In response to earnest concerns, on my own game this morning I have done the following.

• Verified that the page log history spans interactions back to the first pages exchanged on game.
• Verified that the option has been set on our system to keep unshared scenes indefinitely, an option already included in the standard code suite for Ares.
• Verified that every conceivable form of on-game communication is tracked and monitored (but available to look at only with the permission of you, the player).
• Urged players to "archive" mail rather than delete it, in case they need it later.
• Added all of the reporting commands to our "safety" policy after testing each and every one of them to make sure they did what I said they did in the descriptions, as I offered an expanded help to what was already available on-game.
• Urged individuals, both in the policy documents and in a forum post, to allow us to take a look at any communication that happens in game any time they feel uneasy, either to allow us to take disciplinary action or to begin a paper trail.
• Added a note to our off-game communication policy which clarifies that we do communicate with the admin of other games re: problems that could indicate stalking behavior or other abusive behavior and will, whenever that admin will consent to share information with us, use that information in our deliberations. We also clarified we reserve the right to use interactions we already personally were aware of from our contact with other games to ensure there is no doubt that we are paying attention to this information.
• Clarified why we do not feel qualified to evaluate Discord, Facebook, and similar evidence by pointing out we do not know the Discord handles of every player, or their RL names. Offered a link to HTML instructions posted by people who Discord spoof as (I hope) a mere hobby. A gentle reminder that already existed but which is now reiterated has been offered that urges people to keep their conversations in-game where they can be reported at a button touch unless they are very sure the other person can be trusted.
• Reiterated that we do not integrate our Chat with Discord nor do we have an official game Discord server precisely because we want to give players the ability to limit interactions to an environment where they can, at any time, report the interaction to actual people they talk to instead of faceless Discord admin. As this is posted right on policies, those who come to play know before they choose to gen and before they take the risk of using our site that this is a part of our ToS and they are agreeing to and accepting those terms, which we offer to ensure that they can make informed decisions about whether to communicate off-game or not.
• Added a line to our safety policy which made it clear that they can ask staff to issue DNCs on their behalf if they do not feel comfortable doing so. Language existed already which indicated that DNCs may be issued for any reason without need for proof: I don't want to talk to you is considered ample reason. Players are not required to provision us with any reason other than "I would like a DNC."
• Hopefully put abusers on notice that this is an environment where their every move is ultimately watched and reportable, and that we are trying to foster a culture wherein people feel a-okay reporting either to allow us to take disciplinary action or to create a paper trail that will allow us to corroborate multiple reports from multiple witnesses later, thus allowing us to take disciplinary action eventually if the nature of the interaction is not, on its own, enough to prompt disciplinary action, but was nevertheless sufficient to make a player uneasy. We want it clear that the probability of being seen and caught is very high in this specific space where we have offered to provide volunteer services as game runners, despite the fact that we have indicated that we do not feel adequately equipped to provide protection on other spaces or to evaluate off-site evidence.
• Added a line to our Removal policy which clarifies our standard of proof is "more likely to have happened than not," and not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Hopefully this makes our commitment to stopping harassment or abuse clear, and gives some insight into how an evidence-based system could still be committed to protecting every player that walks through our doors, without requiring us to know all of them personally.

@Tirit I think you're doing as much as it's possible to actually do. We're nerds running games. We're not trained investigators. And even trained investigators make mistakes.

The hyperbole that anyone who makes a mistake in an earnest investigation attempt or in the crafting of a policy just loves abusers and wants to protect them is inaccurate. Sorting through the thorny tangle of the interactions of people is a very difficult thing to do. All you can do is your best.

All places will also have to figure out where they are in the spectrum between "wild west, enter at your own risk" and "big brother." All players will have to decide what steps they'll take to protect themselves in these environments as well. (This is not victim blaming. If you get hurt cause your RL information gets out there we still blame the bad guy who hurt you. I'm still going to Dad at folks and say remember you're on the Internet and giving away personal information is risky behavior. I say this having given away personal information to online people who have become RL friends).

I, too, am really struggling with "how do we call out the true dangers while avoiding character assassination" and I haven't reached a coherent philosophy on that one yet.

Only to say:

• None of us truly knows the history of most of the others here and assuming that everyone who is leery of the character assassination game has never been abused or has never faced trauma is dismissive and unkind.
• This is not a war of the sexes thing. Quite a few of the most famous abusers have been women. I know of quite a few men who have been abused.
• It is not all on the heads of game runners. And not all game runners are equally talented in all aspects of game running.
• It would be nice to make a distinction between, wow, yeah, that was a really boneheaded move you made while you weren't thinking clearly and you probably deserved to be banned from that one game, here's hoping you do better on your next and here is a person who is literally life destroying who needs to be driven out of the community. Right now they're being treated as exactly the same thing and they're really not.
• Wanting to be measured about evidence or investigative responses is not the same thing as protecting abusers even if it did not work in an individual's favor on an individual game. To be clear, yes, corroborating testimony is evidence, it is just weaker evidence than logs and such. A game runner has the responsibility to thoughtfully consider all evidence and to investigate all claims, (as you, @Tirit, yourself just said). The game runner also has the responsibility to know that false accusations, character assassinations, and whisper campaigns are a thing and to do the best they can.

What we could sure all do with a lot less of though is the virulent sarcasm, the snarky name calling, and the howling hyperbole that is coming from certain quarters. Nor do we really need to rehash non-dangerous but foolish behavior over and over again; let the banning that dealt with such behavior be the end of it. Nobody should have to wear a scarlet letter for years on end for milder bad behaviors, yet that seems to be what happens.

@il-volpe I'm not 100% sure I agree with this. Of course this is what players want and it should be facilitated and I'm down with that, but the ST already is running events and running scenes and offering hooks and doing a million pounds of work. Trying to figure out who is remotely qualified to be there and paging them and drawing them out when they're just sitting there seems like a bridge too far to me.

This post says nothing about Brigid's onus to sign up for the +event that's already on public offer to every player in a faction. Where is Brigid's responsibility to read the hooks that are being put out publicly and to +request a scene where she investigates or impacts those things? Why isn't Brigid using the tools?

I say this as an ST who has legit @mailed players going "I notice you haven't played much, are you okay can I offer you something" and getting, "Oh I'm totally fine."

I say this as an ST who has legit @mailed hooks to people and had them straight up ignored.

I say this as an ST who has basically listened to the same people complain endlessly that they can't get in on anything...but they won't sign up for events, they won't proactively poke at anything, they won't put themselves out there. They expect...something, I don't know what, a level of handholding and spoonfeeding that means I now am not giving my energy to the people who really are willing to pay attention and jump in.

I say this as an ST who has literally given personal attention or personally GM'd scenes to people where they like...got to friggin' James Bond their way to information that was pretty vital to the story only to be told, "I haven't gotten to do do anything important."

When do we say, well, Brigid, you had the option to go to World Saving Night and you did a social scene about salad dressing instead and how is that on us? At what point do you go, "Okay, well, you got to objectively do this thing and you can certainly do more but managing your feelings and FOMO is maybe not my job?"

Not trying to be antagonistic here, I just feel a fair bit of frustration sometimes at the amount of effort that I at least, personally put in to trying to get people involved only to run into just all of these things and just this idea that players have no responsibility for managing their own experience. Like it's one thing to say, "I play for moments where I get to do high social drama" so that I as an ST can try to offer more high social drama stuff, it's another to say "if Brigid never shows up to anything and is mad about it this is somehow my fault as a GM."

To what end?

Due process is meant to guarantee the rights of the accused; however, no player has any cognizable right on any game, save for what is promised by staff. Staff who think they can adequately or properly investigate a situation in a manner that promptly and completely addresses it is kidding themselves or lying to players. Games by design are at best benevolent dictatorships and at worst a god-fantasy out of Black and White. So the only reason anyone would want to follow an investigatory procedure is doing so to protect their own sense of self-righteousness.

If the best one can hope to be is a beloved tyrant, it serves no purpose to pretend to be anything else.

I disagree with this premise. In the past, as a game runner, I tended to overreact to the first person who brought me their sad sad story, empathizing with them immediately, and bringing down the hammer with very little to no investigation...exactly the behavior that quite a few individuals say they want.

Later I discovered that by failing to get all sides of the story, I had actually played into the designs of bad actors, sent some of their victims packing, and sent a message to the other victims that I would back this person's word, making them feel even more trapped.

So maybe I'm lying to myself, I'll grant it's possible, but my particular motivation is not wanting to make that particular mistake again, and not wanting to play into the hands of actual abusers again.

It also grows out of the place where I started gaming: tabletops. Where the GM has the responsibility to adjudicate the rules fairly and to handle problem players. At heart I'm still just a GM, with a slightly different table, and to me adjudicating fairly requires that I know what the heck is actually going on in the first place. And not allowing myself to be manipulated because I can't slow down to do a little due diligience.

YMMV of course, and I'm not denying that staff often does a fat lot of nothing. Which is why I say...not all game runners are equally talented at all aspects of game running. Or equally principled. Or are even coming from the same places in where they feel they've made mistakes and created bad outcomes in the past.

Beginning from the assumption that a victim's story must be litigated is indistinguishable from beginning from the assumption that victims are liars until proven innocent.

Strong disagree. Beginning from the assumption that an allegation requires additional inquiry is beginning from the assumption that I the admin do not yet know the facts. All I have is a statement. It's probably true, absolutely, but if you read what I said about having been manipulated in the past into taking actions against the abused by an abuser with a sob story, you will see that earnest good actors can care about discovering the truth, no more, no less. You presuppose an opinion or a judgement call on the reporter when that's just not always the case.

Yes, there is a systemic problem wherein victims are blamed and reporters go unheeded. I will grant you this. I am sorry that you are hurt, angry, and, apparently, feeling threatened by the idea that there should be some inquiry. But inquiry itself is not the source of the systemic problem. The source of the systemic problem is the shitty cultural soup that we're all swimming around in, breathing, and the answer to that is to be aware that those biases exist and to be as impartial as you can be, not to say, "Oh shit, Green Flashlight talked smack about Player X, I must believe this unconditionally without so much as seeing a log."

@rightmeow Dude was kind. He was kindly and calmly continuing to help with technical issues while abuses and slanders were heaped on his head. He made a pro-choice statement but still got called misogynistic. As I can see the other board just fine I can see that the nastiness continues. Raw, cruel nastiness. Which. Cool. They have a spot for that now but equating “let’s stop the cyber bullying over here now” with what’s being said and has been said is an egregious false equivalency. And this whole group of folks once told me with straight faces they would gladly accept a ban from a game just so they could abuse Derp some more (yelling at him for a policy of asking for evidence of a violation prior to a banning on a MUSH while calling him a misogynist for that statement). But I guess that was said by them thinking they were all too righteous to ever worry about bans. So in my opinion? They should put their money where their mouth is. So please just stop lecturing the admin over here about how much nicer they need to be. Gamy got abuse too, and Mietze didn’t get the one thing she asked for because abusing her co-admin was way more important to folks than her mental health. They have been nice and kind and understanding and evaluative to the moon and back.

@selira Well see that comes back to the Set A, Set B problem, cause what got pushed back on was Set B. And I definitely have an objection to that, because people aren't putting people "on blast" based on their actual opinion, but the fabricated, manufactured opinion.

Here's how I see this going down. Over and over and over again. This is an example, not a point at a specific discussion.

Set A: "Unless you espouse anarchy, some level of state control is required to keep people from harming one another. It's mostly just a matter of ensuring that systems exist to hold people accountable, that they're in use, and that they're effective."

The community made up Set B: "Dev said FASCISM was GOOD. Dev's a FASCIST."

Now we're going to go on for three pages arguing about how fascism is bad. Of course Set A never said fascism was good, Set A's poster...myself, I guess, in this example, believes it's terrible, but the damage is done. Now I've been painted as a fascist and now for the next 7 years any time I say anything it's gonna be all like, "Shut up you fascist." At least, that's the pattern I've watched play out. It's happened to more than one person here.

And honestly if I were a fascist it wouldn't do a dadgum thing to change me into an anti-fascist. All it does is make the shouting parties feel real good about calling out someone they've identified as "The Bad Guy" and as a bonus, identified who it's safe to treat badly ad infinitum.

@greenflashlight The number of times, including a recent discussion, that I watched someone say one set of words (we'll call that Set A) and have a whole crop of folks just kinda decide that those words were actually some other thing entirely (we'll call that Set B) and then go off to argue and yell about Set B is staggering.

It happens even when someone tries to break down the original statement line by line and bring the discussion back to Set A. I don't know about 4 years ago or 5 years ago or 15 years ago, but I've sure watched it happen for about 3 or so now. It's why I used to lurk instead of speak up.

And then the dogpile begins. And folks seem to reckon that if they just say real real loudly that someone is (Fill In The Blank) and That is What They Are...and What They Are is something that it is socially acceptable to punch awhile...misogynist...rape apologist...pick your name (as I point out that name calling is still name calling is still name calling) well then heck, we can just say anything we want about that person now, right? It's totally okay, we've stuck them in a little box or category based solely on opinions that they've voiced. And while we do that we can wave the threat around...be careful! You could be the next one to be called this thing and if that's the case we can treat you however and everyone will be afraid to speak up lest they get tainted with the same brush!

Over. Opinions. And in my opinion, that isn't right.

Especially as it would be more productive to engage with the opinion. A person is not a label because they hold a wrongheaded view. They're a person with a view. Views can change. Maybe you're too tired to engage your family with that over the Thanksgiving table (god knows I am) but it's a forum. A place to discuss opinions. And engage with opinions. The original actual opinion would be a bonus.

@ghost In my experience it can be "just writing" but that takes conscious effort and communication of expectation. Conscious effort: reminding yourself, whenever emotions happen, that it's a game, it's a writing exercise, this is not a real relationship no matter how dear the characters are to me.

As for communication...

Things I like to talk about with a romance RP partner:

• Expectations for RPing together
• Expectations for getting into or out of the relationship
• Where that player falls on the spectrum of 'let IC unfold without worrying about it' vs. 'let's talk about anything major OOC'
• Standards on creating or manufacturing drama
• Comfort levels or desire to do sexual writing together

At which point they'd hear from me:

• We do not have to be joined at the hip; I want to RP with other people still and expect you will too, and that's a good thing as it gives us things to talk about. Thoughts?
• The only thing required to stop this relationship is for one of us to want to stop RPing it, no explanation or warning needed or required on either side. This one is a non-negotiable for me. That said, working out what that looks like in-story is more than acceptable.
• I mostly roll with the punches IC and react to things IC but getting the chance to OOCly discuss things like the fact that your PC is contemplating having an affair with another PC is a good thing. Thoughts?
• I like conflict that has been brought about ICly but not manufactured drama...I prefer it if anything our characters fight about be something that happened ICly, not something you made up just now so we could 'not be bored.' IE, if Janet thought my character's behavior was bad at the party then by all means let's RP the discussion, but if you want to have Janet make up some behavior my PC did so Janet can scream and browbeat my character over it about it I'm not here for this (has happened). In addition, if we can't RP together for awhile I'd prefer you to act like things are just generally going well unless the last RP scene(s) indicate otherwise, not to start acting like my character is ignoring your character when we do not in fact RP every waking minute of their lives. Thoughts?
• Can take or leave, I have been in romances where it's RP'd and I've been in romances where it's all FTB and I'm honestly chill either way, but I'd like to know what the expectations are. These days I lean a lot more towards FTB but I also understand that the adult content is sometimes very good story.

That way each person knows where the other stands and can come to some compromises about the ground rules for their unique writing experience. Ethics then become more a matter of "did you agree to our ground rules and then refuse to honor them" than a broad sweeping generalization.

@tooters It's not about thinking they're real. Any more than I think a movie character is real when a movie hits me right in the feels. It can be a lot of things. A story that just genuinely made you happy for awhile is now over. The uphill battle of having to establish the contacts and social momentum all over again and going through a bunch of torturous new getting-to-know you scenes with people who already had to do that with you once. Losing an experience you enjoyed that isn't coming back. You might have a cool new experience, but the old one's gone and can't be replaced and that was an experience you liked and you don't know if you'll like this new experience. Lots of reasons, and I mean you know...people's feelings are their feelings.

@Misadventure You might also get some traction by asking PCs to set some goals. Phrased like: "What are three goals your PC wants to achieve that they will need other PCs for?"

Thus PCs will generate "quests" for other PCs as well, and will have the basis for some story and relationship building. Even if it's simple as: "The blackberries for my special blackberry jelly are up in the hills where all the bears are, and I'm scared of bears and need someone to go with me."

Which is my over-coffee stab at a Stardew Valley example.

Some could be one-offs, but at least one should be a reusable schtick.

@Hella Depends very much on the system. Pathfinder is very crunchy, so I don't generally run it. Crunchy systems can make chargen a PITA, yes.

The difference is that my DM is there, helping me, and is my buddy, and will probably get me into a character by the end of a conversation/session 0.

On a MUSH, I could wait days or weeks to get that character approved, especially if I'm struggling through the system. So, on a tabletop, if I have to roll a new character, I have lost an hour, and my four friends will go out of their way to help me establish my new character in the story.

On a MUSH, I'm now looking at being bored out of my skull with no way to participate for what could amount to half a month. Maybe one or two friends will actually interact with the new character as quickly as they interacted with the old and create a background that lets you jump right back in as an old friend or whatever. You're going to have to go through the same tedious small talk getting-to-know-you RP that you already did with the other 38 people to get re-invited into stories. So you lose a much bigger investment of time and energy. Which is why I don't think it's necessarily fair to get frustrated with MU*ers for not wanting to lose characters.

@JinShei said in PhD help:

L.Muresan.19@unimail.winchester.ac.uk

Sent! Good luck to her!

@Ghost Yeah that's also my vibe. Very much the "Let's play a big TTRPG." Or as I sometimes say, "MUSH lets you be in the book, and that's what I want to be doing."

Granted, when I storytell on a MUSH I don't want to kill players. I'm willing to have lots of things happen to my character, but a) creating a character on a MUSH and getting it approved is a much bigger PITA than creating a character with friends on a table and getting my GM to say 'go for it,' and building up the web of in-character relationships it takes to get involved in anything is a similar PITA, much bigger than just rolling up a new character and b) death isn't the most interesting thing that can happen. But I also like systems and am about story. I think what MU* brings is the ability to create deeper characters and deeper character ties. So I don't really care if people want to use it for relationship RP. Relationships are part of that.

I think it's more important to set the expectation up front and on paper for what sort of game it is, as well as what the philosophy and approach is. It's a spectrum, and telling potential players where, on that spectrum between TTRPG and social-MU* the game is meant to be, can be helpful.

@ZombieGenesis Some of the other plugins could also work well. Someone already coded a Cortex plugin and a FATE, and one or two others I can't remember. The audience that is super duper into FS3 isn't necessarily the audience that would come in on a game with any other system.

FATE might work well; you could probably look at how the Dresden Files used it to modify it for Nightlife. I see many similarities between the wiki write-up of how the Nightlife system works and how Dresden handles the loss of humanity and stuff.

That said, a quick readover of the Nightlife system certainly indicates it has enough in common with WoD/COD mechanics to make it a doable changeover.

I'm also not quite as cynical as Ghost about coding the system you like, or about how people want to RP and what they want to RP. If you are good at code, like the system, would like to use the system, then I'd say as a counterpoint to his valid points that after awhile if you're going to make a game at all, you gotta do what pleases you and lets you make the game that you like and that you're passionate about playing and running. That's part of staying sane, too.

@Hella I'm so glad you had fun!

@ZombieGenesis I think players are open to different experiences, and I know quite a few players who are pretty burned out on WoD. I think if you're passionate about running it and you've got stuff going and make it easy for players to find stuff to do then you'll get plenty. You might not get 70+ per night like you will on a WoD game, but you won't get the problems inherent to 70+ people a night, either.

@ZombieGenesis Great review, and now I want to check out this game at some point (despite being a bit burned out on Marvel).

I wonder if some of the vagueness isn't intentional, given in comics, characters often can or can't pull off extreme versions of their powers "at the speed of plot." But it definitely seems like you'd have to have the right group to play it.

@Hella There's no need to be nervous! I think you'll find the vibe to be relaxed and everyone will be willing to help you until you're comfortable with the system.

@Ganymede Hahah yeah. He's home now. Mostly hiding under the bed but he seems like he's doing alright. He had a plate of food I put just next to the bed and he reached out a claw to draw it baaaack under so he could eat under there. But he came up to see me last night.