GMs and Players

[3543thrh67]

@derp It is not about changing what you would do. Asking the 'what do you expect' and 'why do you suspect that' questions is about validating their concerns and building their trust in you to feel they can go to you if something /does/ happen. From everything thus far unless a player trusts staff they are not going to start with their proof. Their going to test the waters by displaying their concerns as a request that isn't clear what they want beyond 'letting you know'. To me 'Tell them no contact and let us know if they break it.' is not validating them and their concerns and building their trust. 'What do you expect us to do?' 'Why do you suspect that?' This is what you do and this is what we will do will do and this is what we will do if there is evidence.' are all things, in my opinion, actions to build a players trust in staff. I mean the biggest complaint, staff side and player side, is lack of trust in staff. So, yes you can be 'Do no contact and let us know if they break it.' Adding validation for their concerns opens the doors to trust you when they they don't know who you are. Especially on your policy of treating things with more professionalism than casual. Sure, someone who knows you and is your friend isn't going to hesitate to trust you'll do what you say even if you don't validate them. That is because they are your friend and know what you will do. Someone who isn't your friend or doesn't know you is not going to come in with the same trusting attitude so validating their concerns by questioning what they expect and how they are sure does. It is likely to give you the evidence you want as well because they are going to be like 'Well this is stuff I've seen. I think X person might have had the same experience but you should ask them.'

[mietze]

@reimesu i agree though I also think it is helpful if there is not the appearance that any mention of worry/potential problems is going to be perceived and treated as "yelling/acting crazy" against the chill dude. Informing staff about a potential issue should not cast that person in that light. I would not feel comfortable reporting any issues to someone that I thought might react like that even with evidence bc of previous experiences. I would just leave and have done so. But that does solve the problem for the gamerunner.

[reimesu]

@krmbm And there are workarounds for that, too, even in an evidence-based system, but it assumes open and clear communication between the victim and the staffer in question.

In other words, start with communication. ALWAYS. Which should start with "This is my issue, this is what I would like done." Or even, if you're not thinking straight, "This is my issue, I'm not thinking straight so I don't know what to do about it." Then go from there. But there should be some detail involved.

None of this is actually difficult, but it all starts from an assumption of "we're all adults but sometimes we need help."

I've been on games where one staffer had undue influence with the headwiz, and have watched people be banned, people get their RP nixed because the one staffer wasn't getting any attention out of it, people driven off the game because the same staffer was upset about...something. No evidence was ever given. Multiple games.

But there's also one thing that's being ignored in this conversation: does the game have an 'automatically banned from this game' list? I mean, if it's the person you're referencing, I'd think he'd earn a spot on that list.

@mietze I agree. But I think I've stated elsewhere that Dev and Derp treated me with respect and kindness and listened.

[krmbm]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

does the game have an 'automatically banned from this game' list?

I pre-banned seven people. Four of them are people that were banned on GH over the years for various nutty things. One is a person that admitted to knowing about predation on the game and not reporting it. One is someone I know to be an emotional manipulator and gaslighter 'cause she did that stuff to me. And one is Ruiz.

I would assume "show me the logs" staff philosophy wouldn't require a pre-banned list, since that would assume guilt without evidence.

[reimesu]

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

I would assume "show me the logs" staff philosophy wouldn't require a pre-banned list, since that would assume guilt without evidence.

Well, that's an assumption. Assumptions preclude actual communication, and are frequently wrong. So, it's a question you'd want to ask.

[bear_necessities]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

But there's also one thing that's being ignored in this conversation: does the game have an 'automatically banned from this game' list? I mean, if it's the person you're referencing, I'd think he'd earn a spot on that list.

Yes.

I think @faraday said something that really resonated with me and that is that MUSHing is a community. I talk to my players almost daily on the chat chan or in pages - I may not consider them my RL friends, but I do consider them 'friends' in the sense that I care about them, I'm investing my time to spend time with them, and I consider my players important in the community we have created, even if I 'decorated' the room. Some of the players on my game are people I've known for years. One is my BFF, a few are people I would consider my RL friends, a lot of the rest are friends-of-friends or friends-of-friends-of-friends. But I mean what matters (to me) is we created a really cool community and it is my job as staff to make sure that community stays cool.

I learned the hard way that just because someone doesn't have evidence, doesn't mean it isn't happening to them (see @krmbm's post). I gut-check even more now and tend to keep an eye on people that raise my red flags. Not everybody is going to have logs that are a smoking gun of terrible behavior. Manipulators are manipulative because they tend to do things that are less overt and convince people NOT to log, NOT to report, etc.

[Meg]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

I would assume

Well, that's an assumption

yeah, good job pointing out that it was an assumption when krmbm already said 'i assume'. like a label maker!

i would assume if it works differently, someone could correct krmbm.

[krmbm]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

So, it's a question you'd want to ask.

@Derp @Devrex Thoughts on pre-banning for past bad behavior?

[Derp]

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

So, it's a question you'd want to ask.

@Derp @Devrex#0676 Thoughts on pre-banning for past bad behavior?

Not against it.

We've got a sort of nebulous one. Most of the big names are on it. Vaspider, etc. There might be a few more on a case-by-case basis depending on whether they're currently acting the kind of fool we've seen them act like in the past and whether we want to put in enough effort to deal with them or not.

Not gonna lie, if a few of the MSB people that have been a constant thorn in my side show up, I'd probably point them back out the door, for both of our sakes.

It'd be the empathetic and humane thing to do.

[faraday]

@roz said in GMs and Players:

If someone is stalking you, you are absolutely not supposed to make contact with them.

But you can say that, right? "Hey I'm not comfortable contacting them, can you please just tell them to leave me alone?" I wouldn't have a problem doing that on a player's behalf, even though I'm otherwise with @Derp that I'm not likely to ban someone based solely on an unsubstantiated report. I think there's a middle ground where you can express sympathy and concern and take a report like this seriously without jumping automatically to the banhammer over an off-game dispute between two people you don't know.

Violating a DNC request IS a bannable offense on my games, regardless of what else they may or may not have done (on game or off).

@derp said in GMs and Players:

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?

As others have said, I don't think "living room" implies "become besties with everyone". Plenty of people run book clubs, etc. where they invite people to their homes that aren't necessarily personal friends. For me it's about the respect due the staff --because you're in their home -- and the overall atmosphere of community.

You can get a similar vibe from some public gathering venues. My friends run a comic shop. Players can come in to play at their tables, and some are pick-up games where strangers can join too. It may not be their living room, but it's definitely a level of connection and investment that you wouldn't find from the hosts in a convention center.

[reimesu]

@meg said in GMs and Players:

yeah, good job pointing out that it was an assumption when krmbm already said 'i assume'. like a label maker!

i would assume if it works differently, someone could correct krmbm.

How kind of you to completely miss my point. Please keep in mind that this is Mildly Constructive. If you want to get snarky, please take it to the Hog Pit where I can tell you exactly what I'm thinking.

On the other hand, krmbm did, in fact, ask the question. Thanks, @krmbm!

[farfalla]

It's a free game, not a government service. You don't actually have to be "fair" (whatever that means).

Anyone saying a DNC would be good enough for a stalker has never had a stalker. It's a game, staff doesn't actually have any obligation to a stranger who just logged on, they can just trust their known player and go on with their life. If you don't, the person being stalked will leave, so you're choosing to have the stalker on your game over the player who was already there being unproblematic. Have fun with that, I guess!

Shoutout to Arx staff for handling my stalker the minute I said "hey I have a stalker."

[Meg]

@reimesu and you completely missed my point.

the irony.

you pointing out that i pointed out that you pointed out something krmbm already /said/ isn't constructive--. is exactly my point. you're tone policing some shit that doesn't need to be tone policed. she said 'i assume this works this way', and people say that shit all the time.

i said that just today in a meeting! where i said 'i assume the code works like this.' and one of my coworkers said 'it actually works like this'. because people know when you are making an assumption and labeling it as an assumption, that you know it's just an assumption and are willing for someone to correct that assumption.

[reimesu]

@meg Actually, that wasn't tone-policing. I believe the rhetoric style is mirroring, but there's probably another name for it that I can't remember just now. Tone policing "is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion." Which is not what I was doing when I suggested that @krmbm ask the question. (In fact, part of what I was doing was backing up my earlier comments about clear communication.)

The question was asked, and the appropriate person answered the question with the information I didn't have.

But thanks for thinking I need correction and assuming I'm stupid, while using a phrase incorrectly and missing all of my points. Again.

[Derp]

@farfalla

An excellent point. Playing favorites for your favorites is an excellent way to build trust with your favorites and lose it with everyone else.

But I mean who cares, right?

Jesus.

[krmbm]

@farfalla said in GMs and Players:

If you don't, the person being stalked will leave, so you're choosing to have the stalker on your game over the player who was already there being unproblematic. Have fun with that, I guess!

This is exactly what happened on GH. Sutton quit. Ruiz stuck around.

@Derp must have had different experiences.

[bear_necessities]

@derp Exactly how is removing a stalker from your game 'playing favorites'????????

[farfalla]

@derp I mean literally, who cares? Why does it matter if someone thinks your little internet game isn't fair to random new players?

[Derp]

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

@derp Exactly how is removing a stalker from your game 'playing favorites'????????

Because I have nothing but your word that the person is a stalker, in most instances. I don't even know that this person is who you think they are. You just said that Tom, who just logged on, is secretly BronlyLover2014, the guy that's been following you around all these games.

Uh. Ok? I mean, how do you know that Tom is BronyLover2014? How do I know that the relationship between yourself and BronyLover2014 is what you're claiming it is? Why am I even getting involved in the relationship between you and Tom-supposedly-Brony when as far as I can tell he hasn't said word one to you?

I'm supposed to prioritize your opinion because you are an existing player on the game even though I probably don't know you from Adam. Just like I don't know Tom.

That's literally giving an existing player an advantage based merely on the fact that they exist prior to Tom, and no other criteria.

If you don't think that's playing favorites, then -- I don't know what to tell you. if some people give you that, cool. But that's not how I roll.

[3543thrh67]

@derp This is one of those situations where those questions I suggest asking comes in handy because it encourages a person to show their proof of the actions.