Feedback on playing and log-ins

[dumbstruck]

That's fair. I had forgotten the login I had for an interim account I'd made after not having a reliable internet connection for anything but a cell phone for a long while then losing even my cell phone. So I was content lurking until I saw this thread pop up and was encouraged enough by it that I came back, talked to Shabago about stuff, and have been trying to offer constructive input where I can since then. I even put in an application for a sponsored role (with zero expectation of getting it) and while I was right and indeed, did not get it, the response was much kinder and more friendly and detailed than I would have guessed or hoped for. It makes me very optimistic.

[Barsook]

- On stagnation. We have two world spanning plots happening right now in game, that are not hard to get a sniff of. We have three more that are 'zone specific' - Tuluk, Luirs and Allanak that are either in progress or about to unfold. We have player-supported ones on-going and purpose of interaction events, like auctions and festivals to further connect people. Yet two more big posts will be forth coming to add atop all of this, but I would also, again, highly encourage our beautiful creative minds out there (you all playing) to reach out to your STs, or zone admins if you have ideas of your own that you want to see get extra legs behind it. We won't bite.

Counter argument point: If those two world spanning plots are happening, you are right, players should have a sniff of them. But that's not happening. Either it takes too long to have something happen or characters not taking action/caring, this is where the stagnation is coming from. Somewhere it's not getting followthroughed. But that's me and my two sids.

[CirclelessBard]

Given that I think I'm the only person on the so-called "dirty laundry front" as characterized by Shabago, I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm not advocating for player privacy to be violated and that I think it's a mischaracterization to call it a "dirty laundry front" in the first place. One that I am going to assume is unintentional due to the massive amount of page roll between my posts and others'.

Put simply, what I am advocating for is for staff to be communicative within a reasonable timeframe when there is conflict between players' understanding of something, and staff's understanding of something. There is a significant amount of middle ground between staff "spilling the tea" which is obviously immature and inappropriate, and total radio silence. Providing evidence where possible without violating player privacy, as Shabago stated is a possibility, is a good idea. However, I don't think I have ever seen that happen until my current return to the community.

There is a good example of this and a bad example of this right in this very thread. The bad example is where Halaster said in explanation of Delirium's ban that she is a toxic person, after having deleted her post because it contained a personal attack against ataff. This was obviously not evidentiary, since the ban was eventually reversed. The good example is Halaster's apology, as it fully explained staff's reasoning for the ban and the steps taken going forward. This is how staff should always communicate when they make mistakes, or when there is a mismatch between player and staff perception of a staff decision.

That being said, there are a lot of horror stories being referenced by players in this thread. The one that stuck out to me the most is Is Friday saying how his noble was murdered for refusing to have sex with an NPC. I don't think that protection of player privacy is a valid excuse for when staff demonstrably screw up. In situations like that, staff should have come fully clean, stated that something inappropriate happened and stated what recourse staff took to ensure it never happened again - whether that is mediation between staff and the affected players, removal of a staff member, or whatever ends up being necessary. That is, in a most technical sense, a "violation of privacy" in that it exposes the people behind the wrongdoing, but often that is needed for the sake of accountability and safety.

The fact that staff are talking about this at all is a massive improvement compared to the past. But it's pretty clear to me that there is still a lot of space for improvement.

[Dar]

Trust is a very important factor. I used to trust other players and like... if we were fighting in the wilderness I would emote backing off and disengage so we could RP out the scene a bit more.

Then I had a number of characters get no-RP backstabbed, or chased across the city with no repercussions, or had weapons pulled on me in broad daylight with soldiers watching and told "Thats just how it is".

Because those players either knew nobody was going to stop them, or were staff alts that had virtually paid off the city soldiers, etc etc. Without trust, the RP turns into burst damage and one-shots and less roleplay around what is happening. After all, "they were in a place I didnt want them to be and I knew I could codedly kill them" is a legitimate reason in 2022.

Can we discuss this a little bit?

A matter of trust is important.  Does this actually happen?  I mean it sounds cool! But short of getting my gangster temporarily clanned Legion/AoD,  how does this work? Is there a staffer real time placing flags on rooms and NPCs around the situation area? Is it really something available only to characters played by staff? Is this an anecdotal statement, or a real historical one?

[Dar]

I read Deliriums post. While ban reversal and the apology deserves my greatest respect, wouldn't it be better if we explored the actual deleted post? It does have a lot of important factors that need unpacking and addressing. Issues that this very thread is created for, I think.  By exploring the post and using it for improvement, or at the very least, explanation for reasoning of the events transpired, we can achieve a lot of good.  If not for Delirium/Ender, then others of similar situations, who are less vocal.

I understand its easy to leave her post unattended, because to attend it you need to discuss private conversations between staff and Delirium. But guys, leaving the issue unattended is counterproductive to this very very thread. If you are not prepared to unpack and face the issues risen on this thread, then why even start it?

I'm gonna pm Deliriums post to Halaster. Don't know if he has the option enabled.

[mansa]

... if we explored the actual deleted post? It does have a lot of important factors that need unpacking and addressing. Issues that this very thread is created for, I think.  By exploring the post and using it for improvement, or at the very least, explanation for reasoning of the events transpired, we can achieve a lot of good.

One of the issues raised is this:
How can I play in a gameworld and avoid interacting with a specific member of the game staff?

In the past, this was also brought up by IsFriday:

Serious inquiry:

May I ask for my requests to never be handled by certain staff? I can do my own work on avoiding them by checking an updated staff list. But if they move into my area I think it'd be nice to have an option to talk to a diff ST/admin.

Edit: If a ST or admin that I will not play with moves into my area I'm going to store or use every means necessary to separate my PC from their influence. I'd just rather have a formalized system that is no drama. It honestly ought to be an option for players.

Edit 2:
While grievances might be old or already apologized over, I feel as though many people would feel more comfortable playing if this was in place. It would give peace of mind to people who feel their boundaries were crossed.

Is Friday, unfortunately, that does not match with our staffing model, where clans are assigned on a Storyteller by Storyteller basis, under an Admin responsible for the region.  A Storyteller is meant to handle everything in their assigned clans, unless being backed up due to an absence.  This allows them to stay abreast of what is happening and coordinate plots for that group.  Same with Admins.  We do not have the capacity to support a system where a player can opt out of the normal means of oversight.

I understand.

That's unfortunate. I can't abide that model and will have to withdraw my involvement with the game until there is a more modern structure in place. The safety and well being of players is as important as it is for staff.

I have the feeling that the inevitable problem will come up again under your current structure....

I don't think you can expect the players to forgive and forget some scenarios.  Some disagreements can never be resolved.   ...Or the required resolution for the player is something that would require other players/other staff to be removed from the game.



I love Delirium and Ender, and I want them to play in the game that I also love, but I also respect their decisions to step away from this community.  They both tried the official channels of conflict resolution and were both unsatisfied with the results of their staff complaints.

[Bebop]

... if we explored the actual deleted post? It does have a lot of important factors that need unpacking and addressing. Issues that this very thread is created for, I think.  By exploring the post and using it for improvement, or at the very least, explanation for reasoning of the events transpired, we can achieve a lot of good.

One of the issues raised is this:
How can I play in a gameworld and avoid interacting with a specific member of the game staff?

In the past, this was also brought up by IsFriday:

Serious inquiry:

May I ask for my requests to never be handled by certain staff? I can do my own work on avoiding them by checking an updated staff list. But if they move into my area I think it'd be nice to have an option to talk to a diff ST/admin.

Edit: If a ST or admin that I will not play with moves into my area I'm going to store or use every means necessary to separate my PC from their influence. I'd just rather have a formalized system that is no drama. It honestly ought to be an option for players.

Edit 2:
While grievances might be old or already apologized over, I feel as though many people would feel more comfortable playing if this was in place. It would give peace of mind to people who feel their boundaries were crossed.

Is Friday, unfortunately, that does not match with our staffing model, where clans are assigned on a Storyteller by Storyteller basis, under an Admin responsible for the region.  A Storyteller is meant to handle everything in their assigned clans, unless being backed up due to an absence.  This allows them to stay abreast of what is happening and coordinate plots for that group.  Same with Admins.  We do not have the capacity to support a system where a player can opt out of the normal means of oversight.

I understand.

That's unfortunate. I can't abide that model and will have to withdraw my involvement with the game until there is a more modern structure in place. The safety and well being of players is as important as it is for staff.

I have the feeling that the inevitable problem will come up again under your current structure....

I don't think you can expect the players to forgive and forget some scenarios.  Some disagreements can never be resolved.   ...Or the required resolution for the player is something that would require other players/other staff to be removed from the game.



I love Delirium and Ender, and I want them to play in the game that I also love, but I also respect their decisions to step away from this community.  They both tried the official channels of conflict resolution and were both unsatisfied with the results of their staff complaints.

I'd also like to point out that a year or so ago before I went on another long hiatus I pointed out several instances of severe ick sexual and sexist behaviors I was on the receiving end of both IC and OOC.

Somewhere I still have screenshots and logs of all of this stuff both IC and OOC.  I don't bring it up because I just want to enjoy the game and when I get good staffers the game is still great fun but I would be lying if I said those things didn't bother me.  Some of those things made me physically feel unsafe in the real world and I'm not the only female presenting player that's said this.

It's another elephant in the room.  People aren't just stepping away because game make me mad.  Some people have felt harassed, abused and sexually uncomfortable.

These things have been issues for years and I know I personally have never felt they have been approached with the seriousness they deserve and I can't keep going there with it because it's super triggering to be dismissed, minimalized and not believed.

So many people are saying they've had these kinds of things happen.

This game is so addicting and so much fun when it fires off right.  People aren't just going to leave for years at a time for no reason.  The people we're losing are valuable.

I'm not saying staff should bend over backwards to every whim but at some point there should be acknowledgement that several players are having the same issues.  They're not colluding.  These are serious matters and they hurt trust as the years tick by and there are zero visible repercussions or significant changes to staff culture.

If a staff member tells me we can't do that that's one thing.  I really wanted the Falecium to be a permanent structure and I got a pavilion.  Alright.  But it's another for a player to leave feeling abused sexually or mentally.  And I think I am at least the third player saying they've experienced that in this thread.

[kahuna]

I just had a few questions that have been bugging me lately.

-Are staff more valued than players?
What I mean with this question is how many players is it worth losing over keeping a staff member?

-What is the exact policy on staff killing players?
Here I just am curious are players ever informed if they're killed by staff avatars/NPCs whether that be directly
or indirectly? If they aren't informed why not?  It's much worse to find out about this through the grapevine.

-On the topic of ignoring criticism at other sites, is this policy unanimous? Why or why not?
Kind of curious how non-producer staff would answer, it seems we're only hearing from Producers in this thread
and I'm wondering what the storytellers feel.


Not really a question but: On the topic of metgaming, IC/OOC barriers, grapevine talk on discord/etc/etc/etc. It feels like staff don't trust
players in general with this and feels like a rules for thee but not for me situation and that doesn't feel great as
a player and needs to be looked at for the future. If you can trust someone do it at IRL at a D&D table you can trust them here.

[Riev]

Trust is a very important factor. I used to trust other players and like... if we were fighting in the wilderness I would emote backing off and disengage so we could RP out the scene a bit more.

Then I had a number of characters get no-RP backstabbed, or chased across the city with no repercussions, or had weapons pulled on me in broad daylight with soldiers watching and told "Thats just how it is".

Because those players either knew nobody was going to stop them, or were staff alts that had virtually paid off the city soldiers, etc etc. Without trust, the RP turns into burst damage and one-shots and less roleplay around what is happening. After all, "they were in a place I didnt want them to be and I knew I could codedly kill them" is a legitimate reason in 2022.

Can we discuss this a little bit?

A matter of trust is important.  Does this actually happen?  I mean it sounds cool! But short of getting my gangster temporarily clanned Legion/AoD,  how does this work? Is there a staffer real time placing flags on rooms and NPCs around the situation area? Is it really something available only to characters played by staff? Is this an anecdotal statement, or a real historical one?

No CODE was being adjusted. That situation was all in the roleplay, which I think made me all the more frustrated. In any other scene, a group of elves surrounding someone with blades drawn in broad daylight would be an issue. In this case, even in hindsight, while the scene was cool and showed off [particular group's power], what irks me more is that this virtual display of power isn't generally open to PCs.

If your NON-SOLDIER PC pulled a live weapon on someone and threatened them, soldiers do not react because there is no code being done. No combat. However, virtually, in many areas it is a crime to have a brandished weapon and not be a protected class (noble, noble's guard, soldier, etc). The scene was subjective as to who had the power, and personally I am uncomfortable emoting for virtual NPCs. Perhaps that was the issue.

[Furious George]

I just had a few questions that have been bugging me lately.

-Are staff more valued than players?
What I mean with this question is how many players is it worth losing over keeping a staff member?

-What is the exact policy on staff killing players?
Here I just am curious are players ever informed if they're killed by staff avatars/NPCs whether that be directly
or indirectly? If they aren't informed why not?  It's much worse to find out about this through the grapevine.

-On the topic of ignoring criticism at other sites, is this policy unanimous? Why or why not?
Kind of curious how non-producer staff would answer, it seems we're only hearing from Producers in this thread
and I'm wondering what the storytellers feel.


Not really a question but: On the topic of metgaming, IC/OOC barriers, grapevine talk on discord/etc/etc/etc. It feels like staff don't trust
players in general with this and feels like a rules for thee but not for me situation and that doesn't feel great as
a player and needs to be looked at for the future. If you can trust someone do it at IRL at a D&D table you can trust them here.

Staff avatar policy as well.  Are staff playing gmh, nobles, templars?  Are they soaking up benders and psi roles?  Was staff manipulating the karma timers to their own PC benefit?

Are staff dividing their time well between playing and staffing?

Are staff held to the same nondisclosure of ic standards as everyone else or is it more?  Staffers who find you "cool" seem to be pretty loose at times.

Is the point of this thread to find out the why people are logging in less, to try and bring those back, or to change just enough so that newer players can flourish?

Apologies are wonderful, unless they only happen when you're called out in public for a big oops.  If acccount info has years worth of notes, some biased both ways, how is that reflected in "old grudges" that pop up when new staff shows up and sees that?

Are the players allowed to grow as people or is it simple sorting and dropping as necessary?

Why after all these years are people still calling out predatory environments?

Maybe the game has just not aged well.

[Jihelu]

It's also incredibly hard to see when people actually get the 'olive branch' I keep seeing mentioned used. Why is it almost always up to the players to initiate 'Hey, you fucked with me' when we've seen at least two or three examples of players trying to get a situation resolved, get told they are crazy, and now it isn't resolved.

If Shabago or Halaster or whoever-ster wants to help resolve player issues they'd edit any identifying harmful info from Delirium's post (Hint: There isn't a lot, none of it calls anyone out), they'd leave it up (or repost it), and they'd both privately reach out to them and actually discuss with them what had happen and provide logs or look into it to help resolve their obviously long running issue. They should even post publically in response 'Hey, we are hoping to look into this'. In what world is Delerium's privacy shattered because someone replies to them in a thread they publically posted on 'looking into this now btw'? So either
1: That isn't being done, and I don't know why
2: It is being done, and not made public at all or extremely selective
3: Shabago and Halaster are the poo poo heads the thread so explains and don't want to reach out to Delerium because they are the problem staffers that Delerium has mentioned.

...But that didn't happen. You just banned them outright. Then unbanned them and said sorry. And now they are seemingly gone for good.

What kind of olive branch is that?

Like Bebop's situation. I can't imagine a more indepth or caring roleplaying community would see 'Oh yeah I've been sexually harassed in character pretty frequently and out of character' and just kinda gloss over it.

This could be INNER MACHINATIONS MY SMOOTH PLAYER MIND IS NOT PRIVY TO and maybe ya'll are doing this but it doesn't seem like it.
Unless of course bebop is a smelly sinky liar who is now going to flee our perfect community (Shame on them) and post HIDEOUS LIES on the evil reddit. Which I doubt.
Unless my insanity is kicking in I think I've played/talked with Bebop before and they were cool and seemingly honest.

[Patuk]

I'm curious, too. She's either lying and should be (imo) banned, or she's right and someone staffside needs to get the boot. I'm really not sure what kind of situation would warrant something other than either of those two.

[najdorf]

I cannot speak about ooc, but ICly sexuality has been an issue or me too. Personally I do not like to even play around it, and would very much appreciate a mudsex=off or sex=off toggle that could be checked by other person. Because the road that leads to a consent ask is also stressing and exposes one to possible sexual interactions.

To give an example, I want to do some female chars from time to time, but the only 2 instances I tried, I got approached by a lot of opposite sex PCs much more aggressively (vs when I play amos the dude). 30% of my time was spent avoiding such interactions.

[Dar]

Trust is a very important factor. I used to trust other players and like... if we were fighting in the wilderness I would emote backing off and disengage so we could RP out the scene a bit more.

Then I had a number of characters get no-RP backstabbed, or chased across the city with no repercussions, or had weapons pulled on me in broad daylight with soldiers watching and told "Thats just how it is".

Because those players either knew nobody was going to stop them, or were staff alts that had virtually paid off the city soldiers, etc etc. Without trust, the RP turns into burst damage and one-shots and less roleplay around what is happening. After all, "they were in a place I didnt want them to be and I knew I could codedly kill them" is a legitimate reason in 2022.

Can we discuss this a little bit?

A matter of trust is important.  Does this actually happen?  I mean it sounds cool! But short of getting my gangster temporarily clanned Legion/AoD,  how does this work? Is there a staffer real time placing flags on rooms and NPCs around the situation area? Is it really something available only to characters played by staff? Is this an anecdotal statement, or a real historical one?

No CODE was being adjusted. That situation was all in the roleplay, which I think made me all the more frustrated. In any other scene, a group of elves surrounding someone with blades drawn in broad daylight would be an issue. In this case, even in hindsight, while the scene was cool and showed off [particular group's power], what irks me more is that this virtual display of power isn't generally open to PCs.

If your NON-SOLDIER PC pulled a live weapon on someone and threatened them, soldiers do not react because there is no code being done. No combat. However, virtually, in many areas it is a crime to have a brandished weapon and not be a protected class (noble, noble's guard, soldier, etc). The scene was subjective as to who had the power, and personally I am uncomfortable emoting for virtual NPCs. Perhaps that was the issue.

Okay.  So bunch of elves show up in the middle of the public southside area? Drew blades, and some staff began doing room echoes of the guards pointedly ignoring the situation.  then you later found out that one of the elves was a staff alt?

[valeria]

... and they'd both privately reach out to them and actually discuss with them what had happen and provide logs or look into it to help resolve their obviously long running issue. ...

I would find it extremely uncool and creepy if I left a game because I was upset at how the people who ran it had treated me, to have those people hunt me down to try to talk with me about stuff we've already discussed that clearly has not been resolved. See: Ender's entire section on conflict resolution issues. They say that they tried it and it did not work out. Don't stalk them.

If what Delirium posted in her post resonated with you (and there were 7 or 8 people I think who had their posts deleted who said, hey, that resonates with me), you can bring up what she said and why that resonated with you without dragging someone who has clearly decided not to continue engaging back into a place they don't want to be.

Besides which, Delirium has posted since the apology was written and can decide for herself whether to repost it. She is perfectly capable of speaking for herself.

I do not apologize for the overall message or opinions I had, but I will try to phrase them more constructively, if I repost. ...

I'm not sure if I have anything further to say, or if it's worth saying. I'll consider it.

If Delirium has walked away, she's walked away, and I respect that. As one of my favorite characters in one of my favorite novels said (about an abusive relationship actually), "Walking away is the only choice anyone ever has." It's a shame to lose both her and Ender from the community, but it's their right to disengage and vote with their feet. Leave Britney alone.

I'm curious, too. She's either lying and should be (imo) banned, or she's right and someone staffside needs to get the boot.

I think it's a terrible idea to ban someone because someone else has come to some conclusion that they didn't actually experience what they experienced. Why is it so hard to listen to someone that experienced their experience and believe that they experienced it that way? I believe that Delirium experienced what she experienced, and Bebop experienced what she experienced, and Friday experienced what they experienced. And also believe that someone else can look at something and go, you know what, I didn't experience it that way. People aren't machines with everything being a 0 or a 1 and having some factual way to determine 'true-false.' I read trial transcripts all day and wow do I wish things were that easy.

Banning some people and firing others because of some idealistic idea that objective truth exists is both going to be very difficult and full of errors. I do not think this will help with trust issues between players and staff.

Related to the wishing not to communicate with some staffers (or staffers with some players, whatever the case may be):

I do wish it were possible for a person to say, hey, I don't want direct communication with this staffer. Particularly if it would make them comfortable and build trust. There are middle grounds between erecting what lawyers refer to as a conflict wall, where no one has anything to do with anything a second person is working on, and to respect the preferences of a person who does not want to communicate directly with someone that person has issues with. Staffers do staff in teams. I wish this could be seriously explored.

[Patuk]

Why is it so hard to listen to someone that experienced their experience and believe that they experienced it that way?

Because it's the kind of thing that should disqualify someone from being part of the community, either way. You don't accuse anyone of sexual abuse without having skin in the game and being booted if you're a liar, and neither should you get to conduct it without being shown the door either.

[dumbstruck]

Why is it so hard to listen to someone that experienced their experience and believe that they experienced it that way?

Because it's the kind of thing that should disqualify someone from being part of the community, either way. You don't accuse anyone of sexual abuse without having skin in the game and being booted if you're a liar, and neither should you get to conduct it without being shown the door either.

I mean, there is clearly a pattern of behavior that has happened to multiple people, it has happened to me. I was told that it is against policy for animations like that to happen anymore. And I believe it, or I would not be back here right now. But that is also a BIG PART of why I think it should be completely transparent who is animating what and which staff are on at all times. You never know just what is going to happen that is problematic until it has, and you are dealing with the fallout.

(Seeing some further responses here, I want to add, this happened 5 years ago, this isn't a current complaint or issue for me, just so anyone reading this knows)

[Iiyola]

Staff avatar policy as well.  Are staff playing gmh, nobles, templars?  Are they soaking up benders and psi roles?  Was staff manipulating the karma timers to their own PC benefit?

A while ago, staff was pretty transparent about roles their staffers were playing that required spec apps.

I'd like to see that again.

[valeria]

The unintended consequence of that (re: Patuk, not dumbstruck or Iiyola who are going to be above me but I don't have time to address why I agree that transparency is cool, damn you lunch!) is that people aren't going to feel free to speak clearly if they think that someone else gets to determine if what they said is true or not. Someone might say 'but I have logs,' to which someone might respond, 'those are doctored,' or on and on and on. We don't have a forensic team, here. And who gets to judge? And who appoints that person? And why do we trust them more than someone else?

As a practical matter, a ban/fire binary for accusations and issues is not going to work. It's a very idealistic point of view, and in an ideal world maybe there would be some good way to determine true/false, but that isn't how things actually work.

[Dar]

The unintended consequence of that (re: Patuk, not dumbstruck or Iiyola who are going to be above me but I don't have time to address why I agree that transparency is cool, damn you lunch!) is that people aren't going to feel free to speak clearly if they think that someone else gets to determine if what they said is true or not. Someone might say 'but I have logs,' to which someone might respond, 'those are doctored,' or on and on and on. We don't have a forensic team, here. And who gets to judge? And who appoints that person? And why do we trust them more than someone else?

As a practical matter, a ban/fire binary for accusations and issues is not going to work. It's a very idealistic point of view, and in an ideal world maybe there would be some good way to determine true/false, but that isn't how things actually work.

I mean. If a person claims that they were requested sexual favors irl for benefits/safety in game, I'd definitely want logs.  Because if true, I'm not going to play a game where such a person is on staff.  There is not middle, or grey area.  Its either true, or it isn't. 


Example is not related to actual cases mentioned above.

[dumbstruck]

Good, glad you mention its not related to a place where my thing was cited because mine was specifically an animation. It wasn't a thing that happened out of game. I can only speak for myself but I definitely don't want to leave room for ambiguity there.

[Patuk]

The unintended consequence of that (re: Patuk, not dumbstruck or Iiyola who are going to be above me but I don't have time to address why I agree that transparency is cool, damn you lunch!) is that people aren't going to feel free to speak clearly if they think that someone else gets to determine if what they said is true or not. Someone might say 'but I have logs,' to which someone might respond, 'those are doctored,' or on and on and on. We don't have a forensic team, here. And who gets to judge? And who appoints that person? And why do we trust them more than someone else?

As a practical matter, a ban/fire binary for accusations and issues is not going to work. It's a very idealistic point of view, and in an ideal world maybe there would be some good way to determine true/false, but that isn't how things actually work.

If you get sexually abused, come forward, and are told you're a liar before getting banned, you have been done a favor. You are no longer part of a community that will treat you so poorly.

[Halaster]

Staff avatar policy as well.  Are staff playing gmh, nobles, templars?  Are they soaking up benders and psi roles?  Was staff manipulating the karma timers to their own PC benefit?

A while ago, staff was pretty transparent about roles their staffers were playing that required spec apps.

I'd like to see that again.

Staff simply aren't allowed to play templars and nobles unless they're a "resource PC".  That is a character who is somewhere between a regular PC and an NPC.  They are created for specific purposes to advance specific plots, or to generally provide guidance IC'ly to a group or clan.  But they are played much more than an NPC would.  They are not allowed to initiate conflict at all, being fairly limited in what they're allowed to do.

Staff can play normal roles without restrictions.

GMH and other leader type roles staff can play if it needs to be filled and no players are stepping up to fill in it.  If a player steps up, staff step aside.

There are 3 slots for psionicsts and 3 for sorcerers, and staff are not allowed to use those.  Semi-recently, Brokkr announced that there -is- another slot open for staff to play one of those roles, but it's 1 total slot and doesn't take away from the player slots.  Meaning, if Hestia plays one, no one else on staff can.  Since he announced it, it was only filled once and very briefly, currently remaining unfilled.

Is that what you meant?  We obviously aren't going to tell which characters staff specifically play.

[Furious George]

I just asked for clarity on a rule, if it's a rule, not who's playing what.  If that helps.

[Iiyola]

Staff simply aren't allowed to play templars and nobles unless they're a "resource PC".  That is a character who is somewhere between a regular PC and an NPC.  They are created for specific purposes to advance specific plots, or to generally provide guidance IC'ly to a group or clan.  But they are played much more than an NPC would.  They are not allowed to initiate conflict at all, being fairly limited in what they're allowed to do.

Staff can play normal roles without restrictions.

GMH and other leader type roles staff can play if it needs to be filled and no players are stepping up to fill in it.  If a player steps up, staff step aside.

There are 3 slots for psionicsts and 3 for sorcerers, and staff are not allowed to use those.  Semi-recently, Brokkr announced that there -is- another slot open for staff to play one of those roles, but it's 1 total slot and doesn't take away from the player slots.  Meaning, if Hestia plays one, no one else on staff can.  Since he announced it, it was only filled once and very briefly, currently remaining unfilled.

Is that what you meant?  We obviously aren't going to tell which characters staff specifically play.

Hah, no, of course I didn't mean to indicate who exactly they play. I just recalled having seen a notice about one slot for Sorcs that was taken by a staffer, that's all. And it still seems to be the case, which is fine imho.