@FiranSurvivor said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Pondscum said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I'll say it again, it's being staffed by people that staffed on Firan. Why anyone expected anything different to the mentality that prevailed there, I have no idea.
Having suffered at the hands of those loons before, I do not see the same mentality from Firan in Arx.
Did you disagree with staff though? I don't know if you have, I'm just saying that in the most extreme cases of drama I've seen in my years MUSHing there are always people saying "well, I didn't see anything", which happened to be because they were - by design or otherwise - on the right side. It's easy to escape unscathed if there's nothing to go after you about.
In that way my experience of Arx is about the same as in most MU* I've played in the last few years; since I'm not an active participant in the work being put in I have relatively few if any demands from the MU* itself; that means I don't pitch things too hard or follow up on my suggestions; I propose changes, some of them are adopted, some are not, but I don't try too hard to convince staff about them. So I haven't had to see what happens if I dissent because frankly... I don't care enough. I play a character. That's it.
For full disclosure though it does bother me that a friend is banned from a game I play. Not only did I trust @lordbelh to be a good player to the point where I rolled a character in his House but it casts doubts on the House's viability overall. For those who might be unfamiliar with House Thrax, it's... a bit different than the others, thematically. IC it takes thralls (who are similar to slaves) and it's pretty patriarchal in nature - traditionally only men find themselves in leadership positions. This wasn't a player choice, it's how it was created by staff, but given how much of a trigger issue this sort of thing has been for Hellfrog in the past it casts the whole notion in doubt - if playing the game as intended can land players in hot waters why was it put like that to begin with?
I've had talks with Victus over time. Not many - I avoid talking about RP OOC too much as opposed to simply... roleplaying - but enough to know he was discontent to no greater extent than most people do about their MU*. That is, he wasn't furious or raging, he was frustrated about things he sounded like he thought could be changed. And whether that happened to be true or not, regardless of whether staff was amiable to listening to one of their players, being banned for it sounds like a disproportionate knee-jerk reaction. "Dude, shut up about this already, I don't want to hear about it again" is quite reasonable. But banning him? That's the nuclear option.
I'm not convinced it was justified.