How To Treat Your Players Right

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

This might be an issue solveable through code without sacrificing privacy.

What privacy?

My e-mail chains with opposing counsel are not private. If I have a drag-out fight with them, that's going to be published. I know that; opposing counsel knows that. That's why we remain civil and cordial, and why we don't swap nude photos via e-mail.

I think one of the reasons why harassment-by-page persists is because pages aren't kept in a fashion that is easy for someone to publish without accusations of doctoring. If you implement code that memorializes all page conversations and publishes them directly to, let's say, a mail file that may be forwarded or is automatically forwarded to a staff-read-only depository, that would pretty much eliminate such claims by the accused.

I'm not sure how easy it would do, but +repose code or Faraday's auto-scene-log-uploading code in Ares might form a functional design to build from.

[silverfox]

@Arkandel @Wretched @Pandora

I would love. love. love. something like this. My first Moo was completely not-private so I have zero expectation of privacy now. For me, not having anything private is something I signed on to at 16 and have accepted for the past 15 years.

I'm currently chrome-only (and I love it) which makes a unique problem when it comes to logs. I can take them, but I currently don't have a program that will allow me to open a log after. I could probably sit down and think out a way to get around that. (Maybe I could log and go find a public computer or hold down my husband long enough to use his?) However, I'm too much of a limp noddle to do that. I'd convince myself it's all my fault (true story) and give up long before I retrieved the log. If there was a code I could type that would log and send it to me after, then I would't have that middle step. Then I could reflect on what //actually// happened rather than what my brain twists it into and perhaps make a logical rather than emotional response.

(My brain is also going right now, "Just copy and paste the conversation dumb-ass." To which I reply, "Usually I'm too upset in the moment to do that.")

[Groth]

It would be trivial to make any MUSH log tells the way @Pandora describes. It's just a question about how comfortable you are with members of staff being able to read your tells since the default behavior of MUSH is to grant all staff readaccess to all variables. It would be slightly less trivial but equally possible to make it so only wizards could view them.

[faraday]

@Pandora - So just in case it was missed in all the spam... Ares does this already. It would be trivial to make Evennia do it too. The Penn/Tiny/Rhost codebases might be a bit trickier to implement. You might be able to do it with a hook on the page command though; I haven't messed around with that in years.

Point being though that I think this is eminently achievable on all codebases with minimal privacy implications because it's only activated at the receiving player's request and only for pages from a specific individual. You're not really giving them anything they couldn't already do with their client; you're just making it verifiable to avoid log doctoring.

[Groth]

@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

The Penn/Tiny/Rhost codebases might be a bit trickier to implement. You might be able to do it with a hook on the page command though; I haven't messed around with that in years.

Yes. You just implement @hook/override and write your own version of tell.

[Ghost]

I should also note that most mushes use the default telnet port and don't use SSL.

Default telnet sends the packets from your PC (username, password, pages, TS scenes, etc) in cleartext through the default telnet port to the MU, making any information contained easily read by sniffing programs, spyware, etc. Even if you use a port other than default, telnet by itself is an insecure, cleartext protocol.

So unless a game is utilizing SSL connectivity (which encrypts the transmission rather than sending it in cleartext), you should also be aware that there is a risk when typing sensitive information sent to a mush on the client-side.

Like...if I weren't a musher and someone in my house was, I could theoretically set up a sniffer to monitor all incoming and outgoing traffic on TCP port 23 and just read what's getting sent through my router to any mush activity in my household.

tl;dr I highly suggest a mush culture migration to adopting SSL as standard.

ETA: This is in topic with the privacy talk the last few posts in this thread, as well as a suggestion as to how to take care of your players. Giving them access to SSL as an option treats them well.

[Roz]

Arx already lets you view your recent pages with page/last or page/list, so clearly it's saving stuff per session already.

[Kanye Qwest]

wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where reaching out to a player to say "Hey we heard you are being a dick. Knock it off" was ever that clear cut and simple?

If you don't see logs of conversations, or have corroborated accounts, you are walking in blind. More than once i've gone at someone with hey you are making people uncomfortable with x,y,z please stop and gotten:

1. but so and so (the person being championed by whoever reported) is my friend and we are just like that/they don't mind
2. weird, because i have asked X if they are ok with this and they said they were and never pointed out they wanted me to stop
3. what?

Unless you see a clear cut behavior that is not acceptable, you have to realize there are at least 3 sides to every story. At least.

[Arkandel]

@Groth said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

It would be trivial to make any MUSH log tells the way @Pandora describes. It's just a question about how comfortable you are with members of staff being able to read your tells since the default behavior of MUSH is to grant all staff readaccess to all variables. It would be slightly less trivial but equally possible to make it so only wizards could view them.

I like GPG for functions like these because you can separate and treat different aspects separately then keep the ones you want. For example data validation ("did I change the log in any way?") is easily treated by signing it server-side before any other processing takes place. Encryption ("only X can read this") can guarantee a different layer of privacy.

[surreality]

<puts on devil's advocate hat>

There are a number of situations where I think third party complaints are entirely valid.

"Joe and Jane are constantly having it out on the Spam Channel. It sounds like Jane cheated on Joe's character or something, but I don't know what's going on there. I just want the channel to not be a constant flood of the two of them bickering." <-- absolutely warrants looking at.

This is not because of whatever may have transpired between the two IC, and that may not even be relevant. (If it is or isn't, and how, may become apparent when you speak to Joe and Jane, and you should absolutely speak to both Joe and Jane in this case.) Others will have observed this behavior in this case, too, and channel logs may be of some help.

That's pre-coffee, but there are similar circumstances in which a third party complaint is very relevant, as it isn't so much about whatever is happening between Joe and Jane, and everything to do with how whatever happened between Joe and Jane is having an undesirable impact on the game environment.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@surreality
Yeah, when I think about the stuff I regret not reporting it was...That Guy being fucking creepy on Pub chan, or That Guy being creepy ICly in scenes in ways other players 'handled' but oh gosh it was a sign of behavior that wasn't cool. Things that were public and involved multiple other people, just not staff at that exact moment. That Guy spun that stuff into 'oh I was just having fun and also I apologized and also what was the harm?' when it got to staff via other reports but the logs and my particular 'this fucker is a fucker' interpretation of the situation would've been a hell of a lot different. Shit like this is extremely verifiable but staff often won't act on it unless it's clear it bothers people.

[surreality]

@Three-Eyed-Crow Yeah. Patterns like that become obvious enough over time. A lot of times, it's somebody testing limits and trying to push boundaries.

Sometimes that isn't a bad thing when it's in a scene. Sometimes it can lead to good RP. Someone who makes a habit of it indiscriminately, often in pursuit of specific goals[1], is not the same, though -- and a pattern of this is enough to show someone the door in my book.

The difference between people who stumble into something, and those who are trying to push the line and then claim it was a joke or (more obviously than they usually imagine) grudgingly walk it back with a prominent cover-my-ass approach front and center when they meet resistance is not too hard to pick up on. That's the typical difference between the person who simply got ahead of themselves and walks something back with a sincere apology, and the person who is trying to manipulate their OOC environment in pursuit of whatever their goals are. (I don't know if I have enough coffee in me to have explained this well; hopefully it makes sense.)

Sometimes it's a player who simply has no appropriate social skills (someone who has regular inappropriate outbursts, someone who has no understanding of boundaries at all, etc.). I'm going to sound like a horrible monster here, I'm sure, but I don't feel it's the responsibility of other players on a game to help these people learn to properly engage with other human beings. Given the authority to do so, if the behavior is egregious, I will feel sad about it, but I will show them the door. People aren't coming to the game to serve as that player's 'learn to people' sandbox.

1. I know that since this is me, plenty of folks will assume I mean weird kinky antics, but I don't. It could be pursuit of a position of power, money, status, etc. just as easily, and these things are ultimately more common.

[faraday]

@Kanye-Qwest said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where reaching out to a player to say "Hey we heard you are being a dick. Knock it off" was ever that clear cut and simple?
... Unless you see a clear cut behavior that is not acceptable, you have to realize there are at least 3 sides to every story. At least.

Yes, this. There are some maliciously abusive creepers to be sure, but I think in a lot of cases the people involved don't actually realize that what they're doing is being a dick. Like you see sometimes in workplace harassment cases where it's like: "What? I just touched her arm 72 times - what's the big deal?" Unless you can confront them with specific things they need to do/not do, "I heard you were being a creep" is just not going to be effective. It's sad but I think it's true.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

Things that were public and involved multiple other people, just not staff at that exact moment. That Guy spun that stuff into 'oh I was just having fun and also I apologized and also what was the harm?' when it got to staff via other reports but the logs and my particular 'this fucker is a fucker' interpretation of the situation would've been a hell of a lot different.

I can verify that reports like this matter to me. In fact, they were a significant factor in the banning case I mentioned awhile back because it was clear that Bob had a pattern of inappropriate behavior that a number of people found troubling.

It's one thing to hear whispers of "Bob is harassing Susie and Jane" without corroboration, but when Bob is also getting reported by 7 different people (with specific examples cited) for inappropriate stuff he's been saying OOC and on channel, that colors the situation greatly.

[Saulot]

My two cents and current thoughts relate to trust. A problem I've seen with a lot of staffers the last few years is that they're upset that players don't trait them enough to come forward about something. Trust isn't usually given for free, and it takes some time to either earn it or that You have to trust that they'll come forward to you eventually. On the flipside those first impressions by staff matter a whole lot, and when they let a friend or someone popular get away with something that it can poison the well until a player finds somewhere else to hang there hat.

[faraday]

@Saulot FWIW, I'm not upset if someone doesn't trust me enough to come forward with a concern, but I do think it's a bad decision.

If I see a problem in my workplace but don't raise my concerns to my manager, how do I know they're even aware of the problem?

I get that people are sometimes afraid to come forward for fear of repercussions, and that's their choice to make. But don't expect problems to magically get resolved if people aren't willing to step forward and say "this is a problem". Managers (including game staff) aren't psychic.

[surreality]

There's some sticky stuff in here, too.

People have vastly different sensitivity levels. 'That made me uncomfortable/sad/etc.' is doubtless true when someone says it, and it is absolutely a time for empathy, but I also don't think it's an entirely reasonable metric for 'do we take disciplinary action about it as staff'.

I'm being very specific for a reason: taking action and taking disciplinary action are not the same, and that can be especially relevant in in this circumstance. I don't consider, 'Bob doesn't like joking around the way you do with others, so don't joke around that way with Bob, OK?' to be disciplinary action, but it is taking action.

Being mindful of Bob's sensitivity is important, but if Joe isn't being a dick, or trying to harm Bob in any manner, Joe doesn't deserve a smack for it. He does need to know not to do that around Bob any more, and he needs to not do that to Bob any more. If he continues doing that to Bob, then he's being a dick, and deserves the smack upside the head.

That aside... using sensitivity alone is a concern to me. It's not something to disregard under any circumstances, but I've seen a number of instances of it taken to extremes I can't say I'm ethically comfortable with at all.

There are the obvious ones -- the person who can never lose or be intimidated or share the spotlight or look bad IC, for instance. They may be sensitive to these things as a player, and not want to experience them, but that doesn't erase them from being part of the game, and experiencing them part of fair play on the whole for everyone.

It's the less obvious ones that worry me more. 'Cry bullies' exist, and it's good to be mindful of them. I hate that term as I think it's gross, but it describes the concept well. Most of these folks do not have bad intentions, but are extremely sensitive to things in a way that does start to actively constrain others around them in ways that can cross over into uncool territory.

If Bob, above, can't hear anything negative directed at them under any circumstances, and complains any time they hear even the mildest criticism, there's eventually going to be a problem for which there is no easy solution. Bob feels what Bob feels, and respecting that on the human level is important. Making rules or taking disciplinary action based on what Bob feels in this case? Makes me very uneasy. It can't simply be dismissed as 'Bob is oversensitive, tell Bob to suck it up', but there's no real easy answer here that I can see, either, beyond telling people to simply not engage Bob in that manner, potentially over and over and over and over again as different people do this, and that doesn't seem like the appropriate answer, either.

[mietze]

It is also not as if someone's behaviors on one game cannot differ from another either. There are people that need to be removed/have been removed from a game (or several) that for whatever reason manage to control that behavior on other games. Too often we look at the person as if them being asked to leave a game or to knock off certain behaviors means they have to be decided to be the worst person, instead of just taking strides to correct or eliminate undesirable /behavior/.

You do not have to be a bad person to be told to stop the behavior. You do not have to be a bad person to be a bad fit for a game.

[Lotherio]

@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

I get that people are sometimes afraid to come forward for fear of repercussions, and that's their choice to make.

Wanted to comment on this fear of staff repercussions. If a player goes to staff and staff does something to the person raising the issue/victim ... Then time to move on, learned that's not the place to go rp.

Afraid your friends/rp partners will stay and not support you, maybe they weren't really friends.

I knew GOMO has a bad connotation in these here parts, but if it's a better environment for you and your friends, it is easier these days to get a place of your own up and running.

[faraday]

@surreality said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

It can't simply be dismissed as 'Bob is oversensitive, tell Bob to suck it up', but there's no real easy answer here that I can see, either, beyond telling people to simply not engage Bob in that manner, potentially over and over and over and over again as different people do this, and that doesn't seem like the appropriate answer, either.

I think that if you have someone like that being unreasonable, you just have to tell them so as gently as possible and hope for the best. You can't expect everybody to bend over backwards just to avoid upsetting Bob if Bob has a ridiculously low tolerance for what upsets them.

It isn't easy though. I had someone I thought was a close MU friend quit a game once because I tried, as politely as possible, to tell them that their claims of "OMG Jane broke the rules and wronged me terribly!" were unreasonable and I wasn't going to take action against Jane. (Ironically, they also claimed it was because I was only defending Jane because she was my friend. You may notice a common theme here when decisions don't go someone's way, even when they're supposedly your friend. Staffing sucks.)

[Saulot]

@faraday Don't get me wrong, I get that. It's a problem of people getting burned for so long on games, or seeing it happen, that trust out of the gate is a hard thing to give.