Ghoulage on Kingsmouth

Tempest

It's almost as if years of MUSHing have proven that most staffers are shitty.

Tempest

Being killed off-screen for "plot" is just too reminiscent of Firan. And nobody liked it or defended it when it happened there.

Misadventure

Again: you trust someone to kill you on screen, but not after you have GIVEN UP A CHARACTER?

With that attitude, you can't trust any staffer, ever, and you shouldn't play anywhere where there are staff, good or bad.

Wow, there were bad staff, somewhere. If you didn't trust them to kill you onscreen, then you shouldn't have played there. Don't play where you don't trust staff to not kill you randomly, or out of OOC spite. I'm sorry if you bought into a place then suffered under bad staff. Bad staff are bad staff, not Bad Staff had a policy, ergo that policy must be bad.

We aren't talking offscreen nukes. We are talking characters that are not going to be picked up again. I am personally all for allowing character storage, aka vacation. But if you are done, and can't bother to write yourself out in a sane fashion, someone should, as a service to those players left behind.

DON'T PLAY UNDER BAD STAFF, and if you do accept that you made it possible for them to be shitty to you by doing so.

Coin

@Misadventure said:

Again: you trust someone to kill you on screen, but not after you have GIVEN UP A CHARACTER?

With that attitude, you can't trust any staffer, ever, and you shouldn't play anywhere where there are staff, good or bad.

Wow, there were bad staff, somewhere. If you didn't trust them to kill you onscreen, then you shouldn't have played there. Don't play where you don't trust staff to not kill you randomly, or out of OOC spite. I'm sorry if you bought into a place then suffered under bad staff. Bad staff are bad staff, not Bad Staff had a policy, ergo that policy must be bad.

We aren't talking offscreen nukes. We are talking characters that are not going to be picked up again. I am personally all for allowing character storage, aka vacation. But if you are done, and can't bother to write yourself out in a sane fashion, someone should, as a service to those players left behind.

DON'T PLAY UNDER BAD STAFF, and if you do accept that you made it possible for them to be shitty to you by doing so.

Except this policy apparently applies to people who idle out, too, which does not in any way constitute having unequivocally given up the character.

You have been extra sharp lately, holy fuck.

Also, not for nothing, but how is "this person died from somthing lol" better than "this person left to handle personal problems and may not return".

The finality of it is pretty fucking stupid. Stop acting like it's some objective truth that this is fine.

That said: if the policy already existed and someone went in there knowing that (or not, because they didn't read the news file, whcih is their fault), then they have no right to bitch. Because a policy can be good or bad, but if it's documented, then at least you know it and can decide whether you can deal with it or not. Once you do, you tie yourself to the consequences thereof.

It's not that fucking hard, you guys.

Misadventure

Staff set idle out time. They decide that is a freeze equal to abandonment., THAT may be (to me it is) poor policy.

I stated my position on write outs, which was mostly about non-lethal ends. That is likewise my suggestion for anyone else trying to deal with the same concerns.

I haven't been sharp lately, I've been sharp today. Read most of my posts like I am stoned, and you are closer to my (admittedly unwritten) tone.

The objective truth still stands, how can you trust a staffer to kill you onscreen, but not off? Is it an objective truth that 100% of all such instances will be Staff acting on emotional ire instead of anything else? 100%, including that I myself am lying when i say it's not the case when I do it?

You don't have to like the policy, but you should address the questions raised.

100% of staff want to kill off Frozen characters, but those same staff are trustworthy with your characters in live play. That's the statement being made. Agree? Do you agree with that?

Ganymede

@Coin said:

Except this policy apparently applies to people who idle out, too, which does not in any way constitute having unequivocally given up the character.

Why doesn't it?

Coin

@Ganymede
Because the person might come back and might want to play that character and because there are other, less final options. And because people don't die when you stop communicating with them and people not talking happens. Should characters die just because they stop RPing with you out of nowhere?

Pondscum

From Requiem for Kingsmouth policy as stated on the wiki:

4.3. Characters will be designated inactive after two weeks of inactivity.

If you're going to be idle, there are ways to let staff know you're temporarily unable to play, or that you intend to come back. If you don't like a game's policy, perhaps you shouldn't play there. If you don't want your character used as an NPC, give the character an IC ending.

Derp

Yeah, I'm with @Coin here. That's a pretty shitty thing to do to your players. I'm not a huge vampire fan, but even if I were, that's absolutely enough to make me never want to log in there. Also:

4.3. Characters will be designated inactive after two weeks of inactivity.

is quite a bit different from:

4.3 Character will be designated inactive after two weeks of inactivity and then subjected to whatever sorts of whimsical death staff feels is appropriate for that character.

One says inactive. This is not 'inactive'. We're talking about PC death here. That's a way different ballgame.

Ganymede

@Coin said:

Because the person might come back and might want to play that character and because there are other, less final options.

Then you can let staff know this, right? And you can find a reason to ICly go away for a bit.

Everyone needs a break. I know of several players that stepped away for a vacation, and then came back. This is permitted.

But if you up and depart with no warning or word, it is difficult, as staff, to figure out what to do. Putting a player on the shelf is an option, but it is not necessarily a fair one if other players are counting on that player to remain active. Terminating that character's ability to come back, by policy or otherwise, is one way to ensure that the active players can go on with their lives.

In a way, this is necessitated by the Off-Stage System implemented on the game. If you let people sit on territories indefinitely, there will be a problem as new blood comes in. Removing characters permanently ensure that territories remain in the hands of active, participating players.

I can understand why the policy is controversial, but I understand and support it in context.

surreality

Even on wikis, traditionally 'inactive' and 'dead' are different categories.

People fairly often consider it reasonable to leave town for a while IC and come back; if that isn't the case it probably needs to be laid out a little more clearly than simply leaving the word 'inactive' sit there, open to any and all interpretation.

Derp

@Ganymede said:

Terminating that character's ability to come back, by policy or otherwise, is one way to ensure that the active players can go on with their lives.

In a way, this is necessitated by the Off-Stage System implemented on the game. If you let people sit on territories indefinitely, there will be a problem as new blood comes in. Removing characters permanently ensure that territories remain in the hands of active, participating players.

There are other ways of handling this too that don't involve PC death. Killing a PC is the absolute laziest and most unfair method of going about something. If the goal is to fix people sitting on territory or whatever, then it's pretty easy to say that they abandoned it, for whatever reason. Hostile invasion that they escaped from, and then had other PCs come in and claim it from hostile invaders, etc. There are plot-generating, non-final was of resolving this situation that aren't in any way connected to the death of the PC.

So if that's the reason that staff are claiming, then I call that some lazy bullshit, right there.

Edit: To fix the quote.

Pondscum

@Tempest said:

@Pondscum said:

Unless you got banned, I'm sure you could come play.

I got pseudo "uninvited" for bitching about stuff on WORA early last year and my character was killed off screen according to the wiki.

In Tempest's case, I'm guessing staff concluded she'd not be back with the character as she'd been 'pseudo invited' not to continue playing. The character was political style, which means you sign up to having shit happen without consent.

Ganymede

@Derp said:

So if that's the reason that staff are claiming, then I call that some lazy bullshit, right there.

No, it isn't. I'm not staff, and there's no official policy on point, as far as I can tell.

All I'm saying is that I understand why.

Maybe I just hate the fact that some shits think it's okay to leave others in a lurch. You fucking pricks, you can't send a fucking message or e-mail? Like, holy shit, how fucking childish and irresponsible is that, especially if your idling isn't due to an emergency?

(This is mostly due to some RL things happening right now. For real.)

If you're going to go, go and don't look back. If you're not sure about coming back, let someone know. If you have an emergency, try to let someone know, and, if that fails, get a friend to lend a hand ... and if that fails, and your emergency is so sudden that you can't pop an e-mail out in two weeks, I'll bet you have other things to worry about than your PC, whose demise can easily be flipped around if you come and ask.

Anyhow, I can understand why people are up in arms. I don't think it's a big deal.

ThatGuyThere

@Misadventure
While I will cede the point that killing a gone character might not be done out of spite. I have no doubt the vast majority of them are for that reason.
Also with your logic of don't play under bad staff, give me an example of one game from any genre at any point in the history of this hobby that has not had at least one bad staffer?
So you are saying no one should play anywhere?

With the possible exception of Eldritch which I have heard nothing bad about the staff there., Sadly they just offer nothing I am in the mood to play.

Luna

I understand where @Misadventure is coming from. Speaking in absolutes isn't really a good way to go about saying things. You may end up being hurtful to someone who's been on the other side of shit. I used to staff and things like all staffers eat puppies and are evil can get to be old really quick when you're doing your level best to be fair and awesome.

She's not at all saying the policy is cool with her.

As for the killing of idle players? That's some bs. Sometimes I would walk from a game to regroup. Why do I want to get onto the place where the people are making me crazy and hash things out for no good reason? If you're not in the middle of a plot or important in a big way, why would this even be done? Even if you are, then staff explains why you're out of touch and you have to live with that if you return. Done.

mietze

I think in the case of this game, where idling longer than your allotted 2 weeks means that you may be ceding your PC, then if you need to walk to regroup you need to send a quick @mail to staff so that they know. It really truly isn't hard to do. If the idea that you need to notify staff if you are going to be gone longer than 2 weeks barring an emergency if you want to be sure you will keep your PC horrifies you, then probably a game with that policy isn't one that's worth the stress of knowing that you will need to be willing to do that if you do decide you need to walk when you're undecided. I don't think that it's bad to be horrified at needing to do that, different things trigger different people.

People coming in/out without explanation or disappearing without warning and then showing up later with no explanation and the free at any time freezer policy on TR really I felt did a disservice for the culture there, for a variety of reasons. I can understand why other games might take a harder line.

Though it sounds like the situation that is sort of being talked about but skirted around here is more of an individual one. I know for a fact that most of the idle players that idle out are not killed. Sometimes they ask to be. In those other instances, I'm not sure what makes staff pick one person for plot fodder and other ones not. But I could definitely see why maybe there's a harder rule about killing off any political PCs that idle without warning. Support or Civilian, eh.

But Vampire /in particular/ suffers a great deal when people just wander off without warning or saying anything, because of the nature of the game. I think it's harder to manage now that RfK is so large but I too see the logic of cutting back on the revolving freezer thing. But absolutely that's a policy difference between a lot of games and I can also see why it might be offputting to as many people as those who like it. I think most people don't really think about it/care.

And I will admit, it's kind of hard for me to understand the upset over losing a PC if you didn't even care enough to bother to tell anyone you'd be gone past the usual roll over time barring emergencies.

Misadventure

@ThatGuyThere said:

Also with your logic of don't play under bad staff, give me an example of one game from any genre at any point in the history of this hobby that has not had at least one bad staffer?
So you are saying no one should play anywhere?

Inaccurate. I am saying that if you can't trust a ST to write off (death or otherwise) an abandoned (not on vacation, let's be sure about it) character, then you shouldn't trust them to fairly arbitrate or adjudicate your characters demise in onscreen action you are present for. You do not trust them.

My logic for playing under bad staff, and I have several times, is to understand that you have elected to continue to play, under threat that Bad Staff will be Bad Staff at you. If you can't stand the idea of playing under someone who has the power of death over your characters, then you should go. If you can say they may not go after you, so you can enjoy your time with friends and so on, you have made a moderately and risk assessing informed choice.

The extreme value of all bad staff comes from your own statement that all (amended to mostly all) Staff who would write off or kill your character would do so as an act of vengeance. I made the bridging statement that if you can't trust them to not kill for bad reasons offscreen, you can't trust them to kill for bad reasons onscreen. Ergo, you distrust Most Staff with offscreen deaths, so you should in turn distrust them with any onscreen death. You (or someone else) stated they could not, would not play under such a threat, so I applied that thinking to my own conclusion.

There are tons of points of disagreement available.

ALL Staffers who would kill/write off an abandoned PC would do so for bad reasons. (Yours)
ALL characters who have idled out or frozen are considered abandoned. (Many of us in this thread, by one definition or another).
ALL Staffers willing to kill you off offscreen would be willing and able to do so onscreen (Mine.)
ANY Staffer acting on such a policy would endanger ALL PCs, active or not.
ANY acting on such a policy completely removes any chance of enjoyment or play.

There are more.

I don't think most Staff are Bad Staff.
I don't think most Bad Staff have enough power to abuse players without oversight and remediation.
I don't think that any Bad Action by Bad Staff on a game removes the possibility of a good time.

I have left a game because I felt that Bad Actions from Bad Staff weren't going to be reviewed or remediated, and said Bad Actions were demoralizing and undermining to both short term and long term play.

Wizz

@mietze said:

If the idea that you need to notify staff if you are going to be gone longer than 2 weeks barring an emergency if you want to be sure you will keep your PC horrifies you, then probably a game with that policy isn't one that's worth the stress of knowing that you will need to be willing to do that if you do decide you need to walk when you're undecided.

How many more times does it need to be said?

4.3. Characters will be designated inactive after two weeks of inactivity.

That is the policy in its fucking entirety.

There's no explanation of what the designation of "inactive" entails. None. And, right above it with its own header:

Character death happens, but never without warning or alternatives.

That is why people are lashing out.

Lisse24

Are people on the game lashing out?

I also play on this game and have mostly gotten the feeling that current players know and are OK with this policy.

Personally, I like the fact that characters, and the characters connected to them, are given some sort of conclusion instead of just left hanging.