Posts made by BlondeBot

@surreality said in Model Policies?:

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

Yes, this. Exactly this.

Not all the other strawmen that were built instead. I thought it seemed fairly simple on the surface, but apparently there is all kinds of room for people to take the least charitable interpretation possible.

@eye8urcake said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

I'd say limit what can or can't be said on channels is a good one. Keep the guidelines clear and the consequences consistent. For instance:

No social justice

GTFO. I'm not playing anywhere with a policy that says if someone is being a misogynistic toad on a channel & I decide to get froggy about it, someone else has the right to scoff and say SJW like that means I'm the one being unreasonable.

This isn't far-fetched at all, either. I feel like what happened to me in the Star Wars game I'd tried to get back into and ended up ranting about on here slots uncomfortably neatly into this.

In no way am I saying to tolerate discrimination or any other form of vulgarity or obscenities on any channels. Typically those are understood rules, as that sort of thing has no place in any polite society, much less on a game meant to be played for relaxation.

That said, if you find yourself on a game with staffers who do tolerate and allow this, there really isn't any refrain other than abandoning ship, as all hope has been lost.

My nice, simple, clear rule instruction remains the same: Monitor your channels and set clear, simple rules for them that are consistently enforced.

The channels are the primary means your game uses to communicate outside of friend groups. They are integral and critical.

EDIT: Another thing I'd add: Zero tolerance for escalation. If a problem has arisen, and it can't be handled in a calm and rational manner, involve staff.

Shhhhh, it's okay. Show me on the doll where my bad rules examples hurt you...

I'd say limit what can or can't be said on channels is a good one. Keep the guidelines clear and the consequences consistent. For instance:

No religion
No politics
No social justice
No sexuality/gender/orientation
No 'just saying' or 'telling it like it is'
No recent tragedies
No cat de-clawing
No bad-mouthing other games/players/staff

Of course, tailor the exact guidelines to the kinds of conversations you want/don't want to see, but in my experience, not allowing people to bring up hot-button topics that are proven powder kegs helps to keep things calm! And helps keep the focus where it should be: on your game!

@Roz said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I still think that this sort of code tool has the potential to enhance existing policies ... because I think it's one of many ways for staff to project how seriously they take the issue.

That's... actually not a bad point.

EDIT: It's a pretty damn good one, actually. This command might actually help after all!

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot This isn't about any specific game, it's about a recurring issue we see in this community where people have felt uncomfortable speaking up because there are no clear-cut policies in place for how conflict resolution should be handled. I don't have any hostility toward you or what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing with your stance that doing nothing different is the best option.

This is exactly my point: I'm not saying that. You're inferring it. I'm not saying 'nothing different is the best option'. That is not my stance.

I'm saying the culture and atmosphere of the hypthetical game/community we are debating here is not where it needs to be yet, and making strides in that regard is the only way to resolve the issue.

I'm not saying do nothing, nor 'do nothing different'. I'm saying keep doing the one thing that works, which is for staff to be as fair, consistent, and vigilant in cultivating the player atmosphere they want for their game. This is done through enforcement of polices both written and unwritten (such as the general Don't Be A Dick universal rule), over time, with consistency, and the timely removal of problem players and handling of issues that crop up.

Writing something down on a wiki or adding some code to a game will never be enough. Enforcement of the environment you want to see is what works, it is the only thing that works, and it is a never-ending, thankless slog.

I may someday be proven wrong on this, and that would be pretty great.

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Again, my solution is this: Staff need to consistently and relentlessly enforce mutual respect and toleration for other players distress, within reasonable limits.

Again, staffers on most games are already attempting to do this. If it worked just fine we wouldn't be having this conversation, because everything would be wonderful and every single player would feel respected and every single limit would be expressly tolerated.

This thread is not about staffers not making an effort, I know damn well many of them are & I applaud and approve. @faraday makes a good point that people should be able to speak up and deal with their issues & I entirely agree, but again if everyone was doing that, we wouldn't still be having these same issues on a regular basis.

This thread is about how we help, as best we can, the people that fall through the cracks for whatever reason, and how we make it more abundantly clear and more immediately accessible than a line in a policy file that says 'Any player may request a FTB (fade to black) at any time.' but does not specify what the FTB process entails or if they are obligated to deal with negotiating through some creep's 2-paragraph paged description of every sordid detail of what his character did during this so-called FTB.

I don't know why this thread is devolving into 'What we're doing already works' when it so obviously doesn't work for everyone.

I have no idea where you are getting most of this from what I am saying. I figure that most of this is coming from a place of hostility (with regards to the conversation, not personal hostility) in what you see as an attack on the idea that things need to improve in whatever game you are referencing.

I am not attacking your goal.

I am not attacking your desire to address this goal.

I am not saying unnamed people/staffers are not trying.

I am not saying anyone is doing anything wrong.

I am not saying your initial idea here will hurt anything.

I simply disagree that this will address the problem. I disagree with the idea that any code will address the problem. If the game or culture doesn't make these ones you are referencing who are sliding between the cracks feel safe, then I doubt anything will. I am merely stating that the only way to reach the goal you want is to do 'what you're already doing' as you say, and keep doing it until it works.

There will always be a time when it fails, because no one is perfect. I'm not saying you shouldn't try because of that. I'm not saying 'throw your hands up and give up'. I'm having to spend a lot of time taking your words out of my mouth.

I'll try to make my point as brief and concise as possible, so there is no more room for misinterpretation:

Code can't make people feel safe enough to come forward with a problem.

That is all I am saying. Anything else you infer from that are neither my words nor my meaning.

@TNP said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

All the ones that want it there, I assume.

Or the ones who think of it. As a for instance, all the staff on ESH are strong-willed and opinionated. We don't need a command to take the place of speaking up. Nor would we have trouble, as a player, in shooting down someone who argued about an FTB request.

I honestly didn't consider it needed clarification since it is such an accepted thing on games pretty much going back to when I started playing at the dawn of time. If I want to FTB, it happens. Argue with me? +ooc buh-bye.

I personally don't need such a policy clarification so it just didn't occur to me that it might be necessary. But since it was brought up, I have no problem with explicitly stating it for those people who need things spelled out in black and white before they will 1) assert their right to do something or 2) not do something. It's a small enough effort to make in order to give someone some peace of mind.

It's a good policy! And I agree that not everyone will think to word it that exact way. No issues taken with that, at all. It is always a good thing to have expectations spelled out as clearly as possible with no wiggle room!

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I am open to all opinions here, whether in favor or wildly against. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I'm asking what can we do & offering my 2 cents toward a potential solution to a problem that is not going to go away by doing absolutely nothing different and continuing to say 'People, just be better.'

Again, my solution is this: Staff need to consistently and relentlessly enforce mutual respect and toleration for other players distress, within reasonable limits.

There is no one-and-done answer to the Human Problem. There never will be. This can not be fixed by any command, ever. No policy will ever stop someone who ignores policies. No command can make someone feel safe.

When the problem is as complex and evolving as humans, the answers are not ever going to be something short, simple, or easy. No matter what is in place. I've been on games that make players feel safe by relentlessly squashing problem players and harassment and what-have-you. I've been on games that felt unsafe despite the best intentions and efforts of staffers. It's not simple.

Ultimately it can't be fixed. Not permanently.

I'm not saying no one should ever try. I'm not saying staff at whatever game this is being considered for aren't already doing their best. Your goal is great! But it's not achievable through any means involving code or writing policy. It can only come from changing the culture and atmosphere of the game, staff, and playerbase itself.

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. Adults just need to adult doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.

I don't think it does help, in this instance. It doesn't harm, but it's basically just another FTB system. If there's already FTB no questions asked in place, then this becomes redundant.

The initial issue stated wasn't even about people being unreasonable, it was about people being afraid to speak up. An extra command can't make people feel safe enough to speak up. Typing '+codered' is going to be just as terrifying as 'ooc I'd like to FTB.' or 'p staffer=I'm having trouble with an uncomfortable situation Player B is putting me in.'

Sure, if there's already a policy in place that says FTB = No Questions Asked, but in how many places is this specified in the policy?

All the ones that want it there, I assume.

But again, the central issue brought up, to my understanding, was making people feel safe enough to speak up, no? I don't feel this command addresses that at all.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the initial reasoning for this command?

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. Adults just need to adult doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.

I don't think it does help, in this instance. It doesn't harm, but it's basically just another FTB system. If there's already FTB no questions asked in place, then this becomes redundant.

The initial issue stated wasn't even about people being unreasonable, it was about people being afraid to speak up. An extra command can't make people feel safe enough to speak up. Typing '+codered' is going to be just as terrifying as 'ooc I'd like to FTB.' or 'p staffer=I'm having trouble with an uncomfortable situation Player B is putting me in.'

@mietze said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I like that it normalizes (without shaming) seeking help from staff when the parties can't resolve a dispute to their satisfaction on their own. While I would never want to go back to timestop objects and 100 percent staff arbitration, sometimes I wish there wasn't quite as much stigma attached to calling in someone. +judge was pretty nice in many ways.

I don't think this can ever be a thing that will be handled by coded commands.

The people this kind of thing is meant to protect one from are the exact people who will try to shame one for using this. This is why I mentioned fostering mutual respect and toleration.

The only way to achieve this is by steadfastly holding everyone to standard and weeding out the problem players, as well as making people feel safe enough to talk to each other, or even to reach out to staff for assistance. Adding another bit of code can't make someone feel safe or avoid flag-shaming (or whatever you want to call it). It's not an easy or simple task, and it will always be ongoing as new creepers or scoundrels emerge.

I've been on games with this atmosphere and without it, both consent and non-consent. It doesn't matter what the rules are, or what commands are available. Buttholes gonna butthole.

I've seen things like this installed on games, and when used, people usually just stop RPing immediately and walk away annoyed, which solves none of the problem of people being afraid/shy to speak up for themselves and what makes them uncomfortable. Then the fear of 'this person won't want to RP with me anymore/might shame me' is in no way solved, which I took to be the genesis of this thread.

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

While the end goal is laudable, I don't think this implementation would work at all. I think it's the kind of thing that can only be established by fostering a game culture of mutual respect and tolerance for people's boundaries.

It seems a slap in the face to game owners who are already sincerely trying their hardest to say 'you're obviously just not trying hard enough to foster a game culture of perfect mutual respect and tolerance & that's why it has not been achieved yet'. So I can't in good conscience agree it's better to do nothing than to try something.

Eh... I'm not slapping anyone in the face, nor am I calling anyone out or even aware of what game or who I'm supposed to be slapping right now.

I'm just saying that the problem you described (people being too shy/introverted/ashamed/whathaveyou to ask others to halt) would not be solved by this. Fostering a culture isn't a thing that's done easily, unilaterally, or a one-and-done deal. I'm not saying people aren't already trying this. I'm not saying people aren't already doing this.

I am saying I think it's the only way to accomplish what you're wanting to accomplish.

But... I can't stop you from taking that as a personal insult or attack. So.

I see the value of a 'no explanation' veto in extreme situations. There are some things that people simply shouldn't have to put up with happening to their characters, ever, even in a FTB situation.

However, the logic that if someone is too shy or too reticent to speak up and say 'Hey, I don't feel like RPing this, can we take it in another direction', they are also going to be too shy or reticent to throw up a big red flag is pretty sound. If someone didn't want to make waves with an objection and would rather suffer in silence, then a coded command is probably going to be even worse in their eyes. Because it's not a personalized 'Hey, I like you, but this is making me uncomfortable.', it's a big, fat, glaring YOU ARE CREEPING ME OUT right to the face of the person they're trying not to upset.

While the end goal is laudable, I don't think this implementation would work at all. I think it's the kind of thing that can only be established by fostering a game culture of mutual respect and tolerance for people's boundaries.

Mutants and Masterminds is complicated AF, leads to really, REALLY long combat scenes, is the kind of thing you really need to know what you're doing to build an effective character, and in general is just kind of... great for tabletop, not so much for MUs, in my experience. Not without some tweaking to make it user friendly!

I played on an OC-only game that had that system, never really got above 8 players logged in at a time. The learning curve was just too steep.

A Sky High kind of setting is nice for mixing your teen drama with your superheroics, but I'd go for setting it in some fictional city, open up the amount of characters one can be. You already have a niche system, adding a niche theme on top of that would probably kill the game before it got started.

I've played a few OC-only games, enjoyed them, too! But the typical people who want to play superhero games don't also want to try and tackle a system so complicated it makes White Wolf blush, in my experience.

Stargate, aside from being muy sexy, is a pretty brilliant theme, especially if you limit people (at least until the playerbase grows) to the human faction.

Everyone is located in a central 'hub' by design and necessity, so people can mingle. And there are infinite adventure plots through planet/crisis-of-the-week events right through that portal that anyone can pick up and play, enough to keep them entertained even if they never touch the meta-plot.

I am so down to dope shit on this dope game.

@Coin said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@BlondeBot said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Coin said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@BlondeBot said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

That said, comparing a volunteer duty to an obligation is like comparing apples to baseballs. The hypothetical man in this instance has no actual obligations that would cause him to miss work or suffer dire consequences.

I think that's part of @Ganymede's point, though.

Then I don't understand the point of saying a person with no obligations has a career advantage over a person with outside-work obligations. Obviously they do. It has nothing to do with gender.

The person who can show up more often, when asked, on short notice has the advantage.

Gany was using that comparison to showcase the sexist way men are excused for their extracurricular volunteering and women are blamed for their extracurricular obligations. It's right there:

***There is more definitely an employer bias against people's outside commitments, and I believe they are highly sexist. ***

I have never heard of 'Sorry, I'm not coming in today because I'm volunteering.' being an acceptable excuse to miss work in any vocation, for any gender.

@Coin said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@BlondeBot said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

That said, comparing a volunteer duty to an obligation is like comparing apples to baseballs. The hypothetical man in this instance has no actual obligations that would cause him to miss work or suffer dire consequences.

I think that's part of @Ganymede's point, though.

Then I don't understand the point of saying a person with no obligations has a career advantage over a person with outside-work obligations. Obviously they do. It has nothing to do with gender.

The person who can show up more often, when asked, on short notice has the advantage.

@Ganymede said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@faraday said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

My point is that responsibilities outside of work should have nothing to do with your qualifications for work. If you can do your job, that's all that should matter. But in reality that's not all that matters. Employers bias towards people based on perceptions about their commitment or their ability to do things outside of work, and that causes a bias in hiring against certain demographics.

I want to interject here to say the following.

There is more definitely an employer bias against people's outside commitments, and I believe they are highly sexist. A man who volunteers for the United Way "is committed to the community"; a woman who has to go take care of a sick child "is not committed enough to the business." It's horrible, ugly, and fucking nasty bullshit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

I can remember our new associate frustrated and in tears because she had to take yet another day off because of a sick child. She was worried (because I was not a partner at the time) that she might lose her job because she was taking too much time off too soon from her hire. I had to reassure her repeatedly that the partners understood, and that they measured a person's commitment based on work product quality and timeliness. And that I would defend her to the death if otherwise. Now that I'm a partner, I'll guaran-damn-tee it.

Our firm has long-trended away from the antiquated "sit on your ass in your office" mentality of other firms, preferring to allow our staff to take needed time to be away from work with the understanding that the work will get done well and on-time, whenever. You can work from home, from the office, during office hours of after hours, and no one would be checking your clocking-in-and-out. Obviously, it's easier to get work done during business hours (because we do need to call courts and lawyers), but the firm is committed to making sure our attorneys and staff can reasonably raise families.

You may be able to make more at another firm, but good luck on that 2,000 billable-hour requirement.

It's awesome that your workplace puts employees first enough to allow them to take time off as needed as long as they get their work done! Wish more workplaces were like that!

That said, comparing a volunteer duty to an obligation is like comparing apples to baseballs. The hypothetical man in this instance has no actual obligations that would cause him to miss work or suffer dire consequences.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Ganymede yeah and he also entirely neglected to acknowledge or mention the mountains of bias that have absolutely, 100% resulted in these types of jobs being almost entirely staffed by men, so let's not act like that omission means nothing.

Are we now going after people for what they DON'T say?

This has gotten really weird.