GMs and Players
-
No, it was a genuine question, but thanks.
-
@krmbm said in GMs and Players:
I think the "abusive ex-husband" scenario is ridiculous and over-the-top
Is it? I have known people who have been in the situation of RL abusers stalking them on MUs. It may not be COMMON, but it’s not somehow outlandish.
-
@roz said in GMs and Players:
@krmbm said in GMs and Players:
I think the "abusive ex-husband" scenario is ridiculous and over-the-top
Is it? I have known people who have been in the situation of RL abusers stalking them on MUs. It may not be COMMON, but it’s not somehow outlandish.
It's definitely an exception to any 'standard' of administration we propose. It's important to remember that exceptions always exist and we'll need to be adaptable, of course, but it did feel like a left-field and highly specific question in a conversation on generalities.
-
This post is deleted! -
@sunny said in GMs and Players:
Yeah, it was a highly specific question, because the answer actually matters to me. I was curious how he'd approach that situation, and I got my answer.
I definitely understand and respect that. However, I also understand how a sudden and jarring very specific and targeted question in a conversation mostly focusing on general examples of player behaviour, could feel somewhat like an attack or an emotionally driven thing. Especially when done publicly.
-
@roz Yikes. That sucks.
I do think it's the exception and an over the top example of what is generally asked of the average Mu* staffer. I've been doing this a long time and never had that scenario.
If someone I play with came to me with the situation, I'd absolutely swing the banhammer if it was within my power to do so.
It's not a question of "staff ethics" to me. It's a question of "dude wtf leave my friend alone."
-
@krmbm said in GMs and Players:
dude wtf leave my friend alone.
I think that this, right here, is the crux of the thing, though.
In a thread about setting reasonable boundaries, I agree with @Tinuviel
@tinuviel said in GMs and Players:
When you have to enforce rules, you're not their friend. You need to keep that boundary.
They are not my friends by default. They are strangers, and we're sharing a common space under a defined set of protocols.
Personally, I hate the "living room" theory of GMing. I don't know how it became somehow the standard we reach for.
To me, it's more like: the conference room that my company rented to host this little cocktail party for this interest group.
I set up the room, I decorated, I made some executive decisions and sent out an invitation for the people that are interested in the 2022 Electric Stove Top Coil Reform Committee, or whatever. And I opened the doors.
I might know some of these people through personal or professional circles. I probably don't. But I mingle and make small talk, and if I hear two people talking about the same thing, I might try to introduce them, group them together, generally keep everyone engaged with the topic of Stove Coil Reform (it's really the tragedy of our times).
But even my friends are here for a formal function. Our relationship in that role is different than the celebratory kegger I'll be throwing if this thing goes off right.
And if some stranger comes up to everyone and starts going on about their Tragic Backstory (tm) and about how Bob Ruined All of their Everything -- that's going to be uncomfortable. And frankly a little gauche. That setting is neither the time nor place to go into your Deep Personal History about Bob and that time he probably gave you chlamydia or whatever because he's a cheating bastard that ruined your life, and I need to throw him out of the party because you can't be in the same room with him.
This is how I view MU's, as well. It's a defined setting that's only casual to a point, in that you're all drinking and having a good time and talking about this Thing that you're all passionate about -- stovetop coils.
Anything more personal that that is, I think, probably a bit removed from what we should expect as a baseline.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
I can see the pros and cons for both approaches, and personally don't have an issue with either one.
It needs to be made very clear, from the outset, which you intend to use when running your games.
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
Personally, I hate the "living room" theory of GMing. I don't know how it became somehow the standard we reach for.
I'm certainly not saying that your philosophy is wrong, but mine is different.
A MUSH is a community that will exist (with people coming and going of course) for months if not years. It is a creative endeavor that game-runners often pour their heart into--or at the very least a crap-ton of work into There is a ton of collaboration involved, and the players also end up with a lot more effort/investment.
So yeah, it may not be exactly like inviting your besties over for a TTRPG session in your dining room. But for me it feels closer to that than to the convention of stove coil enthusiasts.
-
Alright. I mean, I don't have an issue with that if the GM wants to make it feel like their living room or whatever.
But should that be the baseline? Should we expect that every GM on every game is going to be the personal friend of every player? Or should we establish as a baseline idea that this is just another service, and you all are strangers that have accepted certain terms related to services rendered?
That's kind of the thing that's throwing me here. If we're talking about establishing reasonable boundaries, then I think we need to talk about that one in particular because, honestly, if you come into my game expecting me to be your bestie, instead of the dude running the game, we're both gonna have a bad time.
I think this idea of 'my living room' and this whole community of friends or whatever is a step above baseline that GMs can take, but shouldn't be the expected status quo.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
I know that we're in Mildly Constructive or whatever, but it was pretty plainly a passive-aggresive move to try and undermine the original point, and I'm definitely not alone in that reading.
You weren't used. You did a thing and got called out. Deal.
I don't think you've been constructive a day in your life, but this really isn't the place for your condescension.
-
@derp I don't think the "living room" mentality means that you're expected to be friends with every player? It's just an approach that's more focused on hobby community than it is some sort of professional service.
-
@kanye-qwest said in GMs and Players:
@derp said in GMs and Players:
I know that we're in Mildly Constructive or whatever, but it was pretty plainly a passive-aggresive move to try and undermine the original point, and I'm definitely not alone in that reading.
You weren't used. You did a thing and got called out. Deal.
I don't think you've been constructive a day in your life, but this really isn't the place for your condescension.
Good thing I don't actually need your permission then, huh?
As others in this thread have demonstrated, it was a fair reading of the (apparently now deleted?) post, and when it was called out as such, she took offense to it and tried to turn it back on everyone else instead of just owning that it came off as unnecessarily aggro. Your approval of that isn't actually relevant to -- well, anything.
-
I think the living room example only really makes sense in its intent to certain types of people.
It makes sense to me bc pre covid I hosted a ton of game nights and other gatherings in my home. It wasn't infrequent for friends of my friends to be invited if boardgames were their jam or they were visitors from out of town. I've hosted many gatherings of just acquaintances too in my house, for church, for moms group, for other interests. I grew up in a household that was expected to do a lot of entertaining in the home formally and otherwise so it's comfortable to me (though I wouldn't call what i do entertaining per se)
However I would say that a soft majority of my friends and loved ones would never host anyone outside of a close personal friends. There's nothing wrong with that, but of course that's going to change the feeling of "in my living room".
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
I know that we're in Mildly Constructive or whatever, but it was pretty plainly a passive-aggresive move to try and undermine the original point, and I'm definitely not alone in that reading.
You weren't used. You did a thing and got called out. Deal.
This is one of the rare times I will comment in regards to any comments Sunny makes. I pass over the stuff said and make no comments towards Sunny for reasons. Anyways, Sunny has not once made the abusive ex a secret so there was nothing about the question that was passive-aggressive. Even if Sunny hadn't
said it was genuine i would have taken it that way because she does not hide the stuff about her ex.Though, it did leave the impression action was expected but not clear in stating that. Rather than treating her question like she is attacking you, treat it as serious.
Assume on your game for a moment she was a player who said it that exact way. It might be better to ask what actions she expects to be taken and if there was a reason she suspected/knows it is her ex. Which is loosely along what @reimesu said. -
@icanbeyourmuse said in GMs and Players:
Assume on your game for a moment she was a player who said it that exact way. It might be better to ask what actions she expects to be taken and if there was a reason she suspected/knows it is her ex.
I mean, I'm not even going to go into that level of detail, honestly. As stated, if someone says 'hey this is my creepy ex, help', I am going to tell them exactly what I told them: Tell them not to contact you, and if they continue to contact you, report it and we'll handle it. I don't need proof that it's their ex. I don't need to know what their personal history is. We have a policy that says 'players can request that you not contact them at any time for any reason', and if they do that, and someone breaks the policy, then that's all I need.
I'm not going to take actions before that happens based on someone's word because as @Devrex said, we have decided to go with an evidence-based system for things that happen in-game and in-game only. But you've got all the tools in the world to control your personal experience and social circles and we'll back your play.
So yeah, I treated the question as serious and gave it a serious answer, even though I felt it was bait. That's really, seriously what I would do.
ETA: We do get a little more nebulous on what counts as in-game if both players are using characters linked to known Ares handles and one of those players has made it clear to the other that they aren't to contact them. That's pretty easy to verify with another gamerunner because there's no question about who's who. It's one of the reasons that we strongly encourage the use of handles.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
@icanbeyourmuse said in GMs and Players:
Assume on your game for a moment she was a player who said it that exact way. It might be better to ask what actions she expects to be taken and if there was a reason she suspected/knows it is her ex.
I mean, I'm not even going to go into that level of detail, honestly. As stated, if someone says 'hey this is my creepy ex, help', I am going to tell them exactly what I told them: Tell them not to contact you, and if they continue to contact you, report it and we'll handle it.
If someone is stalking you, you are absolutely not supposed to make contact with them.
-
@icanbeyourmuse This is where I point out that when I had an issue on @Devrex's game, I went to him and @Derp and that was the approach they took: what are your expectations, how do you want this handled?
Then they respected how I wanted it handled, and complied.
But I do agree with whomever said it: whichever approach the GMs choose to take on a game is fine, as long as expectations are set from the beginning. I have reasons for not being ok with @krmbm's approach of "dude wtf leave my friend alone" without evidence but mostly because, as I've stated, I've seen that approach used to some pretty bad effect. That's not saying it's a bad approach, that's saying it can be misused. Then again, so can any approach, if the staffers in question aren't reliable or are susceptible to manipulation.
And @Roz, in that case, why not offer up the info to the staffers of "I do not want to contact this person, could you please deliver a DNC for me?"
No matter what the situation is, there's still a need for clarity and detail for communication, rather than expecting staff to automatically go nuclear on your say-so.
-
@reimesu said in GMs and Players:
I have reasons for not being ok with @krmbm's approach of "dude wtf leave my friend alone" without evidence but mostly because, as I've stated, I've seen that approach used to some pretty bad effect.
I will not make that mistake again, and I hope other people learn from it.
-
Constructively, this thread has once again confirmed that I would never want to play on a game that Derp staffs on.
Not my jam. I even get where you're coming from, where basically you are picking between two players and who knows who is lying in this high-stakes decision of Who Gets To Play On My Game!! But man. A little humanity and empathy goes a long way.
