Let's talk about TS.
-
I FTB all the time. A lot. I also TS a lot, when I am in the mood and my rp partner is too.
FTB is a tool, but ICA = ICC is also not a shield.
There needs to be policies in place that protect people from creepers.
I've also seen policies that are so crazy that they just ban first and never bother asking questions.
It is a hard line to toe.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
@lithium said in Let's talk about TS.:
FTB is a tool, but ICA = ICC is also not a shield.
No, it's a weapon.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel Everything is a weapon in certain hands.
Everything.
-
-
@cobaltasaurus thats why I bring them both forward and figure out who what. I never said ban, banning is not the only punishment (there are plenty of IC things that would not take kindly to that sort of Hubris wink wink). You also cannot just on the first tume do anything. Make it clear that if there is anymore issue of creep bring it up. If player gets more reports become easy but you seriously cant just one and done anyone over something partially ICish
-
@magee101 said in Let's talk about TS.:
@cobaltasaurus thats why I bring them both forward and figure out who what. I never said ban, banning is not the only punishment (there are plenty of IC things that would not take kindly to that sort of Hubris wink wink). You also cannot just on the first tume do anything.
YOU SURE CAN if the offense is clear enough and creepy enough.
-
@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:
@magee101 said in Let's talk about TS.:
@cobaltasaurus thats why I bring them both forward and figure out who what. I never said ban, banning is not the only punishment (there are plenty of IC things that would not take kindly to that sort of Hubris wink wink). You also cannot just on the first tume do anything.
YOU SURE CAN if the offense is clear enough and creepy enough.
Gonna go with @Roz here... If someone starts trying to use magic powers to rape someone on Sacred Seed, I'mma let @Coin bounce them out the door so fast their head spins.
-
@cobaltasaurus said in Let's talk about TS.:
@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:
@magee101 said in Let's talk about TS.:
@cobaltasaurus thats why I bring them both forward and figure out who what. I never said ban, banning is not the only punishment (there are plenty of IC things that would not take kindly to that sort of Hubris wink wink). You also cannot just on the first tume do anything.
YOU SURE CAN if the offense is clear enough and creepy enough.
Gonna go with @Roz here... If someone starts trying to use magic powers to rape someone on Sacred Seed, I'mma let @Coin bounce them out the door so fast their head spins.
Uh, yeah. Absolutely. Door. First offense. Bye. There is no justifying this shit.
-
@arkandel said in Let's talk about TS.:
@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:
Another pet peeve about TS is mages. I was dating a girl ICly when a mage, who literally met her at a party and thought she was cute, used Mind/Corr/Life to impregnate her from across town. Just out of the blue. She had met the guy once for all of three poses. Staff said he could do it so we rolled with it but it was fucked up and she stopped playing that character about a week later.
I mean the guy is a creep, obviously. This isn't even about TS (I mean... there was none either way), it's about forcing another player into something they didn't sign up for in any conceivable way.
But there's no excuse - zero - for staff who let that happen let alone actually encourage it. The only sane response to that was "no, get out", and that should have been the end.
Conversely the only sane response to staff who 'let that happen' is "wtf, lol, bye".
Seriously. What happened sound pretty much rape since the player of the female character didn't even consent. The only reasonable action in my eyes (maybe I would be a very bad WoD staff since I've had zero experience in that genre) is to ban the creeper. You don't need that kind of psycho in your games.
-
@cobaltasaurus
This is slightly off topic but unilaterally banning someone for being a creeper seems like a bad idea. I would go with something more insidious.
Instead of just banning them, make a public show of the issue and take a vote on the matter. Let the players decide if a ban is appropriate. 99% of the time they are of course going to agree with you and ban the creep.
More importantly, if you publicly humiliate them before you ban them and make it the players choice then you deflect a lot of angst and accusations of being a dictator before they happen.
Make a Court Room off the OOC nexus where players can read the logs of people under temporary punitive suspension and vote on permanent bans.
Create a thin layer of democracy and let the people choose how to deal with the issues then you are absolved of all accusations of wrongdoing.
Also this will create emotional investment by the players. If they feel like they have power over the outcome of the game, that they can bring justice to issues, that can be a powerful psychological hook.
-
@carex That is a horrifically terrible idea.
-
Can you be more specific? Why is it a horrible idea?
-
yeah that's a ton of work and you're not going to find many people willing to go along with that like it's hard even to get people who are irl assaulted to go through the excoriation of a trial so why the fuck would anybody be willing to put up with it for a game?
esp when experience is pretty universally going to tell them that shit like "we need Hard Evidence" and "there's an Investigstion" are just synonyms for "lol w/e slut"
-
@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:
This is slightly off topic but unilaterally banning someone for being a creeper seems like a bad idea. I would go with something more insidious.
You are incorrect on the face of it, to put it mildly. I keep typing other responses as to why but really you should understand this and if you don't that is the thing that warrants examination.
-
I am also horrified by the court of public opinion. That is quite possibly the worst idea in the history of ideas for running a game that I have ever heard.
-
@carex Seeing that staff is willing to engage in public humiliation doesn't increase trust and investment by players. It just tells them that staff will be willing to humiliate people, including them. And no one is really fooled by a "thin layer of democracy." Add to that that now all the victims get to have these logs of their harassment aired to the entire game, and soon no one will be willing to file complaints.
What happens when you get the players who are serious issues but are also great at ingratiating themselves and forming shields of other players?
The accusation of a MU* being a dictatorship isn't an insult, in most cases it's just factual. If players have a problem with a MU* being a dictatorship, they should find different types of games to play.
-
@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:
Can you be more specific? Why is it a horrible idea?
Why would you wish to reward someone being disruptive to the play environment with a public spectacle with which that they can further disrupt the play environment?
-
The court of public opinion...
You mean like a trial by jury? Courts of public opinion are the cornerstone of most modern justice systems.
Also I'm only talking about punitive actions not how to run the game.
@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:
@carex Seeing that staff is willing to engage in public humiliation doesn't increase trust and investment by players. It just tells them that staff will be willing to humiliate people, including them.
And it would keep those kinds of players away from the game in the first place.
What happens when you get the players who are serious issues but are also great at ingratiating themselves and forming shields of other players?
Ok, let's pretend that somehow this creeper creates a human shield of creeper-sympathetic players who protect each other from the ban, that means a majority of your player base wants to be creeping on each other.
People who don't want that kind of creeper RP would be informed by the votes to protect the creeper as to who these trolls are and avoid the problem people while the people inside the creeper's circle of friends would get what they want and keep playing.
Even in this highly unlikely situation where an army of trolls invades your game and become a majority, everyone would be better off by being more informed as opposed to banning the creepers one at a time and letting the others troll go on unexposed.
Even in this highly improbable, worse case scenario, you are still giving the players what they want which is the single most important thing you can do for your game's longevity.
If your goal is to keep your players engaged and playing, then this is one way do it. It's more effort than dictating justice by proclamation but it engages the will of the majority.
Give your players a justice system they are part of and your game will last longer with a more loyal player base.
-
@carex said in Let's talk about TS.:
The court of public opinion...
You mean like a trial by jury? Courts of public opinion are the cornerstone of most modern justice systems.
That indicates a severe misunderstanding of the difference between jury trials and the court of public opinion, which are, in fact, two different things.
@roz said in Let's talk about TS.:
@carex Seeing that staff is willing to engage in public humiliation doesn't increase trust and investment by players. It just tells them that staff will be willing to humiliate people, including them.
And it would keep those kinds of players away from the game in the first place.
No, see -- people don't see "staff is willing to publicly humiliate you if you're awful enough." They see "staff is willing to publicly humiliate people." Full stop. It's not just going to be creepers who are suddenly worried about being dragged through this, it's going to be a large bulk of your playerbase, including people who may never have to be spoken to.
If you treat one kind of person terribly, it just shows that you're willing to treat people terribly in general.
What happens when you get the players who are serious issues but are also great at ingratiating themselves and forming shields of other players?
Ok, let's pretend that somehow this creeper creates a human shield of creeper-sympathetic players who protect each other from the ban, that means a majority of your player base wants to be creeping on each other.
People who don't want that kind of creeper RP would be informed by the votes to protect the creeper as to who these trolls are and avoid the problem people while the people inside the creeper's circle of friends would get what they want and keep playing.
Even in this highly unlikely situation where an army of trolls invades your game and become a majority, everyone would be better off by being more informed as opposed to banning the creepers one at a time and letting the others troll go on unexposed.
Even in this highly improbable, worse case scenario, you are still giving the players what they want which is the single most important thing you can do for your game's longevity.
If your goal is to keep your players engaged and playing, then this is one way do it. It's more effort than dictating justice by proclamation but it engages the will of the majority.
Give your players a justice system they are part of and your game will last longer with a more loyal player base.
No. This whole scenario will just end up in game-wide civil wars and terrible toxicity the first time there's any sort of disagreement among the playerbase. It's actually super common to have problem players who appear perfectly nice to a certain group of players. Suddenly their hurt and issues aren't just directed at staff, who can at least respond and deal with it, but the rest of the playerbase for literally voting their friend off. It's not as simple as "people shouldn't be friends with creepers." A lot of the time problem players are showing different faces to different people.
Players want to see in a game how they would want to be treated. They want to know that staff will generally protect their privacy. Literally no one, bad player or good player, wants to have their disciplinary action put up to a public game vote.
Staff should keep disciplinary matters confidential until the time comes for a ban, at which point they should clearly state the reasons for it. Your idea that putting up MU* discipline to a player vote will make the game last longer and make the playerbase more loyal indicates to me that you probably haven't staffed on a game. It's literally one of the most disastrous ideas I've ever heard.
-
The more it's talked about the worse it sounds. Also, discipline on a game is part of running a game, so ideas/discussion regarding discipline are ideas/discussion related to running a game. Thus, definitely the worst idea I have ever heard for running a game.
