Staff Complaints: How to improve the whistleblower system

[MeTekillot]

I do agree with IsFriday's allusion to the seemingly labyrinthine bureaucracy that staff abide by. It would make sense for a multinational corporation to be that unbending in regards to organizational change.

The volunteer 2 dozen staff for a game of maybe 200 people? Not so much.

[Usiku]

On the one hand, I personally agree with Friday, and that in instances where there is historical friction between a player and a staff member that it would be absolutely be better if we could be able to provide alternative staff. However, the reasons stated by other staffers prior, as to why this would be difficult, are not coming from a place of them simply adhering to rigid structure or a strange love of bureaucracy and red tape. They are coming from a place of them understanding the potential workload involved in allowing those kinds of shifts.

If it was one or two players, occasionally, here and there, I'm sure it would be manageable, but in order for it to be fair it would have to be policy. And the potential of that policy could be numerous requests for staff oversight changes for a plethora of reasons (something that in itself would take time to vet, and could come with refusals which could be another source of player-staff frustrations) and that wouldn't be maintainable.

This isn't a tabletop game. It's a world that lives and breathes 24/7 with a huge amount of agency for players to be off anywhere, doing all sorts of things - keeping track of that can be.. actually.. ridiculously hard, even when you only have a couple of clans to look after. The more that oversight was chopped up, the harder it would get. We're already stretched thin most of the time as it is.

While perhaps not ideal, the option is there to avoid certain staff members if you want, by choosing an area of the game they are not involved in. In a sense, that is support of the feature you requested. Major shifts in staffing do not happen so frequently, the chance of your undesired staffer moving into your area of play during the tenure of a PC is actually relatively low, and the chance of them being actively assigned to your clan and to deal with you is even lower. You absolutely do not have to play at DM Bob's table, you can sit at any table you like.

[triste]

Usiku's advice to switch where you play if you hate your staffer: good advice, but sucks that we have to resort to this.

I had a staffer who was driving me nuts about a year ago. Every mastercraft I was submitting got declined. Rationale was always "Your character would not be skilled enough to make this," despite her having all crafts capped at master. Got to the point of me trying to mastercraft Handkerchiefs, literally every kid's FIRST SEWING PROJECT and that request went around unresponded to forever. So, in a state of despair (that fit my character), my character killed herself. I got a kudos shortly after from a player who kudosed my character for being an "embodiment of despair." Little did that player know a whole lot of that despair was from dealing with a staffer who was, in my lowly mortal opinion, unfair and mean.

Next character I got a great staffer, to the point that when my character died I got a note about it being sad to see this story end from that staffer. Night and day difference. Only reason I still think of playing when I am as busy as I am are great, fun to interact with staffers and players like that.

The best solution is for all of us to be respectful, nice and cool people. Obviously. Next best option is if you can't stomach mean lame people, avoid them. If we can't have choice of staffer, leaving a clan or storing a character is indeed an option. And if a player stores on these grounds, they 100% should not be penalized as it is like punishing someone for leaving an abusive relationship.

[sucre]

Temporary storage in this case might help balm some of these issues. I think it should be an option if there is obvious friction between player and staff, or a history of such.

[Lotion]

Avoiding large swathes of the game to avoid certain staffers is a big mood. It's good to know there's other people who do that. What isfriday is saying about safety tools is absolutely spot on.

[Usiku]

I can only offer perspective from my time on staff and what I have gleaned from looking back through the request tool (something I have done a lot of in a quest to understand how we ended up here, in as unbiased and educated way as possible). The issue you faced with that particular character would have played out the same way with any staffer. They were the messenger of a unified staff view on crafting quality within certain clans. And the messenger ended up getting shot (shot = tarred with dislike, in this instance).

I can totally understand how it felt from the player side, but I wanted to point this out, since it highlights one of the potential issues of a system where any player can request a new staffer because they encountered a frustrating scenario. In this case, even if you'd gotten a new staffer, the same thing would have happened. The same thing would have happened regardless of which staff member you got. The same staff member you disliked could have been seen as a great staffer, had they gotten to staff over you in a scenario where they didn't have to do that unfortunate task of being the bearer of bad news. The staff member you got next, who you really liked, you may have ended up disliking had they come in to deal with the previous PC.

If these were the kinds of things people requested different staffers because of.. it would be happening all the time and would be well beyond the realm of player safeguarding and more into the realm of 'pick-your-own-staffer' which would be a lot of to expect of staff's time right now.

The best solution is for all of us to be respectful, nice and cool people. Obviously. Next best option is if you can't stomach mean lame people, avoid them. If we can't have choice of staffer, leaving a clan or storing a character is indeed an option. And if a player stores on these grounds, they 100% should not be penalized as it is like punishing someone for leaving an abusive relationship.

Basically this, I think. We mightn't be able to do the absolute ideal, because we do have limitations on resources. But I think just being nicer and more respectful, understanding and patient in all directions would go a long way. And yeah, if you don't like something, don't enjoy something.. don't do it. As far as I'm aware, there is no penalizing for storage. Was there in the past? Maybe, I don't know. I never got penalised for storage and I flunked out hard on some leadership roles in the past. But at least now? Pretty sure no one expects anyone to continue in a role they don't enjoy.

[Dar]

The comparison to a tabletop game is kind of flawed. Sure players can choose not to have a certain DM and play with some other DM. But what if the 'conflict' happens during the session.  Will the DM step away in the middle of a session for another DM to take up the reigns? That other DM had his own group go an absolutely different route and has absolutely no knowledge needed to weave a good story. 


How do other muds provide this feature?

[Is Friday]

I'd like to point out that Arm players have and will continue to avoid areas with certain staffers because there is no recourse for bad relationships between players/staff when there isn't explicitly rule breaking. This isn't a desired solution - it's a survival technique. In many cases where there is bad blood between staff/player the hierarchy of the staff process has actually reinforced the unwanted behavior or protected the staff from consequence.

While I appreciate the dialogue and attitude of staff to engage with the player base in the last few years - this doesn't resolve the fundamental problem. I'll also point out that when a staff member has crossed a boundary - if that player is a leader - there is a massive social pressure for the player to simply "suck it up" in order to continue contributing as a leader. Then you add staff rotations and the inability to "move" a leader PC to another area - you only have the option to store.

[Dar]

I'd like to point out that Arm players have and will continue to avoid areas with certain staffers because there is no recourse for bad relationships between players/staff when there isn't explicitly rule breaking. This isn't a desired solution - it's a survival technique. In many cases where there is bad blood between staff/player the hierarchy of the staff process has actually reinforced the unwanted behavior or protected the staff from consequence.

While I appreciate the dialogue and attitude of staff to engage with the player base in the last few years - this doesn't resolve the fundamental problem. I'll also point out that when a staff member has crossed a boundary - if that player is a leader - there is a massive social pressure for the player to simply "suck it up" in order to continue contributing as a leader. Then you add staff rotations and the inability to "move" a leader PC to another area - you only have the option to store.

I think there lies the crux of the issue.

Its not the fact that you cant get 'another staffer' it's that 'get me your manager' route never achieves anything for the player. The step above, be it admin for STs, or Producer for Admins, would reinforce decisions of the staffer who rose the player's ire in the first place. And I imagine often enough, rightfully so.  People do not like to hear 'No', and use various avenues to circumvent it. And once again, appropriately so. 

But the current understanding and expectation is that if there is ever a conflict between a player and a staffer, escalating it for arbitration is either useless, or harmful. Best case scenario, the staffer above would reinforce the decisions of staffer below. Worst case scenario, all involved staff will peg the player as a 'problem player'. Which doesn't mean they get stored, or anything really. Just a little sigh and an eyeroll when opening a 'yet another' request from that player
A predetermined negative bias. A little thing, that germinates and evolves into a big thing.

This is what's damaging to the game the most. The predetermined negative bias. Players assume staff are out to get them. Staff assume that dealing with that player with be a slog of counterarguments, attempts to circumvent theme, and disguised ooc collaboration.


Shabago, and other staff have made steps to at least attempt to repair the issue. This thread, Shabago's message. The general missive of, "We'll be more transparent in our dealings and there will be less of a 'thin blue line'."

That doesnt repair everything instantly. Much like the damage incurred did not happen immediately and needed time to grow into a monster inside everyone's heads.  But it's a step.

We just need time to continue in a similar direction. It is actually pretty easily killed. All you need to do is stomp on it with a requirement that is hued beneficial, but is logistically impossible. And when the requirement fails to be achieved, huff and leave. People actually need to 'want' to come together and discard this layer of negativity. Instead of trying to win past arguments.


PS: I definitely understand IsFriday's thinking. I once stored a maxed out sorcerer with a warehouse access in the rinth over something Nergal did and only returned to the game after Nergal left.

[Hestia]

Dar:

Its not the fact that you cant get 'another staffer' it's that 'get me your manager' route never achieves anything for the player. The step above, be it admin for STs, or Producer for Admins, would reinforce decisions of the staffer who rose the player's ire in the first place. And I imagine often enough, rightfully so.  People do not like to hear 'No', and use various avenues to circumvent it. And once again, appropriately so.

But the current understanding and expectation is that if there is ever a conflict between a player and a staffer, escalating it for arbitration is either useless, or harmful. Best case scenario, the staffer above would reinforce the decisions of staffer below. Worst case scenario, all involved staff will peg the player as a 'problem player'. Which doesn't mean they get stored, or anything really. Just a little sigh and an eyeroll when opening a 'yet another' request from that staffer. A predetermined negative bias. A little thing, that germinates and evolves into a big thing.

I think it's sometimes difficult to remember that often a "no" from me (I'm using me as the hypothetic) might have included me hitting up my admin (Halaster) and perhaps trying to get feedback from a producer (maybe Brokkr) to see if a "yes" was acceptable.  And after hearing why "no" was the most appropriate response and coming to an agreement on it with them, I tell the player "no."

So when they go the "speak to the manager route" they're going to the very people who conferred with me, before I ever reponded to the request, and we ALL came to the "no" conclusion together.

When the player sees admin "sticking up" for me, that isn't always what's happening. What's happening, is they're standing by what they had already worked out with me prior to my response to their request.

I wonder if we could just add in a simple line, when it comes to "escalations" - whereas, if there was a group effort to respond to a request in a way that the player felt they needed to escalate, it gets mentioned that the original decision was in fact a group effort and not a single staffer shutting down an idea.


Edited: bold and italicized words for emphasis - that I'm referring to specific situations, not a sweeping blanket policy. There's no  way we'd want every staffer to chime in on every request. That'd be nutso!

[Dar]

Please believe me. That if every staff statement is auto understood as the decision made by the entirety of staff, we are doomed.

[Halaster]

Please believe me. That if every staff statement is auto understood as the decision made by the entirety of staff, we are doomed.

Clearly that isn't what Hestia meant.  She was giving a specific scenario in regards to answering no to a request.  She in no way implied that 'every statement' was covered in her example.

[MeTekillot]

Do staff considered themselves a different group of people from the players? sometimes it feels like there may be something of an us-and-them attitude instead of just an us attitude.

Something that comes to mind was a post where Brokkr said he felt like the players were asking him to "justify your vision" or something like that. Which... fuck yeah we are? it's OUR game that WE play. I have to justify my vision upward, and sideward to other players in order for everyone to play along with it so why wouldn't you?