Nepotism versus restricted concepts

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain said:

What if you believe something needs to be done and your superiors disagree?

They can do what is necessary to supersede my decision or alter it as I see fit. Again, I'm not proposing complete autonomy; it is unreasonable to demand that, unless I own and operate the game myself. Generally, all I ask for is an explanation for the superseding action, if taken. I'll react accordingly.

@Warma-Sheen said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

If what I've been saying is unclear, I'll try again.

If I make a decision, and have purportedly been given authority and autonomy to make that decision, then I expect those above me to support that decision unless I: (1) acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously; (2) ruled in a manner that is contrary to the printed rules or game policy; or (3) otherwise exercised power without a quantum of reasonable justification. In that case, they can justifiably take action to correct things.

The first and third parts are easy to explain; the second is not. If I judge a scene and decide to give a modifier for a roll that is questionable, that is not ruling "in a manner that is contrary" to rules; I simply exercised my discretion on the scene. If I decide to make a house rule that some players don't like, that is also not sufficient.

Ultimately, if I am to be held responsible for operating a sphere or for getting a job done, I like being allowed to get that job done and take the appropriate, reasonable steps to do so without being questioned, overruled, or harangued along the way. If I toss a person out for being a dickbag, I won't do it willy-nilly, but I certainly am going to throw a fit if you force me to let them back in.

The above is not complete autonomy. Unsurprisingly, it's a little closer to the authority that non-Supreme Courts have.

[Warma Sheen]

@Ganymede said:

If I make a decision, and have purportedly been given authority and autonomy to make that decision, then I expect those above me to support that decision unless I: (1) acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously; (2) ruled in a manner that is contrary to the printed rules or game policy; or (3) otherwise exercised power without a quantum of reasonable justification. In that case, they can justifiably take action to correct things.

I don't speak lawyerese, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you don't want your decisions challenged unless the Headstaff thinks you made the wrong decision. But that's pretty much what always happens. Anytime a decision is overturned it is usually because of one of those three things. The problem is that the overturned staffer doesn't think one of those things applies. For example, you may not think you were being arbitrary or capricious but Headstaff thinks you were.

No one is perfect and most decisions made have arguments have arguments and counter-arguments. It is sometimes difficult for us to see our own shortcomings and flaws. Sometimes it takes other people or an outside perspective to make decisions more clearly. But that's the reason not to lock in some idea of autonomy. As a staffer you should be able to trust Headstaff, any Headstaff, to correct decisions they feel necessary to run their game without some ironclad contract written up. Otherwise that just seems like it will lead to more problems down the road.

That's my theory anyway.

[Ganymede]

@Warma-Sheen said:

The problem is that the overturned staffer doesn't think one of those things applies. For example, you may not think you were being arbitrary or capricious but Headstaff thinks you were.

Since you don't speak lawyerese, I will not lecture you on how the term "arbitrary" and "capricious" have very specific meanings. That said, the standard is more than "Headstaff thinks you made a wrong decision"; it means "there is no fact or reasonable inference that can be made to support your position."

For me, it boils down to this. If you hire me as staff, you are giving me a set of expectations and a clear objective. I will follow those expectations if I am hired, and will meet that objective. But if what I do to meet that objective does not meet unsaid or irrational rules, I'm not going to follow them.

Generally, I come into games when a sphere or game needs to be re-booted or fixed-up; something happened, and the game needs serious help to get straight again. So, I'm going to make some decisions that other staff may not like, but I'm going to ultimately expect support unless I make a decision that is contrary to (printed) rules or have no basis in fact or reason. If you want someone to do your work that adheres strictly to your decisions, you need to find someone else; I can definitely do this, but I can think of eleventy-billion other things I'd rather be doing than acting like a cog.

I don't mind discussion; I encourage it. But if you want me to assume responsibility for something, I want the autonomy I described. Otherwise, you can assume responsibility, and you will probably need to look for someone else.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede said:

For me, it boils down to this. If you hire me as staff, you are giving me a set of expectations and a clear objective. I will follow those expectations if I am hired, and will meet that objective. But if what I do to meet that objective does not meet unsaid or irrational rules, I'm not going to follow them.

I sadly have to agree with Gany here - we're all volunteers, but if someone has to bear the responsibility of leading a sphere (rather than simply be a generic job monkey) they need to either be trusted to do it and thus be given a decent leeway, especially at first, or upper level staff need to be quite upfront about their expectation of having a figurehead onboard with specific limitations in mind.

I learned this the hard way many, many years ago when I was asked to lead a sphere but someone very close iRL to the owner had a vested interest in her alts; every action that could have made things easier for new characters to catch up to her was veto'ed, sometimes indirectly and using delaying tactics ("it's not the right time at the moment") or even being told the actual reason directly ("if I had to do it for my character everyone has to else it's not fair to me"). It happens.

In an ideal world people simply communicate to figure out where things stand. For example I had a pretty positive experience on TR where I never had an issue with being told 'no', but that was because asking for permission wasn't the nature or purpose of discussing things with Head Staff; it was always a brainstorming process where I brought ideas up and we worked them out. Then when interpersonal issues between players came up we all compared notes - is the guy responding badly an exception or does he have a history of it? Does this approach sound reasonable? Such back-and-forth wasn't only with HR but fellow staff as well since we were all on the same boat, and in the end I ended up having at least as many chats with Changeling or Builder staff about Geist as I did with anyone else.

Essentially it was never a lack of 'authority' which ever limited me - I was aware I could have done anything I liked - but making sure the sphere wasn't ran based on one person's views and preferences alone; if I alienated anyone who preferred a different playstyle than mine then why would they ever invest their time and creativity into it?

That's what I consider the best way to go for staffing in general though, looking at games (and all parts of them) as mutually co-opted entities where someone has to be making the decisions rather than a constant stream of my-way-or-the-highway. The resource healthy spheres run on isn't authority, it's trust. And trust has to go both ways.

[Warma Sheen]

@Arkandel said:

The resource healthy spheres run on isn't authority, it's trust. And trust has to go both ways.

I guess that's the short version of my opinion. If you need authority, just decline and save everyone all the trouble. Otherwise trust in the staff and work together to make the game work. Arkandel's examples speak to that as well. If a Headstaff is that damaging to the game, they should be left to run things herself or change their ways so that staff can work with her.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said:

The resource healthy spheres run on isn't authority, it's trust. And trust has to go both ways.

And this is the reason I pick a harder line.

Players depend on their staff to advocate for them among other staff. I did this on Haunted Memories, when it was decided that all XP requests would go through Koi. I repeatedly and expressly voiced how that decision took a great deal of decision-making authority from sphere staff, and that players are more apt to trust sphere staff, with whom they interact more, than general administrative staff. I cited the decision as one of the primary reasons I stepped away from that game.

If I can say confidently that my decisions will stand, then players can trust that I mean what I say, and that they can depend on what I tell them. If a head staffer can immediately by fiat overrule my decisions, then what I tell my players cannot be depended upon. That's not fair to me and my responsibility to run a sphere or fulfill an objective for the game, and undermines the players' trust in me, which makes everything that much more difficult

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede

I have some problems in how your words look, to me, like you are otherwise saying: I will do what I think is right and if you disagree then I will judge that on my own terms.

This does not look like the willingness for teamwork that I would want to see, or try to give, when I staff.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain said:

I have some problems in how your words look, to me, like you are otherwise saying: I will do what I think is right and if you disagree then I will judge that on my own terms.

If my words don't look like the way you'd want them to, it's probably because I'm blunt. So, I'll be blunt: that's not what I wrote, and that's not what I'm saying. Nothing the statement above is false, though. In any job I do, I do, in fact, do what I think is right. I also judge disagreement by my own terms; opposition can be reasonable or unreasonable. Whether I find the disagreement reasonable will help guide how I react to it. I do not consult with anyone else as to what I find to be reasonable or not, and I doubt you do as well.

Part of teamwork is being able to have a reasonable discussion as to objectives and methods. Another part of teamwork is trusting that a member can handle an objective on his or her own by employing reasonable methods to accomplish it. Reasonable minds can disagree as to which method is better or worse, but the eventual goal must be in focus unless the method is unreasonable, which, to me, means one that is capricious or completely unjustified.

If I did not say so expressly, then I said, by implication, that much depends on the objective of becoming staff. If you are staffing merely to assist with processing jobs, the need for independent action and evaluation is low. If you are staffing to set up a new sphere on an existing game, then the need for discretion and autonomy is somewhat higher. That increases further if creating a new game wholecloth, which is why it is so very important for the founding staff members to have near-absolute faith in one another.

In short: I'm pretty sure I'm a good team player. But I'm the team player that will stand firm on issues that relate to my players or that will lead, in my experience, to bad outcomes. When that happens, I have to ask if I want to continue to volunteer on the team, or move on so as to avoid a messy game divorce.

[Derp]

@Ganymede said:

In short: I'm pretty sure I'm a good team player. But I'm the team player that will stand firm on issues that relate to my players or that will lead, in my experience, to bad outcomes. When that happens, I have to ask if I want to continue to volunteer on the team, or move on so as to avoid a messy game divorce.

See, I'm kind of with @Thenomain on this one in that what you think you're saying isn't necessarily coming off how you think you're saying it. To me, this reads:

"You might have a vision of the game, but I have a vision of the sphere, and if what I want to do isn't something that you want to allow in your game, then I'm going to be standoffish and obstinate about it until you either concede or I rage quit, no matter your justification for it because my opinion is ultimately the most important one and to hell with you if you can't see my logic."

I've known you to be a fairly reasonable, logical person, but this seems somewhat more antagonistic than what I've seen out of you previously, and definitely isn't something that I would rate very highly in a staff member I was looking to higher to help me manage my vision of a particular game. Perhaps give an example of what you mean, here, so that it comes off a bit less 'fuck you' and we can see what you have in mind?

[ThatOneDude]

@Derp said:

@Ganymede said:

In short: I'm pretty sure I'm a good team player. But I'm the team player that will stand firm on issues that relate to my players or that will lead, in my experience, to bad outcomes. When that happens, I have to ask if I want to continue to volunteer on the team, or move on so as to avoid a messy game divorce.

See, I'm kind of with @Thenomain on this one in that what you think you're saying isn't necessarily coming off how you think you're saying it. To me, this reads:

"You might have a vision of the game, but I have a vision of the sphere, and if what I want to do isn't something that you want to allow in your game, then I'm going to be standoffish and obstinate about it until you either concede or I rage quit, no matter your justification for it because my opinion is ultimately the most important one and to hell with you if you can't see my logic."

I've known you to be a fairly reasonable, logical person, but this seems somewhat more antagonistic than what I've seen out of you previously, and definitely isn't something that I would rate very highly in a staff member I was looking to higher to help me manage my vision of a particular game. Perhaps give an example of what you mean, here, so that it comes off a bit less 'fuck you' and we can see what you have in mind?

@Derp, you make me:

How you doing supporting that demon sphere?

[Derp]

@ThatOneDude said:

How you doing supporting that demon sphere?

Hey, if it were up to me, I would remove Demon entirely. It's a complete pain in the ass, and doesn't play nicely with others. Certain players make me want to send teams of hunter angels to drag them out of whatever hole they're in and use them as an example of why not to be stupid. But as an example of exactly what I'm talking about, @Coin has a vision for the game, and no matter what my personal beliefs on the matter are, I ultimately support what he wants to do with it. Because that's how this system works. So as much as you'd like to snark at me and continue to be petty and juvenile, the fact that you're still there is just testament to why having everything under one guiding vision is a good idea.

[ThatOneDude]

@Derp said:

@ThatOneDude said:

How you doing supporting that demon sphere?

Hey, if it were up to me, I would remove Demon entirely. It's a complete pain in the ass, and doesn't play nicely with others. Certain players make me want to send teams of hunter angels to drag them out of whatever hole they're in and use them as an example of why not to be stupid. But as an example of exactly what I'm talking about, @Coin has a vision for the game, and no matter what my personal beliefs on the matter are, I ultimately support what he wants to do with it. Because that's how this system works. So as much as you'd like to snark at me and continue to be petty and juvenile, the fact that you're still there is just testament to why having everything under one guiding vision is a good idea.

Word, I wait for the day Eerie returns with the rest of the demons but I think we all see the writing on the wall... But the game is a success so what would I know as a player?

[Ganymede]

@Derp

Like @Thenomain, I think you're reading too far into the words I've chosen. I'll try again after briefly retorting and flailing about like a gibbering retard.

I don't consider myself standoffish on a game, even as staff. I don't consider myself obstinate, even as a lawyer. I never, ever said that I would demand that the opposing party concede their position, and I would not expect them to if they are as adamant about their position as I may end up being. Equally, I do not rage-quit.

But my opinion is the most important one to me, as it should be. If someone has an opposing view, that's fine. If someone can justify their position, I may or may not change my opinion; even if they cannot, I may see something in what they say that causes me to reconsider, even if they cannot articulate anything that resembles a cogent thought. But I will not simply reconsider an opinion due to an appeal to positional authority or when it is supported by flimsy or capricious reasoning. As antagonistically as I can muster: anyone that tells you they do not undergo a similar decision-making process is either incompetent or a liar.

Without jest, I have to refer and summarize from previous posts. I stated that where the hiring staff gives me a clear objective and a method to follow, and I accept the position, I will execute to the best of my ability. What authority or autonomy I demand or require -- or what any other reasonable, intelligent person would -- depends on the nature of the objective.

So, an example: Fallcoast. I was asked by Sonder and Spider to set up the Vampire Sphere. I believed I was given the authority and autonomy to come up with local government, covenant themes, and other important bits of background within the confines of what they had in mind for a grid. I accepted, and started to think about how I could improve on The Reach, namely in the social arena. I was also of the understanding that I would have whatever time to do this, or that I would be given some sort of deadline, which I did not receive prior to or around the time I was brought onto the project.

Interim, I was notified that the game would be reverting totally back to nWoD 1.0. Whitewater and I were vehemently against any step backward, but other staff thought it would be best in light of wanting to have Mage, Changeling, and other non-GMC spheres. So, that decision had some reasoning behind it, and even though I didn't like it, I continued forward, undeterred.

One day, I gave an update, wherein I said that I wanted to implement some sort of social power / influence system for the vampires. It could be tailored around the vampire sphere in that it would basically reflect the political power of a vampire among NPCs within the Praxis. I was told this could not be implemented immediately because Fallcoast lacked a dedicated coder at the time. I said that I could afford to wait, as that would give me time to type out the setting, themes, NPCs, and so on. But then I was told that the game would be opening up in only a few weeks, that Sonder and Spider had been promising others the game would open up by that deadline, and that the game could not wait for what I believed to be a necessary element for a successful vampire sphere.

In the above case, the objective seemed clear, but it wasn't because I was unaware of the self-imposed deadline Sonder and Spider advertised to "others." I determined from my conversation, and those I had with other staff, that there was, and would be, a communication problem between the Head Staff and the Sphere Staff. There's no reason for there to be poor communication, and the responsibility for communicating important deadlines falls to those who seek to implement them -- the Head Staff. I concluded from available information that there would be no substantial change between the bad practices of The Reach and that which would occur on Fallcoast, and I did not want to be a part of those bad practices. So, I quietly tendered my resignation and left.

Does that help? Do you need another illustration?

[Derp]

@Ganymede

Nope! That's perfect, and now I see what you mean, which is wholly reasonable.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said:

In short: I'm pretty sure I'm a good team player. But I'm the team player that will stand firm on issues that relate to my players or that will lead, in my experience, to bad outcomes. When that happens, I have to ask if I want to continue to volunteer on the team, or move on so as to avoid a messy game divorce.

This also isn't what you wrote. You can't always push interpretation on the reader; you know that. Teamwork relies on back-and-forth and an understanding of those around you, which is exactly why I called you in particular out on sounding like you made an ultimatum.

Your clarification is, in my opinion, more important than the statement it was clarifying.