Model Policies?

[Auspice]

@Derp said in Model Policies?:

no top-tier PC leadership.

a lot of non-WoD games actually follow this model already. WoD and L&L (though not all L&L!) are the only two that still consistently allow for PC in top-tier leadership roles, which does absolutely breed resentment in many ways.

On @faraday 's BSU, there were no PCs in explicit leadership roles. A PC might get tapped as a mission leader, but she controlled all the actual ranking/brass NPCs. It let everyone operate on a similar level and not worry about who is in charge of who, who isn't being a good leader, yadda yadda...

[BlondeBot]

I'd say limit what can or can't be said on channels is a good one. Keep the guidelines clear and the consequences consistent. For instance:

No religion
No politics
No social justice
No sexuality/gender/orientation
No 'just saying' or 'telling it like it is'
No recent tragedies
No cat de-clawing
No bad-mouthing other games/players/staff

Of course, tailor the exact guidelines to the kinds of conversations you want/don't want to see, but in my experience, not allowing people to bring up hot-button topics that are proven powder kegs helps to keep things calm! And helps keep the focus where it should be: on your game!

[Meg]

sorry, bot, but 'no social justice' is not clear at all.

neither is 'no sexuality/gender/orientation'. like, i can't have one? i can't say i'm female? i can't say that henry cavill is a good looking witcher?

also i missed chet. wb, chet.

[Pandora]

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

I'd say limit what can or can't be said on channels is a good one. Keep the guidelines clear and the consequences consistent. For instance:

No social justice

GTFO. I'm not playing anywhere with a policy that says if someone is being a misogynistic toad on a channel & I decide to get froggy about it, someone else has the right to scoff and say SJW like that means I'm the one being unreasonable.

No sexuality/gender/orientation

Excuse me while I pull my eyebrows back down from my fucking hairline at this one. Did you just suggest a 'don't ask/don't tell' policy on a MUSH channel?

Where the fuck did you people come from, and please go back.

[Auspice]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

Excuse me while I pull my eyebrows back down from my fucking hairline at this one. Did you just suggest a 'don't ask/don't tell' policy on a MUSH channel?
Where the fuck did you people come from, and please go back.

Citizen, you too may discuss your domestic partner and dependents provided you do not mention your gender or theirs at any time.

(Also banning gender/sexuality/race and social justice basically reads to me like: 'you can be racist all you want and Staff won't care')

[Tinuviel]

I'd be okay with keeping conversation based on issues related to sexuality, gender identity, and so forth off of the main "Public" channel, the same as I would be with politics and religion being kept off of the main channel.

Not because there's anything innately wrong with such conversation, but because such conversations should be opt-in during social fun personal time, not something you are obliged to listen to if you wish to remain on the main talking chatty channel.

[Pandora]

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

[Ganymede]

Frankly, I would let anything be said on the public channel. It’s good way to figure out who the civil people are.

I don’t need to have a policy to remove someone. If it’s my game, I will do as I will. People can come and go as they please, but if they are here they are subject to my whims alone.

This is the only honest ethical thing to announce. We all play on these games at the behest of the host. Any attempt to bind that host’s authority is impolite at best.

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

Well sure, not "don't talk about this ever" but more like... keep such conversations on X channel, instead of the main one. It's a compromise between those that do want to talk about everything to do with 'heated' subjects and those that don't.

[Pandora]

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

Well sure, not "don't talk about this ever" but more like... keep such conversations on X channel, instead of the main one. It's a compromise between those that do want to talk about everything to do with 'heated' subjects and those that don't.

But I'm asking like, when and where has a policy like this ever been needed? If you're in some circumstance where something as spicy as someone's gender or orientation would be inappropriate reading material, ya prolly shouldn't be on public channel until you get home.

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

Well sure, not "don't talk about this ever" but more like... keep such conversations on X channel, instead of the main one. It's a compromise between those that do want to talk about everything to do with 'heated' subjects and those that don't.

But I'm asking like, when and where has a policy like this ever been needed? If you're in some circumstance where something as spicy as someone's gender or orientation would be inappropriate reading material, ya prolly shouldn't be on public channel until you get home.

I specifically said "issues related to" not just the mere mention of them. I'm directly arguing against @BlondeBot's inane policy ideas. So it's not about if something is 'spicy', it's about if something is going to prompt an argument.

[BlondeBot]

Shhhhh, it's okay. Show me on the doll where my bad rules examples hurt you...

[Tinuviel]

@BlondeBot Keep it constructive.

[Pandora]

I don't think a policy that tries to police the nuance of a discussion to the degree of ascertaining whether or not a conversation is based on something that could or could not eventually possibly lead to an argument falls under OP's umbrella of short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies but that's my unsolicited opinion.

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I don't think a policy that tries to police the nuance of a discussion to the degree of ascertaining whether or not a conversation is based on something that could or could not eventually possibly lead to an argument falls under OP's umbrella of short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies but that's my unsolicited opinion.

True. But I think that deciding on what kind of conversations you're going to allow, for lack of a better term, is an important discussion to have when forming policies. Because you're going to have to police conversations, not right away necessarily but eventually.

[Pandora]

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I don't think a policy that tries to police the nuance of a discussion to the degree of ascertaining whether or not a conversation is based on something that could or could not eventually possibly lead to an argument falls under OP's umbrella of short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies but that's my unsolicited opinion.

True. But I think that deciding on what kind of conversations you're going to allow, for lack of a better term, is an important discussion to have when forming policies. Because you're going to have to police conversations, not right away necessarily but eventually.

Policy: Keep it civil, people, and if staff says to take your conversation off the channel, don't argue about it. Just be cool. Like the Fonz.

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

[Pandora]

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

I'm cringing at the idea of most of you motherfuckers being authorized to tell anyone to shut up and that being enforced, real talk.

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

I'm cringing at the idea of most of you motherfuckers being authorized to tell anyone to shut up and that being enforced, real talk.

That's why I advocate for a separate channel for such conversations.

[Pandora]

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

I'm cringing at the idea of most of you motherfuckers being authorized to tell anyone to shut up and that being enforced, real talk.

That's why I advocate for a separate channel for such conversations.

That's an idea. I don't know of many games that have or have needed such a thing, but I won't knock it. I don't know that advocating for a separate channel for innocuous conversations that might cause someone to feel argumentative really has a whole lot to do with 'short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies' though, again.