The 100: The Mush

[GirlCalledBlu]

@ThatGuyThere said in The 100: The Mush:

How you ask the question is very important. Asking "How should I introduce Grounders?" will get you a lot more of an honest answer then "Should I introduce Grounders like this?" especially if asked from a staff bit.

You're right.

And that is how the conversation started. By the time it got to the point in the story being presented here, I had already been given answers to the first question, and was looking for feedback on those answers. That is where this thread is being picked up.

Again, I understand what you are saying, and I agree... and I guess because I had been given pretty blunt feedback from those I asked, I didn't expect perceived distrust of Staffers to impact the answers from others. But, I understand that people have poor experience with Staffers that greatly impacts their ability to trust anyone with a wizbit.

So, there you have it.

[Sunny]

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

I adore being part of this community, but the impression I am getting here is that I am not a good Staffer, so there's that. I'm not going to turn into that person that people don't RP with or interact with because I made poor decisions, or thought I was doing a good job and I wasn't.

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

As a headstaffer you have problems and issues and things to work on to get better, and some of them are pretty significant. They're things you can overcome, work through, and find solutions for. I would rather have a listening, learning person with a good soul than a competent person that is corrupt, by far. The concerns/issues/etc that are being brought up? There is absolutely nothing here that isn't a- normal, b- human, and important to you, I think, c- FIXABLE.

Don't stop doing projects because you weren't as good as you could be -- just get better. That's all. I think the reason people get so AUGH RAWR MUTTER ROAR in your case is that you are so, so close to being exactly what people are hoping to see in their game leads. So close. But the ways in which you are off are lessons that gotta be learned, they're not things a lot of folks are willing to compromise on.

[Lithium]

There's also the very trite rule of: My game, my rules.

If you make a game, run it the way you want to.

People will play or not play as they see fit.

It is absolutely impossible to please everyone so don't try. Make a game you have fun with, and go with it. That's all anyone can do.

[Miss Demeanor]

@GirlCalledBlu But you didn't ask me how to introduce the Grounders. That never once came up. You paged me, on your staff bit, to ask me specifically what I thought about you playing a Lincoln-type Grounder character. Example time!

Ex 1: "Miss Demeanor, how should I introduce Grounders?"
Ex 2: "Hey Miss Demeanor, how do you think we should introduce Grounders?"

What happened...

"Hey Miss Demeanor, so I just wanted to ask you... what do you think of me playing a Grounder like Lincoln? Do you think anyone will mind?"

Two wholly different questions there, and how to introduce the Grounders was never part of the question you asked me.

[ThatGuyThere]

@GirlCalledBlu
For me it is less distrust and more if the decision has been made why rock the boat sort of thing.
Most of the time once a decision has been made the person speaking against it is vilified or excluded this happens in plenty of social situation not just mushing. And getting proven correct later rarely changes the situation.
Personal experience both on-line and off has shown it to be better to go along with a bad idea rather then speak out against it, whether by thought turns out to be right or wrong later, at least if you want to maintain that social position.

[GirlCalledBlu]

@Miss-Demeanor

We're remembering this conversation very differently, which means we're probably not going to agree on what the purpose/content was, so I'm going to move on from it, and just agree that my attempt for player feedback did not actually get me the feedback I needed. You were a recommended person to come to for feedback, and so I asked you.

@Lithium

I agree with what you're saying here, but I do feel like Staffing is a community service act -- the community being this community, of course. (I do have to sit here and giggle, though as I have family members who are honored as being fabulous members of the community, and I can't really see contributions to the MUSH community ending up in someone's eulogy, but I digress...) Creating a public game means that I want to share that with the community. There is no way to please everyone (and I'm not delusional enough to think I ever could!), but I've seen enough examples where a game is avoided because a Staffer (head or asst) is a real problem. I'd rather people avoid the game because the theme isn't their cuppa, not because I staff there.

@Sunny

Okay, I appreciate your words here. It can be sometimes hard to parse where the AUGH RAWR MUTTER ROAR is constructive, because most of it comes across as just accusatory, and that sparks the need to be defensive, instead of actual self-reflection. I'll keep that in mind as I go back through this thread and reread some of the comments.

@ThatGuyThere

That's just unfortunate, but I see your point.

[Seraphim73]

@Miss-Demeanor Please read what @GirlCalledBlu wrote, not what you wanted her to have written.

And [how to introduce Grounders] is how the conversation started. By the time it got to the point in the story being presented here, I had already been given answers to the first question, and was looking for feedback on those answers.

She's saying that she asked other players how to introduce Grounders, and was looking for feedback based on what they had already provided. She's not claiming that she asked you how to introduce Grounders. She had already asked others that. She was inquiring whether you thought that people would be upset if we introduced them with a couple of people-who-would-become-PCs. And as I recall (I could be wrong about this), you said it would likely be fine, so long as others got a chance to play Grounders soon thereafter. If this wasn't what you thought... we're not mind-readers, we can only go off the responses that we get from others when we ask them questions.

[TNP]

@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

I adore being part of this community, but the impression I am getting here is that I am not a good Staffer, so there's that. I'm not going to turn into that person that people don't RP with or interact with because I made poor decisions, or thought I was doing a good job and I wasn't.

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

Also, staffing - especially being headstaff - has a learning curve. If you've only started 2 games total? I think you're on the right track. There's been plenty of utterly horrid staffers and even more bad ones.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Seraphim73 I think you're the one that needs to read what your wife wrote.

"Because I feel my perception of the whole Gideon/Grounders thing should be noted. Running the idea of two PCs being the Grounders captured and introduced to the 100 was suggested to me by a friend of mine that I have Staffed with in the past. They suggested that I ask a variety of players about how to introduce Grounders, because of the very reasons people bring up about the "echo chamber." And frankly, I asked @Miss-Demeanor because I had asked a couple other players, they gave me some feedback, and one of those players suggested I ask her because they believed she would provide me with some good feedback. She was presented as a person who would be a good one to ask, so I asked."

Verbatim from her post, emphasis bolded. She said she was talking to her friend about how to introduce GROUNDER PC'S to the game. That friend suggested she ask a variety of players. She frankly, asked ME about it because she had asked a couple other players and one of her friends had suggested she ask ME because that person believed I would provide good feedback. So yes, she VERY CLEARLY stated that she was asking me about how to introduce Grounder PC's to the game.

Sucks when the information is available to everyone and you can't twist it to your advantage. Instead of cherry-picking responses from posts that aren't even part of the response that I was responding to, you might want to try looking at the post that I was responding to. She said one thing, got a response from someone else, and backpedaled to add in that she was asking me about something else totally not the first thing that she clearly posted saying she was asking me about.

[Seraphim73]

@Miss-Demeanor So adding more information that simply wasn't mentioned in the first post is "backpedaling?" And clarifying doesn't count. Alright. Cool.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Seraphim73 Adding more information after the fact, after you've made one claim and are now making a separate claim? Yes, that's backpedaling.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpedaling

"To reverse to an earlier part of an argument and alter and reuse it later on in the argument."

"I asked her about this first thing because someone said she would give good feedback!"
'You should think about how you word things.'
"But I only asked her about this other thing because I already had an answer to the first thing!"

Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah... backpedaling.

[GangOfDolls]

@GirlCalledBlu

I just want to point out that there's a difference between being a good storyteller and being effective at being a good game administrator.

I think we've all played in games that had excellent plot but had absolutely batshit management of the game going down. And because the plot was good, people put up with the batshittery far longer than they should have.

To be clear: I am not saying that your handling of the 100 was to that level.

I am, however, saying that while your storytelling chops were solid, your organizational prowess at running said plot and running the wider game were problematic. And when games start out on a bad administrative note, they tend to snowball pretty quickly when there's a lack of awareness or a refusal to accept that the feedback you're being given as a game runner is valid when its pushing back on things that are a problem.

My experience of The 100 in terms of game running was that of an echo chamber. Decisions would get made about timing or logistics IG and OOG that inconvenienced more players than it helped or were often bizarre/weird/nonsensical that it proved a distraction (sometimes really large) from participating in the story on offer. Sometimes these changes to format would happen midplot or midstream when PCs had already established their PCs as doing 'x' for months, making it harder for players to find ways to gracefully pivot on months of actions or RP to whatever abrupt change was happening just then.

This was often made worse by a lack of any communication about expectations or timing to players. Players would politely explain why they weren't tracking the leaderships logic or decisions about these things or why from a player perspective things were problematic.

You and @Seraphim73 would often say 'oh, yes, I see your point' or 'oh, yes, I apologize we didn't communicate this sooner but...' and then assure us that you were going to logistically compensate the situation. Players would then think that the situation was resolved and then the exact opposite of that would happen anyway.

And one time or twice is just attributable to miscommunications or misunderstandings but it happened a lot. To the point where it often seemed as though, you would collectively take player feedback, agree to adjust, discuss it amongst yourselves, and basically blow us off collectively. And perhaps that's not what actually what happened but it was frustrating to feel like at best, your attention span as game runners was highly challenged or at worst, you were pretending to listen with the intention to disregard player response at many turns.

Game running is a skill we develop, and I stand by my comments made previously in this thread that we improve over time from doing and @sunny has said the same. My assessment was that because your vision of the game was uniform enough, there was often not much room for effective alternative viewpoints or polite pushback. It created an echo chamber problem that compounded a lot of the other issues going on in the game. It makes me sad to think though that an opportunity for clarity on this issue was missed so often while the game was still running because it was all right there, just not recognized.

Good luck on future endeavours.

[GirlCalledBlu]

@GangOfDolls said in The 100: The Mush:

It makes me sad to think though that an opportunity for clarity on this issue was missed so often while the game was still running because it was all right there, just not recognized.

Yes, me too, as it appears to escalated quite handsomely.

The 100 turned into a far larger game project than we anticipated. I admit to not being prepared, or more accurately thinking I was prepared and being very wrong.

It was a failed project, and one that has caused a general upset.

Good luck on future endeavours.

Thanks.

[ThatGuyThere]

Honestly, I think you guys running a private game is a good step. While the tone of this thread have hardly been positive or constructive it does seem like you two are taking the complaints as things to earnestly work on.
It is easier to try out new approaches with a smaller group, and as people has said doing something generally makes you better at it.

[lordbelh]

@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

I'd agree with that.

It'd be a shame if @GirlCalledBlu stopped making games. Because, unlike what @ghost seems believe, people not making games is way worse than a game not being up to everybody's standards of perfection.

The idea that everybody'd been better off without @GirlCalledBlu and @Seraphim73 making the 100 is patently false. Because people had fun. Because whatever disappointments were had, including that it shut down, is vastly outweighed by all the tons of fun people had on the game.

Things could've been done better. But lets keep that in perspective.

[Ghost]

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

I'd agree with that.

It'd be a shame if @GirlCalledBlu stopped making games. Because, unlike what @ghost seems believe, people not making games is way worse than a game not being up to everybody's standards of perfection.

The idea that everybody'd been better off without @GirlCalledBlu and @Seraphim73 making the 100 is patently false. Because people had fun. Because whatever disappointments were had, including that it shut down, is vastly outweighed by all the tons of fun people had on the game.

Things could've been done better. But lets keep that in perspective.

Oh that's what I seems believe, eh?

I'm being polite and reading and not typing. Don't poke the badger. I was under the assumption something constructive was happening in the last 20 or so posts on this thread. I've been politely bowed back.

And no, I don't have super high standards and think that there should be no games unless they meet my exorbitant standards. I'll not insult you and assume you're truly aware that I was never suggesting that, and that it sounded cute when you typed it.

[surreality]

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

people not making games is way worse than a game not being up to everybody's standards of perfection.

I'm not even going to address you putting words in @Ghost's mouth.

I am going to say that you need to look in the mirror, considering how you've behaved in regard to people who want to run games differently than you would personally prefer in some respects -- which involved deciding it's OK to insist that they're clearly inherently unethical, shady, and that it's totally spiffy-awesome to decry them as such without any evidence to support such claims, unless they do it your preferred way, simply because they're not doing it your preferred way.

Which you fucking did. To me. Which I have not forgotten, and I am going to bring to attention now, because it almost stopped me from making my game because of the how awful the utter wretchedness of 'it doesn't matter if there's no proof of anything bad, I think it's cool to insist there must be simply because people think differently than I do about how to do something' is to deal with.

So I will as respectfully-as-possible (which is not fucking easy right now) request that you check yourself, please.

[lordbelh]

@surreality Except in that different thread I never told you not to make your game, or suggest you shouldn't make your game (I distinctly remember @ghost spelling out s/he felt these two shouldn't make games at all, but I'm not going to rifle through posts for a quote, so I'll happily let it go). I didn't say you were being unethical, or being a horrible person. I said that I believed transparency is a key factor in staffing. I said I believed in trumped the privacy of staffers to have secret alts so they can have their cake and eat it too. I also believe having the spot-light on one's characters in the way the did on the 100s was a wrong choice. I still played on their game; I expect I'd still play on your game or at least try it out.

It was a game discussion thread in which I was offering my viewpoint. Though you took it as a personal attack on your character, apparently, it wasn't meant like that. Nor was it meant to discourage you from making a game, and I'm glad it didn't actually make you stop. I genuinely think that would have been a tragedy.

[surreality]

@lordbelh First, thank you for reading that as intended -- which was genuinely not meant as an attack. (That's genuinely appreciated, zero snark.)

I won't rehash anything from there beyond 'I think there are other trade offs that balance things out provided there are ethical folks who endeavor to be self-aware and have good check-and-balance folks around them', which I think will also be helpful for this thread.

And we're on the same page about spotlights; IMHO, good leadership = giving as many people as possible (no matter who they are, and I mean that in the 'friend or foe, ally or enemy' etc. sense) the chance to let their characters shine. That does include staff -- but there is an element of sacrifice there in that I feel 'if somebody else wants something done or is equally suited to the spotlight, best practice is to give way to the player'.

Once in a while, if you've never had 'your turn' (which should have the same time/importance or lack thereof/etc. as anybody else's) it's fine to step in, but really... that's best suited to 'I'm off doing a fun thing over here with a few buds that is absolutely not game-critical/metaplot/a major mover of game action/etc.', which absolutely everyone on the game should be as empowered as possible to do, on their own or with outside help, and they should be provided as many tools and as much support as possible to do so.

[Apos]

@lordbelh We've disagreed philosophically on a number of points and I always felt you were extremely respectful and easy to talk to, and I never felt discouraged by it even when I disagreed, just from my own perspective. I personally see things as a trade-off between a more powerful narrative and storytelling tools versus a comfort level for players in being reassured that abuse they have experienced in the past wouldn't be possible in a new location, and I think it's a tricky balance. Which is why I say no dark mode, but yes on alts, since I think the types of abuse in the former is much harder to police and be aware of than in the latter, and the narrative advantages in the latter are greater than the former too.