Starting a thread for the Policies and Documentation that are posted to the new board in the Staff-Related section of the GDB.
First up, we have a new Staff Contract. This is what all Staff members must agree to in order to staff at all.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59223.0.html
Thanks for sharing this.
I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.
It appears folks with the Moderator role can't follow the link directly. It's pointing to the "Staff Policies and Documentation" section, Staff Contract post. We'll work on fixing that.
Quote from: flurry on March 27, 2023, 06:02:40 PM
I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.
It would.
Quote from: Halaster on March 27, 2023, 06:32:57 PM
Quote from: flurry on March 27, 2023, 06:02:40 PM
I'm curious whether reputational harm falls into footnote 4.
It would.
To clarify this, since the definition of harm covers both actions as Staff in plots as well as Staff PC actions, reputational harm would fall under the stuff Staff should not be doing as far as running a plot for that to be the intent of the plot.
When running a Staff PC and their reporting requirements, we would not necessarily need a report on reputational harm, as that would encompass a lot of normal PC activity.
I really like the staff contract that was posted yesterday and I'm very optimistic about how it will improve the relationship and level of trust between players and staff.
I am particularly pleased by the point that Armageddon staff are considered representatives of the game both on and off the MUD and sincerely look forward to how this will improve staff communication with the MU* community on places like Reddit, where the state of communication related to Armageddon has been, to be frank, disastrously misguided in the past. A clear policy on this will hopefully improve things in the future.
I'm also glad that it is clearly outlined that staff cannot use their position on staff to further the position on their mortal characters or punish or harass another player. If memory serves, a form of this statement was in the previous contract, but seeing that it has been reinforced is good. How do the staff (presumably, the producers) intend to enforce this rule? Will they monitor staff occasionally, or are they primarily acting on staff complaints?
Language on extended absences and the "job" aspect of the role is great. While staff are volunteers, the staff do volunteer to work to improve the game, and seeing that clearly stated is a good sign of things to come.
I have only two reservations and hopefully staff will be willing to comment on them:
1) Removal from the staffing team upon breaking the contract. This is sensible, but I do think that sometimes, serious breaches of the staff contract merit entire removal from the community, i.e. banning of the player account, GDB account, and Discord account. This would be especially true in the case of harassment of a player, where a staff member is making the community unsafe for one or more players to be a part of and could in theory continue behaving in that manner as a player. Would staff be willing to confirm if staff that have been removed from the team, either in the past or in the future, have also been removed from the game? I know that some people, myself included, are waiting for word on this with respect to recent events and are hesitant to rejoin a game that is still played by a specific former staff member.
2) Remaining invisible while online. I do think that visibility can play a major role in achieving total accountability and I hope this part of the contract is reconsidered.
Thanks for posting a stellar staff contract, and I look forward to hearing more about the staff's thoughts on feedback that was considered!
Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish? I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish? Or do you want something more?
To level set, in doing what we do, Staff are in the game world quite frequently. Whether it be making changes to a room, and an easier way of monitoring what is going on in a room, tagging along for a trip or RPT so we know what players are doing in order to time animations, fixing typos, and all sorts of other routine stuff we do. We do not want, and I am thinking most players are not going to want, to see us when we are doing so. The "at" command doesn't really effectively work for all, or even most, of the things we do. Having Staff avatars visible in the game world is sort of a no go, because it would really impact what we actually do as Staff.
Case in point, I like to follow folks around when animating, or to see what they are doing as a group. It's easier than just using monitor tools at times. Or there is a case where I'm running around Tuluk or Allanak trying to find that one damn NPC that was annoying the shit out of me because they had a single miss spelling, you'd be seeing this all around "Darth Ath the Hatenator flies in from the east" A LOT... and I would hate to jar any ones RP. I do not want to do that, I do not want to harm RP if I can help it. I already hate myself enough when I'm typing so fast to do animations that I misspell or screw up grammar.
Maybe we could do something along the lines of a "There are X number of staff available", and this shows folks that are not fully idle or something. It is very common for staff to be logged in and just lingering or doing work here and there as they can. For example, there is 9 staff members topside at this moment, not all active right now.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 28, 2023, 02:09:14 PM
Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish? I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish? Or do you want something more?
To level set, in doing what we do, Staff are in the game world quite frequently. Whether it be making changes to a room, and an easier way of monitoring what is going on in a room, tagging along for a trip or RPT so we know what players are doing in order to time animations, fixing typos, and all sorts of other routine stuff we do. We do not want, and I am thinking most players are not going to want, to see us when we are doing so. The "at" command doesn't really effectively work for all, or even most, of the things we do. Having Staff avatars visible in the game world is sort of a no go, because it would really impact what we actually do as Staff.
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
Case in point, I like to follow folks around when animating, or to see what they are doing as a group. It's easier than just using monitor tools at times. Or there is a case where I'm running around Tuluk or Allanak trying to find that one damn NPC that was annoying the shit out of me because they had a single miss spelling, you'd be seeing this all around "Darth Ath the Hatenator flies in from the east" A LOT... and I would hate to jar any ones RP. I do not want to do that, I do not want to harm RP if I can help it. I already hate myself enough when I'm typing so fast to do animations that I misspell or screw up grammar.
Maybe we could do something along the lines of a "There are X number of staff available", and this shows folks that are not fully idle or something. It is very common for staff to be logged in and just lingering or doing work here and there as they can. For example, there is 9 staff members topside at this moment, not all active right now.
To clarify, mainly I'm asking for staff visibility on the "who" list. I don't think staff being visible in the gameworld would be necessary or productive in most cases.
Staff visibility on the "who" list relates to accountability purposes in the instance that a player needs to file a staff complaint about in-game staff conduct. The player can easily type "who", copy the list of constellations they see and place that in the staff complaint. It would help with complaint resolution if both the player and the producers know that staff members A, B, and C were on when staff member D allegedly did something.
At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there. In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is. Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion. Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:51:29 PM
At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there. In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is. Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion. Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.
I personally feel that an aggrieved player having the information of which staff members were online helps keep the staff accountable and honest with each other, the aggrieved player, and the playerbase in general. When the player knows who is online, staff basically have to be more frank and honest about what happened. Additionally, the less players know about what's going on, the more likely they are to blame the staff body as a whole or whichever staff member happens to be the unpopular "bad guy", which does not seem fair to staff.
I'm also hoping for staff to address my other reservation, but I understand that one is a bit more complicated and probably requires further discussion.
My recommendation, add this item:
Staff members controlling PCs or NPCs shall refrain from engaging in any sexual intercourse, conversation, plot, or interaction, directly or indirectly, with any player. Additionally, they shall not engage in any conversation or interaction with any player that may target, force, or put another player into a sexual scene or intercourse[7].
[7] This includes any discussions, interactions or situations that could potentially lead to or pressure a player into participating in explicit content or sexual themes.
In my mind, there should be a few documents.
#1 - A "Rules" Document, which explicitly tells you what your responsibilities are, and what is absolutely off-limits.
#2 - A "Guidelines" Document, which gives you /how/ to go about being staff, including examples of how to communicate with the playerbase.
#3 - A "FAQ" type of Document, which gives more details on the guidelines and gives examples on how to go about being staff with more granular details.
#4 - A "How to run a Plot" Document, which gives you examples on how to create a story for players, and what to do and what not to do
#5 - A "How to create NPCs / Rooms / Items" Document, which gives examples on how to create stuff - and how items can be overpowered, and how creating a big-bad NPC creature can
total party kill with certain parameters.
#6 - A "How to create scripts for ArmageddonMUD" ...
In reference to this:
Quote from: najdorf on March 28, 2023, 03:27:16 PM
My recommendation, add this item:
Staff members controlling PCs or NPCs shall refrain from engaging in any sexual intercourse, conversation, plot, or interaction, directly or indirectly, with any player. Additionally, they shall not engage in any conversation or interaction with any player that may target, force, or put another player into a sexual scene or intercourse[7].
[7] This includes any discussions, interactions or situations that could potentially lead to or pressure a player into participating in explicit content or sexual themes.
I think it should be in the rules, rather than the guidelines. [NPCs interacting with Player Characters]
I think in the guidelines it should state something like this:
As a staff member, while playing your own character in your own time, it is recommended to never engage in erotic roleplay with your fellow players. It is recommended to always 'Fade to Black'. [Staff Characters interacting with Player Characters]
I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.
Quote from: Patuk on March 28, 2023, 04:13:15 PM
I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59226.0.html
Quote from: Halaster on March 28, 2023, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 28, 2023, 04:13:15 PM
I hope you'll consider well the oft-repeated suggestion that no staffer plays a leader PC. The times it's come up for conversation, the playerbase has seemed nigh-unanimous: just don't. Anything but that. I hope it can be done.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59226.0.html
Oh, that's beautiful. The best change I've seen from the past month and a half. I'm sold - that's just what I wanted to see!
As Halaster pointed out, it is in another document.
The contract is what a Staff member agrees to when coming on Staff. Table stakes.
Staff rules are something different.
Out of curiosity, what's the plan for if a staff PC gets to a leadership level? Just refuse? I'm talking like a Corporal in the AoD. Played well and for forever. PC templar insists they become Sergeant after the last died, what's the play?
However, I do think this is a good idea to address many serious player concerns. It's too easy to build player frustrations way in a closed and secret IC environment
Quote from: SpyGuy on March 28, 2023, 08:14:47 PM
Out of curiosity, what's the plan for if a staff PC gets to a leadership level? Just refuse? I'm talking like a Corporal in the AoD. Played well and for forever. PC templar insists they become Sergeant after the last died, what's the play?
However, I do think this is a good idea to address many serious player concerns. It's too easy to build player frustrations way in a closed and secret IC environment
They would be required to refuse.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 28, 2023, 02:09:14 PM
Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish? I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish? Or do you want something more?
It really feels like being unseen and unheard or completely discounted when the exact thing from you has been proven to be so unreceived by the top brass that it's like there is complete discount of hours of emotional labor repeatedly making the same point over and over again. CirclessBard, me, and others have repeatedly suggested this about online staff being visible on the who list specifically, and specifically to be in the who list so that who is on and active at the time is plain to the playerbase not the staff but the playerbase, when incidents that they have grief and problems with happen. That way they can put together patterns, and that way they can rule out who it might have been as well.
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.
Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:51:29 PM
At the same point, if you can give us an idea of time and place, and it's very easy to go through current solution of run logs and figure out who was there. In any case, we're going to have to go through run logs anyway to figure out what happened and all that as it is. Having folks visible just can lead to speculation, in my opinion. Not against the idea, but just don't see the need.
The quiet part from the remaining playerbase that maybe needs to be said loud: If people trusted staff accountability currently without ACTIONS TO CHANGE IT, not explanations of how things work, but like, policy stuff, stuff that shows that the things that players say 'these are the things that show us you value our feelings and time investment, our presence enough at all to do what makes us feel comfortable to come to the table enough to alter something on your end'. Because the quiet part that never gets says loud is, how plain and obvious that the game is the STAFF's game, not the players, or even truly a collaboration. If there was, there would be a hell of a lot more transparency or care shown for things that prove to be problems or hurtful or desired/desirable by large chunks of the playerbase. Players only have
1 thing they can change to reflect of their trust and opinion and thoughts on the game and that's how willing they are to put in their time and vote with their feet in or out.
They are voting.Quote from: CirclelessBard on March 28, 2023, 02:56:46 PM
I personally feel that an aggrieved player having the information of which staff members were online helps keep the staff accountable and honest with each other, the aggrieved player, and the playerbase in general. When the player knows who is online, staff basically have to be more frank and honest about what happened. Additionally, the less players know about what's going on, the more likely they are to blame the staff body as a whole or whichever staff member happens to be the unpopular "bad guy", which does not seem fair to staff.
I'm also hoping for staff to address my other reservation, but I understand that one is a bit more complicated and probably requires further discussion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Emphasized for the quiet part. :-X
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 28, 2023, 10:09:41 PM
Quote from: Brokkr on March 28, 2023, 02:09:14 PM
Can you elaborate what you think #2 will accomplish? I am not sure if I am supposed to interpret this as you want all staff logged in to be on the who list, and if so, specifically what you think that will accomplish? Or do you want something more?
It really feels like being unseen and unheard or completely discounted when the exact thing from you has been proven to be so unreceived by the top brass that it's like there is complete discount of hours of emotional labor repeatedly making the same point over and over again. CirclessBard, me, and others have repeatedly suggested this about online staff being visible on the who list specifically, and specifically to be in the who list so that who is on and active at the time is plain to the playerbase not the staff but the playerbase, when incidents that they have grief and problems with happen. That way they can put together patterns, and that way they can rule out who it might have been as well.
If memory serves, not all the feedback on this was exactly the same. Some seemed aimed at not having Staff avatars in the room with them, as I specifically remember someone suggesting use of the "at" command. Given the amount of feedback and diversity of specific concerns, I am not really tracking who said what specifically. It seems to me btter to ask clarification than to assume someone is talking about one thing when they are talking about another, and in fact the respectful thing to do if you value their opinions.
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 28, 2023, 10:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.
Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.
We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:14:35 AM
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 28, 2023, 10:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.
Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.
We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.
They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 29, 2023, 12:22:30 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:14:35 AM
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 28, 2023, 10:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.
Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.
We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.
They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?
We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding. But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:29:36 AM
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 29, 2023, 12:22:30 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:14:35 AM
Quote from: dumbstruck on March 28, 2023, 10:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ath on March 28, 2023, 02:28:55 PM
It's easier than just using monitor tools at times.
Only if there's people to monitor. A significant chunk of the people who are not playing are not playing because of trust issues. I get that it's easier not to do the things that would make it easier for them to trust again, but that also doesn't help them trust again. Additionally, the rest of the argument that I'm not quoting leaves out the obvious solution of how easy it would be to make something like a ring of ethereal and following the party around ethereal and unheard and unseen but still not wizinvis.
We typically are ethereal. If we aren't wizinvis, there are players that can see our Staff avatars, even if we are ethereal. Which makes that not a solution at all. We would need some code update to divorce wizinvis from visibility on the who list, in order to just make Staff online visible there but still wizinvis. Then we would need to figure out if "online" or "online and active" makes the most sense, and what "active" would mean, in terms of the idle timer.
They can see invisibility, ethereal and 100% sneak at the same time? You should be able to put all of these things on items that can be worn at the same time. Can any player character see ethereal, invisibility, and through 100% sneak/hide at the same time?
We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding. But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.
Is it 2 pcs? A limit of 2 pcs at a time who could easily be worked around given they have their own private npcs to play with? Out of the entire game?
I think it's safe to say that they aren't comfortable with making that rule for themselves or it's under discussion, I doubt insistence is going to get you any further than just being a hound.
So the recent "no discord" staff rule.. there was some discussion on discord about the desirability to sometimes avoid sending a sensitive issue into the general staff ether of the request tool.
There is probably something lost in the accessibility of staff. I wonder what the thoughts of others. It could be something like staff never *initiate* DMs, and where it involves a routine matter should direct people to the request tool?
Or is that already the intention? I might be misreading what the rule is. Maybe some examples could be useful.
The intention is for there to be no private communication between players and staff on Discord, initiated by either, about the game. This is to protect both sides. I am struggling to imagine a truly sensitive topic related to the game that we wouldn't want addressed via the Request Tool, but if you found yourself with one then you could always send in a request just to say, "I have a very sensitive topic I need to address involving XYZ (general theme), and I don't feel super comfortable sending it in via request, can a provision be made?" and we can figure something out from there.
I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.
Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.
I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?
I've got my own request waiting on some of these issues. The new Mod team were fantastic but talked me into a request rather than vitriolic GDB post. I agree that all bans from this debacle need to be undone. And the one person most responsible for this disaster needs a ban or to be stripped of all privileges for abusing them time and time again. If not I don't have much reason to continue supporting the game.
To bring it on topic: I do believe the staff contract needs a ban provision for egregious violations. Removal from staff is a denial of privileges and limiting the harm said person can do. It's not a punishment in my eyes. But things like spying on ERP, colluding with other staff to cheat IC or extensively abusing players IC or OOC. That sort of thing needs a ban to regain trust from those burned.
Quote from: MarshallDFX on March 29, 2023, 04:53:24 AM
So the recent "no discord" staff rule.. there was some discussion on discord about the desirability to sometimes avoid sending a sensitive issue into the general staff ether of the request tool.
There is probably something lost in the accessibility of staff. I wonder what the thoughts of others. It could be something like staff never *initiate* DMs, and where it involves a routine matter should direct people to the request tool?
Or is that already the intention? I might be misreading what the rule is. Maybe some examples could be useful.
It is meant to protect staff and players so that there is a log of conversations to be viewable by other staff. It is to stop 'back room deals", and stop people from hopping the line on a request. It's for things like "hey, could you store my character", or "Are there openings for so and so?".
It is meant to standardize communication. Some staff (like me) don't mind talking with folks in DM's, some staff don't want to. Some staff don't even use Discord much. It's not fair if clan A has quick, easy access to their staffer through DM's vs clan B where they only use the request tool.
It is meant to reduce favoritism. If my friend is in a clan I oversee, it makes it easy for them to ask him to do this one quick thing. That's not fair to other players who aren't my friend.
It is
not meant to stop staff from talking to a friend, or discussing the game from a player point of view. It is OK to bring up a 'sensitive' topic with a staffer in DM's, but if starts to involve game business (build these items, store this character, etc), they should direct you to the request tool. If you want to informally talk to a staffer about something, that's fine, but they should not be conducting any business through DM's.
Quote from: CirclelessBard on March 29, 2023, 06:06:12 AM
I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.
Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.
I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?
This is why I like the change with us Sending to folks, it shows our sdesc to them so they know who's talking with them. Honestly, this is how we tend to always communicate with players in an OOC basis. As for Animations and NPCs, the whole idea of performing them is to make them seem as seamless as possible from the environment around them. I know when I make a NPC, I try to make them as close to seeming like a PC as possible so that I can blending. I don't want it to be jarring, I want it to just add to the experience. Knowing it is an animation, that it's a staff member blaringly, I feel it would be remove for the experience. I don't have a problem with after it is all done and all, with someone going "wish Who do I have to thank for the animation?" "send player Oh yeah, that was me, hope you enjoyed!" but that's personal preference.
Added this to sub-clause [2] of the contract:
QuoteExceptions for players who are unable to use the request tool for some reason, such as physical or technical limitations, are acceptable, as are sensitive topics where the player does not want a larger audience viewing the request.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:29:36 AM
We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding. But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.
There's actually a combination of two spells (and barrier) that can make you fully invisible to 100% of PCs. It would be trivial to just place those on your staff bit in a permanent capacity. If you'd like me to tell you what they are, feel free to DM.
Or heck, just let people see that you're there and around in a room 95% of the time, like most RP games handle it - I don't think anyone is going to be too bothered by a staffer's presence even if you're swinging through a few times. And there's not really much to be gained from being stealth mode except continuing the artificially hierarchical separation of Staff and Players rather than acknowledging them as the same group, all building a world together.
I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.
I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)
There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.
tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?
Quote from: Halaster on March 29, 2023, 09:51:15 AM
Added this to sub-clause [2] of the contract:
QuoteExceptions for players who are unable to use the request tool for some reason, such as physical or technical limitations, are acceptable, as are sensitive topics where the player does not want a larger audience viewing the request.
Makes sense.. I think a very useful exception should be trying to provide rapid response/personal attention to newbies who appear in the #help chat and need handholding. I know there are also helpers for that though they don't have the ability to check on requests. I see those as key moments to gain a new player.
Quote from: Ath on March 29, 2023, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: CirclelessBard on March 29, 2023, 06:06:12 AM
I don't want to seem hounding or hyperbolic, but the best parallel I can bring up regarding the staff visibility issue is police officers showing their name and badge number on their badge. When misconduct occurs, the victim at least has a chance to describe in court who the officers present were. The victim does not have to rely on the officers perpetuating misconduct or witnessing misconduct to say who was there or not. If the officers use tape to cover their name and badge number then there is no chance of that happening. I sincerely hope staff consider a code change that allows staff to be visible on the "who" list while being invisible in-game, and leverage that towards increased transparency in staff's daily actions and practices. If you want to establish trust, I feel it is very important.
Given staff's positions on that, I won't bring it up further in this thread unless staff wish to discuss it further. I'm also open to being emailed or DMed.
I am, at this point, much more interested in my other reservation being addressed - the question of player accounts being banned after staff removal for certain serious reasons - as that is the primary hurdle stopping a lot of people from playing the game right now, and it's been brought up so often in the community without a staff response that I'm starting to feel a bit of dread about what the answer actually is. Are staff going to be removed from the game completely for serious breaches of the staff contract, or not? And if so, is this going to be applied retroactively?
This is why I like the change with us Sending to folks, it shows our sdesc to them so they know who's talking with them. Honestly, this is how we tend to always communicate with players in an OOC basis. As for Animations and NPCs, the whole idea of performing them is to make them seem as seamless as possible from the environment around them. I know when I make a NPC, I try to make them as close to seeming like a PC as possible so that I can blending. I don't want it to be jarring, I want it to just add to the experience. Knowing it is an animation, that it's a staff member blaringly, I feel it would be remove for the experience. I don't have a problem with after it is all done and all, with someone going "wish Who do I have to thank for the animation?" "send player Oh yeah, that was me, hope you enjoyed!" but that's personal preference.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.
I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)
There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.
tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?
I tried my best to be clear about why upfront transparency about who is online is important, as it gives aggrieved players some level of understanding of who was present before the staff complaint was even submitted. Currently, staff hold all the cards when it comes to explaining who was there or wasn't there, who knew or didn't know, etc. I appreciate that staff names are visible when they send messages to players but that is entirely separate from what I'm trying to convey.
Allow me to be a bit more frank. I apologize if the rest of this post comes off as rude - certainly not my intent. But I feel like I'm either being misunderstood, or not listened to.
The lowest point of staff trust, in my view, is not caused by the fact that Shalooonsh was abusive with the power granted to him, but that he was abusive with it
and staff claimed that no one noticed until it was too late (i.e. until it was reported). As it stood at the time, players have no recourse to challenge this, other than to blanket-blame the staff in general for failing to monitor Shalooonsh, read IDB posts, read reports, and so on. Knowledge of who is online would have allowed a player complaining about Shalooonsh's behavior to know which specific staff members are potential witnesses to the behavior. Without that knowledge, players are forced to view staff as a monolith. We do not know, as a community, which staff need to be held accountable in the event that a staff complaint is improperly addressed and the complaint needs to be aired outside of the request system to achieve some measurable and just result.
To be clear, it is very encouraging that staff are taking steps to avoid this in the future. That doesn't address the role total anonymity plays in confusing players and making them doubt/question which staff are really "on their side" or not. If you want the playerbase to believe that staff are holding each other accountable, Step Zero would be showing the players which staff are holding each other accountable at any given time.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.
I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)
A strangely hostile take out of nowhere. From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet. Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas. Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
There is nothing more to be gained by knowing every staffer online, and there are no MU*s I have played that don't allow wiz staff to be dark. Even the most transparent game I played and staffed had a general policy of "if you're not working, be visible" but on Arm if staff isn't working and they're playing... they aren't logged in (ed. staff on the game in question were open about who they played if the PC was any more powerful than a commoner type). There is an actual balance needed here for staff to be able to work in peace and not be interrupted by people wishing up because they see a staffer on and a player didn't like a response to a request.
You're conflating 'is able to set themselves Dark' with 'is always Dark' - no one is asking for the full removal of the former, but there is literally nothing to be lost in staff being visible in a room or on the who list. If you're logged in building some stuff and don't want to be bothered, or you're idling while at work, it's a-ok to be Dark in my opinion. It's a request for a cultural shift that staff be visible and present. The point is building a community of trust, as with any shared world. This isn't even a thing I care deeply about, but this is a fairly silly claim - on the games where staffers are able to be Dark, they still mostly aren't with few exceptions.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
tl;dr the problem has already been solved by staff identifying themselves at all times, what would this do more than that already has?
I feel CirclelessBard got to the heart of the issue. An abuser (who hasn't been banned) was allowed to operate with impunity, and there's no way for players to know that anyone else was online to even witness things like rude messages (what he was removed from staff for) or animations/actions that benefited him and his friends.
Accountability is all people are asking for, and that requires transparency. It sucks, I get it - things have the potential to be moving in a positive direction and having to eat crow in part because of the actions of people who were on staff previously, even years ago, is annoying. But people aren't just whining and throwing a fit for no reason, they're letting others know what they'd like to see in order to feel that they've been heard, and that the game is moving in a direction that makes them feel safe and invested.
It's easy to protect the status quo and point at anyone asking for something different so you can claim they're a troublemaker. I don't deny that there are likely at least a couple trolls, but viewing people making clear statements about what they want to see in public with names attached as adversarial is just more of the same old Armageddon. And growing hostile and dismissive, as you did a bit in your post, only makes the conversation more muddied rather than helping it along.
Do you want the game to do well or not? People aren't coming on here asking for hairshirts and flagellation, they want transparency and a cooperative storytelling environment. Take a breath.
Quote from: Brisket on March 29, 2023, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 12:29:36 AM
We actually set the flags directly on our characters (the ability to set invis/ethereal as a flag on an item and have it turn the wearer invis/ethereal has actually been removed, here), and they don't tend to be sneaking or hiding. But yes, there are characters that can see through invis/ethereal/hide all at the same time.
There's actually a combination of two spells (and barrier) that can make you fully invisible to 100% of PCs. It would be trivial to just place those on your staff bit in a permanent capacity. If you'd like me to tell you what they are, feel free to DM.
It doesn't really matter. If you can't see an immortal, even if it is for ethereal or invis, they do not show up in who, currently. So code changes would be necessary.
It's also kind of moot. I get where you are coming from, but a staff member being online would actually have no bearing on them being witness to anything particular. We are not omniscient. Most staff are in their own little worlds on port, they are watching their clans, or talking to their team about plots, or teaching newer staff members things. They are not watching every little thing that goes on in game and that includes other staffers playing. They are also often idle or are working on a project, building, and are absolutely shut off from the rest of the game. The information you are asking for really wouldn't mean what you are hoping it would mean. :(
I have been on port for the last hour discussing a potential plot with another staff member and I have no idea what any single character or other staff member did during that time beyond who logged in and who logged out.
I don't really know what else to say except that we care about what happened and many staff, myself included, are still reeling. But there have been a lot of discussions about how we can improve accountability within the team. I know trust has been lost and it isn't going to come back overnight, but I'm confident that given time it will become apparent that we are taking this seriously.
At this point I am hopeful that staff and players can both move past the discussion of visible/invisible staff and discuss removal of staff from the game entirely for specific offenses. I think that for accountability purposes this needs to be addressed more urgently than visibility.
Quote from: Brisket on March 29, 2023, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.
I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)
A strangely hostile take out of nowhere. From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet. Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas. Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.
Heya! I'd like to direct you to one line you wrote: "they want... a cooperative storytelling environment."
Please keep that in mind, it's a great quote! If asking for clarification on what had started to read (to me, as noted) as incredibly argumentative was 'hostile' to your POV, that wasn't my intention. You may notice others have asked for clarification in this thread, as well, so perhaps some was needed. I'm very open to any feedback on better ways to communicate if you have any, and maybe from now on you can agree to leave the gaslighting tactics off the table? "Take a deep breath" is ripped out of the definition when thrown into a conversation to make someone look emotional, and accusing people of hostility or twisting words around falls right into that category as well. I'm really not the one to start attacking, especially considering OP actually responded and clarified very well.
We're all playing the same game. I have 0% interest in arguing with strangers on the internet about stuff they have strong emotional ties to, as a whole. This is literally just a game for me that hopefully will keep getting better as people (ed. including myself!) put time and input into it.
Quote from: CirclelessBard on March 29, 2023, 02:50:33 PM
I tried my best to be clear about why upfront transparency about who is online is important, as it gives aggrieved players some level of understanding of who was present before the staff complaint was even submitted. Currently, staff hold all the cards when it comes to explaining who was there or wasn't there, who knew or didn't know, etc. I appreciate that staff names are visible when they send messages to players but that is entirely separate from what I'm trying to convey.
Allow me to be a bit more frank. I apologize if the rest of this post comes off as rude - certainly not my intent. But I feel like I'm either being misunderstood, or not listened to.
The lowest point of staff trust, in my view, is not caused by the fact that Shalooonsh was abusive with the power granted to him, but that he was abusive with it and staff claimed that no one noticed until it was too late (i.e. until it was reported). As it stood at the time, players have no recourse to challenge this, other than to blanket-blame the staff in general for failing to monitor Shalooonsh, read IDB posts, read reports, and so on. Knowledge of who is online would have allowed a player complaining about Shalooonsh's behavior to know which specific staff members are potential witnesses to the behavior. Without that knowledge, players are forced to view staff as a monolith. We do not know, as a community, which staff need to be held accountable in the event that a staff complaint is improperly addressed and the complaint needs to be aired outside of the request system to achieve some measurable and just result.
To be clear, it is very encouraging that staff are taking steps to avoid this in the future. That doesn't address the role total anonymity plays in confusing players and making them doubt/question which staff are really "on their side" or not. If you want the playerbase to believe that staff are holding each other accountable, Step Zero would be showing the players which staff are holding each other accountable at any given time.
I 100% appreciate the clarification, and this is really helpful in understanding the whole thread. It didn't come off rude to me. I guess what I'm not understanding is how all online staff being visible helps keep them accountable, when every interaction with staff is known to the player now? There aren't anonymous interactions. Codifying that as a 100% rule would be amazing imo, but I
personally do not see the addition of (mostly) all staff being visible at (mostly) all times as solving more issues than that, without adding more problems for staff that do have to be weighed.
That being said, as noted before, I am a newer player and I don't have the same overwhelming sense of emotional betrayal that a lot of players seem to have. I may not be able to see or understand the needs of such players, and that obviously in no way invalidates their feelings any more than my opinion is invalidated. So Devil's advocate and in agreement after the clarification, I
will note that I
have seen other feedback in Discord and on GDB that when staff
IS visible generally, players
DO feel like they have a better connection to staff/more trust in staff.
Keeping that in mind, I could see the ROI on a specific staff role being visible when they're logged in as worthwhile, if it did actually engender more trust in the 'establishment' of staff.
Tangentially, it reads to me that maybe almost a larger issue is the staff member's fate or lack of public punishment after being found to be cheating and abusive? That is something I have seen elsewhere repeatedly, as well, is a very heavy interest in closure there - as well as defined closure if that is every repeated. (edited to add: that may have been addressed actually https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59229.msg1090322/boardseen.html#new)
Quote from: Usiku on March 29, 2023, 06:59:47 PM
We are not omniscient.
So, you weren't on staff for this event I don't think, but let's talk about an example of why that rings hollow to some - Kitanius Valika.
You have someone who's already administrator go on to play a sorcerous dragonthrall adventurer noble. This is, frankly, already in extremely bad taste. But let's grant that nobody notices this. Not the game's three producers. Not the entire southern team. Not a soul in the independent team questions why this guy hobnobs with all the Thryzn. This all goes by unnoticed-
And then there is a HRPT. There is an auction and people traveling to Luir's for this highly prized book of great evil and everyone and their mother scrounges cash for the bid. The south wins this bid... Due in large part because the aforementioned sorcerous dragonthrall adventurer noble pulling a brick of cash out of his ass. In a HRPT. In the sorts of event that, frankly, is going to be the one with the
most people paying attention. Whereupon the Allanaki PC noble who made the bid later then loses said same book, too, which again seems to go unnoticed.
This isn't just being idle or working on pet projects, this is
broken. I don't intend to call anyone a liar, least of all you - I think rather highly of you! But if I have to believe fifteen-odd people telling me that nobody knew a thing, well, I'm going to wonder what all the secrecy and power and veil of mystery is even for any more. Up for judging what is right and wrong, such a team is not.
One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.
I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer. Or a dragonsthrall.
But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC. You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.
Is that problematic? Yes. Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken? Also yes. Was this the rule breaking? No. Would it be rule breaking now? Yes. Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Brisket on March 29, 2023, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on March 29, 2023, 12:44:06 PM
I haven't had a single interaction with staff since these changes that staff did not put their name on it. It's a great change that required minimal investment with a huge ROI.
I honestly feel like this thread devolved quickly into more of a "give me this thing that I want to show that you're sorry" threat, complete with "and people will vote with their feet!" thrown in at the end. (ed: just my perspective here, not assuming. feel free to clarify)
A strangely hostile take out of nowhere. From recent numbers of people online people have voted with their feet. Looking for ways to fix that is the point, not attempting to snipe at other players for suggesting ideas. Especially when it's been more or less entirely polite and friendly in this thread.
Heya! I'd like to direct you to one line you wrote: "they want... a cooperative storytelling environment."
Please keep that in mind, it's a great quote! If asking for clarification on what had started to read (to me, as noted) as incredibly argumentative was 'hostile' to your POV, that wasn't my intention. You may notice others have asked for clarification in this thread, as well, so perhaps some was needed. I'm very open to any feedback on better ways to communicate if you have any, and maybe from now on you can agree to leave the gaslighting tactics off the table? "Take a deep breath" is ripped out of the definition when thrown into a conversation to make someone look emotional, and accusing people of hostility or twisting words around falls right into that category as well. I'm really not the one to start attacking, especially considering OP actually responded and clarified very well.
We're all playing the same game. I have 0% interest in arguing with strangers on the internet about stuff they have strong emotional ties to, as a whole. This is literally just a game for me that hopefully will keep getting better as people (ed. including myself!) put time and input into it.
I'm glad that, having been exposed to how it feels for someone to make a negative assumption about your intent in the thread, you are able to pull back and extend that same courtesy toward others. You stumbled a bit when you tried to label direct feedback and earnest advice to 'take a breath' on the conversation and consider others' perspectives as 'gaslighting', but I'm excited to move forward collaboratively to help make this a better place to have a discussion with you and others.
Quote from: CirclelessBard on March 29, 2023, 07:28:44 PM
At this point I am hopeful that staff and players can both move past the discussion of visible/invisible staff and discuss removal of staff from the game entirely for specific offenses. I think that for accountability purposes this needs to be addressed more urgently than visibility.
Absolutely reasonable. Brokkr's recent post gives me hope with the new rules updates, and the latest staff board post also has some very good finalized changes.
Quote from: Patuk on March 29, 2023, 07:40:37 PM
But if I have to believe fifteen-odd people telling me that nobody knew a thing, well, I'm going to wonder what all the secrecy and power and veil of mystery is even for any more.
I know it sounds a bit ridiculous when you say it like that.. but you're not far off the mark. It would be easier to understand if you knew how we operate. We are not, despite some claims to the contrary, a monolith or a hivemind. We are a handful of disparate individuals, with many different opinions even, all working on our own projects and also sometimes teaming up to work together on things.
If I had to take a wild guess at what happened, and I do have some insight because I wasn't totally absent for everything, was that each staffer just saw a tiny bit. Nobody had a full holistic view of what was going on. And any time one person saw a tiny bit.. well.. there was always a reasonable explanation for that tiny bit! And nobody realised that there was actually a whole bunch of tiny bits adding up to.. well.. you know. So as well as basically just shutting down all the various avenues that allow for things to go very south, we're also going to do better at communicating (with each other and with players and the community) and do better at holding each other accountable. I'll be honest, this wasn't a fun situation to return to and I am looking forward to actually getting back into working on the game properly. If there can be any kind of silver lining, it is that this has been a catalyst for actual, positive change.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 08:01:34 PM
One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.
I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer. Or a dragonsthrall.
But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC. You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.
Is that problematic? Yes. Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken? Also yes. Was this the rule breaking? No. Would it be rule breaking now? Yes. Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.
Thank you, Brokrr.
Obviously (pet peeve) I believe those awful types of behaviors should
always have been recognized as rule-breaking and critically damaging because of minimum base-line communally held ideals of respect, fun and safety for the players.
I will still put it in the win column because apparently they are recognized as being not-so-okay anymore.
Thank you for stating so. I guess as Usiku says, "silver lining."
Quote from: Usiku on March 29, 2023, 08:22:59 PM
If there can be any kind of silver lining, it is that this has been a catalyst for actual, positive change.
Thank you. I look forward to having fun playing the game but also putting in the work I can as a player to make this a fun place to be. Staff have shown a lot of willingness to engage and I appreciate you all listening to player concerns.
I apologise if it feels like I'm singling you out, because I really appreciate being able to engage genuinely. Still - you choosing to do so gets
Quote from: Usiku on March 29, 2023, 08:22:59 PM
We are not, despite some claims to the contrary, a monolith
I'd claim staff are a monolith pretty readily, yeah. This would also seem ridiculous, if the body of staff didn't labour so hard to make it look that way. When people ask why X or Y takes long, the refrain is that 'we don't all agree with each other'. When criticism is levied against staff, until now, the words wagon circling don't even begin to describe what went on. The staff contract - even the new, updated one, pretty much states outright that
every staff member represents not themselves, not the MUD. So, quite frankly, the monolith looks pretty damn strong just from looking at that.
And sure. I get it. It's easy to explain stuff away. But you even agreed with me: things became extraordinarily ridiculous, and even the aftermath of that has to be dragged out for more than a month. Everything relatively minor, mediocre, or even large, in comparison to this, has been going on and may be ongoing still. I hate that all staff-side discussion about this has been invisible. I hate that pointing out behavior that'd be against the rules now, and highly fucking dodgy as of a month ago, got people banned. I hate that even now, as mentioned in another thread, mentioning just how people got banned is a rule violation. I hate that a producer preferred vanishing entirely over even trying to talk to people.
But.. Sure. Good faith. I like what I'm seeing even in those things I talk about, so - silver linings, just as you said. Just please do understand that 'no, really, we couldn't have known' sounds.. Likely as the flat earth theory, and that I - personally - can't shake the sheer contempt for having to take it at face value. I'm just not seeing it.
Quote from: Brokkr on March 29, 2023, 08:01:34 PM
One of the problem with Staff Resource PCs was the wide latitude given to them.
I mean, he wasn't a sorcerer. Or a dragonsthrall.
But there were plot points where the character was intentionally inserted, which wouldn't happen with a non-Resource PC. You are relating some things that were plot points for the Resource PC, and how they were moving along overall plots and getting people involved in them.
Is that problematic? Yes. Was...an extreme amount of latitude taken? Also yes. Was this the rule breaking? No. Would it be rule breaking now? Yes. Because we realize this sort of thing really sucks, for players.
"It didn't break any rules" just isn't the excuse you claim it is, and it will ring hollow to so many people that not even your fellow staffers seem intent on denying it.
If rule enforcement were habitually concise, well done, and sharp, people might believe it. It hasn't been. And you know this because just last year, you backed up Shaloonsh himself for force-storing me, screeching at me, and threatening to dock my karma for breaking rules that are nowhere to be found on HELP RULES.
Just stop. Nobody believes the line that the rules say X. If you want to begin today, observe the rules in a way that, for once, favours players disgruntled and loyal, rather than anyone else. As-is it just comes across as the very weakest of copouts and it's more tiresome than anything else.
Not quite what I was saying. The stuff around Resource PCs made it so they could not be subject to rules otherwise in place. And unfortunately the guardrails that were supposed to be in place didn't work/weren't followed. Not saying we didn't fuck up. Just saying plot points you disagree with and point to breaking of the rules and how could Staff not know about didn't quite fall so cleanly into that. There were plot points approved for that character to follow, like meeting Thryzn so that it they could spread the knowledge rather than have other leaders try to keep it secret/have the potential so that settling in Allanak was one potential avenue for the Thryzn players as they made choices.
As for the other thing, we were sloppy. Its kind of a shadow rule that people know about after playing leader roles, so then we assume everyone knows, and you are right, isn't in public documentation. But is still considered a rule of sorts. I am not sure we will ever get to just black and white on everything, but I'll start the discussion Staff-side if that should be a public rule.
If staff can get punished for doing things that don't break the rules, surely players should be too, isn't that fair, what's wrong with that Patuk?
If you look at https://armageddon.org/help/view/Rules it says under 1
QuoteFailure to roleplay and disregarding documentation can result in warnings, karma reduction, storage of your character, and temporary and permanent bans.
Hard to say without knowing what you did though? But I know people do tend to do cheesy things a lot so I have that concern as not a lot of staff are willing to enforce RP rules (and it's something is needed for the game to support people that are not code-focused, they need that protection against mindless twinkery stuff or no one wants to play in cities etc)
Maybe we just need a better https://armageddon.org/help/view/roleplaying on what is bad RP (I've said this a few times before all this but no one listened to me just like everything else, haha)? There's a lot of situations that can be hard to place and especially not always clear for newer players
Quote from: Patuk on March 29, 2023, 09:48:34 PM
And you know this because just last year, you backed up Shaloonsh himself for force-storing me, screeching at me, and threatening to dock my karma for breaking rules that are nowhere to be found on HELP RULES.
Holy cow this exact same thing happened to me a few months ago. Shaloonsh started harassing me in game about a previous character, unrelated to my existing one, and when I refused to respond to his aggressive behavior and simply ignored him, brokrr came to the rescue to demand I respond to him OR ELSE. When I made it clear I disagreed with both of them, brokrr made a snappy, sarcastic reply, saying "good luck the next time you encounter a carru!" BTW brokrr, I've encountered a near countless number of carru since then. Haven't had any issues so far, but you're welcome to do an animation for me next time.
Alternatively, drop the attitude and own up to your past mistakes. You can't have magically overlooked Shaloonsh's cheating and general awfulness while simultaneously teaming up with him to harass players over petty minutiae in a game that went from bleeding to on life support.
The thing about trust is that it is far easier to lose than it is to gain.
It stands to reason that individual staff members either purposefully overlooked Shalooonsh's behavior, or did not have the competence/attentiveness required to catch onto it. Neither of these explanations for why Shalooonsh was allowed to misbehave for as long as he did is ideal, and both explanations are likely true to some degree. The fact that it took over a month for staff to finally admit that he is banned from the game is bittersweet to me, because it follows the previous attempt of letting him "resign voluntarily", which follows the previous attempt of essentially letting Shalooonsh do whatever he wanted, etc. In terms of trust, it's painful because it essentially paints a picture of staff trying very hard to hold onto Shalooonsh for as long as possible until he became a completely untenable liability.
I appreciate that staff are laying out the groundwork for regaining trust. But I hope that nobody expects things to be repaired overnight. Staff need to make a conscious and consistent effort to be trustworthy. And players need to have the grace to give staff the space to make things right.The best thing to come out of all this is the new staff policies, but this whole debacle was caused by staff not following their own rules in the first place. While new rules are encouraging, staff need to prove that they can follow their own rules, new or not. It will probably take months or even years of consistent effort.
Personally, I intend to give staff the space to improve the game from a distance. I can't justify reinvesting time into the game right now. As a victim of sexual harassment and survivor of sexual violence, it's surreal to see that the staff that defended Shalooonsh and his behavior in the past are the same ones promising they will be better in the future. I just don't know that will actually happen. So I'll check back another time and see how things are going. I wish the Armageddon community the best of luck.
Honestly? Staff have already offered up too much to those who never had any intention other than to see them all collectively punished for the actions of one extremely bad actor and a disbelief that somehow they didn't function as an All Seeing Eye to watch said bad actor.
Said bad actor is gone and banned. The others have admitted to only seeing pieces and fragments and not the whole. They've said they'll be more vigilant now. This is perfect - and frankly as much as was ever truly necessary. There's a lot of assumption that all players feel this inchoate anger towards the staff to take it to extreme limits when it's only been a vocal minority and this vocal minority has caused players to leave due to the incessant extreme demands.
For example, the heavy restraints put on what roles Staff can play. Why must it go any further than psions and sorcs and Templars and Nobles? It's swung too heavily in the other direction to where demands are not common sense but punitive. The same with requiring staff to be visible on the who list at all times - or even worse, in the room (which would -definitely- impact how people RP and act OOCly). It feels like grievances run amok that go far past the initial problem. On top of it, people like CirclelessBard have no intent to return anyways, so why bend over backwards for them when most of the rest of us are tired of this grievance crusade that is embittering other players that -aren't- part of the vocal minority and just wanted to see that one bad actor punished and for the game to go on?
Quote from: Suhuy on March 29, 2023, 11:40:25 PM
Quote from: Patuk on March 29, 2023, 09:48:34 PM
And you know this because just last year, you backed up Shaloonsh himself for force-storing me, screeching at me, and threatening to dock my karma for breaking rules that are nowhere to be found on HELP RULES.
Holy cow this exact same thing happened to me a few months ago. Shaloonsh started harassing me in game about a previous character, unrelated to my existing one, and when I refused to respond to his aggressive behavior and simply ignored him, brokrr came to the rescue to demand I respond to him OR ELSE. When I made it clear I disagreed with both of them, brokrr made a snappy, sarcastic reply, saying "good luck the next time you encounter a carru!" BTW brokrr, I've encountered a near countless number of carru since then. Haven't had any issues so far, but you're welcome to do an animation for me next time.
Alternatively, drop the attitude and own up to your past mistakes. You can't have magically overlooked Shaloonsh's cheating and general awfulness while simultaneously teaming up with him to harass players over petty minutiae in a game that went from bleeding to on life support.
Christ, man, I thought
my stuff was bad. Jesus.
Quote from: whengravityfails on March 30, 2023, 07:03:05 AM
Honestly? Staff have already offered up too much to those who never had any intention other than to see them all collectively punished for the actions of one extremely bad actor and a disbelief that somehow they didn't function as an All Seeing Eye to watch said bad actor.
Said bad actor is gone and banned. The others have admitted to only seeing pieces and fragments and not the whole. They've said they'll be more vigilant now. This is perfect - and frankly as much as was ever truly necessary. There's a lot of assumption that all players feel this inchoate anger towards the staff to take it to extreme limits when it's only been a vocal minority and this vocal minority has caused players to leave due to the incessant extreme demands.
For example, the heavy restraints put on what roles Staff can play. Why must it go any further than psions and sorcs and Templars and Nobles? It's swung too heavily in the other direction to where demands are not common sense but punitive. The same with requiring staff to be visible on the who list at all times - or even worse, in the room (which would -definitely- impact how people RP and act OOCly). It feels like grievances run amok that go far past the initial problem. On top of it, people like CirclelessBard have no intent to return anyways, so why bend over backwards for them when most of the rest of us are tired of this grievance crusade that is embittering other players that -aren't- part of the vocal minority and just wanted to see that one bad actor punished and for the game to go on?
It's not a good look to start off assuming negative intent in the feedback received. As Suhuy, Patuk, CirclelessBard, and others have pointed out this was not just a single bad actor, but rather a system that allowed a bad actor to operate with near impunity for almost a decade. Nobody is looking to punish anyone, and there have been a dozen suggestions (cycling staff in/out more frequently, further transparency, etc.) that have been suggested. Staff does not seem receptive to most of them, though they have made concessions with others.
Whatever the reasons - inattentiveness, poor staff tools for monitoring others, collusion, etc. - this happened. Staffing is not a fulltime job, but Armageddon can easily be described as a fulltime hobby. I know over the years I've had times where I put more time into Armageddon than I did the job I used to pay my bills, and while that's not healthy in the longterm and unlikely to be the way I'd ever play again, it does speak to the amount of time and effort the game requires. That makes it a large even outsized part of people's lives, and it means that people are very invested. The things that occur on this text game have repercussions for those other people, and those repercussions can lead to real feelings of hurt and whatever else.
I don't think there are more than one or two 'bad actors' who want staff punished out there, and I doubt they're still posting on the forums trying to help by clearly stating what they want and how things could change in ways that would make them feel good about playing again. It's unfair to those people and worse, for you, unlikely to actually help progress the conversation to a point where things are 'good' again to leap in and try to paint people you disagree with as bad actors looking to punish other people.
The game is currently nearly dead. Average playercounts are lower than they've ever been. The people you're attacking as bad actors seeking to punish are the people you used to pretend to be a desert weirdo with. Without them you're just playing a DIKU mud with a weird casting code.
QuoteBan Reviews (high priority)
There will not be a full ban amnesty for several reasons. Our account system does not record the date when someone was banned, so it is not feasible to say "give me a list of all game bans in the past 3 years". Instead, it's basically a "all bans ever". Moving forward we will fix this so that a game ban is timestamped. We should not unban multiplayers, or certain people who have done some rather heinous things, or players who asked us specifically to ban them. So that means someone would have to compile a list of all accounts banned since the beginning and sort through them to see which should be removed and which should remain.
Instead, there is an open invitation to anyone who is banned from the game to send in a request and ask for a review. We understand that there are some people who will not be happy with having to ask for it versus it being automatically lifted, and while we regret that to be the case, it just isn't a viable option.
Staff can't think of any players they should reach out to and do right by? No players in recent history that they retaliated against at the center of all of this? Not any? 🤔 Are we all supposed to just keep pretending we don't know people's names because "bans can't be discussed"? Staff know exactly who they should be reaching out to in this situation but they're apparently going to put that on the people they banned and alienated.
Why? Staff has made amends, adjustments as was required. If people want to return to the game, the least they can do is pick up their mouse and shoot a request.
Staff have just changed and written rules that I suspect they'll break eventually anyway. Staff weren't "supposed" to play sorcerers years ago and that didn't stop Brokkr or Seidhr from doing so. Hell, Halaster as the Plainsmen was the most powergaming resource PC of all.
It's fair to ask why is it on player's shoulders to take steps to fix a mess that is of Staff's own making.
Will that truly bring the banned players back to the game though? Or is it to just have the final word in this all?
The Plainsman... how long ago was that? You really want to bring back something that happened 15 years ago? Staff amended what needed to be changed, they banned the person who had it all implode.
Tbh its a bit nitpicky at this point. Its not hard to shoot a request.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 12:42:21 PM
Staff have just changed and written rules that I suspect they'll break eventually anyway. Staff weren't "supposed" to play sorcerers years ago and that didn't stop Brokkr or Seidhr from doing so. Hell, Halaster as the Plainsmen was the most powergaming resource PC of all.
It's fair to ask why is it on player's shoulders to take steps to fix a mess that is of Staff's own making.
So what is your honest solution to all this? They've banned Shalooonsh, they're pretty honest about having messed up, they're very positive in Discord about the future, they're taking all the complaints thrown at them without threatening the players back... I'm not really sure what else they can do. If you really don't trust them anymore that's different and understandable, but if you want positive changes at this point you need to give them at least some sort of a chance. It doesn't mean that you have to come back to the game right away, but saying that they'll fuck up again for sure is pretty harsh.
The banned players that some of you are probably talking about all mentioned that they will never come back to the game no matter what, so what would be achieved by reaching out to them at this point?
Quote from: whengravityfails on March 30, 2023, 07:03:05 AM
Honestly? Staff have already offered up too much to those who never had any intention other than to see them all collectively punished for the actions of one extremely bad actor and a disbelief that somehow they didn't function as an All Seeing Eye to watch said bad actor.
Said bad actor is gone and banned. The others have admitted to only seeing pieces and fragments and not the whole. They've said they'll be more vigilant now. This is perfect - and frankly as much as was ever truly necessary. There's a lot of assumption that all players feel this inchoate anger towards the staff to take it to extreme limits when it's only been a vocal minority and this vocal minority has caused players to leave due to the incessant extreme demands.
For example, the heavy restraints put on what roles Staff can play. Why must it go any further than psions and sorcs and Templars and Nobles? It's swung too heavily in the other direction to where demands are not common sense but punitive. The same with requiring staff to be visible on the who list at all times - or even worse, in the room (which would -definitely- impact how people RP and act OOCly). It feels like grievances run amok that go far past the initial problem. On top of it, people like CirclelessBard have no intent to return anyways, so why bend over backwards for them when most of the rest of us are tired of this grievance crusade that is embittering other players that -aren't- part of the vocal minority and just wanted to see that one bad actor punished and for the game to go on?
I am giving staff a chance, but I am not going to play and expose myself to potential future victimization. I am going to wait and see how things pan out. I am going to wait and see if staff can prove they can follow the new paradigm they intend to establish or if they lose sight of their path again.
Characterizing me as having no intent to return is unfair, and exactly the opposite of the point of my previous posts. I want to return. But I am going to wait until I feel comfortable trusting staff and the community in general.
Quote from: Malken on March 30, 2023, 12:58:28 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 12:42:21 PM
Staff have just changed and written rules that I suspect they'll break eventually anyway. Staff weren't "supposed" to play sorcerers years ago and that didn't stop Brokkr or Seidhr from doing so. Hell, Halaster as the Plainsmen was the most powergaming resource PC of all.
It's fair to ask why is it on player's shoulders to take steps to fix a mess that is of Staff's own making.
So what is your honest solution to all this? They've banned Shalooonsh, they're pretty honest about having messed up, they're very positive in Discord about the future, they're taking all the complaints thrown at them without threatening the players back... I'm not really sure what else they can do. If you really don't trust them anymore that's different and understandable, but if you want positive changes at this point you need to give them at least some sort of a chance.
The banned players that some of you are probably talking about all mentioned that they will never come back to the game no matter what, so what would be achieved by reaching out to them at this point?
Brokkr and Halaster should both resign as Producer and the position should be abolished. They do not have the temperament or the trust for leading a community. Become coders or something, but I wouldn't trust either of them to give players a chance against staff misconduct. Based on their past actions, Staff abusing their position of privilege isn't a system bug, but a feature.
Staff as a whole needs to be reformed and purged. It is top-heavy relative to the playerbase, and bureaucratically stifling to storytellers within it. Administrators and Producers are redundant upper management. Storytellers need to fully commit to either bringing the game world alive, or step down and play normal characters. Players should be able to tell who their storytellers are, and periodically be able to vote to strip them of them position. Players should also be subject to community-driven bans. To do this, we need to know who is and has played. That'll require a wholesale reboot of player accounts, as there are players who do not want their identities exposed with very good reason. I would shut down the Armageddon discord.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 12:32:54 PM
Staff has made amends
Have they made amends to certain specific people that have been specifically done dirty? There is no reason that they should have to ask to have a ban that shouldn't have existed in the first place to be lifted. Even if it's just a symbolic gesture to people that might have no intention of returning ever, it's still worth doing.
So it is about having the final word then?
Tbh I doubt it will change anything. Nothing will please them at this point. Absolutely nothing. Besides seeing the game shut down.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:22:36 PM
So it is about having the final word then?
Tbh I doubt it will change anything. Nothing will please them at this point. Absolutely nothing. Besides seeing the game shut down.
That's a bad take.
Is expecting a well-deserved apology after being done wrong about "having the final word"?
Kind of the same thing here.
QuoteIs expecting a well-deserved apology after being done wrong about "having the final word"?
If they really would like to start the dialogue about apologies, they can shoot a message and start the conversation. Some people don't want to get back/be unbanned/ have anything to do with Armageddon ever again, so why would staff poke that bear?
IMO staff apologized by doing what was asked (I'm not going to list it all because its easy to find in the recent staff announcements), making amends, actively making changes. Sometimes there were literal apologies.
But why is it on the wronged party to take the first step?
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:34:56 PM
But why is it on the wronged party to take the first step?
But they haven't and will not. Staff has already taken many first steps with all the changes implemented and requests amended.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:33:57 PM
QuoteIs expecting a well-deserved apology after being done wrong about "having the final word"?
If they really would like to start the dialogue about apologies, they can shoot a message and start the conversation.
If that's your idea of propriety, I really hope you never do anything to me that gets acknowledged as warranting an apology from you, because I am 100% going to be buying a house in Grudge City if the expectation is that I, the wronged party, should take the first step in making things right.
Do mind that I say this with love-- checking tone and all that. <3
Sure. Selective reading and all.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:34:56 PM
But why is it on the wronged party to take the first step?
But they haven't and will not. Staff has already taken many first steps with all the changes implemented and requests amended.
Staff are apologizing to a room where the aggrieved parties are not necessarily present. By leaving bans in place, the remaining staff are signaling that they still believe they're justified to some extent.
All staff need to do is reverse every ban that wasn't made for gameplay reasons in the last, say, 4 months, and tell the players they're welcome to come back. In all likelihood those players will get themselves banned again because they're notoriously difficult to play with anyway. But upholding the actions of a disgraced staffer is just lazy optics.
Another thing Staff can do to try and get players to return is stop taking such a "our way or the highway" tone towards the disgruntled, as recently encapsulated in Halaster's latest post.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59231.0.html
Quote
There are some who feel like they cannot move beyond the past issues, who feel like they can never trust staff again, and who never intend to play again. To those people we are sorry you feel that way, and if we could change the past we would. But we kindly ask you do not linger in the community just to stir up past issues and rekindle grudges. We wish you the very best and hope you find a community where you feel happy and safe as you move on.
Staff has taken the first step and explained why they're not going to blanket unban a bunch of people and put out the invitation for those who are supposedly "wronged" to ask to be unbanned. They don't need to kiss the ring, they don't need to grovel. It's a one sentence reason why.
I swear some of you won't be happy - such as BadSkeelz - until the staff has been humiliated and dissolved and replaced with anarchy. At this point if those who are "wronged" wish to return, they can very easily ask to get their bans reversed. If that's too much for their wounded pride, oh well. Grow a thicker skin. If they don't intend on returning, then it's a waste of time better spent on players who remain or intend on returning.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:40:38 PM
Sure. Selective reading and all.
Well alright, I'll go over the whole post if you'd like.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:33:57 PM
Some people don't want to get back/be unbanned/ have anything to do with Armageddon ever again, so why would staff poke that bear?
Because it's kind of the right thing to do? Even if said parties have zero interest in returning or having Armageddon in their life, it's a tangible gesture.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 01:33:57 PM
IMO staff apologized by doing what was asked (I'm not going to list it all because its easy to find in the recent staff announcements), making amends, actively making changes. Sometimes there were literal apologies.
You can shout "yeah we messed up we're sorry" into the void all you want, but if punitive action is still upheld against people that didn't deserve it, then where's the weight to those apologies? And if by any chance they
do want to return and see how things are going in the future, should they be facing a locked door? Personally I don't think so.
And this whole "ya'll will never be happy" crowd.
Like.... Man.
Yeah, I have trouble being happy with the whole situation when there are some bare-bones basic "decent things to do that will cost actually nothing" steps that are getting glossed over entirely.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:49:41 PM
Another thing Staff can do to try and get players to return is stop taking such a "our way or the highway" tone towards the disgruntled, as recently encapsulated in Halaster's latest post.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59231.0.html
Quote
There are some who feel like they cannot move beyond the past issues, who feel like they can never trust staff again, and who never intend to play again. To those people we are sorry you feel that way, and if we could change the past we would. But we kindly ask you do not linger in the community just to stir up past issues and rekindle grudges. We wish you the very best and hope you find a community where you feel happy and safe as you move on.
I thought that was really well said, and its honestly sad that a lot of people that have 'quit' are constantly on the forums, repeating the same tired shit, and crying about past transgressions. Its time to stop beating the fuck out of the proverbial dead horse. People need to move on, or beat feet. Pitter padder, let's skiddatter.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:49:41 PM
Another thing Staff can do to try and get players to return is stop taking such a "our way or the highway" tone towards the disgruntled, as recently encapsulated in Halaster's latest post.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59231.0.html
I'm a very cynical person and I don't see that post at all as a "our way or the highway" post...
Who exactly do you want unbanned? There aren't a whole lot of people who are still banned aside from Bebop?
Player numbers are slowly going back up (15+ right now on a Thursday afternoon) so I'm guessing a few people are seeing the positive in Halaster's posts.
Quote from: Tailong on March 30, 2023, 02:00:20 PM
Its time to stop beating the fuck out of the proverbial dead horse.
The Staff horse is still very much alive. They will fuck this game up again as long as the same people are in charge.
Quote from: Malken on March 30, 2023, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:49:41 PM
Another thing Staff can do to try and get players to return is stop taking such a "our way or the highway" tone towards the disgruntled, as recently encapsulated in Halaster's latest post.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59231.0.html
I'm a very cynical person and I don't see that post at all as a "our way or the highway" post...
Who exactly do you want unbanned? There aren't a whole lot of people who are still banned aside from Bebop?
Player numbers are slowly going back up (15+ right now on a Thursday afternoon) so I'm guessing a few people are seeing the positive in Halaster's posts.
Bebop would be an easy win, especially as she'd probably get herself banned again within weeks over some new drama. But at least it'd be a different drama.
There are other bans that should be reviewed and confirmed by people other than Shaloonsh, since his judgement is no longer valid.
"If you don't do this, I will never play again!"
*staff does that*
"But if you don't do this either, I will never play again!"
*staff does that too*
"But if you won't change that...."
And so on, and so forth...
At this point its just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 02:14:32 PM
"If you don't do this, I will never play again!"
*staff does that*
"But if you don't do this either, I will never play again!"
*staff does that too*
"But if you won't change that...."
And so on, and so forth...
At this point its just arguing for the sake of arguing.
That's a little reductive and straw-man'ish, isn't it?
I don't think anybody is saying what you're saying they're saying.
This game and this community have a long history, and it's already been acknowledged from up on high that changes are needed. There's definitely been some progress, which is great, but if there are still issues, or perceived issues, they should not be ignored or swept under the rug just because
some of the issues were handled. That would be detrimental in the long run.
Do it right or don't bother doing it at all, y'know?
That's my thoughts on that matter, at least.
Respectfully, we will agree to disagree.
Staff did right, in my opinion.
Quote from: FamousAmos on March 30, 2023, 02:26:30 PM
Respectfully, we will agree to disagree.
Staff did right, in my opinion.
That's awesome, it's good that they passed your threshold for desired change. It's ok for other people to have a different threshold or to desire and even request other changes. It doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of the game or staff's efforts so far. It's just them saying what they'd like to see. Strawmanning their arguments doesn't help get player numbers up. Let's, as Halaster said, approach each other from a place of empathy and engage with things in good faith.
We appreciate the critiques and ideas. Feel free to continue to offer suggestions and provide feeback on what you would like to see from staff and the community in general. There have been
numerous adjustments over the past month in regards to policy, rules, and new teams being put in place. I would ask you continue to work with us and give the staffing team and community time to adjust to these new changes. I think we all need to see if the adjustments are improving the quality of play and gaming experience for everyone. I can almost certainly guarantee that adjustments will be made in one form or another. New policy and rules can be adopted, so please do no think this is going to be it and we're just going to call it good.
If you're not happy with the adjustments that have been made or feel that staff has been disingenuous with steps they've taken, then I am sorry. I will echo what Halaster said in his announcement:
Quote from: Halaster on March 30, 2023, 11:38:33 AM
There are some who feel like they cannot move beyond the past issues, who feel like they can never trust staff again, and who never intend to play again. To those people we are sorry you feel that way, and if we could change the past we would. But we kindly ask you do not linger in the community just to stir up past issues and rekindle grudges. We wish you the very best and hope you find a community where you feel happy and safe as you move on.
We're doing what we can to make this the best possible game. For our amazing playerbase and the RPI community in general. If you're here continuing to comment in this thread, that can only mean that you do love ArmageddonMUD and you wish to see it become the best game possible. All that I ask, is that you work with us in making that possible. The staff is going to continue to do the best that we can for you. Let's not flame each other. We're all here in the same pool of silt. Thanks.
A theme seems to be "how can it be possible staff don't remember who was banned recently". A riposte seems to be "do you mean anybody other than bebop". It feels like nobody really knows what happened.
This should be run to ground? And staff could surely be a little more clear on "recent" events, while asking for understanding on quite old bans.
I think my best move will be to go back to muting this discussion board and doing my best to ignore Staff beyond the bare minimum interaction necessary to play the game. Maybe get some enjoyment in before privileged Staff attitudes and bending of rules "For the good of the game" inevitably fuck things up again.
Staff, just remember:
(https://media.tenor.com/uRctp1FFOQkAAAAC/mike-ehrmantraut.gif)
Quote from: Enthemu on March 30, 2023, 03:48:08 PM
We appreciate the critiques and ideas. Feel free to continue to offer suggestions and provide feeback on what you would like to see from staff and the community in general. There have been numerous adjustments over the past month in regards to policy, rules, and new teams being put in place. I would ask you continue to work with us and give the staffing team and community time to adjust to these new changes. I think we all need to see if the adjustments are improving the quality of play and gaming experience for everyone. I can almost certainly guarantee that adjustments will be made in one form or another. New policy and rules can be adopted, so please do no think this is going to be it and we're just going to call it good.
If you're not happy with the adjustments that have been made or feel that staff has been disingenuous with steps they've taken, then I am sorry. I will echo what Halaster said in his announcement:
Quote from: Halaster on March 30, 2023, 11:38:33 AM
There are some who feel like they cannot move beyond the past issues, who feel like they can never trust staff again, and who never intend to play again. To those people we are sorry you feel that way, and if we could change the past we would. But we kindly ask you do not linger in the community just to stir up past issues and rekindle grudges. We wish you the very best and hope you find a community where you feel happy and safe as you move on.
We're doing what we can to make this the best possible game. For our amazing playerbase and the RPI community in general. If you're here continuing to comment in this thread, that can only mean that you do love ArmageddonMUD and you wish to see it become the best game possible. All that I ask, is that you work with us in making that possible. The staff is going to continue to do the best that we can for you. Let's not flame each other. We're all here in the same pool of silt. Thanks.
There is a huge difference between "I am sorry" and "sorry you feel that way", and the sentiment that surrounds both statements. One feels genuine, the other does not. I appreciate your explanation and I wish you the best of luck in helping the rest of your team right the ship's course.
Just because I haven't been reading this whole thread, just skimming...
Is everyone hinting at Bebop? Is that what everyone wants to be fixed, Bebop to be allowed back?
Someone message her and have her put in a request to come back if she hasn't already.
Or am I missing something else?
There have been a couple moderation reports on this thread. I'd like to remind everyone that showing kindness and respect above all are the first words of the first rule on the GDB. I don't really want to muzzle anyone or moderate posts in this thread just yet, because overcensoring dissent isn't a great way to achieve long term healing in my opinion. I also think it is fair to express the opinion that the recent staff actions taken don't go far enough or suffer from some of the same concerns that have been raised previously about staff's ability to police themselves. Those are valid questions we need to look at as a community as we move forward.
What I'll do instead is just remind everyone of this: by posting here you're taking part in a community, hopefully with the intent of making the community better or preventing the mistakes of the past to occur again. No one can accomplish that task alone. Staff must listen to the players and acknowledge their feelings and opinions, even when those can be discouraging; and likewise players must listen to the staff and acknowledge their feelings and opinions too.
Debate actions being taken or not, but please try to assume positive intent. I believe everyone posting here, no matter how frustrated they may sound, wants the game to improve. Improvement will start by listening, then coming together, and then moving on from where things used to be.
If you're not able or prepared to engage positively and travel down that road to improvement, either in this thread or the community at all, it's fair to ask what you're seeking to gain from participating. Again, I would not want myself or fellow moderators to moderate "negative" opinions, but I hope we could keep the discussion constructive here so that we can all move forward.
Thank you, Rahnevyn. Thank you, Emu-mu.
I tend to fall into "the right thing to do" camp on reaching out to players who have been been aggrieved by previous bans and behaviors that we see in a different light now.
This is not in every case of bans in the last several months. Sometimes banning is a necessary step in trying to protect the community or the integrity of the game. It is a attempt at preserving safety.
But particularly when the banning included or touched on behaviors by staff that have been since been noted as inappropriate or not in our shared joint values, I do believe the burden of offering the olive branch lies with us.
Yes, in some cases, that offering might only get a harsh "never, jerkwads! And here is WHY!" type of response. But that is fine. At least we can say that we amended our ways and made the sincere effort to make things right. We can't control the outcome. We can only control our efforts.
I believe how you build trust is only through consistently doing the right thing. Not because it is punishing. But because that doing the right thing is more important than personal pride, more important than standard procedures, more important than even the results.
Growth and understanding between us only moves at the speed of trust.
Quote from: Rahnevyn on March 30, 2023, 05:14:09 PM
There have been a couple moderation reports on this thread. I'd like to remind everyone that showing kindness and respect above all are the first words of the first rule on the GDB. I don't really want to muzzle anyone or moderate posts in this thread just yet, because overcensoring dissent isn't a great way to achieve long term healing in my opinion. I also think it is fair to express the opinion that the recent staff actions taken don't go far enough or suffer from some of the same concerns that have been raised previously about staff's ability to police themselves. Those are valid questions we need to look at as a community as we move forward.
What I'll do instead is just remind everyone of this: by posting here you're taking part in a community, hopefully with the intent of making the community better or preventing the mistakes of the past to occur again. No one can accomplish that task alone. Staff must listen to the players and acknowledge their feelings and opinions, even when those can be discouraging; and likewise players must listen to the staff and acknowledge their feelings and opinions too.
Debate actions being taken or not, but please try to assume positive intent. I believe everyone posting here, no matter how frustrated they may sound, wants the game to improve. Improvement will start by listening, then coming together, and then moving on from where things used to be.
If you're not able or prepared to engage positively and travel down that road to improvement, either in this thread or the community at all, it's fair to ask what you're seeking to gain from participating. Again, I would not want myself or fellow moderators to moderate "negative" opinions, but I hope we could keep the discussion constructive here so that we can all move forward.
Let's hope you moderate people with positive opinions toward staff too. There have been a few in this thread that dipped into personal attacks, often without evidence, as a means to cut this attempt at making things better short.
There's a world of difference between needing to ask to come back and being invited to come back. That said, I understand there's a practicality issue as explained by Halaster.
Here is a suggestion. Could the moderation team or the player committee, perhaps, nominate particular banned players for consideration to be invited back?
Quote from: flurry on March 30, 2023, 06:17:55 PM
There's a world of difference between needing to ask to come back and being invited to come back. That said, I understand there's a practicality issue as explained by Halaster.
Here is a suggestion. Could the moderation team or the player committee, perhaps, nominate particular banned players for consideration to be invited back?
This is something I'd been planning to do, should I get picked for the committee, yeah. It seems like one of those things that
could be done with sufficient effort.
I dont think pointing fingers at anyone helps this ooc difficulty/drama. And you know who you are beating the bush, now leafless. Why is this OOC community, (toxic to the game) bigger than the In Game Community? I wish it was older again, mystery and wonder, and worry, IC. All the drama that should be happening in game, is...down...(points in a deep hole) ..there.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2023, 01:40:48 PM
All staff need to do is reverse every ban that wasn't made for gameplay reasons in the last, say, 4 months, and tell the players they're welcome to come back. In all likelihood those players will get themselves banned again because they're notoriously difficult to play with anyway. But upholding the actions of a disgraced staffer is just lazy optics.
I disagree with a lot you've said, mostly because you just seem really pissed off and confrontational about things (more than usual at least :P). But I do agree with this one.... if it wasn't for gameplay reasons, they should be unbanned and welcomed back. Mistakes were made on all sides, and all sides should be given a second chance. I think the same is true for
some of the staff members that you have beef with BadSkeelz. They're human, and I highly doubt they meant any malice with their actions. They should get a second chance too.
Please do not personally attack anyone, player, staff, moderator, or their next of kin, this is a breach of rule 1 and 4. Threats of any kind are not acceptable.
Respectfully, please do not make any of the recent instigators a moderator or player committee member. The reward for arson should not include a building permit.
Quote from: Halcyon on March 31, 2023, 03:28:11 PM
Respectfully, please do not make any of the recent instigators a moderator or player committee member. The reward for arson should not include a building permit.
Wait, who are the arsonists in this situation? People who called out bad behavior, or people who behaved badly?
If a conductor is driving a train off a cliff and a few people come over to the conductor and are like "hey stop there's a cliff there" and the conductor says "shut up" and so the people tell the other passengers "look there's a cliff there! And the conductor won't listen to me!" and people start jumping off the train... and the conductor turns around and is like "oh hey, we're sorry, okay we're not going to drive off the cliff... look, we're taking a different track..!"
But then they keep the people kicked off the train, and act as if those people were the ones doing wrong instead of the whole train-driving committee... "some people are just not going to like the direction of this train, and we'd like if they just left us alone rather than continually coming to try to ride our train"...
It's not crazy for someone to think "wow, this train is pretty committed to driving off cliffs". And only for people who actually want to ride trains off cliffs to continue riding the train?
What you have to think about is: the train is advertised as having a certain destination of "Roleplay". If you want the actual destination to be "Off a Cliff", then you've got to advertise it that way or else people are going to keep complaining. "Join this game if you like bullying people and being bullied by staff!" is not as great a line as "Join this game which has cohesive roleplay and a beautiful but brutal world with consistent lore!"
It is common sense to know that as long as you have that discrepency between what is advertised and what is real, you are going to get complaints. If you don't want complaints you have to either sincerely change track to become what is advertised, or change the way you represent the game to honestly indicate its reality.
Please abide by the rules people. Please refrain from any personal attacks. Feel free to attack the idea, not the person.
Quote from: Halcyon on March 31, 2023, 03:28:11 PM
Respectfully, please do not make any of the recent instigators a moderator or player committee member. The reward for arson should not include a building permit.
Respectfully, please do consider allowing recent instigators positions. These positions are clearly a lot of work and not a reward. Their demonstrated commitment to a better game, even against the trends of status quo inertia and the cost of potentially alienating co-players and staff shows sincere investment in a better outcome.
The reward for calling out "fire!" in a burning building and trying to help lead the way to safety through the smoke shouldn't be an immediate ban from serving on the public safety committee.
How do I throw my hat behind Patuk as a moderator? I'd like someone who felt like me representing people like me.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between 'arson', and pointing out a fire already happening.
Quote from: Jimpka_Moss on April 01, 2023, 04:53:51 PM
How do I throw my hat behind Patuk as a moderator? I'd like someone who felt like me representing people like me.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between 'arson', and pointing out a fire already happening.
You flatter me so, but I stand by random draws being best. I hope it's what they'll go for.