@Ganymede said:
@Arkandel said:
I don't see how you don't see the timing issue. I explained it above, how did it fail to meet your criteria?
You could meet the criterion of actually raising a timing issue to start with.
To give an actual example, back on HM I had a couple of players spying on me. I don't know - to this day - just what means they were using but staff asked me a couple of times to detail what my character was doing "between 4 am and 5 am last night". I had no honest idea, so I erred on the side of caution and assumed a scene I actually had two days earlier happened in that time frame so that my answer wouldn't sound like a cop out ('Theo was watching cartoons on the TV').
First, "I'm not sure" is an answer, and a reasonable one. Second, most methods of spying have some sort of resistance or contested roll. Third, the players could have, and should have, come to you first.
In fact, that would have been my approach as staff. Like this:
Spy: I want to spy on Arkandel. I'm using my Goggles of Google to do it. What do I roll?
Me: Did you tell Arkandel that you intended to do so?
Spy: No. I don't want him to know I'm doing it.
Me: Well, not knowing what Arkandel has been doing or what protections he might have against spying, I cannot advise you as to what to roll. Maybe you should talk to him about it first?
Spy: But I don't want him to know!
Me: Too bad. His PC won't know, but you could save yourself time by just going to the source.
Spy: You're missing the point.
Me: No, I'm not. I understand your point. If you don't trust Arkandel to not mix OOC and IC awareness, then what makes you think you can believe anything he tells me about his PC's activities?
Spy: Uhh ...Like that.
Staffers can also ask Arkandel if he wants to know who is spying on him OOC. He might not want to know for fun's sake. Staff as a middleman can be more than just how to resolve a conflict; it can be a way to uphold immersion or whatever; a barrier between knowing enough and knowing too much (a barrier that is, of course, set in different places for different people).
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@Coin said:
Staffers can also ask Arkandel if he wants to know who is spying on him OOC. He might not want to know for fun's sake. Staff as a middleman can be more than just how to resolve a conflict; it can be a way to uphold immersion or whatever; a barrier between knowing enough and knowing too much (a barrier that is, of course, set in different places for different people).
Now that is a problem code can solve. The interface may be tricky in getting it done so it's easy to use, but staff shouldn't be needed for something like this (which reduces the burden on them).
For instance I want to spy on Gany. I type something like "+spy Ganymede" and get asked a few questions:
Gany gets a notification when she logs on that someone is attempting to spy on her using the means above. She does something like "+spy list" to see all the spying attempts on her (she's a popular target) and picks my attempt from an anonymous list. She's asked what roll she'll use to resist ('wits+composure+Auspex') (*) and then depending on whether she got more successes or not is either informed IC someone attempted to spy on her, who that person is, or she's asked to provide the information if she loses the contested roll.
There should also be a feedback command so she can communicate with her anonymous spy to ask clarification questions.
It seems like a neater way to do it and can spare staff the headache of doing it manually.
(*) this is probably wrong.
There's also a fairly big difference, I think, between IC spying and OOC spying.
IC spying can be part of the game -- and in some games may be a central part of the game, depending on its themes and setting and whatnot. It's also, ideally, vetted like the examples above rather than simply done without any sort of oversight at some stage of the process. It isn't, OOC, a secret in the same way as someone dropping dark into the OOC room to listen to OOC chatter amongst the unaware, or even just dropping into an IC scene dark to observe without ever saying anything about it.
There's a purpose and intent to the IC form that's recorded, too; there's usually a scope of time or purpose. It isn't too different than, say, a search warrant -- it's valid for X location at X time and there's some level of supervision to ensure people don't stray beyond the permitted scope.
OOC spying? That's a complete crap shoot and doesn't have the same kind of in-game or story purpose. They're really very different animals.
@Arkandel said:
It seems like a neater way to do it and can spare staff the headache of doing it manually.
But it doesn't spare staff the headache of having to code the command. I don't see much of a benefit for the effort, but if you're willing to pull this together, good for you.
It will not be something I demand from my coders.
Code once, have forever. It saves time in the long run under same principle as automating say, spends.
As to how useful it is? Spying is probably something not done too often unless the game's theme places value on information.
Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a command that creates a job or similar along with that. The oversight factor of staff handling the matter with eyes-on is one that's worth keeping, even if automation may simplify other aspects of it.
Oh fucking well.
Personally, I take issue most of the time to code and procedures that would distance players or inject staff where it is unnecessary.
If we agree that MU*ing is collaborative, then we should promote policies that foster collaboration and minimize third-party interference. I understand the concerns, the preferences, and the occasional anomalies, but, for the most part, my response to such would be: "suck it up, princess."
“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.
@Ganymede said:
If we agree that MU*ing is collaborative, then we should promote policies that foster collaboration and minimize third-party interference.
That third partyy (staff) is also part of the game and can also be included while still keeping to a collaborative playing scheme.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@surreality said:
Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a command that creates a job or similar along with that. The oversight factor of staff handling the matter with eyes-on is one that's worth keeping, even if automation may simplify other aspects of it.
I thought about a +job but then - unless the +job system itself is modified - we'd lose the anonymity, which @Coin correctly pointed out some people like for immersion purposes.
Is staff policing the game that everyone plays at every MU* or are they providing the structure of a specific game experience? For the former, sure keep them out. If the latter, why are you there if you don't want to play the game they are specifically offering?
Hm, what occured to me is we're providing no way for someone to spy on a place rather than a person.
I.e. "I'll be obfuscated in Joe's Bar tomorrow night between 6-10 pm". How is that to be fairly facilitated?
@Arkandel said:
@surreality said:
Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a command that creates a job or similar along with that. The oversight factor of staff handling the matter with eyes-on is one that's worth keeping, even if automation may simplify other aspects of it.
I thought about a +job but then - unless the +job system itself is modified - we'd lose the anonymity, which @Coin correctly pointed out some people like for immersion purposes.
I'm not sure if it's entirely feasible in MUX, but it could be possible to have the job created and attributed to an object author, with the first entry being the name of the person making the attempt and how they're going about it, along with their roll/stat-related whatever with it's successes and so on. Since not all comments on jobs are viewable broadly, there's potential there to keep confidentiality. Similarly, resist rolls and such could be added into the job in the same way, with something to process the 'verdict' the only thing visible to both parties to say, "Target, please enter what you were doing at X time on Y date into the job." if it's successful, or "No information is required at this time and no information is gained." if it's not.
Something like that, anyway. I think it's viable in theory, at least. Still predominantly automated, but with potential for oversight and intervention when/if needed, which would turn a potential lengthy arbitration into something more in line with the +asp system in terms of staff workload.
I know TR had an anonymous setting somewhere/somehow for one job board until it was removed, so it's possible in theory?
@Arkandel said:
Hm, what occured to me is we're providing no way for someone to spy on a place rather than a person.
I.e. "I'll be obfuscated in Joe's Bar tomorrow night between 6-10 pm". How is that to be fairly facilitated?
You can use softcode to do it by setting a DARK object in the room that records poses.
“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.
Don't forget @forward!
@Coin said:
That third party (staff) is also part of the game and can also be included while still keeping to a collaborative playing scheme.
I used the word "interference" precisely and deliberately.
Players can keep staff in the loop. And staff may want to be in on the loop. Frankly, as staff, I don't care if people are spying on one another so long as they are doing so with the other's knowledge and understanding.
Folks need to learn to play with others as much as they must learn to play.
@Ganymede said:
You can use softcode to do it by setting a DARK object in the room that records poses.
@Misadventure said:
Don't forget @forward!
What about rolling for detection? Not to mention if you got caught that'd have altered the scene retroactively, which is problematic. And if it's done by immobile means (say, a camera) how much is caught?
I'd be inclined to borrow a page from @Ganymede's book and make players figure out who got to see what - OOC anonymity will be tricky given the complications which can arise.
I'm entirely with @Ganymede on this. We're playing a cooperative game, by the very nature of a mush. People should be cooperating. Yes, there are folks that prefer no spoilers, but this is an RPG, not a television show. There is no reason to waste finite resources (staff time and attention) when people can handle this themselves.
And tbh...if people change what they're doing IC based on somebody observing, who cares? If someone is going to change what they're doing to cheat, they're a problem player anyway. Otherwise it's just a comfort thing, or a desire to be entertaining and make it fun, or... so on and so forth. None of which are bad reasons to adjust your RP.
People really need to check themselves and remember that we're all in it for having fun at the end of the day. If your fun requires someone else not having fun, the problem is not with them.
@Arkandel said:
It seems like a neater way to do it and can spare staff the headache of doing it manually.
But it doesn't spare staff the headache of having to code the command. I don't see much of a benefit for the effort, but if you're willing to pull this together, good for you.
It will not be something I demand from my coders.
