Let's talk about karma

[mansa]

Re:  Staff spending time to recognize 'good roleplay sessions' to give karma.


Perhaps we could deputize players with high karma and allow them the ability to 'tag' characters that they thought 'had a good session', like roleplay points or something.  This could be logged similar to the 'idea / bug / typo' command.   Similar to Kudos, but in game, and can help staff members recognize good sessions.
It doesn't have to echo to the target player.


The downside would be that it takes a few moments of OOC paperwork for players to 'tag' another with some sweet RP juice.

I believe other online roleplaying games have something similar, but I'm not exactly sure the mechanics and how often it gets used.

[najdorf]

While I typically steer clear from restricted roles, including psi/mul/sorceress, the advent of the new subguild system has further solidified my preference for 0 karma mundanes. My objection for such big scale changes is for my fellow players, because we have repeatedly seen in the past, when things change at this magnitude, it creates more detractors.

Someone who is now 2 karma being cut off various options will start having resentment, because s/he will end up 2 or 3 in a scale of 5. You might argue you will TRY to be as reasonable as possible in initial allocation, but that is NOT enough, even if you loose 2 3 players there, it is a hit to the game. I believe such is a churn risk that the community should refrain from taking.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to the 8 karma system; my issue lies in drastic changes. When the shift from 8 karma to 3 occurred, I expressed similar apprehensions.

What I claim is, proposed change from 3 to 5 promises only marginal benefits. Prove us otherwise so we can better understand.

- Noble / Family roles are already restricted & based on role call.
- Psionics and sorcerers are already restricted and lately based on role call.
- Having 3 scale to 5 and setting psions and sorcerers 5 is utterly useless because they are already restricted roles.

So what is the actual, functioning design here that could be better than current state? Is it only about magickers / muls and HG? And just to reflect my opinion on how subjective is magick scaling, thus it is pointless to spread is to a broader scale: Consider Ruk empower. Is it less powerful than a 3 karma role? Or does it require lesser RP standards? Definitely not to my standards. For instance, the constant ignorance of Rukkians about the earth trembling, causing potential earthquakes, even doing them in their apartments, is sickening to my RP standards. A Drovian is much easier to play because it is less sensitive to the environment.

And lastly, the idea of let's tackle the issue of identifying who is a better player first, then we can see how we will allocate karma options will be the worst idea ever. If we are in an island and there's only coconuts to eat, it is pointless to allocate open buffet golden stars to people. It will only cringe people who will get lesser stars.

[Fredd]

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.

That does sound fun. Let me add that to the 'to-do' list.

[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.

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

Not so much a Halaster dig, but just for the conver-sensation we have here that the idea of tying Karma to a set of criteria was before the flattening and included everything it does now, but it all was 1point of karma each.

When we flattened it, suddenly that became a list of criteria you could be judged by, but you could get to 3 karma and not embody half of them.

[Brokkr]

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.

Not so much a Halaster dig, but just for the conver-sensation we have here that the idea of tying Karma to a set of criteria was before the flattening and included everything it does now, but it all was 1point of karma each.

When we flattened it, suddenly that became a list of criteria you could be judged by, but you could get to 3 karma and not embody half of them.

It takes multiple criteria to go from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3.  Not just one criteria per bump.

I think a lot of people get told that karma is about trust, and ignore what karma really is, and why it is needed.

Karma is a way for Staff to not have to individually remember all the players.  It is a number that is shorthand for the institutional knowledge Staff have about a player.

Given our turnover and the small number of Staff that are longer term (5+ years), this becomes very important as we cannot rely on individual Staff member memories about any particular player over the longer term.

[CirclelessBard]

I think a lot of people get told that karma is about trust, and ignore what karma really is, and why it is needed.

Karma is a way for Staff to not have to individually remember all the players.  It is a number that is shorthand for the institutional knowledge Staff have about a player.

Makes sense, but doesn't everything that karma stands for essentially boil down to trust? Trusting the player to RP well, to take the world into account, to take care with sensitive knowledge about the game, etc.

Given our turnover and the small number of Staff that are longer term (5+ years), this becomes very important as we cannot rely on individual Staff member memories about any particular player over the longer term.

Is there a particular reason why a number on a scale is preferable to account and character notes? It seems that notes would be a more detailed form of memory storage than where someone is on a karma scale.

I guess I'm a bit confused, since it simultaneously seems like staff find the karma system useful while at the same time being miffed that it takes so much to maintain that system, to the point that it degrades the relationship between players and staff.

[Brokkr]

I think a lot of people get told that karma is about trust, and ignore what karma really is, and why it is needed.

Karma is a way for Staff to not have to individually remember all the players.  It is a number that is shorthand for the institutional knowledge Staff have about a player.

Makes sense, but doesn't everything that karma stands for essentially boil down to trust? Trusting the player to RP well, to take the world into account, to take care with sensitive knowledge about the game, etc.

Some may view it that way? I view it as behavior in the past, used as a predictor of future behavior. That takes the very loaded term of trust out of it. And while past behavior is a fairly good predictor of future behavior, as the small print says in the investment world, Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Given our turnover and the small number of Staff that are longer term (5+ years), this becomes very important as we cannot rely on individual Staff member memories about any particular player over the longer term.

Is there a particular reason why a number on a scale is preferable to account and character notes? It seems that notes would be a more detailed form of memory storage than where someone is on a karma scale.

I guess I'm a bit confused, since it simultaneously seems like staff find the karma system useful while at the same time being miffed that it takes so much to maintain that system, to the point that it degrades the relationship between players and staff.

The same reason similar things are used all over the place. While I could give you the idea behind the difference between a BBB and BBB+ rating, using that scale is a quick differentiator that lets a whole bunch of people know very, very quickly what they are looking at, with generally understood subjectivity in the scale.

[CirclelessBard]

The same reason similar things are used all over the place. While I could give you the idea behind the difference between a BBB and BBB+ rating, using that scale is a quick differentiator that lets a whole bunch of people know very, very quickly what they are looking at, with generally understood subjectivity in the scale.

And with the karma system, staff pay for that relatively minor convenience with all of the major flaws the karma system entails, as Halaster mentioned in his earlier reply and Usiku alluded to in the OP. This is after all of the rigorous testing the karma system has been put through over the years, demonstrating all of the same flaws it has today.

If the goal is to "maintain high standards at the top end" of the karma system as Usiku put it in the OP, then why are staff relying on a system that demonstrates past behavior when the goal should be to get assurances for future behavior - something that, with the karma system, can only be achieved through coercion (telling a player they will lose karma if they don't behave this or that way)?

Surely there are better ways to come to a mutual understanding between player and staff regarding what is expected from a given role, given how many roleplaying games do not use a karma system at all yet maintain a high quality of roleplay and minimal to no griefing.

[Riev]

For reference:

ArmageddonMUD operates a Karma system designed to open up the more complicated, powerful and RP challenging roles to players. Karma is simply a measure of trust that the staff members have in a given player's:

    Degree of maturity and responsibility as a role-player, as evidenced by playing roles realistically and acting responsibly with the code.
    Knowledge of the game world, and an appreciation of the way in which the various races, guilds, and so on, interact.
    Role-playing skill, as evidenced by role-playing in such a way as to show that they are really involved in the game world, and also enriching the game world for other players.

The karma file itself does mention that karma is a measure of trust that a player has role playing skill and acts responsibly to code.

It USED to be one criterion per karma, Brokkr. I did not say it did now.

[Classclown]

It would be nice to have more mundane options for karma, like experienced crafter, experienced grebber, dune trader with a (small) wagon, etc...
Also, I don't much like the players having a say in who gets karma. There should be a list of of checkpoints and if you meet them, you automatically get the karma. It would reduce time that staff has to worry about it, favoritism wouldn't be an issue.

[GreenTransient]

"Some may view it that way? I view it as behavior in the past, used as a predictor of future behavior. That takes the very loaded term of trust out of it. And while past behavior is a fairly good predictor of future behavior, as the small print says in the investment world, Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Brokkr


Let's run with this train of thought shall we? In the past.  How has staff performed when given power?  Love how trust only really matters one way, I personally don't trust them to manage a system where Karma is easily lost, without being abusive.  Any consideration to systems of checks and balances going in here for Karma droppers?

Sounds like a future of only people who don't ask questions, and do exactly as they are told by Staff get Karma.  With a little bit of, I don't like how you're responding to my player report responses so I'm also docking you a karma kinda thing.  0 Karma for life.

Massive thumbs down from me.  People skills should be necessary for handling the player population, not bigger sticks.  We are playing Armageddon, not supposed to be living in it.  I'm less concerned with if changing the Karma system improves RP and more concerned of it's likelihood to be abused.  You know, based on "past behavior is a fairly good predictor of future behavior."

[MarshallDFX]

Let's try our best to keep snark at manageable levels in this thread

[tiny rainbow]

I ask questions a lot and people know I'll try warn when it seems like something fishy is gone on, and I don't have that many problems really? I think I am probably one of the ones where it means more me saying that considering I uncovered the #moderator-chat leaking etc? I think the problem at the moment is not staff anymore but with the players :

Seen a lot of muls and maybe 2 interesting characters in that, same number for giants, seen a lot of minimum-length character description magickers that don't really have much impact on plots/the world other than casting spells it seems like. That to me is a warning sign, that something went wrong somewhere?

I would rather there are checks and balances than it just being completely hands off? More regulation of stuff is what a lot of people have been saying for years now with all the comments about these kind of characters, it's what a lot of people have said they want at this point?

[mansa]

I ask questions a lot and people know I'll try warn when it seems like something fishy is gone on, and I don't have that many problems really? I think I am probably one of the ones where it means more me saying that considering I uncovered the #moderator-chat leaking etc? I think the problem at the moment is not staff anymore but with the players :

Hi,  Lead moderator here.

#moderator-chat leaking happened within the first two weeks of player moderation, 2023/03/30, and discussed with the full moderation team, and a policy was created to prevent such things from happening again. 

The player affected, tiny rainbow, was apologized to.

The "leak" was when a player moderator said to another player, who isn't a moderator, in a private chat.
"Tiny Rainbow sure does create all the moderator reports in discord and on the GDB, complaining about all the other players and how they are breaking the rules and the moderators aren't doing their job."

The internal discussions were about "How does a moderator moderate, and still remain an active member of the community and speak with their friends, and what is allowed to be shared with other players about 'the ongoings behind the curtain' of actual moderation."

If you believe this has happened after the policy was introduced, please create a request in the request tool under 'General Discussion Board - Complaint or Appeal'.  If you're referring to the same incident from 2023/03/30, it has already been actioned and resolved. 

[tiny rainbow]

Honestly mansa I would say that the way the whole point of that sentence seems to have just kinda wooshed over your head there is probably a good reason why you shouldn't be in this kind of position?

(the point I was making is that even though I was harassed by a member of your crew who was NOT "actioned" in any way and is still a mod, it's common sense for literally anyone in that kind of role to not do stuff like that
- I was using that as a point to say that even in that position, I still think that things are getting better)

And if you're going to repost lies about me:
I didn't create "all the moderator reports", there was someone saying they were going to report every post by me in one thread, so I did the same about the posts they made which broke the rules. The player who they were talking to was the one who had been making lots of insulting posts breaking the rules, while saying they were going to report me. While the moderators ignored those posts and one-sidedly warned me.
(This mod was mansa)

[Fredd]

It seems like a lot of people don't trust staff, and want Karma to be automated.

I'm... Yeah I guess that would work for me. At least then I can work for it and know I will actually get it.

[tiny rainbow]

It seems like they're really trying to make an effort to deal with problems and talk things out more, an automated thing wouldn't be good because you can't automatically detect good RP it has to be a human at some point (chatGPT style stuff is not that good yet) - having more discussion would be good I think and the key thing is to just make it so people can talk without worrying about talking and that way bad things get dealt with instead of getting bottled up

You could still work for it and get it if there's a person, you shouldn't feel bad, I've seen your posts and you seem nice Just need to make it less of a scary formal thing probably for some people to not feel as put off from making comments

[dumbstruck]

It seems like a lot of people don't trust staff, and want Karma to be automated.

I'm... Yeah I guess that would work for me. At least then I can work for it and know I will actually get it.

I don't trust a human being to be objective. Period. I don't trust anyone to be completely objective with anyone. I think sometimes when someone tries to be very ethical they might try to outsource their judging but that that is still suboptimal to not having to judge at all when things can be objective. (and with problematic results dealt with as they happen)

[Riev]

It seems like a lot of people don't trust staff, and want Karma to be automated.

I'm... Yeah I guess that would work for me. At least then I can work for it and know I will actually get it.

I don't trust a human being to be objective. Period. I don't trust anyone to be completely objective with anyone. I think sometimes when someone tries to be very ethical they might try to outsource their judging but that that is still suboptimal to not having to judge at all when things can be objective. (and with problematic results dealt with as they happen)

This, combined with years of staff having too much to do already, is where I'm at. When it was 8 karma, there were 8 criterion one had to achieve. If you were found to no longer be adhering to that criterion, you COULD get docked. The issue was whether you were being docked because StaffA didn't like you, and HighlordB didn't care one way or the other but trusted StaffA more than any other player.

Boy its sure good we're gone from those times.

[CirclelessBard]

It seems like a lot of people don't trust staff, and want Karma to be automated.

Speaking for myself, I don't think this is really a question of trust or lack thereof in staff, but rather the level of trust in the karma system specifically and how players and staff will end up interacting with it.

It seems like staff basically want the karma system to give a reasonably accurate indication of the quality of roleplay a player will bring to the table, but it currently doesn't do that well enough for them right now, indicating a lack of trust in the system on staff's part. And players want the karma system to be accessible so that otherwise-overlooked players actually get a chance to play higher-tier roles, but the system doesn't do that well enough for them, indicating a lack of trust in the system on the players' part.

Having karma increase automatically with time aids players in achieving roles, but does not aid staff in detecting high-quality roleplay. It only gives them something to deduct in the event that they feel the caliber of a player's roleplay does not match the karma they've accrued. Like with the current karma system and the past karma system, an automated karma system just places the staff in the position of being the "bad cop" all over again, which historically burns through staff teams and creates a sort of brain drain from the playerbase.

What I think the goal should be is a game that does not need a karma system to achieve a healthy collaborative roleplaying environment. Ideally, every player should understand that the goal of the game is to contribute to a shared story. Players should understand that their in-game actions have ramifications on that story, and they should be held accountable in the event that their roleplay only serves to grief a player or the shared story. If that ideal can be achieved, then any player can be trusted to play any role, provided there are suitable guidelines for the role and there is enough room in the game for that role.

[Trevalyan]

Karma is a way for Staff to not have to individually remember all the players.  It is a number that is shorthand for the institutional knowledge Staff have about a player.

Given our turnover and the small number of Staff that are longer term (5+ years), this becomes very important as we cannot rely on individual Staff member memories about any particular player over the longer term.

While I'm grateful that this perspective is out in the open, it's why staff will have a very hard time persuading players to take karma reductions amicably, and why reducing karma to zero will be a relatively extreme solution. From this perspective, you'd be obliterating all institutional knowledge of a player who could have been with the game for years.

Given that karma has such an importance to the staff, it doesn't terribly matter what function it has for the players.

[Usiku]

I don't think anyone ever suggested reducing anyone to 0 so I'm not sure where this concept has come from. If there are any changes to the karma system, we would be aiming to transpose.

I have things to add, re. the purpose of karma but I need to come back to this conversation when I have a bit more time to give it the attention it deserves.

[Classclown]

I think any tiered system is going to foster resentment and mistrust for people who are higher on the ladder.
I don't think playing a mul, by the docs, is inherently more difficult than playing a city elf, by the docs, if you read the documentation and can stick to it. Karma should be automatic, based on time played and that's it. Once you reach the top, that's it. No deductions except for egregious cases. Put a limit on muls at any given time, magick users, and half-giants too maybe. Maybe one mul per person a year as well.

[Lizzie]

I think any tiered system is going to foster resentment and mistrust for people who are higher on the ladder.
I don't think playing a mul, by the docs, is inherently more difficult than playing a city elf, by the docs, if you read the documentation and can stick to it. Karma should be automatic, based on time played and that's it. Once you reach the top, that's it. No deductions except for egregious cases. Put a limit on muls at any given time, magick users, and half-giants too maybe. Maybe one mul per person a year as well.

There are players who haven't read the docs. Or have read them, and have trouble understanding the intricacies. Or have read them, and choose not to stick to it, and prefer to play the "exception" without ever demonstrating that they understand the rule. Why should they automatically be granted the karma to play those characters, then?

Why should someone who does understand and stick to the docs, NOT get the karma to play those roles, just because the automated system hasn't kicked in for them yet?

I much prefer a subjective system to an automated system, for that reason.

[Classclown]

Turn down "exception" applications for any pc. Play by the docs or not at all. Exceptions should be spec app only, which are limited to two a year.