Model Policies?

[Tinuviel]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@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.

Hey, don't blame me. I'm just following the conversation, not steering it.

[eye8urcake]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@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.

This isn't far-fetched at all, either. I feel like what happened to me in the Star Wars game I'd tried to get back into and ended up ranting about on here slots uncomfortably neatly into this.

[Apos]

@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 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!

In general I don't think I'd define many specific categories, except to broadly avoid controversial subjects or one that would reasonably start arguments. Since the problem is if you define one category as a problem that some people find unobjectionable, that appears to be passing a value judgment on all discussions of it whether it would start an argument or not, and helps nudge towards an environment that can be slanted.

I'm remembering the dude I had to ban for a joke about Harambe right now. I dunno if the 'no recent tragedies' would have even occurred to him, since it had been some time, but he just predictably did the thing of making a tasteless joke, someone saying they didn't think it was funny, him getting upset someone implied he was insensitive and bites back, and on and on.

[Roz]

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@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.

I've been on a few games with Politics channels specifically, and some with Adult channels for general NSFWery. I thought I'd miss the outlet for political talk at first when I got to Arx, which generally just asks people to keep stuff that fraught and prone to causing arguments off channels entirely, but honestly it's been fine. I have plenty of other places to talk politics if I want to.

[BlondeBot]

@eye8urcake said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@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.

This isn't far-fetched at all, either. I feel like what happened to me in the Star Wars game I'd tried to get back into and ended up ranting about on here slots uncomfortably neatly into this.

In no way am I saying to tolerate discrimination or any other form of vulgarity or obscenities on any channels. Typically those are understood rules, as that sort of thing has no place in any polite society, much less on a game meant to be played for relaxation.

That said, if you find yourself on a game with staffers who do tolerate and allow this, there really isn't any refrain other than abandoning ship, as all hope has been lost.

My nice, simple, clear rule instruction remains the same: Monitor your channels and set clear, simple rules for them that are consistently enforced.

The channels are the primary means your game uses to communicate outside of friend groups. They are integral and critical.

EDIT: Another thing I'd add: Zero tolerance for escalation. If a problem has arisen, and it can't be handled in a calm and rational manner, involve staff.

[insomniac7809]

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

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

Your examples are bad policy because

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

No politics
No social justice
No sexuality/gender/orientation

means that, while my saying on channel that I went to see Star Wars with my wife is unobjectionable in any context, there are a lot of people (especially on MU*s) for whom that would qualify as a "political," "social justice," or "sexuality/ gender/ orientation" statement.

@Pandora has the right of it comparing such a policy to DADT. "Don't bring up sexual orientation" has never meant "cishets aren't allowed to mention that they have a spouse/SO." "Don't bring up sexual orientation" always just means "queers, stay in the closet."

A policy tries to force political neutrality, and does so by determining someone's existence to be a political statement, is taking an intensely political stance.

[Bad at Lurking]

When you tell potential players that they can't talk about being women or queer or trans or people of color, you are telling those people they aren't welcome.

A simple 'Be polite and kind to one another' covers not calling each others nazis or freaks.

[surreality]

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

[BlondeBot]

@surreality said in Model Policies?:

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

Yes, this. Exactly this.

Not all the other strawmen that were built instead. I thought it seemed fairly simple on the surface, but apparently there is all kinds of room for people to take the least charitable interpretation possible.

[insomniac7809]

@BlondeBot Assuming that "no sexuality/gender/orientation" means what it says is not a strawman.

[surreality]

@BlondeBot 'Least charitable interpretation' seems to be default, unfortunately.

Remembering the living room model is good because (generic) you know you want everyone to be comfortable there, unless they are being a jerk.

All manner of genders/orientations/religions/etc. are welcome in my living room. If someone makes them feel unwelcome by grilling them about their validity or making them feel like they have to defend it in that space for whatever reason, that someone is going to be shown the door, fast.

[Tinuviel]

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

@surreality said in Model Policies?:

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

Yes, this. Exactly this.

Not all the other strawmen that were built instead. I thought it seemed fairly simple on the surface, but apparently there is all kinds of room for people to take the least charitable interpretation possible.

It absolutely was simple. "No sexuality/gender/orientation" is rather simple. Go on and implement it, though. What does that cover? Who does that include? What does it actually mean? Assuming it means "Do not discuss anything related to sexuality, gender, or orientation" is not a strawman or a least charitable interpretation, it is an interpretation as simple as the policy.

It's not, at all, outside of the realm of possibility for someone to say "don't talk about the queers in public." Because, you know, that's literally what people say.

ETA: Somewhat aptly, making policies to do with 'hot button' issues is itself a hot button issue. Writing out a list of explicitly forbidden things is pointless and prone to causing argument - especially if they're written down as simply as possible without explanation. If you want the focus of channel conversations to be on the game itself, say that. If you want the focus of channel conversations to be PG-13, say that. Don't say "You can talk about anything but this list of things," because if you list something as objectionable that is part of a person's identity, they're not going to feel very welcome.

[reversed]

This post is deleted!

[Bad at Lurking]

I am grateful for people's thoughts and not trying to be consciously uncharitable. What gives me pause about rules like 'no controversial topics mentioned ever' is my real world experience dealing with that idea and tabletop gamers specifically.

The majority is almost never encumbered by rules like that. Everybody else, however, can be.

I want to extend good faith and a strong welcoming vibe to everybody. But I don't want to do that at the expense of having some people think they have to hide or put up with low grade aggression and/or bigotry to make 'socially conservative' people comfortable.

If we're applying the living room, well, this MUSH will be the living room of a gay dude who isn't at all neutral on the idea of making that space welcoming for everybody of good will and good faith.

[surreality]

One of the reasons I've long been very anti-politics/issues/activism (from anyone about anything) on games is that it isn't the purpose of the game, and it can create an environment that makes the game less effective as the kind of game it is.

A lot of people come to these games to engage in a story that is not about their real life, even if we sometimes chat about our real lives in the 'living room' of that space. It's IDEALLY not a social space where we briefly and rarely play make believe in between talking about our real lives and feelings; that's a flip of the intent, being 'this is a place to tell stories together that aren't about the real world or the real us, even if we should feel comfortable chatting socially in downtime without fear of being treated poorly based on who we are'.

The more a game becomes about the socializing living room (OOC room/channels/etc.), the less it becomes a game, and the less effective it is as a 'break' from dealing with that real life reality/a form of escapism/etc.

Don't get me wrong here; I think the 'living room' is very important to the health of a game. Part of that, though, is how much focus it has as compared to the story and RP going on.

For instance, if I go to a game and everyone is just arguing identity politics all the time (which still happens even if everyone is mostly on the same damn page about them in that group, gods fucking help us), I'm not getting to play that game, and I'm not getting something I can't get here on MSB or literally anywhere else on the internet.

That game is giving me absolutely nothing I can't get everywhere else, and I have no reason to be there.

This stuff will take over if you let it, and that's the end result (after the inevitable flame wars and arguments and hurt feelings, none of which are good, either). It may be a lovely, wonderful, amazing social circle full of people you absolutely adore! ...but it's not a game any more, and people trying to run a game need to be conscious of this.

[surreality]

@Bad-at-Lurking said in Model Policies?:

I don't want to do that at the expense of having some people think they have to hide or put up with low grade aggression and/or bigotry to make 'socially conservative' people comfortable.

If people are engaging in low grade aggression and/or bigotry, toss them right out on their ass.

Please. Truly.

I am not being flippant or sarcastic in the least here.

There is no greater statement of support than staff taking action to say: that is not welcome in my living room, there is the door. No policy will create a feeling of safety anywhere near as effectively as action taken to remove people who violate the intended peace and comfort zone of that space.

[RightMeow]

I think don't be a jerk is always a good one. Saying staff retains the right to ask anyone to leave.

I know, personally (as in just me), when the rules are basic (don't be a jerk, etc). I'm more like okay. I get that. When they are super structured (listed out about specifics like no this and no that) two things happen. One, I worry that the staff are going to be power-tripping with their way or get off my fucking road. Which isn't fun if you can't offer communication. Two, that they are reacting to a fallout that wrecked the game for a time - as in oh, Mu* who hurt you?

[surreality]

@RightMeow I'm definitely one of those people that spells out a lot of things, so in a way, I want to offer the perspective I'm coming from on that.

Not everyone's an old hat at this. New people come in all the time, and we have some weird community norms to folks just trying to learn what they are. That ends up making people feel like they're expected to know things they don't, and they have no idea why anyone would do that. (I know I end up spending the most words on 'why this can create a problem', rather than 'grar if you do <thing>, you are a jerk!')

Even with that, things vary a lot from game to game. Is it a strict pose order place? Is it a place where everyone poses in past tense? Etc. This stuff isn't so much policy, it's more... 'this is a guide to how we do stuff on this specific site'. It tends to get lumped into the policy section of any given site since it tends to include things like alt limits/etc.

There's always that asshole who is all, 'it isn't written down as not being OK!' when they do something they know to be shitty and want to get away with it, and are trying to shift blame/make you seem like the unfair one as a staffer. It's childish and stupid, but it's common as blades of grass, unfortunately. Sometimes these tantrums are being thrown because someone does feel they're being unfairly punished because 'nobody said that wasn't OK', too.

It's kinda no win from the staff side on this.

[Apos]

tbh I'm closer to @BlondeBot in thinking it is better to give specific examples, because I think 'don't be a dick' doesn't prevent as many problems as I'd like. It's helpful to give people a general feeling of the environment you are hoping to create, but relatively little of my time is spent policing really bad actors, but people that are reasonable and just disagree.

I think it's more helpful to just focus on policies that are around the kind of environment you enjoy, and there's a huge range in that. Some people really, really enjoy no holds barred, competitive environments, where ooc communication is very much like WORA. I certainly don't, but they aren't a small group in MU-dom, really. Like can you imagine a MUD like Stillborn having the same kind of civility policies as a purely collaborative, consent-based MUSH?

I think giving examples gives people a better heads up on what kind of environment you are shooting for, and whether someone will be comfortable there or stay far away. I mean if someone wants to try to appeal to everyone, can certainly give it a shot, but you'll definitely be banning people who have way different opinions on what being a dick means.

[Derp]

@surreality said in Model Policies?:

One of the reasons I've long been very anti-politics/issues/activism (from anyone about anything) on games is that it isn't the purpose of the game, and it can create an environment that makes the game less effective as the kind of game it is.

This. That's what @BlondeBot was even saying in the original post. Keep the focus on the game, where possible, at least on the main channels. If you want to have spaces for these, that's fine, but you can have side-tangent channels for that purpose, and that isn't "restricting your speech" or trying to stifle your identity or whatever. Even in the real world there are time/place/manner restrictions on when and where to say what.