Staffing Philosophy: Action vs Procedure

[mietze]

Please for the love of god do NOT post to the boards for infractions by a specific player. The assholes/clueless never think it's about them, and the good people often end up thinking they did something wrong. It also clutters up your board and makes people start to skim.

If over a short period of time there are numerous people violating the same rules so that there is an obvious community problem, then that is when you use that option.

Using the bulletin boards for a problem with an individual rarely works and adds to the noise and clutter and why a lot of people glaze over reading them, or log in new to see bb1 with 250 posts about stuff that is already in the news.

BBoard is an outreach to the community as a whole. Unless it's getting to be a community problem, I don't think it's the place to do "this is targeted to an unnamed person couched in a reminder to all, but vague so that people all have to wonder who did what" posts. Or even worse when it is obvious that it's targeted at someone specific, but then it's the 'not to name names, but' variety.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

Posts that are obviously aimed at That One Guy do grate with me. They inevitably conjure up that defensive, "Why are you bitching at everyone because one guy is a dick? Have a conversation with him and don't scold me." feeling. Sometimes, though, something really is a chronic issue with multiple people, or there's an indication it might become one and hasn't been addressed in other posts or files, and in that case this is the way you'd need to address it. So I try not to make knee-jerk assumptions when something like that goes up (unless I know who That Guy is, in which case they come off as pretty damn funny).

[Arkandel]

A good rule of thumb in all management is to praise in public, chastise privately.

So if a player screws up and you need to intervene, do it quietly, handle and document it only for the few sets of eyes that has to know, then let it go. A game never benefits from unnecessarily airing grievances and opening the floor for drama, responses and mud-flinging.

Plus the worst kinds of players thrive in the dirt, and you want to keep your players' respect more than you need to come off as the 'winner' of any argument.

[MrMaker]

Exactly what @mietze said, because besides the points above, it's also telling the player who IS doing it that you're essentially a pussy who won't directly talk to them.

[JaySherman]

Excuse me, I need a moment to roll in all of this good advice until I'm fully marinated in it.

Thank you all for the help. This is a real godsend for me, because there are things I simply cannot discuss on the game; I'm dying for outside perspective and this is just what I was looking for.

@Arkandel: I do the praise in public/chastise in private and it's actually turned one problem player completely around into a productive one. I consider it one of my real successes. That's a solid way to do things and I'm glad I'm doing at least one thing right. Thick skin and patience fortunately isn't a problem, I'm made up of elbow skin entirely. I just lean towards being afraid of coming off as an unethical staffer, or driving off players. I'm probably worried about player loss more than I should be.

@Thenomain: I've tried to involve my players in game creation from the start, but most of the time they just kind of pull a Patrick and Spongebob, "Daaaah, whadda you wanna do? I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do?" routine. I've got maybe 4 players out of the bunch that can actually come up with things to do on the game all by themselves. The rest are like baby birds waiting to have someone else's work crammed into their throats. I call it 'Salad Bar' syndrome. They just want to show up, pick out the bits of the plot or particular scenes that are beneficial to them and then ignore everything else going on around them.

In this particular theme everyone is involved in an ongoing story arc, so it doesn't benefit anyone if LeaderJim is off in the corner ham-fistedly romancing RocketBetty while the rest of this troops are milling around for weeks waiting for some kind of IC direction and orders because the Villain Squad is shelling their base. Because the game was unfinished, there wasn't much to DO at first but look for Play House Relationship RP, but as more people showed up and the game started to really move, we had a group of people that never really outgrew the Harem Anime RP they messed around with in the beginning.

@GentlemanJack: I'm going to memorize all that good advice and stick to it. Like, all of it. Thank you thank you for the Problem Player Field Guide link. I'm fairly sure I have several.

@Three-Eyed-Crow: Staffing recently feels like getting out of bed, turning on the laptop and preparing to eat a big bucket of nails and glass while using up the next case of fire extinguishers in the cupboard. Amusing exaggerations aside, it's more worry than work, and I am definitely going to have to stop doing the 2-5 hour player mediation, especially since it's one player who has fixated on me personally like the Obsessive Girlfriend meme. When you get emails with things like "you are not allowed to change the story between our characters because that is a symbol of our friendship" .... Yeah. Just yeah.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@JaySherman said:

@Three-Eyed-Crow: Staffing recently feels like getting out of bed, turning on the laptop and preparing to eat a big bucket of nails and glass while using up the next case of fire extinguishers in the cupboard. Amusing exaggerations aside, it's more worry than work, and I am definitely going to have to stop doing the 2-5 hour player mediation, especially since it's one player who has fixated on me personally like the Obsessive Girlfriend meme. When you get emails with things like "you are not allowed to change the story between our characters because that is a symbol of our friendship" .... Yeah. Just yeah.

There are parts of it I really miss, but all of them have to do with plotting on a grand scale and seeing what PCs do with the world you've created. None of them have to do with the people-management part of it. I've mocked the idea of PR Staffers repeatedly (and will again) but part of me can see the appeal of being able to say, "Talk to this guy. No, seriously, talk to this guy. That's what he's here for. Stop talking to me, go away."

[Misadventure]

Miestz, how will anyone learn without real world examples?

This is how our legal system works, you can see how it was applied to others. I have no interest in shaming anyone. I want people who behave well enough to stay and play, and people who don't to not be playing.

[Derp]

@Misadventure said:

Miestz, how will anyone learn without real world examples?

This is how our legal system works, you can see how it was applied to others. I have no interest in shaming anyone. I want people who behave well enough to stay and play, and people who don't to not be playing.

Also, it gives you (and your staff) a certain level of accountability in order to ensure consistent rules are being followed, and that applications of those rules are universal and not subject to favoritism. This gives you a visible feedback with your players letting them know that the rules are the rules, and there are no exceptions to the rules, not even for Staff-Friends. If your players don't trust you to be fair and consistent, then your game will suffer, so while people might feel like they're getting 'bitched at', in the long run the benefits of this course of action far, far outweigh the costs. It shows that there was an issue, you acted on that issue in a fair and consistent manner, and allows you, your staff, and your players to be in on the resolution of that action by witnessing that it was enforced.

[Thenomain]

@JaySherman said:

@Thenomain: I've tried to involve my players in game creation from the start, but most of the time they just kind of pull a Patrick and Spongebob, "Daaaah, whadda you wanna do? I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do?" routine.

That's fine. Mark these people as 'here for the new hotness'.

[Derp]

@Thenomain said:

@JaySherman said:

@Thenomain: I've tried to involve my players in game creation from the start, but most of the time they just kind of pull a Patrick and Spongebob, "Daaaah, whadda you wanna do? I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do?" routine.

That's fine. Mark these people as 'here for the new hotness'.

The important thing is that you were establishing a line of communication and giving ideas as to direction, and taking them in return, rather than letting the crickets chirp while OMG WAITING happens. It goes a long way toward people feeling included and a part of something.

[Roz]

As has been said, there's no point in trying to legislate each and every thing that's not allowed on your game. People generally know when they're being an asshole, whether you made a rule against that particular kind of behavior or not. I believe strongly in more general "don't be an asshole" rules when it comes to general behavior. (I know there are also more specific rules when it comes to stats, sheets, etc. This is different.) The more specific your rules in regards to behavior, the more you'll get asshole players who will toe the line just shy of crossing it while laughing at you on the other side. I've staffed on games where we've been reluctant to bring in people acting like assholes for a staff chat just because they aren't explicitly breaking rules, and it sucks. A lot. Everyone ends up frustrated, because you feel impotent as a staffer.

Here's what I feel like you owe players: a general sense and appearance of transparency, even-handedness, and fairness. I believe strongly that the appearance of fairness is just as important as fairness in practice. Here's what you don't owe players: constant negotiation, an ear for every complaint, to staff exactly how they want you to staff, or constant satisfaction or happiness. It's much more important that you and whomever you choose to staff with are in agreement about what game you're running and how you run it than to try and make your game fit what every single player wants your game to be. Stick to a vision and a general philosophy, and the players who like your idea will stick around, the players who don't like it will leave.

My parents used to describe their parenting style with me and my three brothers as "we don't negotiate with terrorists." I think it's pretty relevant to staffing, too. You owe it to players to be reasonable and forthright. You don't owe players constant negotiation. You make the rules for your own game. It's not about not listening to players, it's about being able to recognize workable issues versus whining. There are people who just need to whine, but you don't have to sit there and be their receptacle for it. I like to think of staffing as a benevolent dictatorship. I want to cultivate the kind of game where people feel comfortable and chill and have a good time, but at the end of the day, I'm in charge and you're not.

I definitely agree with the previously-stated sentiments of praise in public/chastise in private. I believe super strongly in staff confidentiality. I don't think that general complaints of "this guy's being an asshole a lot" mean that those players lodging complaints should necessarily be privy to the details of how staff handled the issue. This is different for more serious cases of abuse or harassment, but for me that's a more immediate bannable offensive, and I do feel that when it comes to bans, going public with certain information is appropriate. I mean, for me, you have to be a real shit to warrant a ban, and the game deserves to know what kind of behavior warrants such a reaction from staff, IMO. (Full disclosure, I've never actually had to ban a player or been a part of a staff that banned someone during my tenure. I did staff on a game that had a major banning of a very involved player a year or two prior to my joining the game.)

I totally get being sensitive about feeling like you have complaints from all angles. I don't know how to teach someone to reduce their number of fucks, because I've always just had a certain talent for it when it comes to stuff like this. Like, in some ways I totally believe that my job is not about pleasing players; it's about creating a good game. I feel like that maybe makes me sound like a total tyrant, but it's more about recognizing which complaints are actionable and which are whining.

You will never, ever, ever please all players. Some players are just not meant to be pleased. Empower yourself with that knowledge!

[Bobotron]

All I have to say is, this is a lot of good staffing advice. There's such awesome stuff here.

But the note of communication is paramount.

Myself, I'll use the boards to announce issues that are going to involve the game as a whole, particularly when I've had to PFire people from characters and staff before. It helps to quell the 'WAAAH SO UNFAIR' firing bitching (not that it won't happen at all, BUT... it helps to quell).

[mietze]

My comment was more directed at the idea that for every disciplinary action, staff should make a general 'Don't forget people, never <insert bad thing here> or remember <this rule here>. ' post. With no context or indication that it is due to a specific circumstance. Those posts are useless clutter, IMO.

As for calling people out in public, I can think of egregious rules violations where that would be appropriate, like if it led to a ban, just so that people know that the ban occurred.

But just generic rules posts that are clearly targeted at something or someone unnamed are not useful, I don't think, for the reasons in my original post. They do not give 'real world examples', just that apparently someone somewhere violated them. But after a major disciplinary action, I can see the value of disclosing that--but I think if you are going to do that, then names should be used.

If it's not so serious a violation as to do that, then I think probably the boards are not an appropriate place to post. Unless, as I said, there is a rash of people doing the same thing, so that staff knows that there's obviously some kind of communication failure and it's becoming a community rather than individual problem.

[Sunny]

@JaySherman said:

especially since it's one player who has fixated on me personally like the Obsessive Girlfriend meme. When you get emails with things like "you are not allowed to change the story between our characters because that is a symbol of our friendship" .... Yeah. Just yeah.

I am amazed nobody already said this. KILL IT WITH FIRE. RUN. GET RID OF IT. This is not at all the person you want anywhere near you, your game, or your players. If you're not comfortable with lighting it on fire for your own sanity, light it on fire for the sake of the next person that might have to deal with them. You are not the only one that is going to be subject to the behavior that is being displayed in your direction. This is crazy-person one oh one.

[7Wonders]

More generally speaking, I think that the best way to handle something isn't always in the nuances but in the broadstrokes as a staffer.

It takes a while to establish yourself as a staffer in terms of what players know to expect from you. The only way to accomplish this is with OCD-levels of consistency not in your rulings and decisions as a staffer but in how you come to those decisions. You handle complaints and accusations of cheating and wrong doing the same way every single time: you investigate fully, you take statements, you get all the information you can get, you answer questions but you withhold personal commentary and showing your hand until its time to provide your final thoughts on it.

And you make it clear that final thoughts are final and that re-hashing isn't in the offing.

The biggest headache that I've seen in my day as a staffer was inconsistent levels of response to various issues, often this was because or was perceived as the staffer having a connection to that player that caused them to respond lightly, not at all, or in a way that looked like favoritism. Most people would expect that the staffer would remove themselves from something like because of COI but the reality is that this isn't always possible. So you respond the same way that you would absolutely to any other less familiar player on the game, even when its ugly and especially when its ugly.

[Derp]

@7Wonders said:

And you make it clear that final thoughts are final and that re-hashing isn't in the offing.

Would you allow for possible reconsideration in light of the discovery of incorrect/incomplete information surfacing afterward?

[7Wonders]

@Derp

Sure. You can't be omnipotent as a staffer. You can miss things, people will chose not to be forthcoming for reasons beyond your control, etc. etc. Hopefully, though, you've done what you could and collected logs and Skype chats and anything else that serves as a standard of proof.

And just be as transparent as possible about what happened and why your ruling changed. The players who are reasonable will continue to be reasonable and the tin foil hat wearing crybabies will do what they do, so you can't worry about that after a certain point.

[JaySherman]

@7Wonders This does bring up another salient point to ask while I have everyone's proverbial ear: Stuff that is not on game but involves the game. Does this warrant action? I've always tried to keep things like off-game chats separate from what is punishable behavior on a game, all the way back to the days of ICQ and Livejournal, but with social media far, far more present and influential, there's a potential bleed-over.

Case in point: I've had a group of players come to me and ask me if they were going to be fired, out of seemingly nowhere. They had done absolutely nothing wrong; a few questions later, it was determined that one player on Skype had worked them all into a frenzy because she thought she was going to be punished for something (she wasn't, she'd just jumped to conclusions). Is there any good way to buffer against this sort of off-game rumor-mongering, and is it worth enacting disciplinary measures on the game, especially when it directly involves the game and players on it?

[Silver]

Privacy is a privilege. It is also an achilles heel. If you make privacy some kind of blanket policy that applies in all situations you will hamstring yourself. The reason for privacy should not really be to protect anybody; it is simply because not everything is everybody's business.

If you have a bad player who is making a mistake or who perhaps has some kind of issue that they can't help or for whatever reason are too immature to help, or who would be unduly hurt by airing their dirty issue, by all means be private. It will cause harm to air their business to people who really have no call to be involved.

If you have a predator, someone who is preying upon others and who is hiding behind the protection of privacy, then expose that person. They're out there. Not everybody is innocent or can (or more often wants to) change. Screw them. Post logs of their private tirades if you like. Dump them out the back of the boat for the sharks so you can move along with the rest of your boat full of players, because they're the ones you should be protecting. There is a very good reason that trials are held in public where everyone has an opportunity to see the evidence and hear every side of things as well as the final verdict.

It's a game, not a neighborhood with real people who have lives to live and real jobs that hang on their fate on this game. Kick the bad ones out when they have it coming. They can go do something else other than taking a shit on your players and then giggle about it when they're allowed to keep on keeping on.

[Scanner555]

@GentlemanJack said:

The way I did it was by suffering that stupid-ass "I don't want to hurt my friend's feelings" delusionalness. I did not have the common sense to realize that if you don't want to take corrective action on a staffer because "they're my friend," pick up your nutsack and do it the fuck anyway.

Jack and I yell at each other about game all the time. It's cathartic. And it helps.