Model Policies?

[Roz]

@mietze I am very much reminded of the amount of public naysaying that went on when Faraday first started announcing her Ares plans and development. Many of the people who called certain efforts pointless, unnecessary, or even bad can now be seen singing the praises of the system.

A lot of the times? Players have no idea what they'll actually like/enjoy on that level. People get very attached to what they're used to, good or bad.

[GreenFlashlight]

@mietze said in Model Policies?:

Is there any reason to have an OOC room where people can "talk out loud?" The more time I spend on games that do not have them the more I'm convinced that they have little purpose other than being yet another thing that is a drain on the game.

I like OOC rooms where I can talk to people because it allows me to engage in pleasantries* before asking about finding scenes and planning what the scene should be with my potential partner.

*not that anyone actually responds to pleasantries, which hurts my feelings, and is probably a net argument against an OOC room in which people can talk, but whatever, I have my rituals and I must follow them

[Derp]

@Roz said in Model Policies?:

@mietze I am very much reminded of the amount of public naysaying that went on when Faraday first started announcing her Ares plans and development. Many of the people who called certain efforts pointless, unnecessary, or even bad can now be seen singing the praises of the system.

A lot of the times? Players have no idea what they'll actually like/enjoy on that level. People get very attached to what they're used to, good or bad.

I think that I was one of those people. I mean, I'm still kind of torn about it because I softcode a LOT of personal things for my own reference, but it's really nothing that I can't use notes for.

But I have to say, after seeing what Ares offers, I am absolutely sold on it. Even if it sometimes still baffles me and I have to ask @faraday to hold my hand a little. <.<

But I'm kind of interested in this as a larger discussion outside of model policies, so I think I'm gonna branch this a bit.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

I don't get anything out of an OOC room that I don't get out of Public/general Chat channels, and on games that have them I generally hide in the quiet room even when I'm not idle, so I'm not spammed.

[Darren]

@Three-Eyed-Crow
^^^ this.

[Ominous]

The only place I can think of an OOC Room being needed is a server where characters don't have their own personal rooms. If the grid is all only public spaces, then an OOC Room to retreat to when you're idling or not actively wanting to RP this very second is necessary.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

It's possible that I misunderstand the term OOC room, and if so, I apologise.

To me it seems beneficial to a game, to have a channel or location in which players -- rather than characters -- may connect. Not so much in order to idle time away or get into arguments about real world matters, but to check out each other's character concepts and make arrangements to get in touch in character.

It may be a timezone // small playerbase thing. I vastly prefer finding roleplay on the grid, meeting people in the appropriate locations without arranging much in advance. However, that's just not always viable, and that's where some kind of OOC room or channel is handy. It's -practical- to be able to ask, 'anyone up for a scene at...' or coordinate when the two other people for your sting operation will be online, or for that matter, put together the practical bits of next week's plot.

The down side of an OOC environment is, obviously, that it needs to be policed. Players can do so a far bit of the way on their own but eventually, there will be some git who starts manure for, well, manure and giggles.

[Roz]

@L-B-Heuschkel People are talking about it specifically as a room, not conflating it with having public channels. More conversation on it, including what an OOC room might offer that channels don't and vice versa, is over here.

[Chet]

@Tinuviel

You know, you look like Lowtax, but why were you in Deadpool?

[Tinuviel]

@Chet said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel

You know, you look like Lowtax, but why were you in Deadpool?

I don't understand this reference.

[Ominous]

@Tinuviel

Lowtax is the founder of Something Awful (Goon4Lyfe), and Deadpool is...well...Deadpool. However, how those are related or anything is beyond me.

[Tinuviel]

@Ominous Oh I knew that. I just seriously don't know how that relates to anything in this thread.

[Kestrel]

I think it's important to emphasise some policies that you feel make your game different from other games.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist so I tend to always think about how the things around me, even if already very good, could always be made better. If you are too then I'm sure you've played on games and thought, 'OK, this is neat, but I wish ...' Add those policies to your game; the wishlists, the divisive ones. The controversial ones.

Be Excellent To One Another is honestly a policy I don't at all care for. Not because it's a bad policy, but because it's cliche. What does excellent mean? Whose excellent are we talking here? Be specific.

When I read a game policy that makes clear they will not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia etc., tolerate OOC harassment, sexually inappropriate behaviour, paedo shit — while some might think these things shouldn't need to be said, as far as I'm concerned they really do, because the handling of these issues historically on other games I've played hasn't been perfect.

Being specific in this way also tells me something about your values as a staffer, which will make me feel safer playing on your game and likely be a draw in and of itself. After all while your role as staff isn't to be my best friend, I think being able to actually like, approve of and respect a game's staff is always good for player morale and comfort.

You will scare some people away — but are those people you wanted to attract in the first place?

[eye8urcake]

@Kestrel said in Model Policies?:

Be Excellent To One Another is honestly a policy I don't at all care for. Not because it's a bad policy, but because it's cliche. What does excellent mean? Whose excellent are we talking here? Be specific.

Just want to upvote the hell out of this, with 'Whose excellent are we talking about here?' emphasized to high heaven. When I've played under that policy, it's always an indicator of, at the least, an uneven approach to multiple issues. I also find that the admin I've seen make the biggest public drama about it and about just how awful it is to them that their players are so terrible tend toward awful in-game behaviors themselves.

[Arkandel]

@eye8urcake That's one of the reasons having detailed policies isn't worth it.

Ultimately if staff is good and involved they are not needed, but if they are themselves part of the problem the policies themselves don't protect the players they're intended to.

Likewise reasonable players are only going to be inconvenienced by draconic rules while the few bad seeds are going to try to go around them anyway.

Policies are good for only one thing: Informing the playerbase of what staff's official intention for the overall tone and culture is. But past that, a MU*'s culture is shaped way, way, way more by what is actually practiced rather than what is written down in some help file.

[eye8urcake]

@Arkandel said in Model Policies?:

@eye8urcake That's one of the reasons having detailed policies isn't worth it.

I disagree with this statement in that I believe the only way you can really quantify the performance of staff is by whether/how policies are implemented. If they aren't detailed enough, then it's all wiggle room and in my experience, that leads to players being ignored when they try to present evidence and information to lead or head admin when their subordinates are being dodgy.

I don't disagree that not all minutiae needs to be etched in stone in said policies, but I want more than 'be excellent to each other' so I know whether or not to expect, for example, admin-played PCs/NPCs to be pursuing player characters for TS or relationships or how player-run plot submissions are judged or what evidence is required/enough to actually get them to investigate a complaint for harassment.

[Bad at Lurking]

Honestly, nothing is more depressing to me than the thought I have to provide adults with a detailed guide on how not to be assholes to each other.

[eye8urcake]

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

Honestly, nothing is more depressing to me than the thought I have to provide adults with a detailed guide on how not to be assholes to each other.

Playing in a place where being 'excellent' is left up to a motley assortment of, say, Trumpy types and SJW types to interpret is pretty fucking depressing, too.

[Ganymede]

@eye8urcake said in Model Policies?:

I disagree with this statement in that I believe the only way you can really quantify the performance of staff is by whether/how policies are implemented.

While I cannot argue against your beliefs, I will again restate my opinion that all policies are inherently arbitrary and that the quality of staff's performance is more dependent on the quality of staff than the quantity or quality of the policies they devise or implement.

This is why I continue to believe in the value of this forum where, constructively or not, we are all open to being vilified as deserved.

[gryphter]

There's an 'excellent' point here. To one group of players, being 'excellent' could mean avoiding the use of certain language they find distasteful or harmful. To another group it might mean letting one another express themselves in precisely that way if that's what they want to do.

It's a matter of differing values, and leaving it up to the individuals' discretion to decide what's appropriate informed by nothing but their own gut check is asking for trouble. Some of those bellies are rotten to the core, but they'll still blink those doe eyes at you and wonder what in the world they ever could have done when they know they haven't violated any written policy.

Policies cover everybody's asses.