@JaySherman

One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness. Fairness as it applies to all players on a game in terms of how you administrate the game is totally what you should aim for. Fairness gets tripped up when staff get overly caught up on what's fair for player A or B due to personal circumstances.

Personal circumstances like 'this player had a medical condition that has them offline at abrupt intervals' or 'they have a weird IRL work schedule' are one thing. Circumstances that are a big barrel of self-created drama llama are totally another.

At the end of the day, your players are grown ass adults who unless they live in a cave know what the acceptable standards of online game etiquette. And if they don't, they get schooled by player pushback and staff feedback. They all generally have offline lives that imply some kind of responsibility to other people and entities, like jobs and kids and family, etc. It's up to them to manage their individual experience that enables them to be productive contributors to the game and have fun. If neither are happening, it's worth examining if they're in a bad situation at the creation of other players or game policy has backfired on its incepted intent (sometimes there are games with really stupid myopic rules). But often, a players bad time is a prison of their own making and they have the ability to fix their situation-- they're just not taking the responsibility to do so.

As a staffer and game owner, you are the ultimate arbiter of your game's culture. You get to set the expectations for OOC behavior and attitude because it's your online real estate. If you have problem players who are unrepentant manipulators and rumor mongers, you don't have to allow them to stay on your game. If you set the standard of expectation about player behavior, it's the players job to meet it or move on. And if they can't do either and won't change, you have the ability and power to call it a bad fit and show them the door. Fairness isn't about individual player experience, it's about shared game culture and morale.

One ultra shitty player can scortch the OOC earth of your game, you don't have to allow them that opportunity.

@Arkandel
Very true. I generally apply medical conditions to circumstances like chronic autoimmune disorders, cancer, etc.. Players with brain chemistry disorders or autism spectrum disorders who are going on and off their meds and/or generally expecting you to overlook behavioral explosions as their primary way of managing their situation? Not so much.

There are plenty of normal seeming players who have various brain chemistry issues. You generally don't know about it because they manage their personal circumstances before it ever becomes an excuse for bad behavior. The ones that use mood disorders or spectrum disorders as the go-to as to why they're constant pain in the ass? Yeah, no.

A significant side of my family is from Linz, Austria. Y'know, Linz: Excellent cheese, excellent locally sourced meats, birthplace of Hitler.

My cousin once made a joke that it would be super awkward if we were related to Adolf. It got real fucking quiet along the side of the dinner table that seated all the people who might know something.

I super don't ever want to know.

Rape fetishes are sexualizing an act that's about power and control but isn't actually about sex. It requires, if we're defining rape here as between a biological male and a biological female, what we generally define as copulation generally set aside for procreation on a strictly non-social basis.

And y'know? That's really fine. It's not my thing but rape kinks if you're doing that right are about consent and negotiation regarding power dynamics and exchange, which is in every way the antithesis of rape. But taboos are titilating, so.

And that's the problem I think with the players who are trying to work through some halfbaked idea of what rape kinks are and equate automatically to actual rape being also about sexual acts because the commonality is the presence of some genitals.

But they don't often tell other players that this is their angle. Taboos being taboos there's no impetus and no social reward to speaking up. So instead, they commit the text version of walking up to someone on the subway and using their shirt to blow their nose. It's a very clod fisted way of dehumanizing and devaluing another player.

But I really wish that many players who favor this sorta thing actually got the important distinctions. You don't need a plot and a scorched earth to explore and justify an idea about power exchange that makes your bits tingle.

@Derp

Sure. You can't be omnipotent as a staffer. You can miss things, people will chose not to be forthcoming for reasons beyond your control, etc. etc. Hopefully, though, you've done what you could and collected logs and Skype chats and anything else that serves as a standard of proof.

And just be as transparent as possible about what happened and why your ruling changed. The players who are reasonable will continue to be reasonable and the tin foil hat wearing crybabies will do what they do, so you can't worry about that after a certain point.

I tried to watch The Imitation Game. I'm pretty sure it was a good movie. Pretty sure. I don't have a lot of coherent recall because the jackass next to me was compulsively checking his phone every 2 minutes. This is long enough to finally settle into what's happening on screen and then BRIGHT LIGHT IN MY FAS! BLIND! ANGRY! RAGE FEELS! RAGE FEELS!

I've never seriously entertained punching some random person in the face repeatedly before. We don't have theaters here that automatically monitor for smartphone usage and then immediately kick people out. I would love it if we got a Roadhouse here. Or something. I would seriously pay 20 bucks for a movie where everyone has to check their smartphone for the entire movie and live without the mystery of what's happening on Facebook for 120 minutes.

@JaySherman

It largely depends, I think, on the situation at hand. Skype logs, in the context of having to consider a potentially sticky situation, cut both ways. Sometimes people are just letting off steam and are saying dumb, in the moment things with the Skype logs. Sometimes they are actually doing something shitty on the game, know it, and are savvy enough not to articulate their behavior to other people while logged in because there's a perception that Skype is like some internet embassy, where you can commit a bunch of crimes on game soil and then run for the neutral protection of a Skype IM discussion about it and never shall the twain meet.

As @silver lays out, arbitrary decisions about what is private, where, and when don't really serve the interest of the game.

If someone cheats on the game and then confirms those actions as cheating on a Skype log, all that's doing is confirming a behavior that was suspected as being disruptive or shitty on purpose. That's a pretty good reason to take the log seriously. The same goes for player v. player harassment, if its spilling over into the game and causing harm or disruption to the game.

If people are getting into slap fights, romantic tiffs, gossiping, or just being crotch grabbing retards on Skype logs and it has no effect on the game, then meh. That's just people failing to get along or acting a fool.

I think one very good example of how Skype can be applied as a selective tool is the case of VaSpider and others whose Skype logs were a collective record of intentional cheating with the aid and full support of a staffer who was colluding with them to disrupt The Reach mage sphere and take a big steaming dump on other mage players in the sphere. She and those who participated in the cheating were savvy enough not to discuss this on the game, whereas somehow talking about it on Skype made it non-admissible as though the expectation of privacy where it harms the game or other players begins when you enter the borders of the Democratic Republic of Skype.

I'm not sure if he looks at these boards but I lost track of him after The Reach shuttered. Anyway, just reaching out to see if he's still around.

The challenge I've run into asshole PCs is that some are interesting and compelling when it comes to behaviors. Most though stomp toys or pull serious IC dick moves and get OOCly butthurt when other PCs want to enforce consequences that don't include hugging it out and finding out why their inner child is so wounded because this one time....

I like a PC who can pull a dick move and gracefully take the fallout OOC on the chin and maybe work IC to redeem themselves if they want to. But that's sadly rare.

It's not so much a stumbling block and more just a thing that I've encountered, find weird, and was putting out there for discussion. It could also be that English is my second language so some of the stuff I'm wondering about gets lost in translation from within as I'm attempting to make things coherent.

It seems that I am not so good at this at times based on the reactions I get but I mostly take this to mean that I could be wrong and/or my attempted expression of it is bad.

I was rather strident about the rape stuff because that subject for me is difficult generally but most of the time my mentioning of things on here is really more meant as 'that's weird, so what's that about?' Doesn't mean people won't still yell at me though

@HelloRaptor

That's not at all what I meant but I guess I can see why you may see that.

My comments have more to do ultimately with how people set-up their wikis then what they do as a PC, though these two things usually tend to be linked.

I generally approach other pcs for this kinda stuff if I have some indication that they want to RP that sorta thing but if their wiki says regardless of the PBs involved or hook content that its not their bag, then I don't because they asked me not to?

If there's no indication either way, I ask OOC if that's something they do generally, would they open to seeing if it might go that route IC, and if they have certain preferences or limits. If they are open to it, a conversation happens and RP happens that either lends to the possibility or clarifies it wouldn't work for IC reasons. If it's a no, then I take no for an answer and RP with them and don't push that line of RP IC or OOC.

My comments were more about hypersexual wikis where the PBs and language used indicates that your PC has some kind of hypersexualized situation going on as a major feature of the PC-- eg, Jane the PC is an escort. Most of her PBs are sexualized pictures and most of the hooks presented have to do with her job as a escort in some fashion and not much else.

If you're presenting this as a large part of your PCs thing in the IC world but make it OOCly clear that you won't abide any RP that might address the hooks presented, especially if it's overtly sexual, and there's not much else that appears left over in terms of hooks, it leaves the other player at something of a loss. You could always ask what else they want to RP about but my curiosity is more about why you would make a wiki that focuses heavily on a part of your PC you don't want to RP about.

It's not really about,to me if you can or should RP that concept, it's more about the wiki packaging. If the primary way you're attempting to recruit RP interest in your character focuses on a part of your PC you don't want RP about at all (and I don't mean just TS), why make a wiki all about that? You can certainly mention it as a hook in a different presentation and still make it clear that that aspect of the character is off screen. I've played PCs that have adult themes going on that I didnt really want to spend time focusing IC time on but I didn't make a wiki that was all about the stuff I didn't want to not RP about.

Does this make it hopefully clearer what I meant?

Re: PBs.

I will never understand the wikis with multiple pics of a PB (usually female) that are intended to be sexual. By that I mean, sexualized topless shots or that old gem of thumbs hooked into the g-string as if to say 'teehee! I'm about to whip these off!'

The wiki goes on to say that the PC loves to nail anything with a pulse in game but the out of game information goes on for several paragraphs how they don't TS so don't ask and don't try and don't even look at my PC like that.

Don't want TS? That's cool, a lot of people aren't that into it. Playing a PC whose sexual exploits are all FTB, offscreen fun times? No problem here! But why then would you make this way sexualized wiki with soft core (or sometimes hard core) skin shots only to vehemently and often combatively make it known that you refuse TS on a blanket level? Wouldn't telling people on your PC wiki page that your PC likes to love their fellow man a lot without all the over the top visual aids just uh, be enough?

@Arkandel
Very true. I generally apply medical conditions to circumstances like chronic autoimmune disorders, cancer, etc.. Players with brain chemistry disorders or autism spectrum disorders who are going on and off their meds and/or generally expecting you to overlook behavioral explosions as their primary way of managing their situation? Not so much.

There are plenty of normal seeming players who have various brain chemistry issues. You generally don't know about it because they manage their personal circumstances before it ever becomes an excuse for bad behavior. The ones that use mood disorders or spectrum disorders as the go-to as to why they're constant pain in the ass? Yeah, no.

@JaySherman

One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness. Fairness as it applies to all players on a game in terms of how you administrate the game is totally what you should aim for. Fairness gets tripped up when staff get overly caught up on what's fair for player A or B due to personal circumstances.

Personal circumstances like 'this player had a medical condition that has them offline at abrupt intervals' or 'they have a weird IRL work schedule' are one thing. Circumstances that are a big barrel of self-created drama llama are totally another.

At the end of the day, your players are grown ass adults who unless they live in a cave know what the acceptable standards of online game etiquette. And if they don't, they get schooled by player pushback and staff feedback. They all generally have offline lives that imply some kind of responsibility to other people and entities, like jobs and kids and family, etc. It's up to them to manage their individual experience that enables them to be productive contributors to the game and have fun. If neither are happening, it's worth examining if they're in a bad situation at the creation of other players or game policy has backfired on its incepted intent (sometimes there are games with really stupid myopic rules). But often, a players bad time is a prison of their own making and they have the ability to fix their situation-- they're just not taking the responsibility to do so.

As a staffer and game owner, you are the ultimate arbiter of your game's culture. You get to set the expectations for OOC behavior and attitude because it's your online real estate. If you have problem players who are unrepentant manipulators and rumor mongers, you don't have to allow them to stay on your game. If you set the standard of expectation about player behavior, it's the players job to meet it or move on. And if they can't do either and won't change, you have the ability and power to call it a bad fit and show them the door. Fairness isn't about individual player experience, it's about shared game culture and morale.

One ultra shitty player can scortch the OOC earth of your game, you don't have to allow them that opportunity.

@JaySherman

It largely depends, I think, on the situation at hand. Skype logs, in the context of having to consider a potentially sticky situation, cut both ways. Sometimes people are just letting off steam and are saying dumb, in the moment things with the Skype logs. Sometimes they are actually doing something shitty on the game, know it, and are savvy enough not to articulate their behavior to other people while logged in because there's a perception that Skype is like some internet embassy, where you can commit a bunch of crimes on game soil and then run for the neutral protection of a Skype IM discussion about it and never shall the twain meet.

As @silver lays out, arbitrary decisions about what is private, where, and when don't really serve the interest of the game.

If someone cheats on the game and then confirms those actions as cheating on a Skype log, all that's doing is confirming a behavior that was suspected as being disruptive or shitty on purpose. That's a pretty good reason to take the log seriously. The same goes for player v. player harassment, if its spilling over into the game and causing harm or disruption to the game.

If people are getting into slap fights, romantic tiffs, gossiping, or just being crotch grabbing retards on Skype logs and it has no effect on the game, then meh. That's just people failing to get along or acting a fool.

I think one very good example of how Skype can be applied as a selective tool is the case of VaSpider and others whose Skype logs were a collective record of intentional cheating with the aid and full support of a staffer who was colluding with them to disrupt The Reach mage sphere and take a big steaming dump on other mage players in the sphere. She and those who participated in the cheating were savvy enough not to discuss this on the game, whereas somehow talking about it on Skype made it non-admissible as though the expectation of privacy where it harms the game or other players begins when you enter the borders of the Democratic Republic of Skype.

@Derp

Sure. You can't be omnipotent as a staffer. You can miss things, people will chose not to be forthcoming for reasons beyond your control, etc. etc. Hopefully, though, you've done what you could and collected logs and Skype chats and anything else that serves as a standard of proof.

And just be as transparent as possible about what happened and why your ruling changed. The players who are reasonable will continue to be reasonable and the tin foil hat wearing crybabies will do what they do, so you can't worry about that after a certain point.

More generally speaking, I think that the best way to handle something isn't always in the nuances but in the broadstrokes as a staffer.

It takes a while to establish yourself as a staffer in terms of what players know to expect from you. The only way to accomplish this is with OCD-levels of consistency not in your rulings and decisions as a staffer but in how you come to those decisions. You handle complaints and accusations of cheating and wrong doing the same way every single time: you investigate fully, you take statements, you get all the information you can get, you answer questions but you withhold personal commentary and showing your hand until its time to provide your final thoughts on it.

And you make it clear that final thoughts are final and that re-hashing isn't in the offing.

The biggest headache that I've seen in my day as a staffer was inconsistent levels of response to various issues, often this was because or was perceived as the staffer having a connection to that player that caused them to respond lightly, not at all, or in a way that looked like favoritism. Most people would expect that the staffer would remove themselves from something like because of COI but the reality is that this isn't always possible. So you respond the same way that you would absolutely to any other less familiar player on the game, even when its ugly and especially when its ugly.