Punishments in MU*

[surreality]

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

But when the outcome of doing something wrong (cyber-stalking) is the same as not following a barrier to entry (write a background of at least 3000 characters), what kind of difference is there?

A notable one, when you keep in mind that playing on any given game is not an inherent right.

I look at the initial setup stuff -- I loathe 95% of it and always have, so I don't love this truth -- as 'what you need to do to earn the privilege to be there in the first place'.

'Doing something wrong' is a way to lose that privilege.

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

But when the outcome of doing something wrong (cyber-stalking) is the same as not following a barrier to entry (write a background of at least 3000 characters), what kind of difference is there?

A notable one, when you keep in mind that playing on any given game is not an inherent right.

So "earning the right" and "losing the right" are different?

Except from in the eye of whatever staffer is making the decision, they don't seem like it. In both cases you have to maintain that perception of being "worthy" to staff.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

@Thenomain 3000 characters is a lot, too. I mean, yes, I'm a professional copywriter by training, I can definitely do it, but if I only have content for 1200 words, I am going to absolute -hate- bloating it into drivel just to meet some imaginary standard of verbosity. Long != better.

I can see the point of making sure that people have some setting familiarity. It saves explanations, and helps prevent players deviate from the theme. But I have to be honest -- unless that wiki or theme page is VERY well written, my mind is going to wander. At least after 3000 or more words. Novel, movie or game website, if it hasn't hooked me after five minutes, it ain't happening.

If I ever become involved, again, with setting up a game theme from the bottom and up, this is going to be one of the big issues for me. A theme, particularly one that's either original or from a not very widely known fandom, needs to have a door marked 'clueless newbies'. An in, so to speak, for those who are unfamiliar. One that doesn't make them feel like their presence is at best tolerated. A way into the theme that doesn't feel like a novel -- even if it's just a one-page bullet list of dos, don'ts and suggested pop culture references.

Yes, it will mean that occasionally, you get some moron who thinks he's playing superheroes while everyone else is playing Lord of the Rings. But the other way around means you miss out on a lot of people -- something which I imagine is a dangerous choice, since most MUs seem to be struggling to get a playerbase going (nevermind keeping it).

[surreality]

@Thenomain Notice I explicitly said it was not a right: it's a privilege.

It is something extra that one is not entitled to have by default.

One earns and loses privileges.

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

One earns and loses privileges.

I'm missing the point where not earning and losing is different in this case.

[surreality]

@Thenomain I don't really know a tactful way to explain this at this point.

Yes, obviously, if you never earn something in the first place, or lose that something once you have earned it, you don't have that thing.

This is only a problem if it is something you are inherently entitled to have in the first place.

Access to a game and its resources is not something you're entitled to have in the first place.

You have to earn driving privileges in the US, you have obligations related to maintaining those privileges, and you can lose them as well. Does this make the situation more clear?

[faraday]

@L-B-Heuschkel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain 3000 characters is a lot, too. I mean, yes, I'm a professional copywriter by training, I can definitely do it, but if I only have content for 1200 words, I am going to absolute -hate- bloating it into drivel just to meet some imaginary standard of verbosity. Long != better.

I haven't seen a game in decades that required thousands of words for a background. Yes, it did happen back in the day, but it just doesn't any more (at least not commonly). Most games just require a few questions like "why are you here (in the place where the game is set)" and "what's special about you". To which, by the way, "Nothing" is a perfectly valid answer.

I had a couple chars on BSG who were unfamiliar with the setting whose backgrounds were basically: "A nobody from <insert colony here> who graduated high school and joined the army." That's fine. The purpose of the background is to gatekeep people who want to be the "top of the class fighter pilot who also happens to be the son of a mafioso and a world-class expert in microbiology who won the medal of honor for being a big damn hero early in the war". Or the people who lack rudimentary understanding of the theme. Because yes, those things happen. And they're annoying to deal with once they get out there and RP.

We all have things we don't like doing. For Theno it's backgrounds. For me it's character personality quizzes. For someone else it might be stats. We all have to conform to whatever requirements the game sets forth for entry. That doesn't make it "punishment".

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

You have to earn driving privileges in the US, you have obligations related to maintaining those privileges, and you can lose them as well. Does this make the situation more clear?

They all have the same outcome, however: If you do not follow the rules, you cannot legally drive.

Which brings me back to the question: How are not earning and losing all that different?

edit Or maybe this will help: What makes one of the two punishment?

(I didn't take any of that as blunt, btw. Communication can be difficult.)

[faraday]

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

Which brings me back to the question: How are not earning and losing all that different?

Basic human psychology?

The guy who had a million dollars and then went bankrupt is going to react very differently than the guy who never had any money in the first place. Even though in the end both of them end up with nothing in the bank.

I am genuinely not clear where you're going with this.

[Pandora]

Huh. I'd never imagine banning someone that's done nothing but disagree with me. Sure if they were persistent or abusive or disruptive that makes sense. But simply for nothing other than disagreeing seems petty af.

[Thenomain]

@faraday said in Punishments in MU*:

I am genuinely not clear where you're going with this.

Okay.

(For the audience: Faraday and I don't get each other about 95% of the time.)

[surreality]

@Thenomain (I was able to keep it short and simple and not full of 'want to tear my hair out screaming because I know you're smarter than this'.)

Yes, if you don't follow the rules, you can't play on the game. As faraday says, however, this doesn't mean this is punishment.

I'm not sure where you're going with this either. Faraday hits part of it, but even if someone hates the place they're kicked from or what-have-you and it's no greater loss to them than never having been there in the first place, is there a need for something punitive that exists beyond the game's scope? Because barring extremes that should probably involve law enforcement -- RL stalking, RL harassment, sharing child porn pics, death threats, etc. -- I don't think this is necessarily a good direction to go.

[Derp]

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

they are not fun and do nothing for my involvement to the game.

As someone who requires these short essays, let me counter this with: they aren't for you, so whether or not they do anything for your involvement with the game is only half the story.

Staff have no idea what you have in your head for a character. If all we see is a sheet, I can show you a collection of dots and skills and merits for a person, and then show you an equivalent sheet, and only in the background would you find that one is a doctor and one is a knife assassin.

I require those short essays because I need to know what you have in your head, and where you see the character fitting into the world, because I need to maintain some internal consistency. And players really should be willing to give staff some slack in that regard, whether or not it's fun for them. Doing apps isn't fun for staff, but we do it because it's necessary to maintain consistency within a set of rules and theme.

[Auspice]

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

@faraday said in Punishments in MU*:

I am genuinely not clear where you're going with this.

Okay.

(For the audience: Faraday and I don't get each other about 95% of the time.)

Looking at what you and @faraday have said and in the context of MUing, I think it's like this:

• If there is a private MU out there and it requires invites to join, that is earning. Even if I hear about it (in the 'neenerneener I'm here and you aren't' sense), I still don't know what I'm missing out on other than hearsay. I have to 'earn' my spot, but for the most part I can shrug and go on my way.
• Someone already in that community does something and gets banned, losing. They were on the inside. They knew everything happening. They were a part of the community. It got taken away from them. This has a much bigger impact, presumably, on them.

Now, some people can get banned, shrug, and move on. To them, that earn/lose probably is about even.
Some can't (loss of community, of story, etc. can be hard). Some really can't (as evidenced by some of the thinly-veiled 'review' posts we've seen here before that crop up immediately after someone is banned). To them, that earn/lose has a much bigger gap.

[Seraphim73]

@Pandora I don't know that anyone is suggesting that someone be banned for simply disagreeing with Staff (I could have missed it if they did). But if they refuse to play within the setting? If they repeat their disagreement in public to the confusion of new players? If they make themselves a pest by bringing their disagreement up repeatedly? Definitely more trouble than their worth.

[Thenomain]

@surreality

What's the difference between not having something and getting it taken away?

You've already answered it. Hell, I already answered it, but not as succinctly. I didn't get your "right vs. privilege" comparison at first; I liked it once I understood it.

From one viewpoint, I can see punishment is the removal of something and not the denial of something. But the outcome is still the same. That was my point, and you disassembled it well.

—

I had a second, deeper point, and it has more to do with the Let's Talk Philosophy posts on Soapbox lately, and that is there is a much wider approach to things than has been argued. A lot of people are willing to jump over a point if they disagree, but not look for the places where two people's points intersect.

I'm seeing these threads becoming cesspools of intellectualism. I can't stop it, of course, but I can point it out. Here is an example, of which I am fine with but does point it out.

Me: "The outcome of X and Y are the same, so how different are they?"
You: "Of course they're different, because they come from different sources."
Me: "But in the end, are they really?"
You: "How can you not understand this!"

I don't know; how can I? Are you interested? I know you are @surreality. Which is why I'm here, explaining.

Others are not. Everyone approaches a thought from their standpoint, but how many are willing to react if the other person is approaching it differently? How many people are willing to give up trying before it changes from explanation to argument? How many people are willing to let it go?

[saosmash]

@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?

[Thenomain]

@Derp

If you're okay with my saying, "I dunno, some kind of rebel drummer type?" then fine. Like almost everything, it's up to staff to not only maintain the game, but to educate people on the kind of game they want to play.

If the goal of the essay is to put you at ease, then any act of putting you at ease should be acceptable. But a lot of staff are already overworked (ironically from their own decisions, most of the time) and they aren't willing to give players who stray outside the bounds of established methodology meet the same goals.

And that's why it feels like punishment to me.

[Auspice]

(Aside: I really like how many games let me bullet-point my BG nowadays. This is pro. Keep doing this game runners. I can absolutely give you the sketched-out details. Grew up here. Parents were X and Y. Had # siblings. Did/did not go to college. ....)

[mietze]

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.

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

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.