@Cupcake That has been me on pretty much everything I've tried to run with for the past... year? Two? Anywhere. If I had any good answer as to how to deal with it, I'd share. 
I had a reasonably sane and enjoyable experience with him when we played. This may be because he didn't think I had anything to offer ICly or oocly and thus it was just fun play rather than the manipulation game? There were tons more people on that game I found more unfun both ICly and oocly. I think the danger zone seems to be if you are a rival or he views you as a stepping stone.
@mietze To be fair, even the biggest villains we've seen at WORA/MSB aren't horrible 24/7. There's a reason they get to advance to the point where they can poison games, and it's not because they make enemies every time they interact with someone.
Juerg was quite nice to me, for instance.
@mietze said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I had a reasonably sane and enjoyable experience with him when we played. This may be because he didn't think I had anything to offer ICly or oocly and thus it was just fun play rather than the manipulation game? There were tons more people on that game I found more unfun both ICly and oocly. I think the danger zone seems to be if you are a rival or he views you as a stepping stone.
Custodius can be very charming in person. In my interactions with him by IM and on the social MUSH we talked on he was a very personable guy. Were I not such a cynic about human nature I'd likely have been taken in by him and joined that Fading Suns game he wanted me to join at the time. You know, the one he destroyed...
But yes, the real danger is if he thinks he can benefit from you. The problem is that you never know what he feels will be to his benefit. For instance he wanted me to join the Fading Suns game because there were people on that game who knew that I thought he was a festering piece of shit. Had I joined the game at his behest I'd have been the "see, even my worst enemy from the past has forgiven me" guy.
The real problem with him isn't that he's actively malevolent. He didn't invite me to that FS game because he wanted revenge on me or some such thing. He's just incredibly narcissistic and views everybody around him as just something to be used and then discarded when no longer needed.
And in the process he kills game dead.
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Juerg was quite nice to me, for instance.
You do not have a vagina. This is relevant.
Oh fucking well.
I don't think Custodius destroyed that Fading Suns game... it was more about bad staffers. Like the main staffer Paulus would set a battle for Saturday at 2 PM. He'd log on, then say, "I need to go bake a cake..." and then not respond to pages for 5 hours.
EDIT: it was fudge, not cake, sorry
@GentlemanJack said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I don't think Custodius destroyed that Fading Suns game... it was more about bad staffers. Like the main staffer Paulus would set a battle for Saturday at 2 PM. He'd log on, then say, "I need to go bake a cake..." and then not respond to pages for 5 hours.
He strongly contributed to its death.
In no game can you point to a single person and say "that person is the one who shivved it". Castle Marrach was a clusterfuck from the get-go. Morte (and his subsequent elevation to staff) was a symptom. The same applies to games "killed" by Seiche or VASpider or any other WORA/SWOFA/MSB Grand Villains
.
But…
When you see the same names featuring prominently in the deaths of game after game, it becomes pretty clear that they're part of the problems that kill those games. Sure the games involved had structural problems, staff problems, theme problems, etc. But, you know, I've never seen a game that didn't have these. There's three games I play off and on right now that have all of these … and aren't festering shitholes. Of course they don't have people like Custodius, Seiche, VASpider, etc. on them either abusing and exploiting these flaws.
Honestly, I don't think narcissts who view other players as bit pieces to be manipulated and/or used for that person's enjoyment are a rare commodity on mushes--and there are a lot of game ruiners (even multiple times offenders) who never make the big time hit lists (and probably would reject that categorization of themselves and truly believe it).
I do think that the Arx folks have a good handle and spine about these things for what I know oocly. So I'd worry less in that environment than a more inattentive/erratic one (which also seems to be a common factor when games get ruined--though I'm not shy about my opinion that /no/ player ruins a game; it's staff's responsibility and usually is tied into not nipping things in the bud.)
The main downside is tying yourself to a historically problematic person is either wasting a lot of time and energy if you have staff that are on the ball and yoink them if problems crop up again, or getting caught in the echo chamber and buying into the ooc manipulations which then unintentionally hurt others and damage your own reputation.
@surreality said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Juerg was quite nice to me, for instance.
You do not have a vagina. This is relevant.
Juerg was never other than pleasant to me -- at least, he wasn't when interacting out of character. (In character is another story.) Despite playing a good-looking female character in the Order his character ran, I was actually taken by surprise when he got thrown off the game, because he had always been reasonable, courteous, and respectful in his OOC dealings with me.
To be clear, I'm absolutely not saying he's just a misunderstood but decent guy. I recognize that this is very much the exception rather than the rule. I don't know why he behaved this way; I'm sure I'm not the only person who made clear early and often that she wasn't interested in either sexytimes or OOC discussion of IC matters. But apparently, for whatever reason, this one time it stuck.
@Thenomain said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Because there have been several times in the past where people have taken those email addresses and abused the trust of the people who've asked for them. We here, esp. us dinos like WTFE and myself, have been over this and we can't come up with a considerately valid reason why having the email in the first place has more benefits than risks.
I hesitated to join Arx because of this. I figured it had to do with Evennia, and the fact that there was a roster system. There may be better way to track who has played which PC at one time, but an e-mail address seems like a reasonable way to track this.
Since we can all make shell or false accounts, I don't see much of an issue with this. I don't know if there's a better way, but this requirement did not bar me because I presumed it was necessary for the game interface, which I was curious about.
@Kanye-Qwest I'm going to preface this by saying I really like your game (and you are an integral part of that), and this comes from that place:
Making responses that come off as petty, defensive, vindictive and antagonistic on a thread about your own game is not a good look, especially when its directed at fairly benign system design disagreement.
It might just seem like a part of a small feud on MSB, but when its here and about the game, it creates an impression.
That in turn will likely to some extent translate into the game, and its interactions. Fairly or unfairly, most players have come across staffers who confirm to those qualities and it wasn't pretty. Seeing you display them here is likely to make 'em crawl under a stone instead of engaging with you (or at least start that process). That just leaves things festering.
So in the future I'd encourage you (and this generally goes for any staffer on any game who wants the best for that game) to just take the high road. Show your best face. There are a host of unintended consequences for not doing it. Pursuing feuds do nothing for you.
@lordbelh I think that's very well-said and I agree that the exchange didn't leave the best impression on the thread. I'm already invested in Arx and have felt staff to be very welcoming and responsive on the game, and this won't make me leave, but lordbelh is absolutely right that this thread is your public advertisement face. It's certainly not fun if someone who you clearly have bad blood with is calling out stuff on your game thread, but life as a game staffer is a bit different than life as a game player in that regard.
I respect both of you a lot, and I get what you are coming from. This hobby has not done a bang up job of producing really stable environments. This, in turn, makes a lot of people pretty damned wary of staff, worrying that their time investment in a game can be completely flushed by someone losing their patience and freaking out, or acting unfairly or unreasonably. I get that. I'm really sympathetic to it. I'm really conscious of it when something is testing my patience.
But it doesn't do us any favors to expect someone to bend over so far backwards they are basically the equivalent of a poor customer service rep dealing with screaming customers. That kind of thing might feel safe and reassuring, knowing that person probably won't lose their cool, but it also means that they are the softy afraid to say no that any unreasonable person on a game will try to exploit. I think most players would feel unsettled by any display of a temper by a staffer, even if it was completely justified. But they will absolutely leave a game that's taken over by unethical players exploiting a doormat that is completely unwilling to push back enough to maintain a healthy, positive atmosphere. Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
some fucking idiot who people only like because he's good at taking credit for the work of everyone under him, just like every other fucking L&L headwiz.
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
Your staff didn't come off sweet or nice, or even professional and level-headed.
In fact, there is no requirement your staff even had to react on this thread.
It is not a surprise that any number of us don't see any logic to having an e-mail requirement to log-in. For the most part, I still don't. Your game was an exception because I just don't know Evennia.
Nothing that was said required KQ to say anything at all. And no response would not make you appear soft.
You are under no obligation to respond to anything by anyone here.
So, no. I don't buy your defense.
(P.S.: You also don't need to respond to this post.)
(P.P.S.: Your game is pretty badass, but I'm not into the system or the setting.)
“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.
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Neither @lordbelh nor myself said that you needed to be nicer or more accommodating. For my part at least, and my impression is that lordbelh was coming from the same place, I was reacting to the super hostile language KQ (but not you or Tehom) was using. Trust me, I do not feel more reassured by a staffer who bends over backwards. I have been staffing for years myself, and I have played the game of screaming into a pillow and then coming back firm but even-handed to a player a lot of times.
I did not, nor would I ever, suggest that any staffer endure someone screaming at them without reaction. But there is a professional reaction to it -- the one where you firmly say, "This isn't acceptable, you're being removed" -- and the unprofessional reaction of losing your temper in public.
I, personally, would leave a game for both: staffers without enough spine to manage players AND also staffers who badmouth/argue/lose their cool/generally just behave in a hostile or rude way to players (or to people who are addressing them about their game). Because both spine and professionalism are, IMO, integral to good staffing.
I don't think you needed to ignore the concerns or questions coming up in the thread. As Gany said, you didn't have to react, but I think that most of your reactions were perfectly reasonable in explaining why things were set up a certain way. But some of the reactions from KQ really weren't a great reflection on your game.
@WTFE said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
Bro you are literally the person that posted saying requiring email validation is moronic on a forum that requires email validation to register to post.
some fucking idiot who people only like because he's good at taking credit for the work of everyone under him, just like every other fucking L&L headwiz.
@Ganymede said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
It is not a surprise that any number of us don't see any logic to having an e-mail requirement to log-in. For the most part, I still don't. Your game was an exception because I just don't know Evennia.
I do find it somewhat ironic that people are hung up on e-mails, when they're not an absolute requirement, and I've yet to come across a game with a wiki where I didn't have to provide my e-mail. A necessity in playing most games (often with a rule that there must at least be a character page.)
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
But it doesn't do us any favors to expect someone to bend over so far backwards they are basically the equivalent of a poor customer service rep dealing with screaming customers.
I don't disagree with you. I don't think Staff need to bend over backwards and smile at abuse. But there's a scale. When you misjudge that scale, and I think that very much happened here, its healthy to acknowledge it and see why it happened, then address it. Don't indulge the idea, natural though it is, that others are worse, or that you're right so you're justified. Because while I certainly think you're right on the e-mail issue in this case, there's always going to be a point where you think you're right, but you're actually not, and if you've gotten into the habit of thinking that if you're right you can act however you please, you're in trouble. (I don't think none of you are at that stage. But that's why I said something to start with; if I thought you were a bunch of idiots then I'd have just shrugged away it all, because there's no point in engaging.)
ETA: When I say address it, I mean address and discuss it among yourselves. I don't think you'd get much out of doing it here in public.
@Ganymede said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
Your staff didn't come off sweet or nice, or even professional and level-headed.
In fact, there is no requirement your staff even had to react on this thread.
It is not a surprise that any number of us don't see any logic to having an e-mail requirement to log-in. For the most part, I still don't. Your game was an exception because I just don't know Evennia.
Nothing that was said required KQ to say anything at all. And no response would not make you appear soft.
You are under no obligation to respond to anything by anyone here.
So, no. I don't buy your defense.
(P.S.: You also don't need to respond to this post.)
(P.P.S.: Your game is pretty badass, but I'm not into the system or the setting.)
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@WTFE said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
Bro you are literally the person that posted saying requiring email validation is moronic on a forum that requires email validation to register to post.
You're really quite bad at this aren't you.
Pretendy fun-time game =/= internet forum.
Requiring email validation to play a pretendy fun-time game is moronic, especially given the well-documented history of game owners being utter fuckwads who abuse said communications media. You have no history that I'm aware of. You suddenly demanding email contact is, given, as I said, previous history with it, highly suspicious. This is doubly suspicious given that there is no technical grounds (barring incompetence) requiring emails to get things done in software.
Incidentally, you are now also falling into the pattern of "dumbass game runners who get into public spats with people who disagree with them". This is another pattern that repels anybody who's ever MU*ed for longer than, oh, say, about five minutes.
@WTFE said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Apos said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Yes, arguing with players can be a huge red flag. But let's also not forget how many games croak run by super sweet and nice people.
Bro you are literally the person that posted saying requiring email validation is moronic on a forum that requires email validation to register to post.
