@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
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.)
The only reason I find it relevant is that it's a pretty clear demonstration that nothing about her has changed at all. If she was interested in reforming or 'being better', she had a decade to make something actually important right and didn't. It's not hard to get from there to 'and on a game, where nothing is real and it is not very important, she's not going to give half a fuck about the damage she does to others, either', since that's been proven out long term, too. I wouldn't expect her to go around making amends for all the game shit she's fucked up, but if she's on the 'better human being' train all of a sudden, you'd think she'd make some kind of effort along the line to make major RL wrongs right, and she's not done so. I wouldn't expect people to disallow her on a game over it happening, because duh, really, but it's a big red flag re: 'has she really reformed and changed?' that people should keep in mind.
@Meg said in MU and Alternate Channels:
ok, but I have to admit. 'Drives a Fiat' had me laughing out loud at work.
I choked on my coffee hard at this one, because my favorite RP person ever... drives a Fiat. Swear to fucking god. I laughed so hard my scar aches out of nowhere again.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:
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.)
The only reason I find it relevant is that it's a pretty clear demonstration that nothing about her has changed at all. If she was interested in reforming or 'being better', she had a decade to make something actually important right and didn't. It's not hard to get from there to 'and on a game, where nothing is real and it is not very important, she's not going to give half a fuck about the damage she does to others, either', since that's been proven out long term, too. I wouldn't expect her to go around making amends for all the game shit she's fucked up, but if she's on the 'better human being' train all of a sudden, you'd think she'd make some kind of effort along the line to make major RL wrongs right, and she's not done so. I wouldn't expect people to disallow her on a game over it happening, because duh, really, but it's a big red flag re: 'has she really reformed and changed?' that people should keep in mind.
And for the record, I absolutely disagree with that guy's decision. If it were my game and you were playing on it and came to me with proof that this person who had caused personal destruction in your house was now playing on the same game? They'd absolutely be gone. Idgas that it happened off a game.
My thoughts are this. If you have been an 'ideal' player and something happens that pisses you off. That's normal. It happens. How you handle it is pretty telltale. If you go to your friend who is your sounding board for all things (not just this thing); sure. Okay. Rant. However, if you go off on someone in a Skype conversation, Discord talk, IM, Email, or various means we have off game -- well chances are this is more the real you. You have probably been doing this or levels of this before and not gotten caught. Just this time you picked the wrong person or felt comfortable that you would be let off for your crime and did it more in public.
I have a circle of people that when things go bad, calls are out of my favor, or random things that just happen -- I vent to them. They know I don't hate the game or the people but I need to blow off my frustration. I have been spending months and this dickbag just fucked up all those plans. Fuck him. I should just... fuck up his plans.. waaaaa. --- They know that I don't mean I'm really going to fuck up his plans. I'm just crying that my plan has to be revised. They know I'll be fine online and not be vindictive. So in this I think it's fine (but maybe it's not). Also, on game I will actually be fine after I sleep. Sleep makes things better normally.
Now if I went on public/game channel and had a meltdown. Or I did this to strangers that don't know me and have the rapport that I have with others; this is uncomfortable and really can be seen as harassment. I would never try to do that because I would feel uncomfortable because that's not my sounding board for my sanity (or insanity). So if someone feels comfortable, if you looked into it. They have probably been getting info OOC, they have been crossing OOC lines, etc. Now if this is an offense that goes on and on -- the game (Arx in question here) has been stated as a 'safe place'; that means they have to protect in a sense against that harassment. It's not a slope, but it is a sticky situation full of potholes.
So really, just don't be a dick.
Here's my metric:
Q: Does the situation negatively affect the ability of a game to fulfill its role?
A1: Yes -- Consider taking action.
A2: No -- Consider not taking action.
Nowhere in this is "happens on the game or not" a consideration.
@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:
I would be clear that I understand that it is allegations, but even as allegations, I consider them worth a conversation.
Going back to this-- This. Man, why don't staff have more conversations? I know things aren't black and white, nothing is clear-cut. But if someone's making allegations of shitty behavior on another's part, why wouldn't you at least talk to the accused? You don't have to ban them or immediately give them a warning or even anything.
This is one of the things I never understood with the one complaint I put in to staff. That they wouldn't even have a conversation with the person.
To some extent, it just strikes me as a symptom of either not enough staff or lazy staffing. Not having the dedicated time for player management.
#FreeFarfalla
@Meg I think in the case you had specifically, I'd call it too few staffers available rather than laziness, but there are some times I've seen lazy as the cause. Sadly, sometimes 'too many' staff creates the same problem, since no one is sure who has the responsibility to do this, so you have lower tier staffers afraid to say anything without approval from on high, and upper tier ones thinking the lower tier staff will handle it.
Sometimes, things really are so black and white there's no conversation to be had. ('Is VASpider/Rex/Jeurg', for instance, at least to me. <cough>)
Oh fucking well.
Yeah, I definitely think it was too few staffers in that case. Sorry, I started out quoting a specific instance and then broadened up the reasons why this happens. There are also staffers that don't think player management is a focus; that plots and code and etc are more important. Or that think players will somehow manage and work these things out themselves.
For instance, I do think I've heard enough from ThatGuyThere to assume that he doesn't think player management is as important as the rest of the staff duties.
In my opinion, it's the most important and toughest part of staffing. Writing plots, writing grid descs, coding-- I could do all these pretty easily. Managing players? Even I admit that I'm not good at it. That's why having a dedicated staffer for exactly player management is good.
#FreeFarfalla
@Meg People think I'm joking when I say I have a dude willing to repeat whatever I just said to guys who refuse to accept rulings on or interpretations of mechanics/etc. when they're presented by a female staffer.
I'm not.
Which is my roundabout way of saying, '...yeah, it's important, and sometimes you gotta plan for some of the DUMBEST shit because it is eventually gonna happen.'
I'm sorry. If a player cannot 'believe' a female staffer, they need to be destroyed by fire and removed from the game. That shit is so 1950s crap.
@Rook Oh, I know it's coming, and don't really disagree, but a verbatim cut and paste from someone with testicles can drive that point home without losing a potentially otherwise useful (but backward-ass) player in the process.
That I'm writing the system I'd be using won't even matter, either.
Just look at the 'how sad nobody knows how to math' at @faraday for an example; she absolutely knows how to math. Women are expected to prove ten times the competence in terms of stuff like this far more often than I feel like dealing with, there is already plenty to do, and nobody's got time for that on top.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality said in MU and Alternate Channels:
Women are expected to prove ten times the competence in terms of stuff like this far more often than I feel like dealing with, there is already plenty to do, and nobody's got time for that on top.
I make my partner's sandwiches daily.
That said, I concur with @Thenomain's succinct synopsis.
@surreality said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Meg I think in the case you had specifically, I'd call it too few staffers available rather than laziness, but there are some times I've seen lazy as the cause. Sadly, sometimes 'too many' staff creates the same problem, since no one is sure who has the responsibility to do this, so you have lower tier staffers afraid to say anything without approval from on high, and upper tier ones thinking the lower tier staff will handle it.
Sometimes, things really are so black and white there's no conversation to be had. ('Is VASpider/Rex/Jeurg', for instance, at least to me. <cough>)
This can be a pretty complex issue in my experience. One of the biggest reasons I've personally seen that an investigative or preventative conversation might just not happen, or not happen in a timely manner, is that the person who needs to be talked to will inevitably emotionally exhaust you in the course of the conversation. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not, and people just aren't very understanding of it when you try to draw boundaries with these people because it's easy to portray it as just clubbing whoever you're trying to handle.
You deal with that enough times and you stop wanting to try to engage people like this if you can avoid it. Somebody who can actually engage all the various personalities and their quirks regularly and get stuff like this done is a god damned treasure.
EDIT: Not suggesting that @Meg here is one of those people, I have no idea what happened with them.
@Z-01 said in MU and Alternate Channels:
EDIT: Not suggesting that @Meg here is one of those people, I have no idea what happened with them.
@Meg has five fucking monitors. She can take anything we throw at her.
@Arkandel hey hey, don't throw me under the bus because you are jealous of my monitor situation!
In more seriousness, @Z-01, I did not think that. I generally try to assume the best of others unless proven otherwise that I shouldn't. And yeah, player management is hard and a skill only few have bothered to learn. I've known a few people that are awesome at it, but it is rare.
@Z-01 said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@surreality said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Meg I think in the case you had specifically, I'd call it too few staffers available rather than laziness, but there are some times I've seen lazy as the cause. Sadly, sometimes 'too many' staff creates the same problem, since no one is sure who has the responsibility to do this, so you have lower tier staffers afraid to say anything without approval from on high, and upper tier ones thinking the lower tier staff will handle it.
Sometimes, things really are so black and white there's no conversation to be had. ('Is VASpider/Rex/Jeurg', for instance, at least to me. <cough>)
This can be a pretty complex issue in my experience. One of the biggest reasons I've personally seen that an investigative or preventative conversation might just not happen, or not happen in a timely manner, is that the person who needs to be talked to will inevitably emotionally exhaust you in the course of the conversation. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not, and people just aren't very understanding of it when you try to draw boundaries with these people because it's easy to portray it as just clubbing whoever you're trying to handle.
You deal with that enough times and you stop wanting to try to engage people like this if you can avoid it.
You just kind of do it anyway, and make sure there's at least a second person on staff to handle it if it's either on a day that you can't, or it involves you, so you shouldn't. It's just an inevitable part of staffing anything, from a shop to a mush to whatever.
@Paris said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Z-01 said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@surreality said in MU and Alternate Channels:
@Meg I think in the case you had specifically, I'd call it too few staffers available rather than laziness, but there are some times I've seen lazy as the cause. Sadly, sometimes 'too many' staff creates the same problem, since no one is sure who has the responsibility to do this, so you have lower tier staffers afraid to say anything without approval from on high, and upper tier ones thinking the lower tier staff will handle it.
Sometimes, things really are so black and white there's no conversation to be had. ('Is VASpider/Rex/Jeurg', for instance, at least to me. <cough>)
This can be a pretty complex issue in my experience. One of the biggest reasons I've personally seen that an investigative or preventative conversation might just not happen, or not happen in a timely manner, is that the person who needs to be talked to will inevitably emotionally exhaust you in the course of the conversation. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not, and people just aren't very understanding of it when you try to draw boundaries with these people because it's easy to portray it as just clubbing whoever you're trying to handle.
You deal with that enough times and you stop wanting to try to engage people like this if you can avoid it.
You just kind of do it anyway, and make sure there's at least a second person on staff to handle it if it's either on a day that you can't, or it involves you, so you shouldn't. It's just an inevitable part of staffing anything, from a shop to a mush to whatever.
This, exactly, is why I tapped @Coin to be my second if I ever run a thing. Because I know he can communicate with me effectively, and has zero qualms telling me to simmer down when I'm being ridiculous. 
He could double as 'a person with testicles' in a pinch, too, but really, the other friend is looking forward to that job if/when I decide to pick up the project again.
@Meg People think I'm joking when I say I have a dude willing to repeat whatever I just said to guys who refuse to accept rulings on or interpretations of mechanics/etc. when they're presented by a female staffer.
I'm not.
Which is my roundabout way of saying, '...yeah, it's important, and sometimes you gotta plan for some of the DUMBEST shit because it is eventually gonna happen.'
