Punishments in MU*

[Thenomain]

I promise this will be my last domination of this thread for now:

@saosmash said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain What is the distinction you are trying to make between an explanation and an argument? Is an argument not essentially an explanation of a point with persuasive intention?

Yes.

Exactly.

Some people are trying to argue their method, while other people are trying to explore beliefs and methodologies, and I find the former makes the latter more difficult.

Calling this "intellectualism" (and implying "toxic") may have been unfair, but I'm frustrated.

Or to put it into pictures:

[Derp]

@Thenomain

I not only provide a list of questions that I specifically want you to answer, I provide sample answers that are generally about a paragraph.

• What was your character like before they Awakened? Was there always something off about them, or did Awakening come as a surprise? DId they have any prior experience with the supernatural before Awakening? How did Awakening change them?

Example: Selene grew up a normal girl from a middle class working home. Awakening hit her like a freight train at full force, showing her a whole new world that she had no idea ever existed. Although the Mysterium assured her that her soul was prepared, even if her mind was not, the fact that the experience nearly broke her still causes her to wonder if the magic didn't make a mistake, initially.

Example: Shenan was never 'normal'. The voices in his head had been with him since he was a child, and the heroin he used to dull them down only ostracized him further from everyday reality. When he Awakened, he almost didn't even notice. His world was already a shifting nightmare of maddening symbols and strange whispers. Awakening helped him see the meaning behind them.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my philosophy on it. But it's mine, and it's my responsibility to make the sphere run, and at the end of the day, I'm the one that gets to decide what I need to know about your character.

Is it a punishment? I mean, if that's the way you feel about it, I can't stop you, but I would suggest that maybe the game isn't for you if you can't get excited even going through chargen. Yes, it's sometimes tedious, but I also need soemthing to start with. I need to know how your character fits in the world if I'm going to have any way to pull you in with things like plot hooks, or know who to steer you toward to find RP, etc. If you're Faceless Mage #73221 that's just another collection of dots, I don't know you from Adam, and probably am not going to give you nearly as good a time as I could if I knew something about you. Like, where you come from, and what your Awakening was like, and how you view magic. Etc.

[Thenomain]

Nnngh. Fine. One more, then I'm gone.

@Derp

I think we need a new rule for these threads. You've said it, I've said it, so many people have said it.

All Game Considerations Depend Upon Staff Approach.

The best game rules and considerations can be put in place, but if you have abusive staff then it doesn't matter.

The opposite is also true: With the best staff in the world, you barely need a single posted rule. You should, but good staff will have that shit locked down within minutes.

The inverted is also always true: There will be a player who thinks the rule or attitude of staff is satanic puppy-killing.

—

@mietze said in Punishments in MU*:

I guess if you do not want to have to do whatever everyone else has had to do to gain entrance to a game, then you will need to persuade the people running it that you are someone they want to participate so much that they are willing to amend or forego the rules for the sake of your inclusion.

It's my opinion that a good staff knows the reason for the rules. Anything that accomplishes the goal without disrupting other goals doesn't hurt the game.

If other players sees this as a betrayal because they believed that they "had to" follow the chargen by the letter, then maybe something's wrong with chargen.

It's easier to consider one rule to be independent of other rules, but an exception that hurts nothing should not be disallowed.

Whether or not it disrupts the game is, well, see my hilited point to Derp, above.

I bet that this /can/ be done, but seldom is it going to happen by telling them that their vetting/selection process is stupid.

I 100% agree.

Usually I see what kinds of hoops there are for participation as just as informative for me as for them. Do I like their management style? Do I think I can approach them/how do they react? If the answer is no/no/no then it seems like a good time to walk away.

Chargen is usually people's first interaction with the above, as it is staff's first interaction with the player. You can't know until you try.

I'd rather know before I try, personally, because that would save time all around.

—

I'm reserving some defenses that one can be punished in Chargen, but those will continue to come out over time.

[Auspice]

I thought punishments in CG were those systems where you can die in CG from a bad roll.

[Ganymede]

@Pandora

Disagreement does not necessarily connote an inability to work with staff.

It’s really a matter of time management. I don’t mind disagreement; I live in a world where disagreement is constant (I have children and a partner). But if I have to justify every decision I make to a player to their satisfaction, then I am wasting time that is better spent elsewhere.

Disagree all you want with me; that’s fine. Demand every waking minute of my time? Out.

[mietze]

Just because you do not see or agree with the reasoning behind an ask does not mean that there isnt one.

And a lot of the time the way workarounds are asked for has a huge impact on what part of that interaction is the real evaluation.

It could be even "you know, we already have 5 players on the game that have a very low tolerance for rolling with things even if they dont enjoy them and often need a lot of specialized attention to get through things that are obstacles for them. Can we/do we want to add on another person that is going to need more time/has to be challenged very carefully?" might be provoked by how something is asked vs another way of asking might provoke a "huh. I never thought of that alternative, I like it, let's put it on the wiki as another way right now. Thanks!" by the same staff.

[Seraphim73]

@Auspice I could see some people claiming that they're being punished in Chargen by not being allowed that 8th dot of the Awesome skill, when they see that some other characters have it. On a well-run game, those other characters will have more experience/training/etc, and that will have been made clear to the complaining player (along with suggestions on how to explain how the character got their skill that high), but we all know that that won't stop some players from feeling like they're being punished anyhow.

[Coin]

@Seraphim73 said in Punishments in MU*:

@Auspice I could see some people claiming that they're being punished in Chargen by not being allowed that 8th dot of the Awesome skill, when they see that some other characters have it. On a well-run game, those other characters will have more experience/training/etc, and that will have been made clear to the complaining player (along with suggestions on how to explain how the character got their skill that high), but we all know that that won't stop some players from feeling like they're being punished anyhow.

My problem here is that since games have different people doing apps and often don't have a general, well-stated consensus of what makes a good app ont hat game, you end up with one app staffer who approves someone whose concept they like with whatever stats they think are fine while another app staffer doesn't really care about some rando's concept and buckles down on 'you can't have that stat that high'.

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

Burn it with fire.

[Coin]

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

@Seraphim73 said in Punishments in MU*:

@Auspice I could see some people claiming that they're being punished in Chargen by not being allowed that 8th dot of the Awesome skill, when they see that some other characters have it. On a well-run game, those other characters will have more experience/training/etc, and that will have been made clear to the complaining player (along with suggestions on how to explain how the character got their skill that high), but we all know that that won't stop some players from feeling like they're being punished anyhow.

My problem here is that since games have different people doing apps and often don't have a general, well-stated consensus of what makes a good app ont hat game, you end up with one app staffer who approves someone whose concept they like with whatever stats they think are fine while another app staffer doesn't really care about some rando's concept and buckles down on 'you can't have that stat that high'.

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

And further, just as general, unsolicited advice for app staffers out there:

If your reasoning for not allowing someone a stat at a certain level is "it's not supported by your background", and that person adds to the background to support it in their re-app, and it's still not enough, don't just buckle-down and deny it to them when they ask for clarification and maybe an example of what would justify it, because players can't read your mind and know what, in your brain, justifies what, in theirs, is already justified. Communication is key.

If you just sit there and say, "naw, I don't want you to have this but I am going to say it's because your background doesn't support it and then procede to just deny you an example of what would support it", that's lame and you should just say, "I don't want to allow this stat at this level for you, sorry".

The "for you" is key, because you can be sure that someone else has been or will be approved with that same stat that that player wanted at some point.

Stats aren't the be-all, end-all, but the way they are permitted, given access to, and denied, and to whom, with what criteria, etc., does say a lot about the treatment players can expect. I'm never going to not app on a game because they won't let me have a stat at a high level and they did let someone else have it. But it's gonna color my perspective, inevitably.

[Ganymede]

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

I dissent.

Yes, I know. I know. I know about the past corruption. I know about the present corruption; y'all have examples, yo, and I get that. And I also know that this line is abused to the shit, bro, and I have been on the receiving end of such bullshittery when I applied for IC positions.

I get that. Here's the thing, though.

If I have spent eleventy-billion hours of my time and effort to build a game, and that game needs a PC or an NPC of considerable importance who has an active part in keeping the game going, then I am going to guaran-damn-tee you that I'm not going to open him/her/it up for open application. It's just not going to happen. I am going to pick someone who I know to be responsible, honest, and, most importantly, courageous enough to stick it to me and tell me, "Gany, you ignorant slut, << their point here >>."

And that person is likely to be a friend, as close as any lawyer-cat-bot has to having a friend in the MUSH-verse.

If people don't like that, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. I am not going to let a stranger have such a position on my game, period. "Gee, why did Gany pick << let's say Caryatid >> to play << important PC on game >>, huh, huh?* Yeah, because she's got a track record in my books as being someone I can trust with that position, you dimfuck. It's my fucking game, and, like my fucking house, I'm not going to let a fucking unknown come in and potentially fuck it the fuck up. If you've a problem with that choice, so be it; deal with it or get the fuck out, I don't care.

"They can be trusted with this" is a perfectly-acceptable explanation to me (as long as that is the proffered explanation because I hate it when people try to come up with pretextual excuses to make them seem impartial when they're not).

[Coin]

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

I dissent.

Yes, I know. I know. I know about the past corruption. I know about the present corruption; y'all have examples, yo, and I get that. And I also know that this line is abused to the shit, bro, and I have been on the receiving end of such bullshittery when I applied for IC positions.

I get that. Here's the thing, though.

If I have spent eleventy-billion hours of my time and effort to build a game, and that game needs a PC or an NPC of considerable importance who has an active part in keeping the game going, then I am going to guaran-damn-tee you that I'm not going to open him/her/it up for open application. It's just not going to happen. I am going to pick someone who I know to be responsible, honest, and, most importantly, courageous enough to stick it to me and tell me, "Gany, you ignorant slut, << their point here >>."

And that person is likely to be a friend, as close as any lawyer-cat-bot has to having a friend in the MUSH-verse.

If people don't like that, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. I am not going to let a stranger have such a position on my game, period. "Gee, why did Gany pick << let's say Caryatid >> to play << important PC on game >>, huh, huh?* Yeah, because she's got a track record in my books as being someone I can trust with that position, you dimfuck. It's my fucking game, and, like my fucking house, I'm not going to let a fucking unknown come in and potentially fuck it the fuck up. If you've a problem with that choice, so be it; deal with it or get the fuck out, I don't care.

If you want me to admit there is an exception to every rule? Then sure, I can admit there is an exception to every rule.

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

If it doesn't, then it's not an exception, it's just an issue. And this also isn't a case of "punishing the many because of one bad apple" like when rules are changed game-wide because one asshole is abusing them; this is the opposite, because for every "Gany trusts Caryatid" out there, there are fifty "no, no, Spider has changed, I trust them with this".

So, sure. Exceptions exist. Doesn't change anything.

"They can be trusted with this" is a perfectly-acceptable explanation to me (as long as that is the proffered explanation because I hate it when people try to come up with pretextual excuses to make them seem impartial when they're not).

All that said, if you are going to be upfront about it, then sure. I mean, I'll be the first to accept that as long as you're being upfront about shit like that, no one can really complain about it, because it's not like they didn't know.

[Auspice]

A lot of this is why @Paradox and I review every app. I know it can add a day or two (depending on how busy we are) of wait time, but it means he and I are on the same page every time.

9 times out of 10, we already are. And we only both review on the first pass so we can align on expectations. Once we've given initial feedback, we trust the other to follow through on it.

But I know I can be a bit too nitpicky and he knows he can be a bit too laid back (but then, we're the reverse on certain things). So doing it this way means we balance each other out.

[Ganymede]

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

My dissent is premised on my belief that this is not an exception.

Your issue is important, but it is not dichotomous. In my opinion, the choice should be noticeable. If a player asks: "why did staff pick <X> to play <important PC>?", the answer should and must be "because staff trusts <X> to play that character due to his/her/its history." Anything else is a sham.

There's nothing wrong with picking a particular person to play a perspicacious pugilist to perfection. I only have an issue when someone tries to pass the choice off as being part of some impartial selection process.

[Tinuviel]

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

picking a particular person to play a perspicuous pugilist to perfection

[Ganymede]

@Tinuviel

I edited it because I spelled "perspicacious" incorrectly.

[Tinuviel]

@Ganymede You never let me get away with spelling errors, so I'm not letting you either.

[Auspice]

[Ganymede]

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

You never let me get away with spelling errors, so I'm not letting you either.

I wouldn't expect you to.

[Coin]

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

My dissent is premised on my belief that this is not an exception.

Your issue is important, but it is not dichotomous. In my opinion, the choice should be noticeable. If a player asks: "why did staff pick <X> to play <important PC>?", the answer should and must be "because staff trusts <X> to play that character due to his/her/its history." Anything else is a sham.

There's nothing wrong with picking a particular person to play a perspicuous pugilist to perfection. I only have an issue when someone tries to pass the choice off as being part of some impartial selection process.

Honestly, if we're talking about in-game positions of power and the like, I probably agree with you more than not. I think you're conflating stats with position and they aren't the same thing. I wasn't really talking about that. I was talking about PCs on the same level at chargen who just get to have stuff because of arbitrary reasons.

Don't set a criteria for apps if you're not going to apply it across the board, or let people know that some people are gonna get benefits because they are friends and "trusted".

If you're making an exception to a rule, then it's an exception. If X gets to have a stat at 8 and no one else does, that's an exception. If it's because you trust them with it, then 1) what's so important about that ONE STAT that staff needs to TRUST THE PLAYER for them to be able to have it? and 2) why do other people get to buy it later on if they spend XP on it, if it's so important they couldn't be trusted with it at cgen?