Nepotism versus restricted concepts

[Apos]

@Derp said:

@mietze said:

Yeah, I do think that a game staff that purposefully always will choose personal friends over new-to-them talent that meets the same qualifications for the position probably should be explicit about that.

But then we circle back around to "How do you know who meets the qualifications?" Through experience, of course. If it were as simple as ask-and-answer, then there would be no need to restrict the concepts in the first place. If you would trust anyone off the street to run them, they'd be open to everyone, which would negate needing qualifications in the first place.

I'm confused. Don't you do in depth applications where you have people explicitly write why they'd want such a concept, what they'd do with it, what kind of roleplay they'd create, how it would improve the game, etc? I mean, I thought that was standard. If you have that, then you just read the application, and if someone knocks it out of the park with their answers and understanding of it, then they are qualified. I mean, it IS as simple as ask-and-answer. I approved strangers and brand new players more often than not for extremely powerful/restricted things because they had wonderful apps and it worked fine because it was obvious they had a strong understanding of what the character/position/whatever demanded. I honestly can't recall a situation of it backfiring.

I see experience as helpful in knowing someone likely won't flake out but I really don't think it's all that important comparatively if you just ask the right questions.

[Derp]

@Apos said:

Don't you do in depth applications where you have people explicitly write why they'd want such a concept, what they'd do with it, what kind of roleplay they'd create, how it would improve the game, etc?

Sure, that's one way that you could do it, depending on what's being apped for. There are certainly some things that I would trust an application like that for. But for all things? Probably not. Even those applications are just a way of gaining familiarity, and for the things I think are really important I would probably still prefer to see how things play out over time with a specific person than trust a one-off application. It's relatively easy to tailor charming answers to questions that would impress someone in the moment, and then go right back and get your crazy on. But keeping up a consistent pattern of admirable behavior over time takes a lot more dedication which few people are willing to fake for relatively little payoff.

Every method has its advantages and its flaws. Some are better suited to certain circumstances and play styles than others. I'm not saying that my way is the end-all, be-all method by which everything should be done. I just think that it's silly that people get upset about a practice that's intended to make a game better by requiring those who wish to play important roles to prove to the decision-maker that they're capable of playing over an extended period in a way that conforms to the vision of the game.

Editing to Add: In case it's not clear, I am not currently engaged in anything like this. There are no concepts that I can approve that are restricted in any way. The only restricted things I deal with are plot/NPC concepts, which are much looser as they are short term and temporary. This is simply my hypothetical ideal. I mentioned that before, I think, but I think it got a bit lost somewhere, because people seem to think that this is what I'm actually doing.

[mietze]

I might choose a friend, I might choose a stranger. What I look for is someone willing and able to do the job, and someone who fits in with the atmosphere/culture. Being a friend doesn't put anyone on my short list. It allows me to know their skill set, but it also presents a problem of blinders (which is why I ask for a second opinion or other staffers' experiences of them).

I have had too many instances of seeing someone primarily in one context, and not listening to others saying "yes, they are nice, but are they good for /this/?"

We are not going to see eye to eye on this, Derp. I think that even a good friend can fuck up and fuck up bad, so no matter what there should be expectations/removal procedures and one should never, ever hire someone they'd be reluctant to fire. Friend to friend and staffer to staffer and situation to situation that may mean that it's not a good idea--without it being the case that the friend is a shit. (Or the staffer for that matter).

I know many people I love that I wouldn't hand keys to, and there are relative strangers that I have (the cleaning service people, repair people, a pet sitter). The only person that has ever attacked me or stolen from me, the only person I've ever had to call the cops on, that was someone intimately trusted.

But that's real life, not a game. It's easier to remove people in game. It's (let's hope) less complicated to choose folks that really seem to get what it is that you're seeking for your game. I have a circle of people I enjoy in the hobby, that I'll always make time for, because I adore them. However, I think it improves things to get new blood in there too. Player or staffer.

This isn't a case of me thinking the only way is my way--I would choose something different than you. So? I can see why a friend could be a good choice, I just think one risks the echo chamber if that's made the rule with no external gutchecks. I'm sorry you don't see my point of view, but perhaps it's just a you get it or you don't sort of thing.

[OrcRiot]

Is this thread still a thing?

A couple people think it's a good idea, most of us think it's a terrible idea and the reasonings behind it (It's a play! Theater! I'm a director and my word is law!!! Or the I trust my friends and know them better than random peoples!) are terrible and the other side think they're reasonable and in the right.

Reading this, nobody is being convinced of anything.

[surreality]

@mietze said:

I have had too many instances of seeing someone primarily in one context, and not listening to others saying "yes, they are nice, but are they good for /this/?"

This pretty much sums up my take on this.

Bear in mind, if I know someone is qualified for something and it's in their interest range, I may approach them about it -- but that tends to be when it involves, uh, work. (See other thread for an example. ~cough~)

PC slots... nnngh. Though I could see myself approaching someone I know who has the responsibility to check in as needed, not overstep any set restrictions noted, and can play the ever living crap out of a certain type in a way that people enjoy to pitch in on a temporary NPC ally or antagonist/etc. The temporary part is pretty relevant, there, too. We generally let anybody create NPCs like this for plots as players with staff approval most places; while this isn't exactly the same thing, it's a delegation and workload handler and sanity saver, basically asking someone who isn't going to abuse what they know/etc. to help pitch in on a staff plot they aren't involved in on their PCs.

I'm pretty broad on this one, admittedly -- since while there are some things I'd want to poke someone I know would be perfect for it about, I'm not above putting out a random call for "there's a staff plot for X group; I need me some NPCs to disseminate info/stir up trouble/be seen in public/nose around for info from PCs/get dirt on characters in faction X IC/whatever" so people who wouldn't normally have the chance to participate in a certain plot on their own characters can still be involved in a different way and have stuff to do that could be fun for everybody.

[Arkandel]

@DnvnQuinn said:

Is this thread still a thing?

You posted on it, thus perpetuating its thingness.

A couple people think it's a good idea, most of us think it's a terrible idea and the reasonings behind it (It's a play! Theater! I'm a director and my word is law!!! Or the I trust my friends and know them better than random peoples!) are terrible and the other side think they're reasonable and in the right.

So what you are saying is that you represent the majority and those who think this terrible idea is anything but terrible are deluded and only think they're in the right.

Do you have arguments to support these assertions?

Reading this, nobody is being convinced of anything.

Welcome to MSB.

[TNP]

@Arkandel said:

Welcome to MSB.

Welcome to the internet.

[Ganymede]

@mietze said:

It is a little head scratching to me that it's to be celebrated and commended to state up front that you'll only pick people you know and like for the most important roles on your game, but you are a horrible awful excuse for a game runner if you pick staff for your game who are willing to cede those roles to people who aren't staff.

Hold a second. I never said that I would only pick people I know and like for important roles. I said I would likely prefer them. Although somewhat unlikely, if I found myself having to put hats on people on a game where I knew no one without passing familiarity, I will make judgment choices as best I can. Sometimes, no one wants to take up a role in your play (I mean, who really enjoys Troilus and Cressida?).

The problem that many have regarding the "no featured role for staff" rule is that it prejudges. Regardless of how wise one might think the policy to be, it is clearly calculated to head off problems before they occur -- yet, that presumes that problems will occur. It raises all sorts of issues better expressed in Dick's Minority Report.

Most people prefer a rule where people are granted or denied certain privileges based on some evaluation of merit and/or character. And I find that reasonable. I also understand why one would set a hard-and-fast rule, and they are also reasonable. Myself, I know what I'd prefer.

@Apos

Don't you do in depth applications where you have people explicitly write why they'd want such a concept, what they'd do with it, what kind of roleplay they'd create, how it would improve the game, etc?

Fuck no. That's a whole separate thread, though.

[Sunny]

@DnvnQuinn said:

Is this thread still a thing?

A couple people think it's a good idea, most of us think it's a terrible idea and the reasonings behind it (It's a play! Theater! I'm a director and my word is law!!! Or the I trust my friends and know them better than random peoples!) are terrible and the other side think they're reasonable and in the right.

Reading this, nobody is being convinced of anything.

Psst. You can actually hit 'mark all read' if you aren't interested. I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone, it's just being discussed as it's an interesting discussion involving a lot of very intelligent people.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said:

Hold a second. I never said that I would only pick people I know and like for important roles. I said I would likely prefer them.

Speaking of fairness though, it's also a great deal more honest for staff to hand-pick people they think will do an important position justice than to open it to 'everyone' and only pick the ones they wish anyway.

If you need someone to play an Elder in your sphere then the call for who it will be is made by staff. Let's take a quick look through them to examine which the saner option from this list is (and please, if anyone has alternatives feel free to add them):

• Pick the best player from those applying, in your opinion.
• Exclude good players you know because you happen to know them, thus penalizing them for it.
• Randomize the selection. Roll the dice!
• Don't have an Elder at all.
• Have Elders played by staff.

The second and third options are silly. The forth penalizes the whole game in the name of fairness, which I think is a poor trade-off.

The last option has been used on some games. And yet on those the number complaints aren't eliminated, they are simply different ones. After all staff are often too busy to play with any consistency and the character's player is still being hand-picked, only instead of a 'staff friend' it's being given out to 'staff'. Just how that a significant improvement nepotism-wise is beyond me.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel

Did you see what I wrote back there about restricted concepts? That also applies to Tier PCs. I don't like the concept, and would never implement them in my sphere. If I were forced to do so, and presuming that I don't outright quit because of such stupidity, then I would not hand-pick the player, and I would ask people generally if he/she/it would like to play that elder. From the list of people who show interest, I would pick the person I felt would be the best choice based on the surrounding circumstances.

What the hell does that mean? It means that I would try to consider all the angles. What if all of the players that would be good for the role did not want it? What if they already had positions of importance that I need to keep filled? What if the only person applying for the role were someone I barely had any experience with, but gets high commendations from others, including those I know well? Is the sphere such that I could find a "friend" from elseMU* to drop in? Is that a bad idea? Etc.

Of your five options, option 4 is my go-to. If that's not a choice, option 5: elder NPCs. Otherwise, look at the totality of the circumstances.

[ThatGuyThere]

Of your five options, option 4 is my go-to. If that's not a choice, option 5: elder NPCs. Otherwise, look at the totality of the circumstances.

I am in complete agreement with Gany here, unless it is a game where everyone is playing an elder which I think would be an awesome small game until the sure to be inevitable drama-splosion. The stories should be about the PCs. Maybe it is my tabletop roots showing but for the most part elders tend to be more forces of nature and there to kick off the story provide occasional nudges of direction as needed, not to be the focus.
Even in the Whitewolf novels the focus of the action is not on Elder level characters, they might be doing the big things behind the scenes but that is where they fit best behind the scenes.
What story purpose elders serve can easily be filled by NPCing them.
While that is not foolproof; I am sure we can all point to examples of Staff playing an NPC as a de facto PCs.

[bored]

@Arkandel said:

• Pick the best player from those applying, in your opinion.
• Exclude good players you know because you happen to know them, thus penalizing them for it.
• Randomize the selection. Roll the dice!
• Don't have an Elder at all.
• Have Elders played by staff.

You missed "let everyone play elders if you want elder rp". That or 4 are my preferences.

If you really need them as NPCs in the background, 5 is OK, but this is really a fine line and many staffers will just try and use the NPCs as personal PCs or ignore them. But that gets into the whole 'don't hire shitty staff' (and perhaps more important, 'actually fire your friends when they turn out to be shitty staff') thing.

[Arkandel]

@bored said:

But that gets into the whole 'don't hire shitty staff' (and perhaps more important, 'actually fire your friends when they turn out to be shitty staff') thing.

Sure, but what is the point of having good ('not shitty') staff if you can't trust them to make decisions like that without accusing them of favoritism?

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said:

@bored said:

But that gets into the whole 'don't hire shitty staff' (and perhaps more important, 'actually fire your friends when they turn out to be shitty staff') thing.

Sure, but what is the point of having good ('not shitty') staff if you can't trust them to make decisions like that without accusing them of favoritism?

Presuming that the friends are objectively shitty and I had authority over the good staffer at issue, I would simply step in and fire his or her friend(s). If the good staffer objects, they can either resign as well or continue to staff.

It sucks being a boss at times, but reasonable decisions need to be made. Again, this presumes that the person-to-be-fired is objectively shitty.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said:

@bored said:
But that gets into the whole 'don't hire shitty staff' (and perhaps more important, 'actually fire your friends when they turn out to be shitty staff') thing.

Presuming that the friends are objectively shitty and I had authority over the good staffer at issue, I would simply step in and fire his or her friend(s).

Although the cases do exist when someone exhibits overwhelmingly shitty behavior they are somewhat rare unless things have been allowed to spiral completely out of control.

An issue here is that 'shitty' often translates to "I don't like them" or even "I should have had what they got". So in a game where there are multiple groups and no one enjoys universal support - a very common scenario - there won't be a smoking gun, and thus it all comes down either to who you listen to or who you care to displease the least.

Neither of those factors is desirable as a benchmark for players' value since at that point the criteria - by definition - are political rather than objective.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said:

An issue here is that 'shitty' often translates to "I don't like them" or even "I should have had what they got". So in a game where there are multiple groups and no one enjoys universal support - a very common scenario - there won't be a smoking gun, and thus it all comes down either to who you listen to or who you care to displease the least.

Mostly, you're attacking a presumption. I'm not sure why, but, here we are.

I recognize that it is very rare that a staffer is objectively bad for a game. And I recognize that, in general, your average complaint is something comparable to the above.

Taking all previous comments made into consideration, you can avoid one of your two vocalized complaints by not limiting certain statistics to a handful of players. Everyone can get everything, as long as it is consistent with the rules and policies. Nothing should only be obtainable by application, unless it's some sort of position hat.

Regarding the other, if you let your staffers boot people that they can't work with, you sort of solve that issue. If the complaining player is causing problems, let sphere staff handle it. If the sphere devolves into some shitfest, step in and take control, if you have authority to do so. Sometimes, the best staffers get a hold of spheres full of toxic people, get overwhelmed, and cannot get the situation unwound.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said:

Sometimes, the best staffers get a hold of spheres full of toxic people, get overwhelmed, and cannot get the situation unwound.

My experience is this is the product of higher-up staff handling the responsibility of running a sphere to someone but not the authority to sphere make changes there.

So they are essentially allowed just enough leeway to get in, spot the issues then summarily become frustrated enough to burn out or resign. Then the circle perpetuates.

[mietze]

I think someone can not be a good fit for a role on a game, staff or power PC spot, without being "shitty". Some of the hardest conversations I've had to have revolved around someone who was not a bad person, but they were a horrific fit for the job once in place, and it compounded over time as people didn't want to deal with it. Because that person was not a bad person, they just could not carry what they needed to carry and the whole was starting to suffer as a result.

That conversation is hard enough to have with a nice acquaintance. I have very rarely met people who are willing to have it with friends, until the destruction reaches a huge level. What tends to happen is that when concerns are raised, they are ignored or the concern raiser is penalized (especially if they are the acquaintance alerting the staff to ab problem with the friend). And it's an understandable reaction from staff, IMO, because not only is the staff's judgement being challenged, it's a friend that's being talked about as well. Many people don't handle that real well, at first blush.

Again, that is why for me I prefer to have 3rd party gut checks when placing friends. I am lucky nearly all the places that I have staffed, to have at least one person who I know will tell me about pitfalls they see and will tell me if they think I have my head up my ass. That's been super valuable for when I have given someone a chance (friends or not) and it doesn't work out.

Just because someone is a good person/excellent rper, ect does not mean they'll be a good fit for a position. Even if they've done something similar elsewhere. You make the best choice you can, sometimes you have to walk it back. Since that is harder most of the time with friends, to me it's common sense to be a little more careful...and to always have an exit plan, friend or acquaintance.

[Misadventure]

Change your requirements to "has strong performance in the specific areas desired for this position". It is perfectly okay to tell a nice person, who writes up their actions, does +jobs, is easy to get along with, and who does nice small scenes that the position needs someone who is strong with large public scenes, or strong with creating and maintaining antagonism between minion factions. Same with Staff. You can be good at many parts, but not strong at a specific aspect of a given role.

For example I like to think I am good at reviewing rules, doing +jobs once I am set up with notes etc (shush Arkandel), have decent ethics, and patience to explain things to players, and a willingness to deal with unpleasant tasks. However I am not strong at playing NPCs to generate long term RP. I would be a terrible choice for a ST or head ST position.

I suspect that part of the issue is that sometimes it's this person, or nothing. That lends strength to the whole inexperience and concern about telling someone that is otherwise a decent person to work with that you need someone who excels in an area, not just can limp along.