Staffing Philosophy: Action vs Procedure

[Roz]

@JaySherman said:

@7Wonders This does bring up another salient point to ask while I have everyone's proverbial ear: Stuff that is not on game but involves the game. Does this warrant action? I've always tried to keep things like off-game chats separate from what is punishable behavior on a game, all the way back to the days of ICQ and Livejournal, but with social media far, far more present and influential, there's a potential bleed-over.

Case in point: I've had a group of players come to me and ask me if they were going to be fired, out of seemingly nowhere. They had done absolutely nothing wrong; a few questions later, it was determined that one player on Skype had worked them all into a frenzy because she thought she was going to be punished for something (she wasn't, she'd just jumped to conclusions). Is there any good way to buffer against this sort of off-game rumor-mongering, and is it worth enacting disciplinary measures on the game, especially when it directly involves the game and players on it?

As always, it depends. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily think that freaking out over thinking you were going to get into trouble in front of other people would necessarily warrant action even if it happened on the game. It involves stuff about the game, yes, but it sounds more like a paranoid player than malicious circle-jerking. And malicious circle-jerking really doesn't require stepping off the game. (To clarify what I mean by this, it's those players -- we've all had them -- who love to cultivate an Us vs. Them mentality with a group of followers, who basically create a circle of deepening complaints that fester into anger at staff because the circle jerk does not allow for issues to be aired directly to staff. The kind of ringleader of these absolutely does so maliciously to manipulate. It's nasty business, but once again it's something that's best combatted with open lines of communication as a staffer.)

Was this player just overreacting in front of other people, or were they overreacting and also maliciously poisoning other people against you and your game? There's a big difference. The first is an aggravation -- even a major one; I get all kinds of frustrated when players react to me like I'm a terrible, abusive staffer from their past when nothing in our relationship has warranted it -- but it's not something that I'd necessarily take action on. (If it was someone I was friendly with generally, I might say something more casual like, "Dude, please don't cause a huge ruckus without just talking to me next time.")

@Yamazaki said:

@GentlemanJack said:

The way I did it was by suffering that stupid-ass "I don't want to hurt my friend's feelings" delusionalness. I did not have the common sense to realize that if you don't want to take corrective action on a staffer because "they're my friend," pick up your nutsack and do it the fuck anyway.

Jack and I yell at each other about game all the time. It's cathartic. And it helps.

My co-staffers and I have freely told players that we have pretty much all been brought in by each other over the years for staff chats. (This is usually to attempt to reassure paranoid players that it's not the end of the world if we have to spend ten minutes chatting to them about a minor issue.) If you can't smack your friend or your co-staffer for acting like a jerk, you're right, you shouldn't be staffing.

[MrMaker]

Dude I'm so tempted to post my Saga Of Brandy/Yseulte or whatever the hell her name is. . Carenza/Ophelia on Kingsmouth who thought she was foolin' when she was storytelling on Alt A, got butt-hurt about some shit on that game, then hung out on Alt B on same game, and told everybody "Ugh, my inernet, it just, it doesn't let me online :)!" and is why like, ten people want to leave Kingsmouth but are waiting to see if they don't get rid of her ass. She is basically a training session of how to deal with shit staff. Because I made all the mistakes that could be made.

[7Wonders]

@JaySherman

It largely depends, I think, on the situation at hand. Skype logs, in the context of having to consider a potentially sticky situation, cut both ways. Sometimes people are just letting off steam and are saying dumb, in the moment things with the Skype logs. Sometimes they are actually doing something shitty on the game, know it, and are savvy enough not to articulate their behavior to other people while logged in because there's a perception that Skype is like some internet embassy, where you can commit a bunch of crimes on game soil and then run for the neutral protection of a Skype IM discussion about it and never shall the twain meet.

As @silver lays out, arbitrary decisions about what is private, where, and when don't really serve the interest of the game.

If someone cheats on the game and then confirms those actions as cheating on a Skype log, all that's doing is confirming a behavior that was suspected as being disruptive or shitty on purpose. That's a pretty good reason to take the log seriously. The same goes for player v. player harassment, if its spilling over into the game and causing harm or disruption to the game.

If people are getting into slap fights, romantic tiffs, gossiping, or just being crotch grabbing retards on Skype logs and it has no effect on the game, then meh. That's just people failing to get along or acting a fool.

I think one very good example of how Skype can be applied as a selective tool is the case of VaSpider and others whose Skype logs were a collective record of intentional cheating with the aid and full support of a staffer who was colluding with them to disrupt The Reach mage sphere and take a big steaming dump on other mage players in the sphere. She and those who participated in the cheating were savvy enough not to discuss this on the game, whereas somehow talking about it on Skype made it non-admissible as though the expectation of privacy where it harms the game or other players begins when you enter the borders of the Democratic Republic of Skype.

[JaySherman]

@7Wonders This has the potential to go toxic. I'm sorry to keep milking folks for good advice, but I'm new to some of these situations (I've staffed on games off and on over the years but I usually found there were more problems with bad staff than bad players on the games I worked on). Here's the deal:

I'm going to identify said Skyper as Player A and a second problem-causer as Player B.

Player B is an outright manipulative snake that I have caught trying to blame her own RL sister (also on the game) for crap she tried to sneak under the radar. When confronted directly about her actions, Player B quit all characters but one and left a note on the bboard along the lines of "I've quit all my characters page me for details". (It doesn't appear that anyone cares to page her for details so far).

Player A is our Skyper, and I found frequently that Player B would chat with her off game to manipulate A to side with B whenever I did something, staff or otherwise, that B did not like. Player A is also the Obsessed Friend (mentioned in previous post) who likes to couch her arguments in terms like "well I know that there are other players who feel _____". She behaves as if she is the gentle, doting mother who must shield the poor little player children from my "fatherly" wrath.

Tolerate, Educate or Kill It With Fire?

[Coin]

@JaySherman I don't even have to read the whole thing to telly ou to Kill it with Fire.

[JaySherman]

Gettin' the torches then.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

Are all the players that've flooded into your game early sort of terrible?

This is (kind of) a serious question, because where you do your initial recruitment is really important. The most active players inevitably build game culture as much or more than staff does. If the person who did this unsolicited recruitment binge just brought in their friends, that's likely not a particularly nurturing population to staff for and probably have goals for the game very different than your goals.

ETA: Maybe the nicer way to phrase that question is: "Is this the group of players you would have chosen yourself for the alpha phase of your game?"

[Coin]

Also, if you want more players from a different pool, finish your game, make sure it's stable, and then advertise. Put up an advert here, on other games. Trust your game.

[Arkandel]

Another note: Although it's too late now, advertise/spread the word when you're ready, not earlier. A game's launching time is critical since players are fickle.

I.e. if you start the game then aren't prepared to handle the initial load of +jobs or your staff aren't around to run plot or work on their spheres or your theme still needs work, etc then players will start logging out and few of them will check back later to see if those issues were resolved in the mean time.

Go all-out when you're ready to handle them if you want to keep them around.

[7Wonders]

@JaySherman

One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness. Fairness as it applies to all players on a game in terms of how you administrate the game is totally what you should aim for. Fairness gets tripped up when staff get overly caught up on what's fair for player A or B due to personal circumstances.

Personal circumstances like 'this player had a medical condition that has them offline at abrupt intervals' or 'they have a weird IRL work schedule' are one thing. Circumstances that are a big barrel of self-created drama llama are totally another.

At the end of the day, your players are grown ass adults who unless they live in a cave know what the acceptable standards of online game etiquette. And if they don't, they get schooled by player pushback and staff feedback. They all generally have offline lives that imply some kind of responsibility to other people and entities, like jobs and kids and family, etc. It's up to them to manage their individual experience that enables them to be productive contributors to the game and have fun. If neither are happening, it's worth examining if they're in a bad situation at the creation of other players or game policy has backfired on its incepted intent (sometimes there are games with really stupid myopic rules). But often, a players bad time is a prison of their own making and they have the ability to fix their situation-- they're just not taking the responsibility to do so.

As a staffer and game owner, you are the ultimate arbiter of your game's culture. You get to set the expectations for OOC behavior and attitude because it's your online real estate. If you have problem players who are unrepentant manipulators and rumor mongers, you don't have to allow them to stay on your game. If you set the standard of expectation about player behavior, it's the players job to meet it or move on. And if they can't do either and won't change, you have the ability and power to call it a bad fit and show them the door. Fairness isn't about individual player experience, it's about shared game culture and morale.

One ultra shitty player can scortch the OOC earth of your game, you don't have to allow them that opportunity.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

This sort of circles back to what I meant when I said that a staffer needs to be having fun on some level. A huge part of that, maybe the part that's most important, is whether or not the culture or your game (and the most active people on it) is something you want to engage with. You can change rules, you can change theme and setting elements, but the alchemy of who you have and what they're doing is beyond control of most staffers beyond a certain point (save encouraging good elements and removing toxic or rule-breaking ones).

[Arkandel]

@7Wonders said:

Personal circumstances like 'this player had a medical condition that has them offline at abrupt intervals' or 'they have a weird IRL work schedule' are one thing. Circumstances that are a big barrel of self-created drama llama are totally another.

Also, past a very conservative point please do yourself a favor and don't accept 'medical conditions' as an excuse for breaking game policies. If my self-diagnosed Asperger's syndrome is causing me to be a dick to your players that's not good, but if I get away with it it's so much worse.

[Ganymede]

@7Wonders said:

One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness.

I think staffers get too caught up in appearing to be fair. Fairness is judged by others. The only way you can appear fair is by publicly demonstrating your decisions. If you haven't the spirit to be judged by others over whom you have some semblance of authority and responsibility, you ought not be staff.

[7Wonders]

@Arkandel
Very true. I generally apply medical conditions to circumstances like chronic autoimmune disorders, cancer, etc.. Players with brain chemistry disorders or autism spectrum disorders who are going on and off their meds and/or generally expecting you to overlook behavioral explosions as their primary way of managing their situation? Not so much.

There are plenty of normal seeming players who have various brain chemistry issues. You generally don't know about it because they manage their personal circumstances before it ever becomes an excuse for bad behavior. The ones that use mood disorders or spectrum disorders as the go-to as to why they're constant pain in the ass? Yeah, no.

[JaySherman]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

Are all the players that've flooded into your game early sort of terrible?

This is (kind of) a serious question, because where you do your initial recruitment is really important. The most active players inevitably build game culture as much or more than staff does. If the person who did this unsolicited recruitment binge just brought in their friends, that's likely not a particularly nurturing population to staff for and probably have goals for the game very different than your goals.

ETA: Maybe the nicer way to phrase that question is: "Is this the group of players you would have chosen yourself for the alpha phase of your game?"

After having a couple of months to get to know them? I'd say no to all but two or three. I had that one person not only invite people onto the game while I was offline, they created a wiki about the game without telling me and started advertising (again, without telling me) on other MUs. A game of a similar theme died in the process of me trying to finish mine, and suddenly we had an inordinate amount of rats fleeing from that sinking ship. I processed what seemed like very reasonable applications and am only now seeing my first crop of weeds.

@Ganymede said:

@7Wonders said:

One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness.

I think staffers get too caught up in appearing to be fair. Fairness is judged by others. The only way you can appear fair is by publicly demonstrating your decisions. If you haven't the spirit to be judged by others over whom you have some semblance of authority and responsibility, you ought not be staff.

I'm striving to overcome the knee-jerk reflex of appearing and being extremely above board after having survived some incredibly vindictive bad staffers on other games. I think I've fallen into the trap of mechanical fairness, as mentioned before. I'm taking this summer to get the last bits of work done the game and when I'm satisfied I'll post an advert here about it.

[Sponge]

@GentlemanJack

I keep thinking of useful things to say in the discussion and then shortly after I see you say it, phrasing it 10 times better.
...

Somewhat tangentally, I used to have problems dealing with the egregious offenders.

One of my chief mistakes running City of Hope was being too hesitant with "discipline". I was so afraid of appearing to be a tyrant that I was super gun-shy about handing out a 72-hour ban. Not everyone wants to be a good player and no amount of OOC consequences are going to change their attitude. However, a taste of the stick will often make the ne'erdowells at least not do bad.

When I did have the sack to hand out discipline it generally worked well doing standard boundary-setting:

• Doing X is inappropriate.
• If you continue to X, I'm going to remove you from the game.
  ...some time later
• You've continued to X when I told you not to. I'm going to remove you from the game for 72 hours. If you're not Xing after that, we're cool.

Usually, one of my 72-hour bans would go one of two ways. 1) The player would come back and no longer X. 2) They would immediately have a complete meltdown and earn a permaban.

I don't feel like taking away characters or IC things is productive. I feel it's more like sending a child to their room where all their video games and comic books are.
...

Doxxing people is a double-edge sword. Sure, you might be justified in publishing proof of particularly egregious offenses. Doing so might help serve as a warning to potential future offenders and to other game operators. However, as it has been mentioned above, sometimes uninvolved players will wonder if they're at risk for being shamed publicly. Doxxing people invokes fear and it's really hard to point that fear precisely.

[Misadventure]

You can document events and change the names. Yes, people who are related to it will know who is being discussed, but it's not obvious to others, and new players. I think summaries are a good idea, perhaps with a focus on where things went wrong, if there is a specific moment or action that can be detailed further great.

[Derp]

@Sponge said:

Doxxing people is a double-edge sword. Sure, you might be justified in publishing proof of particularly egregious offenses. Doing so might help serve as a warning to potential future offenders and to other game operators. However, as it has been mentioned above, sometimes uninvolved players will wonder if they're at risk for being shamed publicly. Doxxing people invokes fear and it's really hard to point that fear precisely.

So then what's wrong with being up front about this too? Again, you can have levels of disciplinary measures. Just getting talked to about something doesn't have to go up on a board, but a repeat violation getting something like a 72hr ban should go up to that effect.

What's more, though, why can you not simply make this known from the getgo? Make that a part of the accepted terms, or put it in the player discipline documentation that all can see? If nothing else, people knowing ahead of time that this is a thing, and can easily access that policy, means that you weren't just some jerkface who outed their secret while still giving you the ability to be aboveboard and transparent about game events.

I don't see this as losing, and I don't think that players will think that they're living in some spy culture. If you sign up for the game, know that ahead of time, and then earn it? You have nothing to bitch about.

[Silver]

Doxxing is exposing the real life identifying information of people in order to intimidate or harass them, such as has been done to some of the victims of the GamerGate fools. Nobody should ever do that, but it's not the same as saying X person has been kicked off the game for harassing other players.

[mietze]

I think for the type of offense that I would make a post to the entire game about a single individual, I would feel comfortable disclosing bit name.