On selecting a player council..

[Patuk]

A couple people on here, on a couple posts, have talked about one failure mode of a player council: people hand-picked by those currently on staff are more likely to be people who already get along with staff really well. This selects away from people whose only crime is not getting along with the people who run the game.

Of course, choosing the right people is tough. Holding a vote isn't really about to happen. There isn't some pre-made council that can already do it. Picking out leaders, officials, and the like is an old problem in any organisation, and so I suggest a way that is if not judicious, certainly more FAIR than any I can think of:

Toss all names of those who apply into a hat and cast lots to decide which five people get the position.

If you limit this to accounts that aren't obviously made to rig the vote - people who've been around for more than a couple months, say - you're going to end up with a good cross-section of the playerbase. Nobody gets to bias that team, they aren't beholden to staff for being picked by them, and we don't have to deal with democratic failure modes like especially loud or well-connected people getting picked.

So yeah. Cast lots, IMO. If this gets us a random sample of people unacceptable to you, dear reader, I implore you to consider why your faith in the playerbase is so low that any given five people can't be trusted to make sure nobody's fucking around.

[SpyGuy]

I like drawing lots.  It’s more likely to give you a cross section of different player types.

[Seeker]

Another failure mode that is easy to foresee is someone on such a body being a blabby trouble-stirrer.  I get Patuk's idea above, but there kinda has to be some vetting in the process to keep someone from getting on the board just to get the inside scoop to instigate "gotcha" moments for pseudo Armageddon fame-points.

Amending Patuk's suggestion:

  -  Disqualify any applicants who don't have any provable history with the game. (3 months?  6 months?  Something reasonable to help limit imposter accounts and also make sure applicants have at least fair grounding in the game)
  -  Disqualify applicants who have an awful documented history of OOC blabbing that hasn't been self-amended.
  -  Disqualify applicants whose Request Submission was more 1,000 words long
  -  Anyone who was previously banned from the game but came back later to contribute gets 3x more tickets in the hat than regular applicants.
 
Then throw lots.
 

[Patuk]

We're going to have five people out there, not just one. If all five of them - or even a majority - are comprised of blabby trouble-stirrers.. Well, frankly, we'll have gotten exactly what we deserve. Simple as.

[Seeker]

We're going to have five people out there, not just one. If all five of them - or even a majority - are comprised of blabby trouble-stirrers.. Well, frankly, we'll have gotten exactly what we deserve. Simple as.

Alright, that's a damn fair point.  The more I think on it, the more I tend to agree. Amending my previous post.

The only exception is that I selfishly don't want ArmageddonMUD to get what it deserves, right now.  I want it to improve and make up for any/all previous short-comings by a better future.

[Tuannon]

It should be a selection process like jury duty, as a static council will end up in yet another opaque Armclique

[Seeker]

It should be a selection process like jury duty, as a static council will end up in yet another opaque Armclique

So, like mandatory demands to serve get randomly sent to a selection of 10, then the attorneys winnow down to 5?

[Patuk]

A new board of five per request would likely take too long; it'd slow everything down a ton. Probably better to just draw new lots every once in a (predetermined) while.

[wizturbo]

I don't think any selection process is required here.  It seems like a bunch of extra work, and potentially politicking, which isn't going to be super productive.

The thought of adding some democratic process in particular is scary, as there are tons of great players who don't try to create some public persona for others.  They just play the game, without too much back and forth on the GDB or Discord, and thus are not "popular" but their voices should very much be heard.

[Patuk]

I don't think any selection process is required here.  It seems like a bunch of extra work, and potentially politicking, which isn't going to be super productive.

The thought of adding some democratic process in particular is scary, as there are tons of great players who don't try to create some public persona for others.  They just play the game, without interacting a lot with the community, and thus are not "popular".

1. There is always going to be a selection process. There isn't a player councilman tree to pick them off of
2. Nobody mentioned anything democratic. I don't really know why you brought that up. Have you read the thread? It isn't very long of a read

[Tailong]

Let staff run it how they see fit, but whoever is chosen has a term limit, like 6 months, to a year, and can be removed with a good reason, like collusion with players or staff. That should prevent any 'cliques'

Take the applicants, pick the best 10 and have a random number picker pick 5,  (insert whatever numbers you get of course).  You keep the names of all, and the other five are kept as alternates for when someone fucks up, because they will.

[Seeker]

Has any thought been given to Complaints or Game Bans that originate from or are targeted to councilpersons?

If members of that Body are forbidden from filing complaints that should probably be stated upfront.

I would be fine if they could file as normal but had to recuse themselves from any Council discussion on that particular ticket.

[mansa]

Has any thought been given to Complaints or Game Bans that originate from or are targeted to councilpersons?

If members of that Body are forbidden from filing complaints that should probably be stated upfront.

I would be fine if they could file as normal but had to recuse themselves from any Council discussion on that particular ticket.

I think that's something that will be included by default, but it should still explicitly state it.   I think that because there is a handful of members on the council should, a recuse action to not break the function of the council.

[MarshallDFX]

So.. about the recent confirmation that lots will be drawn.

Let's say there are a few types of people with regards to sharing information about the game

• Ones that are very righteous and never share any kind of info with anybody
• Ones that are cautious but share info with a clique or select friends without the intention of it spreading widely
• Ones that will immediately post the info on shadowboards

I have no idea how much staff intends to vet this list. If there are five truly random people.  I suspect any information will effectively become public in short order.

To be clear: I'm not advocating for an extremely curated selection, as that has its own problems.  I hope the desire from staff is at least constructive challenge, or "critical friend", if falling short of outright player advocacy.

But if it really is random (edit: and to be honest, even if it's somewhat curated), I do wonder if there will be much difference to posting bans publicly.  And I'd consider doing just that.

[Windstorm]

I think drawing lots isn't a good idea for reasons Marshall listed above.

[Armaddict]

Nope, probably isn't, but they're gonna do things the way they want, even if it's just the way someone else wants.  Their game.

Fact is that people are gonna complain about it no matter what.  Oh well!

ETA:  All those people 'super concerned' about the selection resulting in people who only got along with staff are kind of thinking the wrong way.  There are plenty of people who have had decent relationships with staff who also had dissenting opinions on this or that, and by and large that's what this committee seems to be based on: the ability to convey a dissenting opinion on actions that are otherwise private.

If you put someone on that committee who doesn't know how to create a dissenting opinion that anyone cares to read, or that anyone cares to put creedence to...they can't even do the job, regardless of where their staff reputation is.  The requirement for this isn't to either extreme between 'I get along great with this player' or 'This player hates us', it's a requirement to be smack-dab in that grey area in the middle, in the 'Criticism likely but worth it' area.

You wouldn't use lots for a babysitter.  You wouldn't use lots for your editor.  You wouldn't use lots for your administrative assistant.  You wouldn't use lots for your city council.  You don't use lots for anything where you expect communication as a rule and a certain degree of integrity.

[Patuk]

We're not 'stuck' with these people or anything. If they begin acting like shitheads they're just gonna get replaced anyway.

[LetaSpringle]

I don't want anyone who is not on staff having access to any of my account information. Who I play, my IP address, account notes or requests, typos, bugs, ideas.  If you don't see me post it on the GDB or in Discord and you're not on staff, you don't have my permission to see any of it.

I hope I never give another player reason to submit a complaint about me. But if they do the "player council" does not have my permission or consent to check on me to resolve it.  That's what staff is for.

[whengravityfails]

I don't want anyone who is not on staff having access to any of my account information. Who I play, my IP address, account notes or requests, typos, bugs, ideas.  If you don't see me post it on the GDB or in Discord and you're not on staff, you don't have my permission to see any of it.

I hope I never give another player reason to submit a complaint about me. But if they do the "player council" does not have my permission or consent to check on me to resolve it.  That's what staff is for.

This, very much this. I would hope this "player council" is opt-in. I want anything to do with me and my characters handled entirely by staff. I absolutely do not give permission to any of my or my character info out to other players if I ever had a complaint lodged against me.

[Patuk]

These two posts here confuse me, a little. I get the concerns.. But Halaster's post already addresses them

1. This is not a council of people who get to see everything. Staff complaints, bans, nothing else. Your IP address, notes, and the like are safe
2. By the time someone is making a staff complaint, we can assume some of them would prefer having players take a glance anyhow
3. Opt-in isn't a bad idea and I don't really see the harm in it

[Halaster]

To be clear, the Player Committee would not see any of that information you're worried about.  Their two functions will be:

1.  Once a staff complaint is received and the Producer Team makes a decision on how to handle it, they will first relay that decision to the Player Committee for advice before finalizing it to the player making the complaint.  The Producer Team retains the final authority on how they are handled, but will be seeking counsel from the Player Committee when doing so.

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

So a player complaint against you would not be seen by them.  Only a Staff Complaint that you file (and game bans).  And when presenting the Staff Complaint to the Player Committee staff will sanitize the information as much as possible, meaning remove account name and other identifiable information (unless that's vital to them understanding the Staff Complaint).

I suppose if it's desired, we can ask people when a Staff Complaint is submitted if they're OK with the Player Committee seeing it.

[Brokkr]

IMHO a Player Committee fails if it becomes opt-in, because unless you have a system that presents the option people tend to forget to opt-in.

And it doesn't make any sense for a player ban.

[Inks]

No player commitee please, but more staff transparency and enforced restrictions on their roles.

I don't want players involved in my PC or account, unless through IC RP.

[LetaSpringle]

I am not okay with a player "council" seeing anything about my account, including requests. That includes staff complaints. They don't have my permission to see it, and staff doesn't have my permission to give them the tools with which they can see it.

[Tailong]

Player counsel should not ever have any 'staff like' powers and should never have the ability to view anything about any other player's account. This is a bad idea to even include a Staff Complaint. They are advisors, they can be told about a staff complaint, the information and evidence contained. That's it.

[Patuk]

People on staff should never ever get to see things about your player account. That's how Shaloonsh did his thing. They should animate stuff only and never look at your things.

.

.

.

That is obviously a hasty attempt at satire, but consider just what you're arguing for here.

[Tailong]

I think involving players in any staff decisions is a bad idea, but I am clearly alone in that belief. I have an issue with players being involved in any advisory role, because players are in fact just that; players. They are not staff, and hopefully there is a concise ruleset that governs the in's and out's of the Player Counsel.

You cannot assume that all staff are acting in bad faith because of accusations of one, or two bad actors. We cannot assume that all players are like that as well, but I would wager against the player over staff any day. Years of experience has taught me you cannot never fully trust anyone, but if you need place bets, bet against the player.

[LauraMars]

I think involving players in any staff decisions is a bad idea, but I am clearly alone in that belief. I have an issue with players being involved in any advisory role, because players are in fact just that; players. They are not staff, and hopefully there is a concise ruleset that governs the in's and out's of the Player Counsel.

You cannot assume that all staff are acting in bad faith because of accusations of one, or two bad actors. We cannot assume that all players are like that as well, but I would wager against the player over staff any day. Years of experience has taught me you cannot never fully trust anyone, but if you need place bets, bet against the player.

[Pariah]

As one of the guys picked by the roulette wheel of chance and asking about it.  There was 10 players who qualified for the draft.  Five of us were randomly selected by that spinning wheel of chance.

We were essentially chosen by a coin flip when you do those odds.

I can't speak for the rest, but I'm not going to do anything spiteful in this roll, I threw my hat in the ring because if another Bebop situation comes up and it's mishandled, I'll go down screaming at the top of my lungs against it.

Folks originally said that there was an error in staff picking the people, because favoritism and poor staff choices prior.

So then they went random and we still have people complaining about it.  I'm starting to wonder what will make anyone happy?

Staff is never going to give a non-staffer ultimate ban power, this is probably the best it's ever going to be, a group of players to sit at the table and advise and argue things.  Why is everyone still picking this apart?

[whengravityfails]

Likely because some of us didn't want this to begin with and therefore don't want to be subject to it.

[LetaSpringle]

Likely because some of us didn't want this to begin with and therefore don't want to be subject to it.

This.  All these out-of-game player things and councils and teams. All these restrictions for moderators and council members. More people doing stuff out of game, means less time they're spending in the game playing. I feel like the game is all the ooc stuff and the ic stuff is just "things to do while you wait to get involved in the ooc stuff"

I really hate it.

[SpyGuy]

I’m all for the moderators.  Staff running the game and moderating discussion of it is part of what led to this situation.

My hope is that the player committee has very little to do.   In an ideal world staff complaints and bans would be rare.

[Pariah]

Likely because some of us didn't want this to begin with and therefore don't want to be subject to it.

This.  All these out-of-game player things and councils and teams. All these restrictions for moderators and council members. More people doing stuff out of game, means less time they're spending in the game playing. I feel like the game is all the ooc stuff and the ic stuff is just "things to do while you wait to get involved in the ooc stuff"

I really hate it.

Likely because some of us didn't want this to begin with and therefore don't want to be subject to it.

You're only subject to it if you get so far gone that they are considering banning you or you've done something so bad that it requires bringing up.  The average player isn't even going to ever interact with a player committee in any way.

Second point, about the ooc and ic barrier.  I personally have been trying to play my new homeboy and have been having trouble, not because of discord/gdb or the player committee (We haven't had anything to do yet.) but because I'm having trouble finding the movers and shakers who make shit happen, buy stuff, sell stuff, arrange things.

That to me is a far greater problem than anything distracting me. 

Which is why I posted this:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59294.msg1090919.html#new

[Halaster]

You're only subject to it if you get so far gone that they are considering banning you or you've done something so bad that it requires bringing up.  The average player isn't even going to ever interact with a player committee in any way.

This is incorrect.

The Player Committee has 2 functions:

1.  Once a staff complaint is received and the Producer Team makes a decision on how to handle it, they will first relay that decision to the Player Committee for advice before finalizing it to the player making the complaint.  The Producer Team retains the final authority on how they are handled, but will be seeking counsel from the Player Committee when doing so.

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

[Pariah]

Ahh my bad, I just was trying to say that most players won't even interact with it unless something goes wrong.

[Inks]

I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea.

I was confused about its function.

[LetaSpringle]

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

That's the part I don't consent to.

[Brytta Léofa]

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

That's the part I don't consent to.

- To me there isn't a qualitative distinction between the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "staff" and the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "the Player Committee". Especially if Storytellers are privy to the details of players being banned.

- I've played for 17 years without getting banned, but if I did I don't see why I would mind ~15 players on staff and ~5 players on the committee knowing about it. Like...I wouldn't be playing? (You don't have to have the same feelings as me about this, obviously.)

- I don't think my consent to this or any other staff policy matters. "Brytta's Armageddon account" isn't legally-protected data in the United States.

[LetaSpringle]

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

That's the part I don't consent to.

- To me there isn't a qualitative distinction between the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "staff" and the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "the Player Committee". Especially if Storytellers are privy to the details of players being banned.

- I've played for 17 years without getting banned, but if I did I don't see why I would mind ~15 players on staff and ~5 players on the committee knowing about it. Like...I wouldn't be playing? (You don't have to have the same feelings as me about this, obviously.)

- I don't think my consent to this or any other staff policy matters. "Brytta's Armageddon account" isn't legally-protected data in the United States.

I just think it's creepy.  When I make a complaint to the manager about bad customer service from my waitress, I would not want other customers to know that I was the one who complained or why when the waitress gets fired. As the waitress, I also wouldn't want the customers to know. My complaint against the waitress is not legally protected information either but I still wouldn't want the customers to know the details. It's none of their business.

[Riev]

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

That's the part I don't consent to.

- To me there isn't a qualitative distinction between the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "staff" and the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "the Player Committee". Especially if Storytellers are privy to the details of players being banned.

- I've played for 17 years without getting banned, but if I did I don't see why I would mind ~15 players on staff and ~5 players on the committee knowing about it. Like...I wouldn't be playing? (You don't have to have the same feelings as me about this, obviously.)

- I don't think my consent to this or any other staff policy matters. "Brytta's Armageddon account" isn't legally-protected data in the United States.

I just think it's creepy.  When I make a complaint to the manager about bad customer service from my waitress, I would not want other customers to know that I was the one who complained or why when the waitress gets fired. As the waitress, I also wouldn't want the customers to know. My complaint against the waitress is not legally protected information either but I still wouldn't want the customers to know the details. It's none of their business.

In your scenario, you're equating the player committee to the general public.

These are members of the public specifically chosen to ensure that the waitress receives a fair treatment and that the person reporting it is not just making false claims.

[LetaSpringle]

2.  When a player receives a ban from the game the Player Committee will be notified of the details.

That's the part I don't consent to.

- To me there isn't a qualitative distinction between the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "staff" and the staff-vetted player volunteers who we call "the Player Committee". Especially if Storytellers are privy to the details of players being banned.

- I've played for 17 years without getting banned, but if I did I don't see why I would mind ~15 players on staff and ~5 players on the committee knowing about it. Like...I wouldn't be playing? (You don't have to have the same feelings as me about this, obviously.)

- I don't think my consent to this or any other staff policy matters. "Brytta's Armageddon account" isn't legally-protected data in the United States.

I just think it's creepy.  When I make a complaint to the manager about bad customer service from my waitress, I would not want other customers to know that I was the one who complained or why when the waitress gets fired. As the waitress, I also wouldn't want the customers to know. My complaint against the waitress is not legally protected information either but I still wouldn't want the customers to know the details. It's none of their business.

In your scenario, you're equating the player committee to the general public.

These are members of the public specifically chosen to ensure that the waitress receives a fair treatment and that the person reporting it is not just making false claims.

I wouldn't ever work for a place like that. My opinion stands. It's creepy and it's none of the public's business.  This isn't a government or a democracy. It's a game. I want to play the game in the game and not have to worry about, or think about, or be officially informed about some other player I don't know, having problems with some staffer I don't know. It's none of my business and it's creepy.

[Pariah]

I wouldn't ever work for a place like that. My opinion stands. It's creepy and it's none of the public's business.  This isn't a government or a democracy. It's a game. I want to play the game in the game and not have to worry about, or think about, or be officially informed about some other player I don't know, having problems with some staffer I don't know. It's none of my business and it's creepy.

You aren't going to be notified, only the five of us on the committee are.

It's there to be a protection against things happening like what happened just recently.

So it's not just a staff vacuum.

[tiny rainbow]

The recent leaking of moderator discussion is a good example of how putting stuff in the hands of players can be not fixing problems, but just moving it, since they aren't trusted to the same standard (and a lot less since there are less stringent public guidelines for them):

Player appointed positions should be held to the same standards as everyone else, the individual should have been removed immediately from a position of trust, not just get a slap on the wrist - and a ban from the game too, to be equal to non-moderators doing similar stuff

[Pariah]

The recent leaking of moderator discussion is a good example of how putting stuff in the hands of players can be not fixing problems, but just moving it, since they aren't trusted to the same standard (and a lot less since there are less stringent public guidelines for them):

Player appointed positions should be held to the same standards as everyone else, the individual should have been removed immediately from a position of trust, not just get a slap on the wrist - and a ban from the game too, to be equal to non-moderators doing similar stuff

What are you referring to?  This a shadowboard thing?

[tiny rainbow]

(chat thing, a player mod that was trying to harass someone they didn't like)

[Pariah]

(chat thing, a player mod that was trying to harass someone they didn't like)

I didn't see that, but that sounds like something they should do a player complaint or report to Ath, I am pretty sure he's the liaison to staff for Mods.  I doubt he'll abide that type of fuckery.

[mansa]

This was already reported and dealt with.

[tiny rainbow]

Why are they still a mod then?
Why are they not banned?
What does dealt with mean in these circumstances, it seems like it just gets used as a way to suggest something is done when not much really is?
Why are the rules for staff stricter than punishments for people in player appointed positions, when they're already less trusted?

[Ath]

Why are they still a mod then?
Why are they not banned?
What does dealt with mean in these circumstances, it seems like it just gets used as a way to suggest something is done when not much really is?
Why are the rules for staff stricter than punishments for people in player appointed positions, when they're already less trusted?

Because people make mistakes, just like everyone else.  This was a singular instance that was handled.

[Hauwke]

I'd like to know why I was moderated when other people can be far worse constantly?