Quote from: flurry on November 15, 2023, 02:21:27 PM

Quote from: mansa on November 14, 2023, 03:40:47 PMScenario 6:
Player with 3 karma - playing a noble
* Hires an aide PC to help with activities
* Hits on aide PC in game, and gets rejected.
* Fires aide PC in game.
* PC aide creates player complaint.

For this one, if I understand the rules (which Patuk quoted) correctly, the noble's player needs to ask consent to take the roleplay in that direction. And then there could still be an IC rejection after OOC consent is granted. In which case I think the aide being fired is permitted as IC retaliation in the spirit of MCB.

If consent was not granted (or requested) then the storyline shouldn't have been pursued, and there's no IC reason for firing the aide. That combo would probably be egregious enough to justify docking karma, but I'm not sure.

That one is fairly cut and dry, which is rare with consent issues! But yeah, you pretty much have the right of it except in the second instance, if consent wasn't sought to pursue a romantic/sexual relationship (or was rejected), then the PC pursued it anyway and then was IC'ly rejected and then punished the rejecting PC.. not only would they lose karma, their PC would be stored and they would be issued a 30 day ban for the first offense, rising to a permanent ban for a second. This would happen if the PC had 'pursued it anyway', even without the retaliation. We don't muck around with the consent rules.

Leader-playing-players, please make sure you are fully up to date on your consent rules and that you abide by them.

Armageddon has a place for many types of players. When you are in a Sponsored Role, you are taking up the extra responsibility to understand these other types of players and their goals. The Rules clearly state that as a Sponsored Role/Position of Power, you were required to get consent, which you didn't do.

This is expected of our leadership, and if it is found to happen again, CONSEQUENCES_LIST.

Alright, how I would respond professionally is this:

QuotePlayer,

It has come to our attention that you attempted to make romantic moves towards CHARACTER B and failed to request consent prior to that.  Recently we have redone the consent rules, and it used to be that coercion was allowed in a power dynamic.  However, for a better experience and comfort of players we have now required that consent is required for anything of this nature. You're a leader so while you do hold incredible IC power, the power of using sex as a weapon is not one of them.  Thanks for your understanding, if you break this rule again, we will ban you for 30 days and force store your character.

My take per Usiku's request:

Scenario 1: Discuss with player. Accept the excuse the first time as no real harm was done. No need to think about docking karma unless it happens again - can't be allowed to keep happening though as they could end up doing some ridiculous things. Probably let it play out that one time as the Sarge getting totally hammered and making a scene IC which will then be dealt with IC.

Scenario 2: I'd see this as a karma dockable offence given their history and the general inexcusabilty of their actions. While telling a templar "fuck you" while in jail at their mercy is pretty much inviting a very bad end yourself as a templar you have to take the high road and wish up, report, etc. At the very least the templar should probably give them a bit of a scene rather than immediately going for the NPC smackdown. Wishing up beforehand is a no brainer - the player literally can't run away. Creating a PK report is part of being a leader. Not doing those things when you know you have to as a leader particularly after you've been explicitly told to as well (even though you shouldn't have to be told) should lead to a karma dock.

Scenario 3: Discuss with the player. If they do it again then karma dock as it's obviously twinky play.

Scenario 4: Not sure

Scenario 5: Nothing to discuss. Not a great scene for the other PC but the mul player hasn't done anything really wrong. If the mul can give them a scene before sending them flying that would be nice but with the code, the possibility of people using the way, etc. things just have to be done quickly sometimes and thems the breaks.

Scenario 6: Appears that consent wasn't requested which is a major issue and there's pretty dire consequences for you and your PC for breaking this rule. If consent was requested then no problem and it plays out IC just fine. I would probably have staff flag this rule to any sponsored PC leaders before they take on the role given the consequences of breaking this rule.

Scenario 7: Don't see an issue to be discussed OOC. Just let it play out IC. Seems like a bit of foolishness all round but staff can just run with it IC if needed.

Scenario 8: Probably merits a note to the player that they're expected at that level to create an actual character that contributes to the world and not something that just spams things. If they don't change then karma dock doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Though I'm not sure you can use mindbending skills incorrectly against other players unless you're treading some sort of consent issue line. Having played a couple of long-lived ones before there's potentially some wildly inappropriate things they could attempt but it seems like it should all just play out IC with some bad things happening to their PC most likely. My main abiding memory of playing mindbenders is how generally you're just one slip away from total ruin. If you want to run the risk of doing some crazy things then have at it I guess.

Scenario 9: Looks shady. Discussion with player merited and karma dock wouldn't seem unreasonable unless there was some good IC reason (doesn't appear to be in this scenario).

Given Usiku's request a lot of these are very vague, but I've provided a tersely worded summary of what I'd do as staff personally, in the proposed system.

Quote from: mansa on November 14, 2023, 03:40:47 PMI'd like to make up some scenarios and examples of "bad experiences" that players might do. 

You'll notice that most of the examples have a Player Complaint involved, or a staff member observing the issue.  This is because I assume most 'corrective action' that the staff members will be doing are actionable items based on a Player Complaint being filed.

The questions being asked are: 
* How should corrective action be applied in these scenarios? 
* Is it enough to lose karma? 
* What does that conversation look like?


And with that framing, here are some scenarios:

QuoteScenario 1:
Player with 5 karma - playing a Byn Sergeant
* Logged into the game drunk, and started barehanded sparring with the NPC gate guards.
* Knocked out the gate guard, and took their weapons.  Eventually logged out.
* No other players involved.  No player complaint.
* Non-clanned staff observed it, and noted it on their pfile.

Dock 1 karma for ignoring the world.
Don't really need to do anything else, warn them not to do it again though.

QuoteScenario 2:
Player with 6 karma - playing a Templar
* Went into Jail, saw a human magicker
* Asked the magicker why they got caught, the magicker said 'fuck you'.
* Ordered NPC soldiers to kill the magicker
* Did not wish up, Did not create a PK Report on the magicker.
* Magicker player created a player complaint about the incident, complaining that their special application was killed by a PK hungry templar.
* No staff observed
* Player was previously told to slow down on killing other PCs, and to always wish up beforehand.

In this case... Dock 1 karma from the templar as he did violate a previous order. And potentially either dock power in game, or provide harsher IC restrictions on in character use of power. Confer with templar, and make sure he knows this wasn't for killing the PC, but rather for his violation of a warning previously given.

QuoteScenario 3:
Player with 1 karma - playing a Dwarf
* Attacks an NPC in an abandoned building in the Labyrinth
* NPC starts winning, and flees
* Leads NPC into other Labyrinth NPCs who start a brawl
* Dwarf practices backstabs on NPCs fighting
* Does this multiple times
* Is observed by Guild Staff, notes in Pfile
* Another player creates a player complaint report about it.

Educate PC as to the respect for the world required to continue advancing. Elaborate on the processes they could have used to make that training more than just an exersize in mechanics. Preferably doing this before this type of behavior becomes common. Do this over wish, as the player might not be familiar with the requests system or sending more than month reports in.

QuoteScenario 4:
Player with 8 karma - playing a Raider + Magicker Subclass
* Casts a spell that prevents travel in the wilderness
* Creates a maze with this spell.
* Traps PCs in the maze, and taunts them.
* Eventually kills 2 PCs in the maze.
* Does not create a PK Report, does not wish up.
* Staff observed, but did not note in pfile
* All 2 PCs involved create player complaints against the magicker.

Investigate player, and investigate staff involved for collusion, disallow the staff who observed but didn't report it from staffing for that PC for a bit. And then dock the player 1 Karma for the relatively minor offense. Warn them not to kill people without wishing up or creating a PK report. And store their character if they violate that warning.

QuoteScenario 5:
Player with 8 karma - playing a mul + raider
* Captures a PC and throws them off the shield wall - they do not die.
* PC did not see any emotes besides threaten command.
* PC creates a player complaint
* Mul player wishes up before, and emoted / feel / thought out what they would do beforehand.

Inform the player harmed of roleplay that did happen. And that there was a wishup before hand.

QuoteScenario 6:
Player with 3 karma - playing a noble
* Hires an aide PC to help with activities
* Hits on aide PC in game, and gets rejected.
* Fires aide PC in game.
* PC aide creates player complaint.

Definitively against the rules, if consent was not acquired beforehand, mansa doesn't specify here if it was. If not, Dock trust/fair play karma from Noble. Store the character. And because of their inexperience, do not ban them.

That said, be sure to inform them of their rule break, why it occured, and solicit feedback on how to make this policy decision more favorable. Seek to turn this offense into a growth moment for the player. And if they repeat this again. Remove their ability to app for leadership roles or earn them in play. Until they agree to wield the power responsibly and avoid that behavior.

That said this is a situation that's very complex and nebulous, and dependent on details we don't have. The VERY first step would be to establish if consent had taken place. And if one said it did and the other didn't. Go to logs.

QuoteScenario 7:
Player with 4 karma - playing a GMH family member
* Templar asks where their ordered item are
* Tells Templar that they are banned from ordering items
* Templar takes GMH player to jail and steals their weapons
* Templar tells GMH player to straighten up or else they will be killed
* GMH player leaves city, and never returns.
* Templar creates player complaint against GMH player.

GMH character made a power play in a tit for tat, templar disliked, templar could do many other things. Such as hiring assassins. And doesn't need to flex his power himself. Templar should be analyzed for their relevant karma level, drop them down by 1, at most, if it's not just a case of frustration needing a swift kick to the side via a report response, because of inexperience or growing pangs. This is an IC matter, with IC responses still left in play. And largely staff doesn't need to intervene.

QuoteScenario 8:
Player with 10 karma - special app crafter + mindbender
* Joins GMH and starts crafting skills for GMH
* Doesn't leave GMH warehouse, only crafts and uses mindbender skills.
* Uses custom craft to create items requested by Merchant Players.
* Creates a report every two weeks about their special application character.
* Gets three player complaints about using mindbending skills incorrectly against other players.

Depends on the case. If the player complaints are logical, and well formed, cohere with genuine abuses. The number of them is certainly a warning sign. Investigate the players involved on both sides for any type of cliqueish activity. Make sure there's no OOC collaboration going on. Enforce them going outside and creating a plot with an ultimatum OOCly via a note. And then resolve the case itself.

It would be highly dependent on just what the player was doing with the mind bending skills. And how much it broke the theme of the game whether or not the mindbender was punished for it in a sane system. But certainly they should have the knowledge and knowhow to motivate plot. Potentially if they don't fulfill the ultimatum dock them 2 karma points. And store their mindbender. To free up the slot for more motivated players.

QuoteScenario 9:
Player with 9 karma - playing soldier + mountaineer
* Purposely fights creatures in the wilderness to get skillful
* Enters city, finds a merchant PC, and kills them, and steals their things, and leaves.
* Does not create a PK report
* Merchant PC creates player complaint.
* Investigation:  Player with 9 karma had their last 2 characters roleplay around the merchant PC, 1 was a former lover who was betrayed and killed in their apartment, and another was a competiting merchant who was betrayed by the merchant PC and killed on purpose by a Templar, bribed by the merchant PC.

Dock karma down to six or seven, store the character, and suspend for 2 weeks if it's the first offense of this nature, and offer a potential to the player of the merchant PC who was killed by them to have a free spec app PC in the next year or so. This is clearly an meta grudge, and is not something that a character with higher karma should be engaging in. It includes multiple violations of trust. And is not a good example that a higher karma player should set.

Regarding the noble vs. their aide: A possible solution (going forward) would be to include an ooc blurb on noble roleplay:

IF you intend for your noble to be played as someone who would be intimate with their aide, then you MUST make it a condition of hire, prior to hiring them. To wit: "I like having sex with my aides. Maybe I might want to have sex with you, Talia. Would you still want to be my aide? No? Then you can still be my minion but no, I won't be hiring you."

Consent to act it out would still be required if it gets to that point, as always.  But the condition of "potential sex" would be made part of the hiring process. That way no one can say "you hired me on false pretenses and I'm filing a player complaint because you're threatening to fire my PC for not having sex with your PC."

Quote from: Lizzie on November 15, 2023, 06:47:39 PMRegarding the noble vs. their aide: A possible solution (going forward) would be to include an ooc blurb on noble roleplay:

IF you intend for your noble to be played as someone who would be intimate with their aide, then you MUST make it a condition of hire, prior to hiring them. To wit: "I like having sex with my aides. Maybe I might want to have sex with you, Talia. Would you still want to be my aide? No? Then you can still be my minion but no, I won't be hiring you."

Consent to act it out would still be required if it gets to that point, as always.  But the condition of "potential sex" would be made part of the hiring process. That way no one can say "you hired me on false pretenses and I'm filing a player complaint because you're threatening to fire my PC for not having sex with your PC."

Personally, I find it bad form to hire someone for sexual reasons. I like Staff's answer for this.

If a sexual relationship develops between the two naturally, great. But hiring someone with the intent of sex being part of the job (and they aren't a Consort in Allanak. That's something I miss seeing more of. Consort PC's in Allanak) is kinda fucked. Because an Aide isn't a personal hole or pole.

The role of Aide is there fore a few reasons. 1: Running events and putting together plots requires wrangling people. And An Aide helps that a LOT.

and 2nd: Aide roles are how Future noble players learn to play nobles. (at least that's how I learned)

Here's my Policy / Parameters:
#1 System Enforcement:
Make the new karma system to allow for individual roles and perks to be removed from the 'Karma Ladder'.  Create the new system so you can have someone with 5 karma with no dwarf option, and get promoted to 6 karma, and still have no dwarf option.

This will allow for even more tweaks to penalities. Is it the role/perk that is disagreeable, or is it game habits, regardless of role/perk?  It can allow for options such as someone from "auto-approval" to "special application only" for karma role/perks as an alternative of penalizing them down a level.



#2 Downgrade Permissions:
The current karma brackets are:
1 - 5 (No Oversight Required)
6 - 7 (Admin+ Approval)
8 - 10 (Council Approval)

On the flip side, I would have the descending brackets be:
1 - 10 (Admin+ Approval)

There would not need to be a Council Approval to remove Karma for people with 8 karma. 



#3 Personal Touch:
As Coda wrote:
"Don't just send them a mail with their punishment, as is the current process.  If someone is messing up?  Talk to them.  Schedule a time or pull them aside and talk to them about the spamcrafting or ignoring the vnpc world, or whatever else, and give them a chance to explain while you correct.  This also reduces player angst when they've had the problem explained, and creates a paper trail about why it happened that will reduce staff time if a Staff Complaint comes up later.  You're empowering STs, a ten minute conversation followed by an account note isn't unreasonable to ask. "

I would add - Bring mortals to Denny's and have them sit down.  Go visible there.  Be honest and direct - let people know they've distrubed things enough that other players have complained.  Directly reference which Rule, or which Karma Guideline was broken.

People will have emotional responses, and those emotional responses will change depending on the time of day, how many hours they've slept, and the phase of the moon.  Sticking players in a no-exit room, and forcing them to focus up and speak with you will be tough on your soul, but you're also respectful in showing those players time and energy.

Quote from: mansa on November 15, 2023, 07:28:24 PM#2 Downgrade Permissions:
The current karma brackets are:
1 - 5 (No Oversight Required)
6 - 7 (Admin+ Approval)
8 - 10 (Council Approval)

On the flip side, I would have the descending brackets be:
1 - 10 (Admin+ Approval)

There would not need to be a Council Approval to remove Karma for people with 8 karma. 

Are you referring to the player council or some sort of council of staff members? I get confused here still with who's referred to as what.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 15, 2023, 06:47:39 PMRegarding the noble vs. their aide: A possible solution (going forward) would be to include an ooc blurb on noble roleplay:

IF you intend for your noble to be played as someone who would be intimate with their aide, then you MUST make it a condition of hire, prior to hiring them. To wit: "I like having sex with my aides. Maybe I might want to have sex with you, Talia. Would you still want to be my aide? No? Then you can still be my minion but no, I won't be hiring you."

Consent to act it out would still be required if it gets to that point, as always.  But the condition of "potential sex" would be made part of the hiring process. That way no one can say "you hired me on false pretenses and I'm filing a player complaint because you're threatening to fire my PC for not having sex with your PC."

This would be a bit disturbing to me because it would essentially close off beginner political roles to those who don't want to engage in romance RP. I don't think it's too much to ask sponsored players to just be sensitive to what the Aide role is meant to offer and ask them to put their personal preferences aside for the sake of the community. I imagine they would be happy (or should be happy!) to prioritize engaging players in roles they'd like to pursue over their own desire for romance rp. How it's done now seems best (making sure players are aware of added protections against power imbalance and that they know about consent). It also would make that romance extremely inorganic and almost place a bit MORE pressure on players to cave if they want that role.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 15, 2023, 06:47:39 PMRegarding the noble vs. their aide: A possible solution (going forward) would be to include an ooc blurb on noble roleplay:

IF you intend for your noble to be played as someone who would be intimate with their aide, then you MUST make it a condition of hire, prior to hiring them. To wit: "I like having sex with my aides. Maybe I might want to have sex with you, Talia. Would you still want to be my aide? No? Then you can still be my minion but no, I won't be hiring you."

Consent to act it out would still be required if it gets to that point, as always.  But the condition of "potential sex" would be made part of the hiring process. That way no one can say "you hired me on false pretenses and I'm filing a player complaint because you're threatening to fire my PC for not having sex with your PC."

Under the current consent rules, you already need to seek out OOC consent at the earliest juncture. So you need to OOCly tell this aide you're hiring "I want to possibly have a romantic storyline with this PC. Is that okay?" and if no, you must cease.

Quote from: papertiger on November 15, 2023, 07:41:25 PMThis would be a bit disturbing to me because it would essentially close off beginner political roles to those who don't want to engage in romance RP. I don't think it's too much to ask sponsored players to just be sensitive to what the Aide role is meant to offer and ask them to put their personal preferences aside for the sake of the community. I imagine they would be happy (or should be happy!) to prioritize engaging players in roles they'd like to pursue over their own desire for romance rp. How it's done now seems best (making sure players are aware of added protections against power imbalance and that they know about consent). It also would make that romance extremely inorganic and almost place a bit MORE pressure on players to cave if they want that role.

I agree with this, if someone wants to do social RP, being an aide is sorta the role that's open to everyone.  There are limited sponsored role spots, plus correct me if I'm wrong, limited spots per noble for hiring.

So say you want to do the social RP scene, then Lord Lecherous comes out of chargen and will only hire people who play his sex slaves.  That's not really fair to the people who want to do the parts of the role that have nothing to do with their genitals.

I personally would go so far as to say if you're picked for a sponsored role and you turn into a sex pest of any type versus finding any of the other avenues of roleplay available to you, that you're doing it wrong.  But I'm just some asshole who plays this game to chop up things with bone swords.  I guess I don't understand the appeal.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 15, 2023, 06:47:39 PMRegarding the noble vs. their aide: A possible solution (going forward) would be to include an ooc blurb on noble roleplay:

IF you intend for your noble to be played as someone who would be intimate with their aide, then you MUST make it a condition of hire, prior to hiring them. To wit: "I like having sex with my aides. Maybe I might want to have sex with you, Talia. Would you still want to be my aide? No? Then you can still be my minion but no, I won't be hiring you."

Consent to act it out would still be required if it gets to that point, as always.  But the condition of "potential sex" would be made part of the hiring process. That way no one can say "you hired me on false pretenses and I'm filing a player complaint because you're threatening to fire my PC for not having sex with your PC."

The way I read the consent rules, even that approach to interviewing would require consent in advance. Because if a noble is interviewing a potential aide, while suggesting that sex might be expected as part of the job, they're already using their power imbalance as leverage toward sexual roleplay.

So it's not about karma it's about not being a dick?

Are we using karma as a 'license' system for more powerful / impactful roles or are we going back to the old ways?

Quote from: Tuannon on November 15, 2023, 08:01:52 PMAre we using karma as a 'license' system for more powerful / impactful roles or are we going back to the old ways?

The touched subguilds include some absurdly powerful abilities but require creativity for maximum abuse. I speculate there's two main reasons why a chargen option is karma restricted
* it is transparently lethal and obviously powerful
* there are some wackadoo setting related rp restrictions which means you gotta know
these also can have varying degrees of relevancy for each option in staff's eyes which determines how far down the list they go

MCB is cool because it's far from real life for most of us, and it's exciting conflict. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is not cool.  I don't even want to be around it ICly. It's one of my top reasons to never play in cities.  There are whole muds for this that don't have permadeath and do have baths and toilet paper. This would be a terribly designed place for it, but all the sponsored roles that make it too easy.

Anyway the new karma plan is probably fine, but i've no skin in the game. I gave up my magicker karma in the great karma off decades ago so it's mundane only for me anyway. If this puts us on a track toward RPIs and away from hack & slashes then great. Of course there's plenty of other H&S legacy stuff that need to change too, but if the RPI direction is real then hopefully we'll see more.

Quote from: papertiger on November 15, 2023, 07:33:32 PM

Quote from: mansa on November 15, 2023, 07:28:24 PM#2 Downgrade Permissions:
The current karma brackets are:
1 - 5 (No Oversight Required)
6 - 7 (Admin+ Approval)
8 - 10 (Council Approval)

On the flip side, I would have the descending brackets be:
1 - 10 (Admin+ Approval)

There would not need to be a Council Approval to remove Karma for people with 8 karma. 

Are you referring to the player council or some sort of council of staff members? I get confused here still with who's referred to as what.

The current system has a council of staff members, who make a decision together whether someone should have 2 or 3 karma.

They use the criteria listed here:
https://armageddon.org/help/view/Karma

They decide whether you've hit enough of the 7 criteria or not.  If you hit 5/7, for example, you don't get karma.  The staff have previously stated that in the current system, it is hard to get 3 karma, and because it's so tough to get 3 karma in the council system, the staff are very lenient to remove karma.

Quotehttps://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60030.msg1099748.html#msg1099748
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.

Quote from: Tuannon on November 15, 2023, 08:01:52 PMAre we using karma as a 'license' system for more powerful / impactful roles or are we going back to the old ways?

One of the recommendations is to limit GMH, Noble, and Templar roles directly to karma levels.

I didn't really express my thought very clearly did I?  My reasoning was - to reduce the chance that someone could violate the rule of "no coersion" - by firing an aide who refuses to boink their noble (or GMH leader or templar) employer.

We know some players find the intimacy game an integral part of the game. We know some players who like the intimacy game, play leadership roles.  My thought is that - if they feel their character is likely to want their aide to be involved in this aspect of game play, that they should make it clear ICly -before- the aide is hired.

Maybe not the best idea I've had, but I hate the idea of an aide being coerced into intimacy on penalty of firing - but I also hate the idea of an aide knowing in advance that intimacy would be a possible result of being hired - and encourage the employment situation knowing that they have no intention of even fading to black when the time comes.

This is a pretty prime exercise in how this will end up going, which is much the same way karma has always gone.  People have different ideas on what is and isn't good based on highly relative and circumstantial things, now we're saying that tying a direct punishment to it is -good-, even though the discourse around that is going to be contentious.

So keep it general.  Stop with the specificity on how you gain it, and stop making losing it a reaction to what people do.  It -can- be a reaction, but it's a whole lot less of a deal if you don't tie it to punishment.

Player A gets karma.
Player A gets another karma.
Player A gets another karma.
Playber B reports Player A.  Staff find it valid, but not anything as harsh as direct rule breaking.
Player A gets added to list, Player has 3 karma and has 1 low quality rule break.
Player C has 2 karma and wants to special app for a 3 karma character.  Player C does great at 3 karma role.  Staff gives Player C another karma.  Staff looks at list of Players with valid complaints.  Player A is notified that their 3 karma role has been either spammed OR not used or is needed elsewhere.
Player A loses 1 karma.  Player A is moved down list of Players with valid player complaints.
Player A gains a karma.
Player A gains karma.
Player A loses Karma after playing the role once and is told they did a good job and you'd love to see another in a special app.

So on and so forth.

Players with complaints move down the list.  As time passes/the complaint is used in karma-movement actions, it moves further away from impact.  Thus, a player complaint has an impact, but unless you're getting player complaints often, their impact is very temporary and gives you a chance to show upward trend of behavior and capacity. Players with valid complaints that are more heinous are given the direct 'bad', but let's be real, non-roleplay focused offenses are about more than karma loss in the first place.

All of this is relatively quick.  You don't 'sit' on Karma, you don't join a 6 karma club.  You just move up and down in priority for roles based off of the need for those roles and availability, and consistently enjoyable roleplay whether it fits arbitrarily assigned criteria or not.  This is based off of special applications being used more liberally and karma reviews being less about a checklist and more about a 'Here's the movements your karma has made in the last 3 months.'  It's a chance for a pat on the head and a karma gift, but more often than not, your karma will be through taking part in the game with other players, with staff, and with events, and through special applications where you end up with good contributions to other people's fun.

Other people's fun is not a checklist.  That checklist is a list of bad experiences in random scenarios that one time where it was stupid.  People creating content, activity, and generally good times are allowed to interpret things differently than other players sometimes without it turning into a big deal they have to defend themselves from, because they are in a general positivity trend that plateaus the higher up the karma scale you go.


The way you guys are going at this makes the homework and discourse a nightmare.

While I am skeptical this new system will work as intended.  I'm pretty sure the criteria they listed was just some examples and not a concrete list.  So while they might say something like play a witch for x days well, it's probably not the end all be all of how you get that next bump.

But I don't see how this is going to free up time for anyone like they've said it will but let's see how I goes I guess.

Quote from: Armaddict on November 16, 2023, 01:15:27 AMThis is a pretty prime exercise in how this will end up going, which is much the same way karma has always gone.  People have different ideas on what is and isn't good based on highly relative and circumstantial things, now we're saying that tying a direct punishment to it is -good-, even though the discourse around that is going to be contentious.

So keep it general.  Stop with the specificity on how you gain it, and stop making losing it a reaction to what people do.  It -can- be a reaction, but it's a whole lot less of a deal if you don't tie it to punishment.

Player A gets karma.
Player A gets another karma.
Player A gets another karma.
Playber B reports Player A.  Staff find it valid, but not anything as harsh as direct rule breaking.
Player A gets added to list, Player has 3 karma and has 1 low quality rule break.
Player C has 2 karma and wants to special app for a 3 karma character.  Player C does great at 3 karma role.  Staff gives Player C another karma.  Staff looks at list of Players with valid complaints.  Player A is notified that their 3 karma role has been either spammed OR not used or is needed elsewhere.
Player A loses 1 karma.  Player A is moved down list of Players with valid player complaints.
Player A gains a karma.
Player A gains karma.
Player A loses Karma after playing the role once and is told they did a good job and you'd love to see another in a special app.

So on and so forth.

Players with complaints move down the list.  As time passes/the complaint is used in karma-movement actions, it moves further away from impact.  Thus, a player complaint has an impact, but unless you're getting player complaints often, their impact is very temporary and gives you a chance to show upward trend of behavior and capacity. Players with valid complaints that are more heinous are given the direct 'bad', but let's be real, non-roleplay focused offenses are about more than karma loss in the first place.

All of this is relatively quick.  You don't 'sit' on Karma, you don't join a 6 karma club.  You just move up and down in priority for roles based off of the need for those roles and availability, and consistently enjoyable roleplay whether it fits arbitrarily assigned criteria or not.  This is based off of special applications being used more liberally and karma reviews being less about a checklist and more about a 'Here's the movements your karma has made in the last 3 months.'  It's a chance for a pat on the head and a karma gift, but more often than not, your karma will be through taking part in the game with other players, with staff, and with events, and through special applications where you end up with good contributions to other people's fun.

Other people's fun is not a checklist.  That checklist is a list of bad experiences in random scenarios that one time where it was stupid.  People creating content, activity, and generally good times are allowed to interpret things differently than other players sometimes without it turning into a big deal they have to defend themselves from, because they are in a general positivity trend that plateaus the higher up the karma scale you go.


The way you guys are going at this makes the homework and discourse a nightmare.

This basically - staff have repeatedly said that they aren't going to be rp police, while acting as rp police.  It's the push-pull of wanting to use the bureaucratic system of karma granting/removal alone as the sole tool for enforcing how the world should be, while also (by their own admission, not an attack) being conflict averse enough to not want to just talk to people about why/how what they're doing isn't within the lore/theme/etc.

They want the power and anonymity of Judge Dredd shouting 'I Am The Law' when they want to punish, so there's a lack on empathy on staff's (and many, many player's even without the anonymity) side when it comes to correction and teaching.  This is part of what I keep trying to get across:  If you want someone to learn, you need to encourage them toward the things they do well and explain why the things they do poorly are bad so that they can understand.  Staff sitting unapproachable up on their mountain, with their new anonymized names, dishing out punishments in the form of reduced gameplay options generates a very punitive view of the relationship between staff and players.  And it's that punitive view that makes players upset, generating a lot of paperwork heavy complaints, player loss, and all around bad vibes that we just.. don't have to have.

While I can agree that conversations should take place before wacking folks Karma, from my time in the Player Commitee I can't really fault them if they lose their shit from time to time seeing the absolute plethora of garbage they get thrust in their direction.  They are after all just people who have to deal with others making mountains out of molehills.

Quote from: Pariah on November 16, 2023, 10:59:25 AMWhile I can agree that conversations should take place before wacking folks Karma, from my time in the Player Commitee I can't really fault them if they lose their shit from time to time seeing the absolute plethora of garbage they get thrust in their direction.  They are after all just people who have to deal with others making mountains out of molehills.

The whooooooole point is that when you foster an attitude of sitting above someone in judgment you bring out the worst in a person.  The less they do that, and the more approachable and... normal.. they become, the less people will react by becoming agonizingly tedious shitheads.  To use a technical term.

Also on the topic of the noble using their aide as a personal sexdoll, is GMH members who do similar with crafters. It's not to uncommon to see a Merchant using the power imbalance to sleep with their employees. And I'm sure some people want that kinda RP sometimes.

But I've also seen fairly new players put into pretty scummy situations. Situations I will point out the Law is more or less obligated to side with the GMH family member in, even if they are legit in the wrong. I know we've lost at least 1 new player because this situation mirrored something she went through IRL and was not comfortable with roleplaying.

imho the one and ONLY piece of trust a GMH role NEEDS is: "Will they abuse their power sexually" Because this not only hurts the GMH because it sheds employees. GMH roles are where newer crafter players learn the ropes. So it's making us, as players, look pretty bad.