Will removing the Dark tag really keep the staffers that only log in and idle from continuing their behavior? They can just set themselves to Off-Duty or Busy or AFK for forever (and some do). I've seen staffers stay logged in for 3-4 days at a time and never in the many hours I was about take themselves out of Off-Duty. The tags aren't the problem at that point, the staffers that abuse them are.
Mind, this is not a rant about how all staffers suck and should be penalized. Its recognizing that just like for players, sometimes a few bad staffers can ruin a nice thing for all.
When I staffed, I'd forget to go undark since the game kept setting me dark. Just remove the damn dark tag.
Or have a system which automatically undarks staffers.
In other news, I have killed +job/approve and +job/deny. I cannot tell the low-level animosity I've had for these two switches, but for some reason +job/complete has never mailed. Ever. It's a silent finish-and-close.
I don't know where to put this patch, so I'm putting it here for now.
@va me=<main jobs object>
&MLETTER_COM [get( %va/vc )]=
[name( %0 )] has been completed:%r
%r
[last( get( %0/COMMENT_1 ), | )]%r
[repeat( -, 75 )]%r
[ansi( h, Comments added by [name( %2 )]: )] %3
@edit %va/cmd_job/complete=
{ You have completed [name(%q0)].; },
{ You have completed [name( %q0 )], adding the comments: [trim( %1 )]; }
&cmd_job/approve %va=$+job/approve *=*:
@pemit %#=Please use +job/complete.
&cmd_job/deny %va=$+job/deny *=*:
@pemit %#=Please use +job/complete.
Yes, it was just that easy.
Enjoy.
@Thenomain You should probably alias approve/deny to complete instead of dumping an emit telling them which command to use (that takes the same params).
This is training. Both /approve and /deny have a certain connotation to them that /complete does not, so rather than letting the staffer think the context is maintained, force them to use the correct command and, therefore, the correct context.
There's also something strange that happens when you use @force on an object that gets set 'halt' when the game super-lags. Not likely to happen, but has happened.
Just as a minor, probably irrelevant aside that I offer since this conversation is taking place in our game thread and not in the code forum... I don’t think @dark staffers are any sort of a problem on Eldritch and am pretty sure this is a theoretical problem based on Thenomain’s Else-MU past experiences. We have pretty small contingent of staff and I can’t actually think of an instance in our short history when any of us have actually BEEN dark.
Just context. Or maybe Theno is attempting to train me via code. Time will tell!
Will removing the Dark tag really keep the staffers that only log in and idle from continuing their behavior?
No. That requires staff management from the head(s) of the game. You cannot expect store employees to just show up and do their work at your general fast food franchise. If you have staffers that aren't fulfilling their duties, and there is work to be done, you need new staffers, IMNSHO.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Mind, this is not a rant about how all staffers suck and should be penalized.
I don't think removing the DARK flag entirely is a punishment; it is removing a privilege that isn't needed, in my opinion. If it remains, it should be treated like a privilege: if it is abused, it will be removed.
My online time is scarce, so if I'm connected I should be considered on-duty. I can easily choose not to connect, and remain off-duty. I usually inform staff and friends, though, that if I am needed, and am connected as a PC, I can be called upon to connect and assist on an as-needed basis.
Hence, as a staffer, I was hardly ever DARK.
“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.
Well, sure, but the choice should be there.
I was nearly never dark, but there were times I was dealing with things (such as, say, building or having conversations about the sphere or even waiting for someone to log on while playing my character). I didn't want to be spammed during those times, as I was already either doing something - and as others mentioned, even an @idle ends up spamming you.
Would it have been better for the game if I simply logged off my staffbit to avoid this? If so, elaborate.
Treating people like adults never fails in the long run. If you can't trust your staff members will use dark or any other feature properly you already have bigger problems than code can hope to solve, but treating them like potential screwups (we can't TRUST you with this much POWER!) will certainly not achieve the expectant results.
Seems like pointless nonsense. There are a number of positions on any given game that don't require direct access to staff by players. Coders, job monkeys, etc. And as has been noted, even those who do directly interact with players (sphere staff, mostly) can be on to do staff things without interruption. On-and-working is not the same as on-and-accessible, and an off duty flag doesn't really preclude getting pages, even if it's just folks peeking in to see if you're really off duty or if you just forgot to set yourself otherwise, and then you're either ignoring them or wasting time explaining, or whatever.
If staffers whose duties do require they be accessible to players to some degree are using the dark flag to avoid doing so, that's a problem with those staffers, not the dark flag or folks who use it. Trying to use code to fix a symptom as if it'll fix the problem is poor form.
I know that generally speaking, unless I'm swamped (or dead idle), I'm visible. My general approach has always been to just leave my connection up to catch questions on channels and so on that I might be able to answer when I am back at the screen, which is harder to do (or sometimes just forgotten to back-check) otherwise.
Auto-darking is something I never was especially keen on, I'll admit. Auto-dark for idle is a two-edged sword; it doesn't show the staffer as available, but it also doesn't show why they aren't available if someone has paged, finds they are connected, and simply gets no answer. Seeing a long idle time would be an instant explanation for this that might stave off some potential hard feelings of 'is Staffer just ignoring my question?' that not being able to see the idle time can create understandable doubts about.
Auto 'set to idle' is probably a better option for that, at least, with a default idle message with the staffer's current idle time displayed in response to pages.
People ignore 'off-duty' regularly. 'Busy', as mentioned, is likely a good addition. To be fair, off-duty could mean busy, it could mean 'I feel like picking my butt right now, sorry' or any number of other things -- all of them valid -- but busy is just all around less ambiguous.
@Ganymede said "I don't think removing the DARK flag entirely is a punishment; it is removing a privilege that isn't needed, in my opinion."
I completely agree here, and in fact will take this statement a step further and state that most powers given routinely to staff are not needed, are highly abusable (note that I didn't say abused, necessarily). This is why I built an @groups system and then coded everything on the game against that. It's also a design of my game to allow PLAYERS to manage themselves via @groups, since they can be OOC groups (Architects, Staff) as well as IC groups (Police, Beggars, Research Group Alpha, etc).
You don't need bits to do day-to-day staffing jobs. It's just that almost all code out there ASSUMES a wizbit means staff, and therefore requires it in the code.
It's stupid.
RE: Duty flags
I think that these are no more useful and guaranteeing of fruitful labor than an RP_OK flag guarantees you'll get a scene offer. Staff routinely have them on, aren't doing anything but idling, or have them constantly off. So, what's the point? If players don't respect them and staffers aren't diligent about setting them... why have them?
They set expectations that get smashed by the reality of the day: work, kids, chores, other tasks taking precedence... why go through the steps if it isn't authoritative?
If you utilize @idle properly as a staffer, you should be able to manage people's expectations and reactions, yes?
an off duty flag doesn't really preclude getting pages
As most of us know, neither does the dark flag. I know something that does, tho.
@lock/page me=me
There's also a way to turn of @mail notifications. I'm starting to get tired explaining how code works as a defense, and not to people who actually want to know. Learn this shit before going all attacky about how it works, people.
Trying to use code to fix a symptom as if it'll fix the problem is poor form.
::facerub::
Guess who said the following over a dozen times?
Using code to solve a social issue is tricky at best and should only be done if you know what you're doing.
Or this?
I see no harm for trying.
Or, in another thread, this?
You can't responsibly break a rule until you understand it.
If you need a hint, they are all the same person.
Code is a tool implemented to aid a workflow. That's it. That's what it does. It is not there to solve a problem. People are there to solve problems and use code to help implement the solution. Notice I didn't say "to implement" but "to help implement". It is, I will be blunt, ignorant to assume that code, once written, never changes. It wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry if code was write-once, solve-thing. Hell, even @Coin is happy to go into the Muxifier and make some changes so that my code workflow is improved. We tweak Myrddin's venerated bboard code so that our workflow improves. When we broke TinyMUX with our overbearing code-heavy "solutions", it was @Chime who upped one number, saw what that broke, and fixed some others.
So sure, say my idea is shitty, but don't put code in the spotlight for something it can never do.
@RDC said:
If you think you know what you're doing enough to attempt that, then step up.
But I don't. With /deny & /approve, you will never see these again on a game I'm coding.
With showing dark staff? I want it to work, but I'm not convinced it will. I am convinced that this is the right direction, and a lot of why I posted it here was to get the feedback to keep the idea as true to usable as possible, and people have been pretty damn good about that.
I try to read the criticisms as "well, this concerns me". Attacking code for being code? Yeah. No. Maybe I missed what HR was trying to say, and as one of my lynchpin flaws I will assume I read things right the first time. (I do try to backpedal and apologize when I'm wrong.)
"Thenomain's Principle of Code" is not set in stone, but it does go something like this: Using code to try and address social issues is tricky; be very careful.
I'm planning on being careful, and pull it if it doesn't work. Trust me on this one.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
The question is, are you asking us about these things or informing us?
I mean it's no skin off my back as I am not staffing and won't be going +dark any time soon, but I think the thread could benefit from the distinction between "this is something we were thinking to do and want input on" and "this is something we've already decided to do but if you have input it's welcome" being made clear .
@Arkandel said:
The question is, are you asking us about these things or informing us?
What, you mean I wasn't clear?
Me? Not clear?
Are you saying, then, that I danced around something instead of deciding what I was doing before doing it?
...
Shut up.
I wasn't asking, but I knew opinions would be had. I was informing that I wanted to see how it worked, which is a tacit request for input, but not a clear one. I apologize for taking anyone's heads off but, as we know, I can be somewhat reactionary when I myself don't know what I really want. I am, to repeat myself to be as clear as I can, trying this idea out and that feedback, in spite of my tone, has been welcome.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Alright, that makes sense. See, most players can work well with staff telling them "this is what we are doing in this game and this is how we're doing it", so they can make an informed decision about whether it'll be fun for them to play there.
For example I - and others - have vehemently disagreed with @Coin about the implementation of Renown but once his mind was set I stopped bugging him about it - taking 'no' for an answer is a matter of essential sanity in our hobby.
So afterwards I had the chance to weigh the pros and cons at my leisure and decided the former were more than the latter, thus I'll be rolling a wolf there not because of the system but despite it. In fact I don't believe I even get to complain again about the overall implementation from that point on because, in making this informed choice I accepted it was worth my while.
However that puts a slight onus on staff to make it clear what's yet to be determined and what's in the brainstorming or design phases, otherwise toes will get stepped on both ways. I think it's worth keeping in mind as a practice since it can spare everyone some misunderstandings.
Does that make sense?
The question is, are you asking us about these things or informing us?
I mean it's no skin off my back as I am not staffing and won't be going +dark any time soon, but I think the thread could benefit from the distinction between "this is something we were thinking to do and want input on" and "this is something we've already decided to do but if you have input it's welcome" being made clear .
