In my experience most staff aren't corrupt, they just don't want any part of this. Whatever this is. They'll just ask people to jump through any number of hoops sufficient to make them give up and go away before they're forced to take sides.
@VulgarKitten said:
Also, even when there are logs pretty clearly showing one thing was said, and another thing was done? It's all dependent on a non-corrupt staff to care, which, of course, doesn't always happen.
Or know. Sometimes even looking into an issue you are not assigned is considered a serious breach of ethics -- so damned if you do, damned if you don't. You're also assuming they will have the authority to do something about it, which is not something that should be assumed pretty much ever.
@Arkandel said:
In my experience most staff aren't corrupt, they just don't want any part of this. Whatever this is. They'll just ask people to jump through any number of hoops sufficient to make them give up and go away before they're forced to take sides.
And if you do make a decision, that's precisely how it is perceived: as taking sides. Not making a call, not even 'reacting to the glaringly obvious breach of policy' when such is actually the case -- but taking sides. Which is not really a good thing, and generally it's assumed you're corrupt the moment you make a call, since one or the other of those sides is the one decided against.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality said:
And if you do make a decision, that's precisely how it is perceived: as taking sides. Not making a call, not even 'reacting to the glaringly obvious breach of policy' when such is actually the case -- but taking sides. Which is not really a good thing, and generally it's assumed you're corrupt the moment you make a call, since one or the other of those sides is the one decided against.
Although you are correct and I agree, one of the things I am most peeved about in any kind of making calls are staff is that all sides to an OOC conflict in need of resolution are necessarily equal to blame for that. And the reason for it is that, although in principle it doesn't sound so bad, in practice our hobby is sometimes frequented by some toxic individuals unable to cope with even lax social norms if they don't conform to their wishes.
So ultimately there are situations where one party is grossly mistreated by the other but staff, doing their best to appear impartial, try to push things into a state where everyone is equally unhappy; again, a noble sentiment on paper, but one where folks who lucked into having to deal with some truly batshit crazy players are put in the same basket as them and are portrayed as being partially their own damn fault.
It's not only bad staff who're responsible for this. In fact some of the best people I've met in MU* have done this. Not wanting to take sides is a very, very powerful factor in decision making.
@Arkandel said:
@surreality said:
And if you do make a decision, that's precisely how it is perceived: as taking sides. Not making a call, not even 'reacting to the glaringly obvious breach of policy' when such is actually the case -- but taking sides. Which is not really a good thing, and generally it's assumed you're corrupt the moment you make a call, since one or the other of those sides is the one decided against.
Although you are correct and I agree, one of the things I am most peeved about in any kind of making calls are staff is that all sides to an OOC conflict in need of resolution are necessarily equal to blame for that. And the reason for it is that, although in principle it doesn't sound so bad, in practice our hobby is sometimes frequented by some toxic individuals unable to cope with even lax social norms if they don't conform to their wishes.
So ultimately there are situations where one party is grossly mistreated by the other but staff, doing their best to appear impartial, try to push things into a state where everyone is equally unhappy; again, a noble sentiment on paper, but one where folks who lucked into having to deal with some truly batshit crazy players are put in the same basket as them and are portrayed as being partially their own damn fault.
It's not only bad staff who're responsible for this. In fact some of the best people I've met in MU* have done this. Not wanting to take sides is a very, very powerful factor in decision making.
You don't even have to be batshit crazy for this to happen.
I've had otherwise sane people quit and take their toys or stomp off in a crazy huff or throw tantrums because I made a decision they didn't agree with, even if it was my decision to make.
It's also an issue that there really are some folks who feel they can do whatever they damn well please, and you are obviously corrupt if you have an issue with it -- or are just that person who so much as says 'no' to even the most over the top request. There are others who will deliberately ramp up their crazy higher and higher and get increasingly nasty to bully their way through to what they want, all the while crying victim to anyone who will listen, and then explode into finger-pointing "I TOLD YOU THEY WERE OUT TO GET ME!"s the moment staff does take action because they've gone too far one too many times. (That's no reason for staff to not take action, mind; it's just a really quick way to get to that 'corrupt' label in the eyes of anyone who buys the bullshit victim routine that some people are quite good at.)
The 'staff are corrupt' battle cry is a bit overplayed. The people who are actually corrupt are fairly blatantly so. There's a grey area of middle ground in there in which people screw up by not properly thinking things through, and a lot of people fall into this category even if they're otherwise entirely ethical. Acting like staffers with ethics are rare as unicorns on the hoof is pretty amazingly ridiculous, which is absolutely how @VulgarKitten's post comes across, especially in how... myopic it is in regard to how most MU* staff corps actually function.
Oh fucking well.
@Coin Well, there are two ways to look at this part.
One is that ultimately that's how every game works; the game-runner says 'this is how it'll be' and players get to determine for themselves if they can live with it or not. For example (as you know!) I disagreed with you heavily and argued against Renown justifications big time when Eldritch was about to open. Once the decision was actually made into policy you haven't heard a peep about it; I dislike it no less but the alternative to it would be to keep bitching about it which isn't conductive to anyone's fun.
The other is that people don't need to agree with each other before they can work together. I considered my collaboration on TR when @EmmahSue was my go-to higher up for Geist-related stuff one of the better ones I've had, and she probably said 'no' to me at least half the time. 'No' isn't a horrible bad word.
@Arkandel said:
It's not only bad staff who're responsible for this. In fact some of the best people I've met in MU* have done this. Not wanting to take sides is a very, very powerful factor in decision making.
Good staff consider all available facts, but the decision ought to come down to: "who would I want to deal with on a regular basis?"
In fact, if the scope would be narrowed down to this, I'll bet staff would make better decisions. Siding with the inculcating harpy, even if she is correct, is the road to perdition.
@Usekh said:
I auto-log because after everything during the last few years my memory sucks. I also have to take notes on things too
I have three years worth of logs. Everything is logged automatically. Of course I rarely go back into the logs. I've found it useful to go back and find scene poses that got paused, look at old logs at old RP fondly, etc.
I'm not even sure what some of these are any more -- What on earth was 'fab'? I'm sure I didn't have a character named 'fab'. I wonder what on earth that world was.
Sounds like we're over it. 
@Ganymede said:
@Arkandel said:
Good staff consider all available facts, but the decision ought to come down to: "who would I want to deal with on a regular basis?"
That's a spectacularly bad policy.
For starters some really iffy players are very nice to staff because of this very reason. That doesn't mean such exchanges encapsulate (or are even representative of) their overall general behavior.
For another even genuinely pleasant people can still screw up. If, for instance, player A comes to complain that player B used OOC information against them and it's demonstrated player B had no way of obtaining such information IC then the matter should be remedied in favor of player A; not only could the fact the other party sounds irritable (and thus is less fun to interact with at the moment) be attributed to them having to go to staff for a legitimate issue through no fault of their own but also what's the point of even listening to facts if we decided cases based on who we like the most?
@VulgarKitten said:
Also, even when there are logs pretty clearly showing one thing was said, and another thing was done? It's all dependent on a non-corrupt staff to care, which, of course, doesn't always happen.
How does this relate to anything to do with logs? I mean, everything is dependent on a non-corrupt staff. If your starting point is corrupt staff, you're already in a shit place.
@surreality said:
Acting like staffers with ethics are rare as unicorns on the hoof is pretty amazingly ridiculous, which is absolutely how @VulgarKitten's post comes across, especially in how... myopic it is in regard to how most MU* staff corps actually function.
So wait. I'm sorry. I think I just hallucinated. My post that says "which, of course, doesn't always happen." comes across like staffers with ethics are rare as unicorns on the hoof? Sounds to me like you're viewing this through a certain lens. A lens named 'I'm probably guilty of this so I'm going to react strongly right now'.
@HelloRaptor said:
How does this relate to anything to do with logs? I mean, everything is dependent on a non-corrupt staff. If your starting point is corrupt staff, you're already in a shit place.
We were talking (at some point) about how ineffective logs can be. This was an example. Uh. Duh. 
So it relies on staff to care. Go on.
@VulgarKitten
We were talking (at some point) about how ineffective logs can be. This was an example. Uh. Duh.
I don't... What? I don't think you understand how... This is crazy. What?
That's like commenting on a discussion of whether or not eyewitness testimony is reliable by commenting about how it won't be if someone is paying off the Judge to overturn an unfavorable ruling. Like, at that point absolutely nothing is effective, so why even bring it up as if the one might be related to the other?
In other news, seatbelts really aren't effective safety devices if your car is hit by a missile. In case anybody wondered.
@Arkandel said:
... what's the point of even listening to facts if we decided cases based on who we like the most?
Only the truly delusional ever think they are listening to facts when people give their side of the story.
You're listening to a story. You -- the person authorized to handle the situation -- determine what is fact and what is not. All issues of credibility flow through you.
I'm cutting to the quick. There's no precedent or law to be followed here. No real reason to ask for evidence beyond "what's your side of the story?" Mediate if you can. Negotiate if you have to. At the end of the day, pick the person you'd rather deal with on a daily basis because, as arbitrary and capricious as that is, it's no less arbitrary and capricious than any other decision you will make to resolve the situation.
Do not inculcate yourself to believe you are doing justice. You are merely making a choice based on what you've been told, or what you've witnessed.
@Ganymede said:
Only the truly delusional ever think they are listening to facts when people give their side of the story.
I'm an engineer. You are a lawyer. One of us places more faith in facts than the other. 
Mediate if you can. Negotiate if you have to. At the end of the day, pick the person you'd rather deal with on a daily basis because, as arbitrary and capricious as that is, it's no less arbitrary and capricious than any other decision you will make to resolve the situation.
So from my side it's quite obvious what happened should be a primary factor in decision-making rather than whether I like some people more than others - which is only different to 'who I'd rather deal with on a daily basis' in terms of semantics, if that.
The example I gave is applicable here. If player B has no robust answer to "hey, so how did you find out about <IC event>" then regardless of how much I like them I'd rule against them. It doesn't, and more importantly it shouldn't - matter whether they are great people or not; everyone makes mistakes, maybe they saw something on a wiki and made a bad assumption without thinking about it. They don't need to be sitebanned or flayed, but the situation would need to be remedied and it wouldn't be in their favor.
Doing anything else is showing favoritism. Yes, it's impossible to avoid bias but systematizing it is a pretty bad idea.
@Arkandel said:
I'm an engineer. You are a lawyer. One of us places more faith in facts than the other.
I think Gany's point was that the staffer is not getting facts. They're getting a story that's being channeled by that person's point of view and biases. It might be completely true /for that person/ up to an including passing a lie detector test. That doesn't guarantee that what is being told are facts.
Right, and I disagree with that generalization. In fact I brought up a specific scenario where the staff member overseeing a situation is absolutely getting facts.
Not every case is he-said she-said.
@Arkandel said:
In fact I brought up a specific scenario where the staff member overseeing a situation is absolutely getting facts.
Then you are a witness, and can make your decision without anyone else's input.
In your example, if you have determined, by personal knowledge, that B used information obtained OOC against A, then B is a cheater. I will put up with shrieking any day over a cheater.
What I said, very clearly, was that staff ought to find in favor of the person who they'd rather deal with on a daily basis. If staff chose B in this situation, it says more about the staff than about the situation.
In my experience most staff aren't corrupt, they just don't want any part of this. Whatever this is. They'll just ask people to jump through any number of hoops sufficient to make them give up and go away before they're forced to take sides.
