MU and Alternate Channels
-
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Arkandel
So you would no-contact two players after one incident, to the point of banning public RP?@Rook, you literally said it yourself.
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
If Bob is talking shit about a player, that player equally has every right to avoid Bob for whatever OOC reason. It doesn't matter if it was Skype or a Web Forum or a Munch that Bob was caught spouting cruel things.
-
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Arkandel
So you would no-contact two players after one incident, to the point of banning public RP?Nope, that's not what I said. What I did say is that staff have to make difficult choices based on - often, and necessarily - limited information.
You glossed over (for the sake of argument, I get it) the 'why' and 'what' that the Aggressor did, in your example. So help me understand your example here. Are you saying that the Victim would write up logs that never happened? Yes, that is something that Staff will be hard-pressed to catch or even prove, I agree. That is a hell of a lot of effort and underhandedness, a surprising amount actually, just to 'take someone out' of the IC scene for your own personal advancement. Shit, is that the type of crap that we're talking about, the extremes that happen out there?
Although faking logs are a thing that's happened, let's exclude that possibility for now. In my experience it's usually hearsay, third party testimonies, maybe a disdainful or dismissing attitude on public channels, indications of OOC metagaming, occasional convenient lack of dice rolling when it's in their favor, whatever it is. You know this stuff.
So what I'm saying is if there's no smoking gun where the guy sent someone a dick pic or whatever then staff need to make a call; is the person contacting them being too sensitive? Are they actually trying to use them to get out of an IC bind? Or are they simply justified and there's actual dickery going on?
And if so, what do they do to fix it if it's not clear enough? You said you don't like no-contact rules, but what do you go with? You're staff, you got to make up your mind - even inaction is a decision.
In fact inaction is a very common decision.
-
@Tinuviel
There is a difference between ME avoiding Bob and STAFF regulating a no-contact order. I believe I also had a caveat on that post that spoke about venting, or one-time things:*Granted, a venting wouldn't warrant this reaction from me. We all vent, I get that. But those that repeatedly bitch tend to be very destructive to games, foment upset on that game, and drive players away whether you realize that they are doing it or not.
The difference here being a single incident and repeated incidents?
@Arkandel
Okay, I totally understand where you're coming from. And to be clear, it isn't that I dislike no-contacts, but I just don't think that (with the example you gave) that a public no-contact ban on RP from a single non-witnessed incident would be my course of decision. I think we are agreeing here, I just needed to come to understand what you were illustrating. My own slowness. -
Also, it bears saying... I actually have it written down in a policy file (because I do have a policy file for everything, almost properly-used-literally) that people should feel free to bitch and gripe and complain and smack-talk the shit out of me, any place I run, etc. on the forum here, without fear of reprisal.
Reason being, if I am actually fucking up, I want somebody to call that shit out. If they don't feel comfortable bringing it up privately -- and if they think I'm fucking shit up out of malice or sheer stupidity it's reasonable to expect they won't be super inclined to bring it up with me privately -- this might be the only way I ever find out, and I'd rather find out than let the problem linger. Explanations can be offered or action can be taken as needed to rectify the problem at that point, but I feel it is seriously better to know so it can stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting resolved somehow.
-
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
You are responsible for your behavior and actions at all times.
I follow a similar maxim, said another way:
Don't write something or message someone electronically with something you would not want someone to see as an exhibit in court.
“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 in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
You are responsible for your behavior and actions at all times.
I follow a similar maxim, said another way:
Don't write something or message someone electronically with something you would not want someone to see as an exhibit in court.
-
@Tinuviel said in MU and Alternate Channels:
. If I accuse you of dog-fighting ring organisation on here, but don't do diddly on the game, why should game staff be expected to act? They can act, of course. They don't strictly need a reason to act. But should they?
Why would staff punish Ark running a dog fighting ring at all? that has zero to do with the game as well as being off game. Though if Ark were running a dog fighting ring and discussing it on game I would consider it staff responsibility to prevent the continued use of the game to further and illegal activity.
The way I look at it if it concerns the game than staff has the authority and responsibility to act. Now they should only act in a manner consistent with the offense. For example a statement of not liking someone. Not really something i think staff should act on unless that person is broadcasting the feeling over public channel and then it is more of a not what this thing is for issue than a not like someone issue. Though if me and another player plot pk someone for ooc reasons through private messages on this forum then we should get smacked down for it even though no game staff has control of the forum or it's contents. -
Can you read posts more clearly, please? The idea isn't that Arkandel would be punished for running a dog-fighting ring. But if someone is going around and making that accusation against him, blatantly lying, it's going to impact his RP. Would you not punish someone for making those blatant lies against someone?
That was what the posts before you were saying. You always do this. If only you took more time reading.
-
Ahh i didn't get that because my brain would not jump to the conclusion that people would not rp with him because he ran a dog fighting ring rl so the only possible reason i could see for starting that rumor would be to cause staff action. And at no point in the post does it mention the rumor would be started impair Ark's ability to get RP I cannot read what is not there.
And yes someone running a RL dog fighting ring would not deter me from RPing with them. -
Someone's reputation in a game matters. If I start telling people any sort of lies about you, it shouldn't matter if it impacts RP or not. If I start telling people that you're cheating on your wife, going bankrupt, fighting dogs, killed a man in Reno, etc etc. Any lies that I deliberately spread about another player matters and should be punishable. But, if we're going to debate what should or shouldn't be punishable, then that's a different subject.
This one is, if you'd punish it on the game, why wouldn't you do it if they did it off-game.
-
@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
And yes someone running a RL dog fighting ring would not deter me from RPing with them.
For the record if someone was running a dog fighting ring I wouldn't even want to know they are alive, let alone play games with them.
-
Thankfully, I rarely hear rumors about people doing fucked up shit RL. For which I am very grateful, actually. Almost universally, it's something game-related. It may just be tangentially game-related, but it's still almost universally game-related.
The people whose RL lives I am or have been in any way involved with -- people who have become friends, or, I guess technically Spider -- it tends to be relevant, but I avoid Spider whenever possible and the rest of the people like that are friends, so the shit I hear tends to be directly from them about their own lives and is blessedly chill.
I might just be lucky, really, in this respect, despite my glaringly shitty luck in other ways, that people don't tend to come to me with piles and piles of RL gossip about others.
-
I think that Staff should be concerned with someone's impact to their game. Players should be concerned with a player's impact to them personally, their RP, and so on. If a player is a vile [Republican|Democrat] in internet chatrooms, Facebook, whatever, that should have no bearing on their participation on a game, nor in whether or not I'll RP with them. It has no bearing on the game, nor me.
-
@Meg
I agree with you there I think things that are punishable should be punished regardless of venue. In my first point i even used the example of plotting an unjust pk here as a theoretical example of something that should be punished.Now as to the reputation I would not punish someone for spreading lies about non-game matters period regardless of the place they did so. I would punish someone for lying about game matters regardless of where they did so. For ex, Joe cheats on his RL wife. Not gonna care. Joe uses OOC info to win, I would look into the matter and either Joe would get talked to about using OOC info or person spreading the story would get talked to about making up lies.
-
@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Meg
Now as to the reputation I would not punish someone for spreading lies about non-game matters period regardless of the place they did so. I would punish someone for lying about game matters regardless of where they did so. For ex, Joe cheats on his RL wife. Not gonna care.That's not an example of spreading lies about non-game matters, though. An example would be Bob spreading lies about Joe cheating on his wife to get people not to like Joe OOCly so that Bob can sabotage his RP on the game.
-
But you literally just heard someone say they wouldn't associate with someone who runs a RL dog fighting ring. I wouldn't either. I don't give a shit what @Rook thinks, but if someone is doing something like /that/-- No, I am not RPing with them. (I will RP with anyone with any political stance; not really the same beast.)
So if Player A is making up a lie that is keeping Player B and Player C from playing with Player D, even if it's about their real life, why would you /not/ look into Player A lying and spreading rumors about Player D?
#FreeFarfalla
-
@Meg said in MU and Alternate Channels:
So if Player A is making up a lie that is keeping Player B and Player C from playing with Player D, even if it's about their real life, why would you /not/ look into Player A lying and spreading rumors about Player D?
A better question is: how would you discover Player A's lies in this situation?
Because this is demonstrably how VASpider destroys games.
“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.
-
@Roz
Do people really decide who to rp with based on non game things?
This is not be being a smart ass but an actual question. I couldn't tell you more than the time zone of ninety percent of the folks I rp with. It doesn't concern me. Someone tell me Joe cheats on his RL wife would not get me to avoid RPing with him, because once I cross that line I have to then not rp with any one who works for a World Cup sponsor (list of over 100 multinational corporations), etc.
So yeah I don't consider lies that are not game related to be a big deal, if this makes me an asshole I am remarkably fine with.
Real example As much as I empathize with Surrs roof hole that would not be a reason to not allow She Who Gets Namedropped on a game. (Note there are plenty of other reasons to no allow though.)@Meg said in MU and Alternate Channels:
So if Player A is making up a lie that is keeping Player B and Player C from playing with Player D, even if it's about their real life, why would you /not/ look into Player A lying and spreading rumors about Player D?
Because that is the level of playing Nanny that I would be comfortable in doing nor would I expect any staff member to do.
-
@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Roz
Do people really decide who to rp with based on non game things?Based on this thread, demonstrably yes. Everyone has different boundaries. Other people have boundaries that are different from yours.
-
@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
Now as to the reputation I would not punish someone for spreading lies about non-game matters period regardless of the place they did so.
You are thinking about your reaction, not that of others. You might not care if Bob is telling everyone Jane is a prostitute IRL but maybe Jane does, and if it's making the game unpleasant for her then you just let Bob get away with it. You end up with one less good player who did nothing wrong, and you keep the jerk who just realized he's empowered to do this again to someone else.
Does that sound like a good plan?
