Staffing Philosophy: Action vs Procedure
-
I would say 'Player X has been banned from the game for Y offense' if I ever had to long-term ban someone for something. It takes something pretty significant to earn a long-term ban, and the announcement would be made to spread sunshine on the rumor mill/smear-campaign mold that some banned players try to spread onto a game from the outside. I would also refer to the individual by their account/character name, not their real one. I have been on the receiving end of staff actually giving out my RL name to people on an announcement board to spite me.
-
There is nothing to prevent lies, biased presentations, etc from either a game, or a player outside the game.
Full logs can reveal a little more of the truth, but it seems folks are far more into not letting anyone know what happened at all.I oppose this because of conversations had across more than a decade with Staff who would not state any detail of what the problem was.
-
@Silver said:
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.
Ah. My bad. I had never come across this term.
I thought it was the same as the bboard posts above. Good to know! And yes, that's shitty. -
I should quote people. I didn't really mean the full disclosure of private information about a person, just this:
If you have a predator, someone who is preying upon others and who is hiding behind the protection of privacy, then expose that person. They're out there. Not everybody is innocent or can (or more often wants to) change. Screw them. Post logs of their private tirades if you like. Dump them out the back of the boat for the sharks so you can move along with the rest of your boat full of players, because they're the ones you should be protecting. There is a very good reason that trials are held in public where everyone has an opportunity to see the evidence and hear every side of things as well as the final verdict.
Disclosing what happened, who was involved, and what the outcome was is important for transparency. But if it seems to your players that you don't respect the privacy of some players, no one's privacy is guaranteed.
-
I am really of the opinion that dirty laundry doesn't need to be aired in public; I also agree with Sponge that detailed negative posts about why a player is gone make people not involved uncomfortable. It really should just be as simple as:
'X has been banned from the game for a violation of our harassment policies. Please contact staff if you have any questions/need any resolution to stories.'
If someone's done something to deserve being banned, putting it up like that isn't going to do any harm.
Also, @JaySherman: Kill both player A and B with fire. Get rid of them: they are BOTH major problem sorts. They are not going to be any good for your game. Even a little bit. If it's a "friendship" that's being held hostage in any fashion, it's not actually a friendship and you're being used/manipulated.
-
Oh oh, you could have non-staff players review evidence, and report whether they agree or dissent. Just like Minority Report. No details, just independent review.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@Misadventure That kind of falls into the zone of unwillingness to disagree with the staff because it could mean bad things for the person helping the review.Besides, there's the risk of 'Oooh.. there HAS to be SOME truth to X event done by PlayerA. I shouldn't trust them or get involved with them.' whether or not the person being reviewed has done anything or not,
-
So it sounds like basically no one can be trusted to do jack, oversight and transparancy are more dangerous than dealing with problems, and so on.
-
@icanbeyourmuse said:
@Misadventure That kind of falls into the zone of unwillingness to disagree with the staff because it could mean bad things for the person helping the review.Besides, there's the risk of 'Oooh.. there HAS to be SOME truth to X event done by PlayerA. I shouldn't trust them or get involved with them.' whether or not the person being reviewed has done anything or not,
This could be true, sure, if the staffer were to give an opinion on it. But it's pretty commonly known who hangs with who on a MU. Presenting it without names or identifying details to a person outside of their particular playgroup and saying 'What is your opinion on this' to get input on something before making a decision might not be a bad idea. If there's no staff position to agree or disagree with, then that's less of a risk.
Edit to Add: I'm still not sure this is a good idea, mind you, but there are practical ways to mplement such a thing if someone wanted to do it.
-
@Sponge said
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.
Pragmatically speaking, yes, that's true, but honestly, this one time this ... heifer, changed the house rules on me in order to lord over the sphere as the Best Most Super Powerfulest Snowflake, I really did enjoy nerfing the character and taking away their things to be compliant with the way the house rules should be. She was the reason why the sphere she staffed only had, ohhh, her, in it. Now, it's on me for letting it happen, but goddamn was enlightenment cathartic.
@JaySherman thank you vrey much, I'm glad that you found it helpful and thank you for your time in reading t, since I know I am long winded. This is my training doc if you want to read/comment it.
-
@GentlemanJack said:
@Sponge said
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.
Pragmatically speaking, yes, that's true, but honestly, this one time this ... heifer, changed the house rules on me in order to lord over the sphere as the Best Most Super Powerfulest Snowflake, I really did enjoy nerfing the character and taking away their things to be compliant with the way the house rules should be. She was the reason why the sphere she staffed only had, ohhh, her, in it. Now, it's on me for letting it happen, but goddamn was enlightenment cathartic.
@JaySherman thank you vrey much, I'm glad that you found it helpful and thank you for your time in reading t, since I know I am long winded. This is my training doc if you want to read/comment it.
This doc is awesome. I wish all games used those sorts of guidelines.
-
It is funny. However, it reeks of self assured blindness. You are very prone to getting staff who are SURE they know whats going on, they suddenly have internet telepathy, and so reductive stereotyping becomes funny.
Tell me how you would feel being treated like that. Staff KNOWS what you think, and why you think it, and can joke at you while they decide to intervene into your play.
Sounds like a great tool for staff you have lied to if you are an asshole player who needs their ego stroked.
Discipline should be impersonal and conducted with an open and serious mind. Not self righteousness and rancor.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@Misadventure Agreed, and the one thing that irks me as a player and more so when I would be in staff positions is other staff forgetting what its all about. If you have a game, chances are you want to facilitate a game and/or a place for people to RP. If that's not what you are trying to do, then, I wish games would just post it out there.
/Hi - we don't care about players that aren't the alts of my people on staff and / or in our circle of trust. Play at your own risk fucker./
To me that would be cool, cause, then I'd know not to expect anything from staff unless I'm down with circle.
-
@Misadventure said:
It is funny. However, it reeks of self assured blindness. You are very prone to getting staff who are SURE they know whats going on, they suddenly have internet telepathy, and so reductive stereotyping becomes funny.
Tell me how you would feel being treated like that. Staff KNOWS what you think, and why you think it, and can joke at you while they decide to intervene into your play.
Sounds like a great tool for staff you have lied to if you are an asshole player who needs their ego stroked.
Discipline should be impersonal and conducted with an open and serious mind. Not self righteousness and rancor.
I think that it's a fairly straightforward and pragmatic way to approach staffing professionally without making it seem like the most tedious, serious deadly business in the world. Yes, it's funny. It needs to be funny, because you don't want to scare away your new staffers, and it gives guidelines on how to act like a professional in a staffing environment.
Given the alternatives, like the staff at TR and their blind commitment to doing whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of consistency or even things like standard social graces? I'll take this over that shit any day.
Also -- reductive stereotyping in this particular situation, especially when dealing with specific problem players, etc, is often not entirely incorrect. The approaches to take there are all very valid approaches to dealing with things. So stereotyping? Yes. Invalid stereotyping? No, usually, and if it is, it becomes quickly clear.
-
I didn't get any self-righteousness or rancor from @GentlemanJack's document. It came off more like 'This is how it is here, whether you like it or not.' Which, I think, is a legit thing to say. It's his game, after all. It's more firm in things than I would be but that's the nature of everyone being different. I'd not mind @GentlemanJack helping me with my policy type things, personally.
-
@GentlemanJack's staff policy is the culmination of like.... 4 games worth of random staffers doing silly things.
In action it's less hardcore than it sounds. Most of the time Jack is willing to discuss things rather than brain people with the policy, but it's there to fall back on. I'll be using it when I get my Wyld West game off the ground with a few modifications to personal taste.
-
@GentlemanJack said:
@Sponge said
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.
Pragmatically speaking, yes, that's true, but honestly, this one time this ... heifer, changed the house rules on me in order to lord over the sphere as the Best Most Super Powerfulest Snowflake, I really did enjoy nerfing the character and taking away their things to be compliant with the way the house rules should be. She was the reason why the sphere she staffed only had, ohhh, her, in it. Now, it's on me for letting it happen, but goddamn was enlightenment cathartic.
@JaySherman thank you vrey much, I'm glad that you found it helpful and thank you for your time in reading t, since I know I am long winded. This is my training doc if you want to read/comment it.
I sincerely wish I'd had something like this to read and learn from since the time I started doing this back in 1997 when I got hired on my first Building Staff job. I'm taking it to heart and if you don't mind, I'd like to share it with the remaining staff on my game.
Incidentally the aforementioned Player B was removed from staff as of yesterday and attempted a 2 hour, screen-scrolling 'I know this is your game but ... ' argument. I handled this in the most professional manner I could, no yelling or flames, just a flat out 'thank you for your time but you're not a good fit for this position'. Player B's response was to attempt to nit pick for even the tiniest molecule of potential unfairness in her dismissal. I let her know that this wasn't up for a debate and shut down the argument right there.
You fine folks are already helping me to buck up and get things done. Player A I have to wait on due to an agreed upon deadline (made prior to asking for advice here) but I have a feeling it's just that - a wait - before pulling the trigger on ol' yeller.
-
Honestly, guy? Yes, you said you were going to wait / there was an agreement. However, your decision has been made and you are prolonging a damaging situation. One should always strive towards keeping your word and consistency, but there does become a time where you're letting it trap you. The policies of your game are there to help you, not make things more difficult for you. I have been by the-letter-of-the-rules watched my own game die before.
Something to think about.
-
So far the deadline situation is just sort of hanging in neutral. Player A has been asked to make some changes to their character by X date. If said player does anything that has even a whiff of manipulative behavior, they'll go out the door for that immediately. They're on their last warning.
I've seen a game die out from under me for the fact that I stuck with my ethics, but in the end, when I made another game, the fact that I had not been a spineless wimp and stuck to my guns earned me a reputation that made the second last longer. I had one queen bee on the dead game that wanted me to start firing people she didn't personally like and threatened that she'd walk and take her friends with her if I didn't. The accused player had done absolutely nothing wrong, and I wasn't about to let Queenie turn me into her personal hatchet man just because she threatened to leave and take her activity with her. I told her she'd just have to walk, and not to let the door hit her on the way out. She did indeed leave and activity died out, but I figured that if no one was biting on the theme, I'd just close it and make another. I'd rather close and game and start over than get pushed around by scumbag players for months or years.
-
@Misadventure said
Tell me how you would feel being treated like that. Staff KNOWS what you think, and why you think it, and can joke at you while they decide to intervene into your play.
As for how I would feel being treated by someone who is self-righteous/rancorous, of course I wouldn't like it. Nobody wants to deal with an asshole.
As for how I would feel being on the receiving end of the "how to approach" sections...It's all re-purposed Corporate America Customer Service management policies. Thanks to being on the receiving end of some of those policies in the past as a retail employee, I can confidently say that I would initially be upset about having corrective action put on me, and/or embarrassed to be stuck in a position where I have to own up to my actions, but ultimately I would respect it and come around and it wouldn't be something that would ruin my evening.
My decision to phrase it like eXile's Field Guide To Moscow may have not been tasteful. Regardless, I can and have eaten what I serve and know what it is like to have someone use it on me so I can use it with empathy and provide feedback to other staffers who have not been there. I feel that making pessimistic judgment calls about someone based off of their sense of humor seems like a blindness or lack of faith in their capacity for empathy and interpersonal skills and I have faith that people can understand that role players are human beings with feelings -- and that they should no longer remain on staff if they can not.
