Discussion of Staff Policies and Documentation

[MarshallDFX]

So the recent "no discord" staff rule.. there was some discussion on discord about the desirability to sometimes avoid sending a sensitive issue into the general staff ether of the request tool.

There is probably something lost in the accessibility of staff.  I wonder what the thoughts of others. It could be something like staff never *initiate* DMs, and where it involves a routine matter should direct people to the request tool?

Or is that already the intention?  I might be misreading what the rule is. Maybe some examples could be useful.

[Usiku]

The intention is for there to be no private communication between players and staff on Discord, initiated by either, about the game. This is to protect both sides. I am struggling to imagine a truly sensitive topic related to the game that we wouldn't want addressed via the Request Tool, but if you found yourself with one then you could always send in a request just to say, "I have a very sensitive topic I need to address involving XYZ (general theme), and I don't feel super comfortable sending it in via request, can a provision be made?" and we can figure something out from there.

[CirclelessBard]

I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.

Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.

I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?

[SpyGuy]

I've got my own request waiting on some of these issues.  The new Mod team were fantastic but talked me into a request rather than vitriolic GDB post.   I agree that all bans from this debacle need to be undone.  And the one person most responsible for this disaster needs a ban or to be stripped of all privileges for abusing them time and time again.  If not I don't have much reason to continue supporting the game.

To bring it on topic: I do believe the staff contract needs a ban provision for egregious violations. Removal from staff is a denial of privileges and limiting the harm said person can do.  It's not a punishment in my eyes. But things like spying on ERP, colluding with other staff to cheat IC or extensively abusing players IC or OOC.  That sort of thing needs a ban to regain trust from those burned.

[Halaster]

So the recent "no discord" staff rule.. there was some discussion on discord about the desirability to sometimes avoid sending a sensitive issue into the general staff ether of the request tool.

There is probably something lost in the accessibility of staff.  I wonder what the thoughts of others. It could be something like staff never *initiate* DMs, and where it involves a routine matter should direct people to the request tool?

Or is that already the intention?  I might be misreading what the rule is. Maybe some examples could be useful.

It is meant to protect staff and players so that there is a log of conversations to be viewable by other staff.  It is to stop 'back room deals", and stop people from hopping the line on a request.  It's for things like "hey, could you store my character", or "Are there openings for so and so?".

It is meant to standardize communication.  Some staff (like me) don't mind talking with folks in DM's, some staff don't want to.  Some staff don't even use Discord much.  It's not fair if clan A has quick, easy access to their staffer through DM's vs clan B where they only use the request tool.

It is meant to reduce favoritism.  If my friend is in a clan I oversee, it makes it easy for them to ask him to do this one quick thing.  That's not fair to other players who aren't my friend.

It is not meant to stop staff from talking to a friend, or discussing the game from a player point of view.  It is OK to bring up a 'sensitive' topic with a staffer in DM's, but if starts to involve game business (build these items, store this character, etc), they should direct you to the request tool.  If you want to informally talk to a staffer about something, that's fine, but they should not be conducting any business through DM's.

[Ath]

I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.

Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.

I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?

This is why I like the change with us Sending to folks, it shows our sdesc to them so they know who's talking with them.  Honestly, this is how we tend to always communicate with players in an OOC basis.  As for Animations and NPCs, the whole idea of performing them is to make them seem as seamless as possible from the environment around them.  I know when I make a NPC, I try to make them as close to seeming like a PC as possible so that I can blending.  I don't want it to be jarring, I want it to just add to the experience.  Knowing it is an animation, that it's a staff member blaringly, I feel it would be remove for the experience.  I don't have a problem with after it is all done and all, with someone going "wish Who do I have to thank for the animation?" "send player Oh yeah, that was me, hope you enjoyed!" but that's personal preference.

[Halaster]

Added this to sub-clause [2] of the contract:

Exceptions for players who are unable to use the request tool for some reason, such as physical or technical limitations, are acceptable, as are sensitive topics where the player does not want a larger audience viewing the request.

[Brisket]

We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding.  But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.

There's actually a combination of two spells (and barrier) that can make you fully invisible to 100% of PCs.  It would be trivial to just place those on your staff bit in a permanent capacity.  If you'd like me to tell you what they are, feel free to DM.

Or heck, just let people see that you're there and around in a room 95% of the time, like most RP games handle it - I don't think anyone is going to be too bothered by a staffer's presence even if you're swinging through a few times.  And there's not really much to be gained from being stealth mode except continuing the artificially hierarchical separation of Staff and Players rather than acknowledging them as the same group, all building a world together.

[LindseyBalboa]

I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.

I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)

There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.

tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?

[MarshallDFX]

Added this to sub-clause [2] of the contract:

Exceptions for players who are unable to use the request tool for some reason, such as physical or technical limitations, are acceptable, as are sensitive topics where the player does not want a larger audience viewing the request.

Makes sense.. I think a very useful exception should be trying to provide rapid response/personal attention to newbies who  appear in the #help chat and need handholding.  I know there are also helpers for that though they don't have the ability to check on requests.  I see those as key moments to gain a new player.

[CirclelessBard]

I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.

Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.

I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?

This is why I like the change with us Sending to folks, it shows our sdesc to them so they know who's talking with them.  Honestly, this is how we tend to always communicate with players in an OOC basis.  As for Animations and NPCs, the whole idea of performing them is to make them seem as seamless as possible from the environment around them.  I know when I make a NPC, I try to make them as close to seeming like a PC as possible so that I can blending.  I don't want it to be jarring, I want it to just add to the experience.  Knowing it is an animation, that it's a staff member blaringly, I feel it would be remove for the experience.  I don't have a problem with after it is all done and all, with someone going "wish Who do I have to thank for the animation?" "send player Oh yeah, that was me, hope you enjoyed!" but that's personal preference.

I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.

I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)

There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.

tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?

I tried my best to be clear about why upfront transparency about who is online is important, as it gives aggrieved players some level of understanding of who was present before the staff complaint was even submitted. Currently, staff hold all the cards when it comes to explaining who was there or wasn't there, who knew or didn't know, etc. I appreciate that staff names are visible when they send messages to players but that is entirely separate from what I'm trying to convey.

Allow me to be a bit more frank. I apologize if the rest of this post comes off as rude - certainly not my intent. But I feel like I'm either being misunderstood, or not listened to.

The lowest point of staff trust, in my view, is not caused by the fact that Shalooonsh was abusive with the power granted to him, but that he was abusive with it and staff claimed that no one noticed until it was too late (i.e. until it was reported). As it stood at the time, players have no recourse to challenge this, other than to blanket-blame the staff in general for failing to monitor Shalooonsh, read IDB posts, read reports, and so on. Knowledge of who is online would have allowed a player complaining about Shalooonsh's behavior to know which specific staff members are potential witnesses to the behavior. Without that knowledge, players are forced to view staff as a monolith. We do not know, as a community, which staff need to be held accountable in the event that a staff complaint is improperly addressed and the complaint needs to be aired outside of the request system to achieve some measurable and just result.

To be clear, it is very encouraging that staff are taking steps to avoid this in the future. That doesn't address the role total anonymity plays in confusing players and making them doubt/question which staff are really "on their side" or not. If you want the playerbase to believe that staff are holding each other accountable, Step Zero would be showing the players which staff are holding each other accountable at any given time.

[Brisket]

I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.

I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)

A strangely hostile take out of nowhere.  From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet.  Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas.  Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.

There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.

You're conflating 'is able to set themselves Dark' with 'is always Dark' - no one is asking for the full removal of the former, but there is literally nothing to be lost in staff being visible in a room or on the who list.  If you're logged in building some stuff and don't want to be bothered, or you're idling while at work, it's a-ok to be Dark in my opinion.  It's a request for a cultural shift that staff be visible and present.  The point is building a community of trust, as with any shared world.  This isn't even a thing I care deeply about, but this is a fairly silly claim - on the games where staffers are able to be Dark, they still mostly aren't with few exceptions.

tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?

I feel CirclelessBard got to the heart of the issue.  An abuser (who hasn't been banned) was allowed to operate with impunity, and there's no way for players to know that anyone else was online to even witness things like rude messages (what he was removed from staff for) or animations/actions that benefited him and his friends.

Accountability is all people are asking for, and that requires transparency.  It sucks, I get it - things have the potential to be moving in a positive direction and having to eat crow in part because of the actions of people who were on staff previously, even years ago, is annoying.  But people aren't just whining and throwing a fit for no reason, they're letting others know what they'd like to see in order to feel that they've been heard, and that the game is moving in a direction that makes them feel safe and invested. 

It's easy to protect the status quo and point at anyone asking for something different so you can claim they're a troublemaker. I don't deny that there are likely at least a couple trolls, but viewing people making clear statements about what they want to see in public with names attached as adversarial is just more of the same old Armageddon.  And growing hostile and dismissive, as you did a bit in your post, only makes the conversation more muddied rather than helping it along.

Do you want the game to do well or not?  People aren't coming on here asking for hairshirts and flagellation, they want transparency and a cooperative storytelling environment.  Take a breath.

[Brokkr]

We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding.  But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.

There's actually a combination of two spells (and barrier) that can make you fully invisible to 100% of PCs.  It would be trivial to just place those on your staff bit in a permanent capacity.  If you'd like me to tell you what they are, feel free to DM.

It doesn't really matter. If you can't see an immortal, even if it is for ethereal or invis, they do not show up in who, currently.  So code changes would be necessary.

[Usiku]

It's also kind of moot. I get where you are coming from, but a staff member being online would actually have no bearing on them being witness to anything particular. We are not omniscient. Most staff are in their own little worlds on port, they are watching their clans, or talking to their team about plots, or teaching newer staff members things. They are not watching every little thing that goes on in game and that includes other staffers playing. They are also often idle or are working on a project, building, and are absolutely shut off from the rest of the game. The information you are asking for really wouldn't mean what you are hoping it would mean.

I have been on port for the last hour discussing a potential plot with another staff member and I have no idea what any single character or other staff member did during that time beyond who logged in and who logged out.

I don't really know what else to say except that we care about what happened and many staff, myself included, are still reeling. But there have been a lot of discussions about how we can improve accountability within the team. I know trust has been lost and it isn't going to come back overnight, but I'm confident that given time it will become apparent that we are taking this seriously.

[CirclelessBard]

At this point I am hopeful that staff and players can both move past the discussion of visible/invisible staff and discuss removal of staff from the game entirely for specific offenses. I think that for accountability purposes this needs to be addressed more urgently than visibility.

[LindseyBalboa]

I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.

I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)

A strangely hostile take out of nowhere.  From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet.  Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas.  Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.

Heya! I'd like to direct you to one line you wrote: "they want...  a cooperative storytelling environment."

Please keep that in mind, it's a great quote! If asking for clarification on what had started to read (to me, as noted) as incredibly argumentative was 'hostile' to your POV, that wasn't my intention. You may notice others have asked for clarification in this thread, as well, so perhaps some was needed. I'm very open to any feedback on better ways to communicate if you have any, and maybe from now on you can agree to leave the gaslighting tactics off the table? "Take a deep breath" is ripped out of the definition when thrown into a conversation to make someone look emotional, and accusing people of hostility or twisting words around falls right into that category as well. I'm really not the one to start attacking, especially considering OP actually responded and clarified very well.

We're all playing the same game. I have 0% interest in arguing with strangers on the internet about stuff they have strong emotional ties to, as a whole. This is literally just a game for me that hopefully will keep getting better as people (ed. including myself!) put time and input into it.

I tried my best to be clear about why upfront transparency about who is online is important, as it gives aggrieved players some level of understanding of who was present before the staff complaint was even submitted. Currently, staff hold all the cards when it comes to explaining who was there or wasn't there, who knew or didn't know, etc. I appreciate that staff names are visible when they send messages to players but that is entirely separate from what I'm trying to convey.

Allow me to be a bit more frank. I apologize if the rest of this post comes off as rude - certainly not my intent. But I feel like I'm either being misunderstood, or not listened to.

The lowest point of staff trust, in my view, is not caused by the fact that Shalooonsh was abusive with the power granted to him, but that he was abusive with it and staff claimed that no one noticed until it was too late (i.e. until it was reported). As it stood at the time, players have no recourse to challenge this, other than to blanket-blame the staff in general for failing to monitor Shalooonsh, read IDB posts, read reports, and so on. Knowledge of who is online would have allowed a player complaining about Shalooonsh's behavior to know which specific staff members are potential witnesses to the behavior. Without that knowledge, players are forced to view staff as a monolith. We do not know, as a community, which staff need to be held accountable in the event that a staff complaint is improperly addressed and the complaint needs to be aired outside of the request system to achieve some measurable and just result.

To be clear, it is very encouraging that staff are taking steps to avoid this in the future. That doesn't address the role total anonymity plays in confusing players and making them doubt/question which staff are really "on their side" or not. If you want the playerbase to believe that staff are holding each other accountable, Step Zero would be showing the players which staff are holding each other accountable at any given time.

I 100% appreciate the clarification, and this is really helpful in understanding the whole thread. It didn't come off rude to me. I guess what I'm not understanding is how all online staff being visible helps keep them accountable, when every interaction with staff is known to the player now? There aren't anonymous interactions. Codifying that as a 100% rule would be amazing imo, but I personally do not see the addition of (mostly) all staff being visible at (mostly) all times as solving more issues than that, without adding more problems for staff that do have to be weighed.

That being said, as noted before, I am a newer player and I don't have the same overwhelming sense of emotional betrayal that a lot of players seem to have. I may not be able to see or understand the needs of such players, and that obviously in no way invalidates their feelings any more than my opinion is invalidated. So Devil's advocate and in agreement after the clarification, I will note that I have seen other feedback in Discord and on GDB that when staff IS visible generally, players DO feel like they have a better connection to staff/more trust in staff.

Keeping that in mind, I could see the ROI on a specific staff role being visible when they're logged in as worthwhile, if it did actually engender more trust in the 'establishment' of staff.

Tangentially, it reads to me that maybe almost a larger issue is the staff member's fate or lack of public punishment after being found to be cheating and abusive? That is something I have seen elsewhere repeatedly, as well, is a very heavy interest in closure there - as well as defined closure if that is every repeated. (edited to add: that may have been addressed actually https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59229.msg1090322/boardseen.html#new)

[Patuk]

We are not omniscient.

So, you weren't on staff for this event I don't think, but let's talk about an example of why that rings hollow to some - Kitanius Valika.

You have someone who's already administrator go on to play a sorcerous dragonthrall adventurer noble. This is, frankly, already in extremely bad taste. But let's grant that nobody notices this. Not the game's three producers. Not the entire southern team. Not a soul in the independent team questions why this guy hobnobs with all the Thryzn. This all goes by unnoticed-

And then there is a HRPT. There is an auction and people traveling to Luir's for this highly prized book of great evil and everyone and their mother scrounges cash for the bid. The south wins this bid... Due in large part because the aforementioned sorcerous dragonthrall adventurer noble pulling a brick of cash out of his ass. In a HRPT. In the sorts of event that, frankly, is going to be the one with the most people paying attention. Whereupon the Allanaki PC noble who made the bid later then loses said same book, too, which again seems to go unnoticed.

This isn't just being idle or working on pet projects, this is broken. I don't intend to call anyone a liar, least of all you - I think rather highly of you! But if I have to believe fifteen-odd people telling me that nobody knew a thing, well, I'm going to wonder what all the secrecy and power and veil of mystery is even for any more. Up for judging what is right and wrong, such a team is not.

[Brokkr]

One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.

I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer.  Or a dragonsthrall.

But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC.  You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.

Is that problematic?  Yes.  Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken?  Also yes.  Was this the rule breaking?  No.  Would it be rule breaking now?  Yes.  Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.

[Brisket]

I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.

I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)

A strangely hostile take out of nowhere.  From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet.  Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas.  Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.

Heya! I'd like to direct you to one line you wrote: "they want...  a cooperative storytelling environment."

Please keep that in mind, it's a great quote! If asking for clarification on what had started to read (to me, as noted) as incredibly argumentative was 'hostile' to your POV, that wasn't my intention. You may notice others have asked for clarification in this thread, as well, so perhaps some was needed. I'm very open to any feedback on better ways to communicate if you have any, and maybe from now on you can agree to leave the gaslighting tactics off the table? "Take a deep breath" is ripped out of the definition when thrown into a conversation to make someone look emotional, and accusing people of hostility or twisting words around falls right into that category as well. I'm really not the one to start attacking, especially considering OP actually responded and clarified very well.

We're all playing the same game. I have 0% interest in arguing with strangers on the internet about stuff they have strong emotional ties to, as a whole. This is literally just a game for me that hopefully will keep getting better as people (ed. including myself!) put time and input into it.

I'm glad that, having been exposed to how it feels for someone to make a negative assumption about your intent in the thread, you are able to pull back and extend that same courtesy toward others.  You stumbled a bit when you tried to label direct feedback and earnest advice to 'take a breath' on the conversation and consider others' perspectives as 'gaslighting', but I'm excited to move forward collaboratively to help make this a better place to have a discussion with you and others.

At this point I am hopeful that staff and players can both move past the discussion of visible/invisible staff and discuss removal of staff from the game entirely for specific offenses. I think that for accountability purposes this needs to be addressed more urgently than visibility.

Absolutely reasonable.  Brokkr's recent post gives me hope with the new rules updates, and the latest staff board post also has some very good finalized changes.

[Usiku]

But if I have to believe fifteen-odd people telling me that nobody knew a thing, well, I'm going to wonder what all the secrecy and power and veil of mystery is even for any more.

I know it sounds a bit ridiculous when you say it like that.. but you're not far off the mark. It would be easier to understand if you knew how we operate. We are not, despite some claims to the contrary, a monolith or a hivemind. We are a handful of disparate individuals, with many different opinions even, all working on our own projects and also sometimes teaming up to work together on things.

If I had to take a wild guess at what happened, and I do have some insight because I wasn't totally absent for everything, was that each staffer just saw a tiny bit. Nobody had a full holistic view of what was going on. And any time one person saw a tiny bit.. well.. there was always a reasonable explanation for that tiny bit! And nobody realised that there was actually a whole bunch of tiny bits adding up to.. well.. you know. So as well as basically just shutting down all the various avenues that allow for things to go very south, we're also going to do better at communicating (with each other and with players and the community) and do better at holding each other accountable. I'll be honest, this wasn't a fun situation to return to and I am looking forward to actually getting back into working on the game properly. If there can be any kind of silver lining, it is that this has been a catalyst for actual, positive change.

[Seeker]

One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.

I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer.  Or a dragonsthrall.

But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC.  You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.

Is that problematic?  Yes.  Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken?  Also yes.  Was this the rule breaking?  No.  Would it be rule breaking now?  Yes.  Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.

Thank you, Brokrr. 

Obviously (pet peeve) I believe those awful types of behaviors should always have been recognized as rule-breaking and critically damaging because of minimum base-line communally held ideals of respect, fun and safety for the players.

I will still put it in the win column because apparently they are recognized as being not-so-okay anymore. 

Thank you for stating so.  I guess as Usiku says, "silver lining."

[SpyGuy]

If there can be any kind of silver lining, it is that this has been a catalyst for actual, positive change.

Thank you.  I look forward to having fun playing the game but also putting in the work I can as a player to make this a fun place to be. Staff have shown a lot of willingness to engage and I appreciate you all listening to player concerns.

[Patuk]

I apologise if it feels like I'm singling you out, because I really appreciate being able to engage genuinely. Still - you choosing to do so gets

We are not, despite some claims to the contrary, a monolith

I'd claim staff are a monolith pretty readily, yeah. This would also seem ridiculous, if the body of staff didn't labour so hard to make it look that way. When people ask why X or Y takes long, the refrain is that 'we don't all agree with each other'. When criticism is levied against staff, until now, the words wagon circling don't even begin to describe what went on. The staff contract - even the new, updated one, pretty much states outright that every staff member represents not themselves, not the MUD. So, quite frankly, the monolith looks pretty damn strong just from looking at that.

And sure. I get it. It's easy to explain stuff away. But you even agreed with me: things became extraordinarily ridiculous, and even the aftermath of that has to be dragged out for more than a month. Everything relatively minor, mediocre, or even large, in comparison to this, has been going on and may be ongoing still. I hate that all staff-side discussion about this has been invisible. I hate that pointing out behavior that'd be against the rules now, and highly fucking dodgy as of a month ago, got people banned. I hate that even now, as mentioned in another thread, mentioning just how people got banned is a rule violation. I hate that a producer preferred vanishing entirely over even trying to talk to people.

But.. Sure. Good faith. I like what I'm seeing even in those things I talk about, so - silver linings, just as you said. Just please do understand that 'no, really, we couldn't have known' sounds.. Likely as the flat earth theory, and that I - personally - can't shake the sheer contempt for having to take it at face value. I'm just not seeing it.

[Patuk]

One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.

I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer.  Or a dragonsthrall.

But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC.  You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.

Is that problematic?  Yes.  Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken?  Also yes.  Was this the rule breaking?  No.  Would it be rule breaking now?  Yes.  Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.

"It didn't break any rules" just isn't the excuse you claim it is, and it will ring hollow to so many people that not even your fellow staffers seem intent on denying it.

If rule enforcement were habitually concise, well done, and sharp, people might believe it. It hasn't been. And you know this because just last year, you backed up Shaloonsh himself for force-storing me, screeching at me, and threatening to dock my karma for breaking rules that are nowhere to be found on HELP RULES.

Just stop. Nobody believes the line that the rules say X. If you want to begin today, observe the rules in a way that, for once, favours players disgruntled and loyal, rather than anyone else. As-is it just comes across as the very weakest of copouts and it's more tiresome than anything else.

[Brokkr]

Not quite what I was saying.  The stuff around Resource PCs made it so they could not be subject to rules otherwise in place.  And unfortunately the guardrails that were supposed to be in place didn't work/weren't followed.  Not saying we didn't fuck up.  Just saying plot points you disagree with and point to breaking of the rules and how could Staff not know about didn't quite fall so cleanly into that. There were plot points approved for that character to follow, like meeting Thryzn so that it they could spread the knowledge rather than have other leaders try to keep it secret/have the potential so that settling in Allanak was one potential avenue for the Thryzn players as they made choices.

As for the other thing, we were sloppy.  Its kind of a shadow rule that people know about after playing leader roles, so then we assume everyone knows, and you are right, isn't in public documentation.  But is still considered a rule of sorts. I am not sure we will ever get to just black and white on everything, but I'll start the discussion Staff-side if that should be a public rule.