Player Omsbudsman?
-
@carma said in Player Omsbudsman?:
I feel like the best Ombudsman is the collective players of the game, who show their approval of staff actions by whether or not they opt to continue playing.
Yes and no.
The word of certain individuals simply carries more weight. A respected member of the community vouching for a game, telling me it's being ran by reasonable people, matters.
But more importantly the collective playerbase focuses on negative feedback. Look at MSB; you see much more frequently entire threads created about bad experiences playing on games or interacting with staff or specific people than you do about PrPs being ran and generally having fun.
Having someone actually air those good vibes and let us know a MU* is worth giving a try can definitely matter, whether that's done in an 'official' capacity or just in passing.
-
@arkandel said in Player Omsbudsman?:
But more importantly the collective playerbase focuses on negative feedback
I'd say humanity generally does. "Man owned gun without incident today" doesn't sell papers. Or whatever the kids are using to get their news now.
-
@mietze said in Player Omsbudsman?:
while I think that could work if it was part of a co-headwiz type of arrangement, I think i would be a little leery if resolving complaints and issues was spun off to a single person because the headstaff did not want to be involved.
Does it matter if head staff authorizes that person to take direct action against other staff?
I think players expect that whomever they discuss their grievances with can and will take action that means something.
I can see the perspectives here, and I generally concur with the idea that an ombudsman may be seen as a boondoggle or pointless endeavor to cover for a bigger problem: having staff with the social graces of a block of wood.
-
While hardly a bastion of 'elite' roleplay, the 'Legends of the Jedi' MUD has a role-playing council elected by the players and while that's not without its issues and controversies, I think there's actually a solid level of trust between the playerbase and administration because of its existence.
A lot of the issues presented in this thread still apply to various degrees, of course, because I think those issues will always apply in the situations that 'heat of the moment' will apply to but there seems to be a certain stability thanks to the whole 'committee' thing versus 'GodKingAtreides just doesn't like me' flareups and meltdowns.
This group is who you appeal to when you think you were permed unfairly or mistakenly, they're who oversee 'spyapp' situations (the process of which is intended and actually seems effective at heading off the inevitable screeching when orgs are infiltrated and backstabbed or robbed by recording intentions and plans prior to the actual fuckery), they make sure PCs that are jailed or otherwise incapacitated from the grid actually receive roleplay supporting, furthering and resolving these situations, etc. They also offer support and guidance to new players who may flail with lore, mechanics, and anything typically relegated to 'newbie helpers', though they have the typical game-wide NEWBIE/Q&A channel as well the council to serve as a resource for those who need more in-depth help for various reasons.
It's not perfect - nothing is, and nothing every will be, but it's a unique aspect of the way this particular game approaches player-staff relations that I personally think improves the environment. Yes, 'governing by committee' is not going to be the fastest or, likely, most efficient approach, but in this case, it seems to have achieved a balance of speed and efficacy that works for its base.
ETA: English is fucking hard for me today and I apologize for the garbage disposal grade grammar.
-
@arkandel said in Player Omsbudsman?:
But more importantly the collective playerbase focuses on negative feedback. Look at MSB; you see much more frequently entire threads created about bad experiences playing on games or interacting with staff or specific people than you do about PrPs being ran and generally having fun.
Having someone actually air those good vibes and let us know a MU* is worth giving a try can definitely matter, whether that's done in an 'official' capacity or just in passing.I don't know if I have a distinct point to make.
Bitching about something in any context actually conveys that something is worth bitching about. If someone didn't have stakes in a place when something went wrong, they wouldn't complain. Bitching can (has and does) increase traffic to a Mu*.
Even on a google review, I find myself reading into a complaint wondering if its really the place or the worker at the time. I compained about a place and it had a few thousand local views once, probably did better for that business than not. I tried a good review and like 10 people looked at it.
The saying we had in the military is true, a bitching Marine is a happy Marine, its the silent ones you worry about.
The recent thread on Liberation, how many people have checked it out since? Some others hinted at app'ing in now or app'ing there again.
I'm less worried about vocal bitching on places like this than the silent folks just leaving the hobby cause they're done with it.
There's something applicable in this, but I'm not sure what.
-
@lotherio said in Player Omsbudsman?:
Bitching about something in any context actually conveys that something is worth bitching about.
Not necessarily. Just that someone thinks it's worth bitching about, or they're bored and want to bitch about something, or that they just like bitching...
-
This post is deleted! -
@carma said in Player Omsbudsman?:
@tinuviel said in Player Omsbudsman?:
@arkandel said in Player Omsbudsman?:
But more importantly the collective playerbase focuses on negative feedback
I'd say humanity generally does. "Man owned gun without incident today" doesn't sell papers. Or whatever the kids are using to get their news now.
Another way to frame it, maybe: World of Dorkness MUSH: 47 days without a Hog Pit post.
That does literally ignore my point, though.
-
@tinuviel said in Player Omsbudsman?:
Not necessarily. Just that someone thinks it's worth bitching about, or they're bored and want to bitch about something, or that they just like bitching...
-
This post is deleted! -
"I like griping." - Joan Marie Lambert, Navigator USCSS Nostromo
-
One of the problems you run into running a mush is that players are often until after the issue has already exploded into something huge and even then they often just choose to silently leave instead.
Reasons can be varied. Maybe they don't want to be seen as needy, maybe they worry staff won't take them seriously or act against them. Either way if you want a healthy game culture you want things brought to you early so you can address them preemptively.
Player ombudsmen are helpful here because they can be seen as someone you can talk to without 'Bothering' the administrative staff and they can also offer to relay your issues anonymously. Player ombudsmen can also play the game in a more normal way and spot and relay issues in a way more empowered staff usually can't.
All in all I find them useful as a way to build trust between players and staff and more preemptively maintain good atmosphere.