Feedback on playing and log-ins

[CirclelessBard]

Hey as new story teller I'm excited about solving problems but largely powerless to do so. Thus I will just give some advice from my professional career instead.

The most important thing to come out of this thread will be well defined problems. Solutions, ideas, and critiques of the ideas are fine, but solutions will ultimately have to get iterated on and many will not be viable. A well defined problem doesn't go away until solved, so having that in writing is very powerful.

Well said. Fortunately, I think the problems are pretty well-defined at this point. We have some player accounts of things that have gone sideways, and some of staff's viewpoint on those same events. This is a really good start to a discussion that will eventually serve to solve the documented problems. As far as solutions go, this thread is still very early-stage, and that's fine. Gives us time to think things through.

  Anonymity has some value but way less than we think.

I disagree.

If you knew something as simple as my GDB non-Staff handle, it would be hard, but possible, to find out my RL identity.

Given actions of a very small number of former players in the past, this is not something I would want to be available to them.

Regarding anonymity and staff accountability: I don't think staff anonymity (or at least the option of it) needs to be sacrificed in order to have greater accountability towards staff. Staff should absolutely have their preference of whether to remain anonymous or not. Everyone is entitled to anonymity on the internet should they wish to have it, especially in a community that has had people stalking and harassing others IRL in the past. Asking staff to reveal information that would give away who they are IRL crosses a line that I wouldn't be comfortable with personally.

That being said, anonymity is not necessary to achieve greater levels of staff accountability. Accountability can be as simple as sharing perspectives, admitting when mistakes and wrongdoing happen, and being willing to do what needs to be done to rebuild trust, even if that means reversing past decisions or dismissing problematic staff members that don't course-correct. But I think the most important thing is maintaining a non-aggressive atmosphere where people feel comfortable about bringing up issues. Staff really cannot and should not be insulting players - definitely not publicly, and it's not helpful in private either. (I don't know how casual discussions are in staff world, but if staff backbite about players at all, that should definitely stop. It makes it more likely insults will be hurled around later.) For the most part, this thread has been a really good example, but it's pretty clear some work still needs to be done on that front.

One thing that I think would help in staff communication that can be read as hostile by a player, is for other staff to read it beforehand, and even cosign it along with the staff member sending it. Having two or three additional names attached to a message that has been co-reviewed lends more credibility to it and divides the responsibility among staff more evenly for the communication. A lot of the former staff that got a reputation for being less-than-capable communicators were usually responsible for the vast majority of those types of communications, and I think part of the reason why they came off so poorly is because they were stuck with a task no one else was willing to do. A side effect of cosigning these communications is that the other staff will have a say in how it's phrased and can use that opportunity to reign in the message and make sure it is not an attack on the player.

[Is Friday]

I have run this by another Producer, and they have agreed that I can post it here.

I still think about my noble being murdered, for refusing to have sex with the NPC. Staff married her to him as a punishment for not wanting to participate in a plot.

This keeps getting referenced.

or allow a staff member to force a character to have sex with an NPC

Reading how this event is being quoted by others, my interpretation at least is that it reads like:  Staff wanted to RP out a sexual scene with a player, and when that didn't happen, they killed the PC with NPCs.

So perhaps it is a good case study. 

Of active Staff, I am the only one that was involved, and likely the only one that has any idea, from a Staff perspective, of what Is Friday is talking about. If something is still bothering a player after this long, whether they play or not, we often have a limited ability to address it simply because we have limited or no knowledge of it. Or the in-depth knowledge is limited to a single Staff member, which can also be problematic.

The situation in question came about from a plot I developed and ran as a brand new Storyteller.  We pit two PC nobles against each other.  One would win and get married up, and one would lose and get married down. This was a learning experience for me, which I have tried to percolate to other Staff since then, in terms of being very careful with Marriage plots and trying not to box players in with them, surprise them with them, and do a lot of communication with the player on them if you can. This sort of experiential learning on the Staff side isn't transparent to players involved in the situations that give rise to it, but can absolutely change our interactions as Staff.

I wrote up the NPC, but never actually animated it. As far as I know, there was never a demand for a sexual scene, and if there was I profusely apologize. The Staff member that did animate talked with me about this beforehand, and they indicated to me at that point they had no intention of that at all. That said, this is where it gets complicated.

The marriage contract stipulated that there would be children. Unfortunately, I did not have much experience Staffing at that point, a few months at most, so I thought surprising the Player IC'ly made sense, rather than working over what they were comfortable with beforehand. They expressed later that they were not comfortable with this, and I did not have the experience at the time to bring this up with the player beforehand.  Partly because as a player that had recently been made Staff, I would have had so little of a problem with it if done to me as a Player as to not even think to do something like this. I took from this series of events not only a lot more caution in how I approached marriage plots, but also a lesson in trying to see things not only through my Staff and my Player perspective, but trying to think through how other folks might view things as issues that I would not.

So, the player already felt violated about IC'ly having to bear children.  We made their husband unattractive, unambitious, unappealing and happy that he got a babe of a PC to score with. The NPC probably made insinuations about sex, creepy comments and other stuff IC for an ugly loser noble who just scored a babe to make, they were made to be un-likeable. The intent was not playing out some sexual scene. The intent was to try to make it so there was a clear path and appealing reasons for the PC to kill off the husband. This is where things get a bit foggy for me, as I can not remember if I witnessed them firsthand, but the PC basically engaged in some activity, I think as a protest in being made to bear children, which ultimately lead to their demise. I do not remember the exact details of the demise, but I know it was a PC that landed the killing blow, so this was not just NPCs involved.

There was a lot more around this whole plot and the outcome of it that did not deal with the sexual part referenced. It was complicated, from the plots to the player behaviors to the communications back and forth, and there was certainly friction already. The different viewpoints and expectations definitely contributed to this entire thing going as badly sideways as it did.  I was excited for the possible future of the character, where they could end up redeeming themselves IC'ly and the possibilities that presented, and the player was (my interpretation, but only after it all played out) extremely bummed out by all the bad stuff that had happened to their character, acted out IC, and their character story was cut short by the consequences of that.

None of this is meant to disparage Is Friday's experience. They had their viewpoint on the entire series of events and felt extremely negatively about it all (my interpretation). I apologize for contributing to causing them to feel that way. There were certainly a number of things about this plot we could have done better.

Thank you.

I think we both made a great number of mistakes and had similar inexperience in dealing with that kind of situation. I had been asked OOCly via the request tool (after the IC reveal) and clarified that my PC was indeed required to have children. I expressed OOCly that I was uncomfortable with that because given the circumstances, as it was a punishment to be married down from Borsail to Tor, it felt very much icky. (Contract marriages are awful and to internalize it through my character was very shitty for me.)

ICly, Kitt Bor-Tor was the PC instructor at the Academy. She was fooling around with a Templar in her office when her NPC husband walked in. (Probably one of the funniest scenes ever, actually.) A rival Borsail noble (Valorisk iirc) had just been kicked out of the Tor Academy for acting out in class and being a general nuisance to Kitt. Lucith Borsail, my PC's "buddy" had been instructed by Lakrinia (Lady Commander Borsail) to lure my PC into the Borsail estate to receive a formal apology from Valorisk about being rude to her in order to be reinstated at the Academy. My PC was instead lured in for a locked room kill in Valorisk's estate room of all places. NPCs were animated after Valorisk began the combat and my PC was dogpiled by several PC/NPCs. (Cool.) Tor was unhappy that Kitt was not bearing children (violating the contract) and made the deal to get rid of the mutual "problem".

Just prior to that: I was offered that I "didn't have to RP being pregnant". That's not really what mattered to me. It was the sexual violation of my PC and their bodily autonomy that bothered me and I didn't want to internalize it. I didn't want to roleplay a woman carrying the child of a man she not only hated but represented her only "value" to her family after her failure. I've played characters who have been violated like that even in FTB scenes. It's always character ruining, for me. I cannot occupy that headspace of a victim of sexual assault and continue to enjoy a PC in my leisure time.

Removing the explicit act of rape to be played out does not remove the trauma of the event from the future of that character. Just like opting out of the gore in a torture scene does not mean your PC is not disfigured afterward.

Anyway.

Thank you for the apology. I'm sorry, too. I believe I sent a lot of very angry requests and my attitude likely carried over whenever I had anything similar occur. I think ultimately all I've ever wanted was to discuss it and bury it. I appreciate you showing vulnerability and compassion to me.

[Is Friday]

And by no means is this anyone else's fault, but being trans (and not understanding anything about that) greatly intensified my feelings about things that happened to my PCs. I was unable to comprehend that my deep connection to my fem characters was strongly related to me not being able to live as a woman IRL. Everyone always told me "you roleplay women so well!" W E L P.

I do apologize to anyone who I'd hurt in a similar circumstance on staff. I was very, very invested in my characters. I didn't understand why then, but I do now.

[wizturbo]

She was fooling around with a Templar in her office when her NPC husband walked in. (Probably one of the funniest scenes ever, actually.)

This was definitely one of the funniest scenes I've ever had in my time in Armageddon.  I thought the bumbling husband NPC was hysterical, and my PC at the time commented more than once that they were wondering when they would learn that Lord Tor experienced a mysterious accident...  the fact that never came makes more sense now.

Glad lessons were learned on this by staff.  I thought that plotline was only good natured fun at the time (having been involved on the side lines of it), and it was fairly common place in Allanaki noble roles to have marriage contracts so I didn't think much of it at the time, but given more context I can see how it was very disturbing for you Is Friday.

[Kankfly]

How do you know Mansa is not a staffer already?

Very much not the point, and not helpful to the conversation, thank you.

Digressing: actually I think it's a good point.

The difference between "staff checked it out" and "staff and Mansa checked it out" is that Mansa has a reputation in this community outside of staffing. (I have no idea if Mansa has ever staffed btw.) If Mansa joined staff and folks knew it, this would color their interpretations of StaffMansa's actions...probably in a good way.

I have a three-part thesis and I don't know if it's true but I'm intrigued: it is,
  Player anonymity reduces community trust.  (i.e. most people never know who played "Amos")
  Staff pseudonymity reduces community trust.  (i.e. most people don't know that, fictive example, Shabago == Mansa or whatever)
  Anonymity has some value but way less than we think.

I'm a little late in this discussion but for me, I'd rather have staff anonymity than knowing who my staff played, because knowing me, I would be biased, because not every interaction I've had with players though IC interactions are positive ones. I know this isn't a good judge of anything, because me, being a player, wouldn't know how the entire IC story is of how so and so happened. I am always willing to give my fellow players the benefit of a doubt, but it would still color my perspective of this staffer, due to X, Y, and Z.

The ignorance of not knowing exactly who the players behind the PCs that I interact with is actually part of the reason why I can continue to enjoy the game with no pressure. This extends to staff as well.

[CirclelessBard]

It could be useful to examine whether contract marriages really have a place in a setting where there is gender equality. It seems like they were introduced as a concept to show how transactional the dealings between noble houses truly are,  but they end up undermining the setting in a few ways:

- a contract that stipulates childbearing, that is written by anyone other than the nobles getting married, violates the spirit of rule #2 in that sexual plot lines should be consented to by all parties involved (this, to me, is a big problem because it circles back around to issues with how spotty the rules on consent really are.)

- a contract that stipulates childbearing puts an obvious uneven burden on the AFAB noble involved

- very little room for officialized LGBTQ relationships, in a setting where people are not discriminated against for being LGBTQ

- since there are no ways to maintain the aristocracy's population aside from birthing children, the vast majority of contracts stipulate childbearing, even if in theory a contract doesn't necessarily need to

[Hestia]

It could be useful to examine whether contract marriages really have a place in a setting where there is gender equality. It seems like they were introduced as a concept to show how transactional the dealings between noble houses truly are,  but they end up undermining the setting in a few ways:

- a contract that stipulates childbearing, that is written by anyone other than the nobles getting married, violates the spirit of rule #2 in that sexual plot lines should be consented to by all parties involved (this, to me, is a big problem because it circles back around to issues with how spotty the rules on consent really are.)

- a contract that stipulates childbearing puts an obvious uneven burden on the AFAB noble involved

- very little room for officialized LGBTQ relationships, in a setting where people are not discriminated against for being LGBTQ

- since there are no ways to maintain the aristocracy's population aside from birthing children, the vast majority of contracts stipulate childbearing, even if in theory a contract doesn't necessarily need to

Currently there is no forced childbearing in forced contract marriages. This is what Brokkr's post explained up-thread. If a player came to me and said "Hestia I want my noble PC to get married" we would have a CONVERSATION about it in the request tool.

The #1 purpose of marriage, in the world of Armageddon, is to secure heirs and offspring to continue the bloodline of the noble house. In the low-tech world of Zalanthas, offspring are produced in the usual way.  So far, every player of every PC I've had this discussion with, in my few years of staffing noble houses, has been enthusiastic - not hesitant, not concerned, not coy or shy, about the idea of fathering or birthing offspring.  I, being averse to the whole ERP experience, insist on the coupling being 100% virtual. So there's no need for me to ask for consent - since I don't GIVE consent.

But yes if you play a noble, and you want your noble to be married. you need to ACCEPT that fathering or giving birth to a child will /probably/ be a primary goal of the marriage. There are other political reasons for these contracts that don't involve sex at all, instead of sex. But those are rare and thus far it hasn't come up during the two-way conversation between myself and the players of nobles.  Other political reasons /are/ part of the marriage contract but typically inconjunction with, rather than a replacement of, offspring.

If for any reason I felt that I'd want to marry a noble off to another house, in a way that the player of the noble might not like, I would make sure that offspring was not a condition of the marriage. I'd come up with something else.  You have my promise on that.

[CirclelessBard]

It could be useful to examine whether contract marriages really have a place in a setting where there is gender equality. It seems like they were introduced as a concept to show how transactional the dealings between noble houses truly are,  but they end up undermining the setting in a few ways:

- a contract that stipulates childbearing, that is written by anyone other than the nobles getting married, violates the spirit of rule #2 in that sexual plot lines should be consented to by all parties involved (this, to me, is a big problem because it circles back around to issues with how spotty the rules on consent really are.)

- a contract that stipulates childbearing puts an obvious uneven burden on the AFAB noble involved

- very little room for officialized LGBTQ relationships, in a setting where people are not discriminated against for being LGBTQ

- since there are no ways to maintain the aristocracy's population aside from birthing children, the vast majority of contracts stipulate childbearing, even if in theory a contract doesn't necessarily need to

Currently there is no forced childbearing in forced contract marriages. This is what Brokkr's post explained up-thread. If a player came to me and said "Hestia I want my noble PC to get married" we would have a CONVERSATION about it in the request tool.

The #1 purpose of marriage, in the world of Armageddon, is to secure heirs and offspring to continue the bloodline of the noble house. In the low-tech world of Zalanthas, offspring are produced in the usual way.  So far, every player of every PC I've had this discussion with, in my few years of staffing noble houses, has been enthusiastic - not hesitant, not concerned, not coy or shy, about the idea of fathering or birthing offspring.  I, being averse to the whole ERP experience, insist on the coupling being 100% virtual. So there's no need for me to ask for consent - since I don't GIVE consent.

But yes if you play a noble, and you want your noble to be married. you need to ACCEPT that fathering or giving birth to a child will /probably/ be a primary goal of the marriage. There are other political reasons for these contracts that don't involve sex at all, instead of sex. But those are rare and thus far it hasn't come up during the two-way conversation between myself and the players of nobles.  Other political reasons /are/ part of the marriage contract but typically inconjunction with, rather than a replacement of, offspring.

If for any reason I felt that I'd want to marry a noble off to another house, in a way that the player of the noble might not like, I would make sure that offspring was not a condition of the marriage. I'd come up with something else.  You have my promise on that.

I appreciate the clarification that forced childbearing no longer happens. When Brokkr said that staff now "try" to communicate and "try" not to surprise players with this, it wasn't entirely clear that contract marriage plots don't include this anymore unless they are player-initiated.

It's still concerning to me that staff-initiated (i.e. forced) contract marriages are still an option, but without the forced childbearing, my concern comes less so from a consent view and more from a viewpoint of overall player autonomy and staff respect toward players.

[Shabago]

Anyone have a recap of presented issues to provide, here? I've kept up with the thread, but I'm going to go ahead and throw out posts by three posters that circumvented GDB bans that have been in place for longer than I've been on the staffing team. Along with their alts to try and fluff their own hot air for validity sake. People, who, have not played the game in years and have fully stated they never intend to play the game again, either. When the sole purpose of your existence here is to try and paint the game that pissed you off 5, 10, 15 years ago as shit, the staff as shit, the players as shit and do your honest best to shit on the fun others are having - Move on. Touch grass.

Silly me for not clarifying that on OP - the staffing team and, I suspect, the majority of the player base is interested in hearing from players not hell bent on the games destruction for the lulz, through dishonest nonsense, half-truths, or purposefully twisted facts. We're interested in hearing from players that actually like the game, want it to do better and possibly return to  it some day. And, of course, those still playing that want the same thing.

Honest concerns can and will be addressed. Honest complaints will be acknowledged and faults apologized for.

Acknowledged complaints or feedback posters to name a few as example:
Delirium's post.
Enders.
IsFriday's.
BadSkeelz
Riev

Acknowledged concerns or legitimate feedback:

Accountability/Transparency
Stagnation
Consent issues
Unclear staff policy
Time respect/Grind

Anything else to be added to the encompassing bullet points above?

[Decameron]

Plot consistency.

Apparently, this thread is so old I can't reference it here for whatever reason. Fun fact, it's the first reference for fire-kanks, ever.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,39640.msg554550.html#msg554550

It's an old complaint (one I had in 2010 - see above) but it is today as it was back then. Plots are generated, there is staff turn-over and the new staff aren't interested or want to take the thread in a different direction. I could cite a few examples, but I think you're aware, Shabago.

Posting the text for the sake of saving you a click:

"Re: Let's dialogue about plots
« Reply #144 on: September 16, 2010, 04:47:50 PM »
To restate a previous idea, I think that including recent events in documentation and randomly providing particularly information from a list to an accepted leader might be better off than giving them a general overview of their organization. I am not stating that the overview isn't necessary, it simply doesn't provide anything to hit the ground running with a leader.

I would suggest also a change to staff rotation, or at least how the staff and players approach this issue. Even with Imm-inspired plots of long ago, many plots simply seemed to die out after the staff had been replaced/retired. It's changed, but, not in a very helpful manner.

Comparison: Imm-driven plots versus PC-driven plots in the face of a staff rotation.

Imm-driven plots:

NPC: We need barracks. Build barracks.
-Staff rotation months later-
Character: "I've been working on building a new barracks for some tim-"
NPC: "Yeah, that fell through, sucks but YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIREEE!! FIRE-KANKS!!"
-Deals with fire-kank invasion, struggling for some months, staff rotation-
Character: "We've located the fire-kanks nest, and are prepared to in-"
NPC: "Fire-kanks? Why don't you worry about the vestric-zombies eating our gardens!"
Etc.

New policy, staff rotations:
NPC: I'd like to hear what you've been working on.
Character: "I've been working on building a new barracks for some tim-"
NPC: That fell through. What else you got?
Character: "I've been attempting to write up a contract to marry Senior Lad-"
NPC: "She's dead. What else you got?"
Character: "She's dead? Maybe I ought to investigate."
NPC: "Nah. Maybe not. Why aren't you keeping busy?"

While it might be somewhat exaggerated, it's based off things that have actually occurred to my characters, ICly, in both systems. I've attempted the whole 'write an e-mail explaining what you're doing thing' but at times it seems that it's easier to start with a blank page. It's understandable in terms of ease, but it certainly contributes to the sense of frustration. I would've loved to have actually sit down with someone and explain what I am doing, what my motivation are, why I did this or that – and move on from there. The staff doesn't have to comment on whether or not it's a good or bad thing that my character did X or Y, but it will give them a sense of the character's perspective, what's going on in the character/player's head (even if it's completely wrong) and give them a base point to start from."

[Shabago]

Plot consistency.

I could cite a few examples, but I think you're aware, Shabago.

I really am aware on these ones. And a straight up apology to you on how some of those have gone.

[najdorf]

I believe those who have churned prematurely do not have a voice here, since they moved on before getting addicted. I am curious what they have to say.

It would be great if you can send an email to all accounts created within the past 5 years with less than 100 hours play (but more than 10 so you eliminate a great chunk), and ask about their opinion, or invite them to a poll.

My wife has an account, I forced her to play a character 7 years ago. I checked her email today and there's 0 email from armageddon since she stopped playing.

[Kankfly]

Plot consistency.

I kind of wanna add on to this. There's a lot of posts to go through, so I'm not sure if this is addressed.

Lack of consistency with docs and lore.

One of the main things that kept me coming back to this game is the lore and documentations of the game, and how I am able to create a character within this game world and develop them based on IC interactions, whether they be conflict or not. I enjoy all the docs and lore that make up the game world, and I've noticed recently since my return that there's been a decline in the way people care about documentations or how something is meant to be portrayed.

Consistency is a huge part of the game for me, and while I can stomach through PC interactions, lowering the bar for even leadership/sponsored roles/special roles/etc., and treat those all IC, what really wears on my enjoyment of the game is when it seems that even the game does not care about them anymore. I am not pointing fingers at anyone - heck, I'm still learning things about the game and I consider myself a perpetual newbie - but being that Armageddon is a collaborative effort, with staff being the backbone of this game, being that their role is to facilitate roleplay, it becomes a little bit more of a drag for me when I think of logging on and playing my character.

When there is no longer consistency in this game, especially when it comes to the really fundamental parts of our game, it is when it begins to fall apart for me, because we can no longer agree on the culture of our PCs, even if we happen to come from the same place and supposedly grew up in the same environment.

The problem is, while it is fine for me to take it all IC and make fun of things that don't seem to fit - whether it be some southern highborn exposing too much skin or a Sun Runner drinking water with no fucks given - it becomes an uphill battle for me when the norm becomes the snowflakes and the OOC becomes the norm, and it becomes absolutely worse when things like this seem to echo in the game world - like stocking kalasiris on the regular within a Tuluki-only shop.

I know I sound really nitpicky, but it is unfortunately the minor things that echo the bigger problem. I like finding characters that RP out the nuances of their background, the ones that fit within the game lore, and I personally find it a challenge to create characters that fits realistically within the game world (even if I may not be very good at it). So, it is pretty discouraging when I see these things happening.

[Armaddict]

Removed:  You provided some examples of what you meant and I seemingly didn't register them.  SORRY!

[zealus]

Plot consistency.

This, and also informing a player when staff rotation happens, and delays might happen in the answering of reports as a result of it.
The thing is, if I'm reporting to a particular staffer, I assume they are up to speed on what we have talked about before. If I need to change my reports as a result of a new staffer, I would like to know before, rather than after I spend up to hours of my life.

I think that will also help with consistency, as I can not expect a staffer to know everything, but if I know they need a recap, I can provide it.

[CirclelessBard]

Anyone have a recap of presented issues to provide, here? I've kept up with the thread, but I'm going to go ahead and throw out posts by three posters that circumvented GDB bans that have been in place for longer than I've been on the staffing team. Along with their alts to try and fluff their own hot air for validity sake. People, who, have not played the game in years and have fully stated they never intend to play the game again, either. When the sole purpose of your existence here is to try and paint the game that pissed you off 5, 10, 15 years ago as shit, the staff as shit, the players as shit and do your honest best to shit on the fun others are having - Move on. Touch grass.

Silly me for not clarifying that on OP - the staffing team and, I suspect, the majority of the player base is interested in hearing from players not hell bent on the games destruction for the lulz, through dishonest nonsense, half-truths, or purposefully twisted facts. We're interested in hearing from players that actually like the game, want it to do better and possibly return to  it some day. And, of course, those still playing that want the same thing.

Honest concerns can and will be addressed. Honest complaints will be acknowledged and faults apologized for.

Acknowledged complaints or feedback posters to name a few as example:
Delirium's post.
Enders.
IsFriday's.
BadSkeelz
Riev

Acknowledged concerns or legitimate feedback:

Accountability/Transparency
Stagnation
Consent issues
Unclear staff policy
Time respect/Grind

Anything else to be added to the encompassing bullet points above?

I made a post linking to some of the more specific examples of complaints brought up. I can't speak to the validity of each of these examples, but hopefully it's convenient and useful.

I think your summarized list of concerns pretty much nails it, though I would add staff communication to that list of concerns. It's semi-related to accountability and transparency, but staff would have fewer negative interactions to be accountable for if staff communication was improved. This discussion has borne a few examples of where staff communication can be clearer, less heavy-handed, and have less of a chilling effect on a playerbase (former, longtime, or recently returning) expressing opinions about a subject matter that they're sensitive about.

I would say that the way you describe trolls in this thread makes it unclear whose feedback was accepted and whose feedback was dismissed. Of course, everyone knows who they are themselves, but your suggestion makes me think that, aside from the posters you listed as examples, practically any three people could have had their concerns dismissed and I wouldn't know which concerns are being taken seriously, and which are not. And because of player privacy (which, of course, deserves to be preserved), we all have to wonder who is being taken seriously and whether it is useful to continue posting as the discussion shifts toward finding solutions. I am willing to assume that this wasn't your intention, but this is how your message reads, especially given the tone taken up and the accusation made that three posters here are trying to destroy the game.

Secondly, shortly after joining the Armageddon Discord server I observed a player attack Is Friday by saying "the person pushing [changes to the consent rules] isn't a saint", to which Shalooonsh replied: "I have a mountain of receipts. Unfortunately, due to my position, I can't show them.  But everyone knows they exist." This serves to inflict a similar effect on people: staff can hold proof over people's heads without saying what that proof is, just what it proves.

Continuing to go backwards, the final example I'll bring up is the Halaster/Delirium situation. While that has already been apologized for, it's another example of what kind of effect I'm referring to, where staff can impugn the character of players who critique the game but players have to wonder when their critique is considered "toxic" or "dishonest nonsense" or worthy of becoming a staff member's "receipts".

For what it's worth, I do think the staff mean well, I'm not trying to destroy the game (in fact I have an active character in the game as a direct result of this thread and seeing for myself how the game is going). I do just think that staff may want to read what they write and consider how people without their behind-the-scenes knowledge will read it. I think the cosignature idea I brought up earlier in this thread may be helpful too.

[Kankfly]

Removed:  You provided some examples of what you meant and I seemingly didn't register them.  SORRY!

XD I was about to elaborate on this, but realized you edited your post.

I still kind of want to elaborate on my post though.

If I were to list out actual examples, it would be kind of IC sensitive/FOIC situations, not individual PCs, but just on what information that is established in certain parts of the game world that you'll just have to figure out when you play there.

It's basically this: I can handle it when it's just a player problem, but when the game stops taking itself seriously, I feel like I can no longer play this game. Kalasiris in a Tuluki-only shop may seem like a really minor problem, but it is an echo of a very serious problem. This is an indication of a lot of 'hand-waving' for the sake of convenience that in turn reduces the overall quality of the game. We try to uphold the docs and create an environment that is uniquely Armageddon, but this seems no longer the case if we consistently ignore things that seem minor, but in reality, chips away at the foundation of our game. If we no longer care about the game, then there really is no point in putting any time and effort into it.

[Brokkr]

I am probably known for terse, non-empathetic, and occasionally snarky communication.  The first two allow me to be efficient.  The last one is a personality trait I try to dial down to 1 here from 11 in RL.

The desire to have something like double validation of communications would sabotage many of the other things players have indicated they desire.  If anything, we have to be more efficient in the request tool in order to make an impact with things like addressing stagnation.

In some cases like this, it is likely going to be a case of which issue is most important to be addressed for the health of the game.

[Derain]

Anyone have a recap of presented issues to provide, here? I've kept up with the thread, but I'm going to go ahead and throw out posts by three posters that circumvented GDB bans that have been in place for longer than I've been on the staffing team. Along with their alts to try and fluff their own hot air for validity sake. People, who, have not played the game in years and have fully stated they never intend to play the game again, either. When the sole purpose of your existence here is to try and paint the game that pissed you off 5, 10, 15 years ago as shit, the staff as shit, the players as shit and do your honest best to shit on the fun others are having - Move on. Touch grass.

Silly me for not clarifying that on OP - the staffing team and, I suspect, the majority of the player base is interested in hearing from players not hell bent on the games destruction for the lulz, through dishonest nonsense, half-truths, or purposefully twisted facts. We're interested in hearing from players that actually like the game, want it to do better and possibly return to  it some day. And, of course, those still playing that want the same thing.

Honest concerns can and will be addressed. Honest complaints will be acknowledged and faults apologized for.

Acknowledged complaints or feedback posters to name a few as example:
Delirium's post.
Enders.
IsFriday's.
BadSkeelz
Riev

Acknowledged concerns or legitimate feedback:

Accountability/Transparency
Stagnation
Consent issues
Unclear staff policy
Time respect/Grind

Anything else to be added to the encompassing bullet points above?

I made a post linking to some of the more specific examples of complaints brought up. I can't speak to the validity of each of these examples, but hopefully it's convenient and useful.

I think your summarized list of concerns pretty much nails it, though I would add staff communication to that list of concerns. It's semi-related to accountability and transparency, but staff would have fewer negative interactions to be accountable for if staff communication was improved. This discussion has borne a few examples of where staff communication can be clearer, less heavy-handed, and have less of a chilling effect on a playerbase (former, longtime, or recently returning) expressing opinions about a subject matter that they're sensitive about.

I would say that the way you describe trolls in this thread makes it unclear whose feedback was accepted and whose feedback was dismissed. Of course, everyone knows who they are themselves, but your suggestion makes me think that, aside from the posters you listed as examples, practically any three people could have had their concerns dismissed and I wouldn't know which concerns are being taken seriously, and which are not. And because of player privacy (which, of course, deserves to be preserved), we all have to wonder who is being taken seriously and whether it is useful to continue posting as the discussion shifts toward finding solutions. I am willing to assume that this wasn't your intention, but this is how your message reads, especially given the tone taken up and the accusation made that three posters here are trying to destroy the game.

Secondly, shortly after joining the Armageddon Discord server I observed a player attack Is Friday by saying "the person pushing [changes to the consent rules] isn't a saint", to which Shalooonsh replied: "I have a mountain of receipts. Unfortunately, due to my position, I can't show them.  But everyone knows they exist." This serves to inflict a similar effect on people: staff can hold proof over people's heads without saying what that proof is, just what it proves.

Continuing to go backwards, the final example I'll bring up is the Halaster/Delirium situation. While that has already been apologized for, it's another example of what kind of effect I'm referring to, where staff can impugn the character of players who critique the game but players have to wonder when their critique is considered "toxic" or "dishonest nonsense" or worthy of becoming a staff member's "receipts".

For what it's worth, I do think the staff mean well, I'm not trying to destroy the game (in fact I have an active character in the game as a direct result of this thread and seeing for myself how the game is going). I do just think that staff may want to read what they write and consider how people without their behind-the-scenes knowledge will read it. I think the cosignature idea I brought up earlier in this thread may be helpful too.

I did say it and it's because it's true, but I don't want to smear or go into detail about a personal thing I wasn't comfortable with in detail because I've seen too many petty flame wars pop up.. But it was also laughable the way I'd been treated more than once that this particular person was so worried about the subject.

[Delirium]

Plot consistency.

And, similarly, NPC consistency. I can't count how many times NPCs have entirely changed behavior when different staff animate them; even when doing twisty head-logic to try and justify it, it throws me for a loop. Sometimes it's downright damaging, such as if you're a political character who's invested a lot in gaining an NPC's backing.

Some staff are great about this. Shabago, for example, can swap between entirely different NPCs and have each one not only have a distinct personality but a memory of past interactions, which was hugely refreshing. I'm not saying everyone needs to hold to that standard, but it would still be hugely helpful to immersion and to feeling a 'part' of the world to keep NPCs consistent. It can be demoralizing to invest a lot and then have it just not matter.

I think better tracking notes on NPCs could help.

Example: PC Jimbob bribed NPC Jane 500 coins; PC Jimbob saved NPC Jane from political embarrassment

Of course, the inverse is true as well, in keeping track of ongoing rivalries. (Jimbob seriously insulted NPC Jane in public today; NPC Jane got taxes raised on Jimbob; Jimbob hired thieves to ransack NPC Jane's store).

Obviously, we want to focus more on PC-PC actions, and I'm not suggesting that we make this an "Interact with NPCs" game, but some NPC involvement is inevitable in making the world come alive, so consistency there would go a long way in helping players feel that their actions matter.

I also share Kankfly's issues with documentation consistency, and I was relieved to see it because I have felt ike the oddball out for paying attention to that-- or, when I deliberately break consistency due to some character crisis, it goes unnoticed. The devil is in the details when it comes to telling cohesive stories. Those players/characters who DO notice the little things I do consistency-wise and manipulate/react to it, you have my genuine gratitude for paying attention.

[Barsook]

Plot consistency.

This, and also informing a player when staff rotation happens, and delays might happen in the answering of reports as a result of it.
The thing is, if I'm reporting to a particular staffer, I assume they are up to speed on what we have talked about before. If I need to change my reports as a result of a new staffer, I would like to know before, rather than after I spend up to hours of my life.

I think that will also help with consistency, as I can not expect a staffer to know everything, but if I know they need a recap, I can provide it.

The staff's pretty good on that part, but wasn't at one time like every six months there was one? Would be a good idea to return to that so everyone can expect it when it happens?

Of course, a staffing call also happens and rotations are caused from that.

[Is Friday]

I did say it and it's because it's true, but I don't want to smear or go into detail about a personal thing I wasn't comfortable with in detail because I've seen too many petty flame wars pop up.. But it was also laughable the way I'd been treated more than once that this particular person was so worried about the subject.

If you're talking about me, then I'd be happy to talk to you about past grievances. DM me if you want.

[dumbstruck]

I also have an issue with documentation consistency.

One page even still features an image of a Kadian family member playing an instrument that got retconned in the past few years ( https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/House%20Kadius ), it's one of the signature instruments of a bardic circle for RL decades. Same with the proliferation of guitars. They are not only on many npcs from Tuluk to Luir's to Blackwing outpost but also have a long history with the bardic circles. While one can argue that they only slipped in 'accidentally', and that they are not thematic, I would like to counter that there are decades of history for these instruments, the documentation widely references them, npcs in the game world still have them and in some cases still sell them, and additionally, from a simple angle of enjoyment and playability? I know you can say that a rebab is similar, but 90%+ of your playerbase is going to be looking it up and treating it just like a violin only less happy because it's not one, and there's already years of history for them.

I know it's small and extremely specific as a nitpick, but when I went to play a bard semirecently, it literally sapped all desire to actually play one when I learned that not only was my top instrument but also my second choice either retconned or being actively discouraged and moved toward retconned in favor of more obscure instruments that players are generally not going to know about. I feel like there is a balance to be struck between how much something adds to versus detracts, and I know the desire to create a unique setting, but these things were already part of that unique setting to the point that there was literal custom artwork that is still posted on the documentation pages on the website depicting it.

I don't expect it to change, but it does make me very sad, and I hope that things like that will be given more consideration in the future before they get pulled from the gameworld in favor of something more obscure in name of 'adding flavor' somehow. Because the more obscure something is, the more homework players are going to have to do, and if the documentation is still referencing it, having to make do with a second string version of it is literally just going to be a set up for them playing their second choice, disappointed, and trying to 'make do' as they readjust their expectations of a role from what the documentation said it was coming in.

[CirclelessBard]

I am probably known for terse, non-empathetic, and occasionally snarky communication.  The first two allow me to be efficient.  The last one is a personality trait I try to dial down to 1 here from 11 in RL.

The desire to have something like double validation of communications would sabotage many of the other things players have indicated they desire.  If anything, we have to be more efficient in the request tool in order to make an impact with things like addressing stagnation.

In some cases like this, it is likely going to be a case of which issue is most important to be addressed for the health of the game.

I'd like to take a moment to flesh out my cosignature suggestion, since I do think that it can coexist with the need for efficiency in responses.

Specifically, my suggestion is that any response a player might take poorly should probably be cosigned. This is probably not the vast majority of responses. I placed a Join a Clan Forum request yesterday and got a funny gif and a welcome to [clan] message. That's great - I didn't need another staff member to cosign that one. I'm specifically suggesting that more delicate situations do require a lighter touch, and I do think that it's an important consideration given how many people have brought up feeling disrespected, underappreciated, or alienated.

What these more delicate responses are would be left to staff discretion, and probably change from player to player, but I think these responses would fall into the category of "most likely needs review":

1) Responses to staff complaints. Since these have to be investigated anyway, it stands to reason that a couple of staff members can get together to write a compassionate response. Given how few staff complaints actually go in (just a guess from glancing at the weekly updates for the past couple months), I think the slight extra requirement of peer review would go a long way here.

2) A final response to a rejected idea (in custom crafts, character reports, etc.). Players generally don't like being told "no". Speaking for myself, if I worked hard on an elaborate idea or report and got a terse, negative response to it, I would be less inclined to put in additional effort in the future. If enough players do this, this would contribute to stagnation at least as much as a delayed response to a request would. On the other hand, if I knew that two staff members reviewed my request and wrote a response explaining why my idea won't fit in the game, provided alternatives or suggestions, and signed off with a hopeful message encouraging me to try again, I certainly would try again.

3) In general, harsh-toned responses on the forums and Discord. I already discussed my examples in my previous post so I won't re-hash them here, but I do think in each circumstance that if another staff member or two read those messages, they would have been revised to be more diplomatic or possibly held back until they could be rewritten. A little extra time to let extreme feelings subside can go a long way, too.

[Qzzrbl]

I'll be honest, if responding to a player in a way that nudges said player towards not wanting to play anymore isn't something a staffer is capable of, perhaps said staffer shouldn't be charged with responding to players.

Efficiency and courtesy aren't even a little bit mutually exclusive.

I've been toying with the idea of returning to the game again for some time now, but truth told some of the staff responses to some of the discussion in this thread alone are giving some pause-- and I'm saying this as someone without any bad experiences with the higher-ups.