Posts made by bored

@surreality Yeah, all the IC horrible aside, some of the OOC staff stuff was even creepier. I'd give better than even odds one particular person having been an RL predator.

Memories!

@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Many of these historical games are set in time periods where there's no indoor plumbing, rampant disease, people not bathing, water and food that could possibly kill you, no reliable birth control, women dying in childbirth all over the place, etc.. The world during these time periods was not actually enjoyable or fun. A lot of these things tend to be glossed over for historical settings, realism be damned, because this part isn't fun for anybody playing in it.

Give Firan some credit, yo. It had lack of birth control and women dying in childbirth alongside the vicious racism, IC/OOC homophobia, and state-sponsored rape. Plus I think there was a disease tp once.

A big thing here is a wider mistake in game design: setting is not theme. They're related, but not identical.

Sometimes thematic elements are inferred from the setting. IE, when you pick something that is explicitly 'not in our time,' it seems obvious you are saying "We care about the time our game is set in. This matters. Think about your character as a historic person." Maybe because of that, people seem to be a little better about clarifying what they want to leave out, too. "It's history but women aren't property."

In generically modern WoD (which, obviously, is very popular among MSB and pretty relevant) it's a lot less clear. Since the time isn't differentiated, some assume it's not the focus ('this isn't reality!!!'), and that you really care a lot more about all the un-reality of the setting. "I am playing a Vampire. The game is about ageless monsters and their vicious but also distinctly inhuman politics." On the other hand, WoD has a lot of 'through the mirror darkly' kind of theme to it, which other players may latch onto.

So while we probably cannot settle what games should be in a universal way, I think it's probably safe to say that all staff should be clear about what game they're running.

Separated these posts out because of length!

@arkandel said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

I chalk this up to players not being able to properly separate IC from OOC very well, which is a way more widespread issue. It happens everywhere, too, across the board and on nearly every game I've even seen.

Sure? I mean, I agree asshole players are a thing everywhere, and bad behavior etc etc etc.

Buuuuut there's still something specific to this, and the potential RL connection I mentioned. Certain players gravitate to this stuff for certain reasons. And it isn't just the -isms. It's also the class/power imbalance of L&L, and how those let you belittle and dominate your social inferiors in game. In a way, some of these games are basically built around these modes and motivations and play.

Even where there's no real 'race' per se or mindset for someone to use when picking a faction.

You even see it in Horde versus Alliance on WoW, like there's a kind of player who chooses one over the other. It's how we are... tribal creatures who need a 'them' so there can be an 'us' we then get to be part of.

So if someone's bitching about them asshole halfies or whatever it is... that's on them. I can't honestly say it's the game's fault for having a freakin' halfling race. If they had werewolves instead it'd be them asshole furries or them asshole bloodsuckers or whatever the hell. If you want to stick a label on others badly enough you'll figure out what to write on it.

Sure, kinda? I mean tribalism is definitely a thing and players in rival factions dehumanize each other. But I think it doesn't quite encapsulate it entirely. Faction is often OOCly a play-style / character theme choice in games. IE, you play a Ventrue because you want political play, or a Daeva because you want combat/hot TS. You play a Werewolf because you want those character options. And this may put you at conflict with the non-Werewolves, but it puts you at conflict with them on the (presumed, game balance aside) even footing of rival major-archetype PCs.

Basically, 'die Werewolf' is, somehow, not quite the same thing as a racial slur (even a fantastic one) despite being the same thing? WoD races or WoW factions can't quite encapsulate it because they have some kind of presumed equality even if they're opposed. The closest thing I can think of in WoD is maybe how minor template (ghouls, kinfolk, etc) characters are sometimes treated.

Firan-wise, it was the difference between how Gold Dragon and Griffon players (for the non-initiated: hugely rival clans with a bloody history) treated each others, and how people treated halfies. The OOC vibe was not remotely similar, despite both the levels of IC antagonism and OOC factional-separation being similar (arguably it was more intense for the GD vs Griffon).

@deadculture Yeah, as much as people counter 'realism' with 'omg magic and vampirez how can realism?!!' verisimilitude of setting is still a thing. If you're trying to depict something historic (even in the, I'll steal the term, 'Netflix costume drama' level of historic), it is notable when any obvious, prominent aspect of that historic setting is changed. Entire genres can be built on this trick (Steampunk), but in the same way that someone walking around with red basketball sneakers in Victorian London would visibly be 'off', a woman taking on the cultural/social position and trappings of a man would be visibly off.

You can make a 'historic-ish' game with any number or severity of deviations, but the more of them you make, the less identifiable/resonant the setting is going to be with the original. Per the Steampunk example, this may be OK or even totally awesome, but it's a design decision that has pretty serious implication on what exactly you're making. And at a certain # of changes, you're no longer making a Netflix costume drama, you're making a fantasy game.

Again, it's an OK choice to choose to do this! But it is what you're doing.

I'm also not sold that 'fantasy racism' safely, 100% avoids the nasty implications.

It may redirect them enough that some players do not have the negative RL associations they would with a more directly relatable versions. But I've also seen plenty of people latch onto the fantasy versions to a degree that was intense and obsessive, which saw them cross into OOC nastiness vs. those players, and which probably (and in one case not even probably, I know it for a fact) related to RL views. This is almost all re: 'halfies' on Firan, but I could see it happening elsewhere if you made those thematic animosities intense enough.

@deadculture

I went back and found the thread. Hilariously, the first post it went to was me downvoted to -2 for calling Cirno a troll and @Arkandel upvoted to 5 telling me 'just because he's a troll, doesn't mean he's wrong.'

So yeah, SJW MSB was in general largely supportive of Cirno's unfounded banshee wailing about nonexistent racism.

@deadculture Its too long to remember it all, so I could be wrong, but I think, despite Cirno leading it, there was a non-zero number of people supporting him in the thread vs everyone telling him to shut up (which was the correct response) so... even there, you kind of saw people being very willing to jump on 'omg racism!', even when it was clearly unjustified.

@sunny Sure. I'd still say there's a larger shift because even where places may not have this rule, I do think you see staff being a lot more aware or reactive to it. Not every game puts its cultural norms into news files.

@sunny I think claiming that this is 100% limited to Arx is a bit misleading. It's just a visible example because it's large (and because it's a successor, in spirit, playerbase and staff, to a game that was racist and sexist turned up to 11).

For instance, we had/have (I dunno if the reboot is still running) the two Arthurian games that both made a pretty strong point of removing any kind of gender imbalance. This is despite the fact that these games were rooted in eras and genres of literature dripping with sexism and that it was even part of the game mechanics/rules (at least for the first game, using Pendragon). Not shockingly, it actually caused some non-trivial problems (for instance, landed women were thematically extremely rare, so they were mechanically worth more points to marry - but that gets turned on its head a bit when anyone can CG one). That game also had someone screaming about racism too, although granted it was 90% Cirno so who cares.

@miss-demeanor All I knew about was the original thread (where, to be fair, she stirred up conversation through a post that was, on top of everything discussed here, a huge necro) and this one. I would agree that multiple simultaneous threads on one person/topic could definitely be viewed as excessive and under current rules at least that first location is inappropriate due to it being an ad thread (though @Auspice is equally guilty of breaking policy here! Mods ignoring policy seems like another good reason for that person not to be a mod). Beyond that, given the strict hog/non-hog divide exactly two seems like it will be... very common? But more than that, sure.

Anyway, I think this thread has been reasonable and I am only really defending the conversation here. It shall continue to be my one-stop shop for all my 'the mods are literally the worst' (note, hyperbole for effect and not actual opinion) needs!

@ganymede Sure. That's all fair and I don't disagree. I'm a pessimistic sort by nature but I can see things being accomplished amidst all of this.

@Arkandel The issue there is that how much people are willing to give and take varies tremendously (and is not even always symmetrical). If you're going to put it in the rules you're going to have to find some kind of standard, and... well, you already have my feelings on how it shouldn't invalidate the ability to actually collectively point fingers at a perceived issue.

While we're on the topic, if we're going to be defining what is mod-able, can we maybe also consider rules about 'faux modding' type behavior, where regular posters start trying to meta-manage threads? (where we have a very good example here)

@surreality @Miss-Demeanor

I'm not that convinced. There's no evidence of the people being involved having outstanding personal vendettas, or of anyone 'following anyone around' outside of the exact discrete 'one issue' that you mention. Its been event driven. There is a specific post being discussed here. People jumped on @ganymede too when she came in fast and hard (rawr?) with the initial wagon-circling that... presumably @Arkandel realized made them look like typical horribad staffers and reined that shit in. She hasn't continued, and hasn't received further scrutiny.

Also, it seems necessary to point out that a mod is not a normal poster. They are a person of public interest. That means that their behaviors are obviously going to be under general scrutiny. I think its far more reasonable to suggest that if they actually have an issue with that treatment that they might not be suited to the job, than that anyone who has trouble with one of the tiny number of mods should 'go make their own board.'

@arkandel said in Regarding administration on MSB:

And I do want some of the targeted group actions ("we don't like you in particular, person, so everything you say will be attacked on sight!") to stop. Dogpiling is definitely on my radar as well.

Do you think that's what this is? How would, exactly, negative mod behavior (or, alternately, shitty normal poster behavior) even be addressed under that rubric? Discount this case if you like, there was quite a bit more consensus on the first time around being a screw-up. How do you that consensus if multiple people can't express that they disagree with the action?

@wolfs Eh. If it was the first offense, I'd agree with you.

Double sorry

@wolfs said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Some of this reads more like people who have a personal problem with Auspice just looking for an excuse to gripe,

FWIW, I don't believe I have any particular history with her. Like @tempest, my focusing on her is because... she's the mod who's been fucking up. It really is that simple.

or some people just being against any form of visible moderation whatsoever.

This is closer to it. I'm not against any moderation, but I believe we were sold a rules-centric form of moderation but are instead getting mods (or at least, one of them) who are mod-voicing their opinions/ideas/etc. Do not want.

@thenomain said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@bored said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@thenomain I mean, damaging only on the scale of any of this shit being anything which anyone takes remotely seriously, which is a... very low scale, yes.

And yet, here we are.

if we're going to have 'active mods' (which I categorically object to as a major and harmful shift in the board culture) they need to post better than 'useless at best.'

So your summary of Auspice is 'useless at best'. Which means that you think her average is 'below useless', with no more evidence than "it looks bad if you don't trust them to begin with".

No, sorry. My 'useless at best' is for the quality of that post alone. IE you can scale it from 'not harmful but literally accomplishes nothing because the people who are accusing these things won't read it or care' (ie, useless) to 'maybe slightly harmful because its an official post that looks like spin/denial, and... I dunno, maybe someone who didn't know about MSB could get pointed at it by an angry staffer and believe them' (ie, fractionally negative).

Overall, I think we have two examples of @Auspice modding poorly. Based on this, if they want active mods, I think she's a bad choice so far. But I don't actually want active mods, and as a purely mechanical/workload mod I would have no particular issue.

@mietze I am not sure how you're failing to differentiate housecleaning (where I 100% agree they should do that without special consensus, unless... its a supermajor thread, maybe) and 'the same privileges they've always had to speak.' Adding mod voice to the latter is very problematic.

@thenomain I mean, damaging only on the scale of any of this shit being anything which anyone takes remotely seriously, which is a... very low scale, yes. In the grand scheme, I think the post is more useless than harmful, but once more, if we're going to have 'active mods' (which I categorically object to as a major and harmful shift in the board culture) they need to post better than 'useless at best.'

@mietze said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@bored but any moderator clearly has the authority to speak as a mod. I mean that is absolutely crystal clear, even when there is not consensus.

But make comments? That’s already clearly part of the perks, no overstepping authority.

I guess this is the issue. I don't think there should be 'perks.' Their only function should be helping @Arkandel with what was supposedly too large of a workload in his original job, which was holding people to actual (hopefully posted) rules. They are volunteering to do something thankless, not superusers with 'privileges.'

@thenomain Yes, that post. I don't know what to tell you. 'Hey I am making a big show of us not supporting this thing.' Do I need to link you a news clip of a politician denouncing a thing they've been accused of/implied to have association with, for you to get how 'We don't support this thing' can be a kind of denial? Its very common language.

@wolfs Obviously the whole idea (as has been discussed previously, I think in this thread) of MSB hit squads is laughable and the games that tend to worry about it are usually run by paranoid dictators.

But they do have players that aren't. While I don't think it changes much, it's hard to see any net positive in the post. It certainly doesn't seem worthy of dusting off the MOD VOICE, particularly where my general opinion throughout this thread is that modding should be sparing. It shouldn't be for when @Auspice thinks her opinion needs to be louder.

@mietze Maybe. It definitely didn't make it better. As above, my feeling is that the threshold for moderation needs to be higher than 'I'm just gonna say a useless thing that definitely won't help, but, uh, I guess it doesn't hurt much either? also implied authority I don't have.'

@thenomain I'm not sure what's unclear.

To me, her post reads like the 'There is no controversy' line, in that her denial (via admonishment/conspicuous condemnation) is far more suspicious than total silence.