Armageddon General Discussion Board

Discussion for Karma Revamp 2023 (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60029.0.html).

As noted in that thread, we welcome your reactions, discussion and feedback, but we are not anticipating doing more than minor modifications to the proposal before implementation.

The Karma conversion from current to future state is terrible, with the exception of current karma level 1.  I think the following would make more sense
  - 1 goes to 2
  - 2 goes to 6
  - 3 goes to 10 (They can do this anyway)

This is a huge punishment to the players, regardless if it is across the board, who have busted their asses to get to "MAX" karma. The message this gives to me is:

"We do not trust any of the current player base to be able to at will play any role that is Karma level 7 or higher."

That irritates me greatly.

If you are maintaining the level of RP and everything that goes along with that, that got you to Karma 3 (or 6/7), then you will likely be fine.

If you once were at that level and are now cruising, you may not be fine.

First of all, I hate it.

Next, here's my thoughts:

Players may request karma reviews every three months.

* This is extra work on the staff, to review, recollect thoughts, and remember what this player has done. 
* Each karma review takes what, an hour or two to complete?  This could be all a staff member has time to do over a weekend.


Staff should frequently observe their players and grant karma liberally upon meeting criteria.

* How should staff observe? 
* Where should they be writing notes? 
* Is there a reminder somewhere on a player character that they haven't been reviewed in a certain number of days?
* What does liberally mean?  Do you have examples given for staff members to follow?


Staff must document which criteria were met when assigning karma.

* Cool.

Feedback during karma reviews should be provided only if a player asks for it and must be constructive, offering clear guidance on next steps.

* Cool.

Special applications can be made for up to four karma points above a player's current level.

* Can someone with 6 karma apply for a psionicists, or sorcerer?  Or is that completely restricted to someone with 10 karma?


During the initial phase of these changes, staff will not play PCs that require more karma than the highest level a non-staff player has achieved.

*Okay, so no Suk-Krath Devastation, Whira Travel, Whira Tempest, Whira Illusion, Full Guild Drovian, Full Guild Elkrosian, Mul, Shadow Stalker (spec-app only), Elkros Vigor, Nilaz Anathema, Shadow Dancer (spec-app only), Elkros Havoc, Nilaz Void, Psionicist, Sorcerer.



0-1 points
New players start at 0 karma and can attain their first point by demonstrating Longevity & RP Novice, achievable after one month of play.

* Is this automated?
* Players _WILL_ fall through the cracks.
* In my initial group of highschool friends, 1 only played elves, and 1 only played dwarves. They would have never played this game if their preferred race was out-of-bounds for them.


Question:
RP Novice bracket is 0, 1 Karma
What is the karma bracket for RP Journeyman?  RP Advanced?

Quote from: Brokkr on November 06, 2023, 08:25:13 PMIf you are maintaining the level of RP and everything that goes along with that, that got you to Karma 3 (or 6/7), then you will likely be fine.

If you once were at that level and are now cruising, you may not be fine.

I am going to keep this on point, and as kind as I can, as this has really irritated me. People have spent YEARS of their REAL life to get to MAX karma, to be able to play what they want to. Now you are saying, all of a sudden, the players with their current options are not trusted enough to continue to play what they have had access to????

A Max Karma Player would require 2 years to play a PSI? I am sorry, but this FEELS like there is ZERO respect for the players, and their time investment. 

If you want to Evaluate the players, do it with their current options. If they have 3 karma, give them 10 and monitor them then. You are effectively punishing players whom have already proven themselves worthy to play roles.

Main thing I'm worried about is the extra red tape and work that this is going to create for staff on top of how slow staff have been lately (not giving them shit, just seems like they already have a lot to deal with), this also means progress is going to be slower across the board and a lot of options are being taken away from people. I'm kinda baffled as to why some mundane options like HG and Mul are higher karma than things like empowerment rukkian and devastation krathi.

Also I do want to point out, just as an edit. This hurts the new player experience even more than how bad the new player experience already is, which is something that really needs to be taken account of when it comes to the health of the game. If a new player logs in and see that their only race option is human, it's gonna leave a bad taste in their mouth.

I hate this.

I hope ya'll find players who like it or deal with it since you said you're only open to minor changes.

I'm not. My spouse is not. They were already drifting and their immediate verbal response to the announcement was "well I was looking for reasons to work on my world of darkness game anyhow."

Godspeed on getting new players and maintaining your playerbase.

I am not playing right now. I very much like playing mages, but haven't had one for a year. I'm at two karma, and was looking forward to playing one out of the shitload of options when I get back to the game.

Now I can play... touched and a full-guild vivaduan!? Feels bad.

I've been inactive, so I don't see that karma review going anywhere, either.

Also a separate question

- Special applications can be made for up to four karma points above a player's current level.

Does this include the ones that are special app only? Because it doesn't feel like this alleviates things when half of the options seem special app only now.

This feels twofold:
An exuberating of "If staff likes you, you get cookies" sentiment.
Secondly, it feels like yet another case of "This was not done to the docs/how we'd like to see it, so we're taking it away". Please, please, please adress people who do it wrong, instead of also punishing those who do it right.
As it stands now, it will be a year until 10 karma things can be played.
If you didn't want them in game, just remove them.
As someone who dies frequently, and mostly due to taking risks and playing my PC truthfully, a criterium that is up there, I won't be able to put in XYZ hours on a PC. I also fail to see how barsitting for 96 hours shows you know how to magicker.

Not to be overly negative, but I hate, double hate, and loathe entirely more hurdles for people who do it right in order to filter out the few bad apples.

I have thoughts. Lots of them. Most of them hinge on having one question answered above all:

Why?

What problem does this solve? Why is this being changed? What are you hoping to achieve with this?

Quote from: zealus on November 06, 2023, 08:42:53 PMThis feels twofold:
An exuberating of "If staff likes you, you get cookies" sentiment.
Secondly, it feels like yet another case of "This was not done to the docs/how we'd like to see it, so we're taking it away". Please, please, please adress people who do it wrong, instead of also punishing those who do it right.
As it stands now, it will be a year until 10 karma things can be played.
If you didn't want them in game, just remove them.
As someone who dies frequently, and mostly due to taking risks and playing my PC truthfully, a criterium that is up there, I won't be able to put in XYZ hours on a PC. I also fail to see how barsitting for 96 hours shows you know how to magicker.

Not to be overly negative, but I hate, double hate, and loathe entirely more hurdles for people who do it right in order to filter out the few bad apples.

Why do you think it would take a year for anyone to play 10 karma? Anyone who had 3 karma yesterday, will now have 6 karma. So they only need 4 more karma points to get to 10. Staff can award a karma point at any time, without needing the player to request a review. Staff can ALSO reward a point when a player requests a review.

So theoretically, a player could end up with 10 karma a month from now, if they're kickass amazing top-notch players. If they're just garden variety solid trustworthy players, they could probably end up with the full 10 karma within the next few months.

If all they do is maintain the status quo, then yeah - it might be awhile before they earn the full 10.

I personally prefer fewer total points and different allocation, but I'm fine with the criteria required, and how staff can award the points. I think it's a long time coming since the 3-karma system rolled out, I wasn't in favor of it then, and I still think it should've been changed a few years ago.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 06, 2023, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: zealus on November 06, 2023, 08:42:53 PMThis feels twofold:
An exuberating of "If staff likes you, you get cookies" sentiment.
Secondly, it feels like yet another case of "This was not done to the docs/how we'd like to see it, so we're taking it away". Please, please, please adress people who do it wrong, instead of also punishing those who do it right.
As it stands now, it will be a year until 10 karma things can be played.
If you didn't want them in game, just remove them.
As someone who dies frequently, and mostly due to taking risks and playing my PC truthfully, a criterium that is up there, I won't be able to put in XYZ hours on a PC. I also fail to see how barsitting for 96 hours shows you know how to magicker.

Not to be overly negative, but I hate, double hate, and loathe entirely more hurdles for people who do it right in order to filter out the few bad apples.

Why do you think it would take a year for anyone to play 10 karma? Anyone who had 3 karma yesterday, will now have 6 karma. So they only need 4 more karma points to get to 10. Staff can award a karma point at any time, without needing the player to request a review. Staff can ALSO reward a point when a player requests a review.

Without staff intervention it is 1 karma point every 3 months, so a year, since 3*4 is 12.

I think some of the reactions are a bit kneejerk, but possibly to be expected since the initial deployment is a sort of broad reduction to presumably be followed by reviews that would set things up a little differently.

But I for one like the spirit behind these changes and I never liked the checkbox system of the past. I also trust our current staff and I feel this is putting more power into their hands instead of just making karma this obligatory list of "roles you have to play to get karma," some of which I was probably never going to play.

I do encourage everyone to have a little patience and show some faith in the current roster of staffers. This whole year has been a journey for Arm, but I do feel strongly we're headed in the right direction. Overall, this might be a part of that! A karma revamp had been thought of and in the works for awhile, and I'm looking forward to seeing how things play out with it.

I may be out of the loop, as usual, but which players were privy to the extensive discussions of this? Was this a player committee thing? Was there a GDB thread? Since the stated reason that this is nearly finalized is those discussions, I think that matters.

What players did you discuss this with? Why was this a secret? Why do they get to decide that I'm not allowed to play roles anymore that I've played for years with no problems?

In the previous thread, ( https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59702.0.html ), there was some concerns raised by a few players:

DesertT:
"I don't believe putting the expectation of Staff taking away (or adding) karma to be a realistic one and still expect fairness across the board.  The more human interaction you have with a system, the more prone to bias and error."

Usiku:
"We then have 3 karma players doing things that staff (and players) will complain is poor RP for a 3 karma player.. for example not paying attention to the virtual world whilst committing crimes. Except we have no criteria for karma advancement that requires that. At no point did a player need to prove that they paid attention and respected vNPCs in their RP to reach 3k."

Jarvis:
"3 levels isn't nearly enough to filter out all the tomfoolery, fuckery, buggery, nonsense, funny business, skullduggery, and last but not least, mischief."

Najdorf:
"For a reason, I do not and will not make a request for karma review, because I don't sometimes want to hear some xxx staff's opinion on their perspective of how a good RP is, when I believe it is the opposite. And I do not want to get into such an argument. Favoritism and cherry picking exist. In the past, I had been pointed for my errors, whereas my off peak RP was completely ignored."

Veselka:
"-The more that is automated, the less required interaction there is from Staff to Player in giving karma. This doesn't necessarily mean coded automation, but even written procedure automation. When X milestone is achieved, then Player Soandso receives 1 karma for 'BlahBlah'."

Riev:
"One major issue to consider is what the work would be staffside. With staff inactivity, disappearing for weeks to months on end, leaving the entire game to be run by about 1/4 of the people its meant to. Its a lot for these 5-6 staff to monitor everything. Especially when they, too, want to play and experience the game.

So whatever system you come up with? Don't make it wholly dependent on staff. This is not 20 years ago when staff played alongside you and did stuff with you. This is 2023, when the staff that remain don't have playtimes like the no-life players anymore."


Miradus:
"If staff has a problem with certain people's roleplay they should open a conversation with those people and hash it out.

Gutting the entire karma system YET AGAIN does nothing but make people unhappy (speaking for myself) and every time it's been changed I got screwed. Every. Time.

Changing the system to improve the quality of RP seems a very passive-aggressive way of getting around having to actually talk to the people involved."

GreenTransient:
"If you want better RP, try articulating some intelligible standards and levels of expectation.  We are literally forced to play a game without enough information, without the ability to actually ask questions, in an environment where you can expect almost no one to be helpful, but also get don't do it wrong, or you'll get punished for not knowing something we weren't taught, or told.  That isn't listed in the rules, or on the website.  The type of things that is only documented in the gray and unknowing void of Staff group think, and even when you ask they say "I'll have to ask the others and get back to you on that.""

CirclelessBard:
"If you want to improve the quality of roleplay in the game, my strong recommendation would be to outline expectations for players. At the same time, give us a vision, a mission statement, for what the staff want to achieve with this game. Then set in motion the changes required to reach that vision. Armageddon suffers a lot from having its attention split several different ways."

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

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




And Usiku's post here as to some of the thoughts behind changing karma:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59702.msg1096154.html#msg1096154

That's a very clear write-up of the new plan, I do have some questions though.

I have to admit to being a bit surprised that 0-karma races have been moved to 1-karma; locking new players out of unique options for an entire month just does not seem like a great strategy for recruiting and retaining new players. What was the reasoning behind this?

I also have to wonder what (if anything) is being adjusted staff-side to prepare for this revamp. Are all staff able to grant karma, considering that the people likely observing play the most are going to be the Storytellers? How does this interact with staff potentially spending less time in staff mode when they are playing the game?

Is there a limitation to how often an account can gain karma? It's stated that the system potentially allows for rapid karma gains within a short period. I guess my question is: is there going to be a maximum rate, or some sort of check by higher-level staff, or are all staff generally going to be trusted with their judgment individually?

Are there specific reasons as to why sponsored roles are karma-restricted now?

Per my commentary in the previous discussion, the new karma system has a rigorous set of expectations and criteria, but does this get us closer to the game having a "mission statement"? It seems like the system is designed primarily to sort and gate players by a perceived skill at roleplaying, communication, being a good sport, and other abilities. If the goal is to have a collaborative storytelling game, it stands to reason that in an ideal world, every player will reach 10 karma eventually, given these criteria. Is that more or less correct?

We want a high quality, RP heavy game, but we also want to be welcoming to the RP community, and so we recognize we will get people that are more "RP-lite, bone sword heavy".

Given the wide range of what players in the RP community want from a game, I am not sure even in an ideal world everyone gets 10 karma. In an ideal world, everyone that was here to be RP heavy and demonstrated quality play would.

My only feedback on the proposed plan at this point, and I'll think more about it, is:

• Allow for the first review to 'skip tiers' if a player has clearly demonstrated their capability.  No sense making the very best players we have re-prove themselves for a long period of time.  (I don't consider myself to be one of these people to be clear...)
• Perhaps allow sorc/psi apps or rolecalls for people below 10.  Or have certain Psi/Sorc options open at 8, but the juicest ones at 10.

Quote from: wizturbo on November 06, 2023, 09:46:45 PMMy only feedback on the proposed plan at this point, and I'll think more about it, is:

• Allow for the first review to 'skip tiers' if a player has clearly demonstrated their capability.  No sense making the very best players we have re-prove themselves for a long period of time.  (I don't consider myself to be one of these people to be clear...)
• Perhaps allow sorc/psi apps or rolecalls for people below 10.  Or have certain Psi/Sorc options open at 8, but the juicest ones at 10.

I think staff can already reward people extra karma though - which would essentially be exactly that, yeah?

Quote from: Kavrick on November 06, 2023, 08:35:15 PMAlso I do want to point out, just as an edit. This hurts the new player experience even more than how bad the new player experience already is, which is something that really needs to be taken account of when it comes to the health of the game. If a new player logs in and see that their only race option is human, it's gonna leave a bad taste in their mouth.

Elves are significantly different here than the normal sparkleshiny perfect thing you see in most other fantasy settings (ugh gross). They carry a heckin ton of expectation. I asked for advice on playing an elf because there's so much there. I got a TON of feedback there. It just doesn't feel like itd be a good intro to the game for a new player anyway?

I don't disagree that it looks incredibly daunting to work up to things you DO want to play. It feels a bit "sit down newb", but I think thats just my kneejerk reaction. I do appreciate that expectations are made clearer overall. If there's people abusing roles, maybe it'll make it easier to pull the rug out so it'll stop? It seems like karma is being made more fluid. Comes with risks of favoritism or people just getting passed up, but those risks are always there. I expect staff genuinely wants to rope as many people into plot as possible - thats kinda what they're for. We all do have storytellers over us, hopefully who are all interested in seeing us progress in... story. ;D

Quote from: papertiger on November 06, 2023, 09:52:38 PMI think staff can already reward people extra karma though - which would essentially be exactly that, yeah?

In theory, but may as well formalize that in the review process.

Staff can bump someone from 0 to 1 karma without an official review process.   While I don't recall any rule stating staff must do a review to go from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3, it's always done.  And staff never proactively award karma without a review these days.  That's how the 'culture' has developed.

This new system would be a break from that, and allow all staff to award karma without the need for a review.

Yikes, I'm a 1 Karma player.

QuoteDemonstrates a basic understanding and appreciation of the underlying game theme

I think it's important to realize that a lot of debates about the game come based on player interpretations of what this is, exactly.  Some people focus hardcore on the game setting, like me.  Other people will say that the theme is less based on setting, and more on the expression of stories.  Neither of those point of views are wrong, but they are sometimes adverse to each other (hint: Mage discussions fall into this category).

QuoteFollows the rules of the game and community. Such as consent, PK reports, wishing up before PKs where possible, no cheating, no multi-playing, no inappropriate OOC communication etc.

Mostly well and good.  But the PK reports stick out.  You know I don't do them unless required of me or asked for.

QuoteMakes use of the bio tool to flesh out their character and record their character development

I don't write bios unless they're needed or I feel like it, or if I know I'm in a sort of mindbender theme where I need to flesh out what information they'd be privy to, though I enjoy doing this more via thinks to give them snapshots rather than an entire flood of info at the exact time they want it.

QuoteMakes use of think/feel commands

As above; thinks and feels are for where they are pertinent to the play, not a requirement OF good play.  I talk often about how that goalpost of it shifted.  These were introduced to the game as entirely optional.

So on and so forth, pretty much all the way down that list.  If the assertion is that I'm a problematic player who cannot be respected or trusted enough to play any of those things, then I suppose it's a working framework.  But I'd caution strongly that not only are you going pretty deep on specificity so that only certain player types will attain them, I'd also argue that you're setting yourself up for very subjective interpretations of players that are not inclusive and will inevitably lead down the path of favoritism and a stagnating inclusion of players.

These are super directed in a way where you will have some player types who think they are grand on the surface...because they all 'look' like you're just promoting roleplay.  But they're actually pretty stifling and not very respectful of players time or efforts towards their own enjoyment despite differences in playstyles and what that time use is for.

Yeah, you never listen when I tell you upfront that this will lead to issues.  But this is in dire need of deep scrapping.

Giving thought to the specific details of the perks of karma, I feel the new system promotes the use of special applications more than the old system.  Since certain magicker classes are higher in the tier, the way to play those characters is directed towards special application process.

I'm okay with this - the special application process is another gate that the playerbase needs to open in order to play a powerful class - and this will put an artifical limit on the number of powerful classes simply because special applications are a "hassel".


Now, into the weeds. I'm curious if there is anything that I gain or lose, going through the special application process.

Under the current system, you can special app for any race/class/subclass 1 level higher than your current level.  In the new system, you can special app for 4 levels higher.


If you have 1 karma in the existing system, you can special app for 2 karma, which are:
Half-Giant, Viv Healer, Viv Creation, Viv Corruption, Ruk Protector, Ruk Empowering, Ruk Creation, Whira Illusion, Suk-Krath Guile, Elkros Vigor
In the new system, you would have 2 karma, and you would be able to special app up to 6 karma, which are:
Half-Giant, Viv Healer, Viv Creation, Viv Corruption, Ruk Protector, Ruk Empowering, Ruk Creation, Suk-Krath Guile, Suk-Krath Agony.

You gain access to special app into Suk-Krath Agony but you lose Whira Illusion, Elkros Vigor. You do not lose any current options. 


If you have 2 karma in the existing system, you can special app for 3 karma, which are:
Mul, Whira Travel, Whira Tempest, Suk-Krath Agony, Suk-Krath Devastation, Drov Shadow Dancer, Drov Shadow Stalker, Nilazi Void, Nilazi Anathema
In the new system, you would have 4 karma, and you would be able to special app up to 8 karma, which are:
Mul, Whira Travel, Whira Tempest, Whira Illusion Suk-Krath Agony, Suk-Krath Devastation, Suk-Krath Guile, Drov Shadow Stalker, Elkros Vigor.

You would lose access to special app into Nilazi Void, Nilazi Anathema, Drov Shadow Dancer, and Elkros Havoc.  You would also lose "guarenteed" access to Half-Giant, Ruk Protector, Ruk Empowering, Ruk Creation, Viv Corruption, Elkros Vigor, Suk_Krath Guile, and Whiran Illusion, which are available to players with 2 karma right now. 

If you have 3 karma now, you would go to 6 karma, which allows you to special app anything, because 6 + 4 = 10.

I -do- like emphasis on special apps.  And I do like a lower plateau.  But I'm very wary of this level of specificity that will remain mostly subjective.

If you want subjectivity, embrace it.  Don't try to cover it up with nice sounding things that will leave people feeling cheated after they think they've fulfilled that but you disagree.  Don't try to put it out there as uniform ideas of what good and bad are.  They aren't.  They're very circumstantial, they're very variable from player to player, and they're very prone to consistent inconsistency.

This seems over complicated.

Restricting the 1 karma races for new players is bullshit.

Well, been about 20 years since I haven't had max karma (or whatever it's been since karma was brought in).

It does seem to be a deterrent, but I'll still play.  I'm sure I always will.

Retiring in a year and a half, I'd better be up to 10 by then or...or....or I'll play more...with or without the karma.

Seriously though, as long as the karma is flowing freely and correctly, I'm sure this will all work out.

When was it being implemented?  Too much to read at my advanced age (ahem, over 50ish).

I'm always welcoming of change in this game. I'm however a bit sus on this because I KNOW there are staff presently who lack the ability to put their apparent prejudices aside. Their personal opinions of people will taint this system. I also know that their opinions of how the game should be played, and the methods of roleplay people use, aren't aligned with their views, so you won't be 'good enough'.

Ok, so I hate it too.

You have a game with dwindling numbers and staff who are quitting fast as hell recently, so you over complicate the system?

Also you're bringing ooc bullshit into the game.  I have been banned and moderated oocly and can't recall any real complaints about me breaking IC rules, in fact most people love to play with me, just don't like me oocly, so as a 2 karma player now I'll be four and literally never be able to advance beyond that due to this silly ooc tie in that has no influence over whether I'll play a mage well for example.

Keep the ic ooc shit separated is my recommendation.  I'm almost better off to delete my forum account so I can just play the game and not worry about moderators moderating me slowing my progress. Ridiculous.

This also reeks of having to pander to both staff and other players to "get to the good stuff" when it comes to roles.  I could almost understand some of it, like half giants and muls because they are murderhobo characters at their core and I've seen some abuse of them in the past few years.  But all the good stuff is gonna be gated behind two spec apps a year still for most of us.  Might as well give up on trying to be a Templar, Psi or Sorcerer.

Does the fair play metric start when the new system goes live or should I just go play something else for three months and dip back in later to see about getting my proper level of karma?

I almost feel like there should be a "JUST KIDDING" added somewhere.

In the end, I am willing to shoulder the job of communicating this to you, and the obvious disappointment, anger and overall negativity towards the change, than to subject other Staff members to quite a few very painful conversations with a number of players as their karma is lowered after the karma scale change.  Which would happen, if we set all 3 karma players to 10 karma.  I would rather the rest of Staff get to start using this new karma allocation method in a positive way with the player base, with ample opportunities for increasing players' karma levels, rather than most of the interaction being about reducing player's karma levels.  I think this is an important part of normalizing the Staff side culture to a new framework of awarding karma, more frequently, with less discussion, and with more autonomy to reward good play.

We experienced compression when we went from the 7 point scale to the 3 point scale (1 new = 1 or 2 old, 2 new = 3 to 5 old, 3 new = 6 or 7 old).  A 6 karma player under the 7 point scale wouldn't be a 10 point karma player if we went directly from 7 point scale to 10 point scale.  When you expand a compressed scale into one with more granularity, you have some choices to make.  Bottom of the new range, top or middle. We chose in a way that would encourage positive future interactions between Staff and players, and hopefully build the kind of culture we want around this among Staff.

Changing a culture is hard, and sometimes the sacrifices to do so will not be solely shouldered by Staff.

The 3 point scale was, at least in my opinion, a nightmare workload wise.  Beyond the first point, every point was essentially discussed by everyone.  Gaining a point was a huge deal, and was linked to multiple criteria, rather than just one.  Because of this, many times all the criteria essentially got discussed when someone was moving a karma level. We acknowledge there will be some work to set baseline criteria that matches to karma level, but after that it should be much easier on Staff.  We will be talking about 2 criteria, the one up for discussion and Fair Play.  And in many cases it will not need to be a discussion, since it will not be as big a deal when a Player's karma level changes.

I have a current karma review and while I knew it would probably take some time, I was sitting here thinking about a "passing the time" or experiment type character concept, I know I'm good at hunting and keeping sekret mages alive so I was debating trying something different just for giggles.

This whole topic has literally drained all motivation from me to try anything knowing I'm gonna be trapped at a water mage in perpetuity regardless of how good I play the game because of some bullshit caveat about ooc communication.

I'm much more disappointed by the lack of imagination than anything else. It's like 2015 never ended. Why can't we have a few options for bumped skill boosts? Why can't an 8 karma player app in a merchant or noble with house backing? Where's my option to start with a metal weapon? Psionicists should be 6 karma.

Instead you're just gating a few mysterious mage classes that are high in spooky narrative but are quite low in play ability.

Edit: I personally think everyone complaining about getting dropped a peg are missing the forest for the trees. If you want to play the spooky void mage, you can still play the spooky void mage with a special application.

I know this isn't supposed to be a collective form of punishment, but it is precisely what it feels like. I just feel demotivated and demoralized and wonder why I'd try to step out of my comfort zone when the ladder has suddenly shot up so much higher in front of me - and now there's not only so much more karma to go, but the danger of /losing/ karma seems to be much more of a threat.

There's literally nothing at all I like about this change. As much as I enjoy Armageddon, I have a feeling this is a very unwise step and will cost us players for sure.

Quote from: mansa on November 06, 2023, 08:25:30 PMIn my initial group of highschool friends, 1 only played elves, and 1 only played dwarves. They would have never played this game if their preferred race was out-of-bounds for them.

I suspect that if they had been limited to humans for their first month or two when they started, they wouldn't have gone "but I will only play elves/dwarves! Screw this game!" Can't claim I knew your high school friends, but my guess is that they had that preference because it was what they tried out first and grew comfortable with. If this karma system had been in place then, they probably wouldn't have opted out because of it.

To be a bit blunt, first-time players usually suck at roleplaying and are very painful to be around, and if their suckiness is then also filtered through the lens of a race that has additional expectations, it just tends to make it worse. You might be able to get a newbie to grasp that elves don't ride or that dwarves care a lot about some specific thing, but barring the rare exception of someone who has played six other RPIs before and knows how to really scrutinize the lore, new players have a very hamfisted approach to the documentation at first.

The question is if we can expect staff to actually notice when someone has sufficiently acquainted themselves with the game to be awarded that first point, and if a new player will have the confidence, or even awareness, to request a karma review when they qualify for it. I'm more apprehensive of that than I am of making them start out with a human character. It's exceedingly rare that a first-timer can play a non-human race and not make it a cringeworthy affair for everyone around them, so I don't mind that part of the change. I just have my doubts about these players getting their first point when they ought to.

While this is hardly the closing of Tuluk, less options for play is a net negative and has proven to push people away in the past. Add the looming threat of karma deduction and it's just.. very demoralizing. I'll reserve full judgement for when it goes live, but I don't think this is the right move.

Can we at LEAST remove the desert elf cap when this happens? It's so hard to get a spot to play one and they're not even high karma.

As someone who reached max karma about 15 years after my first Arm character, it's hard not to be bummed at having a great swath of options move behind the special-app gate. I'm going to have to let that feeling fade before I can really think clearly about this.

Holy shit you guys blocked new players from playing dwarves and elves? Hahah who came up with this? Omg. The timing of this so.... wow.

I don't think special apps are anywhere near as bad as you guys are making them.  I also don't think the decompression should bother anyone who isn't going from one high karma role to another with every character in which case I'd guess that this is probably part of why it went this way.  I understand that this feels like a giant step back, but special applications are just an application that gets special attention to detail and can be rejected just like any character that you could make with Karma.  It doesn't usually take weeks, and it's honestly kind of nice to really lay into the character building pretty hard with someone in the case you don't hit it well the first shot.

I think you should be more worried about the listed criterion and examine just how differently you and a staff member could see those things, then realize that it can be stated as 'perfectly clear' to you now despite just how wide of a berth some of those interpretations can be.  I think you're going to start seeing a lot more request tool disagreements regarding 'quality of roleplay', and you might find some fantastic people pushed away...not because anyone actually pushes them away, but because the dialogue itself is offputting to see such strange criticisms of people who feel like strong contributors.

I don't think these specifications are up to snuff.  They just sound good.  They are not good in practice.  They are argument pieces that will prove divisive when actually applied.

I'm currently reviewing the details, but I wanted to quickly address the '1 karma' human option before family time calls. This is an experimental approach, informed by the data we've gathered. My analysis of new player trends over the last four years shows that we almost never retain those who begin with dwarf, elf, or half-elf characters. There are rare exceptions (though these individuals might be returning players). Given that our docs on these races diverges significantly from standard fantasy tropes, the steep learning curve, coupled with in-game hostility, may contribute to a higher bounce rate among new players who select these races.

The rationale is to allow newcomers a month to familiarise themselves with the game as humans, the most straightforward race. This period will enable them to learn the game's nuances without the added complexity of intricate racial RP.

Quote from: Brokkr on November 07, 2023, 12:48:06 AMIn the end, I am willing to shoulder the job of communicating this to you, and the obvious disappointment, anger and overall negativity towards the change, than to subject other Staff members to quite a few very painful conversations with a number of players as their karma is lowered after the karma scale change.  Which would happen, if we set all 3 karma players to 10 karma.  I would rather the rest of Staff get to start using this new karma allocation method in a positive way with the player base, with ample opportunities for increasing players' karma levels, rather than most of the interaction being about reducing player's karma levels.  I think this is an important part of normalizing the Staff side culture to a new framework of awarding karma, more frequently, with less discussion, and with more autonomy to reward good play.

We experienced compression when we went from the 7 point scale to the 3 point scale (1 new = 1 or 2 old, 2 new = 3 to 5 old, 3 new = 6 or 7 old).  A 6 karma player under the 7 point scale wouldn't be a 10 point karma player if we went directly from 7 point scale to 10 point scale.  When you expand a compressed scale into one with more granularity, you have some choices to make.  Bottom of the new range, top or middle. We chose in a way that would encourage positive future interactions between Staff and players, and hopefully build the kind of culture we want around this among Staff.

Changing a culture is hard, and sometimes the sacrifices to do so will not be solely shouldered by Staff.

The 3 point scale was, at least in my opinion, a nightmare workload wise.  Beyond the first point, every point was essentially discussed by everyone.  Gaining a point was a huge deal, and was linked to multiple criteria, rather than just one.  Because of this, many times all the criteria essentially got discussed when someone was moving a karma level. We acknowledge there will be some work to set baseline criteria that matches to karma level, but after that it should be much easier on Staff.  We will be talking about 2 criteria, the one up for discussion and Fair Play.  And in many cases it will not need to be a discussion, since it will not be as big a deal when a Player's karma level changes.

You've effectively reduced everyone's karma levels by a large amount, and we don't even get to have a "this is what you've done wrong" conversation. This is not a positive interaction, it's just making everyone feel targeted and powerless.

To preface this reply, I'm hoping for the best, because I think the general direction this game has gone in the past year has been positive.

As a person who argued for the complete removal of the karma system back when this came up in August, after sleeping and re-reading the plan, I have to say my opinion on the karma system as a concept is currently unchanged. With this system only having been announced a few hours ago, of course there's still time to let things play out and see how they actually work out in practice, and see which criticisms actually pan out to be prescient and which ones are not. I understand that the staff and many of the game's players feel the need to have a karma system because they believe it is a quick and easy way to see how good of a player someone is, and arguing for the removal of the karma system is pointless in that light, so I won't do it.

But the end result of this plan is that 200ish players are going to be split into 11 tiers based on how often they are noticed by staff, and how staff interpret the various criteria alongside how players interpret it. The root problems of the karma system - that it creates hurt feelings whether people try to positively participate in a hobby or not, that the karma system will always invite subjectivity, that unlucky players and off-peak players will rarely be awarded karma, that players who play more hours/day than others are more likely to be watched and noticed, that players in clans with more active staffers are more likely to be watched than players whose staff are not as active - is still there.

And to be clear, that would be the end result of any plan to revamp the karma system that keeps the karma system. The criteria for earning karma is clearer than ever, but the system maintains its reliance on subjective interpretation of the criteria and the RP players are putting out and staff are witnessing, and maintains its reliance on players and staff being online at the right place and time.

Would it be fair to say that staff are generally OK with the subjective nature of the karma system, as a trade-off for having the ability to score or rank a player as a shorthand for noting their RP ability and contributions? Or are staff seeking ways to reduce the subjectivity of the system, and the reliance on high playing/staffing times as a way to maximize interaction with the karma system?

Alright. I've had two coffees and actually found my glasses now.

The core concept of this new system is its speed and fluidity. It should grant STs the discretion to award karma both liberally and frequently, capitalising on their close interactions and familiarity with players and their PCs. If you are adhering to docs, role playing with the intent to be immersed and play a story and not breaking rules you should expect to a see a pretty swift upward trajectory. Conversely, karma will be deducted for rule violations or disregarding docs, though it can be readily regained. This approach aims to lower the weight/value of each karma point.

I will be candidly honest and say that I am not sure how we should address psionicists and sorcerers during the initial transition period. It is not our goal to not have any of them in the world! With that in mind, I open to ideas. I imagine we will possibly land on them being open to players a bit earlier in the karma scale temporarily.

I'm confident that our new players won't be overlooked. Our team monitors newcomers closely (with active ones actually noted in my calendar albeit under the current system) and our STs are generally wonderful about advocating for them. If necessary, we can explore automated reminders but I don't think it will come to that.

Yes, the design includes a deliberate gating of options behind spec apps by extending the karma scale. This is in response to overwhelming feedback over the last few years that non-mundane characters are overly common. This is a step towards moderating that trend, encouraging players to delve deeper into the role play opportunities these characters demand, rather than selecting them for stat or skill advantages.

Most of the criteria examples we're presenting now are not actually new, they've been the benchmark for a decade, albeit not publicly. By making these examples known, we aim to provide clear expectations, particularly for new players. Yes there is subjectivity but we will be working towards making our understanding of the spirit of each point as consistent as possible. We did explore this in depth, but there is no binary or measurable quantitative way to assess creativity and role play. Again, the fluidity and speed of the system should hopefully smooth out any bumps created by inconsistent understanding across staff anyway, whereas prior that inconsistency may have locked you out of earning a 1/3 value karma point for 6 months dependent on who handled your review, now you may get passed over by a staff member one week but then bumped up the next by another.

This system is not yet active or in place. We wanted to give you a heads up before launching it so that there was some time for any last minute tweaks and for us all the settle in and get used to the idea a bit too.

We understand that adapting to a new system can be challenging and we appreciate your patience as we transition. The evolution of this system is a collective journey, one that we are taking together to enhance the game for everyone and to address many of the issues that you guys have posed to us.

Quote from: Usiku on November 07, 2023, 02:49:54 AMMy analysis of new player trends over the last four years shows that we almost never retain those who begin with dwarf, elf, or half-elf characters.

Those are players you would have lost anyway. In all likelihood they would not have started with a human rather than whatever option they chose and flaked on. Instead, they'd see a game with quite literally zero options (human only) and move along elsewhere. I can't imagine even contemplating a MUD with all other options restricted. You've got about 8 playable races and new players get only 1!? Sorry, this and everything else about the change reads like a very early April Fool's joke. In fact I'm still finding it hard to believe that y'all are serious about this (now, of all moments in the game's history, no less). Just... wow!

I mean just ask yourselves, how important is it that every half-elf you interact with in game dazzle you with some performance of being emotionally conflicted? How important is it for you to never be exposed to a player who's still on that learning curve? Is it really more important than shrinking an already shrinking playerbase? Me, personally, I'll take that focus-less dwarf who writes in all lower case and is still struggling to find his way or some Tolkienesque city elf with graceful features and silken blonde hair. The alternative you seem to be desiring is a new player who's enthused by all these options, then when he goes to roll up a character finds he has only one (one!!?!?!??!) option and summarily leaves instead.

I think you are misunderstanding the experiment re. gating the race options behind 1 karma. It is not about the players needing to prove anything before they can play them, it is that players who have chosen dwarf, elf or half-elf as their first race have pretty much always dropped off. Possibly they find the documentation overwhelming or they don't understand the hostility they face. Either way, when players start with those races, we lose them.

If we find that this change impacts player retention negatively rather positively, then we will change it.

I came back.

account amanda or amandag, I can't remember. I think the elf that was my first pc (which I did not actually get into) might well still be alive in old tuluk. After all it was made in 2006. And I came back again and again.

I think he understands. And I think those players don't always 'just leave'. Otherwise I would not be here making a stink right now about how much it sucks to lose access to my favorite parts of the game (again, again, AGAIN, just like in 2013).

how many players have to disappear before this is reconsidered? will it matter that by then the damage is done? did it matter with Tuluk? or the sorcerer changes? does it /ever/ matter?

we hear about how staff is finite, but so are players.

Quote from: Usiku on November 07, 2023, 06:23:50 AMIt is not about the players needing to prove anything before they can play them, it is that players who have chosen dwarf, elf or half-elf as their first race have pretty much always dropped off.

Like I said, you would've lost those players anyway. Focus on the ones you can keep: by giving them options. There's no version of events where one of them is now a skilled veteran player who stuck it out just because you gated every single option from them at first, forcing them to play what you want them to play rather than what they want to. You can't possible believe that.

I think gating non-human races behind the first karma, if historically it shows lower retention for other races started with? Is a really positive move. And the fact that staff are open to revisiting it in a few months time and seeing how it works is great. 

The more I read this proposal to be honest, the more I support the general gist of it. I think there SHOULD be greater control over giving murder hobo players large amounts of power, and they should be proving they're *currently* responsible enough to not abuse it. So I can't see a down side in that part.

The leadership gating really is my only real quibble, but then I haven't had to trawl through mounds of Templar applications from unsuitable candidates.

I hate everything after the words "Karma Criteria"

Aside from the fact that some of the points seem to directly contradict each other.
Aside from the fact that, in my personal experience, staff (some at least, looking at you Boo) lack an ability to be indifferent, or impartial in nature.

I'd like to also include, that the less than helpful nature of certain staff members, will make it exceedingly difficult to ever actually pull this shit off.  I mean, I recently asked a member of staff what a reasonable response to an IG stimuli was...

"We typically prefer when players don't have an idea around magick when first encountering it, as it leads to better interaction around how magick is supposed to be treated when you have no idea what it will do. " -Brokkr

This was submitted to me as, useful or helpful in some way, almost a week AFTER the event but staff still wont so much as have a conversation so, how am I supposed to learn?  If I've experienced these things, IG, and conversed with staff to literally no avail?  I'd be much more into a system where I'm being individually evaluated on an intentionally undocumented system, is there was literally any way to learn other than Brokkr's favorite, PC death.

Is there, any type of player protection, from being Karma locked by an individual staffers who's got a problem with a player?  Will players be notified when they receive negative account notes, or is it going to be a fun little surprise that you've got another three months to wait to even be eligible to be placed under the staff eye of judgement again?

Further, does this mean every single time I see a city elf that isn't a complete thieving asshole that I should submit a player complaint and let staff sort out if this is a one off weird elf, or someone that should know better?  Now, if they are a complete thieving asshole, does that make them ineligible for "supporting the game" if they steal people's starting coins as a hobby?  What, if it's their way of life?  I just want to make sure, I'm not karma fucking myself, as I watch what may be "the end".

I like it. The fact that so many veteran players don't like it makes me like it.

My only genuine contention with this is the idea that staff will be active enough to be liberally awarding karmas due to observation. It seems like most staff during any given time would rather be doing something else with their time.

I really don't care how this will impact me personally but I do care how I think it'll impact the game. I foresee at least a few people rage quitting and I foresee a huge amount of drama akin to storyteller x gave player y ten karma but I never got any, the game is rigged, something about Nyr.

I appreciate the desire to have a more quality roleplay environment but if there's an unwillingness or lack of energy to address problematic people.. how is this going to change that? They're still going to be here and they're still going to require difficult conversations that nobody wants to have with them.

I'm confident in my ability to get and retain karma. Brokkr's comment about falling on the sword for staff or whatever and the reasoning behind it eroded a lot of my confidence in the change itself.

Quote from: seltzer on November 07, 2023, 07:40:21 AMMy only genuine contention with this is the idea that staff will be active enough to be liberally awarding karmas due to observation. It seems like most staff during any given time would rather be doing something else with their time.

This is a big thing that I'm worried about too. No offence to staff, but they're not even around to answer my wishes because I'm off-peak, I've had times where I'm about to die to something that should really have staff attention and I don't even get a response from staff. So considering I don't have staff attention in emergencies, will I have staff's attention during casual rp where I'm expressing my character's personality and how they fit into the setting? I wonder if off-peak players were even taken into account when it comes to all this criteria considering the majority of staff are all american.

I am on the fence here with the game and now karma stuff already.  What I can say is over last few months noticed a lot of effort being put in with staff.  But also see and feel a strong favoritism there also.  Very nit picky to a player but you can watch in game a clear favor to another player. So I see a lot of karma troubles coming up.

The change is understandably painful to veteran players because, from their perspective, they played a long time to get where they were. They feel they had the rug pulled out from under them and while they might be agreeable with the idea that it's for the good of the game, they still have to shoulder a portion of the burden.

The change is also painful to newer players that aren't sure where they stand within the system.

It's worrisome to people that think that the changes will drive away new or recently-returned players when the game already had a large decline in players earlier this year.

It's worrisome to people that are still getting used to trusting staff as a body again after everything that has happened.

I am not really affected by the changes personally, and I am trying to approach this with empathy. I hope other players and staff will do the same regardless of how affected they are or perceive others to be affected.

Quote from: CirclelessBard on November 07, 2023, 08:22:46 AMThe change is understandably painful to veteran players because, from their perspective, they played a long time to get where they were. They feel they had the rug pulled out from under them and while they might be agreeable with the idea that it's for the good of the game, they still have to shoulder a portion of the burden.

The change is also painful to newer players that aren't sure where they stand within the system.

It's worrisome to people that think that the changes will drive away new or recently-returned players when the game already had a large decline in players earlier this year.

It's worrisome to people that are still getting used to trusting staff as a body again after everything that has happened.

I am not really affected by the changes personally, and I am trying to approach this with empathy. I hope other players and staff will do the same regardless of how affected they are or perceive others to be affected.

I really wish people would stop speaking on behalf of "veteran players." We don't all feel the same way, we're not a hive mind.

I'm a veteran player. I was affected by the first change when they moved 8 karma to 3. I had whiran karma, was going to play one, and then I lost it.  It took over a year to earn it back. When I finally did, they decided to split the mage classes into sub-classes, and took away that option once again.  I refused to play a mage sub-class for almost two years, and when I finally backed down and played one just to see if it was as unfun as I thought it was. I proved myself right.

Now they've changed it all back, we can play full mage whirans again with certain restrictions, and that's great. But now, once again, I'll be stripped of the karma necessary to play one.

I can special app it, and that's fine. But it still feels like a punch in the gut.

That said - I only need 1 karma point to earn that whiran without special apping it. Unless my 3 doesn't automatically convert to 6 as I expect it will, I won't be submitting a request for a review. I'd rather just see how that plays out, if I get awarded that 7th point through my RP or if I'll be "stuck" at 6.  Regardless, I'll still be able to play the whiran.

I'm not upset, I'm not leaving the game, I'm not mad at staff, I'm not "affected" by this. It's a game. It's a break from reality. I can have just as much fun playing a mundane character as I can playing a mage character.  I almost always play humans so if I was new, there would be absolutely nothing stopping me from having fun playing with 0 karma.

My comment was not intended to speak for anyone. It was intended to summarize the sentiments expressed by different people in different groups and how those sentiments are valid in the face of those mocking people for having those sentiments.

So now my karma level can't even play mages anymore? And the GMH roles that I like are now Karma locked above the highest karma you've ever given me? Not counting Nobles, which I have fallen in love with each time I've gotten to play them.

Considering your track record of refusing karma. I don't know. I really really do not know about this. I feel like I'm about to lose my ability to app the roles I actually like to play.

And If I can't play what I like, why play?


Edit: Under these rules, I could not play the character I am currently playing. Will I lose it? Will I just never be allowed to play another one of them again even though my thoughts race through ideas of what I can do with the next one I play? I'm seriously worried about this. I LOVE the character I have, and I'm now seeing a wall come up in front of the ability to play abother. A Wall I personally feel I will never be able to climb.

Quote from: Kavrick on November 07, 2023, 07:48:18 AMI wonder if off-peak players were even taken into account when it comes to all this criteria considering the majority of staff are all american.

I am in the UK. :)

1. Nobody will have to give up characters they are playing.
2. The inclusion of sponsored roles is experimental and will be reviewed
3. You are able to get karma more than once every three months. Hell, you could potentially get from 0 to 10 karma in 3-4 months.

Quote from: Usiku on November 07, 2023, 08:53:13 AMI am in the UK. :)

I didn't actually know this but it's good to know one of the producers is Euro, I'm also from the UK so it's nice to have someone in the same timezone.

I do want to say, on paper I don't actually have a huge issue with this karma system, if storytellers and such are allowed to more liberally give out karma with less red tape, then it'll work for a system like this where someone jumping from say, 2-3 karma is not as big of a change as in the current system. I had a small discussion on the discord and I suppose the only thing I'd worry about is nepotism, but I do think staff in general have been better about that so we can only see.

Because I'm currently only at 1 karma, I don't actually lose anything from this change, so I don't have a horse in that race.

So using the highly scientific method of ticking marks on the pad next to me at work when I see a different person, that's 25 people not including staff that all think this sucks.

I do understand that we are a small percentage of actual players, but the vocal minority hates this.

But again, all the criteria that is outlined I'm fine with, minus the fair play rule.

So you're essentially giving players the power to sideline a player for, if I read it right, three months to players, so I piss off <someone> and he slaps me with a moderation warning, might as well not play for three months then come back and rinse and repeat to work within the guidelines of the system, a player...

I actually AGREE with most of the things you're measuring in "good RP" but the tying of whether I'm nice to you oocly to me playing a good mage, or a mul or whatever is ridiculous.  That part should be removed, I could totally see a vindictive Mod fucking people and not just me.

I have a lot of thoughts. I don't think they will matter, or affect anyone's disposition.

But I cannot bring myself to writing paragraphs that will not be read, considered, or cared for. This is a big problem for people like me, who have spent 20 years playing this game who finally got to the 'end of karma' only to have my time and input dismissed with a hand-wave. 20 years, and I finally got to play a mul that got a LOT of kudos for its play. And now, I have to beg and plead to play another if I ever wanted to.

End all be all? Staff complaints of late have been around "There's too much work for staff to do". This feels like MORE work for staff to have to focus on. More special applications that require producer time. More lower level staff thinking Riev should have 7 karma but they have to justify it and do their due diligence. More staff time required to supervise/observe players to ensure they're at the right karma level. The decision seems to be disconnected from the message.

I am heartbroken. I have spent more than half my life playing this game, and the respect for the time and effort just isn't there and perhaps worse? Neither staff nor player seems to care.

Aside from feedback, I would like to know why Half Giant and Mul are higher than a lot of magical options? I don't think either of them are particularly stronger than magical options. Just would be interested in the logic behind mul being eight karma for example.

Hey Brokkr,

How many players were consulted on this? How many staffers were consulted on this? To be clear, by players, I mean non-staffers.

Thank you,

So, when I left in 2007, for whatever reason, life I guess, I was at max karma. I don't really recall what that was, at the time, but I have had desert elves, muls, half-giants, gemmed, rogues..etc. When I came back I had max karma still, three and I used them on my return character.  When I used them they went screwy so I approached staff about it and was told I was docked to one, cause there was no notes on why I was max karma.

I am not the best roleplayer, but I think I am 'okay', and after almost two years back into playing I am still not max karma, but that my fault I suppose. I was about to do a karma review but I guess that is on hold now.

I enjoy playing mundanes. I enjoy playing humans too,  so someone like me will likely never see max karma under this new system. I agree with requiring people to actually play the game and invest hours into certain aspects, but why not just allow time played, and investment into the community be enough for karma? Why not just gate certain races and classes behind special app instead of karma requirements?

Honestly, I could step up and meet your requirements, but I don't want to. I don't want leadership. One character was being groomed for it and I voiced IC  didn't want it. I had it for a short time in a dead clan and it was horrible, and I voiced that in every single leader report I made. I voiced it IC and OOC that I didn't want it. I don't want fleshed out backgrounds. I like developing my character IC, on the fly. I don't want to interact with the community either. I rarely post on GDB, and I haven't been in the discord for a long while. Just read up and you see why. No offense to anyone, but outside of clan forums, I'm good.

I want to play. I just want to play in the server and create half-decent characters that I enjoy and I hope that other enjoy as well, because isn't that the goal? I would like to have the options everyone else has at some point, but there are people in this community that will never attain them, for multiple reasons.

It took me 16 years to reach max karma. I probably could have achieved it much sooner, but for one simple fact: I play this game to escape, to have fun—it's my bread and circuses. I dislike subjecting myself to the opinions of others who get to decide the level of involvement I can attain in this game, which has been my primary source of entertainment. I understand that there are people who have reached the heights of max karma and perhaps shouldn't be there, but after years of anxiously delaying that final karma review, I have finally been able to relax, and it hasn't even been a year yet.

My wife, who also plays this game and is undoubtedly a better role-player than I am, recently achieved her third karma. However, she hasn't been able to utilize any of the new options yet because she tends to play long-lived characters heavily involved in the regions she plays. Now, she, too, will have to grind her way back to the top. Granted, it might be easier for her, but the fact remains.

I'm not as angry about this as I was last night where I saw it right before I went to bed, but it still seems like a real hard blow, seemingly coming out of nowhere. I know better then to think my opinion matters in this game, as much as the word community is thrown about the last year or so, but this hurts man.

Quote from: Usiku on November 07, 2023, 08:56:14 AM1. Nobody will have to give up characters they are playing.
2. The inclusion of sponsored roles is experimental and will be reviewed
3. You are able to get karma more than once every three months. Hell, you could potentially get from 0 to 10 karma in 3-4 months.

That makes me feel a bit better. I'm still wary. But you know me. I've been a long time disliker of the Karma system. So take my opinion with a grain of salt

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 10:18:18 AMHonestly, I could step up and meet your requirements, but I don't want to. I don't want leadership. One character was being groomed for it and I voiced IC  didn't want it. I had it for a short time in a dead clan and it was horrible, and I voiced that in every single leader report I made. I voiced it IC and OOC that I didn't want it. I don't want fleshed out backgrounds. I like developing my character IC, on the fly. I don't want to interact with the community either. I rarely post on GDB, and I haven't been in the discord for a long while. Just read up and you see why. No offense to anyone, but outside of clan forums, I'm good.

But why should this make you considered over others for roles that can have severely negative impact on other characters? As the scale gets higher, you have more power to end people or shut them down. If your goal isn't pushing rp not only for yourself but others too, why should you be allowed to become a mindbender and suggest they walk into the desert and die or cause them to question their relationships or entire life? These roles ideally are given to people who work to progress the overall story and enhance rp for everyone rather than just shitting on it.

I don't get why people who have been here a long time should just automatically get to play these incredibly high impact roles if they don't have the overarching story in mind, which is why as a newer player I'm for gating roles until some competency is shown. Under the current system I have another year until I can potenyislly get full karma. Under this one, its 2 more years (unless I'm noticed). I do sympathize with things being taken away from you you may have had before as that can feel like punishment. That does suck and I worry all the cool kids who've been here longer than me and who I've so enjoyed rping with will take all their balls and go home. I really hope the players Ive enjoyed rping with will get extra karma rained on them. But even apart from this, 3 karma players get autoshifted to 6 karma and can specapp up to 10 with this system. I'm hoping that will mean something, even if it does limit the amount of fancy roles people can play.

You can get really high without the leadership role - and you can spec app even higher. You can create half-decent characters - you can create characters that are awesome too.

I have mixed feelings about this change. There are some aspects that make a lot of sense to me. A 3-point scale always seemed too compact to me. Also, an anticipated reduction in staff workload is clearly a plus.

The part that doesn't sit well with me is the idea of taking away options, with the carrot that we might be able to earn them back, possibly even quickly. I think it's natural for people losing options to feel like the implicit message is that they are now trusted less than they were before.

Everyone is coming at this from a different perspective with a different history, and my view is through the prism of having reached max karma. Going from 8/8, and then 3/3, down to 6/10 feels pretty jarring.

Quote from: papertiger on November 07, 2023, 10:42:44 AM

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 10:18:18 AMHonestly, I could step up and meet your requirements, but I don't want to. I don't want leadership. One character was being groomed for it and I voiced IC  didn't want it. I had it for a short time in a dead clan and it was horrible, and I voiced that in every single leader report I made. I voiced it IC and OOC that I didn't want it. I don't want fleshed out backgrounds. I like developing my character IC, on the fly. I don't want to interact with the community either. I rarely post on GDB, and I haven't been in the discord for a long while. Just read up and you see why. No offense to anyone, but outside of clan forums, I'm good.

But why should this make you considered over others for roles that can have severely negative impact on other characters? As the scale gets higher, you have more power to end people or shut them down. If your goal isn't pushing rp not only for yourself but others too, why should you be allowed to become a mindbender and suggest they walk into the desert and die or cause them to question their relationships or entire life? These roles ideally are given to people who work to progress the overall story and enhance rp for everyone rather than just shitting on it.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I like playing mundanes, and people that have played with me might agree when I say that I don't need a max karma character to involve people, progress story and enhance roleplay. should my preferences though, keep me from playing higher karma characters if I want?

I have never special apped. I will never special app, and I will likely never answer a roll call because that's just not me. I think it's not something I would enjoy. Again, should that stop me from playing a high karma character? I just want to pick things that don't involve staff and play the game.

Quote from: flurry on November 07, 2023, 10:57:13 AMEveryone is coming at this from a different perspective with a different history, and my view is through the prism of having reached max karma. Going from 8/8, and then 3/3, down to 6/10 feels pretty jarring.

As somebody who had 8 karma and then took a long break from the game this was my initial reaction after reading the announcement too. But aside from that I think the changes seem largely positive. It seems somewhat similar to the old karma system but more structured and clearer about the requirements and timelines to gain karma. People always complained about the opaqueness of the old system.

Would I like to have the full 10 so I can pretty much play whatever I want? Sure but looking at the requirements it doesn't seem like it's going to be overly difficult to get there in a relatively short time. Overall I think it can work and is a definite improvement on the 3 karma system currently in place.

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 11:10:09 AM

Quote from: papertiger on November 07, 2023, 10:42:44 AM

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 10:18:18 AMHonestly, I could step up and meet your requirements, but I don't want to. I don't want leadership. One character was being groomed for it and I voiced IC  didn't want it. I had it for a short time in a dead clan and it was horrible, and I voiced that in every single leader report I made. I voiced it IC and OOC that I didn't want it. I don't want fleshed out backgrounds. I like developing my character IC, on the fly. I don't want to interact with the community either. I rarely post on GDB, and I haven't been in the discord for a long while. Just read up and you see why. No offense to anyone, but outside of clan forums, I'm good.

But why should this make you considered over others for roles that can have severely negative impact on other characters? As the scale gets higher, you have more power to end people or shut them down. If your goal isn't pushing rp not only for yourself but others too, why should you be allowed to become a mindbender and suggest they walk into the desert and die or cause them to question their relationships or entire life? These roles ideally are given to people who work to progress the overall story and enhance rp for everyone rather than just shitting on it.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I like playing mundanes, and people that have played with me might agree when I say that I don't need a max karma character to involve people, progress story and enhance roleplay. should my preferences though, keep me from playing higher karma characters if I want?

I have never special apped. I will never special app, and I will likely never answer a roll call because that's just not me. I think it's not something I would enjoy. Again, should that stop me from playing a high karma character? I just want to pick things that don't involve staff and play the game.

I think it should stop you from playing the highest karma roles if you're unwilling to push yourself out of your own sphere, yes. Handing high powered roles out to unproven players feels unfair because its so easy for them to shit on others and would likely a bit disastrous to other players.

I smoked me a bowl and thought about this a bit. and this is my thoughts:

The ability to award Karma quickly is nice. Completely time-locking the karma every 3 months was horrible. i often forgot. Or I would come off a break, play a role and get told "you just took a break, so no." So if staff are more free to reward karma under the new system, this is a good thing.

It will spread out the witches more, which is good.

Locking special app roles behind karma is 100% bad. Apping those roles is part of why I play. It's a big draw to see a juicey role pop up to play and throw your lot in. Maybe say you need 1 karma to put in these apps? That way it's established you understand the world. But to say you need x karma to play a noble?

Some of the best nobles I've seen played were from newer players who ate up the documentation and memorized it. That's just my opinion, personally.

Being rewarded with karma you didn't ask for could give people the warm fuzzies, and I give that a thumbs up too.

Quote from: papertiger on November 07, 2023, 11:18:10 AM

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 11:10:09 AM

Quote from: papertiger on November 07, 2023, 10:42:44 AM

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 10:18:18 AMHonestly, I could step up and meet your requirements, but I don't want to. I don't want leadership. One character was being groomed for it and I voiced IC  didn't want it. I had it for a short time in a dead clan and it was horrible, and I voiced that in every single leader report I made. I voiced it IC and OOC that I didn't want it. I don't want fleshed out backgrounds. I like developing my character IC, on the fly. I don't want to interact with the community either. I rarely post on GDB, and I haven't been in the discord for a long while. Just read up and you see why. No offense to anyone, but outside of clan forums, I'm good.

But why should this make you considered over others for roles that can have severely negative impact on other characters? As the scale gets higher, you have more power to end people or shut them down. If your goal isn't pushing rp not only for yourself but others too, why should you be allowed to become a mindbender and suggest they walk into the desert and die or cause them to question their relationships or entire life? These roles ideally are given to people who work to progress the overall story and enhance rp for everyone rather than just shitting on it.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I like playing mundanes, and people that have played with me might agree when I say that I don't need a max karma character to involve people, progress story and enhance roleplay. should my preferences though, keep me from playing higher karma characters if I want?

I have never special apped. I will never special app, and I will likely never answer a roll call because that's just not me. I think it's not something I would enjoy. Again, should that stop me from playing a high karma character? I just want to pick things that don't involve staff and play the game.

I think it should stop you from playing the highest karma roles if you're unwilling to push yourself out of your own sphere, yes. Handing high powered roles out to unproven players feels unfair because its so easy for them to shit on others and would likely a bit disastrous to other players.

I just said I don't want those roles, but okay.

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 11:20:30 AMI just said I don't want those roles, but okay.

But then why do you care about or need karma? You don't want those roles and don't want to earn them - you just want to have free access to them outside of a spec app? That diminishes the importance and impact of those roles.

Edit - maybe I should clarify I feel mindworms, nilazis, and heavy hitting supergicks ARE high impact roles that should absolutely have someone with proven respect for the overarching story in them. Everything on the karma scale scales with responsibility for measured, considerate play.

To be fair, I can roll a tier 1 combat role, fight wildlife for two or three days played and shit on most characters if I really wanted to.  I think that they are going a little too controlling with this tact of making everything higher Karma.  Yes, they can just go cast 'mon un fuck your mother' dude and kill you in a single spell, but I can go Bash/charge and kill your character before you get out of roundtime.

It's all just different sides of the coin really.

I'd rather see them give folks the chance to do it wrong than to gate everything fun behind, "But they could potentially do this wrong." type mindset.

Staff I'm pretty sure gets informed everytime one of us kills one another, so I'd almost rather it be a use it till you prove you can't handle it situation, but apparently, I'm the minority here.  I love mages, I also love hunters, despise social-only roles and like crafters when there is a plot or reason to be a crafter other than "Get rich as fuck."  I'm more for the co-op PVE side of things, but do enjoy getting intertwined in other character's stories.

I however, don't care about you lot oocly more than you're strangers on the internet who play the same game I do.  That is IC/OOC separation, I'll rp you're best friend in the game and not care about you as a person, that should be an option without being penalized.

Staff, can we get a clarification here? Under the proposed system...

- For the mundane-lovers: Will it be difficult to get 8 karma (mul option) without playing magick roles?

- For the perennial minions: Will it be difficult to get 10 karma (void, psi, sorc) without playing leadership roles?

Quote from: papertiger on November 07, 2023, 11:25:16 AM

Quote from: Tailong on November 07, 2023, 11:20:30 AMI just said I don't want those roles, but okay.

But then why do you care about or need karma? You don't want those roles and don't want to earn them - you just want to have free access to them outside of a spec app? That diminishes the importance and impact of those roles.

Edit - maybe I should clarify I feel mindworms, nilazis, and heavy hitting supergicks ARE high impact roles that should absolutely have someone with proven respect for the overarching story in them. Everything on the karma scale scales with responsibility for measured, considerate play.

Again, I want access to races and classes that staff has put basic trust in me to play those basic karma roles. The way it is set up now, I will be gated from some of them, where as I wouldn't be otherwise because I have met or will meet their requirements.

I agree with your edit.  Again, those roles are not of interest to me at this point and require a special app, which I don't want.

My initial thought/feeling when I heard about this last night was anger. I must admit, I only in the past year got max karma, and I haven't even gotten to make anything that required it yet, but I had some great ideas that I was super stoked to try out in the next couple to few characters. But, having slept on it, and read through the Revamp post AND everyone's comments so far, though some I did skim through some. I am more accepting of it, less upset and mad, probably not quite happy or eager for it, but it could be a good change! I can certainly understand how many people who've been at Max Karma for a really long time could be upset with this change though. I really like the idea that staff can just give someone karma for doing something outstanding or deserving of it. Can you imagine logging in to just see your karma boosted one point randomly? That would make me so happy, just a little dopamine rush! XD

In my opinion, which I really don't like sharing on the GDB very much, (I also don't really participate much on the discord either) I don't think this is such a bad change! From seeing previous comments though, I can definitely tell that I'm in the minority when it comes to liking the fact that only humans are available for new players in the new system, but I like things like that. My husband's homebrew world for DND, everyone's first time playing in one of his campaigns in that setting, you have to be a human, then, as you meet races through play, you unlock them for play yourself. I think it 's like getting a little reward! In regards to Armageddon, a new player plays for a month as a human, sees how others act and treat others, including elves, half-elves and dwarves, maybe even other races and gemmed! Then boom, the races open up after one month! I see it as a reward-type thing, it's like a fun little, ooh, now I can see from something else's point of view, but they also get to see how those races have acted and were treated in their time as a human in the first month. I mean I still haven't played a full elf because I'm terrified I'd do an awful job of it despite reading and rereading the documentation many times over the years!

I do think, it would be a good and neat idea to make it so that the first karma review after the change allows you to get a point for every single factor you qualify for instead of just upping previous max characters from 6 to 7 for one point (not looking at staff intervention at all, I know it's a possibility, but I think just for this first review it would be nice) I know I, despite having max karma now, would not meet enough criteria to reach 10 karma in the new system, but I'm sure that many players who've been around longer and at Max Karma for longer than I've been playing the game, probably do and they should get the opportunity to at least get all the karma they meet the criteria for.

For the most part, I too prefer to play mundane characters, getting certain criteria are harder, like leadership roles, I feel like it should be soft point. I like to joke (mostly to myself) that I like being a support character or an NPC type character, I like to support /other/ people's stories. Most of my characters are not the main characters in their stories, hah. But it was really nice to have had all the options available so that I could play my occasional "I'm the main character of my story and everyone else's" type of character. XD Anyway I'm gonna post now before I decide to erase everything and say nothing at all like I usually do when it comes to sharing my opinion.

Quote from: Krath on November 07, 2023, 11:26:41 AMOnce again, why can some folks let people have their own opinion and let it be. You are not right or wrong papertiger, nor is Tailong. If you want to have a personal discussion take it to discord or PMs, rather than fill this thread with a back and forth.

Because I'm attempting to understand Tian's opinion and can be swayed otherwise. I and others are invested in this topic. I'm trying to understand it and I don't feel Ive been an asshole, unsympathetic, or too deeply entrenched in my questions. It's on topic and addressing the concerns we have regarding the karma system. We were not instructed to keep our opinions to one post and opinions can change through discourse.

I now I understand after Tainlong's last post I missed their initial point - they meant races and not subclasses or classes primarily. I understand now they have a point I didn't consider before and I have a better appreciation for what their upset with this all is.

But since I've been asked to exit, I'll now exit.

QuoteBut then why do you care about or need karma? You don't want those roles and don't want to earn them - you just want to have free access to them outside of a spec app? That diminishes the importance and impact of those roles.

I can't speak for everyone, but the change is being talked about from very different angles and perspectives, which is...kind of the problem with it in its current state.  It means different things to different people.  I'm not talking from a perspective of what I lose or gain, because I don't play karma roles anyway.  That's not the point that's being tackled, and other people are going to have different points they're coming at as well.  But I do want to say, for one of those perspectives:

Karma as 'the ability to play things' is actually next to useless.  Having the Karma for something only feels like it does not because of how many years have gone by since special applications for normal characters were relatively common (i.e. Non leadership, non special roles; just to play a mage, a psi, whatever you wanted you didn't have karma for), and because apparently the rate of rejection has been very small.  But they could keep Karma the same as it is now, and just start a new character rejection policy to achieve the same goals.

They didn't do that.  I'm assuming because no one wants to go through the trouble of rejecting apps all day with explanations as to why...and again, that is why as this is outlined, this is a bad setup.  Not just minorly bad, but very bad.

Karma means a lot less when viewed as 'permission to play', and a lot more when viewed as 'general trust and relationship'.  Again, by the examples placed, I am likely a 1-2 karma player because of one or two of the minor notes in each point.  You could bypass them to show general trust, or you could make me, a person who -genuinely cares- about the theme, the setting, the enjoyment of players, the health of the game, the design of the game...into a player that is not well-received by that game.  And that will be what that discussion comes to.  Which will make me feel ill about it.  Which will make me less motivated to play.

I already don't play much right now due to changes.  I'm not saying this directly about me, I'm using me as an example.  You need to consider how these criterion will affect you as you conflict with different ideas.  As you change what roles you like and don't like.  As staff members leave and are picked up.  As interpretations of different things change, as code changes come.  These examples of dialogue are going to be extremely combative, and this is going to feel incredibly toxic for the majority of players and staff.

I am not against this because of the karma levels.  Like I said, I think decompression is good.  I think special applications are a little over-hated just because most people haven't used them for anything other than role calls. The tiers themselves look good.  But this attempt at promoting 'good roleplay' is actually soooo misguided and ill-conceived that it will cause more issues for everyone in the game, staff and player, than it will improve the experience.  I cannot overstate how poor this communication will be.

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 11:34:46 AMI however, don't care about you lot oocly more than you're strangers on the internet who play the same game I do.  That is IC/OOC separation, I'll rp you're best friend in the game and not care about you as a person, that should be an option without being penalized.

My read of the karma revamp post is that you don't have to care about the OOC side of things if you don't want to. The post says that for karma to be gained the player should be demonstrating "most" of the examples. Also when it comes to GDB / Discord you should be largely positive IF you participate (i.e. you don't have to).

Speaking as somebody who really didn't participate much in the OOC side of things and only knew maybe at most 5 players OOCly in 20+ years of playing it was no barrier to gaining karma (I'd guess not knowing players OOCly probably helped as my characters had to find out everything IC and I'm pretty sure that shows). I just played my characters for fun and within the rules by and large and that was it.

Quote from: seltzer on November 07, 2023, 07:40:21 AMBrokkr's comment about falling on the sword for staff or whatever and the reasoning behind it eroded a lot of my confidence in the change itself.

I'm not really falling on my sword, and I did not mean to come off like that. It is part of my job, as Producer, to deliver bad news. It is also part of Admins jobs to deliver bad news. Ideally Admins deliver bad news individually, and Producers deliver bad news to the community. And Storytellers get to deliver good news. There is quite a bit more empowerment to Storytellers to do so under this system.

One reason we want feedback is to have the ability to clarify things that are not clear. The initial karma review under this system we will have to evaluate which criteria people have met, and which criteria they have not met. Based on that, karma could go all the way up to 10.  It could also go down. Some players have had max karma and never been evaluated for criteria before because their karma pre-dated. They will need to be evaluated for criteria.

Quote from: Boggis on November 07, 2023, 11:58:44 AM

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 11:34:46 AMI however, don't care about you lot oocly more than you're strangers on the internet who play the same game I do.  That is IC/OOC separation, I'll rp you're best friend in the game and not care about you as a person, that should be an option without being penalized.

My read of the karma revamp post is that you don't have to care about the OOC side of things if you don't want to. The post says that for karma to be gained the player should be demonstrating "most" of the examples. Also when it comes to GDB / Discord you should be largely positive IF you participate (i.e. you don't have to).

Speaking as somebody who really didn't participate much in the OOC side of things and only knew maybe at most 5 players OOCly in 20+ years of playing it was no barrier to gaining karma (I'd guess not knowing players OOCly probably helped as my characters had to find out everything IC and I'm pretty sure that shows). I just played my characters for fun and within the rules by and large and that was it.

Unfortunately that's probably the route I'll have to take.  Because the mods are players who get a bit emotional from time to time, or play things heavily weighted on the side of caution when it regards intangibles like people's feelings.

I think I provide a lot of valuable feedback and such, but will not be able to share it for fear I'm gonna get a three month karma penalty because some mod gets third party offended.

Quote from: Halaster on November 07, 2023, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 09:03:31 AMbut the tying of whether I'm nice to you oocly to me playing a good mage, or a mul or whatever is ridiculous. 

If you cannot be nice OOC'ly to each other, you have no business being in our community.

In the last week, I put in a staff complaint about how prevalent magic is in Armageddon.

""To restate.  My issue is that magic is so disturbing prevalent IG since I started playing that the what you would know section saying "Magick is a rare and mysterious power" is the issue."" -GreenTransient 2023-10-26 19:34:26

To which Brokkr responded.

"With that said, a lot of your complaint seems to be that you disagree with our theme, or how the theme is being represented in the game.  That is fine, but ultimately that is just your opinion of how you believe things should be and not everyone agrees with your perspective.  If we made changes to the theme to go in the direction you suggest, we might be pleasing you, but it would come at the cost of all the players and staff who prefer things as they are.  I hope you can understand that position.  I'm going to go ahead and close out this request at this point as I think we've explored the topic pretty thoroughly now." -Brokkr 2023-11-06 11:56:41PM

But now I'm seeing a different message from staff, example :

'This is in response to overwhelming feedback over the last few years that non-mundane characters are overly common.  This is a step towards moderating that trend, encouraging players to delve deeper into the role play opportunities these characters demand, rather than selecting them for stat or skill advantages." Usuki 2023-11-07 05:11:24AM

Plus the above sentiments that if you can't be nice OOCly, you shouldn't be in the Community. 

So I suppose my big question is, what kind of oversight is there for Karma docking?  Or is Big Brother just going to be doing whatever it wants, as it see's fit, indiscriminately while simultaneously holding players to an unknowable and totally shifting from person to person expectation?  All while actively doing the opposite of what they expect from players without fear of repercussions?

Ultimately, I think the changes are genuinely in the best interest of the game on several levels.  I can absolutely see why so many folks are upset in the short term and I genuinely hope it doesn't kill the game, because I would be very interested in getting to play in a MuD that has a quantifiable standard and expectations.  I look forward to hearing someone demand the data in a couple months so we can see how many karma staff are awarding outside of requests, vs how many karma they are docking.  As I understand it, can't staff award karma now?  How many times has that happened in the last year?  As long as it's not gate kept by known assholes this could be a great future for the Community.

Quote from: Krath on November 07, 2023, 10:15:45 AMHey Brokkr,

How many players were consulted on this? How many staffers were consulted on this? To be clear, by players, I mean non-staffers.

Thank you,

I'm not Brokkr, but here was the community discussion:  https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59702.0.html

Thank you Hal! I think what would have been nice is a summary of what you had planned, and then asking for feedback on it, rather than forcing it upon us. The thread seemed to be a jumble of different ideas with no clear summary of what staff heard overall, and what they were thinking of doing. I feel that if you had presented your strawman idea of the 10 karma level, Current effect on Karma lvl vs new karma lvl, etc, you would have less of the backlash you have now.

At the same time, I know not all decisions should require the playerbase's ongoing feedback pre-final draft and this happens to be one of the main ones that should have been.

Quote from: Brokkr on November 07, 2023, 12:07:48 PM

Quote from: seltzer on November 07, 2023, 07:40:21 AMBrokkr's comment about falling on the sword for staff or whatever and the reasoning behind it eroded a lot of my confidence in the change itself.

I'm not really falling on my sword, and I did not mean to come off like that. It is part of my job, as Producer, to deliver bad news. It is also part of Admins jobs to deliver bad news. Ideally Admins deliver bad news individually, and Producers deliver bad news to the community. And Storytellers get to deliver good news. There is quite a bit more empowerment to Storytellers to do so under this system.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I'm happy with the system being decompressed from 3 to 10. I also agree with Staff's assessment and approach. I have a few suggestions:

-Perhaps consider a coded reminder akin to "Your character aged 1 year from 38 to 39!" etc, you could have a reminder when you log in and your karma review is up, 'You are eligible for a 3 month karma review, please see more at: <hyperlink>'. I feel many players fall through the cracks because they either don't participate in karma reviews, don't know they exist, etc.

-Consider removing the 4 karma upwards limit for special applications, and increase amount of special applications you can have from 2 to 3 or 4. If a Player has a good idea for a concept, it should stand on its own merits I think -- If they are very low karma, and are applying for a much higher karma role, they might be guided in their denial of the application of what kinds of RP or character concepts to engage with first, to provide a better track record.

-Consider adding that the karma 'requirements' within each category are guidelines for Storytellers to follow, and more examples of what stands out as positive milestones in those categories. I think people are getting hung up on the specificity, meaning they never write bios, and are worried that due to that, they will never gain karma in that category.

Overall I think it is the beginning of a much better system, which is something I have been keen on suggesting. I believe through this system, granting karma will be more fluid, less discretionary, and provide less in-roads for favoritism and over attention to certain PCs.

IF the coded reminder were added, and people were regularly filing for karma reviews, I believe it would be more egalitarian overall.

I have some unanswered questions:


Staff should frequently observe their players and grant karma liberally upon meeting criteria.

* How should staff observe?

* Where should they be writing notes?

* Is there a reminder somewhere on a player character that they haven't been reviewed in a certain number of days?

* What does liberally mean?

* Are there brackets for issuing karma?   What are the brackets?
eg:
0 Karma = New Player
2 ~ 3 Karma = RP Novice
4 ~ 5 Karma = RP Journeyman
6 ~ 10 Karma = RP Advanced

Do staff members need to agree amongst themselves to promote people to the next bracket, and a single staff memeber can add karma within the bracket?   
Or
Can any singular staff member give karma at any point along the ladder?

* Also, the same question, but in reverse for removing karma.

* Can players help give RP Points to characters? (basically, can we reduce the workload of staff and allow players to help give nudges)   

* In the list, you have written:
5 karma
Ruk Empowering, Ruk Creation, Ruk Protection, Vivadu Corruption (spec-app only)
Full Guild Krathi (spec-app only, gemmed)

Does that mean you need to have 5 karma to special app that, or does that mean you can have 1 karma and special app that for that?

I took the spec app notes to simply mean that you could play those roles just required staff to turn them on for you and eats up one of your two spec apps a year if you're of the appropriate Karma level.

I could be wrong, but I think that's the gist of it.  If you're X karma that lists that spec app option, you just need to request it, eat up one of your two spec app requests for the year and they toggle it on for you one time use.  Probably have a faster turn around too because it's less of, "Is he allowed." and more of a simple thing like adding a clan to someone.

Warning!

I might need to clean up some posts in this thread.  I cleaned up the thread a bit.


This is a heated topic, as it is basically a karma re-alignment for anyone with 2 and 3 karma, and we don't like it when we lose.

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 12:08:41 PM

Quote from: Boggis on November 07, 2023, 11:58:44 AM

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 11:34:46 AMI however, don't care about you lot oocly more than you're strangers on the internet who play the same game I do.  That is IC/OOC separation, I'll rp you're best friend in the game and not care about you as a person, that should be an option without being penalized.

My read of the karma revamp post is that you don't have to care about the OOC side of things if you don't want to. The post says that for karma to be gained the player should be demonstrating "most" of the examples. Also when it comes to GDB / Discord you should be largely positive IF you participate (i.e. you don't have to).

Speaking as somebody who really didn't participate much in the OOC side of things and only knew maybe at most 5 players OOCly in 20+ years of playing it was no barrier to gaining karma (I'd guess not knowing players OOCly probably helped as my characters had to find out everything IC and I'm pretty sure that shows). I just played my characters for fun and within the rules by and large and that was it.

Unfortunately that's probably the route I'll have to take.  Because the mods are players who get a bit emotional from time to time, or play things heavily weighted on the side of caution when it regards intangibles like people's feelings.

I think I provide a lot of valuable feedback and such, but will not be able to share it for fear I'm gonna get a three month karma penalty because some mod gets third party offended.

The decision to ban you from discord was made by the moderator team as a whole and was not made on a whim - we've been considering it for a while. Please don't shoot the messenger.

As a max karma (currently) player that sticks almost exclusively to mundane humans, this change overall doesn't make a big change to my play.

That said, I'm not the biggest fan of it overall. I don't think the system is bad, and I like the idea of decompressing into more tiers. The part I'm not too keen on overall is a bit of a double-edged sword I guess.

That being that things are about to become heavily based on player bias from the staff side of things. I've seen many conversations happen on the GDB in my time, some that I was a part of, where players and staff butted heads on issues of theme/lore that was very subjective and open to interpretation that the docs don't fully cover.

When a staffer is now casually watching a player rp, but not in the theme that they, and not exactly other staffers believe in, will that player be penalized subjectively, based on that one individual staffer? And can it be trusted that staffers won't bring personal bias into their choices?

This isn't an accusation that I believe all staff are biased, and people will suffer under the new system for it. But I left the game for nearly a decade over a staffer back in the day that made my Armageddon life absolute hell, and it's an anxiety issue I still have quite often when it comes to me dealing with staff. I assume I'm not the only player with these issues due to some (thankfully) no longer here staffers that ended up not good for the game.

I think it'd be a blessing to player morale/confidence with this system to know that there's perhaps checks in place to moderate potential bias:

-Have a report system when karma is awarded, so that producers, maybe other staffers, can see it and be like 'okay, this makes/doesn't make sense'
-Have a requirement for staffers who are watching a player to leave a report for other staffers as to why they chose not to award karma to someone they've watched for a reasonable amount of time. If Timmy Toebiter buys drinking water from a Vivaduan, and one staffer thinks it's horrible rp, but another thinks it isn't a big deal, the giving/docking of karma can be highly subjective, and likely not fair to be decided upon by a single staffer.
-Ensure that the OOC negativity from certain players is only considered in that area. I hate how abrasive/trollish some community members have been at times, and I'm cool with the new system penalizing that. But I'd feel pretty glum if I knew that said player was being a rockstar in game, but got denied karma on that basis, because the staffer making the decision isn't fond of them being a dick oocly.

The things above are mostly hypothetical, but are worries I have about the system, and likely worries others have as well. I'm absolutely down with a system this expansive though, and think it's nice to have something to strive toward, while also giving players a chance to try all the different options on the way up.

While this proposed change doesn't impact me very much due to my preference for mundane non-special applied characters, I don't like the proposed change and I suspect that the planned implementation will proceed no matter how many of the vocal majority dislike it, especially given that Brokkr mentioned having to be the bearer of bad news. Hopefully some parts of the proposal's implementation will be amended with some of the feedback given in this thread.

Quote from: Riev on November 07, 2023, 09:06:46 AMBut I cannot bring myself to writing paragraphs that will not be read, considered, or cared for. This is a big problem for people like me, who have spent 20 years playing this game who finally got to the 'end of karma' only to have my time and input dismissed with a hand-wave. 20 years, and I finally got to play a mul that got a LOT of kudos for its play. And now, I have to beg and plead to play another if I ever wanted to.

End all be all? Staff complaints of late have been around "There's too much work for staff to do". This feels like MORE work for staff to have to focus on. More special applications that require producer time. More lower level staff thinking Riev should have 7 karma but they have to justify it and do their due diligence. More staff time required to supervise/observe players to ensure they're at the right karma level. The decision seems to be disconnected from the message.

I am heartbroken. I have spent more than half my life playing this game, and the respect for the time and effort just isn't there and perhaps worse? Neither staff nor player seems to care.

So many people have echoed those sentiments in this thread. Players have left this game because of feelings that the staff team did not respect their time and effort in breathing life into the game. Players that have spent one or more decades contributing to the game and proving that they could be saddled with sensitive roles.

Quote from: flurry on November 07, 2023, 10:57:13 AMThe part that doesn't sit well with me is the idea of taking away options, with the carrot that we might be able to earn them back, possibly even quickly. I think it's natural for people losing options to feel like the implicit message is that they are now trusted less than they were before.

This was my feeling when I read the karma proposal and that we'll have to all be assessed to see how many of the criteria checkboxes we meet. While I like that some of the criteria are clearer, there are some others that have issues. I don't like the 0 karma level restricting elves and dwarves but I understand the data driven approach to try that out. I don't like the role-applications being locked behind karma if they're already reviewed on a case-by-case basis through the request tool anyway. Perhaps this is a way to sink our special application currency if we want any roles outside of the ones we can freely apply to in order limit special classes.

Quote from: Brokkr on November 07, 2023, 12:07:48 PMOne reason we want feedback is to have the ability to clarify things that are not clear. The initial karma review under this system we will have to evaluate which criteria people have met, and which criteria they have not met. Based on that, karma could go all the way up to 10.  It could also go down. Some players have had max karma and never been evaluated for criteria before because their karma pre-dated. They will need to be evaluated for criteria.

One glaring example of criteria that needs work, in my view, is that there needs to be better documentation supporting the requirement for understanding of magick roleplay. I don't think there's extensive enough documentation on what that is or what it looks like when you compare it to cultural documentation made available to the various tribes or city-states for the requirement for cultural understanding. I think that it should be as clear and available to players as it is to staff that would be awarding karma based on this criteria, as opposed to handwavium and agreement with emoting style.

Quote from: Veselka on November 07, 2023, 01:10:45 PMIF the coded reminder were added, and people were regularly filing for karma reviews, I believe it would be more egalitarian overall.

I think that would be cool. With the many tiers of the proposed karma system, players will probably be feeling more pressure to push karma review requests and having some kind of reminder would be nice. It would be even better if it could be automated and opened on a player's behalf.

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 02:10:47 PMBut that's not really my concern, the way this fair play thing sounds is that say I'm playing the game perfectly, using my thinks my feels, emoting, being an amazing player and character that I always am.

I get moderated by one of you for being unkind here, all that shit goes in the trash and I don't get the karma point I deserve because "I didn't play nice"

Fair Play seems like it is for following the game rules, which just seems like a baseline for being able to play the game at all. I find it hard to imagine a state of the game where just about everyone that has been active for a certain length of time doesn't have their Fair Play karma. Anything less would mean there are a significant number of people breaking the basic rules of the game.

Communication karma is for being cordial and forthright with staff, Community karma is for being cordial with other players. That's how those criteria read to me, at least.

I suppose if someone screws up so badly in the community or on the request tool that they get a negative account note for it they would have their Fair Play karma dropped, but it seems the easiest way to avoid this scenario is to simply be polite, and avoid being blatantly rude or nonconstructive.

QuoteFair Play*
(required to go from 1 to 2 karma)
Examples:

    Follows the rules of the game and community. Such as consent, PK reports, wishing up before PKs where possible, no cheating, no multi-playing, no inappropriate OOC communication etc.
    No negative account notes for the last 3 months.

I read Fair Play's OOC communication to be more "No communicating with people outside the game for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in game". Such as DMing people on Discord, that you're currently playing with, saying "Alright, when I mention how hot it is, ICly? Backstab Pariah".

I do not think staff are saying "If you're being a jerkoff in the Discord and get a temp ban, you won't get karma for 90days". Unless you do something egregious. If staff told me I can't get karma for 90d because I was in a heated argument and needed to cool off? This isn't the right game for me.

I could totally be reading it incorrectly.  But I thought for each point you had to pass the fair play bullshit.

So say I am at 4 after the change and want to get bumped or staff watches me play and goes omg he's amazing but I got into it with a player mod, I don't get the point because of fair play bullshit.

If I'm wrong then great.  That is literally the only thing I'm concerned with about building Karma and playing the sweet mage classes is they are gonna be like.  You do great at playing the game, your characters are fun, you create rp around you, BUT you're mean to people ooc so no karma for you.

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 02:51:14 PMI could totally be reading it incorrectly.  But I thought for each point you had to pass the fair play bullshit

You do have to meet Fair Play every time which means following the basic rules & no negative account notes. I think your question is do you get negative account notes if you get a bit spicy on the GDB/Discord. I don't know the answer to that myself. For me I think you shouldn't (especially if it's just once or twice) but if you're constantly getting pinged on GDB/Discord then you're going to fall foul on the Community side of things and that has the potential to impact getting higher levels of karma.

Quote from: Boggis on November 07, 2023, 03:49:33 PM

Quote from: Pariah on November 07, 2023, 02:51:14 PMI could totally be reading it incorrectly.  But I thought for each point you had to pass the fair play bullshit

You do have to meet Fair Play every time which means following the basic rules & no negative account notes. I think your question is do you get negative account notes if you get a bit spicy on the GDB/Discord. I don't know the answer to that myself. For me I think you shouldn't (especially if it's just once or twice) but if you're constantly getting pinged on GDB/Discord then you're going to fall foul on the Community side of things and that has the potential to impact getting higher levels of karma.

Hi nice to meet you, I'm Pariah, I've had no negative issues with "Playing the game" 99.9% of my issues are people getting upset I'm mean to them or some flavor of that.

I think I had someone freak out once when I said, "Holy shit" in game, but that's really minor compared to folks running around spamming skills, sparring for days on end, never emoting, never thinking etc.

Another thing — you might make more oversight for new Storytellers (within 60 day probation) to help avoid nepotism and favoritism.

In general I see "be liberal" with handing out karma, but I don't see a systematized check to balance that out. Do Administrators or Producers give approval prior to the karma being added, or is it added on the fly with a note on the player account? Are there guidelines for Storytellers for how often and how to properly add karma? Thanks in advance.

There are a number of questions in this thread I need to scoop up to answer collectively but it's getting late here and I have a poorly toddler so it will probably be tomorrow.

But since everyone seems to be discussing it.. Yeah, Pariah, you should be absolutely fine with the Fair Play criterion.. I can't see any reason why that one would be an issue for you.

I dislike most all of these changes.

I didn't just 'automatically' get to max karma because I've been playing for ten years, I spent eight years playing and focusing on the CRITERIA that was required at that time until staff agreed that I had reached those CRITERIA. I don't play leadership PCs currently because I don't have time, but I did play them and got good account notes for them when I had the time to play them. I'm lucky to manage 2-3 hours a week currently with my work schedule and family life.

Now I'm losing 4+ years of effort (from when I had 20x-30x as much time to play) and being told I can earn it back in a year if I'm good (and play enough to be noticed). Compared to the old system, there are 4 new karma to earn (longevity, communication, magick, racial, leadership, and 'ability to roleplay' being the 6 that exist in both systems.)

The remaining four new requirements are:
Community (OOC stuff? Could map to existing Karma Requirement: Contributes to the game)
Fair Play (Required to reach karma level 2, presumably guaranteed for anyone who had karma before?)
RP Journeyman
RP Advanced

Considering I have already been reviewed and found suitable for the other 6 criteria in the old system, I don't even understand how current Karma 3 players (requires 6 criteria being fulfilled) shouldn't automatically start out at 7 in the new system (6 they had before + Fair Play).


All that aside, I think restricting new players to humans only is a solid change. You have data to support the idea and it's worth a try at least. As long as there's a scheduled review procedure a few months from now to verify if the goal is being fulfilled.

edit: Pointed out that 'Community' criteria in new system could map to 'Contributes to game' in old system.

I have repeatedly joked I was riding successive karma reforms to max

You've set me back a decade.

Honestly, I think we need to do away with the idea of Karma as a carrot or something earned altogether, when it hits a certain level.  I think it works better as a recognition than a reward, and a temporary one.  I think it's easier to manage, I think it benefits the gamesetting, and I think it allows staff to move away from management, approval-board like behavior with punitive reactions becoming dominant.  I think it allows them to feel more in tune with the world they're in charge of, and be a GM instead of an overseer.  What do I mean by that?

I think Karma above a certain point should be about interest and need.

"Armaddict, I saw what you were doing with your Guild boss.  I thought you were really creative with it, and a good balance of antagonism and consideration.  I've unlocked the Krathi subguilds for you, I'd really like to see what sort of role you can make out of them.  I'm not saying what you should do, but I think given some expansion there, you might be able to try something great.  If that's not your jam, let me know, and I'll send these to some other players that have done some interesting things lately.  We'll see what's up in awhile and whether or not you should keep playing them at that time or not."

"Hey Armaddict, we've gotten an influx of special applications for a role that you have the karma for, but rarely play.  We're going to take that off your list for now, and give some people a shot in the roles for awhile, some look really promising.  Thanks for <this character> you played, that exposed a lot of people and I think it inspired some to want to respond to it with their own twists."

"Armaddict.  You are generally pretty good at what you do, but I'm having a really hard time seeing eye to eye with you on how you treat this situation.  I'm going to remove your half-giant karma for a bit and see what you do with other roles and we'll see if this is a fluke or not.  Don't be stressed, these kinds of things are always in flux, and I think we have other players who could bring what the game needs at this time, while your style is kind of already rampant and we don't need it overemphasized."

"Hey Army-poo.  You are poo.  I keep seeing you want to retry a sorcerer, and I'm not going to give you the karma for it, but I really think you should send in a special app.  I'd love to see if there's room for what you come up with, but there may not be.  The world has need of a certain spice right now, and I'm hunting through the candidates I can think of."

"Hey Armaddict.  We noticed you've played -six- straight elven miscreants in the same location, and we'd like to usher you into something new.  Think you could bring what you find fascinating there into a new realm?  We unlocked your desert elf karma and would like to see you in one of the open tribes, or even a rare desert lonefoot.  Regardless, please let your next character be something else, so we can see some different styles in that area you've been trying to pierce through."

Ah, but the favoritism, right?  The -corruption-.  The thing is, I trust the current staff more than I've trusted any staff before, and I've had some pretty big ups and downs with staffers over the years.  I think simply acknowledging that this is a judgment call more than anything else, and letting staff feel more involved with the goings on and allocate roles OUTSIDE of special apps via karma tweaks is a nicer way of directing things gently in the long term.  All it takes is the acceptance from players that we aren't -entitled- to anything, but we can sure provide what's needed in a multitude of different ways.

I'm sorry, but I think the idea of karma as a reward system is inherently flawed for a deep roleplay game.  Over the long term it always results in a sort of inflation of roles, and an inherently down-turned dialogue between players and staff.  If ups and downs in karma are supposed to be more fluid, and that dialogue is supposed to be more easily approachable, I think we should just embrace the subjectivity of it, the idea that it can shift from staff member to staff member, and that the state of the game can call for different things, and that some of us have unique perspectives that might just fit in one place at one time, but not all the time, without that being a grave injustice.

I think we should have the expectation that we can generally play whatever we want, as long as whatever we want is in the general game.  I think there's a lot of room for the staff/player dialogue to not just have hyper-intense evaluations, but much more casual discussions that are like general staff-given kudos and interests; I will never forget the feel goods I started experiencing the first time I had staffers formally requesting me to try out certain roles, with or without sponsorship, and a much looser, less merit-based system of granting karma fundamentally allows that, while still allowing it be taken away from those who cannot handle it as well.

Karma shouldn't be the carrot and stick here.  It shouldn't turn into the purpose of the game.  It shouldn't turn into a deep-seated 'trust level' as much as an idea of 'Hey, I think you could play this out' without it being a travesty if they're mistaken or it was only temporary.  And I definitely don't think you should retain the idea that you can -define- good roleplay for 150 different people who all enjoy different experiences in the game.

Some questions from mansa answered:

* How should staff observe?

Via monitor, via request tool communications and via animations. All things which STs are doing anyway as part of their core responsibilities.

* Where should they be writing notes?

Pinfos are very helpful! Though they are welcome to keep their own notes about things.

* Is there a reminder somewhere on a player character that they haven't been reviewed in a certain number of days?

There's nothing automated like this. I personally put dates in my diary to review new PCs. If we find that people are falling through the cracks then we could look at implementing a bit of coded support.

* What does liberally mean?

Quoteliberally
/ˈlɪb(ə)rəli/
adverb
1.
in large or generous amounts.
2.
in a way that is not precise or strictly literal; loosely.

It means if you see a player do something that demonstrates they fully get the spirit of a criteria, go ahead and give them a karma for it. It should be a frequently used part of our day to day.

* Are there brackets for issuing karma?  What are the brackets?

Do staff members need to agree amongst themselves to promote people to the next bracket, and a single staff memeber can add karma within the bracket? 
Or
Can any singular staff member give karma at any point along the ladder?

The RP criteria are not tied to brackets. A singular staff member (Storyteller+) can assign karma (along with a note for the account) by themselves up to 6. 6 to 8 requires a nod from Admin+ but it shouldn't be a big deal. 8 - 10 will require a look in from the team generally, but not akin to the kind of reviews we currently do which are time consuming.

* Also, the same question, but in reverse for removing karma.

Any removal requires a second Admin+ to agree, whether being recommended by an ST, Admin or Prod a single staff member cannot dock karma in a silo. Removal of karma should also be accompanied by a request to let a player know, let them know why and let them know how it can be regained.

* Can players help give RP Points to characters? (basically, can we reduce the workload of staff and allow players to help give nudges) 

This is not a thing, but you CAN send kudos. Kudos can be incredibly helpful insight for us.

* In the list, you have written:
5 karma
Ruk Empowering, Ruk Creation, Ruk Protection, Vivadu Corruption (spec-app only)
Full Guild Krathi (spec-app only, gemmed)

You need to have 5 karma to special app that.

It feels arbitrary and complicated, although well-intentioned.

I'm not playing right now, but if I was I don't think it would bother me that much because I would just ignore it. At this point, I ignore most parts of the game that aren't playing my character the way that I want to and in a way that provides me with fun.

When I'm actively playing, and nothing appeals to me, I stop playing for a while. I am lucky to have all of the options so far and good experiences with staff. If I had fewer options would simply mean losing interest at a higher frequency.

I would play if I could do a full-guild, old-style Nilazi with all the old spells. Other than that I'll probably be on break for a while.

I still check the GDB every day because I enjoy temptation.

Translation:

"The past 3 big karma changes were a mistake so we're doing something else now, which we are 100% sure this time won't be a mistake we'll be undoing in another couple of years."

I'm still very unclear on the problem staff is trying to solve. You're adding a ton of extra work for yourselves, a nebulous, fuzzy system for players to try to figure out, and introducing a major change which is absolutely going to piss the majority off.

To echo Miradus a bit, and my earlier comments:

The resounding response from staff in recent years is that staffing takes up too much time. There is a lot to do, players really dampen the experience because some of us are real jerks (I'll say it, I'm one), and staff really want to be able to play the game too.

This seems like its ADDING more work and requiring MORE time spent with staffing duties than playing. Maybe this could be solved by allowing storytellers to multi-box and have their staff idling in a separate window, but that hasn't even been approved or denied yet.

If its too much work to be staff, this seems like its dumping a truck load of work on staff. I already struggle getting a staff member to respond "The staff you need to continue this plot is not currently online" and now they are expected to be watching me to see if I "get" being a Krathi enough to be able to play an Elkrosian?

Staff is a little more polite and a little less ham-fisted than when Shalooonsh was around, but nothing I've seen in months has led me to believe staff has enough insight into what's going on as to be able to administrate this complex system fairly.

My character reports, even when I'm in a clan of ONE, seem to result in a whole lot of "when did this happen, what is going on, why?" as well as a host of accusations and misunderstandings.

You guys simply don't watch the game closely enough to be able to do what you're claiming you going to do.

I agree with Riev and Miradus as well. If staff had enough time to do all of the monitoring they are going to be, why haven't they been up until now? If they have why aren't the folks who have not been adhering to the 3 karma expectation been docked karma and spoken to? It feels like being able to have those difficult conversations is the root cause of this change. Rather than deal with the few players that are not meeting standards, the decision is : "Lets make everyone share in the pain and "start over".

The worst part about it is the translation from the 3 karma to 10 karma is not even 1 to 1. I would rather you keep the 3 karma system in place until you have evaluated the active playerbase's current karma level and determined where they should actually fall on the new karma leveling system based on your criteria, and have dialogue with them as to why. Then once you have done that, implement the system, rather than a blanket this is how it is. If you do not have time to do this now, how can you explain how you will have time to do it in the future?

Communication and data in decision making is key.

It takes a lot LESS time to randomly give out a karma point to a deserving person, as a Storyteller, than it does to DISCUSS giving a karma point to someone who asks for a karma review.

If Krath is given 2 points by 2 different storytellers in the next week, what are the chances he's going to ask for a review in the next 3 months?

Just knowing that the staff are now enabled to hand out those initial 6 points is a HUGE deal. A HUGE time-saver.

I mean this is actually pretty big.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 08, 2023, 02:48:27 PMIf Krath is given 2 points by 2 different storytellers in the next week, what are the chances he's going to ask for a review in the next 3 months?

If his current karma after those two added is <10, I'd say it's 100%, because everyone wants to play the good shit.

Quote from: Krath on November 08, 2023, 02:40:08 PM...If they have why aren't the folks who have not been adhering to the 3 karma expectation been docked karma and spoken to? It feels like being able to have those difficult conversations is the root cause of this change. Rather than deal with the few players that are not meeting standards, the decision is : "Lets make everyone share in the pain and "start over".

...I would rather you keep the 3 karma system in place until you have evaluated the active playerbase's current karma level and determined where they should actually fall on the new karma leveling system based on your criteria, and have dialogue with them as to why...

Communication and data in decision making is key.

What is wrong with the 3 tier system?



* When going from 1 -> 2 karma, it requires a panel discussion with many staff, and going from 2 -> 3 it was a longer discussion. It didn't empower individual staff to empower players.

* Players fell through the cracks because they may reach 5/6 criterias for 2 karma, but were never given it.

* The system didn't allow people to go down in karma despite no longer meeting the criteria requirements in their play. Karma was only ever reduced due to *huge* rule/doc violations due to the 'weight' of each karma point.

* Not enough variance or nuance.

Example: some 2 karma people should not have access half-giant and some 3 karma people should not have access to elkros or mul.

* This was often spoken in jest that 3 karma players roleplayed poorly.

This is a Karma Re-Adjustment.  Not all players with 2 karma should automatically be able to make half-giants, and not all players with 3 karma should be able to make elkrosians.


Why is this new system and policy better?

* This allows for more variance.

* This allows staff to be empowered to freely give karma (within the first 6 levels)

* This also allows staff to freely remove karma (with admin+ approval)

* This allows for the staff to have a goal of better roleplay, which the playerbase has said is lacking lately.

* This allows for the staff to have better controls over the types of characters we want to see populate in the game.

* This allows for a faster karma accumulation process for brand new players



Where are the holes?

* Criteria of karma promotion - posted

* Frequency of karma promotion - still manual and an issue

* Players that play in off-peak or infrequently that falls through the cracks - still manual and an issue.

Quote from: Riev on November 08, 2023, 11:58:58 AMThis seems like its ADDING more work and requiring MORE time spent with staffing duties than playing. Maybe this could be solved by allowing storytellers to multi-box and have their staff idling in a separate window, but that hasn't even been approved or denied yet.

If its too much work to be staff, this seems like its dumping a truck load of work on staff. I already struggle getting a staff member to respond "The staff you need to continue this plot is not currently online" and now they are expected to be watching me to see if I "get" being a Krathi enough to be able to play an Elkrosian?

From what I understand, the 3-karma system winds up requiring a roundtable council meeting with everyone from Gondor to the Jedi Council and everyone weighing in to talk if somebody wants another point of karma. Now somebody can just watch you in a scene and decide you get a karma point. From what I understand, it's a lot less work.

That said, I agree with what a lot of people are saying in that there's probably some (very small) element of the playerbase that's maybe overdue to be assessed in what they add to the game versus what they subtract in the modern world of what we call roleplay-intensive.

That doesn't mean the 3-karma system was fine, either. It needed fixing. Is a solution easy to explain in a few sentences or in one post by a non-PR-professional? No.

But I'm putting my trust in a staff that's not from 2009 or 2015 or 2022 anymore, and which I personally feel is moving in the direction of a sustainable future that will appeal to new players, who are overwhelmingly not here for hack and slash murder gameplay, but immersion, roleplaying, and storytelling.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 08, 2023, 02:48:27 PMIt takes a lot LESS time to randomly give out a karma point to a deserving person, as a Storyteller, than it does to DISCUSS giving a karma point to someone who asks for a karma review.

If Krath is given 2 points by 2 different storytellers in the next week, what are the chances he's going to ask for a review in the next 3 months?

Just knowing that the staff are now enabled to hand out those initial 6 points is a HUGE deal. A HUGE time-saver.

I mean this is actually pretty big.

Lizzie, I think you misunderstood what I was saying perhaps. I am glad and fully support staff being able to give out the Karma points. This is something they were able to do in the past, then it was taken away, now it is coming back. Great.

My concern was around the 3 Karma to 10 Karma exchange rates. They are going to have to do the work anyway. Rather than lose people and roll it out ala carte, like it is currently proposed, I am asking for staff to do the work up front for the active playerbase/accounts. Usiku said they are going to have to do it anyway here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60029.msg1099662.html#msg1099662

At least doing it up front, the player has an opportunity to make their case as to why they disagree before it happens, rather than after. If staff currently do not have the time to do at least that, WITHOUT the new expectations they are going to have, how can we expect them to be able to do all of the other items listed Post Launch?

This would be the ideal state in my opinion. Implement the new Karma system as outlined below.
Current Karma 1 => 2
Current Karma 2 => 6
Current Karma 3 => 10
Per the new documentation staff are going to be evaluating everyone all the time anyway, have some TRUST in the players and let them PROVE to you that they do or do not deserve the karma. If someone does not meet the expectations of 10, Dock their Karma, explain why and give them a plan/list of specific things they need to improve to get to it.

Quote from: Lizzie on November 08, 2023, 02:48:27 PMIt takes a lot LESS time to randomly give out a karma point to a deserving person, as a Storyteller, than it does to DISCUSS giving a karma point to someone who asks for a karma review.

If Krath is given 2 points by 2 different storytellers in the next week, what are the chances he's going to ask for a review in the next 3 months?

@Krath ? 100% chance. I'm telling you right now, 100% chance he's going to ask for his karma review every chance he's allowed.

So would I.

Why wouldn't we? Because we just got some? That does not sound like human nature. No no, you gave me a sip of water, I don't care about the delicious lemonade stand you work for.

I agree with what you are saying Mansa. That being said, if staff have views that certain karma accounts should not have full access to the classes available, then come up with the list of all active accounts, what options should be available to their account, why, and set them at the appropriate karma level individually. Have a conversation about why you chose that level and go from there.

Staff need to be able to have these conversations with the playerbase.

All the good shit is 6-10 Karma from a cursory glance, and I believe they said that's still gonna need some Admin to sign off.

Quote7 karma
Suk-Krath Devastation, Whira Travel, Whira Tempest, Whira Illusion
Full Guild Drovian, Full Guild Elkrosian  (spec-app only, gemmed)

8 karma
Mul
Shadow Stalker (spec-app only), Elkros Vigor

9 karma
Nilaz Anathema, Shadow Dancer (spec-app only), Elkros Havoc

10 karma
Nilaz Void
May specapp Psionicist, May apply for Sorc rolecalls

So all the good shits gonna be that bullshit discussion where they air all their issues with you again.  So while it might speed up people getting to play a half giant or something the good mage shit is still gated behind all that check and double check shit.

Plus it's a little muddy because I could have sworn somewhere Usiku said they are individually reviewing active players for criteria, so there could be people bopping it up right to 10 Karma initially.  Where others get the blanket 2-4 3-6 thing.

I know I've done literally everything in the current system minus the "Be nice" communication point, but here I sit, still at 2 Karma.  Now we are expecting that staff is gonna have a crystal ball and know I'm qualified for 8 or 9 or whatever Karma?

I have -zero- faith in this initial review.

I think it's important to evaluate what the purpose of karma is. It's not to gate power, as the touched subguilds are absurdly powerful. It's not to gate abilities which require trust, as some of the touched subguilds get the ability to to extremely "i win button" stuff.

QuoteRemoved by Moderator.

Whether [Riev]'s sniping at staff or not, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that some of the snipes are right on target.  I mean for every huge blow up of "Staff fuck ups" or "Inappropriate actions by staff." that come to light, how many do you imagine are just missed by the general playerbase because we don't have access to the info.

While I'm all for staff doing whatever they want with multiple log ins, playing whatever characters they want in the actual game and all that, I know that the Karma system is badly enough fucked and they are stretched far beyond the ability to manage it fairly they have outlined in this fever dream of Brokkr's.

I find it hard to side with people who are 100% pro staff OR 100% anti staff.  We need to have a healthy level of skepticism when it regards to staff and their ability to pull shit off.  I mean they have had how many staffing calls, how many staffers quitting because of all this bullshit, probably internal politics and unhappiness would be my guess.

When I was allowed in the Discord, I'd see it from Kaathe for instance where he would say things like, "If I had a say in this." (Paraphrasing but that's the general gist of it).  So the actual staff get frustrated with the red tape.  When I was on the PC, I remember having a conversation with Halaster about how they make decisions and basically it was put forth that every decision has to make it past a majority rule of STs, then get to admin, and if it makes it past them, then the producers had to agree.  So you could have X number of ST, Y Number of Admin all on board to do something and get it veto'd by producers.

That's why shit takes so long to change here, sure some of it has to do with coding, but the actual decisions and direction of the game takes ages to move because they basically need to get through all that bullshit bureaucracy.

So again, my hopes and desires is that they are gonna be able to pull this utopia where every storyteller can swings his dick or tits and get you pushed up to 6 Karma, then every admin will approve you to get to 10 or however they plan it.  But based on various conversations, being present and watching the past, talking to the people in these positions, I'm highly doubtful it will happen.

Whatever happens with the karma revamp, I'm going to request my karma be dropped to zero.  I'd be happy to earn my way back up the ranks again.

I haven't read each individual reply here, so excuse me if I am repeating what's already been said.  In my experience it took a long time to get any karma.  Going from a 4 tier system (0-3) to an 11 tier system (0-10) would probably make this process even longer.  Given the requirements for each tier, it seems like it may take much more time to acquire karma.

I understand the goal of the game is not to acquire karma.  It's to have fun roleplaying, but being realistic here, people want to play the higher level roles and strive to obtain karma to do so.

I think having a smaller tiered system is better for the players in the long run.  Just my 2 cents.

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.

It isn't Brokkr's fever dream. We are a team. The initial push to look at the karma system came from me. We brainstormed the essential requirements then opened it up for player insights followed by a staffside discussion. Somewhere along the way Haldol came up with a pretty solid list of criteria. I took that into a Google Doc and played about with it for a couple of weeks, fleshed it out, changed stuff up, ideated over how the process could work then dumped a document in front of Hal and Brokkr. Hal went through it, tweaked it, suggested changes. Then Brokkr. Then I did again. Then we argued for days (healthy debate) over all the details and niggles then finally it was OK. Then it went in front of the Admins and they went through and fed back and then it was tweaked again. Then we got sidelined for a bit, circled back for more rounds of debate and tweaks. And now, here we are.

So that's how that happened. And we are still tweaking as we get more feedback from you guys.

Yes, it should absolutely save staff time, though not necessarily only in direct ways. The big win is not having to hash out every point. STs are empowered with more autonomy. This means less time on bureaucratic back-and-forths and more time on port, actively engaging with players. Admin+ involvement for 6-8 is now just a quick check-in rather than a drawn-out discussion. The three-month reviews should be streamlined too, just an ST, maybe with an Admin, doing a check-up (or anyone else). They're current, focused on what's happening now, rather than sifting through a player's history. It's about immediate recognition: "I am playing an awesome mage right now, watch me be great, I'm totally nailing this shit." It shifts our energy from administration to engagement, which is where we all prefer to be and where we need to be for most of our other activities anyway.

In the current system, a player might request a review from 2 to 3 based on three different criteria tied to actions taken on their PCs over the past couple of years. :-X This poses a challenge! It's difficult to verify, discuss and, at times, we simply lack the necessary information. Sometimes we can get locked up with these kinds of requests for a very long time.

And then there's this: we're hoping that this, along with other gradual changes and shifts in the culture, will help realign focus on the roleplay, improve communication within the community, and improve staff-player relations. If we can cut down on just a fraction of the time spent on internal staff debates, player complaints, staff complaints and all the energy they drain, then this change will have paid for itself. We're also discussing smaller changes to staff culture to encourage more 'staff-on-port' activity and less 'play-by-request', a subtle yet tough shift because it's so ingrained in both our workflow and player expectations, but it goes hand in hand with the changes to this system.

Thank you for everyone who is engaging with the process and providing feedback and debating things in a respectful way, it's awesome to see.

So I've been gone awhile.

I'm mostly as a 0 karma individual who is around infrequently not likely to be affected by this change much except in positive ways.

I want to say something in this thread though, regardless of those two facts. Because I am mostly an outside perspective, perpetually.

1. Please stop thinking about it in terms of good and bad classes. EVERY class is what you make it. EVERY class is how you RP it. The power level should not matter to you. Unless you are WANTING to play purely for the power and not the RP. And that goes in counter to the intentions of the game.

2. Those of you arguing against this. Some of you need to stop being so selfish. Don't think
 about these changes in what YOU stand to gain . And think of them, in terms of what WE all, now, and in the future stand to gain.

3. If you are confident in your RP, if you are confident in your ability to scheme and plot, and execute on treachery, betrayal and murder. This change will cause no permanent issues for you. And if you do the karma review initially, you will, in a situation this is operating as it should, not have any issues at all.

Next, my own thoughts on the system.

This is a very well considered change. I like that they are responding to critiques of just when you can apply for certain roles. As that was one of my initial concerns for it looking it over.

My only concern I can think of at the moment, beyond addressing the community backlash above, is that there are no criteria for loss of a karma listed. I would love to see a concrete set of examples. A sort of what not to do, rather than an assumptive echo of the what to do's.

EDIT: Actually found another concern, the ordering seems slightly of. I would actually put dwarf into the category of 3 karma, as they are far less human in perspective, and require a grounding in just what is possible and impossible in the setting. As well, their relative power level is a touch higher than half elf or elf. And it does give a kind of one thing at a time progression to karma 0, 1 and  2. I would bump up desert elves, and Thyrzn to 3 Karma. As again they are more alien to play, and more rough to play from what I have heard than other races.
My proposed progression would look like.
0 Karma
All mundane classes and human

1 karma
Half-elf, city elf
Can put in Specapps

2 karma
Dwarf
All Touched Mages
May apply for GMH and noble roles

3 karma
Desert elf, Thryzn
Full Guild Vivaduan
May apply for Templar roles

I gave it a go for what I think an interesting ladder looks like:
(https://i.imgur.com/X7q7RK6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/X7q7RK6.png)

(Click for a link to a bigger version of the picture)

I'm currently taking a little break after a frustrating death, but I wanted to chime in and say that I absolutely hate this.  Every aspect of it.  -Maybe- going to a 1-5 system, and kicking everyone with any karma (or over a year of playtime) +1-2 karma, but the currently proposed system is frustrating, disheartening, and overwrought.  You're looking for ways to reduce staff oversight/workload, not increase it.

A much better/easier change would just be to move dwarves/half-elves/c-elves to 1k, and be more judicious in lowering karma on accounts that use their karma poorly.

Ok, I think I've beat into the ground that I don't like this change.

However, if there was one thing that I could wave a magick wand and change in all this it would be the loss of karma part.

I would HOPE that instead of just immortalchatting or whatever and going Pariahs outta control take his karma they would talk to me first. My fear is that the way it's being talked about they are going to just remove karma and send a message after the fact versus try to investigate or correct behavior.

So I've never had an instance where someone goes, hey you're spamcasting, hey you're spending too long sparring, hey you're never using think or feel or hey (insert good rp thing).  But I do talk to people via discord and via PMs and have heard of a few such instances where that good feedback, don't power game, emote more etc was given AFTER they yoinked their points.

I just would like removing Karma to be a thing that is for obvious failure to improve.  So you tell me today I can't do Y, I say fuck you through my actions and do Y after we spoke, that shows that I don't want to listen.  But if you just yank my shit with no conversation and just a note in the request tool telling me, we lowered your karma by a point because you did Y.  That's a gut punch and assumption they are specially telling you fuck off.

Be VERY judicious when you remove the Karma is my only wish because you're obviously going forward with this horrible idea and while I'll still be here to say, I told ya so, hopefully if you're very careful there will still be other players to read me say, I told you so...

One issue with the current system, is the lack of granularity. You remove 3 karma for example, and you remove 1/3rd of the character options from someone. Roughly speaking. Is that warranted? Not in most cases.

It also lacks a suspend policy. Say I screw up bad. For 6 months, I am locked out of karma reviews, and realistically, currently, for a year or more, because the staff are going to go right to that negative note, and say, "Can we really trust them with this much power."

Granularity helps with that. It also helps to soften the blow of losing karma.

I will say; While this is not my preferred way to have this type of system done, I described that in another thread. It is a decent compromise.

If this actually does streamline the karma review process and makes it easier for players to obtain karma (as well as staff handing it out), then I'm all for it.  I went back over some previous posts and the clear, well defined criteria for each step up makes sense. 

Is it perfect? There's always room for iterative improvement in any system.  I think it's a step in the right direction from where we are currently.

My proposal makes you understand the game world before you play the non-human races with non-human mentalities, but doesn't change anything else.

The aspect that reduces staff workload is being more free to give/remove karma, not the [expanded] 1-10 aspect.  Staff are declaring a change that punishes a group of players in a whiplash overreaction to what seems, to me, to be current staff being uncomfortable with simply karma docking bad actors. 

Quote from: Lizzie on November 08, 2023, 10:55:18 PM

Quote from: Pariah on November 08, 2023, 09:11:03 PMI would HOPE that instead of just immortalchatting or whatever and going Pariahs outta control take his karma they would talk to me first.

If you have 10 karma and can play that role, it's because the staff has determined already that you know better. If you prove that you don't know better, then you lose the point - and can earn it back.

That's fundamentally flawed if you really care about helping improve the player, you don't just go, "We don't like that, we are taking your toys away." without telling them you don't like what they did.

I don't even own a kid, but my gf does, if her kid some shit off the wall, I don't just go take away half his room of toys and then tell him why I did it.  I'll sit that little fucker down and go, Look, this isn't acceptable for X and Y, you do it again, I'm gonna take away all your shit.

While I agree we can disagree on this, what makes more sense, having people walking on egg shells afraid to do anything for fear of loss or having a culture of understanding between staff and players which actually shows that they give a fuck about the player and their roleplay.

This is why I think a lot of spec app leaders play too safe, they are scared shitless they are gonna incur the wrath of staff and lose their Karma or their role.

This post has been edited to combine the discussion points together.

But to walk up and slap them and take away their Karma with a little note that goes, "You did this thing we don't like, you can earn it back later if you act right peasant."  It could be a misunderstanding, it could have reason you weren't privy to or didn't watch from your invisible castle in the sky.

The difference is assuming positive intent and negative intent.

That's something I think they've done wrong for a looong looong time.

BUT, again, I'm just some asshole who plays this game. I have no say and no power above having an opinion.  Staff gonna do what staff gonna do at the end of the day.  All I'm attempting to point out is that the act of taking Karma should be done as a last resort, not wielded like a club.

Being 10 Karma means you should know better doesn't work.

Quote from: Pariah on November 08, 2023, 11:20:27 PM...
But to walk up and slap them and take away their Karma with a little note that goes, "You did this thing we don't like, you can earn it back later if you act right peasant." (Paraphrasing but that's how I imagine it feels.)

It could be a misunderstanding, it could have reason you weren't privy to or didn't watch from your invisible castle in the sky.

The difference is assuming positive intent and negative intent.

That's something I think they've done wrong for a looong looong time which was probably why certain tyrants lasted so long in high level leadership positions.

Usiku explained this already. It requires more than one staff member and a detailed request telling you why, and how to fix it. I am sure warnings will handled out long before a deduction unless you are a complete goob, and disregard rules willynilly.

Quote from: Tailong on November 08, 2023, 11:27:09 PMUsiku explained this already. It requires more than one staff member and a detailed request telling you why, and how to fix it. I am sure warnings will handled out long before a deduction unless you are a complete goob, and disregard rules willynilly.

I hope you're right, again I trust staff way more than most if you look at the threads about them playing and shit, but I don't trust them 100% with being objective.  I've had multiple times I've been moderated for bullshit reasons, complained and hit with the "thin blue line" (Cops protecting cops if you're not aware of what the term is) of "We support our moderators." without a single look at things, so to think that if ST #50 goes, Pariah did this thing I don't like, take his Karma, is going to elicit any sort of investigation outside of, We trust our staff... Is a bit of a stretch.  It's just gonna be rubber stamped to hell and back.

Trust is a two way street. if you cannot trust staff to treat you fairly. Perhaps seek out other places where you can. Because without trusting staff there is little you can do of note on a game like this

I understand staff's desire to have a set of regimented systems that they can point to. This is how things end up overwrought, attempting to plan for every contingency and create a plan they feel will streamline it. This plan's 1-10 change is destined to fail, because there are now 10 individual levels to mark and weigh and kvetch about instead of just a few. We're reverting back to the old system that was changed because it was ineffective and wasted a bunch of staff time. It feels comfortable, and there appears to be logic to it, but it simply isn't.

It's a lot easier to sort something into 4 roughly analogous piles than it is to sort them into 11. (0-3, 0-10).

Staff are people and they can make mistakes. Systems like this universally create more make work. The answer is to simply be more willing to dock karma from bad actors. I offered an alternate system that let them still pull dwarves, etc. up from 0k, as in their proposed system.

my thoughts, i guess

1.) creating, displaying, and enforcing clearly-understandable rules and procedures makes staff's life much easier, not harder. there are already values a game's staff has and they are already being enforced in some mutable way. it's better for players to understand the values staff has; and most of any rp mu* staff's time is spent dealing with the emotions of players. being able to point to a clear rule sets expectations, limits confusion, and limits exposure to negativity on both sides.

2.) rewarding the values that staff wants in a game leads to an increase in the strength of those values. here those values seem to be things that i assume we generally want as the negativity seems to be more about staff having the encouragement to reward players they think are good at things like creating roleplay for other people, making complex characters, and spending personal time doing shit like updating help files or whatever. the alternative is staff not rewarding that? that seems more dumb.

3.) staff could always remove karma. or ban. or whatever. that's not new.

4.) nobody has to interact with one another out of character but if one chooses to then one should expect to be judged by regular societal standards. AAA PC/console games have rules in their chat rooms and limit play based on them, and there are rules in the living rooms of friends when people come over to hang out. being an asshole is actually a choice one makes and choices tend to have accompanying results or consequences like anything else.

5.) the karma requirements are maybe half as strict as the requirements for remaining in good enough standing to even play some roleplay games. the top points are for things like "making a complex character that has a personality AND thinks thoughts sometimes," "use magic," "interact with the world believably." also time-wise it's now a quicker advancement schedule to the top for new players which is great for new players fuck yeah!

I believe these are the problems with a small scale system:

1. Removal of karma is impossible to have be proportional to the scale of the rules broken in the current system. Ergo increasing karma loss for people will have a net negative and outsized effect

2. Moving the fantastical or inhuman races to higher karma without also lowering the karma time l. And removing reviews. Will have a net negative impact on every newbie that enters the game from that moment in.

3. Adding karma is slow. And a six month active play requirement is often more than some can manage.  As an example. I have never been able to send a karma review through even having played for multiple years now.


This post has been Moderated

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.

Dear members of USSR State Planning Committee, or shortly staff. You guys love to legislate for sure. For a game where people just want to enjoy and RP, you are blowing it out of proportion. 10 karmas, and "Players may request karma reviews every three months." I will definitely not beg for karma every 3 months.
A bad design, a terrible design.

Quote from: Usiku on November 09, 2023, 05:09:09 AMNow, 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.

You will never please everyone. Players will sling shit, feel victimized, etc etc, regardless of what you do. Folks generally want things to go in their favour, and feel it's unfair if it doesn't. From my experience, this type of entitlement and cynicism just gets worse with age, and our playerbase has certainly aged.

To me, this feels a lot like trying to manage a tenured, unionized work force. For any with experience, it's not fun, so kudos to staff.

Why not, instead of a complicated method of giving and awarding karma, have a very simple karma system, and a very simple discipline system. Everyone won't agree with it, but at least everyone should understand it, and it should be transparent. Transparency solves many problems.

For example: 3 karma system and 3 points discipline system per karma. A discipline point sunsets after twelve months. If you get three points in 12 months, you lose one point of karma.

If I'm a player and I receive a message from Staff that I have been issued one point of discipline for failing to communicate a PK, or 2 points for GDB conduct, or whatever, I may disagree, but I know exactly where I stand. All I have to do is behave for 12 months, and I can keep all my karma and I'm back up to a clean slate.

Quote from: najdorf on November 09, 2023, 07:07:51 AMDear members of USSR State Planning Committee, or shortly staff. You guys love to legislate for sure. For a game where people just want to enjoy and RP, you are blowing it out of proportion. 10 karmas, and "Players may request karma reviews every three months." I will definitely not beg for karma every 3 months.
A bad design, a terrible design.

This. Exactly this. Najdorf, will you marry me? 💍

This game is so obsessed red tape and even their solutions when admitting what they suffer from is too much red tape is... to come up with even more red tape! Keep It Simple Stupid should be the one rule that umbrellas all the rest, at this point. It can't be that hard to just be a decent staffer.

I'm not even thar opposed to the karma change aside from being firm in my belief that it won't really change much. You're welcome to prove me wrong 12 months down the road and I will gladly applaud you. Till that time comes though, you'll understand why I'm skeptical.

I do however want to reiterate that giving zero race options to new players is an insult and disrespectful. One option is not an option, unless by option you mean "take it or leave it". Whatever change you hope to see from this, however positive, will be so miniscule that it begs the question to all of this: can't ya'll just get back to writing stories for the game? Seriously, give the coded changes a break for an entire year and just spin over arching, IC world stories and you'll be surprised how many players flock to the MUD again.

I've unlocked the thread.   I've edited and moderated a bunch of the posts.

I've said this before, and it bears repeating:
The General Discussion Board is not a debate.  You can't "win" conversations with logic and passion.  The discussion board is where we discuss topics as a community, and the community is varied in opinion, thought, and feelings.  We are anonymous players typing into computer devices about our passion of a particular roleplaying game.

As soon as you start tearing into another posters argument, talking about "straw man", "ad hominem", or other logical fallacies, I will remove your posts.  That sort of attitude is not welcome.

Looking over the adjustments. The staff clearly took my heartfelt objection seriously. And I'm thankful for that.

Quote from: mansa on November 09, 2023, 08:35:11 AMAs soon as you start tearing into another posters argument, talking about "straw man", "ad hominem", or other logical fallacies, I will remove your posts.  That sort of attitude is not welcome.

If you can't tear apart their argument? How are you supposed to show your side of things?  Are we just supposed to have disjointed one sided comments like.

I love the new system because of X thing. - Poster 1

I hate the new system because of Y thing. - Poster 2

That's not having a conversation, that's just spouting out random statements.  The sky is blue, Grass is green, we aren't talking that's not how human conversation works.

If someone tells me something I disagree with, I then tell them why I disagree with it, why their thinking is flawed or whatever method of showing them the fault in their logic.

I do agree with the whole strawman etc bullshit as that's normally used by people who can't talk their way out of an argument to save their lives.  BUT, do you want this to be a discussion where people are sharing their views and why they have that view versus another or just an echo chamber where people give grand monologues while not risking to attack an argument as flawed?

I feel what you're trying to avoid is people making other people "feel stupid" which is noble in a way, but not how the real world works.  If one of my employees comes up with a stupid idea he thinks is great and I explain why it's not, and he feels stupid that's just a side effect of the process.  Why is this kindergarten or sesame street now?

Pariah,

I need to constantly remind the community that we are not a debate, because we aren't. A debate requires a stage, an audience, talking points, cheering, a winner, and a loser, and that all the participants of the debate to agree to the rules of the debate. That mode of theatre isn't the ArmageddonMUD General Discussion Board.

You can disagree with each other, that is fine, and encouraged.

What isn't fine is the intent of the disagreement.  To answer the question - "Why are you disagreeing with me?"  Clearly, some members of the community post on the general discussion board with their experiences, and do not want to have their personal experiences questioned.  That happens frequently. 


An example of this would be:
"My character was killed by a templar every time I enter Allanak, so I avoid playing in Allanak."

To question someone's experience would be to say:
"Actually, that hasn't happened in 6 months!"



Here's another example:
Pariah:  "I want the staff to tell players they are being bad BEFORE they dock karma, so that players can course correct and become better."
Response:  "They do."
Pariah:  "No, they don't."



Clearly, you have stated your complaint, a complaint I agree with, which is that the humans that are staff avoid conflict with the players and they don't punish the players enough.  A better question would be - how will this new system allow punishments on the players /better/ than the old system?  Is there different techniques and coded features of the new system that can distribute punishments?

But it doesn't solve the human aspect of it - how do we change the culture of the staff members to empower them to course correct the playerbase?  How do we change the culture of the playerbase so that they don't throw shit everywhere when they get slapped on their wrist for doing something bad?  Players are threatening to quit the game because they lose karma, and that will always occur every single time you attempt to course correct.  How can we make that better as a community?

I'll preface this by saying, I haven't been playing for some time.

Just took a look at all of these changes and to be perfectly honest, this cements me never coming back. I now get four karma. I have been playing this game since Sept of 2000. There are so many roles I've never been able to experience due to Karma requirements and with even more options being removed from my sphere of play...I just don't see a path forward. I'm in my forties with a job and a wife. I don't have the time to put into trying to get noticed for more karma after this long to play the things I've wanted to try since I was in high school. It doesn't feel particularly nice.

Hopefully this is what the current game community needs and wants, I've no idea. I just know how I feel about it and I won't be coming back.

I'm currently in a meeting so can't be very verbose, but just go back and count the number of players who seem to like this and the amount who outright hate it.

While I understand there are people who don't engage outside of playing the game or request tool usage who might skew the numbers but even without them the resounding response has been bad.  Yet as Brokkr said it's not going to stop the train from moving forward.

But appears we are more worried about semantics and wordplay on the board than we are of trying to bring in new or old players.  It's a damn shame.

Quote from: Usiku on November 09, 2023, 05:09:09 AMThe 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Quote from: whengravityfails on November 09, 2023, 05:53:11 PMI 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.

Quote from: Kaathe on November 09, 2023, 06:24:42 PMMy 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.

Quote from: Coda on November 09, 2023, 07:05:13 PMWhy 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.

Quote from: mansa on November 09, 2023, 07:08:14 PM

Quote from: Coda on November 09, 2023, 07:05:13 PMWhy 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.

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.

Quote from: MarshallDFX on November 09, 2023, 04:01:14 PMShit 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]

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Krath on November 09, 2023, 09:18:51 PMHey 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

Quote from: Krath on November 09, 2023, 09:18:51 PMI 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.

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.

Quote from: RheaGhe on November 09, 2023, 08:56:25 PMHaving 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]

[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]

Quote from: Triskelion on November 08, 2023, 04:32:15 PMI 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.

Quote from: RheaGhe on November 09, 2023, 11:10:28 PM[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]

Quote from: Krath on November 09, 2023, 10:05:35 PMHey 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.

Quote from: Coda on November 09, 2023, 11:29:56 PM

Quote from: RheaGhe on November 09, 2023, 11:10:28 PMThis 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]

QuoteYou'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?

QuoteI'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.

Quoteedit: 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]

...I got curious, because what staff is outlining is strange when compared to any LARP management system that I've ever heard of or experienced.  It's instructive as an additional example of LARP rulesets.

I also went and found this - https://www.modernenigmasociety.org/prestige/

The Prestige System, so let's take it point by point.

•    The reward used by the MES is known as the Prestige system, a point-based method that tracks a member's activities within the club and their participation in club-sanctioned charities.

•    Broken into three levels (General, Regional, and National), the value of the reward is often based on time contributed, dollars spent, or a set amount based upon fulfilled activities.

•    Prestige itself is awarded by Coordinators within the organization, dependent on the level of the task.  For example, assisting a Regional Storyteller may award you Regional level Prestige, whereas publishing a local newsletter may award you General level Prestige.

•    To be rewarded with Prestige, at the end of each month, you will need to submit your Prestige Log to your direct Coordinator, and they will review the log and award you the General Prestige that you may have earned that month.

•    Ultimately, it is each member's individual responsibility to keep up with their Prestige Log, and to have the ability to demonstrate proof of receipt of their award, so putting in links to any Reports which include the award will always prove helpful down the line.

This looks like a player-handled system that is reported monthly with communication between local STs and players that is awarded for contributing seemingly mostly in OOC ways, including financial remuneration, creating newsletters, and other similar things.  It doesn't mention roleplay once, is player managed, and is handled by a player-written log being presented to a local, likely personally known, ST in a conversation that allows them to grant a player Prestige within the system.  This is nothing like the proposed system staff is suggesting.

It also sounds like MES has a very different ST to player ratio, and a very different relationship between player and ST.  All these factors change the nature of the system used in the LARP, albeit not more than 'pay money or write a newsletter to earn the equivalent of karma' already does.

Quote

QuoteYou'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?

No, a person-to-person conversation with a potential problem player about what they're doing wrong and why it's not ok, as I suggested, is about as far from [bureaucratic] as a system can be.

Quote

QuoteI'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.  You seem to have chosen me as some sort of boogeyman who you simply cannot stop quoting and posting at.

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.

Armageddon is an institution.  The fact that it's a silly 90's era text game doesn't change the fact that we're people interacting in a society or organization founded for a social purpose. 

The 'people with actual experience' do not necessarily have experience in this area.  That's why I, as a community member with experience in this area, have spoken up.  To help them because I want the game to do well, because I enjoy the game.  That's the root of why I'm writing the equivalent of a short novel about my opinions on the OOC management of the reward system of a silly 90's era text game. 

Also because I have too much free time on my hands, clearly.

Staff are human, staff can make mistakes.  This is quite literally reverting to a system that was deemed unworkable and staff-time heavy as a solution to a system that they deem unworkable and staff-time heavy, except with a new cast who didn't (as staff) experience the issues that pushed them to the current system instead.  It's why I asked if staff would be willing to talk to someone with actual experience about how to manage the shift, and adjust the fifty-four-metric system into something more reasonable in one of my earlier posts.

Quote

Quoteedit: 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.

Polls aren't perfect, but they tend to be at least somewhat representative.  If there's no point in polls, they should be disabled on these sorts of issues.

We disagree.  I made my points and hope staff read them and take them to heart. 

You were also posting. I hope they read those too, and take to heart that this is a community that cares about the game, and wants it to succeed.  My random throwaway 'even this system would be better' isn't the end all be all, it was meant to show that you can have what they say they want (an easier way to manage who has access to what) without suddenly inventing a fifty-four bullet point system that is set up to absolutely, without fail, cause a proliferation of staff complaints, argumentative responses to karma docks, and hurt feelings.  All of which will detract from what everyone, staff and players alike, want staff to do:  Play the world, and tell fun, nerdy stories with us.

[Edited by Moderator]

...Prestige system has different criteria but is... Or was at the time I played, ultimately an example of the same thing. Trust. It is a metric of how much the organization, or group TRUSTS you to be be controlled and understand your actions. There was at the times, caps on Member Class. And each venue, had different charts akin to the one Mansa posted, of what you could play per memberclass. With rarer, or more difficult to RP things increasing in rank requirements.

The games I played in, you had a Local Story Teller, A Domain Story Teller, and a Regional Storyteller, who then took advice and orders from a national/international storyteller. It had a VERY similar staff layout. And a very similar outlook. And staffing numbers on a regional level. With the one difference being the equivalency of a coordinator branch instead of a builder/coder branch.

[Edited by Moderator]

Quote from: Triskelion on November 08, 2023, 04:32:15 PMI 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.

It's an understandable concern. The new system allows any staff member to use any of fifty four different parameters to remove  karma at any time. It also allows them to spin those same fifty four different parameters into giving you karma.

What it doesn't do, however, is engage them with the playerbase. It will remain easy to fall through rhe cracks, and the additional burden of fielding the uptick in staff complaints from the more fluid nature of karma will almost certainly exacerbate rather than solve the issue.

I'm pretty bummed about it, and I've had max karma in every system that's existed and have played many, many sponsored roles.

Self edited and retracted.

I'm getting confused between the two threads, so I'm just going to put all of this here!  [I merged this post into this thread - Moderator]

I'm not sure how clear it is from the player side, but players are constantly coming and going from the game. This is not a static player base of exactly 150 people and if we make this change 20 of them will walk out and never come back and we will be at 130. That just isn't how it goes.

We also have a bigger picture vision for the game. You may not think we are listening because we not behaving reactively to what you are saying right now, but we have been actively listening to what you have been saying for the last three years and now we are beginning to implement plans to try and shift the game in the direction of what the majority player base has been asking for over that time. In the past 4 days 3 veteran players have returned who haven't played for months to years.

Ultimately, we lose players year on year. If we make no changes at all we will lose players. If we continue at the same rate that has been shown over the last decade then the game will only have a small handful of years left before it's unplayable. The only option we have now is to make changes and try to make the right ones. Our focus has to be on attracting and retaining new players. It has to be on attracting and retaining the right kind of new players from the right communities. If we want this game to continue to be an RPI, then we have to make sure that when roleplay loving new players show up, they find an environment they want to role play in, that they find a community they want to be part of, that they find a game that works for them.

We need to make changes with confidence and we need to keep moving forward. Everything we are doing is to try and make sure this game and this community survives. I am all over those player numbers and I know it's scary. But the people clicking the, "If you don't do what I want (nothing) I will quit and never play again" button are doing us the most harm. They are trying to force us into a corner where will never be able to do anything except slowly wither away until there is nothing left. The game cannot be held hostage by people who threaten to quit over every change they don't like. The overall game design and direction cannot be led by who shouts the loudest. That would not be a cohesive plan of action to lead us to a place we need to be. Any big change we make is going to be hard to swallow for some players (probably different players each time). But if we want this game to survive, and even thrive, then we need big changes.

I hear you when you say some insight into our long term vision would help, we will knock heads and try to finalise the mission statement that somewhat stalled.

@Krath - Yes, there are over-arching plots which allow players to have world changing impacts on the future. There are currently two 'world' plots, with another that is a little on the back burner now. We also have smaller, more localised plots that have been expanded by player action into more world level plots. Should we by hyping up plots outside of the game? How? How much detail is right?

@dumbstruck - You're a veteran player. You have a vast amount of knowledge about this game. You are an experienced and talented role player. I have no doubt, looking at the list of criteria, that you would probably tick off a bunch of them in your sleep. The reason your karma is currently limited is because we are beholden to the old and extremely slow system. If anything the new system should get you where you want to be much faster. You currently have access to Illusion via spec app. You will have access to Illusion via spec app under the new system once we review, I am 100% certain. Also, you are here, playing the game, being awesome, being part of the community. Trust and the chance to turn over a new leaf goes both ways.

@Coda - That statement is offensive to Cassandras everywhere!

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 05:49:15 AMI'm not sure how clear it is from the player side, but players are constantly coming and going from the game. This is not a static player base of exactly 150 people and if we make this change 20 of them will walk out and never come back and we will be at 130. That just isn't how it goes.

We also have a bigger picture vision for the game. You may not think we are listening because we not behaving reactively to what you are saying right now, but we have been actively listening to what you have been saying for the last three years and now we are beginning to implement plans to try and shift the game in the direction of what the majority player base has been asking for over that time. In the past 4 days 3 veteran players have returned who haven't played for months to years.

Ultimately, we lose players year on year. If we make no changes at all we will lose players. If we continue at the same rate that has been shown over the last decade then the game will only have a small handful of years left before it's unplayable. The only option we have now is to make changes and try to make the right ones. Our focus has to be on attracting and retaining new players. It has to be on attracting and retaining the right kind of new players from the right communities. If we want this game to continue to be an RPI, then we have to make sure that when roleplay loving new players show up, they find an environment they want to role play in, that they find a community they want to be part of, that they find a game that works for them.

That's fine.  The players posting, voting, and being vocal are your long-time core base.  That you're patently refusing to listen to them is.. distressing.  It is what it is, but I had hope that things would be better, not more of the same.  Guess we'll keep losing people regularly and hoping we have enough replacements to keep a game worth playing, which is how you described things unless I'm misreading?

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 05:49:15 AMWe need to make changes with confidence and we need to keep moving forward. Everything we are doing is to try and make sure this game and this community survives. I am all over those player numbers and I know it's scary. But the people clicking the, "If you don't do what I want (nothing) I will quit and never play again" button are doing us the most harm. They are trying to force us into a corner where will never be able to do anything except slowly wither away until there is nothing left. The game cannot be held hostage by people who threaten to quit over every change they don't like. The overall game design and direction cannot be led by who shouts the loudest. That would not be a cohesive plan of action to lead us to a place we need to be. Any big change we make is going to be hard to swallow for some players (probably different players each time). But if we want this game to survive, and even thrive, then we need big changes.

We do need big changes.  But we need big changes handled well, not.. this.  There doesn't seem to be any derailing this train, so I continue to post pointlessly against a ridiculous top-down decision that makes little to no sense when you compare what you're doing with your stated goals.  But I don't currently have a staff avatar, so my voice doesn't count unless it's voicing agreement.  That sucks.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 05:49:15 AMI hear you when you say some insight into our long term vision would help, we will knock heads and try to finalise the mission statement that somewhat stalled.

@Krath - Yes, there are over-arching plots which allow players to have world changing impacts on the future. There are currently two 'world' plots, with another that is a little on the back burner now. We also have smaller, more localised plots that have been expanded by player action into more world level plots. Should we by hyping up plots outside of the game? How? How much detail is right?

@dumbstruck - You're a veteran player. You have a vast amount of knowledge about this game. You are an experienced and talented role player. I have no doubt, looking at the list of criteria, that you would probably tick off a bunch of them in your sleep. The reason your karma is currently limited is because we are beholden to the old and extremely slow system. If anything the new system should get you where you want to be much faster. You currently have access to Illusion via spec app. You will have access to Illusion via spec app under the new system once we review, I am 100% certain. Also, you are here, playing the game, being awesome, being part of the community. Trust and the chance to turn over a new leaf goes both ways.

@Coda - That statement is offensive to Cassandras everywhere!

Repeatedly announcing warnings of danger that are going unheeded by the stubborn leadership above me.  Can't get much more Cassandra.

Please, slow your roll.  Take a breath.  Engage with the community of which you are a member.  We want a good, fun game too, even those of us who are currently disagreeing with you.

[Edited by Moderator]

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 05:49:15 AMCLIPPING THIS FOR LENGTH

In response to this. Basically all I have to say is that was masterfully delivered. Usiku and I have had a near shouting match(Kidding... Or am I?) over the English language before. And even then, I can basically back up everything they said.

Hell I might be one of the veterans coming back they are talking about(Probably not...)

This system is better for newer players. And even if you look at it from a staff burden perspective. If that is what it takes for the game to continue existence as an RPI, which is presumably what staff wants. Then they may have to carry some of the load. Just as we will have too as well. To be examples to others.

I sent a message to Halaster privately the other day... And I think I'm going to adapt part of it to this.

I told him, a lesser person would have ghosted. But he was still attempting to do the right thing for the game. Even as he was so burnt out.

Instead here, I'll say this. Lesser -games- would fade. Lesser games would cling to their old ideals.  Staff seem to be attempting to do the right thing for the future of the game. Yes, there may be stumbles. Yes there may be roadblocks. But a lesser game would fade. A greater game takes action to ensure it does not.

I've done too much edited to remove snipes between various posters, but I believe I have kept the core of the discussion points from the community members.



Do keep these questions in mind:
What am I trying to accomplish by arguing/discussing with another member of the community?

Am I trying to convince someone to change their mind?  Or am I letting them come to the conclusions themselves and letting them change their own mind?  Am I giving them enough time to think about it?

Is that member of the community even acceptable to any argument, or do they just want to vent their frustrations?
(aka - "How to talk with my significant other -> Do they want me to solve their problem, or Do they want me just to be emphatic and listen to their problem?")

Quote from: betweenford on November 10, 2023, 07:46:08 AMThe other thread is currently unaccessible due to moderation but I just want to say that the two vivaduan subclasses Healer and Creation being on the same level for karma is really weird to me.

Healer is genuinely the weakest built Vivaduan subclass, and has alot of very very very very niche spells. Creation and Corruption have the ball very much in their court when it comes to potentially killing someone, causing massive amounts of damage, and being potentially threatening.

I would also argue that Creation is a better "combat healer" archetype than Healer itself.

Quote from: Usiku on November 09, 2023, 05:09:09 AMAlso, 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 thought is a little stale, since the thread got locked during my original reply, BUT-

Could staff either manually or automate a system that forwards account notes/karmic adjustments to the player in question? So many of these things are hidden behind an opaque layer that I'm not convinced needs to exist.

My last request for account notes was 7/29/20 or 29/7/20 if you're weird. God only knows what evil shit has ended up there in between then and now. I'm on my 24th character since then.

Whether everyone on staff intercom thinks I'm bad or good, I would love to have some sort of feedback, even if indirect in the form of a notification. I've had wants_rp_feedback or wtf ever the flag is on my account almost since its inception and it's extremely rare that any is received. Some idea of thoughts about play or comments about where I stand would go so far toward having something to orient myself to. From my perspective that could be something like "keep doing this", "stop doing this", or "adjust this in some way".

I'm all for a push and pull of karma adjustment but I want to feel like I'm being given a bit more agency in it, with the ability to play proactively in a direction.

Quote from: betweenford on November 10, 2023, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: betweenford on November 10, 2023, 07:46:08 AMThe other thread is currently unaccessible due to moderation but I just want to say that the two vivaduan subclasses Healer and Creation being on the same level for karma is really weird to me.

Healer is genuinely the weakest built Vivaduan subclass, and has alot of very very very very niche spells. Creation and Corruption have the ball very much in their court when it comes to potentially killing someone, causing massive amounts of damage, and being potentially threatening.

I would also argue that Creation is a better "combat healer" archetype than Healer itself.

This has been updated in the original thread.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 05:49:15 AMYou may not think we are listening because we not behaving reactively to what you are saying right now, but we have been actively listening to what you have been saying for the last three years and now we are beginning to implement plans to try and shift the game in the direction of what the majority player base has been asking for over that time. ... We need to make changes with confidence and we need to keep moving forward. Everything we are doing is to try and make sure this game and this community survives. I am all over those player numbers and I know it's scary. But the people clicking the, "If you don't do what I want (nothing) I will quit and never play again" button are doing us the most harm. They are trying to force us into a corner where will never be able to do anything except slowly wither away until there is nothing left. The game cannot be held hostage by people who threaten to quit over every change they don't like. The overall game design and direction cannot be led by who shouts the loudest. That would not be a cohesive plan of action to lead us to a place we need to be. Any big change we make is going to be hard to swallow for some players (probably different players each time). But if we want this game to survive, and even thrive, then we need big changes.

Good post, 'siku, thank you for this.

It took me half of forever to get max karma. I'm scared that I may not get it under the new system. I may not deserve max karma. :D (I don't think the new system is perfect...I'd like to see max karma possible without ticking every last box.) And, look, taking away toys was guaranteed to cause an outcry.

But what I really care about is Armageddon continuing to exist, the health of the community improving, and the quality of the game increasing. I'm not gonna ragequit because some things get switched around.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 12:22:15 PMThis has been updated in the original thread.

Do you intend to address any of the issues that have been brought up, or are we posting into the void?

Quote from: Brytta Léofa on November 10, 2023, 12:53:17 PMGood post, 'siku, thank you for this.

It took me half of forever to get max karma. I'm scared that I may not get it under the new system. I may not deserve max karma. :D (I don't think the new system is perfect...I'd like to see max karma possible without ticking every last box.) And, look, taking away toys was guaranteed to cause an outcry.

But what I really care about is Armageddon continuing to exist, the health of the community improving, and the quality of the game increasing. I'm not gonna ragequit because some things get switched around.

I don't think anyone is ragequitting because some things are getting switched around.  I think some people are simply stating that if staff goes forward with a plan for the community that they don't agree with, they'll choose to do something else with their time.  Part of managing and being part of a community is participating in that community.  Handing down a fifty four parameter system for managing your ability to be allowed to pretend to be a certain kind of elf wizard from on high isn't really doing that.  So people may end up choosing to do other things with their time.  It's unfair to the people making that choice to paint it as a 'ragequit', and it dismisses the, valid, concerns that have been brought up.

I think you brought up a great point here, and it's one I've been trying to wrestle an answer out of staff for:

Quote from: Brytta Léofa on November 10, 2023, 12:53:17 PMtaking away toys was guaranteed to cause an outcry.

Karma will become more fluid.  People are going to get upset if they lose karma because an ST saw them spamcrafting.  When they raise the issue, it will require staff time to read and address it.  To pull logs.  To communicate with the Player Council about the Staff Complaint.  It's a system that, at it's core, is practically guaranteed to add an enormous amount of overhead to staff's time.


The main point of karma being more fluid isn't bad, nor is raising non-human races to 1k - I like the idea of what they want, and I've long advocated for non-human races to be 1k.  I, and a little over half the polled playerbase, just see some very obvious issues with how they're doing it.  And thus far, staff hasn't really addressed the concerns, except to wave their hands and state that this will save time.  And that's at odds with Usiku's prior statements about openness, communication, and collaboration.

I know staff put effort and time into designing this system.  I want to be sure it works the way they want it to.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 12:22:15 PM

Quote from: betweenford on November 10, 2023, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: betweenford on November 10, 2023, 07:46:08 AMThe other thread is currently unaccessible due to moderation but I just want to say that the two vivaduan subclasses Healer and Creation being on the same level for karma is really weird to me.

Healer is genuinely the weakest built Vivaduan subclass, and has alot of very very very very niche spells. Creation and Corruption have the ball very much in their court when it comes to potentially killing someone, causing massive amounts of damage, and being potentially threatening.

I would also argue that Creation is a better "combat healer" archetype than Healer itself.

This has been updated in the original thread.

Nice. I see the change. Alot of those creation type subs are on that same level of danger IMO due to those... shared-or-similar spells that can't quite be mentioned here. Heh.

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 01:08:22 PMKarma will become more fluid.  People are going to get upset if they lose karma because an ST saw them spamcrafting.  When they raise the issue, it will require staff time to read and address it.  To pull logs.  To communicate with the Player Council about the Staff Complaint.  It's a system that, at it's core, is practically guaranteed to add an enormous amount of overhead to staff's time.

You need to make this bolded and larger, as it is also one of my worries.  It's not the -adding- of karma that is my worry, either, but specifically the removal.


How can we systemically and culturally change so that removing karma / receiving punishment / getting spanked isn't as anger inducing as it currently is.  The removal of karma is one area that I don't think is fleshed out enough in the current revamp.

QuoteHow can we systemically and culturally change so that removing karma / receiving punishment / getting spanked isn't as anger inducing as it currently is.  The removal of karma is one area that I don't think is fleshed out enough in the current revamp.

This was my major deal.  I believe the criteria and setup are going to lead to it in the beginning (i.e. I have done the things you asked, I should have this thing, when staff are in a different boat about that thing and how it's done; again, a lot of these things are subjective on staff's part, and right out of the gates you're going to have a flood of people going to 're-earn' the roles they lost and progress along the karma ladder), with a general loss of trust that the system is as reliable as people 'were told it would be in this thread', and then when people who DO get karma still seeing it removed for whatever reason, it will drive the nail into that discussion.

In order to achieve the culture you're talking about you have to do what I've beent alking about:
1) Make it clear that karma is not a personal reward system, otherwise it is a personal attack/pat on the head with every bit of it, since you will be 'attacking' someone's roleplay, a creative outlet, a game, which people take pretty seriously.  You may as well criticize their writing altogether, or their storytelling, or their voice.  Then, after that clearness is made, don't treat it like a reward system either or it's just false pretense and basis of distrust.

2) You don't need to remove criterion.  You need to acknowledge openly and candidly that these are subjective terms that have less of a personal report card and more of a judgment call on whether any certain player's usage at any certain time has something to contribute as a role in the game.  Rather than things being a punishment or slap, removal of karma is addressed as a limited space factor where you are not currently prime in that space, so removal is less about you, and more about someone else doing really great.

3) Rebuild the ability to say 'No' freely, openly, and without hesitation on karma-based apps whether made with karma through chargen or submitted as a special application. Remove the limit on special applications, but let someone know if they're spamming them too much (i.e. You sent this in last week, please wait longer or we'll have to ignore your special apps for awhile).  The playerbase needs to lose the idea that Karma is just...'Now I can spam this thing' and know it's still subject to what the condition of the game is.

One of the things I think needs to taken into account with Karma is special classes.

We all know that Muls and Half-Giants have raw power, the ability to PK super easy with their hit you once and knock you out ability etc.

But the thing I think that's always been "lost" in the Karma conversation is that say you play well, you get yourself up to Void Elementalist stuff, you then play it and have no idea what half of it does outside of help spell thing.  Some spells have incredible nuance to them that you simply won't know about till you're in the trenches playing the mage.

So while you might get there from your thinks, feels, RP etc.  Sometimes you're just gonna wild out with spells because you simply don't know what they do.  So while I see some people saying things similar to, If you got the karma for a void and play it badly you knew better.  No, you most definitely didn't all the time.

Quote from: Pariah on November 10, 2023, 02:10:48 PMOne of the things I think needs to taken into account with Karma is special classes.

...

Sometimes you're just gonna wild out with spells because you simply don't know what they do.  So while I see some people saying things similar to, If you got the karma for a void and play it badly you knew better.  No, you most definitely didn't all the time.

I can save you bad experiences in the future with magickers. Not all of them. But some of them. Don't "practice" what 'help spell spellname' even hints are damaging or offensive on other pcs.

I don't... understand why anyone would do that to start with, but not doing it in the future is going to make the future better.

You don't need a special outside warning. You will accidentally hurt someone practicing nukes with them. That's why people don't do it more (or have hidden it from me so well for a decade and a half that I don't and haven't seen it).

It might not help other issues, but it can help the one.

@Usiku I hear you. I think actions speak louder than words. I hope you will note (inwardly) my actions after seeing your response when you last targetted in thread (hint, I'm a mess and there's a request).

Quote from: mansa on November 10, 2023, 01:19:27 PM

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 01:08:22 PMKarma will become more fluid.  People are going to get upset if they lose karma because an ST saw them spamcrafting.  When they raise the issue, it will require staff time to read and address it.  To pull logs.  To communicate with the Player Council about the Staff Complaint.  It's a system that, at it's core, is practically guaranteed to add an enormous amount of overhead to staff's time.

You need to make this bolded and larger, as it is also one of my worries.  It's not the -adding- of karma that is my worry, either, but specifically the removal.


How can we systemically and culturally change so that removing karma / receiving punishment / getting spanked isn't as anger inducing as it currently is.  The removal of karma is one area that I don't think is fleshed out enough in the current revamp.

I keep trying, I've posted it like three or four times now. It's why I'd really like staff to like... talk to someone experienced in change management about how to make this change. Not even specifically me! Anyone!

Armaddict made a bunch of great points too, but I'm phone posting and lazy.

Removal of karma is basically them saying 'hey you did it wrong' and from the amount of moderation you've had to do on this topic alone, it's clear how people handle even very mild disagreement like posting an opinion that doesn't conform to theirs.

Removing karma is that plus a direct statement that your creative input is wrong, bad, or a negative influence on the game. Nobody wants to hear that.

It's why I think having a person to person chat would go a very long way toward making the system more functional. You can't legislate your way out of the negative feelings that arise from what is, essentially, a critique of someone's creative hobby.

If we want to shift the culture away from karma loss being Bad, we need to shift the culture away from Pronouncements From On High. It's an issue with the staff, it's an issue with the Moderators. It's why my constant refrain is: just be a part of the community, we're all trying, we're all here to tell nerdy stories. Let's be friends and chat and get to know each other.

That's the missing link imo.

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 03:45:29 PMI keep trying, I've posted it like three or four times now. It's why I'd really like staff to like... talk to someone experienced in change management about how to make this change. Not even specifically me! Anyone!

It has been offered, by several people, and not taken up on.

If I had to guess, they are probably going back and forth on the immortal side of things way more then engaging us currently.

I wish they would be more open, but I'd say it's fair to say historically this game just is "Staff decides something among staff and they do it." It's sorta hinted at in Brokkr's post too.

QuoteWe recognize that significant changes are often controversial, and while there's a possibility for minor modifications, we plan to implement this system soon. We'll conduct a review every six months for the next year and a half to evaluate the impact and make any necessary adjustments.

Basically, we are doing it no matter what is how I read that.  Which in a way I can respect as I'm very much a "Fuck ya feelings" type of guy.  But, I would also say that staff is more open to feedback and since this is almost all BAD feedback, maybe they will put a pin it it?  Who knows but them.

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 03:45:29 PMI keep trying.

You have absolutely inundated both threads with just way too much to pick through, and most of it is just back and forth fighting with other players which I am not following, sorry. This is the chat. If you think you have ideas for actual, implementable, actionable solutions then just say them clearly right here. Not what won't work. Not what is wrong with our system design. But what you think will work. Keeping in mind the requirements and what we are trying to achieve.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 03:45:29 PMI keep trying.

You have absolutely inundated both threads with just way too much to pick through, and most of it is just back and forth fighting with other players which I am not following, sorry. This is the chat. If you think you have ideas for actual, implementable, actionable solutions then just say them clearly right here. Not what won't work. Not what is wrong with our system design. But what you think will work. Keeping in mind the requirements and what we are trying to achieve.

That's not what a chat is, it requires an actual dialogue because it's a complex system. Also, a good chat wouldn't start off with you furious that I posted my thoughts.

But I'll write something up and throw it in the thread, sure. I'll quote you again when I do. From the framing, response, and inability to acknowledge concerns voiced and held by everyone from mansa to me, I don't have a lot of incentive to put a ton of effort into it. But I'll do my best.

I would have suggested making sure there were a few extras on the table to get people excited about. If you take away one goodie, you could try to find ways to offer others.

There should be karma options for wild talents, boosted guilds, options to start with literacy, options to start with coins, cool armor and metal items. All of those would be amazing and imho fairly easy to automate.

I have listened to, acknowledged and addressed a lot of concerns in the replies I have given over the last few days as well as during discussions on the IDB. We have also edited and changed the proposal a few times now and are still working on a few more tweaks based on player feedback from this thread and the Discord discussions.

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 06:42:16 PMThat's not what a chat is, it requires an actual dialogue because it's a complex system. Also, a good chat wouldn't start off with you furious that I posted my thoughts.

But I'll write something up and throw it in the thread, sure. I'll quote you again when I do. From the framing, response, and inability to acknowledge concerns voiced and held by everyone from mansa to me, I don't have a lot of incentive to put a ton of effort into it. But I'll do my best.

You are again assuming and taking the stance you are being attacked without that actually taking place. Trust me if Usiku was furious, I doubt they would be posting.

They have acknowledged your concerns. They have stated that the things you are concerned over are either within the parameters they expect people to be concerned over, and are already making adjustments to deal with said concerns. Or; are outside the parameters they are aiming this new policy to deal with.

That they have not bent to your demands, does not mean they have not, patiently, acknowledged them. And tried to explain their own perspective. With a returned explanation of why they are making the changes they are making. Which is, what we call...

A dialogue.

Or,

in other words,

by another description,

to use a synonym,

A chat.

At this point you have repeated yourself what I'd estimate to be 15 times, you do not like the changes, but staff, and largely Usiku has already explained why they are making them, and it's for reasons staff has already explained.


But please, do not get distracted trying to respond to my post here. Review Usiku and the other producers posts within this thread and elsewhere on the subject. And see if you can come up with something that fits their parameters, constructively.

Edit: This is replying to Usiku, not the post above

You've listened to players who asked for a few tweaks. You're not engaging with people telling you that they see real issues and want to help you fix them.

I'll hold off on further posting in the thread until I have a write up for you, but I'll tell you right now, one of the main points is one I've mentioned several times.

The imperative need for a cultural shift where staff stop acting like the unapproachable rulers over this shared creative space. That's at the heart of why your proposal will result in the consequences outlined, simply and directly, in my post that you quoted.

Quit viewing me as an antagonist because I mention that. I wouldn't be dedicating my time and effort to this if I didn't care as much as you did about a game we've both been playing, likely together, for 20 years.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 06:49:42 PMI have listened to, acknowledged and addressed a lot of concerns in the replies I have given over the last few days as well as during discussions on the IDB. We have also edited and changed the proposal a few times now and are still working on a few more tweaks based on player feedback from this thread and the Discord discussions.

I noticed you addressed my concern, and appreciate it.

Quote from: Coda on November 10, 2023, 06:59:55 PMThe imperative need for a cultural shift where staff stop acting like the unapproachable rulers over this shared creative space.

I haven't addressed the notion of the staffing team being 'unapproachable rulers' because I don't share that view, and I also concur that we shouldn't act or be perceived as such. I've rarely, if ever, been called unapproachable and Hal is generally known for his openness and friendliness. We're all just nerds who love this game, want to see it continue and enjoy making fun, being creative and telling stories. However, this doesn't mean there aren't moments when we need to set clear boundaries. Ultimately, it's the staff who shoulder the weight of responsibility and put in the work behind the scenes. Decisions have to be made by someone and we're often constrained by limited time and resources. It's actually very important that we accomplish things efficiently. Design by committee doesn't work.

I'm not sure how to alter the karma system so that it reflects more approachability in staff, so if you have actionable ideas then I am open to them.

Quote from: Usiku on November 10, 2023, 07:32:21 PMsnip

This is a quick(er), easy(/ier) to read version that came after I spent too long typing out my thoughts waaay too verbosely.  It's how I think and process, and I probably have more to say on most of these, if it's wanted (I doubt it after this).  As you pointed out, I can be prone to a bit of rambling and repetition.

Proposals with some justification first, then a some bits at the end on the broader topic of From On High Staffing vs. Collaborative Staffing.  Which is the root of this, and why I feel changes need to be made so that this doesn't make it more time consuming for staff.

Proposals on the karma system:

1. Use the karma scale, 0-3, 0-10, whatever, it's frankly immaterial.  The issue is linking the granularity of what you can play to a scale like this.

Change: Be more willing to simply remove options. This is rarely used, but it exists and unless there's some technical challenge in giving that power to more staffers, it seems easy to add.  Why?  Because being good at playing gicks doesn't necessarily mean you're good at leadership, or that you're great at portraying other races.  It also reduces player angst at losing an option if playing a bad half-giant doesn't also potentially mean losing access to Suk-Krath Guile, Suk-Krath Agony, and Spec-apping a full guild Whiran while slowing down your progress toward the stuff on the next tier too.
 
2. Let STs add and remove karma, that's a great idea, I love everything about it- there are more STs, they're more likely to be observing individuals, and they're less busy with 'higher level' work than Admins and Producers. 

Change: The only change here is the manner in which this is handled and communicated. Don't surprise people with a sudden loss when they hit 'O' at the log in screen or go to make a new PC.  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. 

Note: This absolutely happens sometimes - it should be policy, not chance.

That's it.  That's all I've really said about the system in terms of what changes should be made.  They're fairly minor changes, really, both aimed at softening the blow of punishment or correction.  Maybe they're workable, maybe they aren't for various reasons.  I don't know and it's not possible to discuss and find a better way like this.

Why suggest them, though?

To save staff time.  The main stated goal of the karma changes.

You save it by making karma reviews come quicker and require less staff side lookup work by focusing on the more recent past.  You save it by letting STs adjust karma when they see good and bad things.  But, as I point out, you're going to lose it all over again because of the more frequent adjustments when karma docks occur.  Things that antagonize a player increases their angst - I don't think it's at all controversial to say that angry players that feel unheard troll more, send more staff complaints which, from a recent thread are huge time sinks, and play both worse and less often.

I've posted quite a bit about From On High Staffing vs. Cooperative Staffing. Both of my suggested changes are aimed at leaning the game toward the latter and away from the former. Make punishments and adjustments less painful, and you won't get as many staff complaints.  Take a moment to explain why what they're doing isn't ok, and briefly reassure them that they'll get another chance, but they need to take a break and re-read/learn before trying again, and you'll make them feel heard and encourage them to try a bit harder. 

Arm has a long history, and at least two major staff shakeups (Nyr and Shalooonsh) have been because bad actors used the obfuscated and distant method of staffing that's developed here to act inappropriately in various ways.  I'm not here to re-legislate those or really even talk about them.  But they color the way staff and players interact.  Especially our longtime players. 

Currently, staff are distant and unapproachable - they disallow Discord messages, DMs, ICQ, AIM (are these even still around?) and literally any means of communication that aren't the request tool, or (rarely outside one way posts) the gdb.  They stay at full invis during things like character setup.  And they whisper about your characters' actions in secret places without ever allowing you to participate and explain until they've already had a while to let their minds be made up (this is natural and human, not an attack) and they're coming to you with consequences.

These are semi-off-topic changes, but they're all the same thing really, especially because the stated goal (one literally everyone posting shares) is to reduce the time staff spends on stuff that isn't telling cool nerdy stories with each other.  I want that too.  Everyone wants that.  Tell some dork ass stories with me people, that's why we're here.

But just look at the way this change was framed:

QuoteWe recognize that significant changes are often controversial, and while there's a possibility for minor modifications, we plan to implement this system soon.

Followed by 8 pages worth of text, if you include the minor updates that you added.

This method does the opposite of reducing player angst, as we can see.  It does the opposite of making people feel heard, as we can see. Why would you start the announcement with that?  It's created an enormous time sink for Moderators because some of us can't help but reply to weirdos that get obsessed with us.  It's a time sink for you because of how annoyed over half the polled players got from the announcement - which means they're posting a bunch. As are those that disagree with them.  It's led to spats and slap fights, admittedly I was involved in the biggest slap fight.  Two stubborn people had a dumb argument.  I'm sorry for my part of it, it was unproductive because posting big back and forths on message boards isn't that conducive to communication and changing minds (ironyyy), and it earned me a rather persistent stalker. 

I'll learn my lesson some day.

Anyway -

In every other arena, large scale changes have a few basic rules.

1. Have a plan - This was done, there's a plan!

2. Understand what the goal is, and make sure the changes align with it.  This was done, though people pointed out potentially unseen issues (not just me, several people, some of them were listened to, some changes were made).

3. Have the process planned out.  This doesn't seem to have been done - not an attack, but if it exists, we haven't seen it. That takes us to 4.

4. Communicate and make people feel heard.  8-page memos with 'we're only making small changes, deal with it' at the top aren't good communication.  A ninety minute player-staff meeting would've likely been much more productive, and cost you all less time.  You absolutely made some people feel heard, Fredd for one, and the people that post 'thank you staff!!!!' to every single thing y'all write obviously still feel heard.  But there's a big group that doesn't.  I'm not posting alone here, even if I've somehow become the focus of this.

5. Be ready for roadblocks - The fact that so many people are disagreeing seems to be coming as a surprise.  I admit I can read text (and have my text be read) as testier than it actually is because of the lack of tone, but even you, Usiku, who is very much known for openness and kindness have come across as snippy and frustrated because there's been a lot of backlash to the plan.

None of this is an attack.  I'd have preferred to have a conversation, not in public, because the public nature of 'hey, I feel you're doing this wrong' can often make it come across way harsher than it's intended.  As does the nature of having to post a big ol' screed like this instead of having a more natural back and forth conversation where we can reassure each other that we're operating in good faith, and we're not forced to confront every single aspect of the disagreement all at once. 

This is a common theme in my suggestions and comments: treating each other like fellow human beings, rather than antagonistic entities (you typically do a good job of this, let's spread that attitude by policy change) goes a long way toward making everything easier.

And yes, again, I realize the irony of posting a huge block of text while calling out the initial post.  But I didn't get to choose how to engage here, and wanted to be sure I explained my reasoning, because I like this silly game.

I'm going to lock this thread for the next day, because it seems to have reached a nice denouement, and it gives everyone time to enjoy the weekend.  Remember to drink lots of water and get your steps in.

I've unlocked the thread again.  Remember these questions when posting:
What am I trying to accomplish by arguing/discussing with another member of the community?

Am I trying to convince someone to change their mind?  Or am I letting them come to the conclusions themselves and letting them change their own mind?  Am I giving them enough time to think about it?

Is that member of the community even acceptable to any argument, or do they just want to vent their frustrations?
(aka - "How to talk with my significant other -> Do they want me to solve their problem, or Do they want me just to be emphatic and listen to their problem?")

Still wondering about this.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60034.0.html

Assuming there is a 10 Karma account:

If someone joins staff with 0 karma, would they have access to all options, or just what their 0 karma account is restricted to?

Thank you, Brokkr!

The historic and current process has been that after probation ends, we bump karma up to max on mortal account.  When Staff could have multiple mortal PCs, there were some additional rules that don't matter now on top of that, now that everyone can only have one mortal.

When staff step down, karma goes back down to original level on their mortal account, although might get assessed for contribution/supporting the game criteria.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60034.msg1100062.html#msg1100062

I'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:
Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.


Scenario 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.

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.

Let me start by saying I am an anti-mudsex/relationship beyond "That's my homie" type player.

But is this really against the rules?  I thought they had some shit about coercion was allowed from people in power in the rules?

Quote from: Pariah on November 14, 2023, 04:09:03 PMBut is this really against the rules?

The point of having these examples is to ask the question to the staff:

How does the new policy allow for "corrective behaviour" for players when they do things that results in a player complaint.


Karma should be easily gained and easily removed..  What should be done in this scenario?  Is that a correct behaviour?  Should karma be removed?  What communication should be sent to the player?  What if that player replies, 'Why am I being docked karma?  I disagree with this assessment!  This isn't against the rules.  Show me where it says this in the rules!'  How can we follow up with that player, or players in general, so that this doesn't happen in the future?

Regarding @mansa's post: It's hard to say exactly what should be done in each scenario, but I think there are definitely some things worth noting when it comes to losing karma and having tough conversations about it.

1) When in doubt, exercise restraint. With something like Scenario 5, where the player made the best effort to RP and involve staff up to the point of combat, I think a lighter touch is going to work. If the "mission statement" of the game ends up being that the focus of the game is on collaborative roleplaying and storytelling, then I think staff figuring out ways to encourage combat RP happening during combat instead of just before & after is going to be a big part of that. Until they do though, it's hard to hold it against a player when that doesn't happen.

2) Decisions should use precedent whenever possible. If precedent doesn't exist then that should invite internal discussion among staff. If Scenario 6 happens in 2024, and then it happens again in 2025 with a different player, the same actions should be taken (more or less, adjusting for any other differing circumstances, like below).

3) There should be higher expectations of those with higher karma and/or more experience with the game. In a situation like Scenario 9, a 9-karma player made a revenge PC and broke a basic rule of the game. That should invite more scrutiny and penalty than if a 1-karma player had done the same. Similarly, there should be higher expectations of players holding sponsored roles, as well as current and former staff with mortal PCs. These players, having been entrusted to help keep the game running smoothly, should generally be treated like they have more karma than they do when it comes to expectation.

As far as having conversations goes, I think one thing in particular is important: Very few people enjoy being confronted about something, receiving unsolicited criticism, or being talked down to. Players shouldn't feel trapped into player-staff conversations about karma decreases. It shouldn't feel like a lecture or an intervention. At the same time, players should not seek to trap staff into these conversations either through endless litigation or argumentation.
- Staff should state what they observed, why it had incurred a karma loss and what can be done to re-earn it.
- Players should recognize areas of improvement, but also stick up for themselves in constructive ways when they genuinely don't know why they are being messaged ("How is what I did wrong?" vs. "What I did wasn't wrong!")
- The "culture" should shift from one in which karma is used as a carrot-and-stick machine, to one where karma simply represents staff's comfort with a player holding a particular role. This will take effort from everyone, not just staff.

That 6th scenario is pretty notably against the rules, though. From HELP CONSENT:

QuotePower imbalance, leadership and coercion:

In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance could be interpreted as leverage (sexual coercion storylines are not forbidden) for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture along with direction to this help file. This applies to all leadership roles as well as powerful roles such as known sorcerers.

The earliest possible juncture means as soon as you are aware that your PC desires a sexual or romantic encounter with another PC.

This means a leader (/powerful PC) must first obtain general consent to pursue a romantic relationship with another PC and then subsequently consent must always continue to be sought for any sexually explicit scenes, each time they may occur, if the FTB mechanism is not being employed.

So in this case, at the very least, clarity is no issue. It's right there for anyone to read, no doubt about it.

Quote from: mansa on November 14, 2023, 03:40:47 PMScenario 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.

That's my armageddon career in a nutshell.

So are we just cherry picking actual in game happenings as scenarios? Lets play Bingo.. I have seen Scenario 3,5 and 7 on a regular basis.

I suppose they seem outlandish but are really hinterlandish once you have played Arm long enough.

If we're being real, there are some skills that can only really be trained, after a certain point, in a manner that would be considered cheating/twinking by many. I think it's fair to wonder if one's karma balance depends upon whether one is spotted doing this by a staff member who knows that's the only way, or one who sees it as horrible roleplay that nobody should ever do, when we all know that certain skills pretty much can't be raised above advanced without doing that thing.

In other words, how much leeway do players have in self-medicating against outdated or poorly-calibrated coded systems that pretty much require doing things that are dumb and unrealistic if you actually want to make progress? I feel like this has never been established. Surely we're past the naïve days of yore where one might have legitimately claimed that you need to put 75 days of play into a character before you deserve to call yourself a master in the art of backstabbing.

I remember way back in the day hunters would suddenly travel to the tablelands to fight one specific critter who was super dodgy just to advance their weapon skills.  I had some Salarr first hunters or whatever they were called even recommend me do it after I got to the kill everything that walks level on my hunters.

It always seemed twinky as fuck to make these trips just for a dodged swing or two.

Quote from: Pariah on November 15, 2023, 07:46:32 AMI remember way back in the day hunters would suddenly travel to the tablelands to fight one specific critter who was super dodgy just to advance their weapon skills.  I had some Salarr first hunters or whatever they were called even recommend me do it after I got to the kill everything that walks level on my hunters.

It always seemed twinky as fuck to make these trips just for a dodged swing or two.

Well, it's "twinky as fuck" from a perspective where characters should only do what they would realistically do. That's commonly called roleplaying. It would take some serious mental gymnastics for an inhabitant of Zalanthas to go, "well, all the normal things I face in the harsh desert no longer pose a threat to me, so it's time to go fight squirrels in foreign lands! It's the only way to get my black belt!"

On the other hand, the irritating reality is that one reaches that point of "normal things I fight against no longer pose a threat" very early in the graph of potential combat prowess. You don't come to that realization three quarters of the way to the top. It's more like slightly before halfway. Then you fight anything that's got master parry and you realize how absolutely useless mid-journeyman weapon skills are against that. But that was as good as you could get doing things that might conventionally qualify as roleplay.

So people self-medicate. For a long time, they did so by blindfighting snakes on a roof, or by sparring with bags of rocks on them. These methods were then nerfed. The nerfs were correct from the point of view that the methods were ridiculous, but the problem remained: unless you had the highly improbable fortune to know a very long-lived fighty dude who would spar with you on a daily basis, you were not going to get any better than 'okay' at fighting. And most characters simply don't have access to such a sensei. You might have that luxury once every five or ten RL years, and when it does happen, it usually wasn't the result of brave, creative play--you were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Players got tired of that, and they started self-medicating. Unfortunately, the stilt lizards and turaals were nerfed, and so even more arcane methods were employed. Those with the know-how benefitted, but the methods were so silly and twinky that nobody could really justify doing it from an in-character perspective. Still, some get away with it, and they win the arms race when it comes time for a good old PvP fight. Good Boi Amos who has satisfied himself with the skill level that hunting raptors gives him then gets omegapwned by Bad Boi Malik who knows how to get much better than that.

Players are then faced with a conundrum. Do you play fair (that's a karma criterion now, after all) and not only get bored with the fact that you'll never get any better than okay but also get pwned anytime you fight a dude who chose to play by different rules--or do you fight fire with fire? And what does staff think of players who do that? That's what hasn't been made clear. It's rather nebulous, and, more importantly, it seems to me that it depends almost entirely on the personal whims of whichever staff member is tasked with watching over your clan.

Quote from: Triskelion on November 15, 2023, 08:55:30 AMWell, it's "twinky as fuck" from a perspective where characters should only do what they would realistically do. That's commonly called roleplaying. It would take some serious mental gymnastics for an inhabitant of Zalanthas to go, "well, all the normal things I face in the harsh desert no longer pose a threat to me, so it's time to go fight squirrels in foreign lands! It's the only way to get my black belt!"

Hunters struggle from a lack of sparring opportunities. I've played hunters in every single GMH and I don't think I've ever actually had a situation where I have a second hunter actively working aside me even when both hunter slots are filled, so you kinda do have to get creative when you're a solo hunter trying to skill up so you lower your chances of dying. I will say, and mods are open to slap me if I shouldn't point this out, but they FINALLY added a sparring group specifically to the northern compound, I would recommend just adding a sparring group to each GHM compound so that way hunters don't have to bend over backwards just to try and progress their combat skills at a reasonable rate.

Quote from: Kavrick on November 15, 2023, 11:15:36 AMHunters struggle from a lack of sparring opportunities. I've played hunters in every single GMH and I don't think I've ever actually had a situation where I have a second hunter actively working aside me even when both hunter slots are filled, so you kinda do have to get creative when you're a solo hunter trying to skill up so you lower your chances of dying. I will say, and mods are open to slap me if I shouldn't point this out, but they FINALLY added a sparring group specifically to the northern compound, I would recommend just adding a sparring group to each GHM compound so that way hunters don't have to bend over backwards just to try and progress their combat skills at a reasonable rate.

There's already one area in the game where hunters can find regular sparring opportunities outside the Byn and city militia, if you want a more immediate solution.

Quote from: Trevalyan on November 15, 2023, 12:34:45 PMThere's already one area in the game where hunters can find regular sparring opportunities outside the Byn and city militia, if you want a more immediate solution.

If that's the case I don't know about it, also want to point out that I'm off-peak.

I would be interested in seeing what some of you guys think about how those situations should be handled.

Quote from: Usiku on November 15, 2023, 02:03:37 PMI would be interested in seeing what some of you guys think about how those situations should be handled.

Entirely depends on what their history of effort is once they are 'skilled up'. Do they go around using their uber-skills to dominate other players, murderhobo any new 'adversary' who shows up with minimal effort, and cause entire regions\clans to become effectively off limits for anyone who isn't on their 'team'?

Or do they use their skills to advance groups, be inclusive, and foster a lot of new roleplay beyond "gave that bitch a mantis head"?

The twinking meta is a huge portion of the game. It's always going to be there. Twink control is like gun control ... if you try and stop it then only the bad players are going to be twinked up and the game just becomes overall more and more shittier.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the conversation re. twinking specifically. Rather mansa's nine scenarios.

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.

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.

Quote from: Fredd on November 17, 2023, 11:00:08 AMAlso 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.

It's against the new-ish updated consent policy (viewable in the helpfile) for this to happen. It should be handled via player complaint, if you're aware of such going on, imo.

Voila:

"In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance could be interpreted as leverage (sexual coercion storylines are not forbidden) for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture along with direction to this help file. This applies to all leadership roles as well as powerful roles such as known sorcerers.

The earliest possible juncture means as soon as you are aware that your PC desires a sexual or romantic encounter with another PC.

This means a leader (/powerful PC) must first obtain general consent to pursue a romantic relationship with another PC and then subsequently consent must always continue to be sought for any sexually explicit scenes, each time they may occur, if the FTB mechanism is not being employed."

Quote from: adri on November 17, 2023, 11:19:36 AM

Quote from: Fredd on November 17, 2023, 11:00:08 AMAlso 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.

It's against the new-ish updated consent policy (viewable in the helpfile) for this to happen. It should be handled via player complaint, if you're aware of such going on, imo.

Voila:

"In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance could be interpreted as leverage (sexual coercion storylines are not forbidden) for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture along with direction to this help file. This applies to all leadership roles as well as powerful roles such as known sorcerers.

The earliest possible juncture means as soon as you are aware that your PC desires a sexual or romantic encounter with another PC.

This means a leader (/powerful PC) must first obtain general consent to pursue a romantic relationship with another PC and then subsequently consent must always continue to be sought for any sexually explicit scenes, each time they may occur, if the FTB mechanism is not being employed."

Oh, Very good.

So is this still going to happen @Brokkr and @Usiku seeing as how it appears to have had overwhelming dislike from the (vocal at least) playerbase?

The vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes! :)

Quote from: Windstorm on November 20, 2023, 11:44:15 AMThe vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes! :)

Not the case.

The analyze change was damn near universally loved.

Quote from: dumbstruck on November 20, 2023, 11:55:54 AM

Quote from: Windstorm on November 20, 2023, 11:44:15 AMThe vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes! :)

Not the case.

The analyze change was damn near universally loved.

I saw people complain that the analyze change made things too easy for crafting characters.

I also saw people complain at the time of the analyze change that it devalued their current acquired knowledge.

Looking at this change, through the lens of that change. It's actually relatively similar. The whole thing is about passing off player knowledge and control of a system. Analyze was objectively a bad change for old players. Because it devalued their built up knowledge heavily and made it so that the recipes and such were more fluid and available. But it was good for anyone who didn't have that built up knowledge base. Because it freed them from the constraints and gave them targets to aim for.

This change is doing much the same.

I would say as one is about liberating content that older players were hordeing for an unfair advantage and the other is literally about gating content from everyone and their brother, to me they couldn't be more different.

Almost opposite of one another.

And funnily enough, one was almost universally loved (with a few loud oppositional voices) and the other almost universally disliked (with a few loud people in favor).

And funnily enough... the polling actually backs that up.

Quote from: Pariah on November 20, 2023, 11:37:55 AMoverwhelming dislike from the (vocal at least) playerbase?

Quote from: dumbstruck on November 20, 2023, 05:27:47 PMliterally about gating content from everyone and their brother, to me they couldn't be more different.

It's hard for me to see past the initial assumptions that it would take months to get some or all of your roles restored. That's incorrect. The intent is it's done fast and well before you need to roll your next PC.

I see the concern this will burn staff out, and I get some people gall at having to ask for a review to get bumped back up. These don't seem to be the chief complaints though. So I'm not sure we are all talking about the same thing.

For me, @Kaathe there is a fundamental disagreement from the jump. I genuinely believe that after an initial point of say, 1-2 months to get acquainted with the game world, people should just have access to the game content. All of it. Until they prove that they cannot handle it, maliciously or purposefully. (Which is to say, if someone fucks up, talk to them about it first before taking the option, but if they keep fucking up, take the option) ... I believe that that is going to take less work and cause less hurt and harm.

But then, every time I see something new it feels like it is doing the opposite of empowering players or their pcs. The analyze change did the opposite. And everyone loved it. Because it gave them access to more of the game that they love. Rather than the reverse.

I feel like stratifying karma into 11 ranks for what might be 10 people in each bracket if they are split equally for a whole ass panel of people to judge the roleplay that they do for fun does not sound like it is going to end well or be positive. I just don't. There's not a number of changes that can be made to change my mind. I came from the 8 karma system and it wasn't better. It was just shittier people who were closer to staff or older players when karma was really freely given who were abusing the shit out of the system. Why? The element of human judgement. If you like someone and want them to succeed at something, you will find excuses and reasons for them to succeed, and if you don't like them and don't want their projects to succeed, you will find every possible reason and excuse for them to fail.

QuoteI saw people complain that the analyze change made things too easy for crafting characters.

I also saw people complain at the time of the analyze change that it devalued their current acquired knowledge.

Looking at this change, through the lens of that change. It's actually relatively similar. The whole thing is about passing off player knowledge and control of a system. Analyze was objectively a bad change for old players. Because it devalued their built up knowledge heavily and made it so that the recipes and such were more fluid and available. But it was good for anyone who didn't have that built up knowledge base. Because it freed them from the constraints and gave them targets to aim for.

This change is doing much the same.

This seems really suspect, and I spent time searching all the threads on analyze to find something like this.  The only thing remotely close to a complaint that I could find post-change was someone asking for a Press Enter to Continue prompt.  The complaints pre-change were numerous.

As usual, this seems to be a shallow way of devaluing people's concerns with them being older in the game, as if that's some sort of terrible value to have.  People with insights of where it's been and attachments to things that have worked for them OH NO.

These are the easiest things to dismiss for everyone except for someone who is actually newer to the game harboring some idea that we're all out to get you because of a find out IC approach that has been there for decades.

In this case, I think that saying that the only people with problems are the vocal minority is a misnomer.  I also think calling it universally hated is a misnomer.  I think over pages and pages, people have been very clear about what they're uncertain about, like, and dislike, and the majority, even those vocal few, have both positives and negatives.

I think the call to 'hit the cancel button' is exaggerated.  I think the call to examine more deeply some of the workings and how they will impact functionality and conversations is not.  And I think the dismissal of pages of relatively well laid out concerns, many of which are answered (often just not to the original complainant's satisfaction), as just people being attached to the way things were because of some advantage it gives them is, again, where the community grows toxicity that is far more pervasive than some guy who likes being powerful could ever be.  I think you could probably check those kind of assumptions you have about veterans, because when they spill out in discourse like this it doesn't ring anywhere near true, and actually makes you seem more like an attacker than anything else.

QuoteBogre — 01/19/2023 6:28 AM
stuff like this is why i wish the analyze change didn't make that so much easier

Yes a lot of people praised it. But I have seen people complain about it as well. Which was my point.

The Analyze change is great, but to brand it as a purely good thing for everyone is... In denial that it removed a critical component of previous crafter skilling, which was the action of actually finding recipes to craft.

Analyzing it deeper. I have also, in my own experience as a crafter, found it harder and harder to RP as a non-know-it-all, as far as crafting goes. The average person could say figure out a recipe, if they had the item in hand. But just having one piece of the puzzle, and seeing everything that can be made from it. Actively lessens the amount of RP and effort it takes to actually be a crafter.

This is what I also meant. You can find a negative in everything. That there are negatives to the new karma change doesn't mean it should be filed away as utterly horrible.

That there are negatives to the karma change means that those negatives should be compared to the stated objectives. And weighed.

Perhaps I misread your intent.  That happens often in text.  I think your quote is pointing to something that is not about the change itself, but some other behavior in the game facilitated by that change, but I didn't really want to nitpick over that as much as say that old people, veterans, and info hoarders aren't out there with some diabolical plan to maintain advantage over people.

I watch people on Youtube reacting to Tool for the first time, because every now and again you find that person where the music was just -made- for them.  It's not from a place of resentment; it's almost envy, seeing someone else experience it for the first time.

The beauty of tight-lipped veterans is that they generally know that some of these things, things that will vary from person to person, are going to make you freak out with how awesome that was.  The same way we did.  I found it odd in this conversation, because I don't see it as particularly veterans that have qualms; the crowd has been varied, so have the concerns, so has the spectrum of intensity on it.

I have very serious qualms, but not because of the karma itself.  I view the combination of loss of roles, redefinition of karma and what it will mean, and the mechanics of how it works as a recipe for a backslide of staff/player relations over things that are actually understandable and easily grasped as long as they're just...used and treated as light-heartedly as it should be.  But I don't find most other concerns particularly unjustified, just like I don't view hopes of it as unjustified; I believe this is an opportunity to make a very real shift in both player and staff mentality about how we contribute to the health of the game collectively, rather than it being an advancement board and elitism on playstyle based off of a number instead of the amount of content and fun generated in a theme that can be, on purpose, very shitty to you.

So I apologize if I misunderstood, but please try not to proliferate the idea that veterans are just grumpy people who don't want anyone else to be 'good' at the game so that we can twist things on you whenever we feel like it; we want people to enjoy the same things we've enjoyed, and we want the game to thrive in a very unique experience that can't be found most places, rather than working towards a generic view of a game that can be found pretty frequently.

Apologies if derailed; moderate if needed.

"Some people like it, some people don't, so it's whatever" gets brought up a lot, by both players and staff to dismiss concerns. Sometimes in the shape of "someone is always going to complain". But it's not a good argument.

There are different degrees of dissatisfaction. There's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something. "Some people like it and some people don't" describes both situations, but it does not make them equivalent and is not a very useful description. It applies to literally any change anyone could ever suggest, whether it's "let's remove all options except for dwarf merchants" or "let's remove this one spell because it's overpowered".

I really like the granularity of the new system, prefer the new categories and like and most things about it, really. I don't like the conversion. I understand the reasoning of "players will be happy if they get points returned in the initial review and have a positive interaction", but I really don't see that working out. If someone takes something away from me for no apparent reason, then returns it after I ask (very politely) to get it back, I'm not grateful and happy to get it back. I'm going to be at least little bit angry that you took it away in the first place and made me do a song and dance to have it returned. The delivery of "this is how it's going to be and we're not changing it" doesn't help, either.

In previous discussions about karma, staff noted that many 3-karma players in the current system were not playing to the standard that a player with maximum karma would be expected to play at. I would assume that is one of the reasons why they are being cautious with the conversion scale. The read-between-the-lines interpretation is that all 3-karma players would be at-least-6-karma players under the new system, and whether they would be at 6 karma, 10 karma or somewhere in between is pending individual review.

Yes, the conversion undoubtedly sucks for individuals who are all being lumped together for reassessment, and have believed up until this point that they deserve to have max karma, given that up until this point karma has been used as a reward/punishment system. The implication of the previous system is that karma was earned over time, and only removed under the most egregious circumstances. This resulted in a group of players that accumulated karma and didn't play according to the standards expected by staff of their karma level. Under a reward/punishment system, there is no way to look at a mass reduction of karma as anything other than a punishment, because karma reduction was seen as a penultimate resort (with the truly last resort being a game ban). This is unfortunately the corner that the karma system has backed everyone into, after years of being upheld as a reward/punishment system.

This is precisely why karma should stop being used as a reward/punishment system: because in the long term, it only leaves bad vibes like these in its wake. While I still think that complete removal of a karma system and re-imagining of handling access to roles is the best route towards the end goal, I think this overhaul of the karma system comes at a decent second place. Karma being both grantable and reducible in relatively equally easily measure means that it will better reflect what players are actually bringing to the game in terms of quality and fun, rather than seniority. It does require a player base that is willing to self-reflect on their contributions and a staff that is attentive to players' desires and goals.

Quote from: dunecrawler on November 21, 2023, 06:36:05 AMThere's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something.

Is there, though? I'm not convinced.

Quote from: Triskelion on November 21, 2023, 07:47:29 AM

Quote from: dunecrawler on November 21, 2023, 06:36:05 AMThere's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something.

Is there, though? I'm not convinced.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/cFgb5p5e1My3K/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47kfsdz7bklvtjlwu00g2k21ep32qryjlqpop484mj&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
We just arguing to argue now?

Read it closely. I was just being funny.

Quote from: Triskelion on November 21, 2023, 09:07:45 AMRead it closely. I was just being funny.

Oh shit!

I withdraw my snark, well played.

I read the proposed changes. There are no high karma positions that I want to play so the new scale is unimportant to me. As an oldy, my only advantage is knowing what is FUN to me (not sure how I got 3 karma anyway, I don't check off most of those categories).

Consider this scenario, you get a new player whose personality fits to playing a Templar or mul or something else high karma. It would be a lot of FUN for them, highly motivating. All you need to know about the player is do they play responsibly. Any lore can be TLDR'd quickly, I don't think you need 96 hours here/there.

My suggestion is to focus on opportunities for new players, not gates. Help players find what they enjoy.

As for bad actors, that's a tough problem. I hope retention of new players is a bigger concern.