Discussion of Staff Policies and Documentation

[Brokkr]

Starting a thread for the Policies and Documentation that are posted to the new board in the Staff-Related section of the GDB.

First up, we have a new Staff Contract.  This is what all Staff members must agree to in order to staff at all.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59223.0.html

[flurry]

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.

[Halaster]

It appears folks with the Moderator role can't follow the link directly.  It's pointing to the "Staff Policies and Documentation" section, Staff Contract post.  We'll work on fixing that.

[Halaster]

I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.

It would.

[Brokkr]

I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.

It would.

To clarify this, since the definition of harm covers both actions as Staff in plots as well as Staff PC actions, reputational harm would fall under the stuff Staff should not be doing as far as running a plot for that to be the intent of the plot.

When running a Staff PC and their reporting requirements, we would not necessarily need a report on reputational harm, as that would encompass a lot of normal PC activity.

[CirclelessBard]

I really like the staff contract that was posted yesterday and I'm very optimistic about how it will improve the relationship and level of trust between players and staff.

I am particularly pleased by the point that Armageddon staff are considered representatives of the game both on and off the MUD and sincerely look forward to how this will improve staff communication with the MU* community on places like Reddit, where the state of communication related to Armageddon has been, to be frank, disastrously misguided in the past. A clear policy on this will hopefully improve things in the future.

I'm also glad that it is clearly outlined that staff cannot use their position on staff to further the position on their mortal characters or punish or harass another player. If memory serves, a form of this statement was in the previous contract, but seeing that it has been reinforced is good. How do the staff (presumably, the producers) intend to enforce this rule? Will they monitor staff occasionally, or are they primarily acting on staff complaints?

Language on extended absences and the "job" aspect of the role is great. While staff are volunteers, the staff do volunteer to work to improve the game, and seeing that clearly stated is a good sign of things to come.

I have only two reservations and hopefully staff will be willing to comment on them:

1) Removal from the staffing team upon breaking the contract. This is sensible, but I do think that sometimes, serious breaches of the staff contract merit entire removal from the community, i.e. banning of the player account, GDB account, and Discord account. This would be especially true in the case of harassment of a player, where a staff member is making the community unsafe for one or more players to be a part of and could in theory continue behaving in that manner as a player. Would staff be willing to confirm if staff that have been removed from the team, either in the past or in the future, have also been removed from the game? I know that some people, myself included, are waiting for word on this with respect to recent events and are hesitant to rejoin a game that is still played by a specific former staff member.

2) Remaining invisible while online. I do think that visibility can play a major role in achieving total accountability and I hope this part of the contract is reconsidered.

Thanks for posting a stellar staff contract, and I look forward to hearing more about the staff's thoughts on feedback that was considered!

[Brokkr]

Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish?  I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish?  Or do you want something more?

To level set, in doing what we do, Staff are in the game world quite frequently. Whether it be making changes to a room, and an easier way of monitoring what is going on in a room, tagging along for a trip or RPT so we know what players are doing in order to time animations, fixing typos, and all sorts of other routine stuff we do. We do not want, and I am thinking most players are not going to want, to see us when we are doing so. The "at" command doesn't really effectively work for all, or even most, of the things we do. Having Staff avatars visible in the game world is sort of a no go, because it would really impact what we actually do as Staff.

[Ath]

Case in point, I like to follow folks around when animating, or to see what they are doing as a group.  It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.  Or there is a case where I'm running around Tuluk or Allanak trying to find that one damn NPC that was annoying the shit out of me because they had a single miss spelling, you'd be seeing this all around "Darth Ath the Hatenator flies in from the east" A LOT... and I would hate to jar any ones RP.  I do not want to do that, I do not want to harm RP if I can help it.  I already hate myself enough when I'm typing so fast to do animations that I misspell or screw up grammar.

Maybe we could do something along the lines of a "There are X number of staff available", and this shows folks that are not fully idle or something.  It is very common for staff to be logged in and just lingering or doing work here and there as they can.  For example, there is 9 staff members topside at this moment, not all active right now.

[CirclelessBard]

Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish?  I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish?  Or do you want something more?

To level set, in doing what we do, Staff are in the game world quite frequently. Whether it be making changes to a room, and an easier way of monitoring what is going on in a room, tagging along for a trip or RPT so we know what players are doing in order to time animations, fixing typos, and all sorts of other routine stuff we do. We do not want, and I am thinking most players are not going to want, to see us when we are doing so. The "at" command doesn't really effectively work for all, or even most, of the things we do. Having Staff avatars visible in the game world is sort of a no go, because it would really impact what we actually do as Staff.

Case in point, I like to follow folks around when animating, or to see what they are doing as a group.  It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.  Or there is a case where I'm running around Tuluk or Allanak trying to find that one damn NPC that was annoying the shit out of me because they had a single miss spelling, you'd be seeing this all around "Darth Ath the Hatenator flies in from the east" A LOT... and I would hate to jar any ones RP.  I do not want to do that, I do not want to harm RP if I can help it.  I already hate myself enough when I'm typing so fast to do animations that I misspell or screw up grammar.

Maybe we could do something along the lines of a "There are X number of staff available", and this shows folks that are not fully idle or something.  It is very common for staff to be logged in and just lingering or doing work here and there as they can.  For example, there is 9 staff members topside at this moment, not all active right now.

To clarify, mainly I'm asking for staff visibility on the "who" list. I don't think staff being visible in the gameworld would be necessary or productive in most cases.

Staff visibility on the "who" list relates to accountability purposes in the instance that a player needs to file a staff complaint about in-game staff conduct. The player can easily type "who", copy the list of constellations they see and place that in the staff complaint. It would help with complaint resolution if both the player and the producers know that staff members A, B, and C were on when staff member D allegedly did something.

[Ath]

At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there.  In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is.  Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion.  Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.

[CirclelessBard]

At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there.  In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is.  Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion.  Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.

I personally feel that an aggrieved player having the information of which staff members were online helps keep the staff accountable and honest with each other, the aggrieved player, and the playerbase in general. When the player knows who is online, staff basically have to be more frank and honest about what happened. Additionally, the less players know about what's going on, the more likely they are to blame the staff body as a whole or whichever staff member happens to be the unpopular "bad guy", which does not seem fair to staff.

I'm also hoping for staff to address my other reservation, but I understand that one is a bit more complicated and probably requires further discussion.

[najdorf]

My recommendation, add this item:

Staff members controlling PCs or NPCs shall refrain from engaging in any sexual intercourse, conversation, plot, or interaction, directly or indirectly, with any player. Additionally, they shall not engage in any conversation or interaction with any player that may target, force, or put another player into a sexual scene or intercourse[7].

[7] This includes any discussions, interactions or situations that could potentially lead to or pressure a player into participating in explicit content or sexual themes.

[mansa]

In my mind, there should be a few documents.

#1 - A "Rules" Document, which explicitly tells you what your responsibilities are, and what is absolutely off-limits.
#2 - A "Guidelines" Document, which gives you /how/ to go about being staff, including examples of how to communicate with the playerbase.
#3 - A "FAQ" type of Document, which gives more details on the guidelines and gives examples on how to go about being staff with more granular details.
#4 - A "How to run a Plot" Document, which gives you examples on how to create a story for players, and what to do and what not to do
#5 - A "How to create NPCs / Rooms / Items" Document, which gives examples on how to create stuff - and how items can be overpowered, and how creating a big-bad NPC creature can  total party kill with certain parameters.
#6 - A "How to create scripts for ArmageddonMUD" ...



In reference to this:

My recommendation, add this item:

Staff members controlling PCs or NPCs shall refrain from engaging in any sexual intercourse, conversation, plot, or interaction, directly or indirectly, with any player. Additionally, they shall not engage in any conversation or interaction with any player that may target, force, or put another player into a sexual scene or intercourse[7].

[7] This includes any discussions, interactions or situations that could potentially lead to or pressure a player into participating in explicit content or sexual themes.

I think it should be in the rules, rather than the guidelines.   [NPCs interacting with Player Characters]

I think in the guidelines it should state something like this:
As a staff member, while playing your own character in your own time, it is recommended to never engage in erotic roleplay with your fellow players.  It is recommended to always 'Fade to Black'.   [Staff Characters interacting with Player Characters]

[Patuk]

I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.

[Halaster]

I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59226.0.html

[Patuk]

I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59226.0.html

Oh, that's beautiful. The best change I've seen from the past month and a half. I'm sold - that's just what I wanted to see!

[Brokkr]

As Halaster pointed out, it is in another document.

The contract is what a Staff member agrees to when coming on Staff.  Table stakes.

Staff rules are something different.

[SpyGuy]

Out of curiosity, what's the plan for if a staff PC gets to a leadership level?  Just refuse?  I'm talking like a Corporal in the AoD.  Played well and for forever.  PC templar insists they become Sergeant after the last died, what's the play?

However, I do think this is a good idea to address many serious player concerns.  It's too easy to build player frustrations way in a closed and secret IC environment

[Halaster]

Out of curiosity, what's the plan for if a staff PC gets to a leadership level?  Just refuse?  I'm talking like a Corporal in the AoD.  Played well and for forever.  PC templar insists they become Sergeant after the last died, what's the play?

However, I do think this is a good idea to address many serious player concerns.  It's too easy to build player frustrations way in a closed and secret IC environment

They would be required to refuse.

[dumbstruck]

Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish?  I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish?  Or do you want something more?

It really feels like being unseen and unheard or completely discounted when the exact thing from you has been proven to be so unreceived by the top brass that it's like there is complete discount of hours of emotional labor repeatedly making the same point over and over again. CirclessBard, me, and others have repeatedly suggested this about online staff being visible on the who list specifically, and specifically to be in the who list so that who is on and active at the time is plain to the playerbase not the staff but the playerbase, when incidents that they have grief and problems with happen. That way they can put together patterns, and that way they can rule out who it might have been as well.

It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.

Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.

At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there.  In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is.  Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion.  Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.

The quiet part from the remaining playerbase that maybe needs to be said loud: If people trusted staff accountability currently without ACTIONS TO CHANGE IT, not explanations of how things work, but like, policy stuff, stuff that shows that the things that players say 'these are the things that show us you value our feelings and time investment, our presence enough at all to do what makes us feel comfortable to come to the table enough to alter something on your end'. Because the quiet part that never gets says loud is, how plain and obvious that the game is the STAFF's game, not the players, or even truly a collaboration. If there was, there would be a hell of a lot more transparency or care shown for things that prove to be problems or hurtful or desired/desirable by large chunks of the playerbase. Players only have 1 thing they can change to reflect of their trust and opinion and thoughts on the game and that's how willing they are to put in their time and vote with their feet in or out. They are voting.

I personally feel that an aggrieved player having the information of which staff members were online helps keep the staff accountable and honest with each other, the aggrieved player, and the playerbase in general. When the player knows who is online, staff basically have to be more frank and honest about what happened. Additionally, the less players know about what's going on, the more likely they are to blame the staff body as a whole or whichever staff member happens to be the unpopular "bad guy", which does not seem fair to staff.

I'm also hoping for staff to address my other reservation, but I understand that one is a bit more complicated and probably requires further discussion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Emphasized for the quiet part. 

[Brokkr]

Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish?  I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish?  Or do you want something more?

It really feels like being unseen and unheard or completely discounted when the exact thing from you has been proven to be so unreceived by the top brass that it's like there is complete discount of hours of emotional labor repeatedly making the same point over and over again. CirclessBard, me, and others have repeatedly suggested this about online staff being visible on the who list specifically, and specifically to be in the who list so that who is on and active at the time is plain to the playerbase not the staff but the playerbase, when incidents that they have grief and problems with happen. That way they can put together patterns, and that way they can rule out who it might have been as well.

If memory serves, not all the feedback on this was exactly the same. Some seemed aimed at not having Staff avatars in the room with them, as I specifically remember someone suggesting use of the "at" command. Given the amount of feedback and diversity of specific concerns, I am not really tracking who said what specifically. It seems to me btter to ask clarification than to assume someone is talking about one thing when they are talking about another, and in fact the respectful thing to do if you value their opinions.

It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.

Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.

We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.

[dumbstruck]

It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.

Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.

We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.

They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?

[Brokkr]

It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.

Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.

We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.

They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?

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.

[dumbstruck]

It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.

Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.

We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.

They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?

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.

Is it 2 pcs? A limit of 2 pcs at a time who could easily be worked around given they have their own private npcs to play with? Out of the entire game?

[Armaddict]

I think it's safe to say that they aren't comfortable with making that rule for themselves or it's under discussion, I doubt insistence is going to get you any further than just being a hound.