Staffing Philosophy: Action vs Procedure

Sunny

So far the deadline situation is just sort of hanging in neutral. Player A has been asked to make some changes to their character by X date. If said player does anything that has even a whiff of manipulative behavior, they'll go out the door for that immediately. They're on their last warning.

I've seen a game die out from under me for the fact that I stuck with my ethics, but in the end, when I made another game, the fact that I had not been a spineless wimp and stuck to my guns earned me a reputation that made the second last longer. I had one queen bee on the dead game that wanted me to start firing people she didn't personally like and threatened that she'd walk and take her friends with her if I didn't. The accused player had done absolutely nothing wrong, and I wasn't about to let Queenie turn me into her personal hatchet man just because she threatened to leave and take her activity with her. I told her she'd just have to walk, and not to let the door hit her on the way out. She did indeed leave and activity died out, but I figured that if no one was biting on the theme, I'd just close it and make another. I'd rather close and game and start over than get pushed around by scumbag players for months or years.

Yeah, and in that case, I'd absolute advocate sticking to your guns. It all comes down to protecting the people that you should be, really.

Ganymede

@JaySherman said:

I'm striving to overcome the knee-jerk reflex of appearing and being extremely above board after having survived some incredibly vindictive bad staffers on other games.

The best way to appear above the board is to be above the board.

There is no fine line between "airing dirty laundry" and "being forthright." If you and the player at issue are able to come to a mutually-agreeable resolution, then it can be handled without public notice. If you take action against that player over their objection, then you should make it public. This will demonstrate that you are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of public opinion.

The issue is whether others involved have the stomach to do the same. A player acting out may be less likely to do so if they know that staff will expose their activities should an issue arise, and that they will be named as having perpetrated such. On the other hand, a player raising a complaint may be less likely to do so knowing the same. There is risk reward to raising any sort of complaint seeking redress from authority.

In my experience, there are a lot of people who put up a stink, but are not willing to step out into the lime light to do so. In more cases than not, those players are the ones actually causing the problem.

il-volpe

@Roz said:

I believe strongly that the appearance of fairness is just as important as fairness in practice.

Is this even possible? I had someone, very courteously and with the best intention of helping me not to suck, inform me that I shouldn't make policies to benefit my friends. In response to a change that everyone hated short-term, because it spread out stat points and effectively weakened all characters. And which my friend, whom they believed I was benefiting with the change, bitched about more than anyone. (Likely because, being my friend, he felt safe to bitch.)

I had somebody post on WORA about how I refused to ban someone because I 'wanted her to like' me while I was willing to ban others. The actual difference was not that I cared especially if non-banned player liked me, but that she actually corrected her irritating behaviors, and then produced other ones due to an inability to generalize, while those I banned refused to accept and comply with my rulings.

The whole balance of transparency vs privacy seems to lead to people accusing one of unfairness. Either that or one has to make any discussion one has with a player about any unwelcome behavior some sort of ugly free-for-all town-hall-meeting thing, which I am not about to do.

Derp

@il-volpe

I am firmly of the mind that in games where communication through text is the only form of medium one can use to transmit information, there are other things that have to come into play that wouldn't normally come into play at the regular gaming table, some of which I find to be highly lacking among staffers.

Being able to clearly articulate your decision is an important skill, for one. Please know the exact scope of the problem that you're attempting to address, and craft a rule based on that scope. Please, please do not just arbitrarily throw up a rule with vague wording and a broad scope and consider it done, because you may have created even more problems than what you just solved, especially if you're playing World of Darkness games. There are so many places when where you could break something by being overly broad, or overly vague. Be specific, and tailor the rule to the exact specifications to address the problem. Expand it later if necessary.

In the same vein, and in my opinion more importantly, include the reasoning that went into the creation of the rule in the first place. If you are using a wiki, this is the perfect use for the discussion tab of your house rules page. You can keep the rule there, as is, but put the thought process in the discussion page so that not only the players but also your future staffers know why the rule was created, what circumstances it was intended to solve, etc. I've seen dozens of examples of people saying 'oh, well, this rule might not make sense to you, but it made sense to us at the time' and nobody can explain what whimsical flight of imaginative fancy generated it in the first place. Staffers feel constrained to keep it in place because they don't know the history, players get upset if it's removed without some reference as to what's replacing the rule, because those who were around for its inception remember that there was a problem (but rarely can they remember what it was, or tell you how this fixed it beyond "It totally threw a wrench in the gears of the mechanic that did it!"). In short, decisions without adequate documentation that is available to those who are affected by it is poor form.

I've heard complaints by staffers to the effect of "Well, we don't feel like making everything public." This is also poor form. It's a public game, in most instances. You don't have to divulge every dirty secret that happens behind the ST screen (for instance, player names can be changed to protect the innocent or not-so-innocent), but the methodologies employed should absolutely be visible. Staffers also like to sometimes use the idea that players will reject the reasoning of the rule, and so not make those details public. I find this equally silly. Players are intelligent, and they are as invested and well-versed in the game as the staff is. Sometimes even moreso. . Those processes should be open to player review if for no other reason than it is perfectly likely that one of your players could craft a better alternative than the one that the staffers did. This is not something to be feared. This is something to be encouraged. This means that your players are active, participatory, and feel like they have the power to make real contributions to the gaming environment. That is an excellent way to encourage player participation.

All of these things will contribute to a better gaming environment by keeping both players and staff, present and future, in the loop as to what information is necessary in order to gauge the environment they're playing in, which in turn should lead to much less confusion about what is or is not above the board, both in reality and appearance.

JaySherman

@il-volpe said:

@Roz said:

I believe strongly that the appearance of fairness is just as important as fairness in practice.

Is this even possible? I had someone, very courteously and with the best intention of helping me not to suck, inform me that I shouldn't make policies to benefit my friends. In response to a change that everyone hated short-term, because it spread out stat points and effectively weakened all characters. And which my friend, whom they believed I was benefiting with the change, bitched about more than anyone. (Likely because, being my friend, he felt safe to bitch.)

I had somebody post on WORA about how I refused to ban someone because I 'wanted her to like' me while I was willing to ban others. The actual difference was not that I cared especially if non-banned player liked me, but that she actually corrected her irritating behaviors, and then produced other ones due to an inability to generalize, while those I banned refused to accept and comply with my rulings.

The whole balance of transparency vs privacy seems to lead to people accusing one of unfairness. Either that or one has to make any discussion one has with a player about any unwelcome behavior some sort of ugly free-for-all town-hall-meeting thing, which I am not about to do.

Agreed. It all boils down to perception. I work with a policy of having minor things (like violating channel ratings) dealt with in private through pages, especially with first time violators, because it gives them a chance to correct themselves without some big board post about "THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT TOLERATED YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE" or other forms of public chastisement. It works well for the people being corrected; they get a chance to not look like a turd in front of others. This practice, however has generated players who have done something worthy of being called out in public complain bitterly to me about how I "don't correct other people as harshly as them" and others still who complain to me about how I "never enforce the rules" simply because they don't see it openly.

I've come to see in the last few months that being hung up on the appearance of fairness has actually hamstrung me from doing what flat out needs to be done.

Perception issues are the same reason I hate the "don't be a dick" rule I see on some games. It is precisely because what constitutes being a "dick" varies from staffer to staffer, game to game, and it can be interpreted to whatever that staffer wants it to mean at the time. "I'm mad at you because you had a valid point in your argument on my policy change so you're a dick. Banned". I think I'd much rather see "I reserve the right to ban you at any time for whatever reason I feel like." It's the unstated bedrock truth of any game, really, but this is refreshingly honest and upfront (and will warn me ahead of time of what kind of emotionally-driven, weaselicious staff decisions said game administration will be making).

I am in full agreement with @Derp: Know the exact scope of the problem that you're attempting to address, and craft a rule based on that scope. Hold people to a clearly stated set of rules and expectations, give a fair warning whenever possible, and then act. The documentation concept is a really good idea - I think I'll implement that on my own game.

@Derp said:

I've heard complaints by staffers to the effect of "Well, we don't feel like making everything public." This is also poor form. It's a public game, in most instances. You don't have to divulge every dirty secret that happens behind the ST screen (for instance, player names can be changed to protect the innocent or not-so-innocent), but the methodologies employed should absolutely be visible. Staffers also like to sometimes use the idea that players will reject the reasoning of the rule, and so not make those details public. I find this equally silly. Players are intelligent, and they are as invested and well-versed in the game as the staff is. Sometimes even moreso. . Those processes should be open to player review if for no other reason than it is perfectly likely that one of your players could craft a better alternative than the one that the staffers did. This is not something to be feared. This is something to be encouraged. This means that your players are active, participatory, and feel like they have the power to make real contributions to the gaming environment. That is an excellent way to encourage player participation.

I absolutely love this and agree, I've tried to do it, but I think this only works on certain game themes. With nWoD/WoD, you're all playing by the same ruleset and the same expectations, and you attract a specific kind of player who is naturally invested in making the game better - they probably tabletop at home with friends. There are other game themes in which the players attracted are expecting you to create a kind of World of Warcraft MMO, where they log in to perform "raids" in play and little else, and they have nothing to contribute to the decision-making process even if you strap them into a chair and try to force suggestions out of them. They're otherwise active, following the rules and enjoying themselves, but forget asking them for better ideas. They don't have any.

3543thrh67

@JaySherman I don't like the 'don't be a dick' rule for that precise reason. On my place I got 'Respect - Respect each other. That is it. We don't expect you to be friends or even get along. All we expect if for you to respect each other and try avoiding creating a toxic environment.' and 'Player Issues - If you have issues with another player try resolving it before complaining to staff to solve it. You can ask staff to mediate while you kick, scream, yell, or whatever you need to do to get to a point where you can be civil to each other and find a way to enjoy the game. Even if it means avoiding each other.'

I might reword some of those. I don't want people to feel like they can't talk to staff and the likes if there's issues but I also don't want instant complains of 'X did this and this to me but I made no effort to find common grounds.'

Roz

@il-volpe said:

@Roz said:

I believe strongly that the appearance of fairness is just as important as fairness in practice.

Is this even possible? I had someone, very courteously and with the best intention of helping me not to suck, inform me that I shouldn't make policies to benefit my friends. In response to a change that everyone hated short-term, because it spread out stat points and effectively weakened all characters. And which my friend, whom they believed I was benefiting with the change, bitched about more than anyone. (Likely because, being my friend, he felt safe to bitch.)

I had somebody post on WORA about how I refused to ban someone because I 'wanted her to like' me while I was willing to ban others. The actual difference was not that I cared especially if non-banned player liked me, but that she actually corrected her irritating behaviors, and then produced other ones due to an inability to generalize, while those I banned refused to accept and comply with my rulings.

The whole balance of transparency vs privacy seems to lead to people accusing one of unfairness. Either that or one has to make any discussion one has with a player about any unwelcome behavior some sort of ugly free-for-all town-hall-meeting thing, which I am not about to do.

It's never possible to for every player to think you're behaving fairly and ethically, even if you are. Some players just hate you. Some players will insist you are running a 100% railroaded plot even when almost all aspects of the plot were developed in the midst in reaction to player direction.

My point is moreso doing everything to be above the board in a public way. It's not giving people ammunition, while also knowing there will always be players who think you suck. You can't do anything about those players, but there's definitely satisfaction in not giving them anything legitimate to accuse you of.

il-volpe

When I make rules about game-mechanicy stuff (like the one that spread everybody's points out, or whether or not we have chocolate in the world, or the tyrannical building policy) I am open about it, chat with people, often ask them to make their opinions and preferences known (unless, like with the building policy, I have no intention of heeding those preferences) and heed said preferences within what I think is reason, and explain my reasoning when I announce the decision. These things become 'rules' which are documented. Weirdly, as all-above-board as that is, some folks /still/ thought I made that sheet-nerfing ruling to benefit a pal.

When it's player-conduct stuff, there are only a couple 'rules' and while it's more detailed than "don't be a dick," what's written makes it clear that you don't have to violate a written rule to get removed from the game. This kind of thing ends up a private discussion. Of course somebody's gonna think it's unfair a lot of the time, that being the somebody who got the talking-to and his friends to whom he misrepresented the conversation. But I have no idea how to minimize that effect without making a situation where fucking up not only means you get a boring conversation with me, possibly a temp ban, etc, AND get embarrassed before the entire game.