Re: Requiring alts for Clan Boards

[Gimfalisette]

a) clam documents

b) out-of-character notifications to clam members about your characters involvement (or lack there of)

c) clarification questions between the clam documents, staff involvement, and 'how to do the role and how others have done the role in the past'

d) IC information sharing to clam members when playtimes don't meet up.

IC boards could do this for the above:

- Clan (clam lmao) documents: Links to these documents on the website. Give clan leaders the power to create documents as well and put them on the website for their clans. For example when I was playing an AoD Sgt I wrote a "how not to abuse crim code and/or die to it yourself" post. Those kinds of things can just be turned into persistent documents for the clan if players were empowered and trusted.

- OOC notifications to players about your playtimes/absences: Put on the rumor board as an OOC post. That seems fine to me, just put an "OOC" in the title so everyone's clear.

- Clarifications about the role: I'm not really sure what this means, I feel like this is part of the clan documents thing. It could also go on the website as a joint staff/leader effort.

- IC information sharing: 100% able to be accomplished through a clan rumor board.

[Agent_137]

You already need to get board access to read the clan docs before making a tribal PC, hopefully you don't have to create an alt just to read them.

I imagine an exception to making an alt could be allowed as long as you aren't posting in the clan gdb, just reading.

Many clans also have separate subform for docs, but access can't be given exclusively to it because gdb admins have not created specific roles for them yet. Fix that and you don't need to mix documentation access with posting at all.

Documentation organization, maintenance, and security-management isn't really fun but it is important as long as we want to keep it secret.

[Nao]

There's also polls for RPT times and such on the clan boards. I don't see IC means replacing them anytime soon.

[Gimfalisette]

There's also polls for RPT times and such on the clan boards. I don't see IC means replacing them anytime soon.

Ehhhh this feels unnecessary to me. A clan leader could just look at clannies' general posted availability, check their own schedule, and check ICly with the two other clannies who are actually required for the RPT. In my experience as a leader, trying to poll clannies doesn't clarify anything, it's just extra paperwork. Make it fun and schedule it at a reasonable time and they'll show up for it.

[WarriorPoet]

There's also polls for RPT times and such on the clan boards. I don't see IC means replacing them anytime soon.

Autoclave the GDB and do it all in the InGame clan boards.

[Nao]

There's also polls for RPT times and such on the clan boards. I don't see IC means replacing them anytime soon.

Ehhhh this feels unnecessary to me. A clan leader could just look at clannies' general posted availability, check their own schedule, and check ICly with the two other clannies who are actually required for the RPT. In my experience as a leader, trying to poll clannies doesn't clarify anything, it's just extra paperwork. Make it fun and schedule it at a reasonable time and they'll show up for it.

What you think is a reasonable time may not be a reasonable time for the majority of your minions, or at least far from optimal. There's 20+ active PCs in the Byn right now, the polling option is frequently being used, and it's much easier to use it than go through 20+ posts about playtimes which are often vague, and will frequently not even apply on that particular day.

[Dresan]

A clan leader could just look at clannies' general posted availability

This could be made an IC command. Like change objective command but where people can post their time that allows leaders the ability to get a list of clan member and their posted availability in game. It may also be more convenient then reviewing a bunch of posts.

I would also add the ability for clan leaders to be  to use an NPC to automate a psi message to all awake clan members, 'All those who are not on wall duty, sergeant is calling a meeting at the mess hall. We got work, time to haul ass'.

A messaging system where the messages are delivered verbally by NPC, could be implemented in a building with cities/towns, the room just divided with booths, preventing message spam but not allowing too much privacy. This way people can listen to the messages and should assume someone is always listening, this will force people to get to the point, preferring meet ups, without too much unnecessary OOC in their messaging. 

None of this has to be implemented all at once but moving in this direction would help wean the community out of the need for OOC communications to organize the gameplay.

[eska]

If an RPT is outside my shared playtimes and I have the time for it, I could just show up for that RPT.

[Lizzie]

Handling it all IC when you have multiple clannies is just - not efficient, at all.

Roll calls are where people post their USUAL availability.  "Absent" threads are when people need to not be available when they usually would be.  Polls are for when clannies are technically available, but have preferences for longer (or even shorter) events. And then the unexpected comes up and someone who is normally /not/ available, becomes available. If they're not asked IC because they're not expected, then they might miss out. Posting on the GBD in their clan forum ensures that everyone in the clan has access to the OOC scheduling information and input.

If you have 10 clannies, trying to get all that information into an IC dialogue would take longer than the RPT itself.

[AdamBlue]

Don't like it whatsoever. Think should be reverted.

[Athapaxis]

For a long time I just joined the board for the clan but never posted.   Most have roll-calls now, which honestly I kind of don't like.   I'd rather meet people in game and have that be my only interaction with them.

My preference would be to just be able to join the clan board to get info and choose if you want an alt.  If you get targeted because you don't use one, then that's a consequence you choose to risk because you didn't feel like making an alt.   Am I missing something?

[talos]

...If you get targeted because you don't use one, then that's a consequence you choose to risk because you didn't feel like making an alt.

This is a new policy we are implementing because we want to reduce some risks to the players in enjoying our game.

As Usiku said:

...but given some of the concerning things we've heard about going on outside of the game, we're going to start trialing a new approach.

...

In-Game behavior and decisions should not be influenced by who is playing a PC.

It's against the rules to discuss In-Game events and happenings outside of the game, including sharing who you're playing, discussing your character's activities, or conspiring, planning and plotting outside of the game.

Players who engage in this kind of Out-Of-Character cheating aren't just spoiling the game for others, they're spoiling it for themselves too.

[flurry]

This new approach could help, though I wonder about its long-term prospects. Frankly, it makes me less inclined to play in clans, though I'm already pretty disinclined as it is for a multitude of reasons.

Has any consideration been given to unambiguously forbidding the practice of divulging who is playing which character? The language about this under rules suggests this is "discouraged" which is also the word applied to ooc coordination. Interestingly, these are the only two places where the word "discouraged" is used in the rules document. Yes, there is some clarifying text there too, but I think revising these rules might be helpful.

[Lizzie]

This new approach could help, though I wonder about its long-term prospects. Frankly, it makes me less inclined to play in clans, though I'm already pretty disinclined as it is for a multitude of reasons.

Has any consideration been given to unambiguously forbidding the practice of divulging who is playing which character? The language about this under rules suggests this is "discouraged" which is also the word applied to ooc coordination. Interestingly, these are the only two places where the word "discouraged" is used in the rules document. Yes, there is some clarifying text there too, but I think revising these rules might be helpful.

You can't "forbid" something that you can't enforce. They don't own Discord, or e-mails, or other forums, or facebook or twitter or whatever else. They're not police detectives, and it's not their job to play cop on their playerbase.  The only thing they have control over is that which they own. And that's the game, the Arm website, the GDB, and the Armageddon discord channel itself. They don't even have control over DMs in discord. They can forbid the spreading of this information on those specific things, but that's not where the things are being spread. And so - they discourage it. And they make it harder for people to play the "who's who" game.

[Kankfly]

Rather than preventing people from doing this, shouldn't we be encouraging people to seperate OOC from IC? I'm assuming that's what the RP advanced karma point is, including the 'player feedback'.

If staff and players can encourage and offer advices on how to improve one's play instead of adding new hurdles to discourage bad play, I think the game would improve.

[Jarvis]

If I have to make an account everytime I join a new clan I will fucking perish

[Kavrick]

I do too, actually. But, its unnecessary and can all be done IC, and mostly should be. Even RPTs should be announced IC, and discussed IC, roll calls are not important because half your roster doesn't even bother.

Not all can be done IC. Sometimes you need to discuss things that are slightly meta (as in ooc, like talking about changing history and expanding lore, not metagaming) and cannot be done in an IC manner, this is far more related to tribes than other groups, but it's certainly came up a lot for me.

Also, as someone who's off-peak, getting everyone together all at once is not always possible, sometimes it's just nice to have a forum where you can put up a question and have your clan-mates respond. I really feel like there's little reason to completely stomp out this option when it's convenient and practical.

[burble]

Is it possible to make everyone's posts on a clan board anonymous?

People could always write something like "So-n-So the ranger:" in their posts.

Consider the future players, not just the people today who are harboring grudges from days past.
No effort is easier than some effort.

[dumbstruck]

This mean that when posting with the new clan alt that's not your main account that you can now post current character art in the character art thread since that account shouldn't ever reveal who you actually are so it shouldn't really be really be breaching anything unless you're like posting a picture of a thryzn that never visits Allanak or something?

[Tuannon]

If I was worried about that stuff I'd just send the picture to Valkyrja and make her post it.

[flurry]

You can't "forbid" something that you can't enforce. They don't own Discord, or e-mails, or other forums, or facebook or twitter or whatever else. They're not police detectives, and it's not their job to play cop on their playerbase.  The only thing they have control over is that which they own. And that's the game, the Arm website, the GDB, and the Armageddon discord channel itself. They don't even have control over DMs in discord. They can forbid the spreading of this information on those specific things, but that's not where the things are being spread. And so - they discourage it. And they make it harder for people to play the "who's who" game.

Totally disagree. I've seen it done very effectively elsewhere. My point was that a rules document is a communication of expectations. It's an expression of core values. I'm only suggesting some reflection on what the rules document says to our players, particularly our new players, as long as we're trying to address the problems brought on by misuse of OOC info. That's my view; I have no interest in continuing this line of discussion.

[Lotion]

Totally disagree. I've seen it done very effectively elsewhere. My point was that a rules document is a communication of expectations. It's an expression of core values. I'm only suggesting some reflection on what the rules document says to our players, particularly our new players, as long as we're trying to address the problems brought on by misuse of OOC info. That's my view; I have no interest in continuing this line of discussion.

There are so many systemic problems with this game. Addressing this one is a good start at tearing them down.

[Kavrick]

Honestly it's a little shame it's even come to this. Armageddon is very much in a unique situation when it comes to how ooc is even approached. Through all the games, communities, roleplaying that I've done over the years and even now, this is the only one that happens to be like this. It's a real sad state of affairs that people can't really be trusted just to... Be responsible in whether or not they use alt accounts for things and not metagrudge people or ruin secrets. I have an alt account that I use specifically for clan forums, and that's always been fine, I feel like making a new one every time you join a clan is a bit much though.

Honestly I'd rather see the weird ooc curtain slowly dismantled but the Armageddon community is just so used to it being this way after 20+ years of such a system that I don't even know if the chance is possible. It's a complicated topic that I don't even know if I can properly formulate into words. Just be kind to eachother, I guess.

[Agent_137]

Honestly I'd rather see the weird ooc curtain slowly dismantled but the Armageddon community is just so used to it being this way after 20+ years of such a system that I don't even know if the chance is possible.

Hey, the Berlin Wall came down didn't it?

Quick someone deepfake this speech to address Usiku about the ooc curtain.   

[Kavrick]

Hey, the Berlin Wall came down didn't it?

I mean there's a chance, although this whole thing with forum accounts does honestly feel like a step back. It's lowering the curtain rather than raising it. It's really hard to convey the issue to people who've been using the system for so many years, as it's completely alien and there's the whole 'you can't teach old dogs new tricks'.

This all aside, there is something I want to point out. It's basically a completely proven phenomenon that people who have anonymity tend to act far more toxic and with less consideration for other people. 4Chan is basically the posterboy for this phenomenon. It's going to be a completely hot take, but if a player becomes known for acting shittily in game, the community knowing is apart of feedback that's supposed to correct it. This might seem extremely harsh, but if I can just play in a completely inconsiderate way, then die, and do it all over again anonymously, there's really no pushback for that behavior.

I just want to also say that this is not directed towards anyone. And when I say 'acting shittily in game', I don't mean just being an antag. You can play antags in a way that's enjoyable for people oocly, this is basically what every dungeon master at every table of DnD has had to do for what, 50-60 years?

Edit: Quick edit, just want to say that this also goes the opposite way. Sometimes in the past, I've joined a clan, joined a clan forum, seen someone who I recognized from a previous clan or something and just thought "hell yeah". Having a good reputation oocly is also going to make people want to roleplay with you more. And of course I don't mean collude, I just mean just recognizing someone in a clan forum and knowing that you're gonna have a fun time being around their character.