Ditching the karma/sponsored role system to improve player-staff relations.

[CirclelessBard]

I brought this idea up in a reply to a different thread, but I want to give it its own thread because I think it is worth considering.

First, the problems with the karma and sponsored role systems.

The karma system currently keeps the door open for staff to subjectively judge a player's roleplaying style. Players submit karma reviews asking to be considered for a karma increase, and staff must consider whether the player is "good enough" to advance to the next level. The staff will use character and account notes and written reports, judge the player's communication style, and judge their experience with a wide variety of different game mechanics. Essentially, the staff judge the player's contributions to the game. A biased staff member could easily be more or less lenient depending on their bias for or against the player. Account and character notes themselves could be inaccurate or represent a staff member's biased opinion, even if the karma review itself is handled by a completely neutral person. Karma losses are a setback and can be enacted more or less on a whim by a staff member that ranks highly enough.

Similarly, the sponsored role system judges players subjectively. The staff running sponsored role calls essentially have the opportunity to endow a player they like with a unique character. Staff also have the opportunity to lock out players by simply pigeonholing their application or by telling their counterparts on other parts of the team not to select a certain player for whatever reason. The existence of resource PCs means staff can reject all player applications completely and simply give the role to one of their own, which is itself a judgment on players (that players cannot handle the role).

Frankly, we were never that large of a game to justify the tiering of players. Even at its peak, Armageddon never achieved a significant population that warranted (including zero) four tiers of karma levels, let alone nine. Is there really any significant need to differentiate 3-karma players from 2-karma players? Is it not possible that both players understand the game fairly well? This tiering has the opportunity to breed resentment and mistrust - Player A with 2 karma wonders why he keeps getting passed up for the third karma point despite playing for 5 years, while Player B has only been playing for two years and has 3 karma already. The system may have had good intentions at one point, but it does seem to serve to split player interests in working together.

The helpfiles describe karma as a level of trust, but recent events have shown that karma is sometimes granted to the least trustworthy. There isn't much more to say about this point - it's fairly self-explanatory. But I will add that in general, staff are trying their best. I acknowledge that fully. But their becoming staff is also hinged on subjectivity. There is nothing that says staff are the paragons of good roleplay. They are on staff because they passed an application and interview process - no more, no less. Their authority is not necessarily derived from roleplaying well, and therefore they should not be in a position to decide if players are good or bad roleplayers.

So, with all of these problems laid out, what is the solution?

I believe the karma and sponsored role systems can easily be replaced with a system similar to reserving a book at the library. Players join queues for certain types of roles currently locked behind karma or sponsored role calls. A certain amount of slots are reserved for each type of role. When a slot frees up, due to a PC's death or storage, the next person in the queue has a week to make one of two choices: create a character (and fill the free slot), or swap their position in the queue with the person behind them (lets the next person have an opportunity to fill the free slot - useful if the player isn't quite ready to let go of their current PC or rejoin the game).

For a simple example, there are two queues: a Sorcerer queue and an Allanaki Noble queue. The staff decide that the game needs one sorcerer and four Allanaki nobles. Players fill the queue - it is first-come, first-serve. So the first player in the Sorcerer queue gets to play a Sorcerer and the first four players in the Allanaki Noble queue get to play nobles. But the player in the Sorcerer queue decides they're having too much fun with their current hunter, so they pass the opportunity to play a Sorcerer to the second person in the Sorcerer queue.

I think the ideal queue system is one where the roles are kept relatively vague as opposed to fine grained (e.g. an "Allanaki Noble" queue rather than separate queues for Tor, Borsail, Oash, and Fale).

[Kavrick]

I'm sorry but I really don't believe in the idea that because there have been some bad choices in karma (i've seen it myself, characters that are three karma and are yet un-emoting murder hobos), that we should just have no karma. It's best to try and fix the system than burn it down. What I do think needs to be kept an eye on is the actions of people who are playing karma roles.

I've always been of the opinion that anyone in a position of power has a responsibility to make sure other players are having fun, and facilitate it. No one in a role of power should be doing it for self-fufillment. Templars, nobles, sorcerers and clan leaders should all have the responsibility to 'make the stage' for other characters to shine, sadly this hasn't been the case in a lot of areas. Obviously, I cannot name names, but even in my short three months of playing i've seen some fantastic high-karma characters and I have seen some terrible ones. Same goes for sponsored roles, I've seen some leaders of groups constantly interact with the other players in the clan and I've seen some that completely ignore anyone who isn't in their personal circle.

I think the main thing is that these roles need to be more properly observed and kept an eye on. In the discord in particular, people have mentioned time and time again that half giants will constantly break the docs and do (what is observed) to be simply playing HGs to be big, beefy, and able to kill anything in front of them. This is a real damn shame because HGs, when played to the docs, have the room to be tons of fun, and some HGs do! Even if we talk about doing a character report, people will more than likely create a bias report from their own position, and this is understandable and very human, i'm not ragging on anyone for doing this.

I don't know how hard it would be to impliment, but I think there needs to be a sort of reverse character report. Say you joined the Byn, you're a runner. You should be able to rate your sergeants on how well they are doing. Are they giving you things to do? Are they making sure you're engaged in the roleplay of your faction? Simply put, are they playing the role of leader for themselves, or for others?

I know this is going off on a bit of a tangent on clan leaders, but clans live and die by the quality of their leaders, and I assume (so I'm sticking my neck out here because I haven't checked) That all leadership roles are sponsered roles, at least I hope so. I don't think just letting anyone play anything is the best way to go because that's going to result in some things that may push people away from the game. I imagine there are some terrible sorts that want to play templars for nothing but the power fantasy and first-come-first-serve may result in many of those. I just think there needs to be more observation for people who are in those roles, and they need to either be coached or replaced, as mean as that sounds.

[CirclelessBard]

You can certainly have observation of special roles under my proposed system. That would be the only point of "failure" in a staff-player relationship, compared to two points of failure in the current system (the approval process and the currently-existing monitoring process). I do agree that clans live and die by the quality of their leaders but I am proposing that staff selection of leaders is not any more or less accurate than essentially random selection by player interest. Basically, I am proposing that we trust our fellow players more.

[whengravityfails]

I do agree that clans live and die by the quality of their leaders but I am proposing that staff selection of leaders is not any more or less accurate than essentially random selection by player interest. Basically, I am proposing that we trust our fellow players more.

Hard pass. Like Kavrick says, I've seen more than enough objectively poorly played high karma roles to not want to trust players more. Between cheating, twinking, "em grunts" RP winners and murderhobos, I'd rather keep some system of quality control in place. Isn't this the whole point of trying to get less problematic staff - to try to be able to trust them more with this sort of process? It would be better to make changes to the existing system (perhaps by suggesting which members of staff are acceptable for this job) as opposed yet more radical reimagining of the game that will take up time to implement for very questionable results.

[Qzzrbl]

If we're seeing 3+ karma options being used by low RP murderhobos, isn't that kind of indicative of a pretty serious problem with the karma system as well?

[whengravityfails]

If we're seeing 3+ karma options being used by low RP murderhobos, isn't that kind of indicative of a pretty serious problem with the karma system as well?

Yes. I've advocated docking karma for such people. The system needs an overhaul because obviously a lot was granted long ago under unscrupulous oversight and now it can be addressed. Reform the system with people who can be trusted with it as opposed to allowing anarchy.

[mansa]

Personally, I like the idea of having the first karma point automatically distributed after certain criteria is met.

a) After one character has lived 10+ days
OR
b) A total of 30 days played across all characters created.

AND

c) After 12 months of playing since the account was created

I'm sure there can be other criteria put in there, but I think the first point should be given for "Thanks for sticking it out for a full year in our game!"  It should catch those players that are often overlooked because they don't play in timezones that match up with other leaders / staff.  I'm not saying this is the only way to get the first karma point, but it should still be implemented for those who are skipped.



My second suggestion is to implement the updated/refreshed subclasses that Brokkr was working on last year, and make them all 0 karma.  They looked very interesting and they all were 0 karma.

[whengravityfails]

I'm all for making the first point more quickly accessible. Even six months would realistically give most players enough experience for one karma roles.

Yes, make all mundane subguilds zero karma. I don't even recall if there was a rational argument for keeping them at one karma. As far as I can tell it's just a newbie frustrater.

[Gunnerblaster]

1.) I am against abolishing the karma system. It is not a perfect system, but it is a good system, in my opinion, nonetheless. Although, I do feel that if a player is denied a request for Karma, they should have the right to request reviewal once more by a different Staff member, if they're unhappy with the reasons cited for not being granted karma.

2.) I would absolutely LOVE to see a system in which 1 karma is automatically granted to players who've stuck with the game long enough, to give them a feeling of progression that isn't entirely dependent on sending in review requests at arbitrary time frames.

3.) Players in 3+ karma roles absolutely need to be held to a much higher standard than that of other players. If someone is low-RP murderhobo'ing their way around with a 3+ karma role, they need to lose that karma with a flag to watch additional PC's created by said players. If that same style of low-RP playstyle continues, then they need to lose more karma - And even basic options.

It circles back around to the abuse of certain skills simply because they can, without much incentive to advance roleplay - Like Sap/Backstab for the sake of killing, simply because they have the coded ability to do so.

[wizturbo]

I like the Karma system the way it is.  I don't like these suggestions except Mansa's, which I assume functionally happens anyway but taking any subjectivity out of it would probably be better.

[CirclelessBard]

To those who like the karma system, what is the appeal of it? Why do you believe it is working functionally or would work with a few relatively minor tweaks?

What of the sponsored role system?

[Jarvis]

To those who like the karma system, what is the appeal of it? Why do you believe it is working functionally or would work with a few relatively minor tweaks?

What of the sponsored role system?

Likes:

• Gave me something to "aspire"  to and good guidelines to improve my roleplay by following the different karma categories and going off that.
• Supposedly keeps griefers away from position.
• Supposedly rate limits the rarity of magickers/muls/sorcerers whathaveyou in a very non metagame way. Since the karma time is gone, some may see  this as non-point, but I trust staff
  will still tell someone to chill out after they've been churning out mages faster than Hogwarts

Dislikes:

• Hard to be impartial in the decision to give/take karma away.
• Some powergamey people will always slip through the cracks,  staff isn't perfect,  and some people put all their points into speechcraft and deception.

Extra Notes:

The karma system is fine as is and I like it this way. Some may get shitty and argue its some sort of pretentious gatekeeping. But its a system that will work wonders imo if correctly administered. No system is perfect. Anarchy isn't either. Every single system will have flaws and exceptions will exploit/make their way through it/ hit the griddy all over it.

If we were to demolish anything that a few bad apples ruined we'd be left with nothing.

I agree that 3 karma players should be under a lot more scrutiny,  if they aren't already. Be a lot more cold and critical with the karma system instead of removing it


PS: Nothing I particularly like or dislike about the sponsored role system. It just makes sense to me

[CirclelessBard]

I think if I felt that this was a "few bad apples" situation then I would be for minor tweaks. I feel the vast majority of staff that have ever held an Admin or Producer position have used access to roles as a means of keeping players in-line and relatively uncritical if they want to maintain a certain karma level or get into a certain sponsored role.

I like the system "on paper", but the problem is how the system is actually used. Removing the system becomes a form of disarmament, essentially.

[Bast]

I have seen enough horrible leaders and bad rp in high karma roles over the years to know we absolutely need a karma system. Staff does let new players get special app roles. It’s important when they do people that play that role well are in power too. Good examples are  part of how the new players learn.

[CirclelessBard]

The current karma system already puts "horrible leaders and bad rp" in high karma roles as well as sponsored roles, which is why you're seeing them under the current system. The current system does nothing to prevent bad examples nor does it encourage good examples. I admit that my queue idea does not address this as well as some would like, but I don't think we should pretend that the current system does, either.

I do think that the main strength of a queue system is that, at least, the bad examples are at least not picked by the staff by hand and that good examples that would otherwise get passed over get a fair chance.

[Jarvis]

I think if I felt that this was a "few bad apples" situation then I would be for minor tweaks. I feel the vast majority of staff that have ever held an Admin or Producer position have used access to roles as a means of keeping players in-line and relatively uncritical if they want to maintain a certain karma level or get into a certain sponsored role.

I like the system "on paper", but the problem is how the system is actually used. Removing the system becomes a form of disarmament, essentially.

Making such a huge decision on "I feel like X" feels like asking for trouble

[CirclelessBard]

I don't think my word choice is particularly important. The staff body has a history of abusively denying access to roles, and we can either modify that cudgel so it can be used in another way, or deny the staff of it. I would prefer the latter.

In an ideal world where the staff were totally fair, this would be a non-issue. But that history, which culminated in multiple staff members holding resource PCs because of a lack of trust in players to hold those same roles, is clear.

[DesertT]

Yes, the current system is imperfect, but it is certainly better than automating karma past 1.

There is no such thing as a perfect karma system.

I've been playing since '95 and I certainly hadn't been close to 2-karma level for 20+ of those years.

That being said, sure, there are karma 3 players that abuse code and don't provide good RP.  Perhaps that should be looked at and karma docked based on severity.  I think part of the problem with this is that too many players feel the need to start grinding as soon as they start a new character.  They act as if their character isn't ready until they've been off somewhere, grinding for 20+ days.  How is that reflective of an RPI?

Instead of getting that 20-day grind in (or whatever your magick number is), why not jump into the RP right away? 

I also feel that higher karma players should be held to a higher standard.  What?  You were intentionally grinding without any consideration of realistic RP or the vNPC community?  Docked 1 karma for 6 months.  Now your cap is 2.

What I'm ALSO not a fan of is the "no karma jail".  I haven't been able to take advantage of it yet, but I do not approve.  This lack of spending karma mostly benefits those who plow through characters.  One moment, they're playing a drovian miscreant and trying to off people in the middle of a City, then they're out playing a mul raider, then they're playing a destruction krathi.  They initiate conflict, then store before any meaningful retaliation can happen.  That's not RP.  That's taking a shot, missing, then storing so you can take another shot and have the element of surprise.  Ope!  Missed again.  I'll just store and roll another karma 3.

Yes, the above is a little negative, but let's not pretend that it doesn't happen.

For now, I'd vote for automating to karma 1.  After karma 1, you have to earn it.

And yes, re-implement the karma jail.

[Jarvis]

I don't think my word choice is particularly important. The staff body has a history of abusively denying access to roles, and we can either modify that cudgel so it can be used in another way, or deny the staff of it. I would prefer the latter.

In an ideal world where the staff were totally fair, this would be a non-issue. But that history, which culminated in multiple staff members holding resource PCs because of a lack of trust in players to hold those same roles, is clear.

To me it seems like you are speculating wildly over the actions of one bad actor and projecting it unto everyone else in staff. And yes 100% someone has been denied karma and access to roles over personal beef and borderline abuse. People have also been denied these things for completely valid reasons and hurt the player's feelings inadvertently.  Completely demonizing staff and assuming everyone there is incompetent feels to me to be completely irrational.

You read like someone who is convinced everyone in staff is a bad actor, and that to me just doesn't sound right

[CirclelessBard]

I don't think everyone on staff is a bad actor and I would appreciate it if you did not make that assumption.

What I said was fairly clear: the staff body has a history of abuse. Not all staff have the ability to determine who gets karma or a sponsored role. Those that do, were generally abusive with that power or allowed abuse to happen, wittingly or not.

Changing a few parameters does not really stop that abuse, and I will state that without any significant change to the karma system or to methods on how staff treat karma and sponsored roles, the community will be right back at this position a few months or years down the line. We can make a few tweaks and kick the can down the road or try to envision a better system to replace the ineffective one.

In any case, I've made my argument on this thoroughly enough and unless someone points out something new, I'm going to refrain from commenting further.

[DesertT]

You're going to have to accept that staff is human and humans are imperfect.

There is no perfect system.

Automating it will make it even worse (past karma 1).

Re-implement the "karma jail".

Automate that first point of karma.

Dock karma from higher karma players for blatant violations.  Maybe make the dock temporary, like six months.

[Jarvis]

Dock karma from higher karma players for blatant violations.  Maybe make the dock temporary, like six months.

I am a fan of this

[LindseyBalboa]

From my POV, karma was really easy to get, and I had heard this from other players that are newer as well. Which seemingly indicates that long-term players may have a disadvantage here because of the decades (possibly) of back-and-forth with different staff of differing values, either because of player bias in being worried about putting one in and being denied, or staff bias, or both.

I highly support being able to access high karma things more quickly. An automatic karma is a great idea. The second karma should come 6 months after that, which means at that point you can play 3 karma roles via spec app. Players that have been around forever and are stuck at 0 or 1 karma should be able to put in a karma request right now. I don't know if it would help, but I'd gladly post my redacted third karma request - maybe having examples in the help file would be useful?

High karma is supposed to go hand-in-hand with thematic difficulty. The thematic learning curve in Arm is very hard because there are not many OOC resources to draw upon. There are old help files, but I can't read back-and-forth debates on the Sun Runners, for instance. And even in the Sun Runner docs, a HUGE amount of their history is lost that is included in other clan docs. So to really understand the full theme of the Sun Runners it takes a lot longer than playing them once, or twice, or even just that clan. That applies to a lot in the game, and 3 karma players should be playing to theme, have characters with personalities that they stick to, and for that reason I think a third karma should take longer to get, a year after the second. A 3 karma player should be teaching others the theme of the game where they play.

I also support karma docking, and being very transparent about why that is, and being able to point directly to reasons. There should be no room for back-and-forth if there is a dock, it should be easily understood by any reasonable player of the game, because there are documented things to point to and post.

For accountability: I suggest adding a personality requirement to karma-holding players, or karma-locked races/guilds (optionally left open for anyone), similar to background. Using bios, it should be possible for to grow and change your personality via life experiences. When a player complaint is put in, those can be referenced to explain why a character acted in such a way, along with references to your background. This is honestly a bare minimum requirement for almost every roleplay-required game I have been on, and I think it would be very beneficial here.

For weight: I think it would require a very obvious, egregious violation for a karma deduction. Misunderstandings happen. If there was a misunderstanding and the player complaint is resolved without action, as much reasoning as possible should be given to the player that put in the complaint. Meaning more, "the player did this because X and X, and given their other options of A and B, they thought this would be more inclusive for roleplay" than "they had good reasons."

For process: I do think that any karma dock should be made public and as transparent as possible within the rules of the game, not as punishment, but in the interest of building a culture of "working together" and encouraging players to grow. They should be able to re-apply for karma as soon as they'd normally be able to, however.

[Brokkr]

In an ideal world where the staff were totally fair, this would be a non-issue. But that history, which culminated in multiple staff members holding resource PCs because of a lack of trust in players to hold those same roles, is clear.

There has only been one single resource PC in recent years and one edge case, and then when there was literally no player applications for the role.  If a Staff avatar works their way up from a Byn Runner to a Sergeant, as an example, that is not a resource PC.

The edge case was for one of my secret role calls. It involved some character customization as part of the plot.  Multiple folks were chosen, not just one, and they all got the same customization.

We haven’t done resource PCs at all for a number of years before this.  The last I can think of (and this was before I was Staff so may not be the most recent) was some Negean nobles as part of the plot to destroy that House.

[Brokkr]

Not all staff have the ability to determine who gets karma or a sponsored role. Those that do, were generally abusive with that power or allowed abuse to happen, wittingly or not.

While various Staff may chime in on the fit of various concepts to fill a Sponsored Role, it is almost always the Storyteller running the clan the Sponsored Role is for that makes the decision. I say almost always because Admin sometimes makes decisions when Storytellers are not around, or may tell a Storyteller they do not want a player that applied in a specific role (e.g. someone with a history of being a no RP combat think as a Byn Sarge).

Likewise, any Staff may open the discussion to give a player karma, although the actual decision is more of a communal one.