2023 Karma Revamp Discussion

[Coda]

The current system has a list of 7 criteria, each with its own list of requirements, so it's not actually that far off the 10, but the examples/requirements just haven't been made public (I don't think?). Then those of you familiar with the system will know, you need one of the criteria for 1 karma, 3 for 2 karma and 6 for 3 karma. We can and do have reviews where players will tick off criteria without moving up a karma level. It means the journey from 2 to 3, can be very very long. It can take multiple reviews. 18 months? 24? More? Without getting to open up new options? Personally I think this sucks.

Now, a big theme prior to this announcement and a big theme of the feedback here has been around staff docking karma. If you hadn't gathered, we hate this, especially with the current system, you can be reversing something a player has worked towards for two years or more? It's a BIG deal. People who have had karma removed over the last few years (maybe.. 2 or 3 people?) will know the kind of things it has been removed for. However, we frequently have players complaining about the behaviour of some 3k players, not necessarily major things, but things which perhaps represent a failure to meet the expectations of our game and community. But their actions often do not warrant the loss of 3 separate criteria points. If you dock karma, then it's heavy handed and does not align with the system. If you were to remove the criteria point they failed to deserve due to their actions, they may not even lose the karma point if they have all seven criteria, they almost certainly wouldn't lose a point if they were lingering at the top end of 2.

Also, something our current system was lacking was really any expectation for any standard of RP beyond the very very basic. The RP point is awarded very early usually, for staying in character, for using emotes and so on. This player understands the basic concept of role playing. That is it. So if we get repeated complaints or observe, for example, that a very experienced player is failing to account for the virtual population around them? We absolutely expect our top karma players to do that. Why? We didn't give karma for that. So we can't take away karma for that. We can talk to them, but if nothing changes we still can't really do anything.

The current system does not really allow for us to remove karma at all, not in a way that is fair or in a way that could be fairly applied to all players. The current system has absolutely no guidelines or mechanic that we can follow in order to do this. We were fairly hamstrung. Now, we don't particularly want to take away karma, in fact we rather dislike it, but we had reached a point where a *lot* of players have 3 karma, not all of them were behaving well or representing the game the way players expected, and we were facing an awful lot of backlash from the player base about 'allowing' these things to happen.

Allowing karma to be removed in a way that is fair, easier and less impactful/dramatic was one of the requirements that needed to be met by the new system. It should be a fairly minor and easily reversible thing to go from 7 to 6 or 8 to 7 and so on.

This is the same effect as removing options from the guy who ruinously plays a spam-sparring half-giant Tier 1 combat+ruk_sub (character made up to show a combo that, frankly, shouldn't be allowed due to the level of nigh unkillable power it offers, not aimed at any specific player or character)  .

Reverting karma back to how it was before it was simplified to reduce staff workload is going to increase staff workload.  You have the power to remove options, and there are very clear examples of people playing characters that should have those options taken away (day 1 club-dwarf, as a past example).  It would be a much simpler change, and simpler system, to punish only the people treating the world like a video game rather than go through a changeover process with the whole player base.  I'm saying this as someone who has a lot of experience with this sort of change (albeit in a corporate and academic setting).  I know it feels like this is going to make things easier, but the proposal you've outlined is going to create an enormous mess for you, and slow everything down for an extended period of time.

Changes to systems like the proposed can and do occur, but they work better with a bit more planning and step-by-step shifts.  Staff are volunteers, and this is the sort of big sudden change that grinds people who are being paid to do the work into the ground.

If staff is going to make these changes, are y'all at least willing to talk more in depth with someone who knows how to manage and step through these shifts to plan it out?  Because the current proposal is... gonna break a lot of stuff and absolutely chew through y'all's free time in a way that is going to suck.  Trust me, I've seen it a few dozen times.

[CirclelessBard]

I think it's worth asking these questions of all of the staff: how do you anticipate your workload changing once the plan goes into effect? And how important will the influence on your workload contribute to how you assess the plan six months after it goes into effect? And for Storytellers: if your workload increases, is it worth the tradeoff of being able to award karma more freely as a show of appreciation to a player?

Since a few players have already brought up the workload, and Producers anticipate that this will decrease the workload, it would be nice to hear the general staff view of things.

[mirk_o_loio]

If staff want it, let them have it.

I, for one, am totally for spamming staff every three months with a lengthy karma review request, and I encourage everyone to also send one in as often as they possibly can. I'm sure it'll reduce staff workload and work just as they intended.


I also hate this change, a lot.

[Armaddict]

I think you're all proving in demonstration my point.

This is going to create a toxic discussion, because the entire purpose of Karma is misrepresented.  This is not a report card.  This is not an entitlement.  That culture arose because of a policy/slope of rejection being minimized.  The more this is embraced via 'clear definitions of advancement' that players want purely because of this misrepresentation/misuse, the worse this problem will become in both short and long term.

Karma does not need a report card.  And it should not be very static.  It should spike to allow for roles, linger in some cases, not in others, and go back down again according to what roles are there to be filled.

[MarshallDFX]

Shit I lost my comment by swiping on my phone.

My actual thoughts.

Full disclosure I don't play enough to care. I will likely be playing zero karma roles forever.

I disagree that human should be the only zero karma roles. I think these should have a warning for elf/dwarf that this is the game on "hard mode" please read docs, but not karma gated.

When I started I found the lore exciting and the possibility exciting. People hate being limited. Just work on better newbie scripts.

I get staff want to avoid negative interactions, but I  doubt this will do that.  I want to believe that if you had a system where people were generally trusted and got karma more freely/automatically but were punished "liberally" for bad play, it would still be less work than what is proposed. Cap somebody who is doing X until they say they understand and will stop doing X.  It means staff have to have the conversation.

Because otherwise you can turn positive people into negative ones by doubting them all the time.

I'm sympathetic that I doubt any karma system is ever low staff effort. No magic wand

[whengravityfails]

I admit that I hate this change and my feelings are subjective due to it but I'm mainly concerned over losing 20+ people according to the poll. Granted some may not but some who say they'll keep playing may just fade out. Some may not vote. Is that number smaller than reprimanding the bad actors, karma docking them, and adding new rules for losing karma as opposed to whacking everyone and potentially losing 20 or so players? I remember earlier this year when peak was around 15 to 20 people and it sucked.

P.S. This is the only post I'm making on the topic. I know it is futile and it's all I have to say.

[Kaathe]

My take as lowly ST is that karma in the 3 karma system was so hard to remove, people would literally get force stored and banned but still keep all their karma.

I'm not sure what it was achieving. But it's reasonable to use it to incentive RP. That's what I thought it was for anyway back in my day on the 7-karma system. So as an active player, this revamp feels more comfortable.

I'm really glad we got detailed examples for each karma criteria, and RP split into basic and advanced. Every time karma reviews came up I struggled because what the fuck even is 'Contributes to the game' in the 3 karma system?

I do worry about the effort of getting everyone reviewed and bumped back up from the auto-conversion, and the patience required on the player side. But it'll get done and then we won't need to do it again for hopefully a long while.

[Kestria]

I admit that I hate this change and my feelings are subjective due to it but I'm mainly concerned over losing 20+ people according to the poll. Granted some may not but some who say they'll keep playing may just fade out. Some may not vote. Is that number smaller than reprimanding the bad actors, karma docking them, and adding new rules for losing karma as opposed to whacking everyone and potentially losing 20 or so players? I remember earlier this year when peak was around 15 to 20 people and it sucked.

P.S. This is the only post I'm making on the topic. I know it is futile and it's all I have to say.

The loss of any player when our numbers have been dwindling is terrible.. the fact that quarter of those voting have said they will leave entirely, you'd think would be cause enough to stop it.. the fact that exactly half of who has voted on it this far have said they do not want it at all, should stop it.

The system would work.. if there was enough staff to player ratio, but there isn't.
I entirely agree on something being done to help who gets what roles.. but this clearly isnt it.

Offpeakers are gunna take the hit to this new system hard too, more so if you are in a clan when your staffer isnt around when you are.

My largest concern with the game has always been for the playerbase numbers.. we took a huge hit earlier this year.. even if 10 people out of those that have voted they will leave.. actually do... that is another hit. We should be bolstering our numbers not shrugging it off that more are saying they will leave.

[Coda]

My take as lowly ST is that karma in the 3 karma system was so hard to remove, people would literally get force stored and banned but still keep all their karma.

I'm not sure what it was achieving. But it's reasonable to use it to incentive RP. That's what I thought it was for anyway back in my day on the 7-karma system. So as an active player, this revamp feels more comfortable.

I'm really glad we got detailed examples for each karma criteria, and RP split into basic and advanced. Every time karma reviews came up I struggled because what the fuck even is 'Contributes to the game' in the 3 karma system?

I do worry about the effort of getting everyone reviewed and bumped back up from the auto-conversion, and the patience required on the player side. But it'll get done and then we won't need to do it again for hopefully a long while.

Just to, again, speak from the perspective of someone who has seen this sort of shift a ton of times: the time debt that staff incurs from this is going to leave you burned out.  Beyond that, you now have a detailed and over-designed series of parameters that you need to weigh future karma boosts against each and every time.  One of the main points that has been made by staff is that this will let them add/remove karma more freely.  Does this mean karma will become a more fluid currency, given and taken on a whim?  Because that's the message being sent- this is almost certainly going to create a series of complaints, pleas, justifications, and arguments from the players affected.  Any complaint will now need to have staff get together, weigh, measure, and adjudicate - it will then require staff to engage with the Player Council if they choose the Staff Complaint request type.  This will add tens of hours for each request.

What you're after, from what you said, is the ability to grant and remove roles as players (dis)prove they can handle them that doesn't let someone get banned, force stored, etc. and maintain their ability to play the roles they did poorly on.

Why not actually reduce overhead and simply remove roles alongside bans, punishments, and bad actions? 

You move up a 'karma level' and get access to new things.

You fuck up.

You don't get to play that thing for a bit.

That's it.


edit: Also, to Kestria's point, I am actually pretty saddened that staff is continuing to post positively about their unconsidered and ill advised plan that has a sub-50% approval rate, and a 25% 'I will absolutely just leave' rate.  We're meant to be in an era where staff listen to players more than they used to.  This is a Nyr level action.

[mansa]

Why not actually reduce overhead and simply remove roles alongside bans, punishments, and bad actions? 

I agree this is a problem.
But the players saying, "I will quit the game if you reduce my karma" is another problem.


I don't know the solution.  Conflict resolution, especially over text with anonymous people, is extremely tricky and often judged poorly.

[Coda]

Why not actually reduce overhead and simply remove roles alongside bans, punishments, and bad actions?

I agree this is a problem.
But the players saying, "I will quit the game if you reduce my karma" is another problem.


I don't know the solution.  Conflict resolution, especially over text with anonymous people, is extremely tricky and often judged poorly.

I agree. The domineering nature of the staff response and indeed the tone of the actual announcement echoes why I deeply dislike our Moderation team/system as well.  It's a layer of additional power granted to a small group of people who make the rules for themselves that detrimentally affect the rest of us.  Staff is going to drop plots, lose track of jobs, fall behind and get grumpy, then in their grumpiness point to the kafkaesque nightmare that they're designing so that they can avoid conflict. 

I'd much prefer if, in both cases (using the example of the moderation team as its relevant to you, and to illustrate how this is creating a similar issue), Staff and Mods treated this more like a community that they are participating members in, instead of a petty kingdom that they get to rule.  That attitude, in addition to the 'oh god, this is going to demolish your ability to do anything but this' warning bells going off in my head when I read the proposal, are why I have such a strong opinion.

[Windstorm]

The main complaints I'm reading are:

1. I don't want to lose karma/play options.
Re: This is a fundamental issue with the 3 karma system: too many people have maximum karma and by their current rules it's almost impossible to remove and reduce this number of people. Not everyone should be able to play all things at all times. Check out all the recent complaints about too many mages and too many this and too many that.

[Edited by Moderator]

2. I think bad actors should just be punished harder instead of everyone losing karma.
Re: This isn't a bad thought, but part of the point of this new system it that it enables the staff to punish bad actors. They've said this several times. The 3-karma system is part of what's making this not possible.

So they're fixing it! The staff agrees with you! Let's see how it turns out, okay?

3. I don't trust the staff in general. I don't trust the direction they're leading the game in. I want the staff heavily restricted from everything because I don't trust them.
Re: Nothing is going to fix this. Almost any proposed changes will always, by this sort of person, be rioted, doomsayed and naysayed against and the staff can basically not do any right because there's an axe to grind here that will always be in need of more grinding even if it's not related to anything having to do with the current staff at all. I'd be completely disregarding this sort of person by by now and they shouldn't be surprised when everyone outside their echo chamber is, also.

I'll absolutely take fewer players over a fraction of the playerbase that only makes things harder for the people keeping the lights on, turning away new players with their negativity, and generally just being a drag on the community.

[Edited by Moderator]

This is my piece. I'm not replying to any replies. Thank you.

[Coda]

Shit I lost my comment by swiping on my phone.

My actual thoughts.

Full disclosure I don't play enough to care. I will likely be playing zero karma roles forever.

I disagree that human should be the only zero karma roles. I think these should have a warning for elf/dwarf that this is the game on "hard mode" please read docs, but not karma gated.

When I started I found the lore exciting and the possibility exciting. People hate being limited. Just work on better newbie scripts.

I get staff want to avoid negative interactions, but I  doubt this will do that.  I want to believe that if you had a system where people were generally trusted and got karma more freely/automatically but were punished "liberally" for bad play, it would still be less work than what is proposed. Cap somebody who is doing X until they say they understand and will stop doing X.  It means staff have to have the conversation.

Because otherwise you can turn positive people into negative ones by doubting them all the time.

I'm sympathetic that I doubt any karma system is ever low staff effort. No magic wand

I wanted to take a moment to point out the wisdom of this post that I missed.  Staff would save themselves an enormous amount of time, effort, and stress if they were a little more willing to just have a conversation with their players, even (especially!) the harder ones.

[Edited by Moderator]

[Krath]

Windstorm:

1&2: Staff should evaluate all active accounts and have a conversation about where their karma level is going to be at and allow the player to rebuttle. Staff have been enabled from the start of the game to do this. Because they did not want to have those conversations is why we are where we are, in my opinion.

3. There is no direction for the game. There is no overarching storyline like in the days of Sanvean/Ness/Hal. There is no vision. If I am wrong, please post the link...Anyone.

[RheaGhe]

Having been party to many of those conversations on other muds. They often are just as frustrating for staff, except in an immediate visceral sense.

No one likes being told they are doing something wrong. No one likes having to invent reasons to stop doing what they had previously been doing.

[Edited by Moderator]

This is authoritarian sure, I can see that argument. I somewhat chafe under it, but I also understand that rules are necessary.

1. They are warning us. They are giving us plenty of warning to prepare.
2. They are allowing discussion, and taking feedback.
3. They are explaining the whys, hows and where the system begins and ends.
4. They are creating a system that is naturalistic, as opposed to one that is opposed to it. What I mean by that, is, do bad stuff, bad stuff can happen back. Do good stuff, good stuff can happen back. As Kaathe explained, often they have difficulties in Karma reviews, because they DON'T currently have definitive guidelines for when things are deserved.

My opinion is that the people who disapprove of it currently, will likely take a wait and see approach, and those who leave because of it, are likely the type to come back in a few months.

I am personally not one to see people cling to something they view as having harmed them. So I don't advocate for people to stay in any case.

Don't like the changes proposed, go away for a bit, wait and see how they work. Maybe see if they are tolerable too you. And then if they are? Go ahead and come back, the game will likely still be here.

@Krath, we cannot discuss IC events OOCly. But take a look at the roadmaps. There were several world scale plots that happened this year alone. If you doubt these existed. I can tell you they did. Without revealing any details.

[Krath]

Hey Rhea,

I hear what you are saying and staff have not said or stated anywhere that there is a long term vision/story for the game. Until they (the administrators/producers) do , there is not unfortunately.

The Vision should be public, the actual story, should be behind veils, but letting us know there is a overarching story would be sufficient. Does that make sense or am I rambling?

[papertiger]

Hey Rhea,

I hear what you are saying and staff have not said or stated anywhere that there is a long term vision/story for the game. Until they (the administrators/producers) do , there is not unfortunately.

The Vision should be public, the actual story, should be behind veils, but letting us know there is a overarching story would be sufficient. Does that make sense or am I rambling?

But isn't that the roadmap? Or are you saying you want some like super longterm vision promised? What would that look like?

"We plan to kill off everyone but humans in the next 5 years?" Kind of thing? Im not quite understanding what you mean by vision.

Do other muds work like that? (I have limited experience)


Edit - heres the roadmap Im referring to https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59492.0.html

[Windstorm]

I hear what you are saying and staff have not said or stated anywhere that there is a long term vision/story for the game. Until they (the administrators/producers) do , there is not unfortunately.

The Vision should be public, the actual story, should be behind veils, but letting us know there is a overarching story would be sufficient. Does that make sense or am I rambling?

It makes sense and I've personally encouraged them to make a mission or vision statement to this effect that changes can sort of be framed within.

Honestly, I think if changes like these were placed in the right context of an overall vision instead of just presented in a pile of rules, they would be easier to view in the light of an overall direction, goal, and "piece of a puzzle" leading somewhere that more people do actually want to see come to fruition! I genuinely believe that's what these karma changes are.

That's how I'm choosing to see it based on the direction of all the positive changes I've seen this year. I'm encouraging others to do so also, to have some empathy for staff, and understand that they're not PR professionals that know how to present everything with a rosy scent.

[Krath]

Hey Paper,

Apologies about the confusion on my end on the other thread, I was wrong.

As to what I mean: I would like them to say two things:

1. We have an overarching story we are trying to tell and the end result will be determined by the actions of the playerbase. The items on the road map are part of the larger story and will have an impact.

2. For the vision: This is where we want the game to be in 3 years from a story perspective, community perspective and a structural standpoint.

[Coda]

Having been party to many of those conversations on other muds. They often are just as frustrating for staff, except in an immediate visceral sense.

No one likes being told they are doing something wrong. No one likes having to invent reasons to stop doing what they had previously been doing.

[Edited by Moderator]

This is authoritarian sure, I can see that argument. I somewhat chafe under it, but I also understand that rules are necessary.

1. They are warning us. They are giving us plenty of warning to prepare.
2. They are allowing discussion, and taking feedback.
3. They are explaining the whys, hows and where the system begins and ends.
4. They are creating a system that is naturalistic, as opposed to one that is opposed to it. What I mean by that, is, do bad stuff, bad stuff can happen back. Do good stuff, good stuff can happen back. As Kaathe explained, often they have difficulties in Karma reviews, because they DON'T currently have definitive guidelines for when things are deserved.

My opinion is that the people who disapprove of it currently, will likely take a wait and see approach, and those who leave because of it, are likely the type to come back in a few months.

I am personally not one to see people cling to something they view as having harmed them. So I don't advocate for people to stay in any case.

Don't like the changes proposed, go away for a bit, wait and see how they work. Maybe see if they are tolerable too you. And then if they are? Go ahead and come back, the game will likely still be here.

They are creating a labyrinthine system that will create extra work for them.  It's a-ok that you are fine with the changes, nobody has challenged your right to be so, you just seem to take issue with people having a difference of opinion, to the point of telling others to go away if they don't like it.

You and Windstorm seem to be arguing that the loss of those players is no big deal.

I disagree with that assertion.

[Edited by Moderator]

[RheaGhe]

[I believe] This strips beaurocracy from the process. Not increases it.  It will require less formality in either direction to change someone's karma.

You are of the opinion it will increase it.

[The current system is] where one can be told by staff, moderators, and fellow players to submit a karma review, and then be denied because they lack a qualification that is never elaborated upon.

You say you want to move to a system where if someone abuses a specific role, they lose access to that specific role? That does not work, in a coherent system, it would leave the person free to abuse other roles. What this system will allow staff and do, is to have a stable, and consistent method for determine whether or not a gain or loss of karma is a factor. And to allow that gain or loss to not impact enjoyment nearly as much as it would at current.

From what I can envision having experienced similar models of advancement of trust in other realms of media, this system will provide an opportunity to feel progression. And also provide an opportunity for meaningful discipline of people who abuse their trust, that we lack at current.

This is again, my opinion, but I find myself thinking about the system, and I feel, while it is not perfect, it is a reasonable compromise with relatively high up front cost to start in the staff review process, but also a much lower over all net negative for the playerbase going forward.

[Edited by Moderator]

[RheaGhe]

I just really have my doubts about staff noticing and analyzing everyone's play to the extent that this new checklist requires. The burden of staff attentiveness has increased substantially. Thus far, currently and in the past, it has not been my impression that staff maintains enough oversight and scrutiny of individual players to make such a formulaic karma process work. I think indies, off-peakers, and generally anyone who isn't playing a high-profile role is liable to fall through the cracks.

So write reports. Tell them what you are doing. Show them where your karma should apply. And send them logs. Having open metrics like this allows you to do that.

The burden on staff attentiveness is not increasing substantially. It's just shifting. It may increase slightly, but staff should already have BEEN on the lookout for these factors.

[Coda]

[I believe] This strips beaurocracy from the process. Not increases it.  It will require less formality in either direction to change someone's karma.

You are of the opinion it will increase it.

[The current system is] where one can be told by staff, moderators, and fellow players to submit a karma review, and then be denied because they lack a qualification that is never elaborated upon.

You say you want to move to a system where if someone abuses a specific role, they lose access to that specific role? That does not work, in a coherent system, it would leave the person free to abuse other roles. What this system will allow staff and do, is to have a stable, and consistent method for determine whether or not a gain or loss of karma is a factor. And to allow that gain or loss to not impact enjoyment nearly as much as it would at current.

From what I can envision having experienced similar models of advancement of trust in other realms of media, this system will provide an opportunity to feel progression. And also provide an opportunity for meaningful discipline of people who abuse their trust, that we lack at current.

This is again, my opinion, but I find myself thinking about the system, and I feel, while it is not perfect, it is a reasonable compromise with relatively high up front cost to start in the staff review process, but also a much lower over all net negative for the playerbase going forward.

[Edited by Moderator]

We're looking at a system with fifty four different parameters to be weighed, measured, and discussed when deciding whether to reward or remove karma.  I understand that staff believe that they will be able to just sort of go 'oh yeah, looks like they passed condition number 37, let's give them a point'. 

This 'belief' comes from rather a lot of experience in working with, designing, and managing changes in policy, training, assessment, and metrics across systems in my professional life.  I am repeatedly making this point because I have seen systems like this go forward, and can easily foresee the issues that will arise because they are common, and I have been doing this for a while.  It's a silly internet game yes, but that doesn't render it immune from the issues that come up when major changes that add literally dozens of metrics occur.

You're right, a person who abuses half-giants could go on to abuse dwarves, or ruks, or whatever else.  They would continue to lose access or, if it became clear that they were a problem player, they'd have a chat with staff about their behavior and/or be banned depending on the nature of the abuse.

I'm a-ok with you finding the system a reasonable compromise, I don't mind that and have no issue with you, I just don't see it that way.  I am bringing up issues that I see, and laying them out for others to engage with in the hopes that staff will see this and change course, because there are clear and obvious issues.


edit: I just want to say, stepping back, that it's really amusing to me that I'm posting this much about a text game.  I just can't avoid being a Cassandra when I see an issue.  I really hope staff take the voice of the majority of the playerbase into account, rather than just the people that agree with them.

[Edited by Moderator]

[RheaGhe]

Hey Paper,

Apologies about the confusion on my end on the other thread, I was wrong.

As to what I mean: I would like them to say two things:

1. We have an overarching story we are trying to tell and the end result will be determined by the actions of the playerbase. The items on the road map are part of the larger story and will have an impact.

2. For the vision: This is where we want the game to be in 3 years from a story perspective, community perspective and a structural standpoint.

I'd actually like this too. Something like each producer stepping in and saying, these are the themes for the next few years. These are the factions of focus. These are the character concepts that will thrive or contribute well to these plots, if they can get hooked in.

Maybe less long term, a yearly sort of thing might be nice.

I really dislike specific objective statements or resolutions because as needs must, changes occur.

I'd much rather.

"This is the year of tragedy, get ready for tears."

Than, "We plan to really up the murder count this year, by targetting friends and associates and playing them against each other. We're calling for the year of Bae-trayal. Kill your girlfriends folks."

I'd love them to set a yearly theme for development, story, and community. Appreciate you clarifying. Because it really sounded like something that they were already doing, or you were accusing them of being do nothings.

[RheaGhe]

This strips beaurocracy from the process. Not increases it.  It will require less formality in either direction to change someone's karma.

You are of the opinion it will increase it.

[The current system is] where one can be told by staff, moderators, and fellow players to submit a karma review, and then be denied because they lack a qualification that is never elaborated upon.

You say you want to move to a system where if someone abuses a specific role, they lose access to that specific role? That does not work, in a coherent system, it would leave the person free to abuse other roles. What this system will allow staff and do, is to have a stable, and consistent method for determine whether or not a gain or loss of karma is a factor. And to allow that gain or loss to not impact enjoyment nearly as much as it would at current.

From what I can envision having experienced similar models of advancement of trust in other realms of media, this system will provide an opportunity to feel progression. And also provide an opportunity for meaningful discipline of people who abuse their trust, that we lack at current.

This is again, my opinion, but I find myself thinking about the system, and I feel, while it is not perfect, it is a reasonable compromise with relatively high up front cost to start in the staff review process, but also a much lower over all net negative for the playerbase going forward.

[Edited by Moderator]

We're looking at a system with fifty four different parameters to be weighed, measured, and discussed when deciding whether to reward or remove karma.  I understand that staff believe that they will be able to just sort of go 'oh yeah, looks like they passed condition number 37, let's give them a point'. 

This 'belief' comes from rather a lot of experience in working with, designing, and managing changes in policy, training, assessment, and metrics across systems in my professional life.  I am repeatedly making this point because I have seen systems like this go forward, and can easily foresee the issues that will arise because they are common, and I have been doing this for a while.  It's a silly internet game yes, but that doesn't render it immune from the issues that come up when major changes that add literally dozens of metrics occur.

Snipping this right here. We're looking at a system with 54 different metrics that are indicative of 10 factors. Realistically, there's an INFINITE number of metrics that could result in someone getting Karma. They all basically boil down to, does this person understand 1 of these 10 factors enough that I can grant them this point.

Here's a few more I could see giving the player karma for some specific categories for.

Player properly ritualizes their racial trait.
Player narrates their magical abilities well. And properly places the relavent import upon them.
Player uses thinks complexly, whether in high stress situations or not.[/i]

You're right, a person who abuses half-giants could go on to abuse dwarves, or ruks, or whatever else.  They would continue to lose access or, if it became clear that they were a problem player, they'd have a chat with staff about their behavior and/or be banned depending on the nature of the abuse.

So, let's look at the feasibility of this system you're describing. How do you determine what's open to a player? Do you use some sort of ranking system? How do you determine when it's time to rank someone down? Does this go on top of the current system? Is this feasible in code as we have now? What do you believe warrants restriction from a role?

I'm a-ok with you finding the system a reasonable compromise, I don't mind that and have no issue with you, I just don't see it that way.  I am bringing up issues that I see, and laying them out for others to engage with in the hopes that staff will see this and change course, because there are clear and obvious issues.

No, you see, you keep posting the same argument over and over again, and I keep posting the same counter over and over again. My counter relies statements from the people who have experience in the system, the staffers. Your idea relies on a reaction to a change in the status quo, and claimed prior authoritativeness on the issue. Here's the thing, the bulk of your claim is that this will create more work. The bulk of mine, is that the people with actual experience have stated that your claim is not actually true in this case.

Look, you may or may not, I'm not contesting it, have experience making these kinds of policy changes in workplace, or institutional environments. We're not institutional. We're a bunch of idiots playing a text game myself included.

edit: I just want to say, stepping back, that it's really amusing to me that I'm posting this much about a text game.  I just can't avoid being a Cassandra when I see an issue.  I really hope staff take the voice of the majority of the playerbase into account, rather than just the people that agree with them.

I'm similar once I get stuck on an issue I get stuck on it. I'm hoping staff agrees with the future personally.

Because,

That poll is not the bulk of the playerbase. The bulk of the playerbase did not vote in that poll. Likely, about 40% did. Even then, those 40% are thinking with present knowledge, and not on the benefits this will bring to newer players. Which sticking to the current status quo, or altering it in a way without changing the lack of granularity will not provide.

[Edited by Moderator]