Player Omsbudsman?
-
So. An idea that I've been tossing around the recesses of my mind for a while now is the concept of an ombudsman position on a game. Basically Staff/Royalty whose sole function is to be an advocate for the players of the game. Someone who is not regular Staff that players can bring concerns to without fear of having said concerns either handwaved away or met with claims of the player being uncooperative, hostile, misrepresenting the facts, or any of the multiple ways Staff can sabotage their own games. This isn't a concept for complete lost cause games, but more for those games that honestly try to do things right, but might have bad instincts when it comes to Staffing and some control freaks are given power they really shouldn't have.
Thoughts?
-
@runescryer While good in theory, it seems rather pointless in practice.
Advocating for the players is a good goal, but if players fear bringing concerns to staff why would they bring their concerns to this other member of staff instead? And unless this member of staff actually runs the game, what authority do they have to make sure the concerns are actually addressed?
-
@runescryer said in Player Omsbudsman?:
Someone who is not regular Staff that players can bring concerns to without fear of having said concerns either handwaved away or met with claims of the player being uncooperative, hostile, misrepresenting the facts, or any of the multiple ways Staff can sabotage their own games.
This sounds great in theory...
...but the amount of finesse and patience this person would require to do this effectively seems astronomical. Diplomats have extensive training and experience for a reason -- it's a god damned nightmare!
-
I tried it on Ashes, and it was an abysmal failure and accomplished nothing. It didn't make anyone who wasn't already comfortable talking to staff comfortable doing so (they were still staff), and encouraged a lot of RIDICULOUSLY stupid complaining (so and so denied my XP request for X, which is literally in the files as something you can't spend XP on, for example), which when said ridiculousness was dismissed out of hand, was used as "proof" that it was pointless talking to this person because I was still the one making the decisions at the end of the day.
A game is FAR better off putting the time and effort into just being trustworthy people to begin with.
-
@sunny said in Player Omsbudsman?:
A game is FAR better off putting the time and effort into just being trustworthy people to begin with.
Just to repeat that.
-
Is there a difference between being trustworthy and being an effective communicator with good interpersonal skills, though? Like, I'd never lie to my players or show favoritism among them, but I'm also a complete clown who can barely express a thought without fucking it up somewhere in the journey from brain to tongue.
-
I don't know. I've been a longtime fan of player relations staffers, personally.
Like, I have a select group of people that I would be completely comfortable empowering to do that. You just tell players:
I am human, and while I might think that my solutions are brilliant and elegant and without flaw as a divine entity, I also realize that I can be biased and closed-minded and susceptible to all the other perils of this weak mortal meat.
Therefore, I empower @Devrex to call me on all my bullshit. If you think I'm being a total jerkass, tell Devrex, and if Devrex agrees we'll work it out.
ETA: Which of course necessitates you being willing to, you know. Actually do that and not just dig your heels in.
-
@runescryer I think whether or not it can work depends largely on what kind of support you have in place for that person.
Clear, written policies with a clear rubric for when certain things will be awarded, clear guidance and help on how to get and launch RP...the more crystal-clear the policies, the better this would go. And anything that looks vague should be tightened up.
@derp and I were talking about this last night. Say you have Tier slots for different characters.
Vague: Top Tier characters must foster RP in their spheres.
Specific, crystal clear: Top Tier characters must run 3 PRP scenes per month for that they do not participate in personally. This may be for any sphere as long as you're making RP for the game. Those PRPs must create RP for at least 3-5 people per session and at least two of them must have entirely different participants. RL happens, so you get a 30 day grace period. If you can't uphold your obligations you will be asked to step down from the Top Tier role and will lose all the benefits, even if this means putting this character on hiatus and being invited to app a Bottom Tier character. Top Tier characters may be reactivated after running 5 PRPs.
Then when the ombudsman/player relations guy gets:
"@Derp was totally mean to me! He dropped me from my tier role unfairly!"
Well now there's something to investigate and something to work with.
"Hey Derp, unhappy player ran his 3 PRP scenes last week, did you spot that? They appear to be within the bounds of the policy you wrote, man, is there something else going on?"
Or...
"Hey, I see that you tried to run your 3 PRPs but that third one had three of the same players from the first two so you're not in policy yet. Do you think you can run one that meets the criteria in the next week? This has never happened before, seems like a mistake. If so I'll ask Derp if you can have some more time."
Or...
"Dude you're way past your grace period. The policy clearly states you lose the character in this circumstance. I'm not going to Derp with this. Go run your 5 PRPs, and put in your requests to get your character back, same as anyone else."
If the policy isn't clear the Ombudsman themself has no leg to stand on other than gut, what seems fair, their own feelings towards player/other staff, etc., and you end right back up at square one.
-
In my experience having that as a specific role causes more harm than good. Most conflicts require more than one set of eyes and also multiple viewpoints and considerations that one person will not be a good arbiter of. It sets up a subtle and unintentional confirmation thar staff is something players need to be protected from. It doesn't at all replace leadership but may be shuffled off as an excuse to not have to provide it as it's someone else's role.
I think it is good to run anything posted especially in reaction to something or in annoyance through several people to read for tone. Also a good idea to have people willing and able to pull in other staffers or the headwiz for arbitration help if needed.
-
The usual issue games have - unless they are already right at the top in terms of popularity in the zeitgeist - is there is too much demand for roles and not enough supply.
That is, most MU* would love to have more qualified staff members, PrP-runners, faction leaders. There just aren't enough of them especially consistently. What usually happens is you find that one person who gets super active for a few weeks, runs a bunch of plots and then disappears. Staff positions themselves are notorious for being behind revolving doors.
Would a full time advocate be nice to have? Absolutely. But so would other roles which are arguably of equal or more use to a game.
-
@mietze said in Player Omsbudsman?:
It sets up a subtle and unintentional confirmation thar staff is something players need to be protected from.
You say this like that isn't the default that most of us in this culture come from. If people didn't need to be protected from people with staff powers, we'd just give everyone staff powers, and places like this wouldn't exist.
Anyone with contemporary western educations are told to be suspicious of those in power, so I'm not sure that 'this will make people suspicious of staff' is a good reason not to set up alternative channels of dispute resolution.
Really, anything you can do to keep the peace and ensure a good experience for players should be embraced.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@derp i didn't say that it set it up, just that it fed into it/confirmed it, unintentionally. It won't alleviate it. Nor keep the peace. Nor give players a "good experience". Respectful leadership has a better chance.
As well as just acknowledging that some folks will not be able to have a good experience for reasons that are largely not within your scope ability to control.
-
I'd like someone, staff or a player, who can help people state their issue succinctly and clearly.
-
Fair enough, guys. Everyone brought valid points to this; points I either hadn't thought of or considered enough.
Ideally, yes, Staff on a game need to foster player trust. But we all know at least one game where the majority of staff are cool, but still green, and someone weaseled their way into a positoin of power that they can abuse.
-
@runescryer that is as likely to happen with a person who is offered an ombudsman like role from a green staff or those uncomfortable with conflict. I've seen it happen.
Some of the people who seem the most personable and eager to "help everyone get along" are very manipulative or overinvested in being well liked. And a lot of people who would chomp at the bit to be Voice for the Voiceless are not great people to have in that role regardless of how well meaning they are.
-
Seen it tried, never seen it work.
The ombudsman has always been part of a hierarchical staff, and the one with the least authority.
This tends to send the message that 'real' staff don't have time for players. It appears to saddle the player with an advocate who has no actual power but is even more invested in ass-kissing than the player is, having a staff position and its perks to lose as well as a PC.
To me it seems to violate "more product, less process" principles -- are you sittin' around thinking up steps and 'proper channels' to deal with a problem and makin' flow-charts when you could just deal with the problem?
"... you'll find the story doesn’t end how you think, and the most important characters aren’t who you expect.” - Penny 40 to Derek, The Magicians S04E07 ‘The Side Effect’
-
@il-volpe said in Player Omsbudsman?:
To me it seems to violate "more product, less process" principles -- are you sittin' around thinking up steps and 'proper channels' to deal with a problem and makin' flow-charts when you could just deal with the problem?
This only applies if you assume that the channel itself isn't the problem, though. If you're genuinely attempting to empower an outside opinion, then you will give them actual power.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@il-volpe Hey. I like flow charts. They go nice with my spreadsheets.
-
@derp You're right.
Funny, I've never seen a "If you have a problem you're shy to go to the staffer under whose purview it falls, see the ombudsman," system tried. It's more, you get told to and there's a gatekeeping aspect, like the ombudsman is also responsible for shielding other staff from dumb complaints.
-
I held this role once.
I was given the same authority as the two head staffers, and we formed a triumvirate.
I think it is an okay idea, but it has to have teeth. Giving the ombudsman the same power as one of the head staff? That might do the trick.
But the head staff did trust me implicitly, and I served as a resolver of issues between them too.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
