sponsored role unstorage opinion

[Hestia]

Are we?

Brokkr asked for a take on how a player would view such rules.

I've asked for tangible benefits and listed cons/issues to arise, for consideration.

Who said no?

I think every staffer comment being something akin to 'devil's advocate' and 'provide all the benefits for me' makes me think staff doesn't want to engage in a discussion and more wants to shut down dissenting opinions.

I reread all the replies from staffers and I didn't get an impression from any of the replies that staff has anything on their mind but complaints about the idea.
Does ANYONE on staff side agree with this? Are we only allowed to see the staff discussion, on our end, when it's 'HMMM have you considered why this idea won't work at all'?

I feel this is somewhat misinterpreted. When I play devil's advocate, I do to y'all exactly what Brokkr does to me whenever I bring up what I believe is a great idea in staffland.

At first I thought "oh great, someone who's going to shoot down everything and question everything." And then I realized - he's helping me refine an idea until it can either stand on its own, or should be replaced with something else.  Poking holes in ideas is part of brainstorming. It happens in every professional think tank.

You get an idea, you rip it to shreds. Or try, at least. If it can't be ripped, it's probably a good idea. If it can be ripped, then you find out how to prevent that tear from happening in the first place. And then rebuild. And do it over and over again until you have an idea that will work. Not one that will do, that can be fixed if you forgot something important, but that works out of the box.

We miss stuff all the time but the process of shredding ideas is how you get the best ones to rise, and the worst ones to be set aside - and no more time wasted on them.

I'm personally "for" the idea of unstoring under certain circumstances.  But in order to come up with a solid "hey let's put this in a nice neat suggestion and submit it officially to the staff as a request" idea, you need to find out FIRST if it can be easily ripped apart.

So I play devil's advocate and come up with what I believe is a weak spot that y'all need to consider.

That's all it is.

[Jihelu]

There's a difference between 'building an idea up' and 'constantly tear the idea down'.

You can do the latter and still show support.

"Devil's Advocate time again (notice I'm not giving opinion at all, just tossing a potential wrench in the idea, to see what you do with it without making your idea more complex):

You know you can store your tribal. Your tribal is involved in all kinds of fun stuff, with some awesome other players from different tribes and clans. If your tribemates die, you'll still have fun with everyone else, so it's all good.

You roll up a Byn Sergeant with option to unstore your tribal.

You find out after your first 2 days that there's a contract to destroy that tribe.

The tribe your character would unstore in, and be subsequently hunted down and killed for.

Go.
"

Nothing about your original post gives me an inclination you 'like' this idea. All it is is a critique. Critique is good but even my most ass-hole-y college professor would leave positive feedback or encouragement in critique, not 'Your ideas are bad, here's a flaw. Bye'
Is it really hard to say 'Sorry if my tone seemed overly negative, I actually support part of the idea.'? I can say it. I'm sorry if it seems I wholly believe staff hated the idea but I was given that impression.

[Alesan]

Right. Maybe I was quick in projecting my assumption of staff stance, but that's exactly what it felt like to me. Staff having no interest in the idea, and shooting it down for all the reasons stated.

[X-D]

I was going to say, Though some staff have offered opinion...admin/producer etc have been asking questions on the matter, which I considered conversation not "shooting down."

In fact, Brokkr directly asked what such rules should look like.

[Gentleboy]

I also shot down the idea, but I'm not staff.

Some staff have agreed earlier in the post. Like Ushiku (I think) and maybe halaster sometimes.

I am a big fan of devil's advocacy, because we get to think and problem solve together.

No one should be accused of anything. It's just a thread on a forum. With the word opinion in the title.

Before a rule or idea can be put in place, it's smart to see how to looks from all angles.

[Usiku]

Hestia nailed it. Or at least her stance mirrors my own. I would, personally, honestly, like to see unstorage still be viable option. But being exposed to the potential pitfalls (and genuinely wary of them since we would be the ones facing them) means those are what come to mind first. But yeah, that is generally how we work. We don't beat around the bush much. We pose ideas and pick them apart as much as we can until they turn into ideas that hopefully can't be picked apart. For important stuff anyway.

If someone can pose a way that this could work and avoid those pitfalls, I would be more comfortable with the concept. So far, however, while good arguments have been made, none of them have managed to eliminate my fears, which is namely the additional potential friction caused by something that would require staff discretion in the interpretation of any grey areas. That when those 'nos' inevitably come unexpected, that there will be disappointment and the perceived loss of a character will be on whatever staff had to deliver the message. But that is just me, personally, and not any kind of official position at all.

[Halaster]

I actually am not that opposed to the idea, my main issues are basically what Brokkr said.  Plus we start running the risk of being accused of favoritism if the rules are not rock-solid and very plain and obvious.  X-D's suggestions aren't bad, and look like a good first pass.

If you check out https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Storage you'll see that we used to be more open with unstorage but specific incidents led staff to change that.

I'm just one opinion, but I would personally be OK if we eased up a bit and gave it another go, see what happens.

[X-D]

Usiku,

I have posted on such ways to lower the possibility of hitting those pitfalls two times now. Once total spitball and once more refined. And specifically tailored towards removing "grey areas".

X-D's suggestions aren't bad, and look like a good first pass.

Thanks, and that is exactly what it is, a first pass. Something that may need to be tightened and streamlined along with making everything clear and hopefully without making it more restrictive.

And to be clear, I think the Onus should be on the player. Staff should be able to point at the rules and basically not have to do anything else.

[Usiku]

And I read them! Like Hal said, they are good suggestions.. and I can see where you're going with the idea. I'm just trying to be honest though, and it's not enough to make me personally feel like it wouldn't be too risky still. That said, my personal opinion and feelings aren't really a factor here anyway. I'm just joining in the debate.   

[mansa]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

I would have some case where
a) your new character killed off your stored character's enemy / interacted with your stored character's primary opponents.
b) your new character directly played in the sphere of where your stored character was primarily revolved around
c) your new character died, and you have a decision to make - unstore your old character or make a new character and give up that opportunity of unstorage.

And I would start with that, and see if the world can handle that change.

Since the unstorage is NOT automatic, you still need to go through the request tool process, and staff could do a brief investigation (WORK) to see if you've broken any rules. 

However, that investigation for staff needs some polish, because they'll need to know what they are looking for.

[Brokkr]

There is guidance on the IDB to try to typically not post your personal opinion to the GDB, as it can (and has in the past) get interpreted as Staff Policy.  So an expectation, for example of Hestia, to soften their devil's advocacy by way of explaining their opinion runs counter to some of the guidelines developed for posting to the GDB.  We perhaps adhere to these guidelines in a softer way than we previously have, but they are still there in the background.

I am currently neutral on the proposal.  I can see the benefits it could have, but I am also aware of some of the incidents that led us to be more strict in this area.  I am looking for two things.  First, a reasoned approach to the issue that isn't just a statement of opinion (hint: "belief" or "should" is fine for getting a pulse on player opinion, but lousy in designing a solution).  Second, some ideas on how it should work.  As we've seen between X-D's and Mansa's posts, there can be different paradigms for how proposed restrictions could function.

[X-D]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

This was the way I thought about it at first. In the other thread.

But then, on both threads, staff and players did give the argument.
Well, it has been 53 days.....I have to decide.
And.
Well, lets go with it! Day 63 types N instead of L N. &#%%@$$!!!!!

Which got me to wondering what exactly a time limit of less then say, 2 years solves?

And I cannot think of any while it does give at least the 2 problems above.

And honestly, If somebody plays Malik'daMerchant Salarr for 18 months and finally gets bored, I honestly have no problem with them taking back the PC they had before, should they want to.

AND

Having a time limit does nothing to change the need of solid rules to even qualify for unstorage to begin with. Those would need to be hammered out first, And they need be simple, short and black and white as possible.

[mansa]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

This was the way I thought about it at first. In the other thread.

But then, on both threads, staff and players did give the argument.
Well, it has been 53 days.....I have to decide.
And.
Well, lets go with it! Day 63 types N instead of L N. &#%%@$$!!!!!

Which got me to wondering what exactly a time limit of less then say, 2 years solves?

And I cannot think of any while it does give at least the 2 problems above.

And honestly, If somebody plays Malik'daMerchant Salarr for 18 months and finally gets bored, I honestly have no problem with them taking back the PC they had before, should they want to.

AND

Having a time limit does nothing to change the need of solid rules to even qualify for unstorage to begin with. Those would need to be hammered out first, And they need be simple, short and black and white as possible.

The time limit is arbitrary BUT

it also is a nice introductory policy for the current rule of 'No'.

it gives staff a rule that they can then use to tell players 'No'.

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

it also allows players to jump back into their old character and into the old skin 'relatively recently' in order for them to:
a) roleplay their characterizations correctly
b) remember who their friends and enemies were/are
c) you can use the excuse "i was gone for a year, and now i'm back."
d) more than 60 days can have a dramatic shift in power characters and the game should still have characters alive that remember you within the 60 day bracket.

[X-D]

I am going to wait for others to maybe chime in on most of that. But Here are two.

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

What does that mean or what is it referring to?

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

You do realize we are only talking about sponsored roles right? I mean, that right there stops it from being "anyone".

I mean, I do not keep track, but I bet the average number of sponsored role calls a year is under 20.

But working off that number, How many people do you think would actually want to be unstored after it?
Assuming it went for 6, 8, 10 months? My bet is less then 50%.

[mansa]

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

What does that mean or what is it referring to?

It's referring to the colloquialism of "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".  It's meant to allow players to store, for whatever reason they want to, and to experience another character or "the other side of the world", or whatever reason they want to come up with why they wanted to store in the first place.

It's basically to say - "Okay, you've decided to store a character and make another character.   Go and experience it!"

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

You do realize we are only talking about sponsored roles right? I mean, that right there stops it from being "anyone".

I mean, I do not keep track, but I bet the average number of sponsored role calls a year is under 20.

But working off that number, How many people do you think would actually want to be unstored after it?
Assuming it went for 6, 8, 10 months? My bet is less then 50%.

Oh, if I had my way, I would allow unstorage to be for everyone.  We're changing the rules for storage, right?  "If I had a magic wand I would change it to ..." sort of thing discussion. 

I would want it be available all the time for any reason.

[X-D]

Um...No...Look at the subject line.

I would be dead set against unstorage for any reason other then you had to store to take on a role call.

And to be clear on that, Hopefully nobody is taking on a role call to check and see if the grass is greener.

Most of the time it certainly is not.

"If I had a magic wand I would change it to ..." sort of thing discussion.

No again, A serious option to help improve the number of role call apps while making the player feel better about going out for them.

Staff says basically only certain types of roles get low apps. But I think that improved app numbers for any sponsored role is a good thing. And on that other thread, a good number of people stated perm storage as a large reason they do not app them.

On that thread and this one players and staff alike have asked for ideas on helping to improve those numbers. This is about the only idea that seems to have any merit IMO.

Is it going to happen, likely not...But it certainly will not happen if only talking "If I had a magick wand."

Heh.

[Reiloth]

I thought it might be helpful to point out that 'Unstorage' was possible in the past and may lead to interesting futures for PCs down the road, although this would be a pretty exceptional example of it.

My Legion Sergeant/Hlum Noble/Surif Noble Ranak was stored at my request due to I think burnout with the leadership position and my RL responsibilities. The dates are interesting:

Ranak: Start date of Sat Feb 23 13:52:32 2008

Aziz: Start date of Sun May 25 15:38:09 2008 (So this would be around the time I stored Ranak)

Aziz: Last login date of Mon Jul 14 15:45:31 2008 (This would be when I stored Aziz, to go back to Ranak)

Ranak: Last login date of Thu Jun 18 01:40:46 2009



So! What to take away from this.

As a player, for whatever reason, I asked Staff if I could take a break from the role that they had just approved of me getting. I started in February 2008, and then stored in May of 2008. I asked to play a more low key role. Aziz was a sort of Major Domo Assassin for House Oash. I ended up getting more able to play for whatever reason, and asked if I could unstore Ranak in around July of 2008, so 2 or so months after I had stored. Staff agreed, but said that was final -- I had to play Ranak to the end or store him for good.

What happened after that?

-Ranak stuck it out as a Legion Sergeant, probably as one of the more memorable ones besides a latter-day Sergeant Aldren.
-Ranak applied himself vigorously as an entrant to the Grey Hunt.
-Ranak was granted the Hlum Title (with Muk Utep in the audience!)
-Ranak married into House Lyksae
-I then stored Ranak after going through a really bad RL time, and didn't have the heart to play him anymore while my life was falling apart.

SO! I got an extra year out of playing Ranak, and some really crazy shit happened with him.

This all happened because I was honest with Staff about being burned out and not having the time for a leadership role, but asking if I could have a chance to come back and play him the circumstances were right.

I'm not sure how to apply this as anything more than anecdote. It was possible in the past, and with some strong communication, it allowed me as a Player to not feel chained to a Sponsored Role simply because I got it and already went through the Setup process. It allowed Staff (I think) to have some flexibility, but also likely put them in the lurch in the short term. It allowed me to play out the story of that PC at a later date.

Overall -- I think any sort of Storage/Unstorage should be well documented and all parties agree on the terms for the storage and the later unstorage, what makes it possible, what makes it impossible, and if there's any sort of time limit on it (3 RL months?)

Part of this is that a sponsored role lasting over a year back in 2008 I think seemed really crazy and like a long time for a sponsored role. Now it seems like not only par for the course, but expected that you'll have a sponsored leader for well over a year. I feel like at some point the timeline for 'getting things done' was pushed back, or the world got a little less crazy dangerous? At the same time that I say that though, Allanak goes through Blue Robes like nobody's business, and that's not necessarily from storage, it's also from straight up violence and death.

So...! I dunno. Just some more info.