Transparency

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said:

You always need the right staff. How do you plan on recruiting them? With good systems. I would posit that if this system were implemented, you'd have good staffers lining up at your door. Why? Because the system protects good staffers by showing the players that, indeed, nothing nefarious is going on behind closed doors.

Good people create good systems, not the other way around. Quality Head Staff would (pretty much by definition) both hire and attract decent people to man positions.

But try to implement an otherwise perfectly reasonable system to staff where a bad culture has been allowed to spread and you'll get relatively little out of it.

[Thenomain]

@Chime said:

@Thenomain said:

The thought that players won't approach staff because they don't want to be outed undermines it. People should feel safe from retribution for their concerns.

While I'm sympathetic to people that are in an awkward situation, don't want to ruffle feathers, and/or need to remain pseudonymous for whatever reason, this is fundamentally incompatible with any sort of justice.

I have managed to do this in the past. "I heard you're doing x. Please stop doing that." The player could make some guesses, but in those cases, I am the ombudsman, I am the gateway for this information. Is it perfect? No, but then we are not seeking out a perfect system.

@Ganymede said:

You always need the right staff. How do you plan on recruiting them? With good systems. I would posit that if this system were implemented, you'd have good staffers lining up at your door. Why? Because the system protects good staffers by showing the players that, indeed, nothing nefarious is going on behind closed doors.

As a system that protects the staffers, yeah, it's fine. What it doesn't do is protect the players. I am worried, and not a little bit, that your reaction to this is, "That's their problem."

I halfheartedly gave you an example before, so let me tell of the situation:

A player on Reach was obviously stalking players. I heard about this second-hand and the players would not come forward, even with the promise of anonymity. Therefore, I could not provide evidence. Therefore, if I pressed it, I would have to rely upon my reputation, yet this person very desperately needed removed from the game.

I will beat the dead horse of VASpider: There's someone who needs removed even though the evidence is more ongoing and circumstantial.

You and I are stressing different parts of the same system, so I suspect you're not understanding my concerns. If I can't express these then c'est la vie, but I don't see you focusing on the game, but trusting a system that even I could game, trusting that it will attract "the right people", though I see no evidence of this.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain

I understand your concern, but you are asking for answers without a question. That is, you haven't asked an actual question; you have only made statements. I therefore can only presume your question, which makes it difficult for me to pinpoint the response you seek or communicate directly.

I believe your question is: how does the "justice" system protect players from the consequences of their complaints? The only fair and honest answer is: it doesn't. The follow-up is: it isn't calculated to do that. The next follow-up is: that's not its purpose. My admonition therefore is: what protects the players from the backlash is the responses and decisions of staff regarding the complaint.

I have been in a similar situation, which occurred on Victorian Reverie. I never saw the conduct complained of, but only heard, second-hand, that the behavior was driving players away. I directly confronted the accused, who did not deny the behavior, and her reaction to my questioning led me to conclude that she was not a good fit for the game and that the allegations, though second-hand, were true. I removed her from the game, and the players that had been driven away returned.

Apply this to the system: the complainant alleges the accused is stalking other players. Upon learning of this, staff makes inquiries of the accused, whose reaction to the questions leads them to believe that the allegations are true. If the staff is satisfied that action should be taken, then it should be taken. The only evidence necessary is your word and your belief.

Some may cry out: "this is unjust!" Yet I have specifically declined from truly considering the system "just." This is because justice isn't the point of the system; transparency is. While it is admirable to cling to precepts of fair and substantial justice on a game, the fact is that a game is not a nation and staff is not the government. Staff is, at best, like a corporation's board of directors: it has a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation, and can act without regard to "due process."

Staff needs to stop resorting to those notions if it hopes to be effective. Instead, "due process" when dealing with complaints ought to be discarded in practice in deference to "doing what is right." And what is "right" ought not be more than what one's experience and knowledge informs them of.

What transparency demands is an explanation for that action. If your action is justified in your mind, state so. The people may criticize your decision, but no decision will ever escape some scrutiny. And the people should appreciate that you are willing to take responsibility for the choice, rather than hide behind a curtain of confidentiality to "protect" those involved.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede,

I already asked my question several posts back: What problem are you trying to solve? You answered it. I responded that I don't think it's a good system for other issues. I have no questions for you at this point; I am trying my best to illustrate to you (at your asking) where I see the system failing. It does what you want it to do, but it doesn't do what I want it to do.

You, too, are making guesses whether or not it will create the kind of game you want it to. I posit that you don't have enough information here to make that kind of conclusion.

Again, I want it to work for a game, but I find it to be merely a step, not a solution. Without the right staff, even transparency will not save a game's staffers from stepping all over the players.

I can see it hastening the death-cycle of a Mu*, tho, so I suppose that's a good thing.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain

Actually, I'm not making guesses. I am fairly certain the system is a benefit. I base this off of my experiences from other games, as staff and a player, and my observations of "successful" games. It is not a panacea, but, as you said, a step. More properly, it is a stone for a foundation.

You are correct that it will hasten a death cycle if the game does not have the right staff. This is a good thing. I do not believe it will hasten the death cycle of a game with the right staff. And that's equally as important.

As you admitted, what we have now isn't working. We should try something else. The issues you've raised exist, regardless. I do not believe those would be exacerbated by the proposed system. I therefore posit to you that it is a preferable choice, and should be implemented.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede,

Only under the understanding that the system is a step, not a solution. I do not believe the system as posited will by the simplicity of its existence attract any beneficial behavior, therefore recommend caution.

I can undermine it even as staff by simply ignoring it and leaving no paper trail, giving you no way to enforce it or even know it's being undermined.

[Bennie]

@Thenomain said:

I can undermine it even as staff by simply ignoring it and leaving no paper trail, giving you no way to enforce it or even know it's being undermined.

That begs the question. If someone does not log, what do you do?

[Catsmeow]

If you don't log, you get screwed.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain

You could do that, but you won't. I know you won't because I know you well enough. You care enough about your reputation to defend it.

Anyone can undermine anything on a game. As the price of freedom is, so is the price of a good game. The players must be confident in policing one another, but I realize the goal will be difficult to attain because of years of top-down oppression.

That doesn't stop the marches in New York or Ferguson.

And, yes, the system is a step. Transparency is a part of the puzzle only. There are a lot of pieces to consider.

[Thenomain]

@Bennie said:

@Thenomain said:

I can undermine it even as staff by simply ignoring it and leaving no paper trail, giving you no way to enforce it or even know it's being undermined.

That begs the question. If someone does not log, what do you do?

You trust your instincts, you ask probing questions, you watch the responses. I engage in something I call Follow The Rumors. I ask someone, "I heard that you mentioned this; where did this come from?" Once I hit the end of the chain, I know that I'm at the actual source and end up far better informed along the way.

Part of my argument was using an overly literal and somewhat pedantic mindset, because this is a mindset that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Someone will use the "but! but!" argument against you.

It helps that I am easily baffled by the events of "Josie Did X Because Self-Defense Against Natalie Doing Y, Therefore Z Is Allowed". I counter by being immune to it as an excuse. It has done me fairly well, and when allowed to proceed like this I'm generally in a close vicinity to fixing the problem. That is, I have a pretty damn good idea what the over-arching problem is.

(After that, it's blue and red lasers for everyone.)

I'd do well under @Ganymede's system, because I have no interest in being manipulative, and every interest to try and get everyone to trust one another. To answer my own concerns with his plans, don't hire manipulative staffers, those with agendas that conflict with garnering trust and interest from a the general player base.

[Chime]

@Catsmeow said:

If you don't log, you get screwed.

Player logs are ultimately meaningless and easily forged. There are various ways to do server-side logging to line checksums or the like, but people either think it's some spy game or too complicated.

But yes-- it's essential to keep your own logs independent of what the server has.

[Coin]

@Chime said:

@Catsmeow said:

If you don't log, you get screwed.

Player logs are ultimately meaningless and easily forged. There are various ways to do server-side logging to line checksums or the like, but people either think it's some spy game or too complicated.

But yes-- it's essential to keep your own logs independent of what the server has.

I've never understood the over-reliance on logs-as-proof, myself. It's foolhardy and stupid to think that someone being accused of something bad (if guilty) wouldn't be willing and able to forge or edit some log to further their own goals or whatever.

[Arkandel]

@Coin said:

@Chime said:

@Catsmeow said:

If you don't log, you get screwed.

Player logs are ultimately meaningless and easily forged. There are various ways to do server-side logging to line checksums or the like, but people either think it's some spy game or too complicated.

But yes-- it's essential to keep your own logs independent of what the server has.

I've never understood the over-reliance on logs-as-proof, myself. It's foolhardy and stupid to think that someone being accused of something bad (if guilty) wouldn't be willing and able to forge or edit some log to further their own goals or whatever.

I always thought of the need to log everything as a supreme sign the game is taking a turn into a very, very bad direction. If you feel compelled to constantly keep logs of your conversations then you should consider leaving and not looking back.

[Coin]

@Arkandel

In general, though, this isn't a "game" thing, but a "person" thing. I know a lot of people who auto-log. It's ingrained into the way they operate now. @2mspris, @HelloRaptor, and @EmmahSue among others are people I know pretty much log everything, and it's not necessarily out of paranoia for having proof of anything; often it's so as to have a reliable source of information for things that happened and memory fails to recall.

[Ganymede]

@Bennie

Thenomain hit the nail on the head well, but I'd like to add further thoughts.

Presuming they have not been doctored, logs are excellent proof of what was said. However, if there is no argument that something was said that caused a negative reaction, then what was said is immaterial.

I used to think that evidence was necessary to make a decision. I used to think that staff should act as a judge would. I was wrong.

Staff should act like a bouncer at a bar would, unconstrained by notions of due process. Figure out who's telling the truth to the best of your ability, and take action. If you make a mistake, you make a mistake and own up to it. Just do yourself a favor and make a considered, reasonable decision.

[2mspris]

@Coin said:

@2mspris, @HelloRaptor, and @EmmahSue among others are people I know pretty much log everything, and it's not necessarily out of paranoia for having proof of anything; often it's so as to have a reliable source of information for things that happened and memory fails to recall.

I can confirm, I do. I'll readily admit it started out as covering my ass because of less than ethical staffers and conflicts with other players that after repeated attempts to resolve on my own kept coming back and I wanted to keep a track record of it. But it has, since then, turned into just the easiest way to keep track of things and have a record of information that either other people expect me to know or that I want to know either for personal history/fun or my own organizational need.

[Salty Secrets]

This post is deleted!

[Coin]

I think everyone has a right to privacy, but when you're staff, you need to accept that you have authority, and that means a level of transparency in your identity on the game. So while I don't expect being able to keep my alt list private while I'm a staffer on a MU*, I do expect people not to be like, "Oh, he's <real name>!" to everyone. Of course, it's pointless, most people don't know me by name, they know my alt list. "It's such-and-such from The Reach" is just as identifying as my real name within this context.

[Arkandel]

I'll go one step further: Alt anonymity is almost impossible unless you take extreme steps to ensure it as long as someone cares to figure out who your alts are.

Someone will out you from staff or people you've told. You might inadvertently out yourself, too, by leaving traces through who-list or wiki stalking, a recognizable posing style, etc.

[Coin]

The only time it's okay to keep alts actively a secret from your friends is when you're punking them. At least, for me, anyway.

I have a friend who likes to secret herself away for the lulz and wait for someone to finally recognize her (which sometimes we do, sometimes we don't). I totally got her back one time. It was great.