Armageddon General Discussion Board

So I am going to bring up a controversial topic, something that a lot of people talk about on the Player and also Staff side of things.  It's probably a topic that gets under the skin of most staff, I cannot say for certain, as I can only speak for myself.  It is an important topic, as it has a huge baring upon the game as a whole.  It effects both players and staff.  It's probably one of the hardest areas for staff to regulate as it is such a grey area and from what I can see, there is little way to make it not so grey.

Out of Character outside the game itself.  This include just chatting out of character with friends outside the game, but more specifically talking about IC events, collusion, and secrets within the game.  The part that is covered under Rule 6 & 7 here:  http://armageddon.org/help/view/Rules

So my disclaimer... I am opening this topic because I have questions and I think this needs to be talked about openly.  This topic will probably get heated, I kindly request that you be kind to everyone in this thread and follow the rules of the game and forums.  I am not asking for how you follow the rules, I can see everyone's account notes and we are not talking about specific instances here, so don't bring it up.  If you feel like you are being specifically targeted (which isn't the intention of this thread at all) then put in a complaint, do not air it here.  This thread is to gather information and opinions, if you don't like the opinion, discuss it... don't get upset because someone doesn't agree with your opinion.  Finally, if you feel like you will get upset and heated on this topic and that you may post something that could break a rule of the forums, just don't post here.  I will delete posts that don't add to the topic, I will lock this if it gets out of hand.

So onto the why...  OOC (in the way I mentioned above) has screwed up plots in game, I have seen instances where a plot that staff has put a lot of time an effort into, trying to make it fun for the players, was completely ruined because of OOC conversations about said plots.  This has happened multiple times and is a huge moral hit on staff side, it freaken sucks.  This ruins the fun for both staff and players.  It has made players not want to play.  I can think of a specific instance where a certain player I know of, not going to mention any names, was apart of something pretty big in game, it was then posted OOC about who the player was, and then IC actions were taken on OOC information.  This killed the players want to play, because technically, no one would have had any idea about what happened IC, it was spoiled because of OOC.

In all, this rule is in place to keep the game fun for others, players and staff.  To keep the game fair for all, but still... people break the rule all the time.  The issue is that it's of my opinion it is the hardest rule to enforce.  Why?  Because unless someone, be it player or staff, brings up evidence, how are we certain that someone is doing this?  This rule doesn't just apply to players, it also applies to staff, and we are also held accountable.  We can watch someone playing the game and it can be very clear when someone used OOC to help themselves.  Example:  Character is dying somewhere.  Another Character logs in and immediately finds said character and rescues them.  (You may laugh, but this happens.)  But when someone is talking OOC on IM or Discord or Teamspeak or whatever, and they talk about what is going on in the game... how do you prevent that?

Even the the simplest thing as, hey... I found so an so is a magicker.  This can potentially have an effect on how you play your character around another character.  If I am playing a secret Psion and lets say a player finds out in an IC manner that I'm playing this Psion, and then OOC tells another player, that would have no way to find out, lets say they are a Templar, that my character is a Psion, it will likely affect the way this PC Templar acts around my character.  Everyone can and will say that they can separate OOC and IC, even I say it, but I know subtly it affects the way I play.

So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?  What if we see something going on in game that could be potentially OOC collusion?  How do we prevent it?  What do you think we should do if there is a grey area?  I will tell you straight up, I've had concrete evidence that someone was using OOC collusion, and when I confronted them, they lied to me about it.  It's frustrating to see this, and players will and have gotten banned over it.  I can say for myself that I don't like having to hunt down this, I wish I never did have to... and man, I hate seeing my other staff members getting hurt over it.  That is why I am posting this topic.  I want your thoughts, I want your opinions, I want your advice.  I hate seeing players and staff getting hurt over all this.

Last disclosure, I am doing this topic in hopes of constructive feedback and opinions.  My opinion may not be the opinion of staff as a whole.  Try to keep it clean... thank you.

I think the root of the problem is that the players and staff, generally love (I mean REALLY love) this game.  Human nature is to want to share experiences, both good and bad.  When something AWESOME!!!1!! happens IG you want to share it with friends, family, other people who might and even might not want to hear about this AwesomeThing (tm).

Now imagine if the game was a book or a movie.  It's not that different.

What you're talking about, I think, is akin to sharing spoilers about the Game of Thrones, the next Star Wars movie, or who dies in the Walking Dead.  Imagine not being able to talk about the last episode of Walking Dead until next year...

Folks want to talk about their experiences and have a laugh with others in the community, it's honestly REALLY HARD not to.  I do think the community could better at not sharing true spoilers like "Amos is a Gick", but the total blanket on discussing the game at all is rough.

Having been staff of a totally different RP game I can totally relate. It sucks. A lot. And yeah, people will lie. Occasionally they don't. And as a staffer it makes you bitter and jaded and it was the reason I left within 3 months and became a regular player again, I didn't need all that extra frustration.

The thing is, when people are enthused about a game, they like to share their experiences. Just like watching a good tv show: it's always better if you watch it with someone else. And that's where the lines of OOC get blurry. I sadly don't have a suggestion for you. What I noticed when I was staff, trying to prevent people from poisoning the well, was that I was starting to micromanage, kept a really close eye on a certain player and when they eventually did make a faux pas, it was rather minor, but it looked so huge in my eyes because I kept a close eye on this player. And eventually -I- made a huge deal over nothing.

So I have to hand it to you, Ath, I truly appreciate all the work you and the other staffers put into the game. I know it's not easy one bit.

The only suggestion I can offer is to open threads like this and just be frank about it towards the players and ask them if they please would tone down the OOC information cause it will poison the well, and no one benefits from it, especially not staff. Just as a reminder.

EDIT: Hah! Whitt, get out of my head.

Essentially yes, but there are cases where I have seen players deliberately working together to "Win Armageddon".  None of us would be here if we didn't like Arm in some way or another.  Personally, I have little issue with chatting about the game a bit, but within reason that it won't ruin the experience of another player.  I mean, if we were that stringent, I would be breaking the rule also.  I have talked about my characters with others, I probably shouldn't have, but I tried to remain conscious of not talking about details that could effect the play of another.  I also don't spread information that I learn from someone to another.  I know I get excited, I love talking about the game, but most of the time I try to talk about old characters and past events... typically never bringing up current events unless they are very public.  Ask anyone on the Teamspeak that has talked with me, I love talking about the game.

This is more so targeted at cases where there is intentional benefit, not the casual chatting about the game.  While yes, the casual chatting can cause problems, and I suggest to any player to be careful as you never know what it can do IC, so don't put it aside.  We all are responsible for what we talk about and who's fun we may or may not ruin.

Agree with Whitt. Its unfortunate, but we're here to write, share, collect, and tell stories. Its difficult to be told not to, when the information is so "OMG!"

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?  What if we see something going on in game that could be potentially OOC collusion?  How do we prevent it?  What do you think we should do if there is a grey area?  I will tell you straight up, I've had concrete evidence that someone was using OOC collusion, and when I confronted them, they lied to me about it.  It's frustrating to see this, and players will and have gotten banned over it.  I can say for myself that I don't like having to hunt down this, I wish I never did have to... and man, I hate seeing my other staff members getting hurt over it.  

Concerning this: I honestly cannot blame the person for lying when confronted, because whether it was intentional or not, the consequences are severe if you're a person who genuinely likes the game or it has become part of their life. Unfortunately, you will almost never have hard confirmation that someone broke a rule, because that's like a cop coming to your house and asking if you have weed in the kitchen. Unless they can -see- it, there's nothing they can really do and nobody is going to admit to having an illegal substance.

What I wouldn't like to see, though, and I'm sorry for sharing a personal experience, is the ASSUMPTION that someone did something and railing on them for it. I once played a Tuluki Templar, and had access to the docs (which were on the website at the time). After I'd stored, a while later another role came up and I thought I might want to try it again (unknowing that that TYPICALLY doesn't happen, especially if the first was stored). So I was checking around every couple days on the documentation, trying to get a feel for the role. Then I got Imm-summoned and had a number of threats levied against me because other IP addresses from known players were accessing the docs. It was reasonable to question me on it, but the trust I had in staff was decimated after the treatment I received for a situation I had no part of.

Its already difficult to approach someone you think was spreading the information, and staff were monitoring other areas/boards as much as they could but sadly... you won't be able to STOP it. And due to the nature of the game, there is no way you can allow it even with reasonable restrictions. The trouble is that pursuing it can shake someone's faith, like it did mine, not that I'm exactly a wonderful player in my own.

I might suggest some sort of 'strike' rule, perhaps, where the consequences of spreading the information once or twice is not ban-hammer worthy. Maybe I have a friend on AIM and I was really excited about my new sub-Sorceror PC and I let it slip. If staff comes to me on it, I might be more willing to admit that I -did- say something to <x> person if I knew it wasn't zero-tolerance grounds for immediate removal from a game I've played for over 10 years.

Great question -- How does Staff regulate something like this? I don't think they can. It's a subtle beast, and one that I think would take combing with a microscope to fully recognize in every instance.

I think what needs to happen is a cultural shift. I can honestly say that ten or so years ago, there was much more reverence for the IC/OOC disconnect. As Whitt points out, we love this game, and we want to talk about it, but the outlets for discussing it on the GDB are quite limited. So people turn to AIM or the equivalents now a days -- Gchat, and so on. Once you get started talking about the game, there comes this moment where you can decide to make the IC/OOC line firm (I'm not comfortable talking about that, it's too IC), or you cross the line (Oh man yeah, Dinkus is such a turd, I think they're a Krathi secretly...).

The culture needs to shift away from 'Winning Armageddon', which i've said for a while now. I've noticed there is a trend to 'Start That Indie Clan' and 'Take over the World', and plenty of other meta groups in-between. I don't think all of this is OOCly coordinated, actually. I think it's just a culture shift. People aren't RPing to the hilt, they are influencing decisions with OOC goals, which I think happens when you've been playing the game for a long ass time. You want to do something grand, or great, and not just play the nobody anymore.

I used to cross the IC/OOC line OFTEN when I was first playing the game, and it took someone (actually my RL friend who played with me at the time, Galdun) pointing out to me it was a shitty thing to do. That breaking the IC/OOC barrier actually goes against the spirit of the game. And it definitely goes against the spirit of Staff, and how they staff, the game.

I think what Staff -could- do, instead of trying to regulate the game itself, is to provide a comfortable environment for people to discuss the game OOCly. There obviously need to be parameters, quite similar to what is being put forward by Staff in the forum rules currently. And actually Ath, your 'Whatever Happened To' thread I think has given many people a moment of catharsis in being able to discuss previous PCs.

Having a sub-forum where a Staff member begins a thread, say "Tuluk 2006", and people are allowed to share their thoughts/feelings about their PCs and plots of that time, with that Staff now taking the onus to moderate/monitor the thread for going off track or divulging too much, would do wonders for the community I think. These threads could have a time limit, say a month, and after that a new topic is introduced and the previous one is locked. Staff could put out a polling thread for what to discuss next. It would:

*Allow veterans to reminisce about old PCs that they had and share stories of what they were about.
*Allow newbies to get a glimpse into the past, and how robust that past is on ArmageddonMUD
*Allow people to form a community inside of the GDB, rather than turning to outside sources to illicitly speak and share details that might not be kosher.
*Provide that outlet that people need to share their love of the game, and not just discuss the semantics/code/discussions about the game mechanics.
*Allow Staff to get organic feedback on what worked in the past, and what didn't -- Say, opening a discussion about Armageddon Reborn, or the closure of Tuluk, or the Gith Wars.

---

One other thing I think would help immensely: Original Submissions! I know Staff is likely already working on this, but it's a GREAT outlet for players. I started playing ArmageddonMUD because of the original submissions (Stories, and Logs). It encourages a community of writing and storytelling, which is one of the many appeals of ArmageddonMUD. Not having it easily accessible, or easily submitted to, is a tragedy. It is a perfect outlet for Players to positively contribute to the game, and feel like they are being noticed/heard/read.

Anyways, just some thoughts.

Honestly? I don't agree with the "don't talk about current IG events" rule. Some people care about spoilers, and others don't. It ruins some people's immersion, and doesn't ruin others'. That's fine. It's what you, and those whom you share with, do with the information that makes all the difference.

My boyfriend is the local body master of a local chapter of an honest-to-goodness secret society with actual secrets and vows of silence, and based on what I've told him about the Arm culture of secrecy, he says that Armageddon is more secretive than his organization. That should tell you something.

You can't police people's private conversations. You just can't. It's really none of staff's business what I talk to a friend about. (Within reason, of course. If I'm actually colluding and cheating, or posting a list of known magickers on my blog, that's a whole different animal than sharing a funny anecdote with the people who share my niche hobby!) For the staff to attempt to control people's words outside the game feels stifling and overbearing, and makes them look like a bunch of busybodies.

Shouldn't the focus be cheating and collusion, not mere words? Yes, someone can take someone's innocent anecdote and abuse it, but then again, you can also abuse information you've learned on your previous characters. For example, maybe my last character knew X was a sorcerer, and my new character shouldn't. You can't protect people from knowing stuff their character shouldn't know. It's always going to happen. Yes, it's a difficult thing to prove when somebody's been abusing information gained OOC, but it's also difficult to prove when people are sharing IC information with each other, unless you encourage people to tattle on each other, and frankly, that's not a game culture I want to be a part of.

You should only share information with people you trust. You should never share with the intention of affecting IG events. And if something is shared with you OOCly, you should do your absolute best to not let it influence your IC actions, and err on the side of caution as far as that goes. And you should always respect someone's request not to share information they're not comfortable with having. But to actually try to crack down on people's mere words? Just for innocently chatting about what's going on in the game they love? That's a ridiculous rule to try to maintain. You can encourage people not to talk and mention the merits of not sharing those sorts of stories, but to make it an actual rule with actual IG punishment goes beyond reasonable IMO.

Maybe not a popular opinion, but that's how I feel about it.

EDIT: Another effect I think occurs is that because the "no sharing" rule is so very broad and so very harsh to the point of being unreasonable to expect players to keep to, that it becomes the norm for people not to take that rule seriously and to break it without much thought. Because of this, people are more likely to collude and cheat because the rule intended to prevent them from doing so is commonly considered one of those rules that isn't really important.

I think the problem is once the cat's out of the bag, it's difficult to put it back in. So part of what Ath is talking about is that anecdotal story of 'The Sorcerer that kidnapped someone and killed them and took control of their body, but the person who died OOCly told all his buddies he died, so when the Animated Corpse Sorcerer came into town pretending to be him, no one bought it and he was killed, etc.'

I don't think the casual conversation is what Ath is talking about, as he admits to doing that himself. It's the sharing of secrets, and of IG plot secrets especially, that can stop a plot in its track or turn people off from playing the game.

I don't think it's good to share those things, and it's especially not good to spread them around. I think it should be discouraged. However, I don't think you can control that, and you certainly shouldn't try to control it with a scorched earth policy. The problem is that as far as the current policy goes, there isn't really a distinction between important IC information being shared and harmless IC information being shared. It's great that Ath is making the distinction between the two, but officially, they're the same, and it leads to a culture where the rule is not taken seriously and both are shrugged off.

Quote from: Reiloth on October 27, 2016, 12:38:36 PM
I think the problem is once the cat's out of the bag, it's difficult to put it back in. So part of what Ath is talking about is that anecdotal story of 'The Sorcerer that kidnapped someone and killed them and took control of their body, but the person who died OOCly told all his buddies he died, so when the Animated Corpse Sorcerer came into town pretending to be him, no one bought it and he was killed, etc.'

I don't think the casual conversation is what Ath is talking about, as he admits to doing that himself. It's the sharing of secrets, and of IG plot secrets especially, that can stop a plot in its track or turn people off from playing the game.

Agree with Reiloth that we as players also need to buy more into the fact that we're not here to "win Armageddon".  Yes there is an enormous time and emotional investment in our PCs.  But!  And this has to be a Trump-level Huge But, we also have to buy into the fact that breaking the OOC barrier for IC help inside the game is not acceptable.

Maybe what is needed is a sort of levels of OOC information sharing with the following being a suggested start for what is "right out" -
1) OOC-Tampering for IG benefit (eg OOCing a friend to get IG and take part in something that is currently going on) - blatantly wrong.  Now you're cheating.
2) Intentionally revealing IG plot secrets OOCly (eg Amos is a gick! or Malika just killed me!) - akin to posting spoilers, strongly discouraged and worthy of action if repeated.  Now you're ruining other people's fun.
3) After those it gets a bit more grey.  Because you need to be very carefully not to wander into #2.

Likewise per Riev, I think if there was an option to admit guilt without risking the ban-hammer, there might be more potential to seek repentance instead of denial in the face of blatant facts which only leads to even more hurt feelings.  Very difficult to build a culture where we all feel trusted and respected when a few "bad apples" can really "poison the well" to quote Iyola.

I'm not currently playing right now. But I can testify by my own experience that OOC cliques form for some very real (if maybe the wrong) reasons.

I quickly start losing interest in rolling the dice and trusting other players to not pull dick moves on me.

How many times do I have to be psi-sniffed by a templar, outed by someone across the known or killed for some lame-ass reason before I start pulling ooc resources? The bullshit keeps piling on and on and all I fucking want to do is play a character the way I want to play them.

So why not just play with friends instead?

Quote from: Beethoven on October 27, 2016, 12:31:05 PM
Honestly? I don't agree with the "don't talk about current IG events" rule. Some people care about spoilers, and others don't. It ruins some people's immersion, and doesn't ruin others'. That's fine. It's what you, and those whom you share with, do with the information that makes all the difference.

My boyfriend is the local body master of a local chapter of an honest-to-goodness secret society with actual secrets and vows of silence, and based on what I've told him about the Arm culture of secrecy, he says that Armageddon is more secretive than his organization. That should tell you something.

You can't police people's private conversations. You just can't. It's really none of staff's business what I talk to a friend about. (Within reason, of course. If I'm actually colluding and cheating, or posting a list of known magickers on my blog, that's a whole different animal than sharing a funny anecdote with the people who share my niche hobby!) For the staff to attempt to control people's words outside the game feels stifling and overbearing, and makes them look like a bunch of busybodies.

Shouldn't the focus be cheating and collusion, not mere words? Yes, someone can take someone's innocent anecdote and abuse it, but then again, you can also abuse information you've learned on your previous characters. For example, maybe my last character knew X was a sorcerer, and my new character shouldn't. You can't protect people from knowing stuff their character shouldn't know. It's always going to happen. Yes, it's a difficult thing to prove when somebody's been abusing information gained OOC, but it's also difficult to prove when people are sharing IC information with each other, unless you encourage people to tattle on each other, and frankly, that's not a game culture I want to be a part of.

You should only share information with people you trust. You should never share with the intention of affecting IG events. And if something is shared with you OOCly, you should do your absolute best to not let it influence your IC actions, and err on the side of caution as far as that goes. And you should always respect someone's request not to share information they're not comfortable with having. But to actually try to crack down on people's mere words? Just for innocently chatting about what's going on in the game they love? That's a ridiculous rule to try to maintain. You can encourage people not to talk and mention the merits of not sharing those sorts of stories, but to make it an actual rule with actual IG punishment goes beyond reasonable IMO.

Maybe not a popular opinion, but that's how I feel about it.

EDIT: Another effect I think occurs is that because the "no sharing" rule is so very broad and so very harsh to the point of being unreasonable to expect players to keep to, that it becomes the norm for people not to take that rule seriously and to break it without much thought. Because of this, people are more likely to collude and cheat because the rule intended to prevent them from doing so is commonly considered one of those rules that isn't really important.

You have some points and you may not agree, but the whole point of those rules are ruining other's fun, be it player or staff, it doesn't matter.  Also the focus of this conversation is more on the topic of OOC infromation that will ruin the fun for others, that will harm plots, the game, the players, the staff in the way they are talked about.  If someone is chatting about about the new changes that happened to the salt flats, or how there is a festival coming up in Allanak, shit that -anyone- can pretty much figure out, I could care less.  

If you want to talk about how you were playing a psionisist and you found about this cool information on a templar and then spread it to your friend, who you say you can trust, but then said friend spreads it to someone else, who then reports the logs to staff.  That will get action taken against it.  No one has control on what information is spread anywhere, look at what is already out there.  Who knows if the information is correct or not, shit... most of what I've read that is out there is hilariously wrong.

Quote from: Reiloth on October 27, 2016, 12:18:11 PM
Lot of information here.

Thank you for the feedback on this, and a lot of what you're say is right.  It's really all about self-control on crossing or not crossing that IC/OOC line.  I mean really the only people that can police any of this is themselves.  I just know if you're going to do something to ruin the fun in a unfair way to another player or staff member, I will look into and take action.

Riev, you have a good point on the whole personal experience and I'm sorry to hear it happened that way.  It has been a personal goal to try to treat everyone fairly.  I come from a very extensive customer service background and I try to utilize that experience within any interaction I have with players.  This is a volunteer staffed game, and we can try to do our best, but sometimes feelings get hurt.  All I can ask is that you look at the both sides and if anything, come back with an open mind on it and try to positive again.  I cannot force you to do so, but I can ask you nicely.  The idea of a strike rule is fine and all, but what if the first strike is someone spreading information about a significant plot that then ruins the plot for a whole lot of people?  I mean, I know personally that the cases I have seen, leniency will happen if you don't lie.  If you come out with the truth, and don't lie about it... we're more likely to work with you.  I know personally I would never drag someone upstairs if I don't have some sort of evidence or facts to work from.

I do not envy staff the responsibility of bringing the hammer down on people who collude through OOC channels to 'win the game.' It's a dirty job, but it has to be done. I know I would be monumentally pissed if my hard work was ruined because of cheaters. And we all know that's what it is--cheating.

If staff feels like they have a strong case for cheating, they should prosecute it. If there isn't already, make sure there are safe guards like making three staffers agree with facts of the case. Maybe shoot the player(s) a warning if suspicions are being aroused so that the air can be cleared before things get out of hand.

To be frank I don't even care much for the "let's talk about old characters" type threads (I avoid it) because it strikes me a bunch of vain self-congratulation, but if people need a outlet so badly, I suppose it's better that is a regulated, though I worry that it is a slippery slope. I realize this is an easy position for me because I have no interest in idle chit-chat about old characters. I keep the nice memories all to myself.  ;D

I am forced to wonder if the gradual loosening of IC info restriction on the GDB over the years has, in turn, further loosened people's attitudes about it elsewhere.

But certainly that isn't the only cause, if it's a factor at all.  Plots have been ruined by IC info sharing since Arm existed in its RPI form.  I don't think it's something that can be really "solved".  You just have to catch people when you can.  Ban them when you should.  Remind players about it every now and then, like you just did.

I have so many things I could say about this right now, but it's probably extremely inappropriate for me to do so. Suffice it to say that I have seen first-hand how overzealous some staff can be in the pursuit of this issue, and it has left a sour taste in my mouth that will probably never go away.

QuoteDeleted because you didn't follow my initial post's request and for not being nice..  -Ath

Alright. Allow me to elaborate without vague-booking.

Beethoven's case is particularly disheartening because I know for fact they they're the kind of person I'd want to see on staff.

I can think of several community members that are guilty of more or less the same on a daily basis. I can't out them because they're either friends or we have friends in common.

I've also seen the same on the player level too.

Quote from: Beethoven on October 27, 2016, 12:58:41 PM
I have so many things I could say about this right now, but it's probably extremely inappropriate for me to do so. Suffice it to say that I have seen first-hand how overzealous some staff can be in the pursuit of this issue, and it has left a sour taste in my mouth that will probably never go away.

I'm going to ask you to do so, as you have your side of the story and there is always another side of it.  I'm sorry you feel that way, if you wish to discuss your incident more, you are welcome to open a request, just like anyone else.  This conversation is not about personal issues, this is about the topic in general.

I will blatantly say to anyone, staff discusses almost all issues together, including these.  Rare is it that one staff member makes a decision without consulting others, it's how we call can keep each other in check.  Why do you even think this topic is being created?  I just felt that I wanted to bring this topic up to the public and get your thoughts.  I knew it was going to be a heated topic.

Well, as you can likely see, I opened a request but it was closed by the staff member in question, so I heard loud and clear that it was done being discussed.

I'm not trying to make this thread about me or my bitterness, but I do think I have seen a side of this issue that other people are not necessarily aware of. If you think it's okay for me to talk about it here, then I'll do so (without names, of course), but I want to confirm that's what you're saying, as I am not interested in causing further trouble or doing more unkosher things.

Wait, or are you saying you're asking me not to do so? Now I'm confused.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on October 27, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I am forced to wonder if the gradual loosening of IC info restriction on the GDB over the years has, in turn, further loosened people's attitudes about it elsewhere.

I think the age of the game and the familiarity of the player base has a lot to do with it as well.  

As Reiloth and Beethoven both mentioned, folks have been playing this game a long, long time.  Each PC they make has every ounce of OOC knowledge their previous PCs have acquired.  Trying to "police"all spread of OOC knowledge would be akin to trying to "police" all use of previous character IC knowledge.  It's untenable.  If we don't know who is playing which PC, what difference then does it make how they came upon the IC information that they are acting upon?

Could you imagine, pulling someone aside to ask, "How does your Rinth Rat Elf know how to get from Allanak to Luirs?"  or watching a certain cave with water in it, and asking every PC that stops by how they ICly found out about it.  That's the kind of micro-managing that would just suck the life out of everyone involved.

Instead, I think the simple litmus-tests of "Is this OOC-collaboration with another player for IG-benefit" and "Is this IC information, if gained OOCly, going to directly harm another player's enjoyment of their PC" are worthy starters for when a player should be contacted and have their OOC usage discussed with staff.

Quote from: whitt on October 27, 2016, 01:18:59 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on October 27, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I am forced to wonder if the gradual loosening of IC info restriction on the GDB over the years has, in turn, further loosened people's attitudes about it elsewhere.

I think the age of the game and the familiarity of the player base has a lot to do with it as well.  

As Reiloth and Beethoven both mentioned, folks have been playing this game a long, long time.  Each PC they make has every ounce of OOC knowledge their previous PCs have acquired.  Trying to "police"all spread of OOC knowledge would be akin to trying to "police" all use of previous character IC knowledge.  It's untenable.  If we don't know who is playing which PC, what difference then does it make how they came upon the IC information that they are acting upon?

Could you imagine, pulling someone aside to ask, "How does your Rinth Rat Elf know how to get from Allanak to Luirs?"  or watching a certain cave with water in it, and asking every PC that stops by how they ICly found out about it.  That's the kind of micro-managing that would just suck the life out of everyone involved.

Instead, I think the simple litmus-tests of "Is this OOC-collaboration with another player for IG-benefit" and "Is this IC information, if gained OOCly, going to directly harm another player's enjoyment of their PC" are worthy starters for when a player should be contacted and have their OOC usage discussed with staff.

+1

People act like it's a slippery slope--spread this and you might spread another, more harmful thing--but the real slippery slope is coming down SO hard on ALL kinds of OOCly-spread IC information that people no longer take the rule that is meant to prevent cheating and collusion seriously. People are following their own moral guidelines instead of the rules. They decide for themselves what is acceptable to share and what isn't. If the rules were more reasonable, then people wouldn't do that. They'd be more likely to actually follow the rules rather than making up their own personal rules that may in fact be a little iffy or borderline.

Kind of like the speed limit in the US is set way too low, so it's considered acceptable to break it by a bit, no matter what the drivers' manual says. And then you either push it further until it becomes unsafe, or you just plain get busted by a cop trying to meet his ticket quota. It works much better in the places in Europe where the limit is just that...a hard upper limit that no one should be breaking, ever.

Quote from: whitt on October 27, 2016, 01:18:59 PM
Instead, I think the simple litmus-tests of "Is this OOC-collaboration with another player for IG-benefit" and "Is this IC information, if gained OOCly, going to directly harm another player's enjoyment of their PC" are worthy starters for when a player should be contacted and have their OOC usage discussed with staff.

Yup, I agree with that. I'm much less bothered by game secret spoilers being shared than I am OOC coordination regarding current plot activities.

Quote from: Jingo on October 27, 2016, 12:50:21 PM
I'm not currently playing right now. But I can testify by my own experience that OOC cliques form for some very real (if maybe the wrong) reasons.

I quickly start losing interest in rolling the dice and trusting other players to not pull dick moves on me.

How many times do I have to be psi-sniffed by a templar, outed by someone across the known or killed for some lame-ass reason before I start pulling ooc resources? The bullshit keeps piling on and on and all I fucking want to do is play a character the way I want to play them.

So why not just play with friends instead?

I'd like to reiterate that you can't address the problem without addressing the dysfunctional systems that players are forced to work around and the perverted incentives for doing so.

I've been struggling with what to write since this thread opened.

Ath, I appreciate that you distinguish between cheating with intent, and casual chatter. I think the problem becomes that the game can quickly become competitive, and some people want to win at any cost. It can also be an easy step from talking about what's going on to sharing too much. I've done the latter, I'll admit it. I'm not perfect. I imagine everyone here has done the same sometimes either with or without intent.

For me, I have no other outlet to discuss this game I love. To discuss the things that make me happy, sad, excited, angry. I can talk about it with my game-loving husband, but he doesn't play, he doesn't really understand, and sometimes it's clear he just doesn't think it's 1/10th as interesting as I do. I have literally no friends who I would ever bring up mudding with (sometimes it feels like some secret addiction I hide from the rest of the world), and so the few friends I've made here are who I talk to and share with. I don't think that's wrong.

I don't know if any of my plots or secrets have been ruined by OOC. I don't know if that has in any way motivated people playing with or against me. I've wondered if it has, but it felt too vastly conspiracy theory to even give credit to.

I do think that blatant cheating should be pursued more aggressively, and a standard system of punishment created and applied equally to all. And I think whatever the system is should be transparent, or possibly have the input of non-staff members. It's not a big leap to say that interested members of the community, all of whom must be in good standing, are given the chance to review grievances and add their voice on behalf of the players as to any judgement passed on those who stand accused of cheating. I think pulling from Helpers, who are already community leaders, is a reasonable place to start. Giving us a voice in the outcome of a situation could be beneficial overall. Anyone with an ooc friendship or ic stake in the matter would clearly be asked to refrain from voicing an opinion in matters relating to them.

But, I suggest that without knowing how staffside disciplinary actions work, or if there could be a place for this sort of role.

Metagaming is the problem that is as old as roleplay itself.
I, personally, spent most of my time roleplaying on other projects so perhaps I can provide outsider's insight.

First of all, let us establish basic terminology.
Metagame is when player uses OOC information in IC, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "OOC abuse" in future.
Metagame is also inciting other players to use that information, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "inciting" in future.
Metagame is also OOC cooperation between two players to avoid IC consequences or maximise IC gains, for clarity I will refer to this specific act as "being a douche" in future.

First, I need to express that I do not agree with non-disclosure policy you got here.
The point of it to prevent players from OOC abuse, right? Well, it is going to do anything but that.
Because it is a forbidden apple and has completely opposite effect - it encourages players to discuss storylines privately. And discuss they will, regardless of currect policy. Because human is a social animal and sharing information, perception of that information is important social function.
Let me provide the example from some other project I recently attended.
Players are allowed to create and maintain the "storylet threads" on forums, where they post novels (and ocasionally short cartoons/comics) about their characters. Quite often revealing crucial plot points. From the top of my head I can recall a story about torture and mutilation - names of all participating parties were shared there.
What stops players from using that information to OOC abuse - to find those characters who attacked the victim and punish them? Common decency.
People /are/ capable of separating IC from OOC, if they are not treated like children and notrestricted from expressing and sharing their creativity.
As well, if that happens in public - it has much less chances to actually incite the abuse, where private conversation is the atmosphere where abuse and potentionally cooperation may form.
I am not saying that that particular community that I mention is perfect and no one ever OOC abused, but this leads us to the next point.
And no, that is not inciting - because storyteller did not incite anyone to act ICly on that story. All they did was share it.

Second, it is up to you, administration, and us, the players, to create a strong standing morale principle - not to abuse OOC.
Example that you provided, where player was provided with crucial plotline information and /his character murdered another character only because of OOC tip/ - that is completely unacceptable behavior, which shows the person who is incapable to separate himself from his character. Strict and swift disciplinary action is in order.
Ability to separate self from character and, by extent, to separate IC information from OOC information are basics of roleplay. And if player fails to show this ability - it is up to players to teach him and up to administration to punish if major occurence happens.

Third, about being a douche.
Punishable by permament ban on most projects I attended. This is complete disrespect towards administration, other players and themselves.
Consequences are part of the story and by avoiding them cooperating players rob both themselves and other players from experiencing the consequences, ruining the atmosphere and unavoidably lowering the standarts of character-to-character communication, cheapening the relationships between characters formed.
I also find it disturbing that you mentioned being aware of that happening frequently, but not mentioning taking action when witnessing such behavior.


Lastly, about human nature.
As pointed out in OP, metagaming on subconcious level is a common problem.
If I, for example, share a story about my character being tortured by characters X and Y - it /will/ alter the relationships between third party characters and all parties involved in the story.
Some characters will /suddenly/ feel despised by meek victim character or feel unreasonable simpathy towards them.
Other characters will avoid interaction with X and Y to some extent.
This is basic human psychology of being unable to unsee what has been seen, no matter how hard they try - it will influence player's decisions.
But this can and must be minimised by each player to best of their ability and it is administration's duty to assist players in that by the method of treat and threat.

If you seek a more comprehensible feedback, this is how I see an optimal solution:
-Lift the rule about sharing IC information on forums publically partially. Allow players to share their stories if following conditions are met:
a) All players involved do not subject that story being exposed to public
b) It should not involve /major/ plot twists. Some secrets are just too tempting.
That would create visibility for discussions that are already happening secretly and those who find themselves unable to resist temptation to metagame are not forced to visit those threads.
-Enforce rules and be vigilant. Metagaming happens now and will happen in the future regardless if you decide to heed the advice above. In any case, players need to know that there will be consequences for any breach of the rules and that if said breach occured - it will be revealed sooner or later.

It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

Once upon a time I used to be the recipient and the giver of IC information from/to a mixed bag of players. This was when I was fairly new, perhaps well into a few years' worth of playing. Over time though, I noticed I was deleting players from my buddy list, because the *nature* of the info they were sharing with me was stuff I didn't want to know about. The player of a Lirathan (YEARS ago) would tell me all the nifty mindbender stuff she was experiencing, copying/pasting actual screen-scroll so I could see it myself, because it was such a "neato" thing she just had to share it. The first couple of times, I agreed - it was definitely neato and I appreciated being "let in on the secret." But eventually it started spoiling my enjoyment of discovery in the game because I was able to see who was saying what about whom, and my character was involved in some of the plotlines. Rather than tell her to stop telling me this stuff (because it was obvious that she was thrilled to tell it to me), I just removed her from my buddy list entirely.

Another, back when I was brand new to the game, implied to other people that she was the reason I was playing (she wasn't). And then she proceeded to instruct me in AIM about how I should act around her character, because her character was important, because her character was kanking a templar being played by a staffer and he was giving her all the cool shit and influence, and she could make sure I got involved in stuff and didn't get PKed. That, to me, was just SO cheesy and convoluted I deleted her as well. She ended up on staff for some period of time and had some uber-high-karma roles.

On the other hand, there are plotlines that previous characters have been involved with, that I've talked *about* outside the game. Did we plan stuff? Nope, not at all. It was mostly silly comments like "hey that chick at the bar, she's tousled haired and curvy with breasts. Let's kill her." "kekekeke u first haha" - stuff like that. Or when their character beat the shit out of mine in sparring, I might IM them and say "I hate you" and they'd laugh, and then we'd claim our characters are each going to win Arm and be the boss of the other. Mostly because it'd be really bad form to talk like that IN the game, but the players are getting giggles about it outside the game.

On the third hand, there were times "back in the stone age" when I was so new to the magick system I really didn't grasp how to even TRY and figure out spell combos. I'm not all that great with those kinds of puzzles in the first place, and now we're talking about words that aren't even normal English words being put into cohesive sentences. And then I got the apostrophe placement all wrong so I wasn't able to do a damned thing with my first mage. So I "asked a friend" (this was before the helper system) and they gave me the answer. It really wasn't intuitive at all, but that's how it was, and my character had no one ICly to ask about that particular thing. It was partly a syntax issue but at the time, everyone was all "Find out IC" about EVERYTHING so there was no way in hell I was going to ask the staff and lose my karma or get scolded for asking.

I think the problem though, in the game, is that there exist players who aren't going to use the information to help them roleplay better, or simply because it's "neato information" that they have no intention of DOING anything with ICly. They're going to use it to win, or to beat someone else, or to out someone else, or to get one over on someone else, or to learn the best times to rob someone's apartment, etc. etc. etc. The min-maxing won't ever stop, it happens in ALL games, whether you allow it or not.

Honestly, if my character was killed because two people colluded outside the game - as long as I DON'T find out about it OOCly, I have no problem with it. Ignorance is bliss, I can carry on believing that everything that happened IC was the result of IC plotlines. Once I discover that the reason my character was killed is because players were planning it outside the game, that's when I get the sour taste in my mouth. There's nothing anyone can -do- about it, really.

Quote from: LauraMars on October 27, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

+1

That's an excellent ideal to hold to, Laura. I wish everyone saw it that way.

Quote from: LauraMars on October 27, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

Laura hit the nail on the head for me. It's a learning curve, too, I think, as much as a personality trait. Learning to roleplay like that, and how rewarding it is.

On staff side, I can't really say what the best solution is, but treating each other courteously and thoughtfully (staff and player alike) goes a very long way.

Quote from: Beethoven on October 27, 2016, 01:16:44 PM
Wait, or are you saying you're asking me not to do so? Now I'm confused.

I was asking you not to bring things up, as I know your situation and I know you're passionate about it.  If you are willing to provide constructive feedback without bringing too much of personal emotions in, I'm fine with that.

Probably best if I don't. I do think people would be surprised to know what is going on, but it'll just be my side of the story and no one else will get to chime in because staff aren't allowed to discuss my account details. And I know some people have heard some malicious lies about me, so I don't want to stir up drama.

I also don't want to attempt to dominate the thread (not that I could if I tried), but I believe that staff's frustration over not being able to control the spread of OOC information or the abuse thereof has led to a very toxic culture, and I believe this culture is more likely to drive people away than witnessing OOC collusion/cheating (which I loathe and am not excusing for a moment.)

We don't have that many people playing right now, and I don't expect there to be a huge RPI popularity boom in the next few years. Disciplining bad players is healthy and all, but I think we should do our best to avoid alienating players who actually care about the game. Cracking down on OOC communication is not so important that we should let upstanding players get caught up in the collateral.

If things continue to be pushed in the direction they've been being pushed, it's going to tear the community apart.

I don't know if I'll ever play again, but I still care about this game and I want to see it survive. I still want to fight for it even if I never create another character. I've given years of my life and poured so much heart into this game, and I think some people have such tunnel vision that they can't see the damage they're doing.

Quote from: Delirium on October 27, 2016, 02:05:07 PM

Quote from: LauraMars on October 27, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

Laura hit the nail on the head for me. It's a learning curve, too, I think, as much as a personality trait. Learning to roleplay like that, and how rewarding it is.

On staff side, I can't really say what the best solution is, but treating each other courteously and thoughtfully (staff and player alike) goes a very long way.

I sure wish the "villains" didn't have to deal with the godawful metaplay that seems to follow like a swarm of flies.

But I'm skeptical about applying literary tropes to Arm in the first place. Armageddon isn't about narrative arcs, heroic journeys and the like. It's about setting up a scene for interesting things to happen. The mark of a good player isn't how well they model "villainy" or "heroism"; it's how they open up opportunities for scenes for variety of action to happen inside them.

Armageddon turns turns stale when those scenes are shut down by players before they even happen. When players are too busy being a "Hero", stomping around and cutting off cool scenes and cool plots before they can happen.

I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

Quote from: Jingo on October 27, 2016, 01:00:57 PM

QuoteDeleted because you didn't follow my initial post's request and for not being nice..  -Ath

Alright. Allow me to elaborate without vague-booking.

Beethoven's case is particularly disheartening because I know for fact they they're the kind of person I'd want to see on staff.

I can think of several community members that are guilty of more or less the same on a daily basis. I can't out them because they're either friends or we have friends in common.

I've also seen the same on the player level too.

Maybe so, but everyone is responsible for their actions, even if they are not intentional.  We are very strict on this, especially with our staff.  Some player may thing we show favorites among staff, but that isn't the true at all.  If anything, we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Anyhow, that's hear nor there...  this is a personal situation we are discussing and not the topic of this discussion.

Quote from: LauraMars on October 27, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
It would help if "cheaters" (and by cheaters I mean people who purposefully and with malicious intent use OOC information and contacts for their own in-game benefit, not people who are excited to talk to their friends about Armageddon) started trying to adjust their attitudes and see their characters as characters, whose success and failure is part of an overarching story, rather than as personal avatars who the world revolves around. Sometimes you're the hero, sometimes you're the villain, but most of the time, you're a supporting cast member, or an extra. Why ruin what could be a good tale because you're not willing to be collaborative and let your character's chances at glory take a back seat when necessary? That goes for staff as well. I've been disappointed to see staff not embodying this attitude on more than one occasion, which leads to a lot of hurt feelings.

But that collaborative mindset is not something staff can really enforce. When it's there en masse (it almost never is), that's when Armageddon is truly great.

This is what the topic is primarily about.

Lizzie,
You make a lot of good points, but I get to see it when you get unfairly treated when you don't know about it.  I hate it, I don't want your character to die because someone connected OOC.  Maybe you were a part of a plot I was running, maybe you were a key player, but your opponents worked together OOC to have you killed.  It doesn't even matter the amount of information they shared about the situation, anything that would give them an unfair advantage.  I get angry about that... I get upset.  My fun is ruined.  I enjoy seeing players have fun, and if they are effected negatively due to someone being unfair, I hate it.

Beethoven,
Thank you for keeping the personal situation out, and I am sorry to hear that lies are being spread.  If you have anyone that questions you on it, you're welcome to have them send in a request and we can handle it.  Pretty much everything else you have to say I disagree with.  Everyone has been stating that we don't have as many people playing, but we've compared the numbers, it's nothing as significant as you state.  We're getting new players all the time, just because we haven't posted the stats on it in awhile, doesn't mean it's happening.  I know quite a few players that have been burned by OOC information being spread about their characters or events in game, I have seen staff also burned by it... you don't see the other side of it, and sadly you're right, I cannot share much on them as I do respect others privacy.  Tunnel vision goes both ways... once again, this is getting off topic and not the purpose of this thread.  I wouldn't be opening this thread if I didn't care about this community and wanted to make sure it survived.  I ask you once again, if you cannot keep it constructive, please do not post in this thread.

I'm going to state this again, the topic is to try to talk about OOC Communication that give an unfair advantage to another, be it intentionally or unintentional.  As some have already state, simple chit chat happens, information is much looser on the GDB than it has ever been before.  Please try to keep on topic.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 02:23:46 PM
I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

I don't agree... I'm bringing up the topic because it has been a concern.  What sucks is that I cannot talk about the situation that happen staff side that most players will never see.  Plots have been completely ruined, players have quit playing, staff members have been hurt because of it.  If anything I feel that we have been more lenient than it was years before.  I do agree with you, we cannot police or prevent, but we can encourage better behavior and make it obvious as to what it can do to anyone that play in this game.  How it can be harmful and not even realizing.  It's like reading the D&D Adventure as a player before the DM ever gets to run it, or more accurately, talking to a player that has played through the adventure before and being told all the secrets in the book prior to running it with you rown DM.  To me, that ruins the excitement of the unknown, and it may ruin the surprises the DM has in store for his players.

I do think I'm being constructive and on-topic. I'm letting you know that the current policy is doing nothing to stop the kind of OOC sharing you're talking about, the kind that is actually harmful to the game, and is actually encouraging it because all kinds of OOC communication, both harmful and harmless, are treated equally under a rule that very few people truly take seriously. I don't see how that is irrelevant, but if you want me off the thread, then adios.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

Rather than "cracking down," or something like that, I'd rather staff just be courteous, understanding, careful, and unassuming.  Basically, don't accuse people of cheating unless there is overwhelming evidence that they are.  Maybe don't even mention it to them, or put it on their account notes, unless it's really obvious -- these sorts of things can really upset players.  Staff can't monitor everything, and there's always a chance they'll have missed some IC scene which can make actions appear OOC in nature.

I'm not saying that staff are not these wonderful things, or that anyone is suggesting to ramp up rules, or that people get accused of cheating without evidence.  Rather, I'm just making a general statement about how I think these things should be handled (not considering how they are or are not handled now).

We can't have a perfect system.  We're either too weak, and cheaters slip through the cracks, or we're too harsh, and we falsely label good players as cheaters.  If we have to choose, I'd rather a few cheaters slip through the cracks, and I'd rather everyone (potential cheaters included) be approached politely, and without any accusatory tones.

Not very helpful, because I think the way it's run now is probably fine.  That said, I've never been involved in a cheating/OOC issue, so I don't exactly know how it's handled, in truth.

Players telling other players things about what goes on in game, OOC, ruins the game for other people.

Don't be a meanie, don't harsh my mellow.

It's not about breaking immersion. It's about breaking plots.

Tell your non-Armageddon friends and family the cool stories, get them hooked, then stop telling them things about the game.

We have a pact. We're all adults playing make-believe.

Can we not just all agree the first rule of Armageddon is that you don't talk about what happens in Armageddon?

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 02:39:56 PM
So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

This I disagree with.  I would much rather have an open line of communication between staff and players where staff and players could feel free to open up a request that says, "Hey, can we talk to you about this?  Something seems fishy"  and then open and honest communication happens.  This requires a level of curiosity in the beginning, rather than a rush to judgement.  On both sides.

With the above suggestion?  The only communication comes from a standard of belief - You are wrong.  We "are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure".   There is no room for explanation or communication.  In truth, I believe this is where the breakdown actually occurs.  When staff and players (probably more than staff) believe the other party is 100% wrong and only "communicate" accordingly - complete with threats and iron-fist punishment.  

In the instances where I have done something IG that appeared less than completely legit I totally appreciated the conversation with staff about what happened.  I don't know that either side was entirely thrilled with the outcome, but had I just been banned because of it?  I doubt I would have expended the energy to try again, leaving with belief just as adamant that I hadn't done anything wrong.

OK, I've been on both sides of the fence.  I'm going to try to remain coherent while barfing out a ton of thoughts on a very complex issue in a rapidly dwindling amount of lunch time.

First:  There is a big reason that Staff are heavy handed in coming down on people.  It's beccause it is DEVASTATING to staff from a morale standpoint when someone chatters about some fucking way cool plotline and ruins it.  Devastating.  That is *not* too strong of a word, I know, because I felt it.  It hurts you in your fucking feels place.  There is a TON of work that goes in to even getting approval for a plotline, not even counting all the building, all the work, the plotting outlines, the branches of possible plot trees... and just like GM'ing a paper game, it almost never goes as planned.  But it's always fun, as long as it is continuing.  It is fun right up until some Delerak Wannabe fucks everything sideways so he can win.  Staff members have been hurt by this in the past.  Let me bold that so it's understood.  Spilling sekrit plot related OOC shit that ruins a plot hurts the staff members that help make this game fun.  So *of course* they are defensive about it.  They don't want to be hurt by trying to make something awesome for you.  Being hurt makes people reactionary, and a staffer reaction is quite a fucking thing (to paraquote Snatch.)

Does this make that heavy handed reaction fair?  Absolutely not.  But try to remember that there is a reason that they use a god-sized hammer.

Second:  All the chatter about how people want to share experiences about things they love?  100% true.  Fucking fuckballs is this true.  I have, in the past, lived with other Armageddon players.  On more than one occasion.  And there have been times where I have sat down to dinner across from a very good friend that my character was actively fucking over in game... and I couldn't tell them about it.  GODS did I want to.  But I didn't, I held on to it, and the game was so much better for all parties for my silence.  It is fucking difficult to keep silent about something you love, but it is motherfucking worth it.  It takes self control, discipline, and an earnest desire to see the game be better to do this, but please try to.  It is goddamn worth the pay off.

Third:  I absolutely 100% disagree with the "make sure you have 100% certainty before you come at a player."  No.  No no goddamn no.  There is no way to get 100% certainty, so doing this is only going to open the sluice gates of fuckery.  But a lighter hand is needed in many instances.  As per my first point, a heavy hand is often used because of people who have fucked up in the past.  That heavy hand gets results, but it is not often the best tool.  In the past, I found that reaching out proactively as a staff member and saying, "Hey, look, we see this thing going on, we have this evidence but we're looking to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you please try to explain your actions/words/emotes/mudsex and let us know what is going on?  You are a good player (all players should be treated as good players until proven otherwise) and we are worried that maybe there's something bad going on here."

Fourth:  As a personal note.... Ath, thank you for opening up this discussion.  I really think it is something that maybe should have happened a while ago, and that a lot of good can come out of this.  Kudos, man, for this thread.

... There was something else I wanted to bring up, but I'm now out of my lunch break and need to get back to the grind.  I'm excited to see what else comes up in this thread.

Quote from: Malifaxis on October 27, 2016, 02:54:56 PM
Third:  I absolutely 100% disagree with the "make sure you have 100% certainty before you come at a player."  No.  No no goddamn no.  There is no way to get 100% certainty, so doing this is only going to open the sluice gates of fuckery.  But a lighter hand is needed in many instances.  As per my first point, a heavy hand is often used because of people who have fucked up in the past.  That heavy hand gets results, but it is not often the best tool.  In the past, I found that reaching out proactively as a staff member and saying, "Hey, look, we see this thing going on, we have this evidence but we're looking to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you please try to explain your actions/words/emotes/mudsex and let us know what is going on?  You are a good player (all players should be treated as good players until proven otherwise) and we are worried that maybe there's something bad going on here."

This is more or less the approach I was advocating in my post.  Just wanted to say that.

I also agree on the point of not requiring a 100% certainty standard of evidence because that only happens in fairy-tale land. I'm not a lawyer, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Whatever that means in practice...

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 02:39:56 PM

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

The thing is, in almost all the cases that I have seen before, there was sure fire evidence... most staff are even wary to do things even when there is concrete evidence.  I mean seriously, we'll have logs and we'll ask a person about the events and they they will lie about it to our face.  We'll even go... are you sure that you don't want to talk about this further with us?  The problem is if we don't do something, it's just going to continue happen.  The issue is most don't believe we have evidence and that we are blowing smoke out our ass.  The issue is the situations with those that have prior evidence against them and they might be doing it again.  I don't have clear evidence but if I don't put a stop to what they are doing, it could have significant impact upon those that are just trying to have fun.  If I let it slide, they get away with it and the players that are harmed by it may just quit because of what happened if they find out about.  Would you just let it happen?  Would you let these players have their fun ruined because of other players who have evidence against them colluding prior, and could be doing it again?

In no way am I trying to encourage cracking down on anything.  If anything I'm trying to make it blatantly obvious the damage that can be caused by Harmful OOC Information that is spread.

Quote from: Kankman on October 27, 2016, 02:49:08 PM
Players telling other players things about what goes on in game, OOC, ruins the game for other people.

Don't be a meanie, don't harsh my mellow.

It's not about breaking immersion. It's about breaking plots.

Tell your non-Armageddon friends and family the cool stories, get them hooked, then stop telling them things about the game.

We have a pact. We're all adults playing make-believe.

Can we not just all agree the first rule of Armageddon is that you don't talk about what happens in Armageddon?

Agreed.

Quote from: whitt on October 27, 2016, 02:53:09 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 02:39:56 PM
So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

This I disagree with.  I would much rather have an open line of communication between staff and players where staff and players could feel free to open up a request that says, "Hey, can we talk to you about this?  Something seems fishy"  and then open and honest communication happens.  This requires a level of curiosity in the beginning, rather than a rush to judgement.  On both sides.

With the above suggestion?  The only communication comes from a standard of belief - You are wrong.  We "are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure".   There is no room for explanation or communication.  In truth, I believe this is where the breakdown actually occurs.  When staff and players (probably more than staff) believe the other party is 100% wrong and only "communicate" accordingly - complete with threats and iron-fist punishment.  

In the instances where I have done something IG that appeared less than completely legit I totally appreciated the conversation with staff about what happened.  I don't know that either side was entirely thrilled with the outcome, but had I just been banned because of it?  I doubt I would have expended the energy to try again, leaving with belief just as adamant that I hadn't done anything wrong.

I welcome anyone to come to us with suspicious information.  I'd rather be informed and do nothing, then not be informed and do something.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 02:31:44 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 02:23:46 PM
I think Staff worry too much about Out of Game chatter and don't do enough to address arguably more-harmful in-game behavior.

You can't police or prevent out-of-game communication any easier than you could police someone's own thoughts. The best you can hope for is to monitor and respond to actual behavior.

I don't agree... I'm bringing up the topic because it has been a concern.  What sucks is that I cannot talk about the situation that happen staff side that most players will never see.  Plots have been completely ruined, players have quit playing, staff members have been hurt because of it.  If anything I feel that we have been more lenient than it was years before.  I do agree with you, we cannot police or prevent, but we can encourage better behavior and make it obvious as to what it can do to anyone that play in this game.  How it can be harmful and not even realizing.  It's like reading the D&D Adventure as a player before the DM ever gets to run it, or more accurately, talking to a player that has played through the adventure before and being told all the secrets in the book prior to running it with you rown DM.  To me, that ruins the excitement of the unknown, and it may ruin the surprises the DM has in store for his players.

I'm aware of a couple "completely ruined" plots and players quitting (who almost always seem to come back). My advice is for everyone to get over themselves.

All the "ruined plots" I've seen should have ended in PC bloodbaths. Instead, someone freaks out because they die, they bitch around OOC, which freaks out more players and Staff. What could have been a healthy churning over of characters instead becomes a round of force-storage and calcification of the game world.

Maybe staff have to start playing like referees instead of DMs. Assume players are competitive, playing to win, and inherently shitty. Watch out for the most flagrant fouls and punish those. Discourage OOC communication by all means, so as to ensure as level playing field as possible, but Staff reactions to OOC communication seem to get in the way of the game as much as safeguard it. Referee the game and approve new characters when necessary.

(Of course, it could just be that the really shit players, like people who coordinated over AIM to cover up the murder of a PC in a VNPC-populated area), just get banned or are smart enough not to tout their shittiness. This makes it appear that most reactions are overreactions when in fact they're not. The playerbase at large just hears about the overreactions more. I suspect this is closer to the truth.)

I don't know. This topic always just seems to offer a chance for people to get outraged. Just assume everyone is bad, roll a warrior and prioritize strength.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 03:06:02 PM

Maybe staff have to start playing like referees instead of DMs. Assume players are competitive, playing to win, and inherently shitty. Watch out for the most flagrant fouls and punish those. Discourage OOC communication by all means, so as to ensure as level playing field as possible, but Staff reactions to OOC communication seem to get in the way of the game as much as safeguard it. Referee the game and approve new characters when necessary.

I dunno.  Like I said above, I'd totally rather staff and players consider each other to be generally good.  I'd rather a shitty person assumed good than a good person assumed shitty.

I also sort of like the DMish nature of staff at the moment.  This is bordering on another topic (how plots are run, etc.), but they're more DM-like than when I started playing in 2010, but not as DM-like as I hear they were well before that.  I like where we're at.

I may have been misrepresenting my thoughts here.

Quote from: Drayab on October 27, 2016, 03:05:10 PM
I also agree on the point of not requiring a 100% certainty standard of evidence because that only happens in fairy-tale land. I'm not a lawyer, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Whatever that means in practice...

.. Is exactly what I'm looking for. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Still.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 02:39:56 PM

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
So this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

The best and most honest answer I can come up with is just this: you don't.

Now, I know, that's crass. I know, staff need to enforce their rules. Even so, I want you to hear me out here.

You cannot police the internet. When you ask just how you want to enforce your rules, you need to consider whether or not you can do so. Armageddon's staff, obviously, can't. I'm all for punishing people who break the rules when they (somehow) manage to out themselves in a public manner, but anything short of that, in my honest opinion? The best course of action is to let it slide.

If we're going to maintain anything less than a policy of 'innocent until conclusively proven otherwise', there's going to be a chilling atmosphere for all. Riev's story about staff getting angry at him for having shared templar docs, which he hadn't, is an example. If your standard of evidence is not high enough, you're invariably going to end up knocking on the doors of players who did nothing wrong, which is going to breed resentment and drive players away soon. However good an idea it is to punish people who break the game's rules, it really, really isn't worth stepping on the toes of players who did no wrong for.

So please, please, whatever else you do, make sure you don't go on to bother players until you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent sure they have been breaking the rules. Anything less, and you're going to have players leaving the game and getting generally upset because you had to be tough on the rules, of which the payoff really isn't worth that much in the first place.

The thing is, in almost all the cases that I have seen before, there was sure fire evidence... most staff are even wary to do things even when there is concrete evidence.  I mean seriously, we'll have logs and we'll ask a person about the events and they they will lie about it to our face.  We'll even go... are you sure that you don't want to talk about this further with us?  The problem is if we don't do something, it's just going to continue happen.  The issue is most don't believe we have evidence and that we are blowing smoke out our ass.  The issue is the situations with those that have prior evidence against them and they might be doing it again.  I don't have clear evidence but if I don't put a stop to what they are doing, it could have significant impact upon those that are just trying to have fun.  If I let it slide, they get away with it and the players that are harmed by it may just quit because of what happened if they find out about.  Would you just let it happen?  Would you let these players have their fun ruined because of other players who have evidence against them colluding prior, and could be doing it again?

I didn't stop reading after the bolded part, but I might as well have? If there's sure fire evidence, your job here is done. Case closed. I do think people breaking the rules should be punished. Despite that, I also think hounding those who haven't isn't worth catching one or two cheaters for.

Quote from: Feco on October 27, 2016, 03:10:48 PM
I dunno.  Like I said above, I'd totally rather staff and players consider each other to be generally good.  I'd rather a shitty person assumed good than a good person assumed shitty.

I also sort of like the DMish nature of staff at the moment.  This is bordering on another topic (how plots are run, etc.), but they're more DM-like than when I started playing in 2010, but not as DM-like as I hear they were well before that.  I like where we're at.

Ideally players would grow up a bit and stop talking about plots (and not flip the fuck out whenever they get ganked) so Staff can loosen up a bit and everyone treats everyone like adults.

Here are my opinions.

There are two different discussions here.

One is this: some people do use OOC communication to help them 'win' this (unwinnable) game.

Their goal is to get an advantage over other players. I imagine some of the reasons they do this: they think they're better than other players, and deserve to have more fun and success. Or maybe roleplaying isn't really their goal; instead, they play to service some power fantasy, and they're unwilling to have that fantasy threatened by other players.

So they cheat, and they share information that everyone agrees is cheating, such as, 'hey I'm going to Amos's apartment, be ready to help if it goes to combat,' 'this PC is a secret Krathi and killed me,' or 'I passed out from the Way in the desert, 5 rooms west and 6 rooms north of the gates, come save me!,' or 'let's have a meeting IC where I'll tell you all the reasons to hate this PC and then we'll have a reason to kill them together, as we've OOCly discussed wanting to do.'

I don't think the above needs to be discussed much. The above isn't cool, and I'd hope everyone who plays shares the opinion. We should discourage this behavior when we talk to other players who try to engage us in it. Staff should punish this behavior when it's discovered and they have actionable evidence. Nobody should be using OOC communication to get an advantage in the game. This is cut and dry.

I'll call the above collusion.

From Wikipedia:

Quote
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

(In the context of our game, the right defrauded by this behavior is the right of a player to be able to play purely IC, purely within the game, and not have their efforts undermined OOCly.)



I think the second discussion, the greyer area, is more useful to focus on.

That grey area is this: some people talk about the game as a social experience. Other players have given reasons why. Some have no other outlet for discussing a hobby they love. For others, it's funny to talk about that last sparring mishap. Generally, this sort of talk is borne out of positive emotions. The goal isn't to get an advantage in the game. The goal is to create a connection with another player over their shared, niche hobby.

I'll call the above talking.

A few points about talking:

1. The line between collusion and talking can become blurry. When you choose to talk with another player, you are making a judgment. You are (or should be, if you're not a dickhead) judging that what you're saying will not damage the experience of other players. But this judgment can often be so hard to get right, even regarding very innocent discussions!

An example:

Cindy and Joe are talking about Armageddon. Cindy has decided it's harmless to talk about what happens in the Gaj, because it's such a public location. She and Joe have shared funny anecdotes before.

Cindy: "Lol. Did you see what Amosa said in the Gaj, when 10 other PCs were around? It was so funny. She's hilarious."
Joe: "No, my PC wasn't there."
Cindy: "Amosa got up on a table and was dancing, and told this joke about Malik that made me seriously LOL."

Harmless, right? But what if...
* Unknown to Cindy, Joe's PC and Amosa are allies of Malik, and Amosa was being careful not to disparage Malik in Joe's PC's presence? (Even if it's a public place, this is still a distinction and is Amosa's choice.)
* Amosa is trying to play a character with multiple personalities, and has decided to only RP in a very serious manner around Joe's PC? (A silly example, but possible.)
* Joe's PC was in the North, hiding from Amosa, who he knows is a Whiran and wants to kill him, which is unknown to Cindy?

Dozens of scenarios can be concocted where two players, who only wanted to harmlessly talk about the game and share a laugh, wind up unintentionally damaging the experience of another player.

As players with limited information, we cannot know what dots can be connected by another player when we share harmless talk, and how this might impact their experience. Perhaps more importantly, we can't know how our talk might impact the experience of players you are not speaking to, such as Amosa's player in this example.


2. Talking is always going to happen. People are going to talk about this game with their friends who play this game. Humans are humans, and they're going to talk about their shared experiences, regardless of how others feel about their doing so. As others have said, the internet cannot be policed. Staff cannot control what people choose to say in private, and attempts to do so will only create bad feelings. The game would be better off if nothing that happened inside the game was ever discussed, but this is a pipe dream.

3. It is ultimately up to players to decide what they will talk about, and what they won't. It's up to each individual to decide how close they want to get to the blurry line. It's up to each individual to make the judgment calls about what's safe to say without impacting another player's experience (hopefully we all care about this). If this crosses the line from harmless talk into harming another player's experience, or even collusion for advantage, players need to recognize that and stop. [To be clear: I'm saying it's up to each individual to make these calls because many are going to, regardless of the rules staff sets.]


Because it's really up to the player community to self-police (other than obvious breaches where staff have actionable evidence), I'd like to suggest that we as players draw up a community-defined code of conduct that we agree to follow when we talk about the game. It's ultimately up to each individual to follow it or not, but it may be useful to have guidelines we can reach some consensus on. What do people think?

Quote from: Feco on October 27, 2016, 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: Malifaxis on October 27, 2016, 02:54:56 PM
Third:  I absolutely 100% disagree with the "make sure you have 100% certainty before you come at a player."  No.  No no goddamn no.  There is no way to get 100% certainty, so doing this is only going to open the sluice gates of fuckery.  But a lighter hand is needed in many instances.  As per my first point, a heavy hand is often used because of people who have fucked up in the past.  That heavy hand gets results, but it is not often the best tool.  In the past, I found that reaching out proactively as a staff member and saying, "Hey, look, we see this thing going on, we have this evidence but we're looking to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you please try to explain your actions/words/emotes/mudsex and let us know what is going on?  You are a good player (all players should be treated as good players until proven otherwise) and we are worried that maybe there's something bad going on here."

This is more or less the approach I was advocating in my post.  Just wanted to say that.

Quote from: Drayab on October 27, 2016, 03:05:10 PM
I also agree on the point of not requiring a 100% certainty standard of evidence because that only happens in fairy-tale land. I'm not a lawyer, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Whatever that means in practice...

I guess I have a hard time believing this... most are so wary of doing anything.  I do agree though with trying to be more subjective rather than objective when it comes to it.  I will have to mull over this more myself.

BadSkeelz,
I get what you're saying and you're right.  I think we should have DMs, that's what the STs are... they further plots and keep the story moving.  Admins will work to make sure the STs are supported and are able to do their jobs, and also they are the first step when it comes to being a referee, the Producers are pretty much your head referee.  

As for your second post, yes please.  I have seen a few players that were not so good about it before, but are no great with it and keep to themselves.

A lot of the consensus I am getting is that it can be a bit heavy handed.  I can understand that, but I also have seen where we have been lenient with those that were honest with us.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:16:29 PM

A lot of the consensus I am getting is that it can be a bit heavy handed.  I can understand that, but I also have seen where we have been lenient with those that were honest with us.

This tells me staff is doing more or less its best, and the best they can hope for is consistency in how they approach these situations.

I don't think that's a bad position to be in, at all.  I don't think we can ask much more of staff who are both volunteers and players, themselves.

A little more on the post by Malifaxs, Feco, and Drayab...  I have a hard time believing that players wouldn't want us to come to them with hard evidence  I guess I see the point on coming when we have suspicion first before it all, maybe nip it in the butt prior to anything happening.  I also don't want to portray a whole Big Brother is watching sorta thing either.  I guess I know I would want someone to come to me with hard evidence if I was being accused of OOC abuse.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
A little more on the post by Malifaxs, Feco, and Drayab...  I have a hard time believing that players wouldn't want us to come to them with hard evidence  I guess I see the point on coming when we have suspicion first before it all, maybe nip it in the butt prior to anything happening.  I also don't want to portray a whole Big Brother is watching sorta thing either.  I guess I know I would want someone to come to me with hard evidence if I was being accused of OOC abuse.

That is what I meant... if lack of har evidence, but solid suspicion exists.  Approaching someone in this position in a kindly fashion can help with staff/player relations, and doubles as a very effective (but still gentle) warning shot.

I don't think any of us were saying don't come at players with evidence.  Rather, we were saying to make sure evidence was there, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to not just throw the hard evidence at them.  Presenting facts and saying "you're cheating" is heavy handed and accusatory.

You (meaning staff) should frame the evidence and your suspicions in a way that does not assume their guilt.  Basically, you're polite, and give them a chance to explain.  They may lie, or they may not.

Ultimately you'll make your judgments based on the evidence and their testimony, for lack of better words.  If nothing else, a gentle conversation without accusations lets players know they're being watched without making them feel like "oh fuck I'm being watched."

I think malifaxis and I might disagree on when the right time to approach players is -- I would lean on having more evidence, first.  But I don't know if I'm really commited to that, at all.  There's a lot of wiggle room in what would be a good approach, here.  The important part is being courteous and pleasant to each other.

As a lawyer and someone who has to communicate well for a living and in my personal life, I'd like to offer some thoughts on enforcing these boundaries.

The most important thing, I think, is imparting consequences without pulling emotions into it. Yes, ruined plots hurt staff feelings (and player feelings!) but the person whose feelings have been hurt should NOT be addressing the problem.  Someone who is not involved and emotional should be addressing the problem.

Here is how I would resolve conflict in it seeming like someone is using OOC to cheat:
1) Have someone who is not involved state the position. "From our perspective, it seems that you are colluding with X OOCly, on the basis of Y evidence."
2) Ask for an explanation.
3) Have a second person who is not involved and not emotionally invested look at the evidence and explanation. Give the explanation the benefit of the doubt unless it conflicts with the evidence. Render a decision and clearly state why you have reached that decision.
4) Have a clear, escalating series of consequences. Much like the GBD rules have listed consequences. First offense, warning. Second offense, A. Third offense, B.
5) Remind the player that they can complain if they disagree and have a third, unrelatedperson address the complaint if it happens.

State your position. Do not get defensive. Do not accuse or criticize. Do not expect the player to agree that you're right. And then move on.

What I'd like to see, regarding actual violations of collusion issues: a reduction in karma or, if necessary, a ban on special apps for a period of time (including any special app currently in queue or previously approved). The reason for my opinion: you gave the player x amount of trust. He violated that trust, therefore he shouldn't be trusted with his current level of trust. Kick it back a notch, til he's demonstrated that he can be trusted again. Don't make it for a specific time period. Make it "until." Let the Producers determine whether or not "until" has been met, via incoming player complaints (or lacks thereof), under-staff observations, the players' contributions on the GDB (or lack thereof), etc.

If the player consistently abuses info when he's in a clan, instruct him that he's not allowed to actively seek a clan with his current/future characters, "until." Until he proves he can be trusted with it again. If it's a specific clan, then ban him from seeking employment with that specific clan, until. If it's any clan Player Z is playing in, then ban him from playing in any clan that other player has a character in, "until."

When it comes to enforcement of this or any other rule, I am a strong believer in open communication. Staff should communicate honestly with their players whenever possible, especially when there's a possibility that the player in question could be on the receiving end of negativity.

I say this because I believe it is very unfair to punish people without opening up a line of discussion or seeking proof. It's unfair to punish people without telling them.  An overly paranoid and untrusting atmosphere among staff, while understandable in some cases, doesn't lend an enjoyable or healthy dimension to the game.

To sum up: If staff have concerns about a player, please communicate those concerns to the player.

Quote from: valeria on October 27, 2016, 03:34:04 PM
As a lawyer and someone who has to communicate well for a living and in my personal life, I'd like to offer some thoughts on enforcing these boundaries.

The most important thing, I think, is imparting consequences without pulling emotions into it. Yes, ruined plots hurt staff feelings (and player feelings!) but the person whose feelings have been hurt should NOT be addressing the problem.  Someone who is not involved and emotional should be addressing the problem.

Here is how I would resolve conflict in it seeming like someone is using OOC to cheat:
1) Have someone who is not involved state the position. "From our perspective, it seems that you are colluding with X OOCly, on the basis of Y evidence."
2) Ask for an explanation.
3) Have a second person who is not involved and not emotionally invested look at the evidence and explanation. Give the explanation the benefit of the doubt unless it conflicts with the evidence. Render a decision and clearly state why you have reached that decision.
4) Have a clear, escalating series of consequences. Much like the GBD rules have listed consequences. First offense, warning. Second offense, A. Third offense, B.
5) Remind the player that they can complain if they disagree and have a third, unrelatedperson address the complaint if it happens.

State your position. Do not get defensive. Do not accuse or criticize. Do not expect the player to agree that you're right. And then move on.

This should be essential IMHO. I've been very confused by some of my correspondences with staff and a proper format like this would at the very least allow some clarity.

Not to pile on staff but this is the message I got when I lost Karma which more or less explains nothing.

QuoteWe've seen you bring a fair amount of OOC into your play and requests to staff and feel it has impacted you negatively.  You've also been throwing around accusations of OOC when things don't happen the way you think they ought to.

Have I been colluding with other players?

Was I being an ass on the GDB?

Or was it that I was just putting too many complaints in over the request tool? Talking to staff after the fact seems to make this the primary factor.

Was it OOCly motivated behavior coming up IC?

I'm still in the dark. I don't even know.

So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:58:12 PM
So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

If it gets to that, pull the Hammer and bury them under 99 cords of obsidian.

But what a lot of players are currently feeling, it seems, is that first response is to place the obsidian on the neck of said player and then apply pressure.

Like Valeria said..  first offense: warning.  Second offense: Stern rebuke + penalty.  Third offense: queue up Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around."

That's how it's got to be from my perspective. I don't envy staff at all for it either. I'm a college professor in real life, and the worst part of the job (other than grading) is having to bring the hammer down on cheaters. They will lie to your face. You know they're lying. You've got the evidence to prove it, but they just keep lying. Makes you feel cynical about the whole thing. I didn't get into the job to deal with cheaters, yet I have to for so many reasons. It's got to be done. At least I get paid for it!

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:58:12 PM
So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

I think the issue is still that when confronted with the possibility of doing something wrong, most people are not going to say "Oop, you got me. I was doing something wrong that I know I shouldn't be doing, but did anyways because I have no respect for you". Of course they lie. Fuck, of course even -I'd- lie about it.

Except that one time I was totally metagaming, and was caught for it. Didn't lie once about it, said I was doing it and here's the reason. I didn't get banhammered, I just stored the character because at that point, it was the only interesting thing I was doing on that character.

Quote from: Riev on October 27, 2016, 04:14:08 PM

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:58:12 PM
So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

I think the issue is still that when confronted with the possibility of doing something wrong, most people are not going to say "Oop, you got me. I was doing something wrong that I know I shouldn't be doing, but did anyways because I have no respect for you". Of course they lie. Fuck, of course even -I'd- lie about it.

Except that one time I was totally metagaming, and was caught for it. Didn't lie once about it, said I was doing it and here's the reason. I didn't get banhammered, I just stored the character because at that point, it was the only interesting thing I was doing on that character.

I didn't lie. In fact I think I confessed to something I wasn't even accused of.

Quote from: Malifaxis on October 27, 2016, 04:07:03 PM

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 03:58:12 PM
So a lot of what I am getting is approach when there seems to be evidence of such a case, then open communication about it, state why there is a suspicion and then discuss.  I can understand this and also agree a bit here, I guess my issue is when even after the discussion is had, they are still abusing OOC.  Then someone gets hurt, and then solid evidence is gained, then the heavy hand comes in because of a lie that was said before.  That's the part that is draining.

If it gets to that, pull the Hammer and bury them under 99 cords of obsidian.

But what a lot of players are currently feeling, it seems, is that first response is to place the obsidian on the neck of said player and then apply pressure.

Like Valeria said..  first offense: warning.  Second offense: Stern rebuke + penalty.  Third offense: queue up Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around."

I don't think there should be a warning. The game rules ARE the warning. Everyone who plays Armageddon is already on notice. The first time it comes up - there should be a discussion to determine whether or not there is, in fact, an offense. If there is, then penalty. If it happens again, then you start handing out bans. There should ALSO be some kind of "window of forgiveness." Like - if the last negative PFile with regards to collusion was a year ago, it's time to ease up and give the player a shot at more trust. That's what I mean by "until." But I don't believe in 2-week time outs, or 6-month karma docks, or 30-day gdb suspensions. That's grade school shit, we're above that. Or at least, we should be.

Quote from: Drayab on October 27, 2016, 04:11:50 PM
That's how it's got to be from my perspective. I don't envy staff at all for it either. I'm a college professor in real life, and the worst part of the job (other than grading) is having to bring the hammer down on cheaters. They will lie to your face. You know they're lying. You've got the evidence to prove it, but they just keep lying. Makes you feel cynical about the whole thing. I didn't get into the job to deal with cheaters, yet I have to for so many reasons. It's got to be done. At least I get paid for it!

QFT - Dealing with the Cheaters is 100% the worst.  All I can recommend is to make sure that whoever volunteers to do this (a) isn't doing it because they thrive on the conflict, (b) has plenty of support when they need to vent their frustrations, and (c) gets rotated often and before they burn out or turned into (a).

Didn't read it all.  Basically there's a lot of what irritates me, as a player, from the staff.

Just because something appears to you as something, doesn't mean it is.  There was a recent event in my gameplay (within...the last year, I think) where some things happened, and staff came at me -with aggression-.  There was a lot of assertiveness, a lot of 'I don't trust you', and a lot of complete hand-waving at the explanations of everything that was said.  So in these last couple posts where you've been talking about hard evidence, I have a hard time believing such a thing exists.  Correlation is not causation, none of us are psychic, and if you don't like viable explanations because you believe differently or it results in things you didn't want to happen, then this whole thing becomes a wasted effort.

On the side of sharing IC info OOC, I agree that it's often detrimental.  I look at that other place from time to time.  I see a lot of unproven information, a lot of outright wrong information on both IC and OOC things, and a lot of 'Well, it doesn't matter anyway' mentalities.  This actually influences what people exposed to the information think about the game and people in it, and how they should behave in it.  So I am, altogether, very wary and 'locked tight' on information for 90% of everything.

The only place I disagree is that other 10%.  I've played this game a long time.  I've come to know a few other players that I know I can discuss things with.  Sometimes details are purposely left out as 'Hmmm, I'll wait on that, that's a surprise'.  This isn't a cesspool of information sharing, nor is it what was asserted earlier, an OOC collusion to win armageddon.  It's simply a couple people where I occasionally talk about what I'm doing, and I know they aren't using it.  I'm not part of an OOC clique, but I do have certain players that I genuinely find myself gravitating towards because I -know- I will enjoy my time around them.  Taking that away is pushing things to an extreme.  Asserting that it's some sort of unholy ooc alliance in the game is, arguably, the opposite extreme of those who have the huge anti-staff sentiment.  This is just as detrimental as anything else taken to an extreme in the game. 

To sum it all up, I didn't read every post of this.  But the original post and some of the replies since make me think that the culture of secrecy on Arm is just like anything else.  Moderation.  Don't go around sharing information, but don't forget that this is a game, too, and sometimes, players like to enjoy games -together-.  I'm sorry that your plan fell through, but players also have their plans fall through often, and sometimes, it's because of staff action or influence.  You're just in the same boat as us.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 27, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
You're just in the same boat as us.

This isn't true at all. 

You, as a player, are welcome to pick up and drop your plans as you see fit.  The only person you are beholden to is you.  If some other player was reliant on you?  Their tough luck.  You don't spend hours, days, months making sure your plans don't meddle in other carefully laid plans of other players.  You don't need to seek approval of your actions to make sure they won't set an unhealthy precedent going forward.  You don't have to make yourself available when it's convenient for some other player just because they've decided they want to play with you.  You are the player at gigantic tabletop roleplaying game.  If you leave you'll be missed.  The game will go on.

Staff cannot pick up and drop plans as they see fit.  In fact, they may need to pick up and try to complete someone else's plans that they don't even like because they've inherited someone else's plotline and a group of players is invested in that storyline.  Don't like the players you are staffing for?  Your tough luck.  Staff will spend hours, days, and months tying their stories into the framework and history of the gameworld.  Oh... and they may have to build everything needed to represent that world, because it's not all going to be there ahead of time.  They will work with the rest of the staff to make sure they're not breaking anything they don't know about or introducing something that creates major headaches unintentionally.  Staff will make themselves available when it's convenient to the players, because that's what they've volunteered to do.  They are the DMs at the gigantic tabletop roleplaying game.  If they leave, there is no game.

To sum it all up, have your fun.  But be respectful of the effort of others, players and staff, that goes into this game you are just one part of.

All staff really need to do is approve characters and master crafts. Everybody else has the ability to emote what they want and kill whoever they are able. That's all you really need.

I think you're making that statement more extreme than it is (edit:  Or I just framed it badly to not properly articulate what I try again below).  Bad things happen to plans in multiplayer games.

I wasn't saying 'tough luck, ooc fucked you, get over it', I was saying that sometimes plans fall through and under the all-seeing eye of observation, sometimes assumptions get made that this was a result of ooc when it wasn't.

There was no part of that intended to be disrespectful, only an examination of how perceptions can be the real enemy here, and a caution that sometimes that disappointment in how things end up results in bad feelings about it from anyone, regardless of whether player or staff.

While I do agree with you partially Armaddict, I have to disagree that there aren't conspiracies.  There are.  And that's really where the huge problems begin.

Look at conspiracy theorists.  Seriously... it's fucked up, but look at them.

They start with something mildly plausible while they're sane... like, say, flouride COULD potentially do some brain damage.  And then they start looking at all the potential gain from the government, and things start to make sense there.
Then from that, they jump from flouride to Chemtrails, and OMG if they're doing it to the water, they could easily do it to the sky!  The government has planes!
And thennnn it only starts to make sense that this isn't even actually being done by humans!  It's obviously the reptiloids!
And by then, they're buying stock in aluminum foil.

They start out sane.  They see some shit.  Shit starts to make sense.  And then they're seeing conspiracies everywhere.

It's the same with staff sometimes.  Sorry staff, you know I have much love, but it's true.  Once you actually come face to face as a staffer with your first super-clique of conspiring players, you start to look at every other potential player problem as a potential part of a conspiracy... and before you know it, you're trying to cover your monitor in aluminum foil. ;)   This doesn't always happen, but it is a very good explanation of why it does happen.  

I have been the subject of the interest of The Inquisition on Armageddon.  It was VERY difficult for me to say "Look, I get where you guys are coming from, this evidence looks good, but you are seeing a pattern where there isn't one."  But I did.  And the staff listened.  They understood, and the waters were cleared.

It takes effort and understanding and communications on both sides.  This is a world we all enjoy, and all put effort in to, and it takes all of us working together to make it more enjoyable.  

There are player based grudges towards staff.  Staff see foul player evidence constantly, which turns their views darker.  We ALL need to put aside our predispositions to the other side and try to figure out a better way to do things.

That's what this thread is about... and it seems like there are some very good points being made here on both sides.

*sniff*

I FUCKING LOVE YOU GUYS!

(Okay, I realized I didn't use a single swear word during the whole damn post, and needed to edge one the fuck in there, so there it is.  My affection towards most of you is genuine.  Most of you.)

Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

The only people you really need to drive off are those who maliciously abuse OOC collusion or other means to disrupt play for others. Of which there are like, twenty in existence.

Everyone else should just be shamed in to behaving better and smarter and knowing when to keep their mouth shut. This goes for Staff as well as players. Mistakes have to be recognized and learned from.

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

But it's ok for players to leave because they got fucked over by OOC cliques repeatedly?  Noted.

Quote from: Malifaxis on October 27, 2016, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

But it's ok for players to leave because they got fucked over by OOC cliques repeatedly?  Noted.

Get lost.

One solution has X people leave for this reason. Another solution has Y people leave for that reason. I think the exchange rate is a little off, you're here to fulfil your swearing quotum.

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 05:59:21 PM

Quote from: Malifaxis on October 27, 2016, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: Patuk on October 27, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Anyhow..

What we have to ask ourselves, I guess, is how many players like Beethoven we are willing to drive off in the name of punishing cheaters. Is her leaving acceptable? If yes, is it okay if five people go? The more you pursue to punish and be strict on this, the more collateral you'll find. You can go all-out Whitt and pretend all you need is staff for the game to run, but I don't live in a world like that.

But it's ok for players to leave because they got fucked over by OOC cliques repeatedly?  Noted.

Get lost.

One solution has X people leave for this reason. Another solution has Y people leave for that reason. I think the exchange rate is a little off, you're here to fulfil your swearing quotum.

Let me know when you're done with your aggro bullshit.  SOrry you got grudges bro, aint my problem.

I am interested in this discussion and the solutions it can generate.

I think Staff should just step back a bit and let the cliques fight it out. That or drop another meteor and kill all current PCs.

I don't think you can prevent cliques from forming, but you can definitely keep them from amassing too much in-game power to be legitimately dislodged. That's when things become stale and problematic and unfun.

I'm not sure what Patuk and Malifaxis are talking about but let me go grab my popcorn.

Quote from: Iiyola on October 27, 2016, 06:07:25 PM
I'm not sure what Patuk and Malifaxis are talking about but let me go grab my popcorn.

You have five minutes for me to finish writing this epic put-down where I scare him with my navy seal antics. Stay tuned.

Guys... keep it cool. Iceberg cool. You're just floating along in the arctic, and nothing bothers you at all.

We good? Good.

Back on track with the thread...

You know, I've never heard of a mundane non-magickal/psionic plot being ruined by OOC collusion.

Nothing can be done about it, it's 2016 - if people want to cheat, they'll cheat. If they want to lie, they'll lie.

Now can we know what happened to/with Beethoven?

Just because there will always be people breaking the rules doesn't mean we should stop caring about it. There's nothing special about 2016. This is how people have always been.

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/55afed532acae717448b684c-1920-960/screen%20shot%202015-07-22%20at%203.21.16%20pm.png)

Quote from: Drayab on October 27, 2016, 06:26:55 PM
Just because there will always be people breaking the rules doesn't mean we should stop caring about it. There's nothing special about 2016. This is how people have always been.

There's billions of ways to break the rules in 2016, a lot more than back in 1993 - You guys are wishful thinking that cheaters will read this thread and realize how wrong they've been all along and change their ways. I feel like most cliques of the past have been broken up now because there's just not that many players interested in the game in the way that many hardcore players were interested in the game back in the days, so that's probably one less thing to worry about.

Armageddon is not a community of like-minded hardcore players anymore, it's a bunch of individuals doing their own little thing in an open-world setting and that, in it's own way, probably prevents a lot of cheating because you don't have the need and/or drive to team up with other characters anymore. Grandiose goals of the past are just not a thing in the current version of the game.

Quote from: Drayab on October 27, 2016, 06:26:55 PM
Just because there will always be people breaking the rules doesn't mean we should stop caring about it. There's nothing special about 2016. This is how people have always been.

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/55afed532acae717448b684c-1920-960/screen%20shot%202015-07-22%20at%203.21.16%20pm.png)

This leads back to Ath's first post, about the "concern." What exactly IS the concern about OOC collusion, from a staff or player perspective?

In the example Ath vaguebooks about, the problem is really that two players (one whose PC died and one who got fingered for it) couldn't handle things not going their way and both quit. I don't see why that needed to stop what could have been an awesome orgy of destruction. Who cares if it got kicked off due to OOC collusion or short-cuts if the spectacle and play itself was fun?

If a plot is "ruined" because the surprise is lost, maybe the plots need to be constructed in a way that they're inherently fun. Not run like an M. Night Shamaylan movie that's only good once.

Personally, I'm disappointed when I know people are colluding, or using OOC knowledge, or just generally being dumb. I can understand the discouragement that comes from that... but I don't feel that being discouraged is something I should allow. Needing to rely on OOC Collusion and other form of cheating is the other players' problem, not mine. I try to play Armageddon to enjoy the scenes I'm in and to look back at the narratives that get created because of it, not the narratives I could potentially create.

Then again I haven't logged in a couple months because I feel like I've done everything fun there is to do in Arm, so maybe my philosophy is not the right way forward.

I'm (clearly) very new to the game (about 2.5 months a player), and so obviously my opinions aren't informed by any major personal experiences when it comes to this question. I don't to talk about things that I have no idea about, but it's honestly difficult -not- to bump up against the extensive rules that are used to try and address this problem.

I mostly want to agree with what several other players have already stated, that I think the current rules are so extensive that they make the problem worse, and that loosening the restrictions on casual and more innocent OOC chatter would help to create a culture of self-enforcement that everyone seems to be agreeing is ideal. That's a distinction made in the first post of this thread, but crucially, it's not one reflected in the actual rules of the game, and I think this has the result of pushing players who desire more casual OOC chatter into the margins and unenforced spaces where the real problems actually occur.

This is a problem I'm afraid I'll probably very quickly run into if I continue playing this game, so I'd like to try and explain what I see as my personal conundrum. Though the rules don't make many distinctions as to what's allowed and what is it, we could probably subdivide some of the different kinds of banned OOC talk that players might desire:

1. Details/speculations/speculations about the code that go more in-depth then is allowed on these boards.
2. OOC knowledge that players are expected to and rewarded for passing to new characters. I.E. what mobs will kill a new player dead, how to practically advance a character's skills, surviving in the wilderness, the water cave, navigating to commonly known places, etc.
3. Casual information about current events/characters (or ones from within a year).
4. Secret information about plots/characters.
5. OOC collusion/coordination of IC actions.
(there are obviously more detailed/useful breakdowns then this, but it's an example)

As a player, I'm incredibly disinterested in knowing secrets about what's going on with plots or characters. I've been a player and a DM in tabletop games, I appreciate the value of the unexpected in a good story, and I hate how hearing about things separately can reduce my experience of those events (heck, most of my friends would deem me unreasonable for my attitudes towards tv show/game spoilers). And I of course don't want to plot things out ooc, or share secrets myself, because that just makes things worse for everyone. This is a sentiment that everyone in this thread seems to share, and agree that they should be prohibited. But some of those things on the list (for me, namely actually getting to talk to people about the game, since I have no stories to tell that are legal to share) are probably more legitimate, and things that, as plenty of people have noted, are a common and largely expected practice.

Just to speak for my own personal experiences, I feel like I've only got a few options, and all of them are bad. I could follow the rules strictly, keep to this board, and never be able to talk about any of those things, or I could hop over to The-Boards-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, a place that has -no- rules preventing any of that, in which I would likely see more then I'd desire, and have no incentive for not crossing lines on with my necessarily anonymous account. These are shitty choices that I, even as a new player, feel stuck between, and I feel like it fairly clearly illustrates how the current rules only end up encouraging the type of behavior they seek to prevent, by forcing things that even the staff in this thread don't seem concerned about to be secretive. And to the extent that there are other options (making individual ooc friends, finding some chat group), the rules only make them more difficult to find and still hold that same risk of unwanted, problematic behavior. If this is a problem that I'm already finding myself in, I can certainly understand why so many players would end up in unregulated spaces, or end up feeling that since everything they're doing is against the rules anyways, that more severe infractions don't really matter.

Playing MUDs acts as a social outlet for me. I'm not interested in throwing literal days of my life into something that I can't talk to other people about. And the current rules are pretty ridiculous for newbies, since I'll have to play for another year before I'm actually allowed to chat about anything under the verbatim rules. So if it turns out that I'm just a type of player that this MUD isn't interested in having, then I've either got to break the rules and risk getting banned, or, in the more likely case, stop playing.

tl;dr: The best thing the staff could do to help improve the problem this thread addresses would be to create a set of rules that more specifically prohibits bad actions, while allowing for more harmless ones. This would help to create self-moderation and trust between admin and players, two things that seem universally desired in this thread.

Personally, I agree with everyone who has expressed disagreement with the ban regarding talking about current events on the forum. I honestly feel like it prevents a lot of people from actually seeing this as a community about the game. Probably not everyone, or even most, but a sizeable number. But honestly, sometimes (most of the time?) it feels more like a forum dedicated to the game-world, to the world-building, to basic mechanics and such, but not to the game itself. Not to the everyday experience of playing and people's reaction to them, which is, to me, what makes a game community. There's very little in here that makes you go 'oh, he/she is a fellow player who deserves my respect. I should not behave like an anonymous asshole because who cares?'

Sure, people who liked to cheat would still probably cheat, and might even use information posted on the forums to cheat if the ban was lifted/partially lifted. But that happens anyway, no? So in a way, I think things can't get much worse, only better in that regard.

Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that probably lots of cheating initially start because people need to discuss things with others beyond the scope of what is currently allowed in the rules. Why? For a lot of reasons. Like someone else mentioned before, we are social, we like sharing what makes us laugh and cry. But they can't do it in the open, so they go underground, and since they are already technically breaking the rules, then they start thinking, 'shit, why not just go all the way?'

Maybe a focus on the sorts of plots that can't be ruined by OOC information would help. Not that I know what sort of plots those would be.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on October 27, 2016, 06:58:57 PM
Maybe a focus on the sorts of plots that can't be ruined by OOC information would help. Not that I know what sort of plots those would be.

PVE? Unless the tarantula NPCs have become self-aware and are colluding elsewhere on the Web.

Quote from: Narana on October 27, 2016, 06:57:05 PM
Not to the everyday experience of playing and people's reaction to them, which is, to me, what makes a game community. There's very little in here that makes you go 'oh, he/she is a fellow player who deserves my respect. I should not behave like an anonymous asshole because who cares?'

The main thing that always kept me coming back over and over again was reading on the GDB all of the cool stuff that I was obviously missing in the game, even if it was only hints of it. Like how people would suddenly be excited or subtly talk about stuff that was currently happening, you know, what we call today hype. There's absolutely no hype left on the GDB.

Now that the GDB is dead as dead, that nagging little voice in my head that would constantly tell me, "Play Armageddon again, you know you want to, look at how much you're missing!" is completely gone and I've had absolutely no desire to return to Armageddon in months/years.

Quote from: Malken on October 27, 2016, 07:06:00 PM

Quote from: Narana on October 27, 2016, 06:57:05 PM
Not to the everyday experience of playing and people's reaction to them, which is, to me, what makes a game community. There's very little in here that makes you go 'oh, he/she is a fellow player who deserves my respect. I should not behave like an anonymous asshole because who cares?'

The main thing that always kept me coming back over and over again was reading on the GDB all of the cool stuff that I was obviously missing in the game, even if it was only hints of it. Like how people would suddenly be excited or subtly talk about stuff that was currently happening, you know, what we call today hype. There's absolutely no hype left on the GDB.

Now that the GDB is dead as dead, that nagging little voice in my head that would constantly tell me, "Play Armageddon again, you know you want to, look at how much you're missing!" is completely gone and I've had absolutely no desire to return to Armageddon in months/years.

I don't know if we've played together, but your posts make me think you would be enjoyable to play with.  Are you saying that if there was more enticement on the boards that you would return?

Have you checked out some of the new posts in Release Notes?  Some of the current changes are pretty baller.  (Them books tho)

Quote from: Malken on October 27, 2016, 07:06:00 PM

Quote from: Narana on October 27, 2016, 06:57:05 PM
Not to the everyday experience of playing and people's reaction to them, which is, to me, what makes a game community. There's very little in here that makes you go 'oh, he/she is a fellow player who deserves my respect. I should not behave like an anonymous asshole because who cares?'

The main thing that always kept me coming back over and over again was reading on the GDB all of the cool stuff that I was obviously missing in the game, even if it was only hints of it. Like how people would suddenly be excited or subtly talk about stuff that was currently happening, you know, what we call today hype. There's absolutely no hype left on the GDB.

Now that the GDB is dead as dead, that nagging little voice in my head that would constantly tell me, "Play Armageddon again, you know you want to, look at how much you're missing!" is completely gone and I've had absolutely no desire to return to Armageddon in months/years.

There's still plenty going on in the game.  There are plenty of naysayers about that, but I guess it's because I operate on a different level.  Character goals, character aspirations, character nuances...those all appeal to me.  I don't mean mine, I mean -other- people's characters.  I like having my character judge them, interact with them, bounce off of them.  I like having my character form some aspect of their world, the same way I try to incorporate them into mine.  Their struggles become my points of interest, and my struggles become something to drag them, kicking and screaming, into.

Mostly, I think the idea that we need huge sweeping plots to be a little overdramatic.  Those are neat.  But the action that was involved in the 'rebellion' HRPT that went on the winter before last?  It was less the -story- of what was going on there that was exciting, and more the fact that there was chaos and conflict in the streets.  NPC's were animated, ransacking...they were things that players died to and killed without remorse.  I don't think anyone was totally enraptured by the story behind why they were, as much as the fact that -things were happening-, there was risk, there were things to investigate and circumvent and survive through.  While those seemed grand in scale, it doesn't take much to bring that same sort of state of existence to the game (which is one of those things that I rant about often with fewer clans and less interests being tugged around and played against each other).

As much as I love our playerbase...we have to want to treat this game like a real novel where other PC's are the main characters.  Not like a co-op game.  Make it a ruthless political thriller.  Not a nancy drew investigation.  I'm not saying this isn't happening, but I am saying we can always use more of it.

Overall I don't blame you for not wanting to play, particularly if returning comes with the expectation of 'lots of things need to be happening all the time', because that's just incredibly hard to set up in even a book, and movies that try to make that happen for -just two hours- are either exhausting or make it old quickly.  The spikes of activity and intrigue make the excitement to stick around for, and that's simply not a gaming platform convenient for a lot of people.

Edit: Mostly, just wanting to point out that lack of talking on the GDB about IC events doesn't mean nothing cool is going on, but to keep things...
On topic:  Spoiling plots sucks unless it's in the name of your own plot/personal story (i.e. It's still progressing a narrative).  Don't ruin things to try and win the game.  On the same note, don't assume everyone who ruins your plot is just out to piss in your cheerios or win the game.  It's demoralizing when you finally do something of note with a character that you hope will springboard into great things, only to have everyone get pissed off that their fun time ended and accuse you of ruining the game just because you could.

So I'm thankful to see that most of you are keeping this on track, thank you, it's appreciated greatly. As for the self aware tarantulas, I'll have to keep that in mind. I'm actually at my biweekly D&D game at the moment so I cannot pay close attention to this, so keeping it clean is nice. The feedback is great, in liking what I see and you all are trying to be constructive about it. Keep it up.

So I'll ask then, what sort of events could be talked about you think? I personally don't take the rules as banning any ooc, should we write them in more detail, give situations?

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 05:19:41 PM
All staff really need to do is approve characters and master crafts. Everybody else has the ability to emote what they want and kill whoever they are able. That's all you really need.

This is a little off-topic, but I wanted to address this in specific, because there is a LOT more that staff does and should do to make the world a great place. The two things you mentioned, approving characters and approving mastercrafts, are leaving out a HUGE portion of what the game is about.

Things you need staff for:

• Enabling players to influence politics on a large, city (or world) wide scale
• Having the appropriate amount of support from your House/group
• Answering questions or research, elaborating on what is only represented in a basic fashion ICly
• Starting staff-originated plots that are relevant to you
• Fleshing out the virtual world with animations
• Fleshing out the virtual world by adding new areas or items
• Adding to or revising code that, in turn, better enables player actions

I mean, I'm all for things like character approval and mastercraft approval, staff only knows, but... There's a lot more that staff is doing. Honestly, even answering requests in a positive and enthusiastic manner and thus showing you that they're excited to see what your PC will do next is HUGE.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
I can think of a specific instance where a certain player I know of, not going to mention any names, was apart of something pretty big in game, it was then posted OOC about who the player was, and then IC actions were taken on OOC information.  This killed the players want to play, because technically, no one would have had any idea about what happened IC, it was spoiled because of OOC.

In the example Ath vaguebooks about, the problem is really that two players (one whose PC died and one who got fingered for it) couldn't handle things not going their way and both quit. I don't see why that needed to stop what could have been an awesome orgy of destruction. Who cares if it got kicked off due to OOC collusion or short-cuts if the spectacle and play itself was fun?

I really don't agree with this statement at all. Even with the limited information Ath said, the problem doesn't seem to be that something didn't go their way. Something not going your way is when you are ICly screwed over. When people intentionally use OOC information to fuck your character over when there's absolutely no way they should have known ICly? It's not an "awesome orgy of destruction". It's completely unacceptable abuse. I'd also say it clearly wasn't fun for the player who got OOCly screwed, if they're quitting over it.

I think if we want to turn around how OOC is handled, we need to first start with the OOC perceptions of what OOC abuse is. I think this thread is helping with some of that and bringing attention to the issue, so that's good.

If you're not going to accept the reaction of your IC actions (whatever the OOC motivation for those actions) the maybe you shouldn't contemplate taking those actions. I don't consider killing a character without asking myself "Does this person have dipshit friends or connections that might respond, even if I were to somehow impossibly scrub all IC traces of my involvement?" If they do, plan for it.

If you do something and it provokes an OOC reaction, you should really be glad. You've flushed out the shitters.

As far as staff function, I think all you really absolutely need staff to do is approve characters. The rest is all extra gravy (which is entirely capable of getting in the way when you get bogged down with reports, tedious bullshit or simply players you don't see eye-to-eye with). I don't play with the expectation of it. I want to leave that to individual staff initiative and enthusiasm.

Quote6. Sharing or discussing relevant in-game information via out-of-character means is discouraged. Relevant information includes but is not limited to information from within the last year, involving living characters, or involving game mechanics. The rule of thumb is: if it is not in a publicly- available helpfile or document, it should not be discussed out-of-game. This goes for use of the OOC command in game as well as any out-of-game communication. If we find that you are sharing or discussing in-game information, punishment can range from a warning, to karma reduction, to storage of your character, to temporary or permanent bans.

The current rule states that
-Things that have happened within the last year
-talking about your current character
-explicit talk of game mechanics
are all explicitly banned, before going on to making two more blanket statements about what is disallowed.

If this rule -isn't- supposed to blanket ban these things, it really shouldn't say that "relevant information" automatically includes all of this or be making such general statements, IMO. If that isn't what the rules are supposed to be meaning, then a more specific explanation would at the very least probably make the actual intended rules clear to all parties.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AMI want your thoughts, I want your opinions, I want your advice.

I think a big part of this is the culture. Making players aware that their actions can have ripple effects, even if it seems innocent, is important. That nilazi-magicker plot one is a good example, and more poignant when the original post (or summary) is read. It really underscores how something seemingly innocent can ruin a great plot.

I think that posting more examples of actual things that have happened and have led to really negative results could be good. I'm not saying that we should be so explicit as to name PC names, nor do I want to create a shaming culture. However, isn't seeing the full broadness of the problem something that would help to correct it? I think it's worth taking a look at if a middle ground can be met to just make players aware of what can happen.

I don't think most players who talk OOC are intentionally trying to hurt the game. I think that there are some players who do use their OOC networks to get little tidbits from all over and then have a larger picture. I think there are some players who even lie OOCly to change opinions so that PCs will act differently.

You can't effectively police what people do, at least not until they've done something and it's too late--Sometimes not even then. But I think that by making players more aware of the issues (which I think this thread is doing), you can start to change the OOC culture.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 27, 2016, 10:15:16 PM
If you're not going to accept the reaction of your IC actions (whatever the OOC motivation for those actions) the maybe you shouldn't contemplate taking those actions. I don't consider killing a character without asking myself "Does this person have dipshit friends or connections that might respond, even if I were to somehow impossibly scrub all IC traces of my involvement?" If they do, plan for it.

If you do something and it provokes an OOC reaction, you should really be glad. You've flushed out the shitters.

So let me make up a situation that is 100% false:

I'm a 'rinthi who through time and effort learns to speak like a southerner. I dedicate a lot of time to making the right connections, so I can not just sound like a southerner, but know a little bit of how southerners behave. I slowly work my way upwards, becoming a higher-class southerner. I work to make sure those who knew I was a 'rinthi are dead or gone. Then, I go to the Atrium. I get a noble that I aide for... And all of this was a set-up so that I could give info to the Guild, to play politics, and utterly betray people.

But let's say one of those people I killed to disguise I was a 'rinthi is pretty disgruntled. So they go to their OOC friends and say I was a 'rinthi and they hate me. Well, that gets back to the noble's player. Suddenly this awesome plot I have spent RL months setting up and plan to take places is ruined.

That's a completely mundane example for you, by the way.

I wouldn't be glad that I "flushed out the shitters". I'd be extremely frustrated, and upset, and I'm sure in that position I'd consider if I really wanted to play Arm at all, if that's what the playerbase was like.

That's the stuff that needs to be prevented and punished.

I should also add in my 'rinthi aide example... It doesn't have to be as blatant sharing as what I outlined to have an impact.

For example, what if instead a player just OOC'd about some silly thing that happened months ago with some 'rinthi saying something. Something they 100% believed had no connection to anything current. They had nothing against me or my PC, and were trying to avoid anything bad. But... That little tidbit had my characters sdesc and them speaking in a 'rinthi accent, and they unknowingly posted it to the player who I was an aide to.

Let's even assume the best of that noble player. Let's say they don't automatically assume anything... They're still now open to the possibility that my PC has 'rinthi connections. Anything they could discover ICly that they might have normally passed by will now stick out to them. The plot was still influenced very badly, even when we assume that all players involved in OOC communication had no ill intent.

That said, as so many have brought up, players do want to connect over the game. And sometimes you want to laugh at something with a friend or complain about something. That's a human tendency. So how do we balance this very real desire to connect over a game we love with the risk that plots may be ruined?

I'm not sure there's a definitive answer to that. I think that being more aware of the overall issue is good. I think that bringing it up periodically is also good, because it helps get people to re-consider how they're going about things, and that's important.

Kill the noble

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 12:31:13 AM
Kill the noble

You're already dead. They already killed your PC. The 'rinthi that you spent months working on is already gone. That story and all the potential it had is already closed, specifically because of OOC.

Are you going to make a revenge character? That's also not cool.

Are you going to compound the issue, and use your OOC buddies to set up his death OOC? That's even worse, and starts a cycle that is not something that can be escaped from.

If you get killed for OOC abuse related reasons, it's an absolutely horrific situation to be in. I don't think the answer is ever that they just need to man up and deal with it. You have to consider the larger picture, especially that what happened just isn't okay.

Revenge-killing a PC who acts on OOC information is not a net-loss. It'll at least set them back to zero on terms of influence and power in the game. If Staff aren't going to regulate them, someone has to.

More seriously, the biggest problem with your example is assuming the only way the plot could fail was via cheating. The idea that you could completely scrub your rinthi identity completely is a bit arrogant. There are VNPCs, hidden PCs, plenty of ways someone could conceivably learn the truth. I've seen people freak out over "OOC collusion" (or Staff animosity/powergaming/whatever) when in reality there were perfectly reasonable IC explanations for why their character died. So don't assume "Someone found out" means "Someone found out OOC and is completely ruining my plot!" Which seems to be a very common reaction among people who think their plots are cool and foolproof and deserve to succeed.

People overreact about their character PK deaths as much or more than people  bring them about via cheating.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 12:42:51 AM
Revenge-killing a PC who acts on OOC information is not a net-loss. It'll at least set them back to zero on terms of influence and power in the game.

More seriously, the biggest problem with your example is assuming the only way the plot could fail was via cheating. The idea that you could completely scrub your rinthi identity completely is a bit arrogant. There are VNPCs, hidden PCs, plenty of ways someone could conceivably learn the truth. I've seen people freak out over "OOC collusion" (or Staff animosity/powergaming/whatever) when in reality there were perfectly reasonable IC explanations for why their character died. So don't assume "Someone found out" means "Someone found out OOC and is completely ruining my plot!" Which seems to be a very common reaction among people who think their plots are cool and foolproof and deserve to succeed.

People overreact about their character PK deaths as much or more than people  bring them about via cheating.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes there's no cheating at all, and it happens 100% legitly and there's still harsh feelings. And sometimes because of that misconception, it can lead to things like revenge killings and OOC "counteraction" when there was nothing there to start with.

However... Can a plot be ruined by OOC? Yes, absolutely. That's what this thread is about. And I think that it's important that we acknowledge that it can actually be a legitimate issue, rather then just something abstract or seeming made-up.

Again, most of what I know about the community's opinion of this comes from this thread, but it seems like -everyone- has agreed that sharing OOC secrets can cause problems and should be punished.

The question has been the extent of and effective ways to prevent that.

BadSkeelz! You were the chosen one!

I think maybe we can outline constructively in a FAQ what are good examples of OOC collusion, and what are examples of old fashioned sharing stories and having fun being a community. I'll do so tomorrow morning.

Perhaps staff should encourage players to file player complaints if anyone tells them in game information? It takes 2 or more to share info, and from what I've heard already there are many of us who have learned things from others that we absolutely didn't want to know through OOC means. I know it won't do anything to help with the cliques, but it will help a lot with the scenarios where someone just wants to share a story but it adversely effects others play. Let staff figure out what to do from there, maybe just keep a closer eye on the player, or give them a warning that they've been sharing info that is too relevant.

And perhaps as fewer incidents of accidental information sharing occur, those cliques that are doing it will become more obvious by comparison, and something can be done about them as well.

Stopping OOC collusion is impossible.  Efforts to do so will only create a witch-hunt atmosphere that is not fun for either players or staff.  There will always be a few people that form half-giant/elementalist/mul power ranger teams and who play the game to win.  It's not like you can put a keylogger on their AIM chats to prove they're doing it, either.

The only viable option, really, is trusting people to keep their IC knowledge and OOC knowledge separate.  I think an atmosphere of trust inspires more mature behavior then an atmosphere of draconian enforcement.

My tastes here are somewhat atypical, as I prefer a MUSH-style atmosphere where most players are free to share informaton with each other about ongoing plots and peek into the 'big picture,' and I realize this is not that kind of game.

Quote from: Erythil on October 28, 2016, 01:31:09 AM
I prefer a MUSH-style atmosphere where most players are free to share informaton with each other about ongoing plots and peek into the 'big picture,' and I realize this is not that kind of game.

Well, it is and it isn't.

If you encounter a PC you knew from a previous character of yours, you likely know certain info about them and must force yourself to play appropriately and to not act on that info. If you're a member of staff and you log in with your PC, you most definitely know tons of info about many PCs and must force yourself to play appropriately and to not act on that info either.

There will always be IC info we have that our characters shouldn't know. To me the point of this discussion is how to limit that IC info while still being reasonable (and not heavy-handed) about it.

Quote from: Erythil on October 28, 2016, 01:31:09 AM
Stopping OOC collusion is impossible.  Efforts to do so will only create a witch-hunt atmosphere that is not fun for either players or staff.  There will always be a few people that form half-giant/elementalist/mul power ranger teams and who play the game to win.  It's not like you can put a keylogger on their AIM chats to prove they're doing it, either.

The only viable option, really, is trusting people to keep their IC knowledge and OOC knowledge separate.  I think an atmosphere of trust inspires more mature behavior then an atmosphere of draconian enforcement.

My tastes here are somewhat atypical, as I prefer a MUSH-style atmosphere where most players are free to share informaton with each other about ongoing plots and peek into the 'big picture,' and I realize this is not that kind of game.

To paraphrase what someone else said earlier in the thread, in lots of cases it isn't the OOC sharing that is problematic, it's what the players -do- with that information that is problematic.

In the example of the 'rinthi aide, the player of the disgruntled acquaintance, and the noble...sure it's frustrating when the truth is spilled OOC about something your character has been spending a good bit of time and effort plotting...but if the player of the noble learns the origin of their aide...guess what, they don't have to use that information.  Will they?  Maybe.  Who can say, that sort of thing depends on the player in question.  I would hope they wouldn't, but the fact is they might.  The point is...just because a player knows something OOC, it doesn't mean their PC knows it.  OOC sharing doesn't automatically ruin plots, that happens when players decide to abuse that OOC information.  

With every new character we all file away OOC knowledge and (hopefully) don't make it available to our new characters simply because we know it.  
We, the player, know things about the world and about other characters that our new PC doesn't know.  Maybe our new character has a background which makes sense for them to know some things, maybe they've made the right connections in game to actually have gained this knowledge, maybe they've simply lived long enough to have amassed a lot of information about the world.  But if they haven't, then it's up to us to not let them 'know things.'

There is OOC sharing, and there is OOC abuse.  One is not in the spirit of the game and has the potential to ruin plots, the other...not so much.  But it comes down to players policing themselves and deciding whether to use information or not.  Short of using a keylogger to prove there is sharing which might lead to abuse...what can staff do?

One suggestion was that players who learned things OOC could alert staff that there had been sharing... Does staff want however many requests to deal with that are essentially a bunch of grown-ups tattling on one and other?  Is it that hard for people to just not use the OOC information that they know and their PC doesn't?

Quote from: manipura on October 28, 2016, 02:05:59 AM
 Is it that hard for people to just not use the OOC information that they know and their PC doesn't?

If it's not a problem, them I'm confused why this thread even exists. Apparently it's already ruined plots and driven players from the game.

Quote from: lostinspace on October 28, 2016, 03:00:12 AM

Quote from: manipura on October 28, 2016, 02:05:59 AM
Is it that hard for people to just not use the OOC information that they know and their PC doesn't?

If it's not a problem, them I'm confused why this thread even exists. Apparently it's already ruined plots and driven players from the game.

I think this was really more in the spirit of 'C'mon man, really?', not saying that no one ever did it, considering the line before was talking about we're adults on a video game.  So we should act adultish.

lizzie if you base karma on gdb contributions, i'm circling the drain at this point. i contribute nothing to the gdb at all as the cabbage.


i can say that staff hit me very hard in the past, and i grew from it.

but i never liked communicating with people to 'win' the game to begin with. i just liked playing with friends.

now i have lots of friends, and i don't know who they are. so, the heavy-handed approach worked for me. would a gentler approach have worked too? maybe. but i don't think people will get it as well unless you come down especially hard in most situations. blatant abuse, like the things i did, have to be hammered and shut down immediately or it just becomes a growing stigma.

i was never around for the heavier policies, or the super find out ic era. i don't know what that was like.

but i like the game now, and i like the staff that we have now.


beware.

things could always be worse.

I have some feelings about this topic, but it seems that maybe a personal anecdote may be more useful to this discussion.  Hopefully it won't make anyone think less of me.

About a decade ago, some time after I had started playing Arm, I decided to try another MUD also.  I won't name it here, but it had permadeath also (after a fashion), but wasn't an RPI.  I made a character, learned my way around, and spent several hours doing some serious grinding to get a decent kit.  And then...I fell into a pond.  In full armor.  And drowned.  I had no idea how the swim code worked.  No idea how to get out, just...dead.  I was less than pleased with this turn of events.  But I happened to know there was a newbie 'get out of trouble free' command that was still available to me, so I used one of my (limited) resurrections, ran back to the scene of my death, grabbed my hard earned loot, and entered the command.  It didn't work.  I drowned again.  And again.  And again.  Nothing worked!  This command that should have gotten me all my cool stuff back simply didn't work in this scenario.  Why it wasn't working was not explained, so I just kept trying and failing, trying and failing, until I was out of resurrections.

Now, by this point, I was beside myself with frustration.  So, despite that game's similar prohibition regarding cross-character IC info, I rolled up another PC, and went back to get my stuff.  It's not something I would ever have done in Arm, even then, but this game wasn't an RPI, so I didn't see what the big deal was.  I think I drowned a few more times, and then a staff member contacted me.

Despite the fact that they had essentially incontrovertible evidence that I was cheating (from my login info), as I recall, they simply asked me, "Hey, we wanted to ask you if you have any knowledge regarding [Dead Character 1]."  No accusations, no presentation of that evidence, just a question.

I (not sure if this is to my credit or not) said, "Yup, sure do.  That was my last PC.  He died because XYZ command didn't work and I can't get my stuff back."  To which they replied, essentially, "We're sorry the command didn't work out for you, but carrying knowledge from one character to another is against the rules.  Your account will be suspended for one month."  Now, I definitely appreciated their even-handed approach, but as a new player, who felt he had just been "cheated" by the game code, after losing access for a month, do you think I ever went back?  Nope.


Now, this story is just an anecdote.  It doesn't define any kind of archetypal cause and effect, but from my experience, their non-confrontational approach engendered an honest response from me.  But their lack of leniency or consideration for a rookie after the fact lost them a player forever.

I don't bear them a grudge, but the window of my interest closed, and that was it.  I guess it might also be of interest to note that my reasons for doing what I did, despite knowing it was against the rules, were 1) I didn't understand the rule (why did a hack and slash ban OOC info profiteering - I get it now, but I didn't then), 2) I was new, and wasn't emotionally invested in their community or compact, and 3) I had no basis for knowing whether the rules were serious and enforced, or lip service, until they were enforced on me.

I guess all of this goes to say, I definitely think a bit of innocent until proven guilty goes a long way, second, I think if we expect perfect obedience out of new players before we give them a chance to see what fun they can have by agreeing to our compact, we are going to be disappointed, and finally, I think a simple mention that the rules are enforced and that the player's lack of adherence was noted can be a lot more powerful (and productive) to some players than us jaded old vets might now think.  FWIW

Quote from: lostinspace on October 28, 2016, 01:27:34 AM
Perhaps staff should encourage players to file player complaints if anyone tells them in game information? It takes 2 or more to share info, and from what I've heard already there are many of us who have learned things from others that we absolutely didn't want to know through OOC means. I know it won't do anything to help with the cliques, but it will help a lot with the scenarios where someone just wants to share a story but it adversely effects others play. Let staff figure out what to do from there, maybe just keep a closer eye on the player, or give them a warning that they've been sharing info that is too relevant.

And perhaps as fewer incidents of accidental information sharing occur, those cliques that are doing it will become more obvious by comparison, and something can be done about them as well.

I don't think we need to set up a Big Brother spy network of players who spend their time baiting and trapping cheaters. If you're the type of person people like telling things to, and you're not interested in hearing it, DELETE THEM from your buddy list, or block them, or whatever it is you do on social media to prevent them from telling you things in the first place. If they are sending you private messages here on the GDB, THEN you send a complaint to the staff, because they are violating a rule that can actually be enforced by the game staff.

I just spent like a half an hour reading (some skimming) of the entire thread. And first of all I want to say I am impressed in everyones ability to stay on topic.

Secondly, I would like to pretty much agree with pretty much everything that has been said. Both sides of the fence actually, I too enjoy talking vague IC things. Eg Hey dude my warrior is so badass he killed three chalton at once this one time!
Upon which I have to explain to the guy I say this to that the beast mentioned is generally harmless.

But at that exact same time, I do feel like there are people who consistently OOC with people about things IG, not because of IC but because of the fact things happen that probably shoudlnt have. I feel like lately I have little time to play arm (have played like 1 hour in the lasy few days as opposed to my usual 4 or more hours) but thats because of all the things.

I genuinely feel like we're still struggling with the "chatter intended to gain" and "chatter intended to fill a social role".

There are some examples on how ANY CHATTER AT ALL can ruin a plot, and that makes people feel bad and they leave.

Simply put... we need to take the game seriously, and take OURSELVES a bit fucking less seriously. I've been playing this game a long time, and I'm no LoD or anything, but I find it easy to say "Oh, so he was a 'rinther? I guess that's cool for him but he's never mentioned he was". And if my noble starts LOOKING for reasons for you to be a 'rinthi, well... too fucking bad. I've seen staff store a psi because "one time they wayed an NPC House Slave on accident and they told the Templarate".

The problem with "chatter ruins plots" is that you EITHER put a kibosh on all chatter at all, or you allow for the fact that maybe someone accidentally ruined part of your plot line.

Chatter for social sake NEEDS to be a outlet, and waiting a year clearly doesn't work (and is a vestige of a community-based agreement from YEARS ago in the first place). Original Submissions are still down, players can't tell their stories right now no matter how old they are. If there was a way to release the social need to talk about something cool I did on Gavin (protip: Nothing I do is cool), then I wouldn't feel the need to talk to people OOC about that one time he brought that one pastry recipe back in game.


The question is still: What is to be done about people who chatter for OOC winning, and how can it be limited or prevented?


Is there a way to create a metric to decide how "abusive" an act is? If someone Messages their friend and says "this scrab left me for dead in <x> location" and that friend decides "Hey maybe I'll get in some early hunting today", how does that rate? Compared to "This person has never once set foot in the Labyrinth, and suddenly they know their way around, the street names, and the hiding places" (I did that. Didn't know I shouldn't at the time, still was pretty new and had never BEEN in Allanak for any length of time).

I mean at least then its not "hey you look like you're doing something hinky, and if you admit to it, we'll ONLY ban you for a shorter time than if you lie". Come up with a better structure of rule breaches than "one and done". We're not in gradeschool anymore, but I also don't remember in life where we weren't allowed to make an honest mistake without suffering the full effects of the law.

While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

Here is a very old story about a plot being ruined by seemingly innocent OOC chatter. Sometime later today/this weekend, I will write a series of posts about plots that have been spoiled or ruined in this manner in my time as a staff member (so, the past couple of years) and post them in this thread. I will leave out player and character names, but all other facts will remain. I will ask that players don't identify themselves or others that are in these stories.

Quote
Many times, I've heard players say they'd like to be able to see behind the scenes of Armageddon. That they'd like to be able to find out what the whole story is.

This will be a chance to see one small part of the world, that you probably haven't seen before. I'm going to tell you about a quest, some of the motivations behind it, and the actions that transpired. Why am I going to do this?

Because some people were talking on isca, and spread some OOC info. I could continue the quest even with people knowing what they've heard there, but it just won't be that much fun for anyone involved, myself included. Those players spreading OOC info effectively killed the quest.

I hope that you take the time to read this, and that the next time that you are in a situation where you might feel like telling someone something that happened In Character, that you will think about how you may be ruining someone else's fun.

There was a dwarf, a defiler, named Freil. He used his magick to put people to sleep and rob them, while he slowly grew in power. For over 5 months his attacks in Tuluk and Allanak had people hunting for the sorcerer, although none knew what he looked like. Freil had his own motivations for his actions, most of which was to extend his life, as the old dwarf was nearing the end of his days. I would give you his whole life history, but this post will be too lengthy already.

Finally, Freil got overly greedy, and set upon a group of 4 Jkarr who were outside of the city. One was able to see the invisible dwarf, and Freil fled, angry that after several years of robberies, his description was now going to get out. He tried to talk the Jkarr into saying that he'd killed Freil, in exchange for money and help, but the Jkarr refused. At this point, probably 15 or more players were involved in the quest, either hunting Freil, or having been targets of his.

It is at this point, that the first player who engaged in the OOC talk that ultimitely ruined the quest, became involved. PC1 walked widely through the streets of Tuluk, asking people if they wished to go "hunting defilers", and one of Freil's spies heard him, and reported it to the dwarf. PC1 was ambushed on the road, and his backpack stolen while he slept a magickal sleep. Several more encounters between the two took place, Freil managing to stay a step ahead of PC1. Freil again, tried to bribe PC1 into telling others Freil was dead, but PC1 refused, and boasted of killing other sorcerers, and what he'd do to Freil. At this point, Freil grew so angry at PC1, that he dedicated his focus to ruining PC1's life.

Freil, in searching to extend his life, developed a new magick. He gained the ability to create an image of PC1, though the cost was great. It would only last for a short time, but Freil was able to control the fake-PC1 while his body lay dormant, for periods up to an hour or two.

Several times, the fake PC1 went forth, insulting friends, and causing trouble. Freil's goal was to eventually make things so bad for PC1, that his own friends would kill him.

Freil also never gave PC1 rest, and several times tried to drag PC1 away from his friends, put him to sleep, then defile the land until he could create the fake-PC1, and send him back in.

It was soon after this, that PC1 and PC2, out hunting for Freil, were attacked by undead from an entirely different source. PC2 sent out a message to a third person (PC3), telling him that they were probably going to die, and to pass on some final words to a loved one of his if they didn't make it out.

They made it out, although PC 3 was not around at the time to know it. PC1 and PC2 went on to have several very high-profile adventures over the next few real life days. PC1 and PC2 though, went out exploring some more, and managed to get themselves killed. No one knew where they had gone, or that they were dead.

I, as an immortal, knew they had died. However, Freil had no way of knowing, and so he continued using the fake-PC1 to set the character up. I was very gratified to see the puzzled reactions of some of PC1's friends as he told them he'd struck an agreement with the defiler, but that they couldn't talk about it until he said it was safe (so that they wouldn't mention it again to the real PC1).

I planned to continue like this, and saw many possibilities for if Freil and the fake-PC. I guesstimate that over 20 characters had been involved in the quest to this point, and if I played the fake-PC well, I could probably involve a lot of players in the game.

Until... I log in, and hear people talking about how both of these characters are dead. PC3, who had been told the two were dying, had heard OOC that they'd died. Because of this, he never bothered to ask around to see if they were still alive. He instead just started telling people they were dead. If the players of the 2 dead PC's had not spread the word on ISCA they had died, PC3, who heard of the other adventures these 2 had had after their close call, would have inquired as to the timing, and found out they had been seen for IC weeks after he'd received the contact. Indeed, soon after their death, the fake-PC1 showed up and was seen by at least 10 players.

Well, now that everyone knows they are really dead, it really does make it hard me to run the quest. Those people who were directly interacting with the fake-PC1, would have had a lot of fun, I think, as they gradually figured out their friend wasn't what they thought he was. But now they know he is really dead, even OOCly, they were robbed of the chance to figure it all out on their own by the OOC actions of all 3 players.

That is why I'm posting this. That is why I'm taking the time to tell you the whole story. When you talk OOC, you are screwing over your fellow players. Even seemingly insignificant things like this, hurt the game, and ruin other people's fun.

The next time you find yourself in a situation where you want to tell a friend something that happened on the mud, please remember this story. We all love Armageddon, and it is natural to want to talk about it. But maybe you can reminesce about a character who is long dead instead, and save that new tale for somewhere down the road.

- Thanas

Quote from: manipura on October 28, 2016, 02:05:59 AM

Quote from: Erythil on October 28, 2016, 01:31:09 AM
Stopping OOC collusion is impossible.  Efforts to do so will only create a witch-hunt atmosphere that is not fun for either players or staff.  There will always be a few people that form half-giant/elementalist/mul power ranger teams and who play the game to win.  It's not like you can put a keylogger on their AIM chats to prove they're doing it, either.

The only viable option, really, is trusting people to keep their IC knowledge and OOC knowledge separate.  I think an atmosphere of trust inspires more mature behavior then an atmosphere of draconian enforcement.

My tastes here are somewhat atypical, as I prefer a MUSH-style atmosphere where most players are free to share informaton with each other about ongoing plots and peek into the 'big picture,' and I realize this is not that kind of game.

To paraphrase what someone else said earlier in the thread, in lots of cases it isn't the OOC sharing that is problematic, it's what the players -do- with that information that is problematic.

In the example of the 'rinthi aide, the player of the disgruntled acquaintance, and the noble...sure it's frustrating when the truth is spilled OOC about something your character has been spending a good bit of time and effort plotting...but if the player of the noble learns the origin of their aide...guess what, they don't have to use that information.  Will they?  Maybe.  Who can say, that sort of thing depends on the player in question.  I would hope they wouldn't, but the fact is they might.  The point is...just because a player knows something OOC, it doesn't mean their PC knows it.  OOC sharing doesn't automatically ruin plots, that happens when players decide to abuse that OOC information.  

With every new character we all file away OOC knowledge and (hopefully) don't make it available to our new characters simply because we know it.  
We, the player, know things about the world and about other characters that our new PC doesn't know.  Maybe our new character has a background which makes sense for them to know some things, maybe they've made the right connections in game to actually have gained this knowledge, maybe they've simply lived long enough to have amassed a lot of information about the world.  But if they haven't, then it's up to us to not let them 'know things.'

There is OOC sharing, and there is OOC abuse.  One is not in the spirit of the game and has the potential to ruin plots, the other...not so much.  But it comes down to players policing themselves and deciding whether to use information or not.  Short of using a keylogger to prove there is sharing which might lead to abuse...what can staff do?

One suggestion was that players who learned things OOC could alert staff that there had been sharing... Does staff want however many requests to deal with that are essentially a bunch of grown-ups tattling on one and other?  Is it that hard for people to just not use the OOC information that they know and their PC doesn't?

We still haven't talked about the other person who is wronged here. What about the player of the noble who now has to play around the knowledge. They've had the element of surprise robbed from them.

I am friends with many of you. Most of you I avoid these discussions with.  Sometimes you guys say too much. Sometimes I have said too much. Generally we are ok. We do our best. We show up, play, and we aren't cheating. We also tell each other when we've crossed a line. Sometimes it's hard to say and hard to hear. That's ok. We still say it and hear it.


We are not the problem.

The problem is when people rely on friendships to avoid risk or gain advantage. The problem is when instead of exerting influence in game you influence how your friends play in discord or aim or at a bar.

I don't know but what staff could or should do. I know that we can police ourselves and each other. Don't make excuses to justify how and why we can be cheaters, or why it's ok to be mediocre. Do better. If you fuck up, own it and do better.

My god, you people have written a book since I was gone.

We should have some polls on this.

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 09:56:19 AM
While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

The very operative word here is 'can'. I'm also not one to need to discuss my previous PCs. Did I get a kick out of some mentions in the 'Whatever Happened To...?' thread? Sure, but I sometimes feel like the loose 'one year rule' isn't long enough in some instances (which, by the way, isn't a rule, it's just sort of an understanding with Staff). Other times, I don't think there's a big deal about it. For instance, with Tuluk closed, who cares if players gab to each other about plots that happened there, especially over 10 years ago? It not only seems draconian, it seems pointlessly draconian.

If it gets people excited about the game to talk about the 'Good Old Days', or get people to come back and play (or start playing for the first time, as was the case with myself and many others currently playing the game) how can Staff discourage that sort of behavior? I again think Staff needs to consider having an outlet on the GDB for this sort of thing, so that there is a sanctioned place (monitored by Staff) that this can happen in. As well, I think it's imperative that the Original Submissions be fixed. These safe outlets for sharing previous stories and logs will 100% go a long way to ameliorate the need for players in the playerbase to talk to each other on Gchat and AIM and whatever.

As it was pointed out by others in this thread, cheaters will be cheaters. Maybe we should realize that we were all 'that person' at one point or another, and not make it seem like they are 'bad people over there'. We've all done something shitty with some sort of OOC collusion. The 'cheaters' have misguided intentions, and should be given examples like the Freil story to see what kind of damage OOC collusion can inflict on the game environment, so they can change their own mind and decide to put aside OOC collusion for the betterment of the game.

The part that Nergal is right about, with social chatter and how it 'can' affect the game negatively, is that innocuous conversations out of the game can very quickly become OOC collusion. I try to make it very clear up front with people if I don't feel comfortable talking about this or that, or basically where the line is. I used to be very fuzzy on that line in the past, within the first 5 years of playing the game. I decided (after having a plot I was involved in similarly ruined by what I found out later to be an OOC clique of people working against my group of people) to delete my AIM list or otherwise block people who I spoke with about Armageddon. It vastly improved my experience in the game, but after a time, I felt that I was missing the community. So I decided to reach back out to some of the people I had blocked, but set some ground rules so we just discussed RL and 'the way back PCs'.

I've made some great friends from the community in this game, and I think it's a shame if Staff doesn't recognize that fully. Some people have married each other from contacting each other outside of this game. We, as a playerbase, and I imagine as Staff, enjoy the OOC community we have built around the game. So -- To say that even 'casual chatter' can negatively affect the game in essence says -- Don't talk to each other outside of the game. Not only is that not going to happen, but it's I think unnecessary to posit.

---

Instead, I think we need to figure out what is and isn't a healthy OOC conversation. And what sorts of OOC collusion (pretty much all of it, but examples) that have ruined plots, and what to avoid in the future. That's all.

Yes, the operative word is "can". And it's healthy to want to talk about something you enjoy. Some amount of moderation (and self-moderation, in particular) is needed to maintain that which you enjoy, in this case.

I didn't read the entire thread, so if I repeat a point or something, sorry in advance.

But I like what Barzelene said.

Quote from: Barzalene on October 28, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
We still haven't talked about the other person who is wronged here. What about the player of the noble who now has to play around the knowledge. They've had the element of surprise robbed from them.

I am friends with many of you. Most of you I avoid these discussions with.  Sometimes you guys say too much. Sometimes I have said too much. Generally we are ok. We do our best. We show up, play, and we aren't cheating. We also tell each other when we've crossed a line. Sometimes it's hard to say and hard to hear. That's ok. We still say it and hear it.


We are not the problem.

The problem is when people rely on friendships to avoid risk or gain advantage. The problem is when instead of exerting influence in game you influence how your friends play in discord or aim or at a bar.

I don't know but what staff could or should do. I know that we can police ourselves and each other. Don't make excuses to justify how and why we can be cheaters, or why it's ok to be mediocre. Do better. If you fuck up, own it and do better.

And I agree. 100%. Staff monitoring can only go so far, but in the end, it's up to the players to be responsible. We all love this game, and we don't want to see this game go to ruins. There is a reason why the rules forbade OOC communication, and while I understand that because we enjoy sharing good experience with people, we also have to understand when to stop.

I think it should be okay to share casual things about the game, as long as they aren't spoilers. For example, one thing I enjoy talking OOC to my friends about the game is discussion on certain roleplaying aspects, such as, 'How do you think a standard Stormer behaves when faced with an outsider? What is the standard Stormer's psyche in comparison to a regular Nakki's?' These things don't give out any IC spoilers, but are still conversations about the game, which I think should be considered harmless.

I don't think it's okay to share too much, and it's certainly not okay to affect the players you talk to OOCly in order to manipulate them into playing their PCs to your advantage. Because when that happens, it nurses an atmosphere of paranoia, aka the witch hunt. And to be honest, this atmosphere does nothing but ruins trust in staff, and in players. While we cannot control what other people do, we can control what we do, and if we all stop ourselves from giving away too much IC information, perhaps trust between players, between staff, and within the whole community, can be increased.

If someone starts pushing the boundaries, we shouldn't encourage them. Be better ourselves, and things will get better.

I think it's also important to communicate better. I can see how the idea of 'cliques' can happen. I think part of the reason is the consolidation of the playerbase. I'm pretty sure I've played with more than one player in multiple clans with characters in quick successions. It wasn't intentional in my part, and I certainly don't know the player OOC, but it just so happens that we enjoy playing in the same type of clans. From staff side, it would appear that I'm playing with my OOC friend all the time, when in reality, I'm not.

So if that happens, and staff notices oddity like this, I, as a player, would love staff to send me an email and let me know that this is happening, so that I have a chance to explain myself. I feel communication is extremely essential in this game, more so than other games. If trust is to be cultivated, then good communication is key.

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 11:42:02 AM
Yes, the operative word is "can". And it's healthy to want to talk about something you enjoy. Some amount of moderation (and self-moderation, in particular) is needed to maintain that which you enjoy, in this case.

Right -- The original question of the thread being 'What can Staff do about this?' I think (in my opinion) is answered by -- Set parameters as to what you consider to be OOC collusion, or healthy self-moderated OOC collaboration/conversation. I think the area is quite grey, and could be made a bit more solid out of the ether.

Is it OK to discuss Magick Mechanics? No, here's why (anecdotal story, or just examples of why the mystery can be greater than the OOC knowledge)

Is it OK to discuss current IG events and PCs? No, here's why (anecdotal story #1, and #2)

Is it OK to discuss past PCs? Sort of, here's some guidelines.

---

I think when you have the ShadowBoard, and there will always be something like that, you have a new player coming to the game who isn't used to this secretive, non-inclusive environment. They are used to WoW, or other MUDs with global channels, and so on. So from the outside in, i'm sure this appears to be Much Illuminati. And on the Shadowboards, they can just speak their mind freely and discuss whatever they want.

So I think until we distill the 'why' behind OOC Collusion and spell it out very neatly, it's going to remain very esoteric and subjective.

In my view, what is problematic is not OOC communication but the simple act of using knowledge your character should not have.  And this can happen from a variety of different sources: the internet, OOC communication, or a previous PC.  So I don't think the focus should be on OOC communication, since, again: you can use knowledge from a previous PC to ruin a plot/cheat.  (Take Nergal's example: that plot could have been ruined in the exact same way owing to a PC using their knowledge from their previous PC [killed by Freil, or even one of the PCs who died].)  Likewise, your enjoyment of a plot can also be ruined from knowledge you acquired from a previous PC, e.g., you saw that PC cast on an earlier PC, but this PC doesn't know.  

Handling the onus of prior (or outside) knowledge is part of learning the ropes of an RPI.  And it won't be easy or obvious to people at first.

Hence, I think the focus should be on the explicit act of cheating, with a warning system (like plagiarism cases): the first time, you are brought into the office and the reason why this is bad is explained to you in a humane way, and a mark is placed on your permanent record, and you are told that if this happens again, there will be severe punishments, which you should recognize, since the reasons why this is bad were explained to you).

I also think it should be on us the players to regulate this -- whether it be through ratting or whatever, but perhaps some sort of FAQ about why using knowledge from a previous PC is so bad -- with examples -- would be something useful to have.  Staff could then point to this when such cases come up -- it is nice in plagiarism cases to just point a student to a page that explains why plagiarism is bad, since in this day and age where potential First Ladies even do it, apparently, students don't even know that it is bad.

Be smart.

Be mature.

Consider the consequences of your actions.

Don't talk about shit you think is probably borderline.

I know these are really unhelpful, vague things to say, but we can't underestimate the importance of just being responsible adults.

Again, I think the majority of people understand the "We shouldn't talk about the game because it can ruin things". The reminders are nice, and the examples that AREN'T ALWAYS THE ONLY ONE ANYONE HAS EVER WRITTEN are helpful.

I think the issue is still how to make it happen less often, not "how to eliminate it altogether". The idea of delineating offenses is a good one, fixing Original Submissions is another, and having a place where things CAN be talked about under staff supervision help as well. There are things that have happened in the game that some other player could extemporize on or at least attempt again, but without knowing what has ever happened other than "what a bunch of NPCs did, in a staff story, behind the scenes" there is only so much that can happen.

I hate to be 'that guy', but it sounds like one of the vocal cliques here are the ones that have had plots ruined by OOC, and KNOW it was ruined by OOC, which means someone TOLD them it was.

I harken back to an old story where I was playing a PC (I think I have the right one) that was kicked out of Tuluk for something that he had no part in, joined the Byn and had a mental breakdown there, and finally attempted to join Salarr. Unfortunately, the Salarri in charge was not fond of paying protection coin to a group of people that prefer it otherwise. So on my like 2nd RL day in the clan, I was told to buy some rocks somewhere, and was OneHitKilled by a backstab.

I had NO idea what happened. You get no mention that anything happened other than a mantis head. I knew I was dead because I couldn't log in, but I had no idea what happened. I pulled a LOT of strings to at least get the information that it was basically "wrong place wrong time" because my boss wasn't paying her bills. I missed my plots with that character, but they died for something and I was glad to know it. I take the game seriously, but I don't take myself seriously. Staff were not willing to share with me WHY I died or anything that happened. I ADMIT to using OOC channels to find out what happened, and I would honestly do it again. The fact that normally I'd have to wait MINIMUM one year to find out why I got 0-prompt killed on a PC that hadn't done anything to make enemies yet would, if I were a new person, outright kill my mood to play.

I know Staff and Players alike put energy into plots. And I can't imagine how it feels when they get destroyed (because I'm terrible). But its something that WILL happen, regardless of what rules you put in place. So put in official guidelines and loosen restrictions so it CAN happen without too much issue.

QuoteWhile I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively.

A lot of things done by both staff and players can have very real negative impacts on the game and its community, I agree.  As noted, 90% with you on this topic.  The extent to which posts in this thread seem to say otherwise is that overdoing it is just as harmful, which I happen to agree with.  Do not start treating benign cases of adults playing video games as hostile entities because of not liking their actions.  They are just your players enjoying the game.

Note:  Benign cases.  That's a qualifier, I'm not condoning that everyone should just be allowed to be a chatterbox wherever they want.  I've had some things ruined/misled by (mis)information posted elsewhere, where just because someone was allowed to post it, other people took it as absolutely qualified to make the post and that they were in-the-know because they posted.

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 09:56:19 AM
While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

Here is a very old story about a plot being ruined by seemingly innocent OOC chatter. Sometime later today/this weekend, I will write a series of posts about plots that have been spoiled or ruined in this manner in my time as a staff member (so, the past couple of years) and post them in this thread. I will leave out player and character names, but all other facts will remain. I will ask that players don't identify themselves or others that are in these stories.

Quote
Many times, I've heard players say they'd like to be able to see behind the scenes of Armageddon. That they'd like to be able to find out what the whole story is.

This will be a chance to see one small part of the world, that you probably haven't seen before. I'm going to tell you about a quest, some of the motivations behind it, and the actions that transpired. Why am I going to do this?

Because some people were talking on isca, and spread some OOC info. I could continue the quest even with people knowing what they've heard there, but it just won't be that much fun for anyone involved, myself included. Those players spreading OOC info effectively killed the quest.

I hope that you take the time to read this, and that the next time that you are in a situation where you might feel like telling someone something that happened In Character, that you will think about how you may be ruining someone else's fun.

There was a dwarf, a defiler, named Freil. He used his magick to put people to sleep and rob them, while he slowly grew in power. For over 5 months his attacks in Tuluk and Allanak had people hunting for the sorcerer, although none knew what he looked like. Freil had his own motivations for his actions, most of which was to extend his life, as the old dwarf was nearing the end of his days. I would give you his whole life history, but this post will be too lengthy already.

Finally, Freil got overly greedy, and set upon a group of 4 Jkarr who were outside of the city. One was able to see the invisible dwarf, and Freil fled, angry that after several years of robberies, his description was now going to get out. He tried to talk the Jkarr into saying that he'd killed Freil, in exchange for money and help, but the Jkarr refused. At this point, probably 15 or more players were involved in the quest, either hunting Freil, or having been targets of his.

It is at this point, that the first player who engaged in the OOC talk that ultimitely ruined the quest, became involved. PC1 walked widely through the streets of Tuluk, asking people if they wished to go "hunting defilers", and one of Freil's spies heard him, and reported it to the dwarf. PC1 was ambushed on the road, and his backpack stolen while he slept a magickal sleep. Several more encounters between the two took place, Freil managing to stay a step ahead of PC1. Freil again, tried to bribe PC1 into telling others Freil was dead, but PC1 refused, and boasted of killing other sorcerers, and what he'd do to Freil. At this point, Freil grew so angry at PC1, that he dedicated his focus to ruining PC1's life.

Freil, in searching to extend his life, developed a new magick. He gained the ability to create an image of PC1, though the cost was great. It would only last for a short time, but Freil was able to control the fake-PC1 while his body lay dormant, for periods up to an hour or two.

Several times, the fake PC1 went forth, insulting friends, and causing trouble. Freil's goal was to eventually make things so bad for PC1, that his own friends would kill him.

Freil also never gave PC1 rest, and several times tried to drag PC1 away from his friends, put him to sleep, then defile the land until he could create the fake-PC1, and send him back in.

It was soon after this, that PC1 and PC2, out hunting for Freil, were attacked by undead from an entirely different source. PC2 sent out a message to a third person (PC3), telling him that they were probably going to die, and to pass on some final words to a loved one of his if they didn't make it out.

They made it out, although PC 3 was not around at the time to know it. PC1 and PC2 went on to have several very high-profile adventures over the next few real life days. PC1 and PC2 though, went out exploring some more, and managed to get themselves killed. No one knew where they had gone, or that they were dead.

I, as an immortal, knew they had died. However, Freil had no way of knowing, and so he continued using the fake-PC1 to set the character up. I was very gratified to see the puzzled reactions of some of PC1's friends as he told them he'd struck an agreement with the defiler, but that they couldn't talk about it until he said it was safe (so that they wouldn't mention it again to the real PC1).

I planned to continue like this, and saw many possibilities for if Freil and the fake-PC. I guesstimate that over 20 characters had been involved in the quest to this point, and if I played the fake-PC well, I could probably involve a lot of players in the game.

Until... I log in, and hear people talking about how both of these characters are dead. PC3, who had been told the two were dying, had heard OOC that they'd died. Because of this, he never bothered to ask around to see if they were still alive. He instead just started telling people they were dead. If the players of the 2 dead PC's had not spread the word on ISCA they had died, PC3, who heard of the other adventures these 2 had had after their close call, would have inquired as to the timing, and found out they had been seen for IC weeks after he'd received the contact. Indeed, soon after their death, the fake-PC1 showed up and was seen by at least 10 players.

Well, now that everyone knows they are really dead, it really does make it hard me to run the quest. Those people who were directly interacting with the fake-PC1, would have had a lot of fun, I think, as they gradually figured out their friend wasn't what they thought he was. But now they know he is really dead, even OOCly, they were robbed of the chance to figure it all out on their own by the OOC actions of all 3 players.

That is why I'm posting this. That is why I'm taking the time to tell you the whole story. When you talk OOC, you are screwing over your fellow players. Even seemingly insignificant things like this, hurt the game, and ruin other people's fun.

The next time you find yourself in a situation where you want to tell a friend something that happened on the mud, please remember this story. We all love Armageddon, and it is natural to want to talk about it. But maybe you can reminesce about a character who is long dead instead, and save that new tale for somewhere down the road.

- Thanas

If Freil had just killed PC1 instead of trying to be a magickal tryhard everything would have been fine.

And are you for sure that PC3 learned that his friends were dead OOC? It sounds like Pc3 was told IC that they were dying, and then never got IC confirmation that that was not the case. Going around treating them as if they were dead seems acceptable. And it would still have "ruined" the plot.

Addendum: This example really just seems to prove the point that plots only become "ruined" when things go off script to the disgruntlement of the plot-runner.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 27, 2016, 07:25:06 PM
There's still plenty going on in the game.  
Edit: Mostly, just wanting to point out that lack of talking on the GDB about IC events doesn't mean nothing cool is going on, but to keep things...
On topic:  Spoiling plots sucks unless it's in the name of your own plot/personal story (i.e. It's still progressing a narrative).  Don't ruin things to try and win the game.  On the same note, don't assume everyone who ruins your plot is just out to piss in your cheerios or win the game.  It's demoralizing when you finally do something of note with a character that you hope will springboard into great things, only to have everyone get pissed off that their fun time ended and accuse you of ruining the game just because you could.

While I understand what you're saying and that I trust you when you say 'there's still plenty going on in the game', those are just your words and they don't really affect me much (in a way that would make me want to come back)

If you want to know what used to make me come back to the game and what tickles me in a way that'd totally makes me miss the game, go to the Jcarter & friends site and read some of Desertman's stories about his character Koman Locke - That's the kind of stuff that totally makes me miss the game but that stuff rarely if ever happens anymore on the GDB, so any form of hype is completely dead.

The GDB now for me is mostly just a bunch of people I barely know complaining about random stuff in their life or which video games they are currently playing.

Frankly, if you care more about your plots than your players, you're looking at it back asswards.  Staff and player run plots almost never work out to exact detail, and the corpses of dead plots are like a sea of slaughtered chalton.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it, but plots are not perfect by design.  A player, on the other hand, can light up the game for a decade or more.

Nobody likes collusion.  I'm sure even the people who do it are under some self-delusion that they're doing it because "other people are doing it, so I have to" or "staff is against me".  If you have clear evidence of it, by all means, punish it.  But you're not going to stop people from talking about the game, as this is a community that often has no other social outlet in regards to this game.  How many of you, including staff, have never talked about the game to another player?

The grey area will always be grey, because it's something that has to be self-policed.  We have to be responsible for ourselves.  If you alienate people for talking about the game, you're going to have all these shiny plots, and nobody to take the helm.  I don't believe this is something you can recruit snitches among the playerbase to fix.  I don't think you can ink in a few one-size-fits-all punishments, and expect it will resolve itself.  We have to, as a community, illustrate the best ways to teach new (and old) players how to take on the responsibility, and use the correct judgment in conversations.

And lastly, expect mistakes.  Your players are humans, not robots.  There will be mistakes.  How you address them will ultimately determine the quality of the game we're playing.  My advice is to lead with a warning, and a discussion about player responsibility.

1.  Desire to share experiences

2.  Desire to figure things out

3.  Desire to achieve things
3a.  Massive benefit to cooperating to achieve things
3b.  Cooperation is logistically simpler OOC than IC.

4.  Very little in the way of secure IC comms
4a.  Obvious massive benefit to secure comms
4b.  OOC secure comms are logistically far simpler than IC methods

5.  Difficulty of enforcement

6.  Ease of OOC communication
6a.  Sometimes massive benefits to OOC coordination

Doubt it will ever change.  It seems to have gotten somewhat better, but maybe I'm just not in with the cool kids anymore (not that I ever was).  Human behavior is what it is.  You can lament it all you want, but it's not going to change significantly.

QuoteIf you want to know what used to make me come back to the game and what tickles me in a way that'd totally makes me miss the game, go to the Jcarter & friends site and read some of Desertman's stories about his character Koman Locke - That's the kind of stuff that totally makes me miss the game but that stuff rarely if ever happens anymore on the GDB, so any form of hype is completely dead.

The GDB has never really been the place for game-hype generation.  It's a place where the community meets to discuss/argue about things in the game world, but not necessarily things within the game world (I think someone was making this distinction earlier and how strange that it was, but with the prevalence of the need to keep IC things IC, it makes sense).  Frankly, Malken, you've talked a long time about 'Well, I'd come back if...' or 'I sometimes want to come back but...' so that you're like a bad, on the fence ex-girlfriend.  You already know what's in the game, you already know whether or not you enjoy it, but you like using discussion of it as a way to set conditions.  If you feel like coming back, come back.  But the GDB's role is not as a hype-generator for you to lurk on and draw you back.  It's for current issues or discussions of the game and its facets, and that's that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------EDIT: Separating response from on-topic------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mostly, I concur with Synthesis, but not to the same degree, I don't think.  I still don't -want- IC things spread around all over the place.  You could cut off fingers on one of my hands, and you could still count the number of people I'm in contact with OOC'ly on that hand.  There are occasional PM's here on the GDB, but they drastically lean towards discussion of GDB topics or broad generalities about the game.  This isn't because of sheer integrity or fear of staff, but because I've seen players do really shitty things in the past based off of OOC info, where I would always assume they wouldn't (the IRC days with Delerak and company were not high points of my arming tenure).

With player viewpoints voiced as they are, I think perhaps a new method of dealing with it may be in order.  Less of the hammer based on logos, and more of the pathos and ethos of the community.  If staff think they're seeing an example of it occurring, then open up a secure communication between the one harmed and the one harming.  Get a deposition from the one who was wronged by the use of OOC info.  Have them explain positions to each other, what was ruined, etc, without revealing identities in the least.  While this may seem flimsy, it opens up those cases where you think your good intent shields you from doing harm, and if you are indeed having good intent, this should open up the path to realizing that you did negatively impact the situation.  Most of us seem to have a good deal of love for the game, and best intentions for our place within it.  Feeling empathy for another's position, rather than feeling defensive over what may be false assertions, seems a more reliable way to correct bad instances of sharing.

Meanwhile, what this also does is put a burden on the staff before jumping to the conclusion that this is OOC collusion or abuse of ooc info, because the very act of disciplining it/correcting it grants exposure to OOC info.  You're going to be sure before doing it, instead of assuming it because of first appearances and emotions on how something turned out.  Overall, this may be an incredibly unhelpful system, but it at least exemplifies a much better treatment of both the game and the players than 'We suspect this.  Punishment ensues.  Your defenses are suspect because we suspect this.'  Because whenever this topic comes up, this is the part that I -actually- have a problem with, because it is -never- the actions of players that make me want to leave this game.  It is always interactions I have with staff.

tl;dr
If OOC sharing is as super prevalent as it once was in the game, I'd be appalled.  But maybe that's just because I've been so far removed from the whole AIM/ICQ/MSN/IRC community of Arm for long enough that I no longer notice that kind of behavior in game as much as when people used to outright coordinate attacks on pc's via ooc channels.  But I think the best move for staff isn't to come down harder with bigger catapults against the walls of the OOC community; we should be trying an altogether different approach based on shared values of the integrity of the game.  When that happens, it will be painfully clear who simply doesn't have those values of the game.

Re: Nergal's example.  (Examples are good!)

If I were staff, what would I have done?

First, as BadSkeelz pointed out, this could have not been OOC collusion at all.  If someone ways me to say they are going into a dangerous place and might not return, and then I don't find their minds for the next couple of days, I assume they are dead, and might even go around saying so.  There's a tricky thing about the way here, something that has always bothered me -- a few things: if you are close to someone, you should be able to way their family to see if they check in, etc., etc.   But in any case, it does seem that the player in question who went around stating that his friend was dead should be given a benefit of the doubt here.

Now, even so, this is suspicious, right?  So, what would I, as staff, have done?

o Make a note -- a permanent record -- stating the suspicion.

o If this is the first note of such nature, ignore it.

o If there are other notes of such nature, then it is time to either approach the player or monitor them more closely.

How would I approach the player?

In this particular case, granted the reasonable assumption of innocence, I likely wouldn't.  But if I did, I would come to them with the full explanation up front in a manner that isn't accusatory.  Look, here's what happened when your PC went around advertising Bob's death.  This, in fact, ruined the plot.  I'm not sure if you assumed Bob was dead or if you were colluding, but here's our nice little FAQ about collusion and how even the littlest things can ruin plots and fun for staff and players.

Maybe we could have an Allanak/Red Storm/Luirs subforum?

Quote from: Iiyola on October 28, 2016, 03:36:45 PM
Maybe we could have an Allanak/Red Storm/Luirs subforum?

I'm not sure how this would work.
I'd like it though.

So I've been sticking back and just reading for now... I haven't had too much to weigh in on, but I will add a few points.

In no way would I ever tell someone to not talk about the game at all.  I'd be guilty of that... shit, a few players that I've met know I'd be guilty of that.  I love talking about the game, I will talk about things that are kinda IC related, but I won't talk about something that could very likely have IC consequences.  I am not going to talk about the Psion that has been very active in the game.  I'm not going to talk about how I did this cool thing that will likely get someone killed.  I will talk about some awesome past characters, some neat things I did in game, and talk about some great riots that happened in the game recently.  Now I mentioned something that is recent... yes... I did.  This is an item that is public, it's on the boards...  this is something that someone could easily find out IC, so something like that I'm not worried about.  I'm not going to talk about my current character and his plot to kill Noble Fancypants Poopsmith.  Lastly, I'm not going to ask the player I'm talking with to see if they'd like to work together IC.  I can already see everyone's characters, so that cat is already out of the bag... so I don't care if a player talks recent events with me, as long as they are not near my own character.  I'll warn them if it does come near it though, as I don't want things spoiled for my own character... but you'll have to understand, it happens more than you realize.  (I accidentally found out one time that another player was out to kill my current character at the time... holy crap can that be hard to deal with.)

I hope you guys can see the difference here that I'm trying to explain.  The hope is that we can prevent people from spoiling a bit too much with other players.  To stop the people that intentionally talking OOC with each other about current events that will likely affect their character.

I think akin to saying 'Did you watch last week's Westworld? Did you get to the part where X happened?' sometimes people unintentionally ruin things simply because they don't know where the line is drawn in the sand. I think people who are veterans of the game have figured this out over time -- We've crossed the line, seen what the line is mostly, and know when to draw back.

However, I think because there isn't a base line, there isn't a document stating 'This is what OOC Collusion looks like', there's just the one story of Freil posted over and over again from 10+ years ago (15+?), there isn't anything beyond a speculative, eye-of-the-beholder line. Some people who are new don't even understand there should be a line, or why there is that line that shouldn't be crossed.

So -- I do think that spelling things out nicely would help everyone.

I do think Nergal posting more recent examples would help as well -- Having more than one ancient anecdotal story would help.

Quote from: Ath on October 28, 2016, 03:48:28 PM
So I've been sticking back and just reading for now... I haven't had too much to weigh in on, but I will add a few points.

In no way would I ever tell someone to not talk about the game at all.  I'd be guilty of that... shit, a few players that I've met know I'd be guilty of that.  I love talking about the game, I will talk about things that are kinda IC related, but I won't talk about something that could very likely have IC consequences.  I am not going to talk about the Psion that has been very active in the game.  I'm not going to talk about how I did this cool thing that will likely get someone killed.  I will talk about some awesome past characters, some neat things I did in game, and talk about some great riots that happened in the game recently.  Now I mentioned something that is recent... yes... I did.  This is an item that is public, it's on the boards...  this is something that someone could easily find out IC, so something like that I'm not worried about.  I'm not going to talk about my current character and his plot to kill Noble Fancypants Poopsmith.  Lastly, I'm not going to ask the player I'm talking with to see if they'd like to work together IC.  I can already see everyone's characters, so that cat is already out of the bag... so I don't care if a player talks recent events with me, as long as they are not near my own character.  I'll warn them if it does come near it though, as I don't want things spoiled for my own character... but you'll have to understand, it happens more than you realize.  (I accidentally found out one time that another player was out to kill my current character at the time... holy crap can that be hard to deal with.)

I hope you guys can see the difference here that I'm trying to explain.  The hope is that we can prevent people from spoiling a bit too much with other players.  To stop the people that intentionally talking OOC with each other about current events that will likely affect their character.

Sadly, the people who -do- talk intentionally for the collusion, aren't going to respect the kind requests of those who would rather not. If they don't talk to you, they'll talk to somene else. They will eventually find like-minded people to collude with, and collusion will occur. These people are either a) not reading this thread at all, b) read it and think "yeah except, this isn't about ME, it's about those OTHER colluders," or c) read it and snicker about how the rest of us are butt-hurt over a game.

Hopefully though the ones who don't do it intentionally, but sort of just get carried away, will be a) reading this, b) recognize themselves in it, and c) not snicker but instead, reign it in a bit.

And those are the one that the hammer will come down on once we find them out.

Also, to pick up some things said about from Patuk and others:

I'd lean more on the side of taking it easy vis-a-vis the whole collusion punishment thing, and just focus on those who break a given rule in clear cut cases -- looting your own corpse, knowing the cure for heramide as a rinther, etc.  I recognize that it sucks to have a plot ruined, one that you have invested a lot of time and energy into.  But, from the other side, getting accused of something also sucks.  A lot.

o You risk alienating players who are actually innocent.  I've had my run-ins with staff, and I can tell you: nothing burnt my desire to tell a story more than this.

o You risk placing too much emphasis on winning over storytelling by adopting the assumption that someone is out to win.

o To a lesser extent (as mentioned above by some other people), those who do collude intentionally are doing so out of a zeal and love of at least one aspect of the game.  As long as it doesn't manifest in an actual ruined plot, it actually has the counter-intuitive-seeming effect of drawing more excitement into the game.

Quote from: Ath on October 28, 2016, 04:27:33 PM
And those are the one that the hammer will come down on once we find them out.

I'm totally outing you to the player of Lord Fancypants Poopsmith.

But yeah - if you catch'em because they are truly -that- dumb, they deserve the hammer.

To those who are challenging the veracity of the Freils the dwarf story - it happened. You can say "what if" til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, the "what if" has no relevance here. It DID happen as reported, it's a legend of a story, it DID ruin plotlines, and it WAS caused by OOC collusion.

There have been other situations that - if you were on staff and logged in at the times, would have seen blatant collusion activity. Examples (hypothetical, but some variation of this stuff HAS happened):

Amos the Ranger is out hunting in the Grey Forest. Amos finds himself being attacked by an aggro critter. He gets down to 0hps and 0 stun points, and the mob stops attacking (as some mobs do).

Less than a minute later, Amos's girlfriend Talia (who wasn't in the game at the time) logs in and, with zero RP, not a think, or an attempt at Waying Amos, goes to the stable, gets her mount, and rides to the exact spot where Amos is, kills the mob, bandages Amos, and they go back to their apartment to mudsex.

Story two:

Nancy the gemmed rukkian is hobnobbing with Lord Templar Poopsmith at the Dome. Lord Templar Poopsmith goes AFK for around 15 seconds. During this 15-second period of time, Randy the Rinthi logs in and makes his way out of the rinth toward the Dome. Poopsmith returns to the scene and walks Nancy out. At the moment they arrive in sight of the road, Poopsmith gets a poisoned arrow in his neck, and Randy the Rinthi runs back to the rinth.

There's no "what if" going on here. It's pretty obvious that Randy shows up outside the Dome, because someone told him out-of-game to log in and show up there. It's obvious that Amos told Talia in IM that he was almost dead and needed rescuing, told her -exactly- where to find him, and she logged in and did exactly that.

Those are the things that you shouldn't NEED any discussion or warning over. They're against the rules, and it's obvious that's what you did, so the first time you're caught doing it, you are informed "You and Talia's player are no longer allowed to play in the same clan, AND we'll be watching you for a few months." and "Randy Rinthi player can't play in the Guild anymore, and Nancy you can't play a rukkian for awhile. Karma options are earned partly via trust, and you just lost some of that with us. AND we'll be watching you both for awhile."

When you frame it like that, it could be obvious, sure.  But I've also been that guy who randomly logged in to suddenly find myself immediately wandering into a shitstorm of things.

Make it more grey, because that's how it will normally be.  What if person A and person B are almost always checking for each other upon logging in?  When person B logs in, and checks in with person A, and gets told this is going on, and immediately moves to react, do you now make the assumption they were in contact and person A told them to log in?  Or is it circumstance?

In my experience, it is sometimes left alone, but in the case that it did just essentially change/end someone's plot, it can be assumed it was collusion even though it wasn't.  As nauta said, that's an incredibly shitty feeling, having a long-standing trend in behavior reduced to ooc collusion because of the circumstance at the time and the disappointment in how things ended.

I'm saying the hammer can come down on those in cases like your first one, but not necessarily the second.

QuoteTo those who are challenging the veracity of the Freils the dwarf story - it happened. You can say "what if" til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, the "what if" has no relevance here. It DID happen as reported, it's a legend of a story, it DID ruin plotlines, and it WAS caused by OOC collusion.

I think you're missing the point of the what ifs.  It isn't to disprove the original story.  It's to make it known that it's not really a reliable precedent to make disciplinary action based off of it.  Unless you're a fan of 'It's worth punishing the potentially innocent in an effort to make sure we get all the baddies.'

Yeah, I don't doubt the veracity of the story -- But it's akin to mentioning how Thrain Ironsword was a baller RPer and blah blah blah. It's just a long ass time ago. Having a story that is relevant to current affairs (give or take a year) might hit people more in their feel-centers, as it relates more to them and they might have been around for it, so they can empathize.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 28, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
When you frame it like that, it could be obvious, sure.  But I've also been that guy who randomly logged in to suddenly find myself immediately wandering into a shitstorm of things.

Make it more grey, because that's how it will normally be.  What if person A and person B are almost always checking for each other upon logging in?  When person B logs in, and checks in with person A, and gets told this is going on, and immediately moves to react, do you now make the assumption they were in contact and person A told them to log in?  Or is it circumstance?

If I were the victim, I wouldn't really care that there was ooc collusion as long as 1) I didn't hear about it and 2) the collusion was roleplayed out in game and made SENSE to be roleplayed out in game. If your character doesn't know mine from a hole in the wall and your buddy tells you that my PC hangs out in the same bar but just an hour earlier, so log in early and kill my PC - I don't care how much you RP it out - it doesn't make any sense that your character would be in that bar, that time of "week," knowing in advance that my character is someone who needs to die. But if your character has had run-ins with mine, and has already formed a negative opinion of her, and your buddy says "hey log in, Lizzie's got her PC at the bar" - I'll be blissfully ignorant of any OOC shenanigans, and I, the player, will feel that my character's assassination was legit because our characters had an unpleasant history between them.

If I found out a few RL years after that yeah you arranged for my PC's death with a pal in twitter DMs, I'd probably think - wow - and I never knew, plus I got an interesting death. Bonus for all involved.

As for the rest of the "what ifs" it's no different to me from some 8-year-old kid when mom says "You can't go out tonight." And the kid says "what if I ..." and proceeds to nag his mother about every possible possibility that could possibly crop up that might result in mom letting him go out. It'd just make me think "just stop. Really. You're not 8. Use common sense." That goes both ways - staff and players.

Quote from: Lizzie on October 28, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
Amos the Ranger is out hunting in the Grey Forest. Amos finds himself being attacked by an aggro critter. He gets down to 0hps and 0 stun points, and the mob stops attacking (as some mobs do).

Less than a minute later, Amos's girlfriend Talia (who wasn't in the game at the time) logs in and, with zero RP, not a think, or an attempt at Waying Amos, goes to the stable, gets her mount, and rides to the exact spot where Amos is, kills the mob, bandages Amos, and they go back to their apartment to mudsex.

Those are funny.  I think it does happen, and those kinds of players really have no class.  But let's propose another scenario.

Player A and player B are friends.  They met on Arm, and they like to talk about the game, because they have no one else to talk about this wonderful experience.  Player A isn't playing around player B, in fact, they may have played together at one time, but rarely play anymore.  So when player B dies to a scrabby, they're upset and need to vent about it, so of course, it's going to be with A.  It doesn't really affect A, they didn't know each other's characters anyway.  Is this really the worst thing that can happen?  Because I bet it happens a lot.

Who here remembers the time of the tuluki catgirl crap?

They had discovered that the tuluki noble was kanking what was essentially a catgirl mutant in his estate without telling anyone.

I'm wondering how long that was going on before they were caught.

Quote from: a french mans shirt on October 28, 2016, 05:37:31 PM
Who here remembers the time of the tuluki catgirl crap?

They had discovered that the tuluki noble was kanking what was essentially a catgirl mutant in his estate without telling anyone.

I'm wondering how long that was going on before they were caught.

Not that long, from what I gathered at the time.

Mutant catgirl commoner would have been the real problem. Sounds like poor staff oversight, but then who really wants to be monitoring that kind of business.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 05:44:46 PM
Mutant catgirl commoner would have been the real problem. Sounds like poor staff oversight, but then who really wants to be monitoring that kind of business.

FWIW, I don't think it was poor Staff oversight. I mean, Catgirl's allowed existence via character approval, maybe, but I think they clamped down on that shit tight and quick. I was playing a Noble at the time and it was like maybe a couple RL days. The Nobles were there, then they weren't, and the reasons why became very clear very rapidly.

I'm confused what this has to do with the topic.  That was a weird twist.

Slightly off-topic, for sure. How did that come up? Haha.

Quote from: Reiloth on October 28, 2016, 05:46:26 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 05:44:46 PM
Mutant catgirl commoner would have been the real problem. Sounds like poor staff oversight, but then who really wants to be monitoring that kind of business.

FWIW, I don't think it was poor Staff oversight. I mean, Catgirl's allowed existence via character approval, maybe, but I think they clamped down on that shit tight and quick. I was playing a Noble at the time and it was like maybe a couple RL days. The Nobles were there, then they weren't, and the reasons why became very clear very rapidly.

I bring up staff oversight because, from French's initial post, it makes it sound like the cat was only out of the bag once someone blabbed OOC and clued Staff in.

In my opinion, the Noble should have been punished because something of that nature would have been known to the VNPC populace of the estate. Which would require Staff to have been keeping an eye on the Noble and the Noble's guests' comings and goings. Staff should have (And could have) known to punish because of flagrant IC doc violation, not because of any OOC tattling.

Which just kind of proves my point that people are very quick to look for OOC justification and excuses for why their plots and characters go awry, when in reality there are very good IC reasons for them to go awry.

Quote from: Jihelu on October 28, 2016, 03:37:31 PM

Quote from: Iiyola on October 28, 2016, 03:36:45 PM
Maybe we could have an Allanak/Red Storm/Luirs subforum?

I'm not sure how this would work.
I'd like it though.

Same news as the rumor board, questions, discussions regarding the city, etc. Or even a general report of an RPT that has happened. It may sate peoples curiosity and it's much easier to regulate the exchange of these happenings between players.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 05:59:15 PM
Which just kind of proves my point that people are very quick to look for OOC justification and excuses for why their plots and characters go awry, when in reality there are very good IC reasons for them to go awry.

But wait, how do we know it was OOC tattling and not Staff monitoring? AFAIK, it was the latter?

And thus, a Legendary Rumor was born.

But yes, there are actually often perfectly normal IC circumstances as to why X happened to Person Y...But the OOC collusion is suspected immediately, perhaps by Staff and Players both. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt and just assume everything that happens IG is for IC reasons, but I dunno. I guess OOC collusion does happen and does ruin plots. I see both sides of it, though we all could perhaps benefit the most from assuming everything that happens IG is for IC reasons...And if you have a doubt, put in a complaint or ask Staff to take a look at it.

Quote from: Barzalene on October 28, 2016, 10:18:38 AM

Quote from: manipura on October 28, 2016, 02:05:59 AM

Quote from: Erythil on October 28, 2016, 01:31:09 AM
Stopping OOC collusion is impossible.  Efforts to do so will only create a witch-hunt atmosphere that is not fun for either players or staff.  There will always be a few people that form half-giant/elementalist/mul power ranger teams and who play the game to win.  It's not like you can put a keylogger on their AIM chats to prove they're doing it, either.

The only viable option, really, is trusting people to keep their IC knowledge and OOC knowledge separate.  I think an atmosphere of trust inspires more mature behavior then an atmosphere of draconian enforcement.

My tastes here are somewhat atypical, as I prefer a MUSH-style atmosphere where most players are free to share informaton with each other about ongoing plots and peek into the 'big picture,' and I realize this is not that kind of game.

To paraphrase what someone else said earlier in the thread, in lots of cases it isn't the OOC sharing that is problematic, it's what the players -do- with that information that is problematic.

In the example of the 'rinthi aide, the player of the disgruntled acquaintance, and the noble...sure it's frustrating when the truth is spilled OOC about something your character has been spending a good bit of time and effort plotting...but if the player of the noble learns the origin of their aide...guess what, they don't have to use that information.  Will they?  Maybe.  Who can say, that sort of thing depends on the player in question.  I would hope they wouldn't, but the fact is they might.  The point is...just because a player knows something OOC, it doesn't mean their PC knows it.  OOC sharing doesn't automatically ruin plots, that happens when players decide to abuse that OOC information.  

With every new character we all file away OOC knowledge and (hopefully) don't make it available to our new characters simply because we know it.  
We, the player, know things about the world and about other characters that our new PC doesn't know.  Maybe our new character has a background which makes sense for them to know some things, maybe they've made the right connections in game to actually have gained this knowledge, maybe they've simply lived long enough to have amassed a lot of information about the world.  But if they haven't, then it's up to us to not let them 'know things.'

There is OOC sharing, and there is OOC abuse.  One is not in the spirit of the game and has the potential to ruin plots, the other...not so much.  But it comes down to players policing themselves and deciding whether to use information or not.  Short of using a keylogger to prove there is sharing which might lead to abuse...what can staff do?

One suggestion was that players who learned things OOC could alert staff that there had been sharing... Does staff want however many requests to deal with that are essentially a bunch of grown-ups tattling on one and other?  Is it that hard for people to just not use the OOC information that they know and their PC doesn't?

We still haven't talked about the other person who is wronged here. What about the player of the noble who now has to play around the knowledge. They've had the element of surprise robbed from them.

I am friends with many of you. Most of you I avoid these discussions with.  Sometimes you guys say too much. Sometimes I have said too much. Generally we are ok. We do our best. We show up, play, and we aren't cheating. We also tell each other when we've crossed a line. Sometimes it's hard to say and hard to hear. That's ok. We still say it and hear it.


We are not the problem.

The problem is when people rely on friendships to avoid risk or gain advantage. The problem is when instead of exerting influence in game you influence how your friends play in discord or aim or at a bar.

I don't know but what staff could or should do. I know that we can police ourselves and each other. Don't make excuses to justify how and why we can be cheaters, or why it's ok to be mediocre. Do better. If you fuck up, own it and do better.

Yes, in this case the player of the noble has had the element of surprise robbed from them.  It's unfortunate but it's happened.  And now it's on them to use that information or not use it.
If this is such a horrible position to be in, then don't talk to the people on AIM ...or whatever the cool kids use nowadays... who are free with their game chatter.  It should take one time for you to realize whether or not this is someone you want to keep talking to.

If someone on your chat list tends to be overly chatty in regard to the game, then you tell them you don't want to talk about game things, you don't want to know game information etc.  If they continue to over-share, then stop communicating with them?  
I mean, after you've told them once that you don't wish to communicate about the game...if they keep on trying to engage you in that talk, they're just disrespecting the request you already made and it doesn't seem out of line to stop communicating with them.

When you are saying "We are not the problem" I assume you are putting yourself in the noble position, the player having the surprise taken from them, the player who now has info they don't want.  This I agree with.  You aren't the problem.  You have been told something you didn't want to know, and now you have to act or not act on that information.  At that point you can choose whether you act on the information and also whether you keep communicating with the over-sharer.  
If you have a list of people you communicate with and someone makes a habit of disregarding your requests for not talking about the game, then yeah, I think it's on you to stop communicating with them.

I just think it comes down to policing ourselves, because there are always going to be people/places where information is shared beyond the point we want it to be shared.

Quote from: Ath on October 28, 2016, 03:48:28 PM
So I've been sticking back and just reading for now... I haven't had too much to weigh in on, but I will add a few points.

In no way would I ever tell someone to not talk about the game at all.  I'd be guilty of that... shit, a few players that I've met know I'd be guilty of that.  I love talking about the game, I will talk about things that are kinda IC related, but I won't talk about something that could very likely have IC consequences.  I am not going to talk about the Psion that has been very active in the game.  I'm not going to talk about how I did this cool thing that will likely get someone killed.  I will talk about some awesome past characters, some neat things I did in game, and talk about some great riots that happened in the game recently.  Now I mentioned something that is recent... yes... I did.  This is an item that is public, it's on the boards...  this is something that someone could easily find out IC, so something like that I'm not worried about.  I'm not going to talk about my current character and his plot to kill Noble Fancypants Poopsmith.  Lastly, I'm not going to ask the player I'm talking with to see if they'd like to work together IC.  I can already see everyone's characters, so that cat is already out of the bag... so I don't care if a player talks recent events with me, as long as they are not near my own character.  I'll warn them if it does come near it though, as I don't want things spoiled for my own character... but you'll have to understand, it happens more than you realize.  (I accidentally found out one time that another player was out to kill my current character at the time... holy crap can that be hard to deal with.)

I hope you guys can see the difference here that I'm trying to explain.  The hope is that we can prevent people from spoiling a bit too much with other players.  To stop the people that intentionally talking OOC with each other about current events that will likely affect their character.

I see what you're saying Ath, I think part of the problem though is that (in this thread at least) one staff viewpoint seems to be "talking about the game in non-specific, non-current ways is okay, because it's very unlikely to impact the game" but another viewpoint is "all chatter about the game is bad."

I'm not sure how I would feel if a friend convinced me to play some new game, and then when I got hooked and tried to talk to them about something I got told "No I don't want to hear anything about it, it might ruin the game for me!"

Here's a story from earlier this year:

As GMH admin, I made it a point to start running season-long plots to encourage competition between the GMHs. The first such plot involved a newly-revealed cave filled with rare, but dangerous, animals. The GMHs were thus encouraged to find a way to make the cave useful to them. Numerous possibilities were open to them - they could find a way to breed the animals and make obtaining their parts more reliable, or they could wipe out the whole nest and keep the parts rare. They could work together, or alone. Anything the GMHs came up with, we were willing to support. There was a catch, however - one end of the cave had a bubbling pool of lava, and so the plot had to be completed before the cave filled with lava. (Hence, the "season-long" aspect of the plot, vs. one with indefinite length.)

There was some discussion and competition between the GMHs. Eventually, House A got very defensive of the whole area and Houses B and C decided to team up, to cut out House A. This led to a bit of a stalemate, with House A establishing a home advantage. Then the playing field changed. The leader of House B hired a magicker to kill a leader of House A with a spell that switches the caster with the target. The end result: the leader of House A was eaten by gith, while Houses B and C could sit back and enjoy their victory.

At this point, you might think that this is standard Murder, Corruption, Betrayal. And you would be right, except for one slight hitch: the player of House A's gith-food leader, or someone purported to be them, played that death beep in a Discord chat set up by members of jcarter's forum and declared that their PC was finally dead. Within minutes, the full details of the death were circulating, and details and speculation on the mechanics of the spell were posted up.

The player of House B and C's leaders, locked into their alliance and receiving a morale boost from this small success, pushed for the cave again. But they ran into hurdles. Separately, both players sent requests to staff with similar wording and arguments, faulting the players of House A for not reporting things accurately and faulting the staff of House A for loading NPCs to support A's PCs when Houses B and C were not getting a similar amount of support (although they were, and could ask for more if they needed to). The player of House C's leader was known to have coordinated requests in the past with other players, and it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated too. When questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

After a roll call was put out to replace a leader of House A that had stored after the death of the other House A Leader, the drive to win (and frankly, there's nothing else that it can be called) led to the leaders of Houses B and C to plot more killings of House A's PCs so that they could not report to House A's leader's replacement on the behavior of House B and C, completely disregarding the fact that House A had the virtual knowledge of B and C's actions already, and NPCs could easily pass the knowledge of the behavior to the PC replacement.

The plot was ultimately a failure, spoiled by OOC news of Leader A's murder and spoiled further by evidence that the two IC allied Houses were talking out-of-game at the same time. The plot was always on a timer - and the timer was sped up, ending the plot before it could be ruined further by out-of-game meddling. We specifically waited for characters to die or store before running the next GMH plot.

Edit to add:
There are more stories where that came from. I'll write more examples every day or two.
And a reminder:
Don't identify yourself or other players if you feel you're a star in the story, or if you think someone else is. My goal is not to start a pity party or a witch hunt. It is to explain that plots are still ruined by OOC and on a fairly regular basis.
Edit #2:
In case it wasn't clear, there were multiple leaders in each clan at the time. The actions of one leader of a clan doesn't reflect on or state the actions of the rest of the leaders.

House A had the coded means to kill every single PC and nearly every loaded NPC in House B and C and, in my opinion, should have. Damn where the information came from, it would have been more interesting to watch.

Frankly, it was transparent in-game who was doing what and why (if not the precise methods; the identity of that magicker never needed to be revealed, for instance). I think the "OOC meddling" angle was overblown and used as an excuse to not do anything that would inordinately impact anyone else's characters.

You wanted conflict and you could have had it, but everyone seemed to get cold feet.

QuoteThe plot was ultimately a failure, spoiled by OOC news of Leader A's murder and spoiled further by evidence that the two IC allied Houses were talking out-of-game at the same time.

I'm not condoning any behavior here, but I'm wondering how exactly the plot was ruined when they had worked IC to make this happen and would have known it was successful anyway?  And how does their simultaneous requests for more support...ruin that the plot was going on?  Was any of this behavior that didn't make sense, IC'ly speaking?

I feel like the outright downside of this should be self-evident, but in reading this all I see is that things happened, they kept trying for the same goal, and the timer was pushed forward out of disappointment that people had worked together, even though it was known they were working together beforehand IC anyway.  Did I misread this?!  ???

Edit:  Again, not condoning any of it, just was expecting something pretty drastic to appeal to the 'plot ruined!' plight.  This seems like the players should have been dealt their dues for keeping things out of reach of IC investigation, but overall, the spirit of the actions described seem to fall into line with what was already expected, tagteaming for more support not included.  I don't have details, but as a third party having it described...-were- there valid reasons they would both ask for the same support?

Quote from: Taven on October 28, 2016, 12:16:37 AMSo let me make up a situation that is 100% false:

['rinthi infiltration example]

That's a completely mundane example for you, by the way.

I wouldn't be glad that I "flushed out the shitters". I'd be extremely frustrated, and upset, and I'm sure in that position I'd consider if I really wanted to play Arm at all, if that's what the playerbase was like.

That's the stuff that needs to be prevented

Your example is flawed (and I realize is a quickly put together example).. Had the noble player played a rinthi they would have had the exact same information without OOC communication.

As someone who hasn't played in a while (so feel free to disregard me), either players and staff trust each other to not abuse OOC info, or they don't. People will always talk to friends and it is not unreasonable to do so. People can always abuse info their character shouldn't have, and banning OOC communication (if such a thing was possible) isn't going to stop that.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 11:46:04 AMSo this is what I ask you...  How does we regulate this rule?

This problem is as old as Armageddon. First the problem was ISCA where people coordinated and shared information. Then the problem became AIM and private messenger. The problem has on and off been IRC. Today the problem is an offsite message board (and also AIM, etc).

Staff policy has been inconsistently enforced. The way the current policy is enforced simply doesn't work and can't work.

At the moment we have perfectly honest and reputable players going offsite to talk about their characters because it's felt such talk has too many restrictions on the gdb (regardless of whether or not there are). At the forum they can be exposed to other information they may not necessarily want to see. So any solution needs to disincentivize people from going offsite to partake in completely reasonable human behavior.

I'd suggest a sub forum set up specifically to share IC information with threads needing approval before they're viewable. Anyone who doesn't want to see the information doesn't have to. No-one has to unreasonably restrain themselves in creating the initial thread for fear of getting smacked down as initial posts that cross the line simply won't be approved. Anyone caught repeatingly abusing OO.c gained info can have their privileges to this forum revoked.

friends in roles like that should not coordinate or talk to each other if they are in leadership positions.

but that is just my opinion.

We already have clan forums, which serve a similar function. I actually think we'd be better off if there were no clan boards and all game-related communication had to occur in game or through the request tool. You wouldn't know who is playing in your clan unless they broke OOC and told you. We'd need vastly better in-game communication methods for that to work, of course.

I think the real question is "How do we respond to people potentially using meta knowledge in game?" And the only answer to that is "respond as your character would." Trust the other player to not be a shithead, and if they turn out to be a shithead, react accordingly. Probably by killing their PC.

I don't give a shit how the player behind a character came to a decision on how to act. I only know how my character should act.

Prioritize strength!

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 09:39:06 PM
House A had the coded means to kill every single PC and nearly every loaded NPC in House B and C and, in my opinion, should have. Damn where the information came from, it would have been more interesting to watch.

You wanted conflict and you could have had it, but everyone seemed to get cold feet.

I think most people understand that this is a shitty, metagamey way of going about it. I know I lose interest in playing when this kind of thing is supported.

The game's already "shitty and metagamey," or else why would this thread exist?

There were plenty of good IC reasons to justify such a reaction. For whatever reason they weren't followed up on. Instead people (apparently) went "Oh no OOC gotta shut it all down."

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 10:25:35 PM
The game's already "shitty and metagamey," or else why would this thread exist?

There were plenty of good IC reasons to justify such a reaction. For whatever reason they weren't followed up on. Instead people (apparently) went "Oh no OOC gotta shut it all down."

It would have been a slaughter, and I'd have loved to see it, because the Known would have exploded with activity.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 10:25:35 PM
The game's already "shitty and metagamey," or else why would this thread exist?

There were plenty of good IC reasons to justify such a reaction. For whatever reason they weren't followed up on. Instead people (apparently) went "Oh no OOC gotta shut it all down."

Because staff knows that letting a handful of code-heavy players dominate the game is a bad idea? Or getting killed for joining the wrong clan is a good way to piss anyone off?

I'm not against pitched warfare between houses, I think it could go to some interesting places. But I am against selectively killing the PC population "cuz dey duh compuhtision".

Read Nergel's post again, Jingo.

House A knew their leader was dead. It didn't take a fucking genius to figure out who could have ordered the hit. They should have reacted. Killed every House B and C PC they can get their hands on. Kill their NPCs. Crash their wagons in to sinkholes. Do something amazing and long-lasting.

Instead we allowed butthurt players (not just the one whose PC was killed, but the player whose master plan was outed sooner than expected) dictate non-events.


Also if the House A leader had been killed via mundane means instead of a magickal assassination I doubt there'd be as many hurt feelings and the plot could have proceeded. Certainly less expectation of "my perfect plan was discovered it must be due to OOC collusion because there could be absolutely no IC justification for finding out and anyone who appears to figure it out IC is a cheater."

Edit: Really, Nergal's leaving out an important detail of how the House B and C leaders reacted to the dead A player's transgression. I think that reaction (being disheartened) shows the dangers of OOC chatting to be way more destructive than active colluding.

I did read it again. My position doesn't change.

I've been on the receiving end of the "kill all the competition" shit shows before. It isn't fun. It adds nothing to the game.

If house A wanted to ambush parts of the other houses, fine. But directly targeting and killing all the pc's is bullshit.

Don't want (bull)shit, don't start shit.

If you kick off a plot and it goes a direction you're not expecting, that doesn't mean it's ruined. You have to adapt.

Quote from: evilcabbage on October 28, 2016, 10:09:19 PM
friends in roles like that should not coordinate or talk to each other if they are in leadership positions.

but that is just my opinion.

No no, I totally agree with you in terms of -coordinating-, unless it's coordination to meet up about coordinating.

I was honing in on the 'plot ruined' part, because it sounded like all behavior was to be expected to go as it did.  They did the assassination.  They made their move afterwards.  But the plot itself was cut short rather than playing through because of the shadiness even though the end result was fine otherwise.  There are obviously things wrong with depriving the rest of the game from the ability to react.  But the knowledge of the death in particular, and then both of them requesting the same support (I'm assuming for mutual benefit) that was granted House A (and was even mentioned to being acceptable if they asked, which they did, just in very similar manners) doesn't seem to have ruined this plot.

QuoteWhen questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

This is what I've been honing in on for the entire thread.  This is a very subjective judgment based on the assumption that two friends couldn't possibly see things the same way, or have actually had IC reason to have the other's benefit in mind, or that they couldn't be speaking about being mutually dissatisfied with how things were handled and wanting to bring it up.

The big injustice here is if any planning on the actual event happened OOC instead of IC where it could be reacted to.  Not that people knew that their plan succeeded, or that they both wanted things to be done differently afterwards.

Unless there's something missing that I didn't see, which is why I was asking.  Neither of those influence the plot or its affects as the story is written.

We've been walking back and forth over that question for the whole thread: Is it terrible and plot ruining if it's not influencing the affects/actions that are performed IC'ly?  As noted earlier, we've had both stances attacked and defended, often by the same people in different posts.  This leads to a very arbitrary, inconsistent way of how it's dealt with when it's that subjective to 'how things look and feel at the time', assuming that there's enough to say that it should be dealt with with a hammer in the first place.

QuoteIf house A wanted to ambush parts of the other houses, fine. But directly targeting and killing all the pc's is bullshit.

I won't agree or disagree with it, only point out that that's not really the issue at hand in the story.  It's a method you don't approve of, and it ignores some VNPC issues, but altogether, that's not about OOC and IC boundaries, which is what's being discussed.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 10:50:53 PM
Don't want (bull)shit, don't start shit.

If you kick off a plot and it goes a direction you're not expecting, that doesn't mean it's ruined. You have to adapt.

If I kick off a plot and and my clan gets wiped by a bunch of bored do-nothing players, then yeah it's ruined.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 09:39:06 PMHouse A had the coded means to kill every single PC and nearly every loaded NPC in House B and C and, in my opinion, should have. Damn where the information came from, it would have been more interesting to watch.

Frankly, it was transparent in-game who was doing what and why (if not the precise methods; the identity of that magicker never needed to be revealed, for instance). I think the "OOC meddling" angle was overblown and used as an excuse to not do anything that would inordinately impact anyone else's characters.

You wanted conflict and you could have had it, but everyone seemed to get cold feet.

First of all, I absolutely agree that House A getting full IC vegeance on B and C would have been fun. And it would have been nice to see the plot through, although I understand the stance that was taken to accelerate it.

But the lack of conflict and cold feet? Don't lay that one at staff's feet.

QuoteAlso if the House A leader had been killed via mundane means instead of a magickal assassination I doubt there'd be as many hurt feelings and the plot could have proceeded. Certainly less expectation of "my perfect plan was discovered it must be due to OOC collusion because there could be absolutely no IC justification for finding out and anyone who appears to figure it out IC is a cheater."

It seems to me that nobody thought House A was at fault at all, nor that their assumptions were based on anything other then IC. Nergal's example seems to be saying that B and C were at fault and plotted OOCly to facilitate the murder. It would not have mattered if the murder was mundane or not, the OOC is the issue, rather then the form it took.

This is a controversial suggestion but I thought I'd throw it out there: what would staff think of a sanctioned game chat room/area where people could meet friends and whatnot. A little like the Teamspeak but obviously monitored and logged. The reasoning behind it would be to encourage folks to chat with each other there rather than in private (somehow), with the idea being people would migrate here since it was easier to reach out etc. A little resource intensive to monitor and such, but possibly helpers could play a role too.

Thanks for another example! 

This is the meat of the ooc communication case, from what I gather, and the question -- to steer us back to it -- is: what would you do as staff about the case at hand?

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 09:25:58 PM
The player of House B and C's leaders, locked into their alliance and receiving a morale boost from this small success, pushed for the cave again. But they ran into hurdles. Separately, both players sent requests to staff with similar wording and arguments, faulting the players of House A for not reporting things accurately and faulting the staff of House A for loading NPCs to support A's PCs when Houses B and C were not getting a similar amount of support (although they were, and could ask for more if they needed to). The player of House C's leader was known to have coordinated requests in the past with other players, and it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated too. When questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

(The separate dumbness of Player A going onto a foreign web-site and complaining about dying is not OOC collusion and pretty cut-and-dry.)

I would think this would be a tough call to make, and I can definitely see room for some benefit of the doubt when I'd go to address the two players in question.

I just kind of want to steer the conversation back to this.

Quote from: Jingo on October 28, 2016, 11:09:06 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 10:50:53 PM
Don't want (bull)shit, don't start shit.

If you kick off a plot and it goes a direction you're not expecting, that doesn't mean it's ruined. You have to adapt.

If I kick off a plot and and my clan gets wiped by a bunch of bored do-nothing players, then yeah it's ruined.

No, son. It means you got Fucking rekt.

You know I sympathize with you Jimmy. But your wrong on the shut down angle. you can't play Pablo escobar and go to Washington DC to watch the races. You have to assume your opponents are ruthless dipshits players until proven otherwise.


If you get rekt by donothings then you should have planned better to avoid retribution. Hire more muscle. Stay in safe zones. Get Fucking Good.

How else are we going to meet our future rl girlfriends if we can't chat it up oocly.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 11:45:59 PM

Quote from: Jingo on October 28, 2016, 11:09:06 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 28, 2016, 10:50:53 PM
Don't want (bull)shit, don't start shit.

If you kick off a plot and it goes a direction you're not expecting, that doesn't mean it's ruined. You have to adapt.

If I kick off a plot and and my clan gets wiped by a bunch of bored do-nothing players, then yeah it's ruined.

No, son. It means you got Fucking rekt.

You know I sympathize with you Jimmy. But your wrong on the shut down angle. you can't play Pablo escobar and go to Washington DC to watch the races. You have to assume your opponents are ruthless dipshits until proven otherwise.

Ooooh nice one.

Your analogy is bad. Going to DC was part of my character's job.

Ok.. clearly a difference in playstyle here. I don't think either side is going to convince the other. Maybe time to move back toward the main topic. :)

Sometimes staff give you bad orders and job descriptions. You should know not to stick your neck out like that. Send expendables.

Quote from: Taven on October 28, 2016, 11:14:06 PM
First of all, I absolutely agree that House A getting full IC vegeance on B and C would have been fun. And it would have been nice to see the plot through, although I understand the stance that was taken to accelerate it.

But the lack of conflict and cold feet? Don't lay that one at staff's feet.

Fair enough. But from observing who staff promote to leadership roles, and what people do with those roles, it's pretty clear that nobody actually gives a shit about conflict or avoiding metaplay. People just want to do their own stories and give up or turtle at first sign of opposition.

Quote from: Gravity on October 28, 2016, 11:17:25 PM
This is a controversial suggestion but I thought I'd throw it out there: what would staff think of a sanctioned game chat room/area where people could meet friends and whatnot. A little like the Teamspeak but obviously monitored and logged. The reasoning behind it would be to encourage folks to chat with each other there rather than in private (somehow), with the idea being people would migrate here since it was easier to reach out etc. A little resource intensive to monitor and such, but possibly helpers could play a role too.

I think something like this would be the best possible solution. I do not think the current yellow-tape approach to OOC communications is working, hence the thread. People talk about what they enjoy, whether others approve of it or not. Might as well just have them talk about stuff at home, while trying to nudge them in the direction that knowing something doesnt mean taking advantage of it if your character doesnt know it.

I don't think it'd be a magic solution, and part of the problem would certainly persist anyway, but I think it has the possibility for lessening things somewhat.

Quote from: nauta on October 28, 2016, 11:37:53 PM
Thanks for another example! 

This is the meat of the ooc communication case, from what I gather, and the question -- to steer us back to it -- is: what would you do as staff about the case at hand?

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 09:25:58 PM
The player of House B and C's leaders, locked into their alliance and receiving a morale boost from this small success, pushed for the cave again. But they ran into hurdles. Separately, both players sent requests to staff with similar wording and arguments, faulting the players of House A for not reporting things accurately and faulting the staff of House A for loading NPCs to support A's PCs when Houses B and C were not getting a similar amount of support (although they were, and could ask for more if they needed to). The player of House C's leader was known to have coordinated requests in the past with other players, and it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated too. When questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

(The separate dumbness of Player A going onto a foreign web-site and complaining about dying is not OOC collusion and pretty cut-and-dry.)

I would think this would be a tough call to make, and I can definitely see room for some benefit of the doubt when I'd go to address the two players in question.

I just kind of want to steer the conversation back to this.

I would've probably demoted their characters to recruits, where they had absolutely zero input on any movement of the clans involved, had to follow orders, and do nothing else. I would've promoted whichever of the rest seemed to have what it took to make decisions. If none of them did, I would've created a low-level boss avatar and told them that I was the new Special Agent that the House had assigned to head up this project. I'd head it up, and when the project was over I'd return to obscurity to step in if another bunch of bufoons got stuck in a plotline and couldn't get up.

If the project succeeded, I'd make sure my unit got all the credit for working together. If they failed, they'd have to suffer the same consequences as if they failed in any project: the boss telling them how pissed they are, but what are you gonna do, shit happens, let's get those logs collected for Lord Poopsmith's order.

And then I'd raise the two demoted people to a non-recruit level, and seek out someone worth promoting or send out a roll call for a new boss.

But, I personally have no problem moving plotlines along with avatars in clans that I run, when I'm on staff. I let the players handle things for the most part but when they need a clue or a kick in the pants to get them moving on something, I'm fine being the one to do it.

I took one look at the front page of the shadowboards a few years ago and that was enough for me. I wouldn't go on there, they'll probably tell you exactly who Lady Templar Alwaysperfect is sleeping with, and what Salaar is hiding in the basement.

Quote from: a french mans shirt on October 29, 2016, 01:06:32 PM
I took one look at the front page of the shadowboards a few years ago and that was enough for me. I wouldn't go on there, they'll probably tell you exactly who Lady Templar Alwaysperfect is sleeping with, and what Salaar is hiding in the basement.

Or who they thought they were, anyway, with normally baseless, opinion driven assertions that it must be fact because they said so.

Quote from: Narana on October 29, 2016, 05:11:46 AM

Quote from: Gravity on October 28, 2016, 11:17:25 PM
This is a controversial suggestion but I thought I'd throw it out there: what would staff think of a sanctioned game chat room/area where people could meet friends and whatnot. A little like the Teamspeak but obviously monitored and logged. The reasoning behind it would be to encourage folks to chat with each other there rather than in private (somehow), with the idea being people would migrate here since it was easier to reach out etc. A little resource intensive to monitor and such, but possibly helpers could play a role too.

I think something like this would be the best possible solution. I do not think the current yellow-tape approach to OOC communications is working, hence the thread. People talk about what they enjoy, whether others approve of it or not. Might as well just have them talk about stuff at home, while trying to nudge them in the direction that knowing something doesnt mean taking advantage of it if your character doesnt know it.

I don't think it'd be a magic solution, and part of the problem would certainly persist anyway, but I think it has the possibility for lessening things somewhat.

Having been in an arm chatroom already, I disagree.  Just about the only thing that was good about it was:

Quote<angelunit> i was told to submit a bug because something that was technically back-sheathable wasn't
<nessalin> The 4' graphixx bong?  I already fixed that item.  You can sheath it on your back now

Really, just need people to be responsible with their discussions, as we always have.  Sometimes they won't be, but that will happen, which the other board is proof of.  And from staff side, they need to be honest and deep in integrity with their investigation of it, rather than knee-jerk or taking a position of 'We're pretty sure of this, so any rational discussion about your defense will be overturned or ignored.  You're wrong, we've already decided.'

Once again I'll mention that there is always two sides of the story.  Most don't get to see the discussion had before any sort of action is taken, so a lot will think it's knee jerk, but I get where you're coming from.

This topic is getting a lot of good information out there, but attitudes are getting a bit high and I can see some are just on the side of being negative about pretty much anything.  Sucks to see that, but not going to make everyone happy.  Everyone is welcome to their opinion, we may take some, all or, none into consideration, but I can honestly say that you all are being heard. 

I will just call this out, no.. this thread was not created because of the game being a bit shitty.  It was created because of a few recent incidents and other things going on currently that have made me concerned.  They could have been prevented. 

In any case, I'm glad to see you all talking about this and hopefully it brings some awareness on what it can do to the game itself, staff, and other players.  We may not all see eye to eye, but I think we can all agree we're here to have fun. 

I'm going to be leaving this thread open for a bit longer, I think Nergal still wanted to post a few things, but otherwise... I'm open to some questions if you wish to ask.  Just as long as they don't deal with anything that we normally cannot talk about.

I'll just say that reading this thread has made me think about this topic a lot.  Might even post some of those thoughts if they get a little more coherent.  But I think it's  certainly been a worthwhile discussion.

Quote from: Gravity on October 28, 2016, 11:17:25 PM
This is a controversial suggestion but I thought I'd throw it out there: what would staff think of a sanctioned game chat room/area where people could meet friends and whatnot. A little like the Teamspeak but obviously monitored and logged. The reasoning behind it would be to encourage folks to chat with each other there rather than in private (somehow), with the idea being people would migrate here since it was easier to reach out etc. A little resource intensive to monitor and such, but possibly helpers could play a role too.

SOI had an ooc guest lounge where all sorts of positive chatter occurred. From helping new players to Staff chatting with folks about potential roles and requirements to silly ooc chatter about the weather or presidential candidates. All this was done on the player port and essentially it's own ooc zone. You could even walk around and go to a museum that had npc's with full descriptions/equipment and the room desc was basically a helpfile describing their cultures ect.

This created a sense of community and if people got upset and loud about IC events they were politely reminded by players AND staff that there was to be no IC info sharing including mechanics ect. It helped folks get a feel for the game or ask simple questions and get answers. Heck even a way for staff to interact with players when they weren't busy.  I miss a guest lounge option...

Quote from: Malken on October 28, 2016, 11:52:58 PM
How else are we going to meet our future rl girlfriends if we can't chat it up oocly.

Malken,

I realize that you don't actually play the game or anything, so whether you understand the concept or not is totally moot.  However, I am going head this misstatement off at the pass because people who do play the game read this too - there is no directive that says a player shouldn't chat OOCly with other players.  We are all talking OOC here, after all, there's a team speak server, and so on.

You just shouldn't talk about current IC happenings with other players.

Quote from: seidhr on October 29, 2016, 04:04:45 PM

Quote from: Malken on October 28, 2016, 11:52:58 PM
How else are we going to meet our future rl girlfriends if we can't chat it up oocly.

Malken,

I realize that you don't actually play the game or anything, so whether you understand the concept or not is totally moot.  However, I am going head this misstatement off at the pass because people who do play the game read this too - there is no directive that says a player shouldn't chat OOCly with other players.  We are all talking OOC here, after all, there's a team speak server, and so on.

You just shouldn't talk about current IC happenings with other players.

So when are you free, Seidhr <3?

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 08:30:19 AM
I would've probably demoted their characters to recruits, where they had absolutely zero input on any movement of the clans involved, had to follow orders, and do nothing else. I would've promoted whichever of the rest seemed to have what it took to make decisions. If none of them did, I would've created a low-level boss avatar and told them that I was the new Special Agent that the House had assigned to head up this project. I'd head it up, and when the project was over I'd return to obscurity to step in if another bunch of bufoons got stuck in a plotline and couldn't get up.

If the project succeeded, I'd make sure my unit got all the credit for working together. If they failed, they'd have to suffer the same consequences as if they failed in any project: the boss telling them how pissed they are, but what are you gonna do, shit happens, let's get those logs collected for Lord Poopsmith's order.

And then I'd raise the two demoted people to a non-recruit level, and seek out someone worth promoting or send out a roll call for a new boss.

But, I personally have no problem moving plotlines along with avatars in clans that I run, when I'm on staff. I let the players handle things for the most part but when they need a clue or a kick in the pants to get them moving on something, I'm fine being the one to do it.

I hope the new staff class of '16 doesn't take this advice. I'm sure you were the kind of mud staffer your players were happy to have at the time - you seem so on the ball - but this is exactly the type of heavy-handed staff overreaction that Armageddon needs to take a hard turn away from every time it can. It's never worthwhile to take the game out of the players' hands. Especially in the case provided, in which the word "assume" should have been bolded and underlined. Even if cheating is evident, obvious, you let that shit play out for better or worse. Never ever take over with an npc to make all the decisions and say, "You guys just animate my minions for a while, this sandbox is mine now because you're playing it wrong."

Careful puppeteering is another story. Manipulating the game environment and outside forces in an attempt to put things back on track, even sometimes to make right the results of ooc abuse, is the tricky job of the people on the other side of that curtain. Go to town with that. Have fun. THAT's the job.

I tried to stay out of this thread but felt like that post deserved attention. Man, there's no easy answer to the core op question. There really isn't even a hard answer. There's no answer. You establish the guidelines, nurture a game culture that promotes an "I play for you, you play for me" attitude, hope for the best and punish the wicked. People are going to get burned if you monitor this stuff like homeland security and they're going to get burned if you let it all slide so that honest players can't ever catch a break from the cheaters. No way out of it. So take the path that hinders player freedom the least and we'll all do our best.

Quote from: Bahliker on October 29, 2016, 05:13:06 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 08:30:19 AM
I would've probably demoted their characters to recruits, where they had absolutely zero input on any movement of the clans involved, had to follow orders, and do nothing else. I would've promoted whichever of the rest seemed to have what it took to make decisions. If none of them did, I would've created a low-level boss avatar and told them that I was the new Special Agent that the House had assigned to head up this project. I'd head it up, and when the project was over I'd return to obscurity to step in if another bunch of bufoons got stuck in a plotline and couldn't get up.

If the project succeeded, I'd make sure my unit got all the credit for working together. If they failed, they'd have to suffer the same consequences as if they failed in any project: the boss telling them how pissed they are, but what are you gonna do, shit happens, let's get those logs collected for Lord Poopsmith's order.

And then I'd raise the two demoted people to a non-recruit level, and seek out someone worth promoting or send out a roll call for a new boss.

But, I personally have no problem moving plotlines along with avatars in clans that I run, when I'm on staff. I let the players handle things for the most part but when they need a clue or a kick in the pants to get them moving on something, I'm fine being the one to do it.

I hope the new staff class of '16 doesn't take this advice. I'm sure you were the kind of mud staffer your players were happy to have at the time - you seem so on the ball - but this is exactly the type of heavy-handed staff overreaction that Armageddon needs to take a hard turn away from every time it can. It's never worthwhile to take the game out of the players' hands. Especially in the case provided, in which the word "assume" should have been bolded and underlined. Even if cheating is evident, obvious, you let that shit play out for better or worse. Never ever take over with an npc to make all the decisions and say, "You guys just animate my minions for a while, this sandbox is mine now because you're playing it wrong."

Careful puppeteering is another story. Manipulating the game environment and outside forces in an attempt to put things back on track, even sometimes to make right the results of ooc abuse, is the tricky job of the people on the other side of that curtain. Go to town with that. Have fun. THAT's the job.

I tried to stay out of this thread but felt like that post deserved attention. Man, there's no easy answer to the core op question. There really isn't even a hard answer. There's no answer. You establish the guidelines, nurture a game culture that promotes an "I play for you, you play for me" attitude, hope for the best and punish the wicked. People are going to get burned if you monitor this stuff like homeland security and they're going to get burned if you let it all slide so that honest players can't ever catch a break from the cheaters. No way out of it. So take the path that hinders player freedom the least and we'll all do our best.

I'm not seeing any kind of overreaction. I'm seeing appropriate response to a situation that involves both OOC cheating, and an IC plotline that needs to be resolved.

1. The cheaters cheated with colluding OOCly, and were caught. You could force-store their character. You could ban them. You could temporarily suspend their accounts. You could yell at them and tell them from this point on, they are now required to ignore the elephant in the room that they brought in, and have been parading around the shop. Or - you could just allow their characters to remain but remove their character's authority. If they were Sergeant, they're still in the clan but no longer Sergeant. They have proven they *cannot* be trusted on an OOC level to handle the IC authority that comes with the role.
2. In the meantime, you still need SOMEONE to be a Sergeant. So you check the current clan roster to see if anyone qualifies, or is almost qualified (whatever criteria is involved in promoting people, you go through that process, on an expedited level). If no one qualifies...
THEN you step in and be the pro-temp leader, just for this one project, because...the project still needs to be resolved, and you don't want to end it abruptly just cause a couple of buffoons decided to cheat badly enough to get caught at it.

The problem with demoting powerful PCs for OOC reasons is twofold.

1) it's difficult to justify incharacter and can be immensely jarring. For those players who are not partial to the whole story, or are biased in favor of the demoted, the easy assumption to make is staff don't trust or respect any of the current clan. That you're "playing it wrong." Now you have a much larger morale problem that is going to persist beyond the life of the current characters.

2) demoting a code-powerful PC still leaves them as a powerful PC. They are tougher than anyone staff will drop in, they have more in-game relationships and alliances to draw on. They're under no obligation but threat of death or storage to follow the new leader and not simply kill them to resume control. If staff try to force or punish them, you're right back at problem #1.

I would separate things into two discussions:

What should staff (and players) do about cheaters (and in particular those that collude):

1. in terms of punishment.
2. in terms of investigation.

Punishment. If someone has been caught with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then I'd be comfortable with an objective punishment system.  I would probably like to see these spelled out somewhere, but I can understand the need for flexibility.  As well, a three strikes policy is definitely the way to go: first offense (and not just an assumption of guilt, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) should yield a warning and a note; second offense another warning and note but still no punishment; third offense, storage of the character with a hit to karma.   (Or something like this.)

Investigation.  This, I think, is where things should be handled with the most delicacy so as not to alienate players who might not know what they did was wrong or who didn't do something wrong in the first place.  So let's return to the example from Nergal if we can.

The evidence:

1. The 'wording' of the requests.
2. With one player, a previous infringement (or more?).
3. The simultaneity of the requests. 

(3) doesn't strike me as dubious: there were IC reasons for both leaders to file reports at similar times -- the plot was time sensitive, they were both 'allies' with the same goal, etc.

(2) also should not have much bearing, except in terms of punishment.  In terms of investigation, I wouldn't want to see staff hold it against people for previous mistakes.  (People change, etc.)

(1) is the most damning evidence, and I will assume that by 'wording' Nergal means that it was clear that the two had exchanged OOCly e-mails or whatever to draft up the requests and stupidly plagiarized each other.  This would put the collusion into a class of non-reasonable doubt.  However, if the requests were simply similar in content, again, like (3), this would make a lot of sense and wouldn't suggest collusion.  It might well suggest enough to send a letter to each of the players saying something like: while we don't want to accuse you here, we noticed your wording was similar.  There's a big problem with collusion ruining the fun of staff and players.  But make it clear it is not an accusation, just a red flag and an investigation of that red flag.

Again, for me, the most important thing is not to alienate potentially innocent players.

Those are my thoughts at least.

Nauta, it wasn't a, or b, or c. It was a AND b AND c combined. Any of those three might/might not be dubious. Any of those three might result in a raised eyebrow, but not necessarily any kind of conclusion. But it was all three.

It walked like a duck.
It quacked like a duck.
It laid an egg like a duck.

It's a duck.

Yikes, this is a beast of a thread and a beast of a problem to try and address.   Here are my thoughts:

We want players to talk OOC, because we want this game and the community to be more than just in-game characters.  Something would be lost if I was just "Player131391" instead of "Wizturbo". 

At the same time, we do not want players to talk OOCly about things that can ruin fun plots. 

That requires every player, every time they talk to someone, to have good judgement about what they should or should not say.  It requires people when they're emotionally charged, excited, drunk, horny, or stoned out of their mind to make good decisions.  That's going to be very tough to manage.  I would consider myself to be 'very good' at keeping secrets through OOC channels, but even I probably let something minor slip in the 15+ years I've played this game.

Utter elimination of this problem is going to be practically impossible, and I have no silver bullet solution to offer.  In fact, the only thing I can think of are more complications:

1.  Valeria's post about having any cases of this handled by people who are not emotionally involved in the situation (a third party) is spot on, but I'm not sure it can realistically happen that way.  No staff members are unrelated third parties, they're a team.  If someone pissed off one of my team member's at work, I would almost certainly take their side.  That's what team members do.  I'm sure some staff members are better than others at being objective, but I doubt those staff members want their new job to be judge on OOC abuse cases.  And I don't see staff recruiting a "High Inquisitor" to handle these cases removed from all other staff business.  With that said, having someone who is not the primary 'victim' of the situation handle the OOC communications with the abuser is a VERY good idea.

2.  By the very nature of the problem, having solid evidence of abuse is going to be very difficult to acquire unless someone has contacts with the NSA.   And, because evidence is going to be so rare, the times staff do get solid evidence they're going to naturally be inclined to swing the ban hammer with righteous justice.  Partly fueled by the dozen cases they didn't have enough evidence to act upon, even though they're pretty sure there was some wrongdoing going on.  This might be true even if the person in question didn't do anything too awful.  It's like the guy who gets pulled over and has just enough weed on him to put him over some state limit that makes his punishment significantly worse than if he had just a few pinches less on him.

3.  Trying to apply black and white rules to grey situations is problematic.  Sharing your thoughts on the new monsters in the salt flats via AIM is OOC abuse, but relatively harmless.  Sharing who is a mindbender, or some major plot secret is not harmless.  Problem is, you might catch someone for the former but not the later.

Not sure what the solution is to address these things, because anything I think of comes with it's own nasty issues to worry about...

My general feeling is I trust the staff to make the best calls they can on how to handle these situations on a case by case basis.  There's no world where this can be regulated in a precise, clear and fair way unless we 'legalize' the sharing of IC information and I think that would basically ruin Armageddon for me and many other players.

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 07:01:50 PM
Nauta, it wasn't a, or b, or c. It was a AND b AND c combined. Any of those three might/might not be dubious. Any of those three might result in a raised eyebrow, but not necessarily any kind of conclusion. But it was all three.

It walked like a duck.
It quacked like a duck.
It laid an egg like a duck.

It's a duck.

I still don't see how the duck walk, quacking, or egg ruined the pond given the information provided.  The pond seemed to continue behaving like a pond as expected, and the part that 'set things off' appeared to be the requests for support in similar ways, and the dead player of House A advertising his death, which players B and C would have heard about anyway as the fruit of their IC plot.

And I don't even agree with the above post, due to being in a similar accusation that was also completely false.  None of that -actually says anything- except for 'I think this looks shitty.'  Even in the case of similar wording of the requests, which is the -least dubious of things on the list-...who cares if two players agreed that they thought they should be able to get the same things?  That's literally coordination of OOC communication to staff.  What's that got to do with anything?

The whole point was that this story was supposed to be demonstrative of the heinous affects of people being in contact discussing IC events, but I see nothing in this story that is a heinous affect of people discussing IC events with each other as presented.  Instead I see that essentially a plot was deemed unfit to continue because of what became the strong suspicion that two people who admitted to being friends ooc manipulated the situation, despite the results of that being...exactly the results that were expected anyway.  It's weirding me out.

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 07:01:50 PM
Nauta, it wasn't a, or b, or c. It was a AND b AND c combined. Any of those three might/might not be dubious. Any of those three might result in a raised eyebrow, but not necessarily any kind of conclusion. But it was all three.

It walked like a duck.
It quacked like a duck.
It laid an egg like a duck.

It's a duck.

But what did the duck actually do to ruin this plot? According to Nergal, two things ruined the plot:

QuoteThe plot was ultimately a failure, spoiled by OOC news of Leader A's murder and spoiled further by evidence that the two IC allied Houses were talking out-of-game at the same time. The plot was always on a timer - and the timer was sped up, ending the plot before it could be ruined further by out-of-game meddling. We specifically waited for characters to die or store before running the next GMH plot.

This doesn't make sense to me. First: the OOC news of Leader A's death was very unfortunate, and is an example of the worst kind of OOC blabbing. But I don't think it really ruined anything except for the enthusiasm as the person who ordered the hit, which is their problem more than anyone else's. Discovering the truth of that murder was as simple as asking "Who has the motive to want this character dead?" and making logical assumptions. If House A had simply assumed House C was the culprit without any sound IC evidence, it would still have been justifiable based on the paranoia and hostility already present in the game. Really, it was the only conclusion one could draw.

Second, the collusion between Houses B and C. What unfair advantage did this actually confer on them in game? You can't pass each other skill ups over AIM. Coordinate all you want, you still have to put the time in game to make sure your characters are stronger than the ones you want to combat. If House B and C characters are spending half their time twinking their skills and the other half-mudsexing, by all means Staff should say "Hey you fuckers are twinking and mudsexing a lot, how about doing your actual jobs?" But that doesn't appear to be what as done. Players were trying to further the interests of their Houses, using plenty of IC justification. The worst thing they did was assume Staff were partial to House C and bitch about it. They should have trusted Staff to be impartial and moved ahead with their plotting. But no one really wants to do anything unless they're sure of absolute success; we're all too attached to our characters.

I think what ultimately "ruined" this plot in the eyes of Staff was the fact that no one wanted to kill [redacted] and turn their hides on to codpieces, or breed them to be pink, or do anything with the cave Staff added to the game. And by all reports (OOC-shared of course because who in their right mind would want to explore that cave with a mundane PC, given what was inside?) it was an awesome looking cave. Unfortunately, House A did the only sane move by "getting defensive" about it and sealing it off for their own safety, effectively rendering it moot. Instead, the plot seemed to be escalating towards all out House warfare. That appears to have been outside the scope of what Staff were prepared to deal with. The "reasons this plot was ruined" seem more like excuses to shut it down before things really got out of hand (or "interesting" as I'd like to say).

This entire thread seems to have been started unintentionally in bad faith. The only time OOC chatter or collusion or meddling seems to really upset people is when it causes their plots not to go in the direction they expect. Claiming a plot's ruined by OOC has become an excuse for a plotter's own shortcomings, lack of planning or inability to adapt.

The question isn't "How do we reduce OOC chatter," but "How do we stop letting OOC chatter affect our enjoyment of the game?" My answer is to loosen up and get over yourselves. Play your character as you think they should be played. Don't look for OOC justification in other characters' actions, simply react to them in-character. Don't trust other players, instead make sure you inhabit a position of strength to protect yourself from the worst abuses. Recognize that some PCs are going to have a target painted on them as soon as they're out of the Hall of Kings. As players we can only be responsible, and act responsibly, in our own actions. Other players colluding is stupid and lame, but is shouldn't be anything you cannot overcome with diligent in-game training, alliance building, or simply recognizing what parts of the game are unsafe for your character. I think Staff need to loosen up too. Sometimes your plots aren't going to go according to script. Keep your eyes on the pieces on the game board. If someone is getting too powerful in game, spawn some more pieces to challenge them. Encourage other player-characters to stand up to them. If none of that works, declare an HRPT and drop a meteor on them.

Badskeelz is spot on. I hadn't even thought of the replacement sergeant issue. That is -exactly- what happens. Every time. Go ahead and set your hypothetical newbie leader up with master level skills and oodles of money and authority. Everyone is still going to follow the guy you just snubbed, who now has no obligation to send weekly reports or answer for how he, the de facto leader, runs the clan. I thought you people were all up on your machiavelli 101. Banhammer or leave it alone.

But avoid the problem to begin with, Lizzie. No, the project doesn't NEED to be resolved. Even if things are about to fly off the rails into the realm of staff headache now-we-need-to-rebuild-the-estate and my adventure didn't reach stage 5 nightmaretown, don't double-down on strong arming the clan you... what, watch? Help? It's not manage, run, supervise, even monitor; these are the wrong words for the impression a mud's staff should have of itself, because the players are not your employees. They're not your kindergarten class, no matter how immature a few of them act. They're not volunteers in the 501c you do paperwork for. They're not prisoners. Remember you're just a player, probably not even the best or the smartest and definitely not the most experienced, who stepped up to be one of the people that dances the hand puppets around and cleans up the set between acts.

And the worst of it is, there isn't one person who got the aforementioned banhammer for all of this stuff, or stood before an invisible inquisition in an ooc room for questioning, who did anything that (past) staff hasn't done on the regular. I'm not talking about the burnout legends that nobody remembers or the ones that famously erupt in an epic secret-spewing meltdown. I'm talking well respected people that everybody thinks of as "pretty good people." They help their buddies too.

My point - and there is a point - is that this isn't about things that players do that staff needs to watch, or punish, or prevent. We're all one (say kumbaya) and the problem we have is one that is allowed by our community attitude and rewarded by the very nature of the game. Deal with it (no change) or address THAT end, the community culture end. Don't start a witch hunt in an emotionally unstable usergroup.

Quote from: BadSkeelzI think what ultimately "ruined" this plot in the eyes of Staff was the fact that no one wanted to kill [redacted] and turn their hides on to codpieces, or breed them to be pink, or do anything with the cave Staff added to the game. (snip) Instead, the plot seemed to be escalating towards all out House warfare. That appears to have been outside the scope of what Staff were prepared to deal with. The "reasons this plot was ruined" seem more like excuses to shut it down before things really got out of hand (or "interesting" as I'd like to say).

Nope. I already said that we were prepared to deal with any IC situation. The plot was designed for all-out conflict as well as political cooperation, and every approach in between. It's when the IC situation was blatantly being influenced by OOC behavior and connections that things took a turn for the worse.

We want players involved in a plot to have equal opportunity in participating. That is ruined when people begin to OOCly collaborate on achieving in-game "success" in a plot.

QuoteIt's when the IC situation was blatantly being influenced by OOC behavior and connections that things took a turn for the worse.

So, what actually happened that made things take a turn for the worse? What could have been done in game to actually give the colluding players a real and unfair advantage? Yes, Houses B and C were colluding OOC, but they had plenty of IC reason to IC collude as well.

I saw all of the characters involved in your example in action on multiple occasions. I honesty don't know who I would have put money on to win in an all out brawl, but it would have been exciting to watch. It would have been exciting to see all the new roles open up, the new avenues for expansion, the bloody swathe cut through the PC population.

Edit: I mean, really. How does OOC collusion negatively affect participation, short of launching DDOS attacks on House A players to prevent them from logging in, or scoping out when they're online so you can raid the compound when the players are asleep?

QuoteIt's when the IC situation was blatantly being influenced by OOC behavior and connections that things took a turn for the worse.

I'm still not seeing where this blatant influence is.  There's been several posts by multiple people since then pointing that out.  IC actions appeared to continue in the way that it was set out to go.  Again, if they openly coordinated OOC to avoid coordining IC, and keep it out of hands of other people, that's one thing.  But I don't see anything blatantly OOC here happening on the IC level.  That entire story seemed to progress fairly naturally until the sudden jump to 'And then we sped up the timeline and refused to run anything else for them.'

I mean...left to run its course, they probably would have had to backstab each other at some point.  That would have been nice.  It's not like House B and House C are best buddies because the PC leadership happened to work together for what wasn't a common goal, but a common obstacle.

Mostly, if you can point out where this -should- have gone differently in character in an obvious way, but where the OOC interaction between them clearly led to this being just a complete waste of game time, I'm all ears.

And that's been pointed out enough times that a single line of 'No!  It was blatantly influenced!' is really kind of meh.

Either I'm the only one who's seeing what Nergal is saying, or I'm totally misunderstanding all of you.

What I'm taking from this situation as posted:

There was some OOC collusion among some players with regards to a Armageddon-style dungeon-crawl the staff set up.

Some OTHER players on the other side of things did stuff that was also OOCly unkosher.

As a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level. In other words, players were taking their OOC frustrations of the OOC situation into the game, because they knew that it was being manipulated OOCly. So the staff shut it down.

All because a few people decided they could win the IC game better if they cheated.

QuoteAs a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level.

That would be entirely subjective to surmise considering that the characters were at a point of already being at war.  That's why it's being said that in having the story related here, everything appears to be progressing in a normal expected fashion (even by the original storytelling) until such a time that a character revealed that they died, and a pair of characters sent in requests with similar wording asking for the same sort of things in support of what was happening in game.

The reason why this is a something to zone in on rather than accept is that again, we've been straddled with both sides; we're both allowed to talk about the game, and we're not.  We're told we're fine to communicate, but in this story as it was related to us, the demonstration is that even though IC events went as IC'ly made sense, the players were given baddy status despite there being no evidence (at least none presented to us) that they made this an OOC collusion from the beginning and that it influenced IC events.  In other words, because they discussed the support they wanted to relate to staff through legitimate OOC means, that proved they spoke with each other and it thus ruined the plot.

As I read it, the assertion of 'playing to win' was a reference to them being in communication, not a twist in the plot, because as noted, the plot progressed as was deemed fit.  The moment of the story where that became not okay was when their requests lined up in wording, at least in how I read the telling of it.  This leaves players in the same spot; Apparently, we can be good and friendly with each other and talk about the game but not in the game...unless something happens that appears to be not what was desired or up to approval, in which case that communication will be pinned with the fault of ruining the plot, even though...that's...not their fault, as presented.  The thing that ruined the plot was the sudden withdrawal of it as a staff decision.

That's not a slap at staff.  That's just me reading it and saying 'Uh.  Either you left out some stuff that actually made it their fault, or you got mad about them talking to each other and decided it ruined the plot without actually thinking that through.'

I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 10:00:50 PM
Either I'm the only one who's seeing what Nergal is saying, or I'm totally misunderstanding all of you.

What I'm taking from this situation as posted:

There was some OOC collusion among some players with regards to a Armageddon-style dungeon-crawl the staff set up.

Some OTHER players on the other side of things did stuff that was also OOCly unkosher.

As a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level. In other words, players were taking their OOC frustrations of the OOC situation into the game, because they knew that it was being manipulated OOCly. So the staff shut it down.

All because a few people decided they could win the IC game better if they cheated.

That isn't what was happening.

There was a cave. Houses A, B, and C were all in competition over it. House A moved to secure it. This led to a House A leader PC being assassinated because he was (in-character) getting in the way of House B/C motives. So far all good.

Problem #1: The player of House A leader bitches OOC about how he died. It short-circuited some of the mystery, but it wasn't like House A players would have no idea who was behind their leader's sudden death. There had been plenty of conflict before hand, plenty of ground legitimately laid. The OOC bitching was really bad, but it wasn't gamebreaking.

Problem #2: The players of House B and C, who were already colluding IC, were also "apparently" doing so Out of Character. Whatever it was they were doing, Staff claim it was so bad it was giving them an unfair advantage in game. I'm curious to hear how it was. I'm pretty sure the PCs of House A could have obliterated the entire PC population of House B or C and perhaps both, simultaneously. So I'm not sure what the B and C colluders could have done to save themselves from a righteous asswhupping should House A players have decided to inflict one.

If people want to play to win, I say let them. They still have to do it in game, and I'll trust my chances in game any day.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 29, 2016, 10:08:39 PM
I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

I think it's a poor example too. How's this for a better hypothetical of how OOC can ruin a plot, adapted from something that actually happened:

At a southern party, a noblewoman was assaulted by a magicker and saved only via quick thinking on the part of a nearby Templar. The assumption by all (Templar, Noble, underlings) was that a local sorcerer had just tried to whack the noblewoman. The sorcerer was blamed, plans were drawn for revenge.

In fact, the Sorcerer had nothing to do with it. The actual culprit was the Northern Templarate, using a rogue wind mage. It was a masterful misdirection because who would expect the northies to use magick? And it worked because everyone - Southern Templars, Northern Templars, Southern Lady, Sorcerer, Rogue Wind Mage - kept their fucking mouths shut Out of Character.

The Sorcerer probably knew he was getting unfairly blamed, but he never bitched OOC about it, instead they rolled with it. This let the in-character plot and fiction continue without being influenced by meta knowledge. If the Sorcerer had talked about it at all, anywhere, they could have ruined the plot. But they did the responsible thing and let in-game events play out without out-of-game commentary or chatter.

If Staff didn't like processing kudos 2 years after the fact I'd probably write that Sorcerer one now.

There's no way to legislate this good behavior. All we can do is try and convince people that, if you keep your mouths shut about the game and let things play out in the game, it's going to be funner for you. People need to buy in to the notion that OOC Communication can ruin plots. I think examples of "how plots could have been ruined by OOC communication" are stronger reinforcement for responsible behavior than examples "plots that were simply assumed to have been ruined and are shut down by staff fiat."

I'm not sure how to explain that talking about a plot OOC is a bad thing to people who seem to think that there is a workaround even in the face of cheating. Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened. It's obvious when you're looking from the top-down, and I'm not going to explain how it's obvious because that gives cheaters a way to hide their behavior.

Quote from: Nergal on October 29, 2016, 10:41:00 PM
I'm not sure how to explain that talking about a plot OOC is a bad thing to people who seem to think that there is a workaround even in the face of cheating. Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

The workaround is that, whether a PC is cheating or not, in this particular case the player-characters of House A already knew from in-character action that the player-characters of House B and C were their enemies. All they needed to do was kill them to render the cheating moot.

Sometimes you don't know a PC is against you, and that can be frustrating. But complete secrecy is achievable enough in game anyway with the Way. That's why you have to keep your stats and skills up, so if Aidesy McAsshat suddenly tries to turn on you without any prior indication of potential betrayal, you're able to escape or kill them.

I think we all know what your position is and that you're unlikely to change your mind about it. I'd like to invite people to think less inside the box of raw coded power before jumping on that bandwagon, though. Every situation has its nuances that aren't necessarily solved by one clan having more long-lived combat PCs, or by wiping out the PC population without regard to the larger, virtual world.

There's obviously a lot that can't be said, so that opens the door for argument over the smaller details. In the end though that is just missing the larger point of telling the story in the first place.

So, we don't want a witch hunt environment. Thing is, that goes for both player and staff attitudes. If you want benefit of the doubt it is only fair to give it as well. It can be hard not to get jaded but that's exactly what we as staff and players need to try and do - not get jaded. Remember we are all here to play a nerdy, immersive game on the internet and make it as awesome as we can for as many people as we can. Some won't be satisfied. That's inevitable. But reaching out for feedback like this is a solid and much appreciated move on staff's side. I'd hate to see them get raked over the coals for trying to do just what we have been asking for, for a long time.

Perhaps there are things staff could have done better in Nergal's example - we are all human after all. But that doesn't invalidate the story. There are absolutely things the players could have and should have done better. The whole point of this thread was to remind players of the perils of OOC collusion and discuss how we can better handle it as a community.

I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

Quote from: Delirium on October 29, 2016, 10:50:13 PM
I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about how we're talking too much OOC about the game and how to "regulate" that? Staff members (not staff as a whole) pointed fingers first.

As I've said, we need to get people to buy in to the notion that it's better not to talk about the game, not come up with a new regime to catch and punish transgressors. We'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The game is much funner when you don't talk about what you're doing in game. Support that with positive stories, positive examples, instead of this "here's how you, the players, fucked up."

Some players are going to talk, always. Some are going to cheat. Sometimes it's really obvious when they are, like the two PCs who constantly pickpocket one another to raise their skills. That can be caught and it should be punished. I just think it's easier to prove when something could have been ruined by OOC chatter, than it is to convince people of subjective "top-down" examples that we just don't know enough to believe.

Did you.... not read the sentence literally right before the part you quoted? It's really hard to have a genuine conversation if you're only going to cherry-pick things so you can be right.

I even agree with some of the points you make, but you're really damaging your credibility when you approach this conversation with the very same high-horse attitude you decry.

Quote from: Nergal on October 29, 2016, 10:41:00 PM
Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

This is very enlightening and I think clears up some of the confusion. BadSkeelz, we both know that House A was an IC powerhouse, but the leader still died, to a particular magic effect. An effect with in game restrictions that were apparently circumvented with OOC communication.

Quote from: Delirium on October 29, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
Did you.... not read the sentence literally right before the part you quoted? It's really hard to have a genuine conversation if you're only going to cherry-pick things so you can be right.

I even agree with some of the points you make, but you're really damaging your credibility when you approach this conversation with the very same high-horse attitude you decry.

I'll confess and say I'm not actually sure who you were address, me or Nergal. I guess I should I just think examples like Nergal's are

A) not particularly good because there's nothing in it to show how the purported cheating couldn't have been overcome by actually playing the game

B) the approach is not going to reinforce the behavior we want to see from our fellow players.

There's nothing wrong with a high-horse attitude. Staff, as staff, even have the prerogative to ride one. I just think they're sitting on it backwards here.

Quote from: lostinspace on October 29, 2016, 11:07:04 PM

Quote from: Nergal on October 29, 2016, 10:41:00 PM
Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

This is very enlightening and I think clears up some of the confusion. BadSkeelz, we both know that House A was an IC powerhouse, but the leader still died, to a particular magic effect. An effect with in game restrictions that were apparently circumvented with OOC communication.

Not really? Whatever the effect, it still killed House Leader A. The obvious culprits were House B or C. The means of how the Leader PC died are irrelevant to the fact that he died, and there was an obvious target to blame. If the dead Leader's player had done the right thing and not talked, and his former Clan had blamed House C simply because of making logical assumptions, the end result would have been the same.

QuoteThe whole point of this thread was to remind players of the perils of OOC collusion and discuss how we can better handle it as a community.

I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

I wasn't on a witch hunt.  It's just that an example was posted to show how harmful it was, and I really couldn't find the actual harm done to the game.  Just an example of exactly what -I- worry about, which is the stance of 'this is so' and punishment, whether for the better or worse of the game as a whole.  I'm not exactly sure what the point of posting the thing was if you're going to omit the part where actual harm was displayed, when that's the purpose of the example.  I don't tell you how harmful a chemical is to a plant, then show a video of it being poured on a plant, then a time lapse of nothing happening to the plant.  Because that would be silly, even if I'm already in agreement that the chemical is bad.

But that's also why I said it was a bad example and we should move on from it, after being established that indeed, as it stood (without us knowing all the details), that probably could have been handled better.

To better handle it as a community, the player side is the hard side.  Staff side...don't punish people for things that you only suspect they did (or for doing IC things that happen to not fit in well), and don't punish them unless they're actually harming the game (though frank discussions about the path they're on within those bounds might be more commonplace).  Player side is all...screwy, because as we keep saying, some people really just don't give a shit.  I can certainly promise that the game gets cooler when you stop using AIM and IRC and all that jazz, but that doesn't mean they're going to listen.  That's a serious pickle to deal with.  But eradicating its presence is -not- worth punishing contributory players over, that much I'm sure of.

The game survived fine back when I was caught for multiplaying by a long period of monitoring (That was a 2 week in-game ban, by the way; allowed to log in, put in a room with no exits).  The game survived when I was playing from the same LAN as a real life friend of mine, and all that happened was a note to be careful of it on my account.  The game survived where I made 3 characters in a row with that friend, before there was simply a send saying 'Hey, can you stop buddying up with your friend so fast?  Make some fun out of it.'  The game survived when people were coordinating attacks in an IRC room and telling each other when they died and where.  It survived all of that -just fine-, even though it wasn't good things happening.  I don't think taking it to the extreme of ending plots as punishment or jumping down people's throats because of assumptions over it is even necessary.  I think that's just being overzealous.

Well I at least now know where staff is coming from with this example now, and how OOC could have dominated anything House A did as long as they had access to that tool.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 29, 2016, 10:29:37 PM

Quote from: Armaddict on October 29, 2016, 10:08:39 PM
I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

I think it's a poor example too. How's this for a better hypothetical of how OOC can ruin a plot, adapted from something that actually happened:

At a southern party, a noblewoman was assaulted by a magicker and saved only via quick thinking on the part of a nearby Templar. The assumption by all (Templar, Noble, underlings) was that a local sorcerer had just tried to whack the noblewoman. The sorcerer was blamed, plans were drawn for revenge.

In fact, the Sorcerer had nothing to do with it. The actual culprit was the Northern Templarate, using a rogue wind mage. It was a masterful misdirection because who would expect the northies to use magick? And it worked because everyone - Southern Templars, Northern Templars, Southern Lady, Sorcerer, Rogue Wind Mage - kept their fucking mouths shut Out of Character.

The Sorcerer probably knew he was getting unfairly blamed, but he never bitched OOC about it, instead they rolled with it. This let the in-character plot and fiction continue without being influenced by meta knowledge. If the Sorcerer had talked about it at all, anywhere, they could have ruined the plot. But they did the responsible thing and let in-game events play out without out-of-game commentary or chatter.

If Staff didn't like processing kudos 2 years after the fact I'd probably write that Sorcerer one now.

There's no way to legislate this good behavior. All we can do is try and convince people that, if you keep your mouths shut about the game and let things play out in the game, it's going to be funner for you. People need to buy in to the notion that OOC Communication can ruin plots. I think examples of "how plots could have been ruined by OOC communication" are stronger reinforcement for responsible behavior than examples "plots that were simply assumed to have been ruined and are shut down by staff fiat."

This better illustrates the issue, as I understand it. I agree, all you can do is -try- to get people to keep their mouths shut and let things play out in the game. But, even if ONE person rejects your advice, that's all it takes to ruin plots. That ONE person who rejects the advice. And there really is no way to prevent him from complaining publically that his PC was scorned/killed/criticized by other characters/staff/players. That one single person rejecting sage advice and publically complaining about that one tiny little thing - is all it takes to ruin a plot. As your example shows very clearly.

Also, AFAIK the player didn't complain about their death, their killer bragged about it.

Quote from: Reiloth on October 29, 2016, 11:21:56 PM
Also, AFAIK the player didn't complain about their death, their killer bragged about it.

Both the killed and the killer talked about the death very quickly. I believe the Killer only talked after he saw the Killed had talked, but I wasn't writing down timestamps or anything. There's plenty of players who should have behaved better, for sure.

Quote from: Lizzie on October 29, 2016, 11:17:27 PM
This better illustrates the issue, as I understand it. I agree, all you can do is -try- to get people to keep their mouths shut and let things play out in the game. But, even if ONE person rejects your advice, that's all it takes to ruin plots. That ONE person who rejects the advice. And there really is no way to prevent him from complaining publically that his PC was scorned/killed/criticized by other characters/staff/players. That one single person rejecting sage advice and publically complaining about that one tiny little thing - is all it takes to ruin a plot. As your example shows very clearly.

I just don't see a way that we can enforce that kind of behavior. We can only demonstrate how it could be bad, ask players to trust each other and staff (while also reminding people that their character's life are in their own hands and to take appropriate precautions) and not let their frustrations get the better of them.

Quote from: lostinspace on October 29, 2016, 11:16:47 PM
Well I at least now know where staff is coming from with this example now, and how OOC could have dominated anything House A did as long as they had access to that tool.

Want to PM it to me? Because I don't. Talking on AIM doesn't boost your skills, or add a couple of 100 day warriors to your clan. It protects secrecy of communication and can streamline coordination, but you still have to play the game. And while you're busy AIMing, your enemies can be out sparring or making alliances with other PCs. Hell, clans have Clan Forums. They're able to coordinate OOC as well. It's only cross-clan coordination that goes unregulated.

QuoteIt's obvious when you're looking from the top-down, and I'm not going to explain how it's obvious because that gives cheaters a way to hide their behavior.

Ehhh.  I don't think so.  Based on personal experience relatively recently, I'm really not confident at all in the infallibility of your word on how obvious it is.

Edit: Better phrasing.

If staff okays me sharing the info Badskeels, then I'm willing to explain it to you in a PM.

What are the best ways to encourage new players (and old players I guess, but good luck with that) to adopt an attitude of absolute ic/ooc separation? I ask because the lines on the topic have been drawn pretty firm and it's obvious that the only thing we all agree on is the world would be all cherry if most players were good boys and girls.

I mentioned to someone, once, somewhere, that an integrated ooc chat on this forum would be a neat idea. Something easy to moderate. Get people off the pedestal and make them make their points in realtime rather than these long, thirty paragraph diatribes. Unleash the need to talk openly about the game, about cool stuff that happened, in an official and moderated chat. Just an idea, eat it or spit it.

A more comprehensive yet straight-talk opener in the introduction bit on the webpage, explaining how and why we play. Rant on about how awesome it is to get totally -screwed-.

let me put it in laymans terms.

players of house a were fighting two wars.

they were fighting house b and c.

they were also trying to fight ooc coordination between b and c.

what is ooc coordination?


that would be basically house b telling house c "hey house a players aren't in this area at this moment, because they're there, so send your people here and we can get the drop on them."


is that fair to house a? no. did it happen that way? well it seems as though nergal is saying it did happen that way. house b and c weren't just ic saying "this dude is there", they were ooc working out how their people were going to move and talk and think and act.


badskeelz you may not see the issue with that, but i propose this: what if house a had spies in house b and c? but all their plans were made ooc. now you have house a spying on house b and c, but no plans are ever shared ic and things just 'seem' to be progressing because of an alliance.


that is the issue. that is why ooc chatter is such a problem, especially at that level. it prevents any of the intrigue from taking place.

One of my very first characters death was caused by very likely ooc cooperation. I was in Kurac at the time. My character and this half-elf joined at nearly the same time and were competing in everything. We've competed for the same girl, we've gained mercenary rank the same day, we've competed for success, trust, etc, etc, etc. Except the fucker became Regular rank ahead of me and was clearly more favorite of the Sargeants then my character was. Then one day, I enter some wilderness spot and see him there, near death, bleeding out. That day I performed my first and hopefully lamest PKill to this day. The opportunity was so great. Out of place spot, no witnesses, the guy is near death. My head span IRL, my fingers jittered. I killed that guy (who was excellently played btw) in an instant with no, or barely any lame emotes.

The first moment Sargeant logs in. She is instantly furious/suspicious of me. Other clan leaders express their puzzlement, "What are you basing this on?"

To me it was pretty obvious that there was communication. So instead of letting the story run while influenced by OOC stimuli, I've had that character get all guilty over killing a fellow Kuraci, I've confessed to the chara's mate, a blooded Kuraci and had her kill me.

Ooophhh. What a horrible experience. I was regretful for almost an entire week. And then I just shrugged it off. Shit happens. People can be shitty sometimes. I still enjoyed the fuck out of that story and it ended well!

Truth of the matter is that the game is more enjoyable when you allow this kind of cheating to happen and not give a shit. As long as there any what so ever a possibility for things that got found out, to be found out/deduced IG, just fucking assume that they were? Because if you dont. If you begin to suspect and worry. It will poison your entire gameplay. It will sap your morale out. It will drain your interest, enjoyment, and motivation. It will fucking ruin your game. Just play out your story and if others want to cheat, fuck'em. They're the ones losing out.

This is the game where I've taught someone how to be a proeffecient mugger/assassin/guilder and after dying and running a new character, had my character mugged and assassinated by my own protege.  This is the game where I hired/manipulated a dwarf assassin to blow up Anthinius Oash and his precious tavern, and then a month later, I was the Oashi Lord investigating that assassination attempt, scheming to screw my other fellow Oashi and hire Kasix to repair the blown up tavern, instead of Borsail. I've had Psions who got themselves revealed to some PC, organized their deaths, and then had the same players run characters in the psions own clan and never reveal, or hint, or act in any way that showed their knowledge of my mindbender nature. I have no joke been victim of schemes that I have myself designed and involved others in who later took over after my own character died, only to later play in a clan that was ment to be targeted. I also brag a lot, you might've noticed.

My point is that this is an RPI mud. And with perma death, it is inevitable that one day you will become part of a plot that's ment to be secret and yet you will know EVERYTHING about OOC. No need for any kind of OOC collusion, you were simply part of that plot on your previous character. So if you're running a super secret plot, just assume that it is known OOC and ... dont give a shit. Trust the players to not use it IG.

Will they use it IG? Prooobably. Will you still enjoy the plot if you dont give a shit? Yes! You will! Will your enjoyment and morale be sapped, if you suspect every sudden guesstimation of others to have an OOC origin? Fuck yeah! You're not going to enjoy any of it. You will grow bitter. You will grow jaded. You will lose heart and discontinue plots. Nothing good will come out of it.

Yes. It is a wrong way to approach this. Instead of getting cheaters to stop cheating. I'm trying to get the cheating victims to stop giving a shit. But in this whole situation. Your personal approach to what's going on is the "only" thing you can control. Cheaters 'will' cheat. It's like playing a Guild Boss and getting your panties in a bunch and crying "betrayal!" when a loose affiliate of yours spills the beans during a Templar interrogation.

If you are a recipient of OOC information. Don't use it? Just dont use it. If you are a victim of a clique using ooc communication against you, just dont think about it this way. There are some kind of IC actions performed, otherwise you wouldnt have the basis for suspicion, just assume those actions are all legit IG based and react to them.


Nergal's example is actually good. Because I might be missing something, but I literally do not understand why was his morale sapped. Leader B and C are communicating ooc? Yeah. Okey. Probably. they've probably discussed and complained at each other, how the Staff lurves House A more and supports them more. Then they both decided to file a complaint about it. They wrote a bunch of versions, proof-read it, edited it, spent a whole day perfecting it, and then sent near identical ones in. Great. Yeah. They communicate OOC.  Were there any actions IG though? Did the two discuss their alliance IG? Did the two hire the magicker IG? If all the actions were performed IG, then you shouldnt have let it worry you.   You could've commented on it, said it was a shit move, etc, etc. But come on. This affected you way too much then it should have, in my opinion.

Mistrust is a bad thing. Being objective is difficult. Being jaded and poisoned by this mistrust is disastrous. Truth is, if cheaters are smart enough, you'll never be able to catch them. You have no control over the smart ones. They're all professional Arm Players. They've probably got a few elves behind their belt. Lying, weaving, misdirecting, and s.o.b.ing is on "master" level for them.

Want to use "The Hammer" ? Sure. When people are stupid enough to really be obvious about it. Use your hammer. But know, that using your hammer might actually hurt the game more.  You cant use the hammer for the sake of "demonstration" for others. Because nobody else will know, except this one singular clique. And even if it does get known, the other cliques will think the 'caught' clique to be idiotic for being caught and since they're much smarter, will continue on doing it. So the benefits are small, while the risks of losing some whatever awesome player are ... big enough to worry about.

There is always also this side where someone has a suspicion and they begin to observe the person an extra amount. This suspicion colors "everything". I've witnessed this before. When someone performs something and yet somehow, it always ends up being seen as 'wrong' by those already jaded. I ask them to describe what it's all based on and I've got crickets chirping.

Some gentle conversations are appropriate in my opinion. Truth is, it wont even matter if the response to such inquiries is a lie. It's like taxes. Sometimes the Revenue Agency see a red flag and they send in a request for clarification. They arent planning a full audit. They arent even particularly suspicious of you. Certain factors coincided and it's procedural for them to send in a request for clarification. Most of these requests do not account to anything. Unless the taxes cheating is blatantly obvious, they're not going to get an incriminating response. But ... the people 'will' get careful. And 'will' stop cheating for awhile. And that's good enough.

If you find yourself worrying about ooc communication every second day, then you should chill for a bit.

That here's my honest opinion. I know it's a little bit on a meh side. I mean I'm basically suggesting to drop pants and take it, but ... I think it's a wiser course of action.

Quote from: evilcabbage on October 30, 2016, 02:17:49 AM
badskeelz you may not see the issue with that, but i propose this: what if house a had spies in house b and c? but all their plans were made ooc. now you have house a spying on house b and c, but no plans are ever shared ic and things just 'seem' to be progressing because of an alliance.


that is the issue. that is why ooc chatter is such a problem, especially at that level. it prevents any of the intrigue from taking place.

Intrigue only exists to determine what PCs you need to kill to protect your own. Knowing that one House is in dispute with you, and then having one of your own abruptly killed, is enough justification for revenge killings to commence. A third-party might even take advantage of this to put you and the other house in conflict, as my example demonstrates.

House A already knew who their enemies were. Public actions of confrontation had occurred. Intrigue was no longer necessary.

This is what I mean to look at the acts characters do in game. If someone is acting against you, and it is obvious, it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. You already know they are your enemy. And if you know you have enemies, you should be playing with the expectation that someone, somewhere, somehow is watching and plotting your character's demise. Hopefully their plotting is in game, but it might be done out of character if the other players are shit. For safety's sake, assume they are. Fortunately you can't be killed from outside of the game, so take appropriate precautions.

Wow, guys. I'm just so disappointed.

The example has people using OOC to coordinate the death of a rival. It doesn't matter that they had IC reasons for that person to die. If they'd killed them completely ICly, that would have been perfectly legitimate. But based on the example they specifically coordinated to overcome coded difficulties to a particular spell. This is never, ever okay.

I understand that there's a want to see things play out ICly, because having someone do an IC action against you (even if OOCly coordinated) can make you want to plot to get IC resolutions/revenge. But the point of the example is that the players in question who were abusing OOC communication planned to kill more of the clan, and they couldn't be trusted to do this in a completely IC manner.

Staff has routinely said that if you're chatting a little and not sharing IC secrets or coordinating, then that's something different. But that's not what this example was at all. This is a very clear-cut case of abuse, and it's utterly shocking to me that it's not being recognized.

exactly what taven said. apparently there was ooc coordination to set everything up. that's not okay.


i don't share ic secrets or coordinate. hell, of late i don't really talk to anyone because i can't trust myself (or any of you fuckers) to keep anything secret. i'm sorry. but my enjoyment of the game has skyrocketed considerably because the people i talk to - flat out - aren't people who play this fucking game.

Taven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

The OOC coordination between Houses C and B only occurred afterward when they were trying to follow-up.

I missed it too. But I've just read this entire thread in one sitting.  Can someone quote the part about them using ooc to coordinate the actual kill?

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 02:32:46 AMTaven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

The OOC coordination between Houses C and B only occurred afterward when they were trying to follow-up.

Quote from: Dar on October 30, 2016, 02:35:01 AM
I missed it too. But I've just read this entire thread in one sitting.  Can someone quote the part about them using ooc to coordinate the actual kill?

That's how I read the story and Nergal's comments that OOC was making it easier to coordinate actions, as well as that this wasn't your run of the mill murder, corruption, and betrayal. I thought there was a specific piece that stated it more clearly, but I'd have to dig to find it.

Perhaps staff can elaborate more on the OOC piece of it, since we all seem to be reading it differently. Nergal and/or staff, could you please elaborate on the OOC in the example story? I think that would clear the discussion up a lot.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 02:32:46 AM
Taven, my understanding of the events is that there was no OOC coordination to facilitate the use of the spell. Everything was done fine and proper up until the killed character's player complained about the death. This led to House A finding out the truth "too early," or at all, or whatever.

Yeah, this wasn't my read on the story at all. I don't think staff was worried about House A finding out. I agree with your assessment that it was blatantly obvious who was behind it, looking at things from a strictly IC perspective.

[edited into oblivion]

I dont know what you're talking about. Odds are, many dont. You're just mindscrewing yourself into your own discomfort.  We do that a lot. Especially when faced with factors that are unknowns. Best advice? Dont do it. Eat some ice cream. Kill thy neighbour. Just do whatever gets your mind off things.

Quote from: Beethoven on October 30, 2016, 03:56:37 AM
I told myself I wasn't going to participate on the GDB anymore since I'm not playing and am trying to let go of Arm, but I have found it far too tempting to read this topic. I feel the need to say that I am extremely uncomfortable with this current discussion. While it is iinteresting and probably helpful to bring up this case, I can see that a lot of people on this thread know exactly who is being talked about.

I'm glad that Nergal is trying to be vague, but that very vagueness is leading to people speculating on exactly what kind of cheating was or wasn't going on, and Nergal has basically forbidden the participants from identifying (and thus defending) themselves. Now we have specific players being publicly branded as cheaters and the nature of that cheating discussed and argued about among the community. To me this is not okay. The people involved were confronted and the matter was handled as staff saw fit. They don't need to be called out and made an example of much later. It would be different if everyone didn't seem to know which clans and players are being brought up,  but they do.

Public humiliation is a time-honored mode of punishment.

"it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. "
I mean it kind of does.

Quote from: Jihelu on October 30, 2016, 04:16:32 AM
"it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. "
I mean it kind of does.

If my PC is attacked by two others in an alley, whether that attack was coordinated via the Way or AIM makes no difference to me. In that moment I have only my skills, stats, and equipment to rely on. I will either be killed, or kill them and continue to play my character. Except now I have a good IC story to share.

Coordinating OOC is still a shitty thing to do and should not be done, don't get me wrong. Not only does it rob your enemies a chance at interception (however remote that might be), you're really selling yourself short. You're missing out on the chance to explore your character's psyche, to engage in a meaningful exchange with other player-characters. OOC coordination is self-abuse.

Anyone who thinks OOC communications in the plot Nergal posted didn't dramatically change the outcome is severely underestimating the power of information.

There's a very big difference between suspecting something is true, and knowing something is true.  The lack of small, critical pieces of information makes a huge difference.  It's like cheating on an exam and saying "well, I knew it was A anyway, so its okay I peeked at the answer key when the teacher wasn't looking".  

I was tangentially involved in that plot line (with significantly more information than most PCs could have access to given my position) and I thought the entire situation was really, really weird in how played out.  Now I know why.  Everyone was chit-chatting OOC about it.  

If I spent countless hours running that plot as a staff member, it would certainly take the wind out of my sails and make me far less enthusiastic about trying out anything like that again in the future.  When plots filled with conflict translate into players abusing the rules to one up each other, players quitting the game in frustration, and general hard feelings all around it doesn't feel like it's certainly doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend my time working on.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 04:23:26 AM
Anyone who thinks OOC communications in the plot Nergal posted didn't dramatically change the outcome is severely underestimating the power of information.

There's a very big difference between suspecting something is true, and knowing something is true.  The lack of small, critical pieces of information makes a huge difference.  It's like cheating on an exam and saying "well, I knew it was A anyway, so its okay I peeked at the answer key when the teacher wasn't looking".  

I was tangentially involved in that plot line (with significantly more information than most PCs could have access to given my position) and I thought the entire situation was really, really weird in how played out.  Now I know why.  Everyone was chit-chatting OOC about it.  

If I spent countless hours running that plot as a staff member, it would certainly take the wind out of my sails and make me far less enthusiastic about trying out anything like that again in the future.  When plots filled with conflict translate into players abusing the rules to one up each other, players quitting the game in frustration, and general hard feelings all around it doesn't feel like it's certainly doesn't sound like something I'd want to spend my time working on.

If by "OOC communications dramatically changed the outcome" you mean "OOC communications provided an out for the plot to be shut down before you had 2-3 clans decimated by PVP warfare," then yes, I agree. The plot definitely went off the rails once the first big post-PK OOC outburst occurred and died with a whimper. The whole episode is murky and frustrating to look at.

Maybe it's just a philosophical difference on my part. I saw more than enough evidence in game to justify the massive retaliatory campaign reaction that did not occur. I guess I just think it's better to over-react than not react at all, and there was plenty of things in game to react to.

Am I understanding things wrong, or in that story is the only evidence of OOC collusion for IC events the fact that they sent similar requests in?

Because sure, actually planning things out OOC would be bad, but if the only piece of evidence was those requests, then why is the immediate assumption that they obviously plotted all the IC events OOC? I could easily imagine a case where two friends end up teaming up IC, and then at some point talk OOCly about feeling like the staff aren't being fair in their support, all without having used OOC to actually bring benefits to their characters.

If that really was the only evidence, and staff assumed that because they'd talked at all about IC events at some point that they were clearly using OOC communication for all its potential advantages, then that seems like a pretty big example of assuming someone's guilty right out of the gate. If their characters acted in an appropriate manner, if their teaming up was entirely reasonable given the events of the plot, if they still plotted things out between their characters, then why should a coordinated request sent about an out of character issue be such damning evidence?

I don't know, it seems like a lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that two friends who speak about IG current events -must- be using their chatter to coordinate things between their characters, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Though given all the people who seem to think so, maybe I'm missing something? I don't know, I genuinely feel like I am.

[edited into oblivion]

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 04:31:24 AM
If by "OOC communications dramatically changed the outcome" you mean "OOC communications provided an out for the plot to be shut down before you had 2-3 clans decimated by PVP warfare," then yes, I agree. The plot definitely went off the rails once the first big post-PK OOC outburst occurred and died with a whimper. The whole episode is murky and frustrating to look at.

How could it be a fair PvP contest under these conditions?  

1.  The retaliatory war you dream of is based on OOC information.  Would "A" risk everything when they don't even know "B" or "C" was behind the attack?  Could "A" have used it as an excuse to justify a war with B & C?  Sure!  But "A" has no idea if they can actually win that war, unless "A" factors in the OOC knowledge on the size of the PC portions of those clans involved and the relative age of the characters in those clans.

2.  How could you conduct a PvP fight when some players are actively cheating by sharing information?  Let's pretend "B" has an amazing spy network that's sharing information ICly about everything "A" is doing.  Wouldn't "B" have a huge advantage?  Well, that advantage is completely negated when "A" just uses AIM to share everything.   Spies don't pick up any information, because the conversations didn't happen in-game.  

I don't know if you've ever played EvE online, but the vast majority of major conflicts in that game are resolved by out-of-game activities.   There are some big space battles, but for every space battle there's some major thing that happens through "espionage" which has nothing to do with EvE the video game and everything to do with EvE the meta game.  The EvE community has embraced this meta gaming because there is really no way to regulate it, but it takes any semblance of roleplaying completely out of the equation from my perspective.  That's the path I don't want Armageddon to take.

You could call it a slippery slope, but I don't see how people talking on mumble about things as they happen is much different than an EvE online war, a WoW battleground, or any other number games where roleplaying is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of importance.

Quote from: Beethoven on October 30, 2016, 04:43:26 AM
Maybe this is a gross mischaracterization based on my obvious bitterness, but what I am seeing boils down to this.

Nergal: Look at how OOC communication ruins plots! For example, this one time these players were communicating OOCly, so I ruined their plot.

That isn't how I read the situation.  I read it as OOC communication ruined core pieces of a plot where it would have been irresponsible to let it continue.

Also, if you want my speculation on the matter, the OOC communication ruined more than pieces of the plot.  It ruined the motivation of some players and staff involved in doing the work to keep that plot running.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 04:46:31 AM
How could it be a fair PvP contest under these conditions?  

1.  The retaliatory war you dream of is based on OOC information.  Would "A" risk everything when they don't even know "B" or "C" was behind the attack?  Could "A" have used it as an excuse to justify a war with B & C?  Sure!  But "A" has no idea if they can actually win that war, unless "A" factors in the OOC knowledge on the size of the PC portions of those clans involved and the relative age of the characters in those clans.

By this logic, any time you're sizing up a potential PVP encounter you're guilty of using OOC knowledge. We all size up other PCs based on how old they are, how much they could potentially have twinked up, what their guilds might be.

Regarding risk, House A wouldn't be risking everything either, just the small contingent represented by PCs who had a personal stake in the conflict.  House A 's PCs certainly could have assumed who did it, they could have looked at the members of that particular opposing crew, and judged that their own crew was capable of wiping it out. None of these Houses would have actually destroyed each other, as you can't attack the virtual crews of a House. But if you kill enough of the PC population, it stand to reason that the Virtual portions of the House would react - ideally by negotiating an end to the conflict once one House had established local dominance. Or by spawning a shit ton of NPCs and killing you in return. Either way it's better than doing nothing.

Quote
2.  How could you conduct a PvP fight when some players are actively cheating by sharing information?  Let's pretend "B" has an amazing spy network that's sharing information ICly about everything "A" is doing.  Wouldn't "B" have a huge advantage?  Well, that advantage is completely negated when "A" just uses AIM to share everything.   Spies don't pick up any information, because the conversations didn't happen in-game.  

If B's network is so good, then they either have someone in the clan forums or capable of observing the compound. OOC communication only provides anonymity up to a point. At some point your PC actually has to log in to the game and attempt to do something. That's when you become visible to spies and counter-attacking.

A spy network is also pointless if you don't have the coded muscle to do anything with the information it provides.

Quote
I don't know if you've ever played EvE online, but the vast majority of major conflicts in that game are resolved by out-of-game activities.   There are some big space battles, but for every space battle there's some major thing that happens through "espionage" which has nothing to do with EvE the video game and everything to do with EvE the meta game.  The EvE community has embraced this meta gaming because there is really no way to regulate it, but it takes any semblance of roleplaying completely out of the equation from my perspective.  That's the path I don't want Armageddon to take.

I agree that EvE is boring as shit to play. I would argue that we're already at that point with Armageddon. It just so happens that our form of metaplay seems to be geared towards finding ways to shut down any actual in-game conflict and perpetuate the status quo, unless someone in a privileged position feels like running a plot.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 04:58:27 AM
Also, if you want my speculation on the matter, the OOC communication ruined more than pieces of the plot.  It ruined the motivation of some players and staff involved in doing the work to keep that plot running.

I agree that this is the real moral of Nergal's example.

Edit: Also, the retaliatory war would not be based on OOC information.

There were IC confrontations between the clans. There was IC motive. There was an IC act. It didn't take a genius to connect the IC dots. All of that would be enough justification for a group of characters to decide to go fuck up another group of characters. Maybe it would be the wrong assumption, but just because someone talked OOC would not have invalidated the IC reasoning.

[edited into oblivion]

Eh. It's late and I'm upset. I shouldn't even be posting.

Quote from: Nergal on October 28, 2016, 09:25:58 PM
The player of House C's leader was known to have coordinated requests in the past with other players, and it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated too. When questioned, both players, of course, admitted to being friends but did not admit to collusion of any kind. The phrasing, organization, and timing of the complaints, however, told a different story.

I reread the story again, and unless I'm missing something, the only evidence that B and C actually did what everyone is accusing them of (using OOC chat to bypass espionage, using it for faster, more readily available communication on IC matters, etc.) is that "it was not too much of a stretch to assume that other things had been coordinated, too." In other words, from how it sounds, two characters did things that made sense under IC circumstances, but because of an admitted assumption that those things that made sense IC -might- have been facilitated through OOC means, everything was ruined?

Again, some people seem to know more about this event, and maybe there's some really damning evidence or something being left out, but if this is the sort of evidence being cited as "concrete proof" by staff when players are being approached about this sort of thing, then players definitely aren't being treated as being innocent until proven otherwise. Few people will dispute the -potential- for OOC communication to mess things up, but jumping from "they talked OOCly about IC things and coordinated a request" to "they clearly colluded on IC actions for the purpose of trying to win in a way that was actively detrimental to the plot" seems like a problematic leap to take without more evidence then it not being "too much of a stretch to assume."

At various other points in the thread, the distinction has been made between communicating and getting IC information OOCly, and actually using it for IC benefit. Unless I'm way off (and I might be), this would all seem to suggest that the presence of OOC communication is being automatically assumed to mean that the players in question are breaking the OOC/IC wall. I just don't think that's an assumption that's at all reasonable to make.

How are staff supposed to know every detail?  I don't think they hav installed keyloggers on the people involved (or would he need recording devices too?).  Staff saw clear signs of collusion, between people that apparently already had account notes for collusion in the past, shortly after an entire major plot point was spoiled by OOC communications.  Sure, it's possible that all of these pieces of OOC information that were shared weren't enough to spoil the plot, but evidence of cheating is there.

Exactly what gave staff the clue that collusion was taking place is irrelevant, they're not going to share those facts, and some people aren't going to agree with their interpretation of those facts even if they do.  The appearance of wrongdoing does just as much damage as the wrongdoing itself.

If a professor gives a final exam to a class and later finds photocopies of the answer key in the class room's trash can, what should that professor do?  It's possible no one used these answer key's to cheat.  It's possible, but it wouldn't be fair to let the test scores stand.  In a university, the professor would force everyone to retake the exam or base grades off the performance prior to the exam.  This isn't a university.  The professor decided to say "fuck you guys" and went and played some Fallout 4 with their free time instead.  Sounds like some of the students in this analogy decided to go take their ball and play elsewhere too.

I deleted my comment, wizturbo. I'm just upset about largely unrelated things and it's late.

Quote from: Beethoven on October 30, 2016, 05:39:36 AM
I deleted my comment, wizturbo. I'm just upset about largely unrelated things and it's late.

Okay.  Editing mine not to quote you then.  <3

QuoteHow is Nergal supposed to know every detail?  I don't think Nergal has installed keyloggers on the people involved.  He saw clear signs of collusion, shortly after an entire major plot point was spoiled by OOC communications.

You keep saying that, but you've had it pointed out several times that the story itself says nothing of proof of collusion until after the fact.  That's when they found out.  Then they looked back and all the things that were fine and made sense prior were suddenly regarded as broken.

This is not to say that I agree with Skeelz in that coordination OOC is okay instead of IC; I've said numerous times I disagree.  But people still keep saying 'clear evidence' as if that's a given, and all these posts are talking about exactly why that isn't clear evidence.

To rephrase; We've made it okay to be friendly.   That's been established.  Even to talk about the game world.  That's okay.  The game is fine.  Just not IC events.

So you keep asserting that this was Player of B and Player of C in contact, as admitted, to say 'Let's do this and this and this and fuck over House A, because they fucked us over.'  Now, the IC action in that is sensible; the ooc discussion of it rather than IC is bad for aforementioned reasons.

But suppose it was Player B and Player C getting in contact a long time before, being friendly, but not talking much, then this plot arises, they talk more, but not about making plans aside from 'Oh, I'll see you on tomorrow, right?'  However, after things happen, they see a blockade in their efforts, and they ask if the other person got the similar response from staff or similar treatment.  At this point, this is OOC discussion about IC things, right?  But did this just ruin the plot, when they get in contact through their own requests and present the same cases and ask for the same things?

Case A, where the relationship is being used specifically to fuck over House A, makes sense, but makes some shortcuts.  It follows IC logic, but it turns things 'gamey'...they need to keep those meetings going IC for the fairness to remain intact.  Case B, though, still 'proves' the relationship, but that's not really collusion.  However, it still fits the narrative of the story presented, and also shows in no way a change to the plot itself.  

You're reading it strictly the first way.  I'm reading it and wondering if it was possible it was the second way, but got jumped on as if it was the first way. For it to be -only- the first way requires evidence/parts of narrative that were not given to us.  And that is why there's been 2 pages of discussion arguing over it; I'm not trying to brow-beat here, but I've become very wary of the 'We can tell easily' stance for this reason, and I happen to see far more harm in punishing innocent people for it than somewhat-kind-of-maybe-guilty people going free.  I feel that way about much more serious cases of justice in real life, I'm certainly going to feel that way about the video game.

Meanwhile, this entire thread is about how to fix this conundrum for both sides.  And so this issue comes up, based on whether or not a staffer should pre-emptively end their own plots based on finding out that some of the people are in contact with each other.  For me, I've known that OOC communication has run rampant for a long, long time.  So has collusion (some collusion, to some level, is perfectly fine with me; sometimes, I want to play with my friends, dammit! :P).  I think it should be dealt with where it can be.  But I don't think we should be going on an inquisition about it where overzealously rooting it out and ending plots over it is worth it.  Even in the case of the -original- example...that plot played out.  It just got cheated out of a twist in it.  Don't stop plots over it, there are still plenty of other people to enjoy it.  The only reason to stop it is if it -had- to go a certain way, in which case it just doesn't fit the criteria of what our plots are supposed to be like for a long time.

Whooaaa. I just want to say (again) I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

People who need to coordinate OOC to succeed actually need to get good.

Edit: since I've posted enough, and my first line's already been quoted, let me just tweak it here a little:

I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about other players doing it it if you're tough and good enough in game.

It's like when an old database of IC information got leaked a few months back. If you look at it, it's your own loss.

The only thing good players have to do to let shitty players triumph is not spar enough.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 05:53:19 AM
I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

This applies to basically everything, both in-game and in life.  Doesn't mean it's a good solution.  Sadly, in many cases, it's the only solution though.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 05:53:19 AM
Whooaaa. I just want to say (again) I don't think OOC coordination is cool. I just don't think you need to give a shit about it if you're tough and good enough in game.

People who need to coordinate OOC to succeed actually need to get good.

Oh.  Sorry, I thought I read a post where you said you didn't give a shit.  Heh.

Anyway.  I think it's time we put this thing to the same state that we're saying we expect if they 'suspect' that we did OOC plot-ruining;

Either A) they were 100% completely right and things were handled appropriately, but we just didn't have all the information that showed it so clearly.
       B) They were 100% wrong and two friends who played the game and talked with each other got labeled, and the discipline committee are now exposed to that and we have to trust they'll try harder (the same as we're essentially saying they could have handled it differently and trust the players to not do that shit)
   or C) There's a mixture of the two, and both parties are aware of where they would have done things differently through reading some of the feedback on things, and hopefully it goes better and no one gets hurt that their time and energy spent giving us shit to do feels suddenly rigged and like they're penned in to their own creation being a crock of shit.

I think this example has had its day in the spotlight, illuminating very little aside from that indeed, players have varying degrees of firmness on what is detrimental to the game.  SHOCKING.  I'm a hardcore integrity guy, but not so hardcore that justice hurts good people unjustly.


Edited to say my spacing is bad but I'm not fixing it.

Good time to pivot the discussion to the whole "justice" part of this.

Personally, I am definitely against any kind of zero tolerance approach with this kind of thing.  Extremely bad cases may warrant serious actions like forced storage or banning, the rest should be addressed through less severe actions.

You won't create a culture of good judgement and discretion around in-game secrets by swinging the hammer of justice around too freely, because ultimately staff don't really have many consequences they can dish out for this kind of thing.  This isn't like a company where you sign an NDA and face a lawsuit, the worst thing the staff can do is ban a player or publicly shame them.  Also, any harsh punishment doesn't just punish the person in question, it damages the entire community.  Force store someone, all the players that interact with that character just lost something.  Ban someone, we just lost an engaged player.  People who've been punished severely rarely admit to their wrongdoings, and in fact tend to reach out to others to bitch and complain and that just causes more damage to the community at large.

I'm a big fan of karma for this reason.  You want to earn karma, and keep your karma?  Then don't spill the beans OOC.  You create an incentive for the people who really want to "win" Armageddon to do so by acquiring karma, which means they have to follow the rules.  Of course, that means karma has to unlock things that are actually powerful, and that people really actually want to play, and with powerful magickers gone and all I'm not sure if that carrot is as tasty as it used to be..  But that's a whole separate topic.

Jesus. You threw out an entire plot because you thought two players may have been colluding?

Animate some NPC clan A assassins to kill the offenders. Post on clan A's forum board about NPC's having snooped on the people doing the 'gick hiring and confirming it was clans B and C. Do something, rather than throw up your hands and go home. If this is your one big example of how OOC collusion ruins completely everything, I'm going to view said collusion as being much more harmless than I thought.

n/t - responded to the wrong thread!

Quote from: BadSkeelz on October 30, 2016, 05:00:30 AMRegarding risk, House A wouldn't be risking everything either, just the small contingent represented by PCs who had a personal stake in the conflict.  House A 's PCs certainly could have assumed who did it, they could have looked at the members of that particular opposing crew, and judged that their own crew was capable of wiping it out. None of these Houses would have actually destroyed each other, as you can't attack the virtual crews of a House. But if you kill enough of the PC population, it stand to reason that the Virtual portions of the House would react - ideally by negotiating an end to the conflict once one House had established local dominance. Or by spawning a shit ton of NPCs and killing you in return. Either way it's better than doing nothing.

[...]

Edit: Also, the retaliatory war would not be based on OOC information.

There were IC confrontations between the clans. There was IC motive. There was an IC act. It didn't take a genius to connect the IC dots. All of that would be enough justification for a group of characters to decide to go fuck up another group of characters. Maybe it would be the wrong assumption, but just because someone talked OOC would not have invalidated the IC reasoning.

Hey guys?

I think it's important something be said. Staff shut down the piece of the plot that involved giant cave beasts, and perhaps punished the players involved with sharing OOC info.

The virtual world was accounted for with House A, B and C's actions. There were NPCs involved and a virtual repercussions as a result of House A's IC actions. The fact that cave beasts were gone sooner didn't suddenly remove A's ability to react.

The real fact is that B and C were found out ICly. House A worked hard to ICly gain proof of that, rather then just suspicions. The level of response that House A had was dictated by the players. Now, yes, there was some restrictions by the NPC seniors of the House. That did limit the scope of what could be done, eventually. Prior to that House A had a month or more to decide what they wanted to do and how.

The issue is that if B and C aren't playing on a fair field and are demonstrated to be chatting OOCly about the specific plot, then that throws things out of whack. But even with that, the overall plot continued.

Quote from: TavenNergal and/or staff, could you please elaborate on the OOC in the example story?

OOC may have been used to coordinate the killing. It's not completely clear. But OOC was definitely used to spread word of the killing after the fact.
OOC was definitely used to form and coordinate the terms of the alliance between the two allied Houses (fun fact: OOC friends almost never betray each other in-game, despite the insistence by players that it can still happen organically), spread ongoing plans for review, and coordinate complaints to staff via the request tool.

The minutiae of those actions aren't worth discussing, and I am not going to say exactly how we caught it, but I will say that if you react to something ICly that never actually happened IG, and it's something that could have only been discussed OOC, that raises a red flag there.

Quote from: Patuk on October 30, 2016, 09:06:45 AM
Jesus. You threw out an entire plot because you thought knew two players may have been were colluding?

FTFY. And yes. Once staff discover players are colluding, we do what we can to shut it down and reverse the damage. Simply removing the source of the rot is pointless once it has already spread. That being said, we did remove the source of the rot eventually and let the plot continue for a time, but by the time everything had happened, we found players had backed out of the plot on their own anyway.

---

Have another story:

The characters:
Amos, the roguish ranger
Lord Templar Malik, the templar

Amos was a pretty standard character. He went through Byn training and started to branch out on his own. He ended up on our radar when he ignored the virtual world (the crowd) by shooting arrows into the Gaj from the roasting pits to assassinate someone that was threatening his mate, and then running upstairs into his apartment to hide and wait out the criminal timer. Allanak was alerted to this criminal and the AoD began to hunt them, except for Lord Templar Malik, who had no IC relationship with Amos at this time.

Amos eventually got out of Allanak with his mate, and occasionally returned to Allanak to give his excess coin to Lord Templar Malik, out of the belief that it was good to keep a templar in his pocket. The templar accepted the coin without reacting to Amos's wanted status. Amos committed more crimes in Allanak, and even served as Malik's bodyguard from time to time.

Eventually, we discovered with the help of a third player that the players of Amos and Malik were OOC friends, and Malik was ignoring Amos's transgressions before he was even bribed because of the OOC friendship. After Amos decided to kill someone else in public, we decided to have the world react, because the PC templar was not reacting. An NPC templar swept in and worked on taking Amos to jail for punishment. Malik, who was logged out, immediately logged in to attempt to diffuse the situation by contacting the NPC templar. Amos decided to flee, and the planned prison punishment of exile from Allanak turned into execution in the Arena.

Quote from: Nergal on October 30, 2016, 10:30:32 AM

Quote from: Patuk on October 30, 2016, 09:06:45 AM
Jesus. You threw out an entire plot because you thought knew two players may have been were colluding?

FTFY. And yes. Once staff discover players are colluding, we do what we can to shut it down and reverse the damage. Simply removing the source of the rot is pointless once it has already spread. That being said, we did remove the source of the rot eventually and let the plot continue for a time, but by the time everything had happened, we found players had backed out of the plot on their own anyway.

Right.

Quote from: Nergal on October 30, 2016, 10:30:32 AM
Stuff

Ouch. You know, even if you were willing to risk a ban in order to 'help' your ooc friend through some metagaming junk, these people forgot that a death in Arm is basically meaningless (don't even need the 'basically' in there.) A year from now, you will have bad account notes and nothing to show for the fact that you did this to save your friend. Just remember that if you're ever considering doing that.

Quote from: Nergal on October 30, 2016, 10:30:32 AM

Have another story:

The characters:
Amos, the roguish ranger
Lord Templar Malik, the templar

Amos was a pretty standard character. He went through Byn training and started to branch out on his own. He ended up on our radar when he ignored the virtual world (the crowd) by shooting arrows into the Gaj from the roasting pits to assassinate someone that was threatening his mate, and then running upstairs into his apartment to hide and wait out the criminal timer. Allanak was alerted to this criminal and the AoD began to hunt them, except for Lord Templar Malik, who had no IC relationship with Amos at this time.

Amos eventually got out of Allanak with his mate, and occasionally returned to Allanak to give his excess coin to Lord Templar Malik, out of the belief that it was good to keep a templar in his pocket. The templar accepted the coin without reacting to Amos's wanted status. Amos committed more crimes in Allanak, and even served as Malik's bodyguard from time to time.

Eventually, we discovered with the help of a third player that the players of Amos and Malik were OOC friends, and Malik was ignoring Amos's transgressions before he was even bribed because of the OOC friendship. After Amos decided to kill someone else in public, we decided to have the world react, because the PC templar was not reacting. An NPC templar swept in and worked on taking Amos to jail for punishment. Malik, who was logged out, immediately logged in to attempt to diffuse the situation by contacting the NPC templar. Amos decided to flee, and the planned prison punishment of exile from Allanak turned into execution in the Arena.

2 players were clearly communicating about it and player Malik basically protected player Amos, and only Amos got punished? Or did Malik get a punishment as well? Cause two were clearly at fault here.

Both players were punished. My stories are focusing on the actual abuse, not the aftermath.

So emotions are starting to run a bit high, with that, I'm very close to closing this thread now.  I appreciate that some are understanding of what is going on, while others don't seem to get the point of it.  The Producers & Admins have the unflattering job of having to deal with these situations, it's not fun.  I wish none of us had to deal with it, but it is our job to make sure the game is fair to all in whatever way we can.

One thing I can take from this is that it seems that people would rather us come to them prior to talk about a situation before it devolved in a punishment.  They also would like us to be more willing to hear the other side, which is fine, but I will state that there are times where we have foolproof evidence, and we try to give the other party a chance to talk about it, but they still lie... those cases are going to get the hammer.  Prior and repeat offenders (which is noted on their accounts) are less likely to be shown leniency also, just due to the fact there is little evidence of them changing their ways.  Now if you come forward right off to us, I let you know that it is much more likely for us to be lenient.  Honestly, I've seen case where a player has gone... "Yep, I was doing this... sorry." before we even asked them about it.

At the same point you the players have more a job in this than we do.  OOC Cliques, groups, that gather up and talk about the recent ongoings in the game that will just help each other, these can be avoided.  I don't care if people get together to talk about the game in a way that isn't abuse, the TeamSpeak server has been a great place for me to go chat about it.  Even though BadSkeelz is a pain in the ass :P  - You all can also let us know if you have any complaints on any of this, or if someone is blatantly breaking the rules.

Anyhow... I'm only leaving this thread open for a bit longer.  Nergal has been kindly trying to give examples of what he's seen and how it affected the outcome of a plots he had a hand in with.

Yeah. if a character who wasnt logged in, logs in and immediately contacts an absolutely random Templar NPC, then it'd be an obvious and blatant ooc collusion.

Sad thing is that if the Templar character logged in immediately as it happened, I would've been ok with this. As long as he used IG means to find out about this. The Caught archer would way him and so on.   Did the Templar log in because the player of caught archer asked him to OOC? Yes. But realistically, he could've been logged in at the time anyway, so the story line is actually completely unchanged. It's no different (in my mind) then announcing a 'recommended' playing time.

But if the templar basically logs in, and insta contacts an NPC templar, whose name/sdesc he doesnt even know in any way. That's bad play. Idiotic even. Every single cheater of an OOC clique out there right now is thinking, "I'd never be so blatant. My OOC colluding is going to be unnoticed. Zalanthas shall be mine!"

I begin to suspect that OOC collusion may possibly be the 'worst' offense, or the one that began the slide, but in both situations there were other instances that the staff rightfully found dejecting. For GMH scenario, it's the desire for house B and C to solve a problem by PKilling entire PC population. Which is a lame, ignore-thy-virtual-world, uncreative, game damaging attitude to solving problems.  With Archer/Templar Scenario, it's the fact that the Archer kept shooting arrows into busy taverns, ignored virtual world completely, and used AI inadequacy in the "I" department to get away with it. All this, compounded with the blatant ooc communication sapped any kind of desire on staff part to be in any way accommodating.  I get all that and support that.

But this is a conversation about OOC collusion. And all of this, except the insta knowledge of the Templar, could've happened without it.  I once ran a rogue drovian rinthi elf who tried to burglarize the Templar Mansions, got caught by a Red Robe, tried to pickpocket him on our way to jails, was placed into PC blue emplar's hands, escaped him and the jails, got perma wanted for it. And a rl week later, that same PC templar removed the perma-wanted, and was giving me rare magick items and enchanting me with 30-40 rl hours worth of magickal sight spells. None of that was OOC collusion. All of it was IC. But if someone was already predispositioned to see OOC collusion in my actions, they could've easily suspected that it was.

I'm not arguing that OOC collusion is good. It's not. I'm just saying that in most cases, it's outside of your control. And a lot of that irrefutable proof comes from logs provided by another player. For these logs to happen, that other player must have been part of that OOC conversation and you should ask yourself whether that player himself is not an even worse OOC cheater? Worrying about this, letting it affect your judgement, your interest in the game, can be very detrimental to your own enjoyment and the state of the game itself.

At the same time being able to converse about IG events after some whatever period of time can be very beneficial to the game. It allows for the "WOW" factor, the "I'd love to be in a similar scene one day", "Shit. I think I'm gonna skip on homework and go play now, that itch to login is unbearable!" factor. And while ruining IRL lives, it can be very beneficial to the game itself.

Quote from: Ath on October 27, 2016, 08:10:41 PM
...
So I'll ask then, what sort of events could be talked about you think? I personally don't take the rules as banning any ooc, should we write them in more detail, give situations?

Quote from: Synthesis on October 28, 2016, 02:36:25 PM
1.  Desire to share experiences

2.  Desire to figure things out

3.  Desire to achieve things
3a.  Massive benefit to cooperating to achieve things
3b.  Cooperation is logistically simpler OOC than IC.

4.  Very little in the way of secure IC comms
4a.  Obvious massive benefit to secure comms
4b.  OOC secure comms are logistically far simpler than IC methods

5.  Difficulty of enforcement

6.  Ease of OOC communication
6a.  Sometimes massive benefits to OOC coordination

Doubt it will ever change.  It seems to have gotten somewhat better, but maybe I'm just not in with the cool kids anymore (not that I ever was).  Human behavior is what it is.  You can lament it all you want, but it's not going to change significantly.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 29, 2016, 08:44:31 PM
...
We want players to talk OOC, because we want this game and the community to be more than just in-game characters.  Something would be lost if I was just "Player131391" instead of "Wizturbo". 

At the same time, we do not want players to talk OOCly about things that can ruin fun plots. 

That requires every player, every time they talk to someone, to have good judgement about what they should or should not say.  It requires people when they're emotionally charged, excited, drunk, horny, or stoned out of their mind to make good decisions.  That's going to be very tough to manage.  I would consider myself to be 'very good' at keeping secrets through OOC channels, but even I probably let something minor slip in the 15+ years I've played this game.

Utter elimination of this problem is going to be practically impossible, and I have no silver bullet solution to offer.  In fact, the only thing I can think of are more complications:

1.  Valeria's post about having any cases of this handled by people who are not emotionally involved in the situation (a third party) is spot on, but I'm not sure it can realistically happen that way.  No staff members are unrelated third parties, they're a team.  If someone pissed off one of my team member's at work, I would almost certainly take their side.  That's what team members do.  I'm sure some staff members are better than others at being objective, but I doubt those staff members want their new job to be judge on OOC abuse cases.  And I don't see staff recruiting a "High Inquisitor" to handle these cases removed from all other staff business.  With that said, having someone who is not the primary 'victim' of the situation handle the OOC communications with the abuser is a VERY good idea.

2.  By the very nature of the problem, having solid evidence of abuse is going to be very difficult to acquire unless someone has contacts with the NSA.   And, because evidence is going to be so rare, the times staff do get solid evidence they're going to naturally be inclined to swing the ban hammer with righteous justice.  Partly fueled by the dozen cases they didn't have enough evidence to act upon, even though they're pretty sure there was some wrongdoing going on.  This might be true even if the person in question didn't do anything too awful.  It's like the guy who gets pulled over and has just enough weed on him to put him over some state limit that makes his punishment significantly worse than if he had just a few pinches less on him.

3.  Trying to apply black and white rules to grey situations is problematic.  Sharing your thoughts on the new monsters in the salt flats via AIM is OOC abuse, but relatively harmless.  Sharing who is a mindbender, or some major plot secret is not harmless.  Problem is, you might catch someone for the former but not the later.

...
My general feeling is I trust the staff to make the best calls they can on how to handle these situations on a case by case basis.  There's no world where this can be regulated in a precise, clear and fair way unless we 'legalize' the sharing of IC information and I think that would basically ruin Armageddon for me and many other players.

I like these posts.  Dar had an example of how a character assassinated someone, and their OOC friends immediately found out and played differently in game.  I've many examples of this myself.


As an elder player, the best times I've had was when I never knew the players that I played with; but an even greater moment was the reveal and talking about these shared experiences I've had with the players themselves after the fact.  I want to be able to share my storytelling experiences.

Maybe why most muds have Enforcer admins where their job is to just catch cheaters all day ery' day.  8) It's such a timesink/energy destroying/faith in humanity losing job for storytellers to run plots and deal with enforcement. Maybe take a look into Staffing enforcers, plural.

Nergal, I understand that history repeats in Armageddon (often getting more farcical as it does) but are you pulling and modifying all your examples from within the last year? Because I'm pretty sure I can pencil in the names of the actual PCs in your Templar example.  I don't know how the story actually ended, but we seem to be burning bridges here.

I'm glad they were caught, and wish players simply knew better than to behave like that. Especially the archery and apartment nonsense. The OOC colluding here was the clumsiest kind. No one can claim a witch hunt when that's punished.

Taven, regarding the house conflict, the question for me then is how pressured were the players of house A to respond a certain way, and how much of the drive behind that pressure was because Staff didn't think they any longer had the incharacter justification. That's probably a discussion for another thread, where the concern of realistic virtual world reactions get in the way of player action. Kind of the opposite of Nergal's example, where the original sin was not enough respect for the virtual world.

Quote from: mansa on October 30, 2016, 01:28:39 PMAs an elder player, the best times I've had was when I never knew the players that I played with; but an even greater moment was the reveal and talking about these shared experiences I've had with the players themselves after the fact.  I want to be able to share my storytelling experiences.

Using OOC channels to send a message like "something going on, could you login?"  Is not at all abusive in my eyes.  No one can be online 24/7.  So the suddenly logged in Malik doesn't raise red flags with me.  What they do after the login is perhaps another matter though and there's obviously more to the story.

Enforcers would be awesome. High-karma folks that have repeatedly demonstrated they don't abuse the game even when faced with character or asset annihilation. Their only concern in staff mode is watching the powerful (relative to other pcs) for signs of abuse.

My interpretation is that OOC collusion or friendship is what led to Malik giving excessive and poorly justified coverage to Amos. Malik abruptly logging in to try and save them was just the event that proved something shady was going on.

Quote from: a french mans shirt on October 30, 2016, 02:57:46 PM
Enforcers would be awesome. High-karma folks that have repeatedly demonstrated they don't abuse the game even when faced with character or asset annihilation. Their only concern in staff mode is watching the powerful (relative to other pcs) for signs of abuse.

High karma are some of the worst abusers. They've been around the longest and have the most relationships to draw on.

I volunteer for Shithunter General.

A staff role whose sole job is to hunt down other players?   Sounds like a recipe for absolute disaster.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 03:01:27 PM
A staff role whose sole job is to hunt down other players?   Sounds like a recipe for absolute disaster.

Heheh, probably.

I actually like what staff did to put an end to the Malik/Amos relationship. Staff spawned a new game piece that could have been survived if players played responsibly. Players kept to their bad habits and we all got an arena show out of it.

It proves that however much you talk out of game, there's always something to oppose you in game.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 02:34:40 PM
Using OOC channels to send a message like "something going on, could you login?"  Is not at all abusive in my eyes.  No one can be online 24/7.  So the suddenly logged in Malik doesn't raise red flags with me.  What they do after the login is perhaps another matter though and there's obviously more to the story.

Yeah, that's...kinda how I feel about it.

As far as the rest of that story there's a lot of circumstantials regarding timing and whatnot.  Sorry, not sorry, don't have problems with arrows into taverns (it's gone on for a long time, and in a game where people leave reality while asleep and where the majority of time is spent in public places or inaccessible places, sometimes 'opportunity' is less based on following the story because the story isn't exactly working in tandem with what we have access to).  Even in the HRPT, there were NPC's throwing weapons into taverns.  This falls under a number of other categories, where if things were real in how the code and game interact, then this would be a rule.  But the game doesn't behave in a real way due to it being a game; people are far more invulnerable within the city than they actually would be.  No one eats strange food.  You don't have the opportunity to poison bar food.  People aren't asleep in their beds.  Soldiers are omnipresent.  Etc etc. If this is a super serious no no nowadays, then influence the code for it to make it impossible for everyone equally, because as it stands, it doesn't get jumped on in any scenario other than this.  No one complains about VNPC's not being taken into account in open streets, or hardscrabbles, or apartment hallways, or rooftops where there are tents set up for squatters.  No one says VNPC's make this task impossible in any other scenario.  Likewise, no one complains about masters of any other skill doing masterful things, aside from perhaps theft, where they usually also receive a defense.  Thus, when it comes to this particular complaint of ignoring it, I actually think it falls closer to people thinking of taverns as 'safe zones', and feeling disappointed when that belief leads to a lack of safety on their part.  Otherwise, we're going to start having VNPC's being a lot less Virtual in a lot of areas, or an acknowledgement of a double standard being applied.  In the mean time, stop thinking of taverns as safe zones for crying out loud, that used to be common sense, particularly when you know you've just made enemies, or know that you've got longstanding enemies.  They aren't safety spots.  People can and will reach you, via whatever means the game allows (the same way the game keeps you safe in a multitude of ways you normally would not be).

The hiding upstairs afterwards was normal.  But in the old days, that might have led to having a templar and a couple giants come knocking on your door after talking to the clerk, depending on who was murdered.

The rest of it, though, if true, with the friend giving shielding and so on...

QuoteAfter Amos decided to kill someone else in public, we decided to have the world react, because the PC templar was not reacting. An NPC templar swept in and worked on taking Amos to jail for punishment. Malik, who was logged out, immediately logged in to attempt to diffuse the situation by contacting the NPC templar. Amos decided to flee, and the planned prison punishment of exile from Allanak turned into execution in the Arena.

This is much more in line with how things are well dealt with, in my view.  I like this reaction.  Put Malik in a position where he's attempting to sway another templar.  While this shouldn't be impossible, this is an immediate IC interaction based on templar ethics, with staff correcting what they think is strong collusion but at the least, not behaving in the game world the way they want.  This feels very appropriate to me.

Edit:  There's nothing wrong with templar/noble/upper crust protections in the game.  I don't care if they're friends with each other.  But the staff running a templar to handle it essentially forces that position that obviously hadn't been enforced for Amos in awhile.  "Don't put me in fucked up situations where I end up owing powerful competition favors to keep you alive.  Or someday, I won't."

I understand the apprehension Wiz. Most enforcers still have checks and balances in any sort of staffing structure. Present your evidence to Lead Admins and wait for a ruling. In the case of possible harm done to plots the storyteller would be notified by Lead Admin after an enforcer submitted something. In the case of triggers or wonky possible code abuse leading to gain in power the matter could be soley handled by an Enforcers judgement. Someone using a gathering script? Enforcers give them a direct message saying to respond in X amount of time to make sure they are at the keys. They fail a check inform them of the policy and make a note on their account.

It's not to bash players around like a HG clubbing baby scrabs, it's just to make sure folks understand the rules and are held accountable. Storytellers could get help from an Enforcer to watch for critical information getting leaked by characters who have been trusted with it. They can focus on their plot Enforcer can watch for any ooc motivations. Things run smoothly.

A hard job? Yes. Ultimately major punishment would still be decided by Lead Admins though. I understand to many cooks in the kitchen causes chaos but honestly everytime a staffer running a plot has to stop and investigate well... it's pulling their limited volunteered time from a project.

Quote from: wizturbo on October 30, 2016, 03:01:27 PM
A staff role whose sole job is to hunt down other players?   Sounds like a recipe for absolute disaster.

I agree with this 100%.

Quote from: The Warshaper on October 30, 2016, 03:26:25 PM
I understand the apprehension Wiz.

A hard job? Yes. Ultimately major punishment would still be decided by Lead Admins though. I understand to many cooks in the kitchen causes chaos but honestly everytime a staffer running a plot has to stop and investigate well... it's pulling their limited volunteered time from a project.

It's a bit past apprehension, I adamantly loathe the idea of having some inquisitor role on staff.

It is a hard job, and it makes you wonder who would sign up to do it for free.  It would take someone who enjoys doing that kind of thing, which is the absolute worst person for the job. 

We don't need enforcers- just send in a player complaint if you have good cause to think something shady might be going on.

I stopped reading after the archer scenario. I'd long had my suspicions about that player gaming things OOCly and have sent in complaints before, I know others have as well. Players are going to talk OOCly, like it or not, but some offenses are far worse than others. I wanted to thank staff for the plot they spawned to deal with the matter, I think it was excellent, appropriate, and made the virtual environment a real component to remind players, hey, it's more than just an armload of people playing a text game on the internet, it's a real world. My only complaint was it was allowed to fester for so long, but, I have to recognize that staff cannot act without some serious proof. I won't go into my personal experiences in this matter, staff is already aware of them and it's really not productive for me to whine about the rotten eggs I and some others had been served by another player. I honestly hope they grow out of the need to win Armageddon and start playing the game for the quality RP... which means being vulnerable or sometimes horribly abused, as I've been taught many, many times.

As far as the merchant house scenario, I was in there for the beginning of it, at least in the b and c involvement, and nothing aroused my suspicion of OOC collusion, as it seemed to slowly evolve over the course of various events and interactions, along with external circumstances. When the cave incident popped up, it was more crucial than ever to cement ties firmly, and I was trying to butt into the negotiations and shove them another way. I did find it interesting that one of the other players seemed to have a concept similar to mine in appearance, and slightly less-so in mindset, but I chalked it up to simply, there's only so many good ideas out there and sometimes two people simultaneously think the same thing. It looked completely legit to me, but staff says it's verified and I doubt they'd take such a strong stance if it weren't.

I mean, even if someone in this arrangement were OOCly colluding, my limited experience with it before I got stored gave me the idea it was straight up legit. Shocking to find out somewhere it wasn't.

I'm starting to feel like staff feels penned in to being hyperjudgmental and wield the hammer of thor's suspected justice purely off of the amount of shit they seem to hear about how unfair the game is and how they shouldn't die to random things or npc's or enemies they didn't know they had or suddenly.  Every death needs to be a spielberg movie, with them as a main character.  There's nothing wrong with verification and fixing problems, but some of these reactions from other players are ridiculous.

If you're going to twist every game-mechanic and hypothetical into why someone else is bad and you're good, I'm not sure how you got into this game in the first place.  There's a lot of shitty death on zalanthas, this is a pretty ruthless world, and a pretty ruthless game.  Imperfect in many ways, but some imperfections are in your favor, and some are not.

The 'playing to win' statement is old, and one that really only becomes applicable if you, too, are in the same mindset (i.e. You're playing to survive and tell a story; so are they.  The idea that their story went on and yours didn't makes you feel cheated.  No one is out there chuckling and making notches in their belt like they're the fucking highlander.)  No person truly set on a good story sees a story come to fruition and says 'That asshole was playing to win'; That's something that only comes about when it's -your- story that is important, which puts you in the same boat as everyone else, albeit perhaps less willing to have your character be mean in order to make sure they survive.  Which is...what people do, when it's hard to survive.

Anyway, edited my previous post to further explain why some of the responses are through tinted glasses in my opinion, but reaffirming that -this- is how I like to see things dealt with.  Make the game world react properly, with the caveat that it doesn't have to be an all out unstoppable punishment, but it does have to be a sudden moment of 'oh shit, right.  I got seen by VNPC's' or 'Oh.  Right.  Even though they're my soldier, that's causing a headache for other people who I'll have to fend off.'

There are some folks who will never be agreeable to any exertion of authority.

I suspect they are split into three camps:

1) The shitheads who are doing shitty things and want to keep getting away with it.
2) The victims of injustice who were accused of being shitty once, when they weren't, and now hold a permanent grudge against any accusations of shittiness.  (This group includes those who received a punishment that was disproportionate to their offense.)
3) The self-righteously naive, who know they themselves only do good things, and naively believe that everyone else is only doing good things, and that it naturally follows that all accusations of shittiness are unwarranted.

If you find yourself arguing about who should be punished for what with one of the above types, you aren't going to get anywhere.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 30, 2016, 06:05:00 PM
The 'playing to win' statement is old, and one that really only becomes applicable if you, too, are in the same mindset (i.e. You're playing to survive and tell a story; so are they.

I'm pretty sure he's referencing me, there.  During one of his prolific hate rants on his private Arm forum, he accused me of colluding with the player of Amos to kill his character, and that I only play to win the game.  Okely dokely, neighbor.

If it's true that Malik logged in to save Amos, I think that's unfortunate.  I think highly of both as roleplayers.  I wouldn't suspect them of something that cheesy.  I'm not really sure I believe it, but we all see different sides of each other.  I have heard that people do that, log in to save a friend from dying.  It seems a little shameless, to me.

You know, something happened to my IC situation a few months ago that made me suspect some OOC or meta-think was involved, and I was angry about it, at the time, sure.  But I moved on with my life, and it's pretty super to just let go, once in awhile.  This is supposed to be a game.  I can't believe we're talking about hiring enforcers or recruiting snitches.  What the fuck?

Maybe I'm #3 on Synthesis' list

So I think it's time to close this one. A lot of people have spoken up, given feedback, and some emotions have raised. The main thing to take away from this is that this shit does happen, intentionally and unintentionally. Any of you can report it via a complaint if you think it is happening. I will say that maybe staff can take some of the feedback here to approach situations differently, but we will still enforce the rules as we've written them.

All the feedback is greatly appreciated and I can see a few bits that I find useful. Thank you all for speaking up, even if others may not have are with you.