A Post-Mortem for Kingsmouth
-
I did not need rules to tell me how to behave, it's true, but if I ran a game now, I would want to hire staffers that share being on the same page about policies and philosophies at a certain level. The best way to do that would be to have very clear boundaries (probably significantly altered from my own personal "best likes" to something that I feel is more realistic to maintain) so that they could decide if /they/ would like to staff for me. When I have helped out on other games, I often send in a blurb about my ethics/preferences (always prefaced by the fact that I do not think that my way is the only way), and ask about points of concern/conflict, so that the hirer can then decide if they want to work with /me/. Of course I am willing to adapt my practices when I'm staffing for someone else, unless it crosses certain lines--and then I don't need to create a fuss, I just call it for what it is, a difference of opinion that I want to respect, and so I'd like to support the game in other ways than staffing.
There have been many wonderful games run by wonderful people that I would not be a good fit for staffing wise. Or player-wise. It has nothing to do with trust. Just because I am not a good fit for a staffing model doesn't make the headstaff implementing it (or me) untrustworthy. It just means that our philosophies are just different enough that seeing the sausage making would be stressful (perhaps for us both). Sometimes that can be overcome (because of the model of TR I was able to staff there despite a lot of philosophical disagreements with practices; but every game isn't TR, and eventually it did get to the point that I couldn't support via staffing any longer, not because anyone was horribad or whatever but just I felt very stressed about the clashes, and so I felt it was best to support via PrP running and playing rather than staffing, so I did.
I am just a lot more comfortable with staff alts being highly restricted than the majority of people are. I am not evil, and neither are people who disagree with me. I am far, far more personally conservative about CoI than most people I know. That's just me. I do think that there are significant benefits that come with it that are often overlooked, but I know that most of the time I will need to bow to the decision about that going the other way.
And you would be one of a very limited pool that my cranky-old-lady self would be willing to staff for, despite our difference of opinion on whether staff should have restrictions placed on their alts or not.
-
@ThatGuyThere Basically, I think rules about OOC behavior should not impose limits on IC behavior that are not universal limits for all players.
"Don't cheat" and "Don't abuse OOC information because that is cheating" are rules for all participants on the game.
You shouldn't need additional limits for staff if those policies are already in place.
Rules are necessary. That specific rule comes across very badly for a number of reasons I've described before.
I get the argument that most staff are privy to more information than most players, however, abusing OOC information is not kosher for players or staff already. I also get the argument that sometimes this happens unintentionally -- which can happen with players as well. (No, really, we're some gossipy bitches in this hobby. But truth is, I was privy to more things going on behind the scenes as a player since I was more involved on grid than I ever was as staff.) So, again, I think rules are necessary in regard to this -- but the kind of rules that are needed are already extant as universal concepts that everyone on the game is expected to abide by. Staff doesn't get extra restrictions (and shouldn't need them!), but they don't get a pass on using that info, either, because no player would.
Oh fucking well.
-
@mietze And this is why I
you, you know this. 
Srsly, minor templates 4ever. All the in the world.Basically, my take on it is something like this: factions/groups vote on who they want in charge -- whoever that is. People in the group get to pick, people get to play it out, and staff oversees things to make sure everyone (no exceptions!) plays fair about it all. If they pick a staffer's alt, cool. If they don't? Also cool! Characters sink or swim on their own merit.
I'm also very fond of player-created factions and groups. The idea that a group of players could organize themselves well and, after demonstrating great executive skills, someone in leadership gets hired on to staff, well... I see a pretty big issue there. They earned both positions. If they can handle both impartially? Someone else's prior game baggage they had nothing to do with seems a poor cause to deny them, or force a difficult choice that might potentially do the game more harm than good in the long haul -- losing an active faction head or losing out on someone who could have made the game better for everyone as staff.
-
@surreality said:
we're some gossipy bitches in this hobby. But truth is, I was privy to more things going on behind the scenes as a player since I was more involved on grid than I ever was as staff
So much this. I have a clue what's going on on the game because I have a PC on that game who is out there RPing and taking in things as they come along. If you asked me what was going on in the game with the information I have as staff alone, boy would I give you a misleading picture of events as they unfold. Most game things don't get run past staff. Conflicts between characters, overarching group plans, etc. None of that comes across my desk until it's time to award xp for things, and even then it's more like 'had a scene, killed some dudes, fulfilled some asps, resolved some conditions'. And in my experience, players aren't terribly interested in sharing a good deal of that information with staff in the first place.
It's later, when I'm sitting down with the other person having a beer and talking about our IC lives, that the deets come out.
-
@Derp
First off never been scarred by staff i am pretty good at avoiding them just like avoiding cops when you are in college it is not hard.
But as for it being a limited experience with staff corruption in this hobby? Well lets see, Dark Metal, Tartarus, Shadowed Isles, Denver, all those had literally hundred of pages of various shenanigans on various old forms of Wora, most of it with good cause, Lets also add into the mix some of the newer games like HM and the reach, I never dealt with it any there either but care to tell me it wasn't around?And the reason I posted this your soup kitchen analogy shows that you have never volunteered at one. I do on a regular basis and yes the people there getting the free food at just as prone to bitching about it and service they receive as human beings are everywhere.
-
Given the amount of work faction heading can be even more intense and time consuming than some staffing positions I guess my answer would be that I think it's okay for there to be a decision that you need to pick one or the other.
I had to make that choice at RfK as well. It did not feel encumbering to me, I understood why. (but then again, as noted, I was personally comfortable with staff alts not being allowed to be political PCs, and the reason why even though I didn't have one, that policy would really need to be applied to me as well because of the nature of my support position).
I have seen what happens when a great player organizer gets poached for staff. Sometimes it works, but that's very rare to keep up both ends. Usually one or the other suffers, especially if they are aged/have a real life. And you can have someone super talented at player organizing in all of its nearly complete freedom really become a terrible staffer. (I bet you can name times where this has happened too). You can't live your life with what if, of course. But for the same reason I would consider limiting a player to a single faction head position on a multisphere game, I could see limiting staff in the same way. Especially if one wanted to avoid the awkward conversation of "you're falling down on both jobs, pick one".
Of course many places don't have really defined staffer roles or faction head roles, which cna lead to some mismatched expectations and other problems that influence whether people think that's a good idea or not.
-
While your litany of staff corruption is certainly educational, it doesn't really change the point that nobody ever needs to conform to doing something a certain way just because some people before fucked it up. As mentioned, every game has problems, and there's no set definition as to what counts as 'staff corruption' or not.
For example, say I have an RL friend come onto a game I'm running. I'm well aware that they're informed as to the sphere they're playing in, they're responsible, invested, etc. And they ask to play a restricted concept. I give it to them, because I trust them to run it. I made a judgment call based on my knowledge and experience. Some people would call that a good idea, because I know that this person will behave in a certain manner. Some will flail their arms and scream 'nepotism favoritism cheating motherfucking bastard' because I dared to give someone I know and have ample experience with something shiny. Perspective is important, but at the end of the day, the game is what the game-runner decides it is, and other people can get on board with that or not.
As far as the soup kitchen analogy, perhaps they do. But do they have an absolute right to demand that something change in order to appease them when they're getting something for free, from someone else who cares enough to provide it, when they couldn't provide it for themselves? I say no. Bitchy people exist everywhere. That doesn't mean that the world has to bow to their demands. Games are no different.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@Derp
And that is just one of the many reason i would never play anywhere you staffed.And there is a difference between being bitchy and being against corruption.
-
Oh damn. I guess I'll just have to find a way to live with myself. But I won't think about that today. I'll think about it tomorrow. At Tara.
-
Nepotism sucks and people who give out positions/perks based on it suck.
The only kind of person who would ask a friend for special favors on a game is a shitty person.
Shitty people are friends with shitty people. Ergo, you're a shitty person if you give your shitty friend the shitty bonuses.
-
@Admiral said:
Nepotism sucks and people who give out positions/perks based on it suck.
The only kind of person who would ask a friend for special favors on a game is a shitty person.
Shitty people are friends with shitty people. Ergo, you're a shitty person if you give your shitty friend the shitty bonuses.
Perhaps. I think it really comes down to the process that determines it. Restricted concepts exist for a reason. The qualifications required to have a restricted concept often come down to a gut check. If the person making that gut check knows you enough to be able to do so, then I would say that nothing unusual lies there. That's how lots of things work. Merit goes a long way. Experience is how merit is determined.
If shitty people with shitty friends are the only people who use a meritocracy, then one could just as easily argue that fools are the only people who allow absolutely anyone to play absolutely anything and risk the whole damn thing going up in flames.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@mietze said:
I have seen what happens when a great player organizer gets poached for staff. Sometimes it works, but that's very rare to keep up both ends. Usually one or the other suffers, especially if they are aged/have a real life. And you can have someone super talented at player organizing in all of its nearly complete freedom really become a terrible staffer. (I bet you can name times where this has happened too).
Definitely! From the first game I played on until recent days, even. But I've also seen people able to do both. They weren't necessarily people with much of a life outside the game in all cases, mind, but those folks exist, so, uh, awkward as that is, if that's how they want to invest, and they're doing a good job with it and being fair? I'm inclined to let them.
You can't live your life with what if, of course. But for the same reason I would consider limiting a player to a single faction head position on a multisphere game, I could see limiting staff in the same way. Especially if one wanted to avoid the awkward conversation of "you're falling down on both jobs, pick one".
...which is the other awkward thing, yeah. But I'd rather let folks try first. Most of the folks who think they won't be able to hack it, and are super responsible people (of the kind I <3), will generally pick one or the other when they see there's a problem managing time before that conversation needs to happen -- but I'd rather give people the chance and have the conversation than not. I do think this is more viable if there are other 'leaders' in the faction as well, or if the staff role is more minor (jobmonkey or admin level more than TL-level), but I've seen people pull off miracles like this before, sometimes for years. I've actually run across non-evil Spider types (in terms of activity and productivity), for instance. (No, really, I swear they exist! Rare as hen's teeth, but extant!)
Of course many places don't have really defined staffer roles or faction head roles, which cna lead to some mismatched expectations and other problems that influence whether people think that's a good idea or not.
This is a good point, too. Also, game size is a HUGE factor. Public vs. private faction is a factor to consider, too. I'm generally not interested in games of TR scale at this point; Reno's size was viable at its peak and people were good about CoI.
I think a lot of things get made into policy to avoid awkward conversations, really, that maybe shouldn't. Admittedly, I'm just as guilty of this as anybody else ever is -- so I am not pretending innocence here. (Seriously... a wiki-side preference system so people who aren't keen on certain topics can say so in advance in a public space and have it seen without having to interject or surprise someone with the info? Yep... )
-
@Derp said:
While your litany of staff corruption is certainly educational, it doesn't really change the point that nobody ever needs to conform to doing something a certain way just because some people before fucked it up. As mentioned, every game has problems, and there's no set definition as to what counts as 'staff corruption' or not.
For example, say I have an RL friend come onto a game I'm running. I'm well aware that they're informed as to the sphere they're playing in, they're responsible, invested, etc. And they ask to play a restricted concept. I give it to them, because I trust them to run it. I made a judgment call based on my knowledge and experience. Some people would call that a good idea, because I know that this person will behave in a certain manner. Some will flail their arms and scream 'nepotism favoritism cheating motherfucking bastard' because I dared to give someone I know and have ample experience with something shiny. Perspective is important, but at the end of the day, the game is what the game-runner decides it is, and other people can get on board with that or not.
As far as the soup kitchen analogy, perhaps they do. But do they have an absolute right to demand that something change in order to appease them when they're getting something for free, from someone else who cares enough to provide it, when they couldn't provide it for themselves? I say no. Bitchy people exist everywhere. That doesn't mean that the world has to bow to their demands. Games are no different.
I thin you're in a minority as far as 'People who would think this is a good idea.' Regardless of if you know this person or not, allowing them something restricted to your players just cause they're your friend and you know them, isn't fair to your players.
I've seen it time and time again on Mushes, tabletop games, LARPS it's always "I know them and trust them..." and next thing you know the rogue is stealing everyones gold, killing people in their sleep and hiding behind the DM when anyone IC reacts going "But I'M a rogue, you're not!"
Or running around playing a Trujah...
-
Sounds like the blind leading the blind.
A staffer says they'll allow a player they trust to play a restricted concept. But how much should the staffer be trusted. There's all this talk about bad staffing and corruption, so is it any wonder that this thing too should pass? Bad staff. Bad players. Its all a shitstorm of people making power grabs to have the kind of fun they want on a game regardless of how it might affect others.
I've always thought that the idea of MU*s being a "cooperative storytelling environment" is a huge joke that people who want to enjoy the medium try to lie to themselves about to try to make them feel better about the muck we all wade into. This, among so many other posts here and back on WORA, just kind of highlights the hilarity of that idea.
I like the idea, mind you, it just isn't realistic.
This just kind of underscores the idea. The notion that all players don't get access to the same stuff is promoting inequality and saying that all players aren't deserving of the same benefits. And if that's what you believe, how can you expect anyone to view anything as "fair". If your view is that certain people are better than others prepare for drama and accusations and corrpution and all the horrible crap that people hate about this medium.
And somehow through this people expect a "cooperative storytelling experience"? Good luck.
-
Posted on the BBOARD of Kingsmouth
After a possible reboot announcement by an old staff member...
"
A question was asked of me, asking where the game would be rebooted: Either here with this place with the same connection info and setting, or somewhere else? Well, my initial thought was to restart the game in-place here. RfK has a TON of systems, code, and areas in place and it would be a shame to toss it all away. I read somewhere on the Internet that no other Vampire Themed MUSH offers as robust of in-game systems that RfK does. And this pleases me greatly. However if there is concern about old, salty staff or players coming back to muck up our fun, then I can capture a complete dump of the game's database and move it elsewhere.If we keep the game here or move the game database, I will take control over #1 (The Pennmush God), and de-wiz all current +staff. I'll also immediately set up rules and expectations of my immortal (Wizard) staff as that seems to be the sticking point as to why this game closed in the first place.
I'd like to call a meeting to whomever is reading this message. You're invited to my party.
I'll provide the drinks (Bwahahaa).
I'll be available online on this mush on Monday, December 14th. The meeting will officially be held at 1PM Pacific Time (GMT -8).Hope to see you all then.
Kougyoku (Cthulhu)
" -
@Derp said:
If shitty people with shitty friends are the only people who use a meritocracy, then one could just as easily argue that fools are the only people who allow absolutely anyone to play absolutely anything and risk the whole damn thing going up in flames.
I concur.
As staff I take responsibility for my decisions, and I take responsibility for allowing some players to assume roles of power or concepts that I would not allow others. I've been around the MU pool for a long time. I have a pretty good idea of who I can play with, and who I can't.
I have long since abandoned an absolute idea of fairness. If you act like a dickbag on channel, I'm not going to let you be Prince in my Vampire Sphere. If you act like a dickbag to me, I'm going to kick you out. I don't have the time, inclination, or patience to deal with dickbags; I'm too fucking old to pretend I don't have biases, yet some people find me unfailingly fair, if not honest.
-
@DnvnQuinn
Koug's a nice person but you couldn't count on him to staff the bench at a bus stop. So good luck if he tries.
-
Koug is back?
