Posts made by Derp

@Jennkryst said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

This thread has a few more instances of 'we should not help group A who are often overlooked/in need of help, because it might also help group B who might manipulate the system/benefit when they shouldn't!' than it probably should, and is drifting closer to Politics territory than anyone wants me to bring up.

ahem

The ideas behind a lot of these are good. I'm not a monster, but I play one online, so while I will do chin-strokingly evil things, I try to get the boundaries set in advance, check in periodically through the scene, and all that jazz.

And even with all the advance prep there, I STILL somehow manage to feel like a piece of shit when I accidentally go somewhere that wasn't said was off-limits, but I also didn't do the regular check-in about.

THAT'S RIGHT, I'M MAKING THIS ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!

Or maybe not, and I'm just like. Posting a warning.

Like @BlondeBot says, all the code and policy and systems in the world won't stop every problem that can happen. Ignoring all of the bad-actors, this sort of thing can happen to people even when all parties are acting in good faith.

But more/new systems can allow for additional ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and can also provide other ways of resolving the issues that come out of it.

Part of it for me, frankly, is pretty direct -- I think that the lines that some people try to set are patently ridiculous.

But more importantly, I won't do this for specific reasons. Primarily, that I think it's too easy to be abused, and that there are other tools that accomplish the same thing.

Secondarily, because letting people set freeform limits like this interferes with the story that I want to tell and the world that I want to build.

I'm not building a game to make everyone comfortable. I am building a world and telling a story, and inviting people to come be a part of that game and that story. They can choose for themselves whether or not to participate.

The limits of what is or is not allowed are clearly stated in several places, including in the Terms of Service that you have to agree to before even continuing into the actual game area.

Do I respect that people have boundaries? Of course. I encourage them to make them firm, in many areas, including the requirement that there be OOC communication. I also require that actions taken be in some way in frutherment of the game as a whole, and not merely used as a means of self-aggrandizement.

But beyond that? The boundaries for what can happen IC are set in the world's rules, not by the individual, and everyone is playing according to the same terms, and I don't have to deal with a confusing mishmash of individual preferences and trying to lace things together into a coherent narrative, thus detracting from the one I actually want to tell.

You have choices. You can read what is offered and decide whether you're in, or not. I fully well know that the game I run isn't for everyone. I don't hold any grudges against people for opting out. There are some uncomfortable themes presented. We make that very clear, right up front. I'm open to suggestions and try to be flexible, but I'm not that damn flexible. I'm here to run the game that I want to see run, and offer it to the players that are interested in the game as it is presented.

Responded to the wrong damn thread. FFS. It's too early.

@Rinel said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@faraday

The tl;dr in terms of civil liability in most jurisdictions is that if you

1. apply law to facts in such a way that
2. a person could reasonably believe that you are offering legal advice, and
3. that person then goes and acts on that presumed legal advice to their detriment,

then you are liable for some serious shit. It's even worse for actual lawyers. That's why you see most of us say things like "in most jurisdictions" and "this isn't legal advice" very frequently.

I don't know what the criminal aspect for unauthorized practice entails, but I expect it's pretty similar throughout the States.

Ours is "engaging in the business of an attorney", which seems to me criminally overbroad in a very "I know it when I see it" sort of way. Even talking about the law with another personx in general terms, has been regarded as qualifying. And ours is controlled by the Supreme Court by constitutional writ, not a bar, so we're doubly screwed in that they are also the only ones authorized to prosecute it.

@Ganymede said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@Derp said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

holds up his favorite 'UPL is utter bullshit' sign

But otherwise I agree.

Sure, sure.

When you seen what I’ve seen, friend, you will burn that sign.

That will be the day that 'ignorance of the law is not a defense' goes out the window.

If we are all considered to be such experts on the law that we can obey every premise of it at all times, then we are also expert enough to discuss it with others. Full stop.

@Ganymede said in The Dark Side of online Role-Playing:

And I don’t recall buttercup asking for them.

To be fair -- (s)he posted something on MSB. If you're looking to keep a subject private and not have someone comment on it, that ain't the way to go about it. So -- I mean, yeah, that kind of is asking for feedback, and I think that trying to clamp down on that is a bit on the heavy-handed side.

The flip side of that, of course, is that there are lots of leaps here, and not all of the commentary is directed at Buttercup directly.

@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

prevent a scene moving forward due to a player feeling uncomfortable about the direction that RP is going based on how it may affect their PC

No, that was what lead to the (slight) topic drift, in that some of us were saying that this system gives players too much control over what happens to their PC, and that there are other systems in place (such as FTB) that can alleviate some level of discomfort without leaving room for abuses of control by people who refuse to accept anything bad happening to their character in worlds where that is a distinct possibility.

TL;DR -- "Prevent a scene from moving forward because someone doesn't like something" is too much, and for the rest of it, those things already exist.

@Macha said in The Dark Side of online Role-Playing:

@silverfox Yes, the kid knowing it is happening only makes sure they won't poke into things they don't feel comfortable talking about. I can only imagine how many of my LGBTQ friends would have never found support groups, or felt able to come out, ask questions... if the parents had been watching logs of what they do on a computer.

I'm … kind of with @Macha on this one. I don't really think that is completely appropriate. And half of the warning signs listed in the post are like -- typical teenager. Changes in hygiene, behavioral changes. Some of them are valid and legit, but I think that if someone used some of those as 'warning signs' to invade a teenager's privacy, there could easily be lines crossed.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to parent their child, especially not @Buttercup, and I"m sure that the context in this particular case matters, but in general I would be a bit more cautious drawing conclusions from that, and I can see how some people might be weirded out by some of the things mentioned. Without knowing all the details, a lot of that is really control-y-creepy.

@Ganymede said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@Rinel

I concur. Do not give out legal advice unless you are a lawyer.

Sincerely, someone who prosecutes the unauthorized practice of law.

holds up his favorite 'UPL is utter bullshit' sign

But otherwise I agree.

@Carex said in Good TV:

Remember how I recommended The Magicians a few days ago?
A new season is starting on Syfy Jan 15th.
We're back, baby!!

New Season trailer

FANBOY SQUEEEE!

@Tinuviel said in Armageddon MUD:

@Derp Well yes, if you're looking at it from a specific game or a specific MU-system, you can have all those kinds of rules as the code allows. I'm speaking in more general terms, since not all games and not all systems have those tools.

My point was more 'have explicit policies and lay out exactly what is expected of people'.

In this case, we don't accept client-side logs because frankly, it's a lot of work to go back and check those and you have easier tools to work with. Other games, as mentioned, can use different systems, including asking for timestamped client logs to check against the server.

Everyone has some set of tools that they can use, and some guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable as evidence in that regard. Or if they don't, then they damn well should. I can't make a general policy because the tools available are vastly different, but as a general policy, everyone should have a specific policy tailored to their game, their needs, their desires, and their tools.

@Tinuviel said in Armageddon MUD:

@Derp I would say that if quid pro quo is offered (if you do this thing, you'll get perks on @Derp's game) or if they're explicitly using the fact that they are staff on your game... and some manner of proof is evident, it bears investigation regardless as to where it taking place. If not for moral reasons, then for reasons of simple optics and association.

I mean, yes, to an extent. There are always going to be gray areas. But it comes down to a matter of proof, really. Have I seen this sort of behavior from this person? Can I see a pattern that shows that such is in play? Can I prove that the evidence provided is legitimate?

I'm not really qualified to make those kinds of calls. What I am qualified to do is tell people to not engage in out-of-the-game communications, and give people the tools to help manage their in-game experiences using tools that I know to be hard-as-hell to alter.

Here, have another policy snippet for an example of "How To Prove A Thing"

Complaints

At times, all attempts to resolve OOC conflict with another player will fail, and it will be necessary to involve staff. Staff is here to assist with dispute resolution, and will take appropriate actions as necessary to resolve such disputes, while minimizing disruption to the story and to the community as a whole to the extent possible.

Any player wishing to lodge a complaint to staff about any player or staffer will need to provide evidence of the disputed conduct or incident to staff, either via the in-game systems available for the purpose or via an unmodified screenshot of the disputed conduct or incident if it occurs in a social media space controlled by $GAMENAME. Luckily, AresMUSH provides a wealth of tools to flag and log inappropriate content and conduct. They are:

pm/report <conversation>=<range of messages from page review>/<reason>

Example: page/report Ao=2-5/Told me that he would raise me to godhood if I showed him my boobs.

channel/report <channel>=<explanation>

Example: channel/report chat=A player really laid into a guest here using some inappropriate language.

Inappropriate mail can be forwarded to a staffer using the standard mail commands:

mail/fwd <#>=<to>/[<comment>]

Example: mail/fwd 3=Selune/I really think that this is inappropriate, and someone should look into it.

Client-side logs will not be accepted as evidence of inappropriate conduct on $GAMENAME, as they are readily edited by the player lodging the complaint, and can be used to provide a false picture of the incident to staff. Hearsay and screenshots that have been modified are also not acceptable evidence on which to base a complaint. All necessary tools to capture inappropriate content and conduct on the game are available in the code, and these tools and unmodified screenshots are the only acceptable methods for complaint reporting.

Staff act as neutral arbiters in all cases, and any staffer involved in a dispute will not be eligible to arbitrate the dispute in question. All disputes will be adjudicated, and actions chosen, based on the evidence provided to staff. Complaints submitted without evidence will not be entertained.

@Meg said in Armageddon MUD:

eta: and i'm not saying 'every bad person in the world'. but is your job as a staffer to protect your players against the staffers you hired or the players you have on your game? i think yes.

I think no. My job, as a staffer, is to ensure the rules of the game are followed and that people are given the tools to help control their own experience, to the extent that I am capable of doing so.

If someone is harassing you via MSB, then that is the problem of the MSB Admins, because it occurs in that space. You can block them. You can report them. The MSB Admins can determine what steps they wish to approach.

If that behavior bleeds over into the game, then I can take the necessary steps because I have that toolset, and it is explicitly against our game's policies.

Here is the thing: It is not my job to protect you from a player. It is my job to uphold the standards that we set for behaviors in our environment. That is the key difference. I am not here to mother hen between two people and show people acceptable life behaviors on either side, because frankly, it's none of my business and I am not qualified to do so in any event. I'm here to enforce the rules of the game.

You break the rules of the game, you're in my arena.

You want to be a fucking weirdo outside of the game, then that becomes a matter for whoever controls that space, or potentially law enforcement. I take no ownership of whatever you do in those arenas.

PROTIP: You don't want someone being fucking weird at you outside of the game, don't give them that info. If you suspect that they have received that info through illicit means, then I can try to investigate, I guess, but my ability to do so is extremely limited, so. Just don't.

@Meg said in Armageddon MUD:

'it didn't happen on the game' is the worst excuse ever not to do your job as a staffer.

doubly so if you are running an official discord for your game.

Except I delineate explicitly what my job as a staffer is, and what areas I'm willing to police. "My job as a staffer" isn't to protect you from every bad person out in the world. It's to enforce the rules of the game. You can take some damn responsibility for yourself, too, and do shit like -- not give people your personal contact information, which we explicitly advise against.

I draw my lines in the sand, and tell people where my job as a staffer ends. You're a goddamn grownup, and it's almost 2020. If you can't be bothered to ensure your personal safety in the online world, it's expressly not my job to do that for you.

I will police the areas of the game that we control, including game-specific social media spaces. If someone is harassing you via MSN messenger because you chose to give that information out to them, 1) I have no way to verify that, 2) I will not simply take your word for it, 3) I explicitly advised you to NOT do that, and 4) it is clearly delineated as being outside the boundaries of my job.

@surreality

I don't actually subscribe to the delineation, because I don't think those are the only possible ways to do it. Games have conflict. Period. Assigning a PvE tag to a game gives player unnecessary license to stir up drama with other players because they know that the options for retaliation are limited. Assigning a PvP tag to the game gives the players the impression that other players are their primary targets.

I think that most games are a mix of the two, and attempting to bar any sort of player conflict leads to strange results, but openly advertising as a free-for-all is equally ludicrous.

@surreality

In that vein, given that we're already posting policy snippets, have this (again, unfinalized) version:

Communication and Conflict

$GAMENAME is not about glitter, sparklies, and people singing kumbaya. PC’s are going to get into conflict, whether it be with monsters, with NPC’s, or possibly with each other. Players will also butt heads from time to time, for a myriad of reasons. To manage this unfortunate reality without unnecessary drama, $GAMENAME splits conflict handling into two sections, IC conflict and OOC conflict.

IC Conflict

The key to effectively managing IC conflict is to keep OOC lines of communication open. Ideally, even if the characters are at odds, whether it be a verbal argument, a fistfight, or a battle to submission or death, the two players are communicating OOCly through the entire scene. However, this does not always happen.

If you find that your character is in conflict with another character, immediately attempt to open a line of OOC communication with the other player. Determine OOC and IC intent. It is perfectly acceptable to talk a scene out before playing it out, and doing so can often lead to better RP for all. All actions in game should in some way benefit the story, and so determining the desired outcome ahead of time is beneficial to all involved. This also helps us, as staff, determine when a desired outcome breaks our rules of Player Conduct.

Any player that finds themselves in an IC conflict with another PC is permitted to call on staff, or on a judge, for assistance in resolving PC conflict. Players are encouraged to resolve verbal-only conflicts with other PC’s via OOC communication with the other player or players, but if a Judge is required to keep the lines of communication open, players should not hesitate.

OOC Conflict

Whenever the lines of OOC communication go awry, conflict immediately becomes OOC in nature, and the approach to handling it must necessarily change.

If you would be understood, seek first to understand. Try to see where the other player is coming from. If all sides can do that, it is usually possible to work out a compromise in the interest of all parties. Keep an open mind, and remember that someone is not necessarily wrong, just because they disagree with you or are saying something you would rather not hear.

If this does not work, or the lines of OOC communication are completely closed, players should seek staff assistance at once. Waiting for more evidence, talking to one’s friends, etc. seldom helps solve the problem. Collect your evidence using the in-game tools and open a line of communication to staff, without delay.

Good questions! So let's take them one by one in what I see as their order of priority:

@Tinuviel said in Armageddon MUD:

Though I am curious about what kinds of proactive steps you think one could take against random sexual harassment. How does one protect themselves from a normal conversation turning into one of sexual demand or manipulation, or indeed random sexually inappropriate messages? Sure, they can block the person after it happens, but that doesn't stop it from having happened.

Obviously people cannot take steps to prevent this behavior, but they can take proactive steps to make sure that such behavior is recorded. Mostly, this isn't entirely necessary on the platform that I am using, as things can be grabbed and flagged fairly easily. On other platforms, I would suggest: Turn on logging with timestamps (most MU clients allow this as an automatic feature, and many MU's have instructions for how to do so), drop the log of the activity in a job (with the timestamps), and we can go back and check server logs to see what all went down there, if necessary. Normally, I've found that people don't deny things that actually happen via submitted logs, but in the event that they do, there are tools for that.

That said, we also make sure to inform players about what mediums of communication we will and will not police (such as game-run Discord servers or the MU itself), and ask players to keep communication with other players to those enforceable mediums.

@Tinuviel said in Armageddon MUD:

While I agree that this is true, we're talking about a job rather than a criminal prosecution. If there are enough - whatever enough means - accusations of misconduct then perhaps it's worth considering letting the accused go. You're not locking them away, or revoking some freedom or right, you're firing them.

This one is largely a matter of policy. I believe in going through something like due process. I will absolutely bypass it if I think that a person has become a problem, and I don't need everything spelled out in letter-of-the-law terms in all things, but I'm also not willing to make fly judgments, or to run a popularity contest. It's a balance thing, and it's not a perfect one, but this is just personal policy. Other people are, naturally, free to pursue other methods in their own spaces. This is just the one I choose to employ in the spaces I control. YMMV.

@Tinuviel said in Armageddon MUD:

ETA: I would also add that though many systems may be available to capture evidence, there are as many systems available to falsify that evidence. If you're going to rely on evidence alone, it will just be he said she said. Especially if the accusations stem from places outside of your control.

Yes, which is why we make it clear that we will police actions only in certain environs. Nominally, the ones where we have some measure of control and ability to fact-check. We make it clear, up front, what arenas we're willing to step in to, what we expect of players, what the process looks like, and the steps that we feel are necessary. If you give someone your contact information in a medium that we don't control, and come back with something from that medium -- well. We asked you not to do that, but largely, that space is already under your control. If it bleeds over into areas we control, we'll take action.

@Meg said in Armageddon MUD:

I think the multiple complaints from multiple women about the behavior of this one staffer has to be taken into consideration. Sure, this one single incident may be in question, but at what point does the amount of people saying it get taken into consideration? How many people have to tell you that 'this staffer is x' (choose anything for x that you might not want as behavior on your game for staff) before you take action?

Unless you bring up the strawman of 'well what if they are all working together to get someone fired'! Sure. If all the people are accusing are really close friends, that could be also taken into consideration. But if it spans people who don't know each other, reported often enough that it's a bit of a meme on the subreddit?

Here's the thing with that, and this will be an unpopular stance -- accusations are not evidence.

With modern technologies, it is easier than ever to gather evidence of such things. @faraday has included a substantial number of things in Ares that will let you capture, via the system, pretty much anything and bring it to staff attention. Reports that other people have had similar experiences, while potentially valid, also aren't evidence, because everyone has a friend of a friend that had some negative experience, and when I try and run those things down, the third parties are either notoriously absent or deny that behavior.

If you want me to take action, you need to provide evidence. Not just an accusation.

That said, I make it very clear in my policies that you, too, are responsible for your own safety on a MU, and that part of the onus of these things fall on you.

No matter what the social climate currently, I do not think it an unreasonable stance to tell players that they need to take proactive steps in these situations, using the tools available to them. The tools are there, and they are too easy to use. There is really no excuse for not doing so.

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Yes, that is a huge help, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable unless there was a list of 'nope, not happening' (ex: rape, child rape, etc.) listed as 'can't be thrown at people without permission'.

We do have some 'strictly out of bounds' items on the list, but given the nature of the source material, it's probably not as extensive as many people would like. That said, we also put up great big warning flags all over the place about exactly that, make sure that players understand what they're getting into, and have created extensive policies about communication and conflict for exactly this reason. It's not a game for everyone. It's not intended to be. But for those that are playing, we make sure that there are resources available to them to manage their experience.

@surreality

I actually fairly frequently stand up for players, and examine the motivations of the actor. But it's been my experience that the scales balance about evenly on 'unreasonableness'.

But if it'll help, here is a snippet of policy files (unfinalized) from a project that I am currently working on:

Consent

$GAMENAME is mostly a non-consent game in nature, meaning that a player cannot refuse to allow things to happen to their character, simply because they are uncomfortable with it. Some limitations on this exist:

Any player may request a FTB (fade to black) at any time. This does not mean that the event did not happen, only that it is not RP’ed.

PC death or any other effect lasting longer than the duration of a single scene requires the involvement of a judge or staffer. (Remember that a single scene may be flexible in its duration to some degree.)

However, all play on $GAMENAME is expected to consider the rights of other players, the storylines of all characters, and the overall storyline in its conception and execution. Play that sacrifices or ignores any of the three above items in favor of the personal aggrandizement of any player is not acceptable on $GAMENAME. All players are reminded that any concerns or issues with OOC communication are to be directed to staff for resolution if they cannot be readily resolved with the player(s).

Staff reserves the right to intervene in scenes or RP in-game if an NPC or world-based response to PC actions is deemed necessary and appropriate. ICA=ICC, and more powerful figures exist than any one character on the grid, no matter how high level. Nobody in the world depicted on $GAMENAME is immune from the consequences of their actions, and $GAMENAME relies on this fact to maintain story balance.