 2 years).

Edit: It becomes apparent to me that if after such a long time I still feel so strongly like this behavior was completely uncalled for, perhaps it would be beneficial to meet with someone on Staff. If anyone reads this and is interested in doing that, you know where to find me.

In light of my experiences, if I were to make any suggestions, it would likely be things that I wish our government would do. And that would be something similar to this:
1. I think all Staffers should play the game, or don't Staff actively. You have to be connected to your playerbase and see the people. This could also probably be accomplished by regular monitoring of players and a good solid amount of animation, since this would also connect you with at least your clan(s). The reasoning for this would be much the same as it is in government: when you have folks that take office, the day they take office they are quite connected, most likely. However, over the years they don't really live in the same world as everyone else, and eventually not only do they lose track of information they are supposed to know (like when our government tried to make it a law that all encryption had to be reversible--this is by definition contrary to what encryption is) but they also just can't connect fully with their "subjects". If an authority and a subject don't live in the same world, how can they communicate? How can what is passed be relevant to what the people need or want? And so on.

As an addition to #1, it's also much harder to abuse or treat poorly people you know as people. When they become "players" versus people YOU have played with, it's easier to distance yourself from them and you end up with less communal results. This is why road rage is a thing, and the Internet is a meaner and more open place: because of anonymity and personal distance. This helps not remove, but mitigate, that factor of our psyche.

2. Do something like term limits. The level of authority and influence one possesses should rotate within certain circles. As systems normally work, it's more like bubbles. There are team rotations so people don't favoritism teams, but there are no sinking bubbles. Once you rise, you rise and stay there. Combined with #1, this can be dangerous, and it has been the death of many MUDs (don't read more into that than I am saying--I am literally just saying it has killed games, thus it is dangerous). Sinking bubbles are also important for another reason: many leaders develop feelings of isolation and ultimately burn out. They begin to feel like no one is on their side. Relieving the pressure of high leadership and letting other people take over can be a healing process. Specifically our Staff run into the danger of just becoming jaded by repeatedly having to deal with troublesome players, or dealing with the stress of trying to orchestrate X, Y, and Z. Pass the plate around, and this alleviates itself.

While I think these would be great changes, I don't expect to actually see them happen. It goes against our programming in a capitalist society.

But overall, I am pleased. Armageddon has definitely had the opportunity to kick the bucket over the years, and it hasn't. I would venture to say at some points it has certainly hobbled, but it has made it through, and that can only be because people navigated it.

[palomar]

As a Jihaen Templar, there was a serious dispute in the Tuluki Arena public sparring grounds. This is back when they were open, of course. Someone who worked closely with a Lirathan was getting into heated public arguments with a no-name commoner of ill-repute, and knowing this Lirathan associate as I did, I suggested they let the heat off in the ring. Let the true Art show who is right, and if Muk Utep truly favors this associate as I suspected, the issue would be resolved. My hope was that the associate would win hands down, and either the situation would be ended, or the loser would take it as a personal plot and be interesting down the line. However, instead, they chose suicide by combat, and refused to fall back, flee, or disengage. The Lirathan associate, as well, did not want to appear weak in front of a Templar, so the other man died. It wasn't how I wanted it to go, and I submitted a request soon after.

However, the Associate talked to his Lirathan before staff read my report, and they either contacted staff directly, or staff took their reports more seriously, because I was told I was acting very much unlike a Templar, that's not allowed, what made me think I could do it, etc etc. Rather than read my report, which I THINK (I don't remember) explained my side. Once they read it, they understood and more politely explained their reasoning. Rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, or even check to see if I reported the situation, I was immediately confronted with staff knowing half the situation. Does that happen now? Honestly, I doubt it, with all the red tape staff has to wade through. But it did happen. And it could happen again. I've had a few other leaders since then, but I'm always afraid to make a decision because historically, staff don't trust me. (Again, I have like 4 karma so they DO trust me. But the facts, and how I feel, aren't always in sync)

Maybe we're thinking of different situations, but in the one I'm aware of from July 2010, staff acted on their own initial incomplete understanding of the situation or the report of another Lirathan (or the associate). I know I didn't report about it other than expressing IC opinions in hindsight when staff already knew more about what had happened. Sucks that they were wrong and put the hammer down like that, but knee jerk reactions happen and I'm glad things cooled down. Templar PCs doing un-Templary things can - and have - become a big problem real quick so I would assume the reaction says more about staff experience with other PCs than what they think/thought of you.

[Lutagar]

To address the elephant in the room, now the log which made a player feel staff had been ICly sexist toward her been posted on j-carter.org can we talk about it or do we have to pretend that we all don't go on that site and haven't read it?

[Riev]

1. I think all Staffers should play the game, or don't Staff actively. You have to be connected to your playerbase and see the people. This could also probably be accomplished by regular monitoring of players and a good solid amount of animation, since this would also connect you with at least your clan(s).

2. Do something like term limits. The level of authority and influence one possesses should rotate within certain circles. As systems normally work, it's more like bubbles.

Regarding #1 - Staff do have the option to play a PC so long as they are not part of any clans they oversee, and are not allowed to take leadership positions while on staff. Some staff have even stepped down so they can take sponsored roles.

Regarding #2 - The only reason I can't see this working is that we have such a serious grip on keeping the mystery. Staff pull back the veil. They know the story of the World, they know where the Thralls are buried (as it were). They know staff processes, what gets discussed, what can and can't be done. If we had a rotation, eventually it'd mean that newbies coming into the game will have ZERO idea versus people who have quite literally seen and done it all.

I like the idea of rotating staff, maybe something like story arcs? Hire on certain staff to assist with running a VERY particular story arc. From beginning to end, that is what they as a Storyteller are brought on for. When the arc is done, they go back to being regular players. Not only would this "increase staff plot" potential, but it would possibly give the Producer/Team Leader staff a slight break while people focus on this new occurrence.

It would also increase the dialogue because players who are interested in being staff, but maybe don't fit in with the culture that has been cultivated over years and years, will still be able to occasionally provide a "new look" into a discussion that is going on. If Adhira hasn't played the game in years (not targeting, just using an example), and she has a hardset stance on a discussion, maybe someone who has been playing in the past year can provide new information.

[Jeax]

Regarding #1 - Staff do have the option to play a PC so long as they are not part of any clans they oversee, and are not allowed to take leadership positions while on staff. Some staff have even stepped down so they can take sponsored roles.

Regarding #2 - The only reason I can't see this working is that we have such a serious grip on keeping the mystery. Staff pull back the veil. They know the story of the World, they know where the Thralls are buried (as it were). They know staff processes, what gets discussed, what can and can't be done. If we had a rotation, eventually it'd mean that newbies coming into the game will have ZERO idea versus people who have quite literally seen and done it all.

For #1: Yes, they have the option, and those rules are part of what I was referring to as being put into place to negate Staff abuse. I'm saying it should be a requirement to play X amount if you are going to actively Staff in any capacity, whether that is building, storytelling, coding or administration.

For #2: I don't see that this matters a whole lot. You have plenty of Legends playing the game that have seen Staff-side, know the lore, know where secret things are, and part of the reason you're allowed on Staff in the first place is because you're considered trustworthy. Even though I know where some crazy stuff is, I don't go playing my current character like he knows where it is. I also know pretty much the whole story behind magick and how it works, but I'm not off trying to become a sorcerer, either, nor does my character know anything about it. It's just self-control with your RP. And so if anything, I think players with this sort of knowledge are responsible for boosting the experience of the newbies. As of late, when I spot someone that I suspect is new or hasn't played a lot of roles, I try to find something to involve them in that my character would naturally involve someone in.

I think this could almost be considered part of the role of any Staffer. In my opinion, part of (or all of) the job of Staff is to accommodate and make pleasurable the playing of players. Whatever that looks like for them in their current status.

[Armaddict]

To address the elephant in the room, now the log which made a player feel staff had been ICly sexist toward her been posted on j-carter.org can we talk about it or do we have to pretend that we all don't go on that site and haven't read it?

False premise on this statement is that we all saw the scene as incredibly fucked up.  Like I said earlier, there's a persecution complex that has to be overcome whenever the bad things start happening.  We do it with templars.  We do it with nobles.  We do it with staff.  They have power, we like to challenge and nitpick and suddenly hold a way higher standard than we normally do because it's happening to us.

I've got two 'quit' scenarios based on this in the last 3 or 4 years.  Not quitting the game, but quitting out of the game to file a complaint/report/stew on it.  But the reality is that having a mugger show up to threaten a fight at me is tons of fun and out of the norm of what I get out of the game nowadays.  Now if they'd done what happened to me twelve years ago or so, and had the same NPC come at me and die four or five times in a row until they got me, I'd be pissed.

If anything, I'm disappointed that it resulted in suicide rather than people dealing with it and making a big war out of it for other people to join in on.  Calling the 'sexism' card on it is basically a push for us to turn PG-13 because of the persecution complex.  Sorry.  I'm fine with sexual innuendo, and I think the call for 'I even gave them the name for someone else' is misdirection.  Someone is taking all the interactions way too personally, and civil discourse over those fine lines is entirely fine, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for out of it; no more saying 'suck my cock'?  No more saying 'you're all whores'?  No more decisions that a big ruby might stand out in the Gaj enough for some dumb fucker to try something?

I'm not lacking empathy.  But I think it's actually pretty minor and completely overblown in comparison to other people's direct communications that have resulted in bans or storage where it's more clearly unnecessary.  I don't disagree with the communication that was given.

No, everything was not handled perfectly (nothing is).  But -way- more important than this is the gripe that people want more interactions from storytellers and more conflict, until such a time that it doesn't end up the way they want it and you promote an air of 'The only time you should ever do something is when it all goes well and swell for the people involved', which is just an impossible task and results in fear of interacting with players.

[Dar]

Just read that log.  The dwarf was a player, right?

[Jihelu]

Just read that log.  The dwarf was a player, right?

If I recall the dwarf was the animation

[Dar]

What a weird and conflicting situation.

Bardlyone posted a log on Jcarter's forum to elucidate her point of view stated in this thread.
She did. Although at least for me, I believe it is a significant overreaction on 'her' part. As long as that dwarf was a PC and not an animation. If the dwarf was an animation, then ... for shame. If dwarf was an animation then it demonstrated every bad angle of gameplay. It was against theme, against zalanthan mentality. it demonstrated rail roadment of plots. It was bad. it was very bad.

But all that aside. She posted on Jcarter's forum. Which is in my opinion, an unacceptable thing. By doing so, she validated hacking and a culture of spite. By doing so, she turned a 'peaceful demonstration' with a (potentially) valid point to argue into a shop destroying riot with a point that can be easily disregarded due to all those burning broken window displays. Even if the point is the most righteous of all. 

This resulted in her being banned. So in conclusion, the winner is .... nobody. Every single person invested in the well being of this MUD, from Staff, to Bardlyone, to anyone else, myself included, have totally and completely failed and sucks ass. I imagine some bitter individual out there who doesnt even play, but loves to spread dissent over aspects he/she is still touchy about is overjoyed with these results. Big Whoop.

At the same time, the posting of the log made it public, albeit in a limited amount and is actually a pretty good example of a Staff/Player interaction that is not hurting any other player if made public. That log and this case would have been a good one to dissect and discuss, in order to find a way to keep both the playerbase content, motivated, and having fun. As well as Staff efficient, motivated, and enjoying their role.

This is a clusterfuck in which 'every' party, player 'and' staff, have managed to do exactly the worst thing possible.