Let's talk about karma

[dumbstruck]

To answer the OP, I think karma in its current and past iterations is a needlessly hierarchical system, especially considering the size of the playerbase. There is very little need to distinguish between two players whose roleplay is high-caliber when one may have different slightly experiences than the other, or simply better luck when asking for a karma raise. This was just as true when the game had more players than it does now.

Many other roleplaying games assume trust based on a player's compelling interest in a role. Newer RPIs and MUSHes will more or less allow you to play characters as codedly powerful as a sorcerer or psionicist here, or as socially powerful as a noble or templar, by simply demonstrating that you understand what will be expected of you in the role. This is achieved by writing your plans for the character in the application, writing about what you feel you can bring to the game in this role, and promising frequent contact with staff. These games have few to no problems with griefers or otherwise poor-quality roleplay because the players of these roles work in parallel with staff to ensure they're always a net positive for the game. In the unlikely event that ceases to be the case, the character is simply retired - or in the case of games with rosters, the character may be given to another player.

Armageddon and several other RPIs do the opposite, and assume no trust until players go through the rigors of proving that they can be trusted. As seen in the past, this proof is only as sound - or as faulty - as the judgment of the staff member or members involved in determining a karma increase or decrease. Karma is simply not a good indicator of trust, not a good indicator of player skill, and not a good indicator that a player is contributing positively to the game. There are low-karma players who deserve more recognition, but simply don't receive it because they never get the roles they need to demonstrate that they deserve it. There are, as evidenced by the upheaval earlier this year, high-karma players who use the trust they acquired as a cover to earn a position on staff and be abusive from there. Karma is awarded, oversight is minimal or non-existent until complaints are raised, and then karma is reduced. This is not a system concerned with roleplaying quality, but with rewarding players and denying rewards more or less arbitrarily.

Put simply, karma as a system has always had faults. I don't think there is a way you can change the karma system to be "less" faulty - it will simply retain some old faults, and change some other old faults for new ones. Any karma system is going to be unfair, and I think trying to reform the system is basically a question of "how unfair should it be?" when really we should be striving for a system that is fair.

But if we really must have a karma system, the fairest possible karma system is one in which all karma is awarded solely on a basis of time playing the game actively (ideally automatically), and in which it is reduced solely due to poor conduct.

This encompasses literally all of my thoughts, including the ideal of what the karma system would be and how it would be allocated if it must be something that is kept, and why it is something I /don't thing we SHOULD keep.

[RheaGhe]

Now that the Karma discussion has moved from discussing possible changes to the abstracted realities of karma. I'm going to post a few things, flaws and benefits to the karma system in concept as it currently is.

Flaws
1. Communication is important. Communication is very important. However, as a flaw Karma reviews don't provide a corrective action at onset, and often, regardless of behavior, it's not worth the drama that bumping someone down Karma would bring.
2. Karma is relatively public. If you're playing something that requires Karma, it's pretty obvious you have that or near that karma. This provides an attack vector on anyone criticizing that players behavior.
3. Sociologically you've uplifted these people and given them a higher 'status' of sorts. And that can lead to entitlement.

Benefits
1. If done correctly, it could provide a solid set of standards for expectations of staff on player.
2. If done correctly, it could serve to modulate and enforce variety.
3. If done correctly, it could serve to motivate and inspire action to fit those standards.

That said, the flaws are currently present as those are more easily observable on a player side, the benefits are vaguely present.

But those are obvious, less obvious, is how do you make it a meaningful change? As many have said, most any tweak to the system, barring foundational discarding and rewriting of the concept. Will just be SSDD, same shit different day.

This means as staff you have decisions to make.
Notably the ones I see from a design perspective. And largely these will echo @Patuk's points but more succinctly and numerously.

Who do you target these changes towards?

That should be the first question. If you're trying to create an old boys club, then do so, many like that aspect in games. Are you trying to uplift newbies, train them, guide them, and create standards for everyone? Then why have those standards be gated by Karma? I'll get more into this later.

The second should likely be,

What do you want to accomplish with the karma system as a whole?

This sounds almost like a different angle of the first. And it is. Do you want a strict rigid requirement system, where you have to seriously, and dedicatedly consider every players actions, and if they match to your set of Karma requirements. That sounds fucking fury inducing to me personally. Or do you want a system that flows smoothly, where you glance over players, and mostly trust them to do as they will, except in cases where they step beyond where they're supposed to be?

the third should be,

Where do you see it in 1 year, in two years, and years later?

And you should evaluate these expectations yearly with your team. We said we wanted it to work like X in a year. And it's getting there, or not getting there. What do we do now? Do we revert, do we try another option, etc.

The final question is one you've likely answered already,

But why are you making these changes and why you've answered as you have?

Because if you don't know why you've done these things, perhaps more thought needs to go into them.



So I've touched on what staff should be doing. What about players?

I'm not going to admonish anyone in particular. But this holding 3 Karma players to higher standards is fucking ridiculous. Spoken as a zero karma player, Everyone should be held to the same standard, excepting fresh newbies just getting into the game. And in a certain regard, 3 karma players should not have any more standards held upon them than a 0 Karma player. Karma to me isn't a rank, it's a measure of adherence to, experience with, and knowledge of a system. Everyone makes mistakes, judging a 3 Karma player's actions as any worse than a 0 karma player's creates an atmosphere of bickering. Decrying they should know better, is exactly one of the issues I pointed out with the Karma system at present.


Expanding on the idea's I brought up earlier. It would also be possible to work advance start stat/skill boosts into a temp karma system. And I kinda like that. As I feel a lot of the problem that more experienced players have is that they've done the grind to midbie and beyond probably 6-80 times before. They don't want to do it again, and honestly, I don't believe they should have too. Having an accelerated start option that applies a template of experience based on your current class. And having it cost 2 temporary karma points in the system I brought up. I think would be good to alleviate a lot of feelings of grind.

[Gentleboy]

I think that sometimes you just find a class/character/race that just fits. You like it a lot. It's a niche that you are able to find a lot of joy with.

Sometimes, for folks, it's a half-giant or a mul. Or a dirty stinky nasty gick.

Players play from one D-elf clan to another, a lot. Cause they love D-elves. And each clan feels different while still keeping the arrogant and speedy-footed shit.

Half-giant and mul are polarizing, so a lot of the characters seem redundant. And I'm not sure if that's a player issue or just a race issue.

DWARF: okay, I think dwarf should remain zero karma. While the other 0 karma races are good, the dwarf is unique in it almost being a character study. Anyone who attempts to take on a dwarf has my respect. And I think a lot can be learned from those trying the race or interacting with them.

HOWEVER: City elves, that's a race I think you either need to be in a clan to do, or have a guide. They are tricky and isolating when no one is around. And if a new player rolled in as a C-elf? How long do they usually last?

[Windstorm]

But this holding 3 Karma players to higher standards is fucking ridiculous. Spoken as a zero karma player, Everyone should be held to the same standard, excepting fresh newbies just getting into the game.

It's a little more complicated than this just because higher karma roles can do things lower karma roles cannot.

If, for example, you are a templar, you could theoretically walk down a street in your city and murder almost every PC you see. If you are a mul or a magicker that can immediately go around destroying people with inherent coded power, you do have a responsibility to use that coded power with responsibility.

That, to me, is what "karma" or however one would title trustworthiness-with-coded-power should represent: taking the game environment and even the enjoyment of other players, the health of the game and the community into account. Not just going about flexing, killing, looting, or living out a personal murder/power fantasy. More karma doesn't mean you have to play differently, but coming into the game in an abnormally high-powered role should come with expectations of that role being used to express great roleplay, not just express a high strength score or superkillmove via nondescript player killing that no one but the killer enjoys.

That isn't how it exists currently, and I think that's what this thread is about. I do otherwise agree everyone should try to hold themselves to certain standards without having to make the staff - who already have to do so much - monitor it. How to do that exactly, though, remains elusive.

[RheaGhe]

But this holding 3 Karma players to higher standards is fucking ridiculous. Spoken as a zero karma player, Everyone should be held to the same standard, excepting fresh newbies just getting into the game.

It's a little more complicated than this just because higher karma roles can do things lower karma roles cannot.

If, for example, you are a templar, you could theoretically walk down a street in your city and murder almost every PC you see. If you are a mul or a magicker that can immediately go around destroying people with inherent coded power, you do have a responsibility to use that coded power with responsibility.

That, to me, is what "karma" or however one would title trustworthiness-with-coded-power should represent: taking the game environment and even the enjoyment of other players, the health of the game and the community into account. Not just going about flexing, killing, looting, or living out a personal murder/power fantasy. More karma doesn't mean you have to play differently, but coming into the game in an abnormally high-powered role should come with expectations of that role being used to express great roleplay, not just express a high strength score or superkillmove via nondescript player killing that no one but the killer enjoys.

That isn't how it exists currently, and I think that's what this thread is about. I do otherwise agree everyone should try to hold themselves to certain standards without having to make the staff - who already have to do so much - monitor it. How to do that exactly, though, remains elusive.

I can certainly agree with some aspects of that.

But as an example to my point. A slipknife mixed with any decent combat or wilderness stealth class would be an incredibly potent mixture. And require no karma. Should they not also have a responsibility to engage in great roleplay as well?

Why put the onus of that requirement on JUST 3 Karma players? That requirement should be on everyone. No exceptions, except perhaps newbies who might not understand the MUD they are entering.

Yes, a 3 Karma player has more access to fuck uppable things. But that neither reduces nor increases their requirement to roleplay well.  It is just the same as my own, when I play a particularly high power mundane. In my opinion.

Edit: Put another way. Hold everyone to the same standards, and don't enshrine a pedestal too any one particular variety of player.

[whengravityfails]

I do agree with Windstorm that Karma as it now stands is more of a gateway to trust with coded power, which really seems to be far different than RP standards. Yes, your slipknife can get quite lethal, but it will take far more time to train up to that point as opposed to a mul or a HG which can smear people out of the box (or a gick which will take more time to get to that point but can do a lot of things a mundane cannot).

Again, Karma=/=RP, which is why it's a bad metric for it. Expanding the scale won't help. It will still be a gate to coded power which will still be abused.

This isn't even getting into the very sticky mess of perceptions of favoritism which was the cause of many complaints so recently (past the ickier things). Something like awarding karma will always come with a level of distrust and accusations of favoritism. It seems like this would be an ideal "wipe it clean and come up with a new, better system" situation.

[RheaGhe]

I do agree with Windstorm that Karma as it now stands is more of a gateway to trust with coded power, which really seems to be far different than RP standards. Yes, your slipknife can get quite lethal, but it will take far more time to train up to that point as opposed to a mul or a HG which can smear people out of the box (or a gick which will take more time to get to that point but can do a lot of things a mundane cannot).

Again, Karma=/=RP, which is why it's a bad metric for it. Expanding the scale won't help. It will still be a gate to coded power which will still be abused.

This isn't even getting into the very sticky mess of perceptions of favoritism which was the cause of many complaints so recently (past the ickier things). Something like awarding karma will always come with a level of distrust and accusations of favoritism. It seems like this would be an ideal "wipe it clean and come up with a new, better system" situation.

Agreed on all of that.

It is a system that is needed in some respects, and as it's implemented now, not needed at all, as it's cost is greater than it's benefits.

I'm pointing out the absurdity that the system creates as well, when I say that you shouldn't treat 3 Karma players any differently. Because the system itself conflates itself towards that.

A scrapping of the general concept and rework into a system that would be functional to do as the GM's wishes describe would be the ideal. There is no need to cling to a mistake any longer than the realization of it.

Off to work a 13 hour shift. See you lovely people when I can. Next week includes between 43 and 50 hours of work at least.

[Veselka]

What about yearly per player account Karma nominations?

This would change the currency from being Staff driven to player driven — it would be in the form of a request, and a more verbose sort of player kudos.

Staff already does a yearly "Valenkudos" during February — why not do something similar for Karma nominations?

One per account — you make a case for someone to gain karma due to their play of a PC. You point out instances of their RP, and maybe even areas of potential improvement, but mainly why they deserve more karma.

This also excludes the nominator having any idea what a player's current karma might be — maybe they are max already. But maybe they have none, and this nomination puts them on the map.

Ultimately, yes, there is probably a way to game this. But Staff would be the arbiter rather than the nominative party — they just take under advisement player recommendation for karma addition.

[digitaleak]

I definitely think it's important for staff to have a system for documenting a player's understanding of the game and their trustworthiness with positions of power (codedly or socially).

If karma is that system, then yay.

The biggest take away for me after reading this thread is the need for having known guidelines detailing what kind of rp standards all players (especially high karma players) ought to be meeting.

*** one thing to note:

I think it's very important that people aren't shunned or punished for not meeting these standards right away (or ever) or for not executing them perfectly. Not everyone is going to be an amazing story teller and that's ok! All players deserve to experience great role play and an interactive environment regardless of their personal skill or creative abilities.

[Tuannon]

I don't think tenure has that much value for karma discussions, there are folks who have been here 10% of how long I have who add more to the game's structure.

And people seem to conflate the ability to create drama with the ability to run with other's plots and plans while still remaining in your lane.

[Trevalyan]

Part of the issue with leaving 'as is' is that we see RP standards as slipping. We want to maintain (or return to) a standard of RP that keeps us deserving of the RPI label. Another part of that issue is that we spend an awful lot of time on player complaints or 'coaching' of players when they do things that don't conform to the standards that our community expect. I would rather see staff spending their time animating with their players and watching and supporting their players (which would allow them to award karma) than be 'coaching' and dealing with complaints. My hope is that a more robust karma system would take care of a lot of the 'keeping up of standards' so that we don't have to keep spending our time doing that.

To summarise.. more time spent assessing for karma is the same as more time spent interacting with players which is what we WANT staff to be doing anyway = less time spent on player complaints and coaching. Potentially for a net positive on time/energy spent for staff.

There are two problems as far as I can see them after reading this thread:

1) Your playerbase has vastly differing, and often completely irreconcilable, ideas of what the karma system should be used for. They feel strongly about it because karma unlocks "interesting" character options, and often the more powerful races/ magicks.
2) A major impetus for changing the karma system is actually the coaching system, which theoretically doesn't link to karma at all.

If staff members don't like coaching people, all I can say is "well, don't DO that." If the overall game base is really determined to critique roleplay, allow a system of anonymous player feedback where staff can just relay comments until one party stops wanting it anymore. And if the players don't care, maybe staff should examine how much effort they want to expend on changing player behavior. Do what you enjoy doing. Watch the players, see what they do, and put notes in their player files to see if other staff agree with your takes.

Secondly, if you want players to more generally adhere to acceptable behavior, then fix the documentation. Let's focus on help files available in game or on the web site for now: a lot of players do not understand the basic code, never mind the full emote code. Without the GDB they would have zero chance at developing adequate combat characters, never mind good ones. Some if not many functions of the code are just about invisible: there's no HELP THEFT guideline for explaining stealing RP. And the Thief's Bible, which is quite pleasant as a whole, mentions NOTHING about vNPCs. Instead of repeatedly having to duplicate effort in educating players, simply put up help files. The GDB is an absolute nightmare of conflicting expectations, cruft from previous staff that no longer applies and perhaps never should have, and some of your documentation sections either need to be completely purged or built from the ground up. Ideally, players could put up versions of the files on the GDB, with the most liked/ helpful versions making it to "official" status.

This isn't focused on the karma system, but I'm beginning to think karma isn't your actual problem here. Reducing staff work on player coaching and bettering RP standards is what you actually want, and karma can be considered to be incidental to that. I personally like my player coaching and enjoy regular feedback when it's not solely negative. That's probably down to having very active, intelligent, and ultimately benevolent staff overseeing me. And while I don't have any karma, I'm not actually interested in it either. Good notes on my account should justify my mul Legionary more than any number of points should.

[MarshallDFX]

There is a lot of content in this thread so apologies for not reading all of it.

I think having a system that punishes *abuse* or very poor RP that negatively impacts other players is more important than trying to evaluate good RP.

Because evaluating RP is hard.

For that reason some basic thresholds to gatekeep options that can grief the game, with a more granular system of option timeouts is what I'd look at.  ie "no more elves until they actually read the elven docs"

PS let's all start at 0 and have a big RP competition wouldn't that be fun (edit to note this is not a serious thought)

[JohnMichaelHenry]

There are quite a few players here that have been playing RPG games for 20+ years that would probably give the big finger to anyone who critiques their RP. Therefore, as mentioned in a few posts above:

1) karma should be awarded automatically, and taken away ONLY with full transparency as to the reason.
2) if a staff member decides someone should be docked karma, at least two other staff members should have to review and agree.
3) No one that has been playing this game for RL YEARS and gained karma is going to want to start at 0 again.

I know there are a few players in this game that enjoy playing low-key, mundane roles that don't stir the pot. IMHO, those players are just as capable of adding to the game and playing their role well and should not be punished for it.

[Fredd]

I think that sometimes you just find a class/character/race that just fits. You like it a lot. It's a niche that you are able to find a lot of joy with.

Sometimes, for folks, it's a half-giant or a mul. Or a dirty stinky nasty gick.

Players play from one D-elf clan to another, a lot. Cause they love D-elves. And each clan feels different while still keeping the arrogant and speedy-footed shit.

Half-giant and mul are polarizing, so a lot of the characters seem redundant. And I'm not sure if that's a player issue or just a race issue.

DWARF: okay, I think dwarf should remain zero karma. While the other 0 karma races are good, the dwarf is unique in it almost being a character study. Anyone who attempts to take on a dwarf has my respect. And I think a lot can be learned from those trying the race or interacting with them.

HOWEVER: City elves, that's a race I think you either need to be in a clan to do, or have a guide. They are tricky and isolating when no one is around. And if a new player rolled in as a C-elf? How long do they usually last?

I'm this way with Aide roles. as I've once said 'I love being a Nobles HP."

But when it comes to karma reviews, the fact I play these High-rp, High political, high knowledge based roles is used against me because I haven't played much demi-humans. The last time I did a karma review I was 4 or 5 RL months into playing a VERY active noble. And was told "You don't play enough elves and such."

But demi-humans literally can't play the roles I enjoy playing the most. While I am at no point trying to say we need to change this. But the built in IC racism does make it so some people might shy away from picking those roles. And for some fairly good reasons that you shouldn't need to think to hard about to find.

I'm all for urging people to play more Demi's. But to require someone to play something that doesn't appeal to them due to less to actually do, or RL reasons, or a myriad of other reasons, in order to play other roles that  I do (i think I would make a really good HG player IE, and I've always wanted to play a Drovian) seems backwards.

[Halaster]

Some random thoughts on having a higher number of karma point (8 points, 10 points, 500 points, whatever)


Background:

The original karma system was put in place and billed as "a measure of trust that staff have of the player to play more difficult or high-powered roles".  Eight points were decided on and sorcerers and psionicists were put there and anyone could just play one if they had the karma.  It was our first version of the system and wasn't really more involved than that - a trust issue.

The 3 point system was introduced later and with it a list of criteria.  A very important thing to know about the 3 point system was that the -intention- was for most all players to eventually be able to get to 3 karma.  The karma decay timer was added to help prevent people from just playing muls or high-powered mages over and over, and psi's/sorcs were make specapp only to limit them.  What seems in my observations to be the case is that most people (with some exceptions) don't really buy into the notion that "most all players should be max".

There are several issues that staff in general have with the 3-point system.  Because the scale is so small, staff are reluctant to give karma and take it away, at least after 1 karma.  Because so much is at stake when a point is removed, it's pretty rare that it happens and the emotional impact that has is high.  Adding a point is a whole discussion thread and the player has to meet multiple criteria to the point where some folks are denied because maybe they didn't play a leader before, or some other single criteria.  As a result they're not allowed to play several options that they could conceivably do well.

Taking one away is equally as traumatic.  I'll be honest here and say that a lot of times things slide because removing karma is such a time and emotional sink.  People complain about each other "this guy shouldn't be playing 3 karma roles!" and want us to remove it from the other player.  But they fail to realize we won't just haphazardly remove it.  We have to talk to the player, have long discussions about it.  We -often- get a lot of emotional push-back, the player doesn't think it's fair, and it just turns into this big ordeal.  And that is emotionally and mentally draining on staff, much less how the player feels.


A higher-scale system:

Pros
- It's easier to award because each individual rung of the ladder has less criteria than a 3 point scale
- It's easier to remove because each individual rung of the ladder has less options that a player loses
- More opportunities for staff to 'award' for good RP
- More opportunities for staff to 'correct' for bad RP

Cons
- More staff involvement required in watching players
- More staff time spent adding/removing the points
- More staff time spent in working with players who lose karma
- People don't like change

The biggest cons to me are the staff time spent.  As someone pointed out (Najdorf I think?) it means staff are going to have to be on the hook for dealing with this more often.  I brought this concern up to staff as we have been discussing it.  Some solutions to dealing with that are that we allow staff to just add/remove points without the need for a karma review.  Players could still put in for one (maybe every 3 months instead of 6), but staff could also do it (and should do it) more spontaneously.

One issue we had long ago with the 8 point scale was that different staff had different ideas in their mind when a point should or should not be added/removed.  This led to inconsistencies, accusations of favoritism, accusations of persecution.  The biggest benefit to the 3 point scale was that it was added with a list of well thought out criteria, that was an attempt to try and make it more fair and evenly used.  If we moved to a higher scale of points, we should absolutely bring the concept of the spelled-out criteria with it.


Combine the two systems?

A combination of the old and new systems might work well.  More points to allow more granularity with the criteria of the lower point system.  Instead of having to hit 3 criteria for a single point, you have to hit 1 for the next point, or something like that.

You deal with the issue of staff workload by enabling individual staffers the ability to award and remove karma without a full review process required - at least at the lower levels.  But there is a well-defined list of criteria (like now) that they still have to stick to.  For example, Talia the Storyteller sees Amos doing well in his RP in regards to elves, so she can just give them one on the fly for "racial RP" without having to consult anyone else.  After a certain karma level, then maybe it would require an Admin+ to sign off on.  At the absolute highest levels, then it requires a senior staff consensus.

In theory the impact is much smaller, whether adding or taking away, so staff would be more willing and enabled to make changes.  In theory.

Note:  This text-dump is all just my opinion, and does not necessarily mean this is how things may go.

[dumbstruck]

I think there's a couple things here.

Is soandso trustworthy, yes or no? Most people can agree on this.

How trustworthy is soandso? < and that's subjective.

I think if there has to be a karma thing, it should be binary, they have either shown that they're trustworthy or they've shown that they haven't. You can make it relatively recent, let's say in the past 6 months. Then having karma reviews for every 6 months doesn't change. It doesn't increase staff work, if anything, it decreases it. I feel like you are going to continue having endless problems of time sink and friction and back and forth as long as you continue to try and objectify something subjective (the quality of roleplay and HOW trustworthy someone is, rather than just if they are generally trustworthy).

Start everyone whose accounts are a year or older with karma set, and let them keep or lose it at the next karma review time, and let new people get their karma automatically when they've been playing long enough, keep it until the next review time and then either keep it or lose it subject to what they've done with it in the meantime the next time it's time for a review. KISS. Keep it Simple, Stupid. It's a classic for a reason. (Sidenote, I'm talking about the KISS philosophy, not attempting to call anyone names).

Quick edit to add, thank you for laying that out, @Halaster. That's appreciated.

[CirclelessBard]

A higher-scale system:

Pros
- It's easier to award because each individual rung of the ladder has less criteria than a 3 point scale
- It's easier to remove because each individual rung of the ladder has less options that a player loses
- More opportunities for staff to 'award' for good RP
- More opportunities for staff to 'correct' for bad RP

Cons
- More staff involvement required in watching players
- More staff time spent adding/removing the points
- More staff time spent in working with players who lose karma
- People don't like change

The entire post by Halaster is a good write-up, and I want to highlight this part in particular because IMO the cons outweigh the pros by a significant amount - and not just of a more scaled karma system either. A less scaled karma system decreases the cons but the cons still exist. So the karma systems as they have been implemented throughout the game's history all carry these cons to a degree.

From what I have seen staff write in this thread and on the GDB in general, they want to spend less time policing/judging players, and more time positively contributing to the game's code and story. At the same time, players want staff to spend less time with staff acting as that inconsistent judge of RP and more time positively contributing to the game's code and story. It seems reasonable from that angle alone to say that the karma system as implemented currently or previously is not serving the game in a positive way. It serves to drain time away from staff who have to maintain the system, and time away from players who are taking years or in some cases decades to earn the complete trust of staff, if they ever do at all.

By extension, any moderate changes to the karma system - the number of rungs on the ladder, the amount of time and experience required to climb each rung of the ladder, what it takes to go up or down a rung - doesn't change the fact that it's kind of an old rickety ladder that's a PITA to maintain.

If, as stated before, staff want to improve the quality of roleplaying in the game, that needs to start with staff outlining what they actually expect players to do. If we are like an "interactive, collaborative story" as the website's front page says, then I think having some basic guidelines for collaboration in the context of characters with different coded/social power levels would be more useful than deciding how players' roleplay should be evaluated.

[Halaster]

stuff

I'm not against the idea of a higher-point karma system, 8 or 10 points.  I just like to try and think about it and lay it out all and weigh the options.  If we can potentially solve (or more realistically lessen) the cons, then I'm fine with a change.  As you alluded to, it boils down to weighing the pros and cons.

[Halaster]

I think a critical first step is to define what we want out of a revised karma system and what its goals are.

Do we want most players to be at max karma?  Or do we want only the best RP'ers at max karma?
Do we want karma to gatekeep high power?  Roles that are difficult to play well?  Both?

[dumbstruck]

Honestly? I hate the idea of gatekeeping power. The only people who have it are going to be people who are in power, staff and people who are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as having the favor of staff. Which means that every time they fuck up it looks bad on staff and brings into question whether or not staff are showing favortism, or what the judgement is. Especially for people who enjoy those type of roles (objectively do not abuse them) and yet are gatekept away from them for any number of reasons that can range from simple oversight to social anxiety preventing them from feeling comfortable to asking for points to actual malice or worse.

The only way gatekeeping power makes sense and doesn't call into account the judgement and rubric and all of that is if it's done by time or a rigid guideline that does not leave room for someone behind the scenes to cut the legs out from under the player without their defense, or uplift another without people knowing. Until then, I absolutely understand the endless chorus of people complaining about their objections of '3k players' - I bet that most of the ones doing it aren't '3k players' themselves? I am endlessly cynical though. I think that roles that are currently sponsored roles should be capped and apped into like desert elves are, with higher caps, like 3 in each house, @Halaster just to let there actually be a variety of concepts and ecosystem of the roles. Let there be the same with whoever, you know? Let people show with their play that they can't play something rather than the other way around, after they've been around for a few months and have a general idea of the setting. I think it'll make things more interesting and bring people around and add to the world.

[Riev]

I want to note that the "criteria" addition for karma was well before the flattening to 3 karma.

It wasn't one and the same.

[Trevalyan]

I think a critical first step is to define what we want out of a revised karma system and what its goals are.

Do we want most players to be at max karma?  Or do we want only the best RP'ers at max karma?
Do we want karma to gatekeep high power?  Roles that are difficult to play well?  Both?

I think defining the best RPers is going to have the problems all art criticism does. If it's done on a checklist, people will try to be confined to that checklist without taking narrative risks. If it's subjective, you have all the issues of favoritism/ cliques that such systems inevitably endure.

Then again, I also think that karma would be at its best simply gatekeeping the most powerful coded roles for people who would use them for the betterment of the game. Some fantastic RPers are not emotionally equipped to deal with constructive criticism, let alone deal with major crises from a leadership position, and such people probably shouldn't be trusted with major coded power. Conversely, some people who can absolutely make the game more interesting as leadership PCs are either mediocre roleplayers, or have additional controversial issues. Sometimes both at once. Either way, if staff want to keep most players from rolling muls, or sorcerors, or mul sorceror ninjas, by definition you shouldn't want most of the playerbase at three karma. And if most special roles/ races have to be spec/ role apped, it defeats the coded point of the karma system as anything but a scoreboard.

Also, keep the lower end of the spectrum in mind. Armageddon needs new players to develop, but if people spend six months at zero karma despite regular engagement with the world and no major issues? Either:

- they're incredibly patient and supremely confident about their role (not likely)
- they're new and simply haven't made enough of an impact to be noticed (often)
- they had previous issues with the staff and are not at the same level of trust

Without an indicator of staff trust, a lot of these zero karma players will simply go elsewhere if they don't feel like they're being recognized.

[tiny rainbow]

More encouragement of roleplay instead of less is a good thing and I would totally support staff doing something like this, coming from other avenues to Armageddon I sometimes feel like the RP can take a backseat due to the overstretched staff at times, it would probably be much better for the game to have more feedback back and forth, even if it's stressful at times, it's better than not saying anything, and someone has to or it's not fair on the people that are relying on the hope that things are being kept clean and fair, it's better to encourage those people than an atmosphere of "anything goes", right?

RP can only exist when everyone is treated to the same standard, and "maxed out" people have to worry as much as anyone else, so making up and down major pain points is probably not a good way to keep people motivated I think, rather than resting on their laurels once they "got it" - and it would encourage a better standard, a lot of us have those stories of sorcerers acting in cheesy ways etc but staff seemed to recognise that and try to take steps to make it less "raider new game+++ mode" so things are definitely getting better, but obviously it's not just sorcerers

Here's a log from July 5 2019

The Storm's End Spice Den [N, S, W, U]
    At a black silk pillow, you overhear the swarthy, dark-bearded man say in tribal-accented sirihish:
         "I was there to appreciate and nearly bid for the Drov piece.. I've seen your talent."
    At a black silk pillow, you overhear the dusky, feline-eyed woman say in an unfamiliar tongue, settling back into the pillow again with a grin:
         "oqatu oia. m'vq pyljiyu il re oyreny, oitge omo'uc eu qyaos mna mehlmimoeom ul lyna."
    Reconnecting...
    Reconnected.
    You notice: The swarthy, dark-bearded man's eyes flicker from a brief, distant look, back to the dusky, feline-eyed woman.
    You notice: The dusky, feline-eyed woman's gaze searches over the draperies above as she looks away from the swarthy, dark-bearded man.

These players were literally reacting to the OOC message of Someone has reconnected. I know at least one of them absolutely knew better, but part of the problem is having "roleplay is required" in the rules is very vague and messages like that should have on the end to make it clear, so people can't abuse gray areas: (OOC, do not respond to)

One thing also to consider though is that it also can be bad for RP if there's one person staring around/ logging all chat and all Sdescs that go in and out of the tavern (I've seen some people do this at city gates even, which feels really unfair since it's frowned upon to take action against AFK/linkdead characters) and make people avoid that tavern if there's someone idle bot-logging everyone that goes in/every conversation

If staff can get punished for doing things that don't break the rules, surely players should be too, isn't that fair, what's wrong with that Patuk?

If you look at https://armageddon.org/help/view/Rules it says under 1

Failure to roleplay and disregarding documentation can result in warnings, karma reduction, storage of your character, and temporary and permanent bans.

Hard to say without knowing what you did though? But I know people do tend to do cheesy things a lot so I have that concern as not a lot of staff are willing to enforce RP rules (and it's something is needed for the game to support people that are not code-focused, they need that protection against mindless twinkery stuff or no one wants to play in cities etc)

Maybe we just need a better https://armageddon.org/help/view/roleplaying on what is bad RP (I've said this a few times before all this but no one listened to me just like everything else, haha)? There's a lot of situations that can be hard to place and especially not always clear for newer players

⚫ Don't post things that people can use to identify your current character, the reason for this is to keep the sense of mystery and drama with the game's story, and protect players from OOC peer pressure or coercion:
• Don't post publicly about roles you are applying for or character applications - if you have a question, make a request on the website.
• Don't post comments, pictures, or videos that refer or allude to something that is currently happening or recently happened IC, for the obvious reason that it's often easy to narrow down who posted it.

⚫ Due to how the game mechanics can use keywords for The Way, don't refer to exact keywords when your character is speaking IC: For example when speaking to a Templar that "the rugged, unshorn man" stole from you: Don't say "the guy that looked unshorn" because there are many people in the game world that would fit that description, so it would not realistically work to pick out someone in a crowd or The Way. Instead say something like "The guy had a beard" (and any other details or clothing from their LOOK description).

• Similarly, if someone is wearing clothes that cover part of their body in the description (for example a mask, while their long description says their cheek has a tattoo), do not refer to the things that your character can't see. Armageddon does not have disguise code, you are expected to roleplay realistically what your character would know.

⚫ Don't use Contact to check if someone is online. Characters that are unavailable due to being offline is an OOC mechanic, and IC characters can be still contacted while asleep or working etc, so roleplay around that.

That kinda stuff. Things that help to clarify things for new people especially would be really good. There's way too many unwritten things, or things that the general public have said are bad RP but aren't told to newbies. Until we have that the game isn't really ready for advertising to a wider audience, because so much stuff is unwritten that it's hard to teach lots of people at once (like the Sseth-tide with Space Station 13)

[Halaster]

I want to note that the "criteria" addition for karma was well before the flattening to 3 karma.

It wasn't one and the same.

Thanks I wasn't 100% sure as the change from 8 to 3 karma happened during my 14 year hiatus.

[tiny rainbow]

demi-humans literally can't play the roles I enjoy playing the most. While I am at no point trying to say we need to change this. But the built in IC racism does make it so some people might shy away from picking those roles.

Oh Little jozhal in Luir's proved that ABSOLUTELY wrong come on. A lot of Sun Runner characters were very successful politically Just make a character application for <sponsored merchant role> in the Sun Runners.