Posts made by faraday

@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. Because if they player isn't doing anything wrong on the game, then what exactly am I 'protecting' them from? The possibility that they might do something bad? That's a slippery slope IMHO.

@Derp said in Armageddon MUD:

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.

Exactly this. I've seen players who were banned from one game flourish on another. I've seen players who are complete a-holes on MSB but perfectly well-behaved on games. It's not the person that's usually the problem, it's the behavior.

Now of course there are always extreme situations that might be exceptions to this. If I know for a fact that someone is a serial harasser, or stalking someone RL, or something really awful like that... I may choose to act differently. But in general I don't think it's staff's job to police off-game behavior. Especially when establishing that proof for an off-game venue is often tough if not impossible.

@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.

I'm running an online roleplaying game, not playing moral judge and jury for how somebody lives their life outside the game.

For instance, I may strongly disagree with the rules of the hogpit here, but I'm not going to ban somebody just because they engage in behavior I disapprove of that's within the bounds of the forum. The same goes for discord (outside an official game discord I'm running), facebook, real life, etc. That's not in any way, shape or form my job as a MU staffer.

ETA: I think staff certainly has the right to say "I don't want you on my game" for any reason, but that's different than having the responsibility to police off-game behavior.

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

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.

Because in my experience I don’t see the “so obviously” part. Maybe it’s because my games have had a “you can always request a FTB and please call staff if there’s a problem” policy for ages. Nobody’s ever come to me with “Bob gave me grief when I asked to FTB.” or anything like that. Not once in the decades I’ve been staffing. Nor have I ever encountered it in all my time RPing.

And frankly if there are people unwilling to speak up despite such a policy, I don’t think a coded command will help them. I’m not telling you or anyone else not to do it in your game if you think it will help. I just don’t see the value personally.

@mietze said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Pandora agreed. The phrase "adult more" can be really super ugly thrown out in certain contexts.

I suppose so. In this context I meant in as I said: “work it out amongst yourselves or call staff to help if you can’t/are uncomfortable/etc.”. That is how I believe a responsible adult should act in these types of games, across the board, and I’m comfortable sticking with that position.

@Pandora IMHO the red card command will be met with the exact same reaction as a FTB request, because in practice it’s exactly the same as saying ‘hey wait’ just with a different command instead of ooc. The code isn’t actually providing a resolution in the same way that a combat roll is. Humans still need to be involved to sort out the resulting mess.

You don’t need a coded command for this. All you need is a policy that says “hey if you’re uncomfortable with something happening and can’t work it out, you can always FTB or involve staff to help mediate.” Adults just need to adult, and that includes staff when called in to help. Code isn’t going to magically stop people from being unreasonable.

@Derp said in Microsoft Azure...?:

Part of the benefit of using GitHub. So long as all that is up to date, you've basically got an offsite backup of everything.

Well your code anyway. You still want to back up your database and config files and such. Ares has built-in support for automated backups using Amazon S3 FWIW. It's mildly tedious to set up initially, but it's a nice comfort.

@Carex It depends on the game.

All the codebases (that I'm aware of) are free & open source, so you only have to pay for the server.

Penn/Tiny/Rhost - you log into the server shell account to install the game, but then all building/coding/etc. for the game is done from your MUSH client.

Evennia/Ares - you install the game in the server shell account, and typically use version control (like GitHub) to manage the game code and sync changes from your PC to the game. You can also FTP files or even edit the code directly in the server shell if you prefer. Building is done from your MUSH client.

Both Azure and Amazon Web Services have free tiers if you stay under their resource limits. The trouble is that their pricing structures and resource metering can be difficult to understand, so it's easy to stray from the free tier into being forced to pay for things. I prefer Digital Ocean, as @Derp mentioned (though Linode seems nice too). It's not free, but most MUs will run on their $5/mo plan and it's very clear what you're getting and what your price will be.

@Derp said in Aesca Sneak Peak:

But also I am seriously trying to figure out how to put a 'number of open jobs' thing in Ares for players to see, so that they know how much workload the staff actually has.

Should be easy enough, but also kind of misleading IMHO. Some games use jobs to track things internally, so you could have "227 open jobs" but 219 of them are just future plots, musings, things that maybe you'll build eventually, etc. And you might only have 2 open jobs but staff is really swamped doing plots/questions/RP that aren't tied to specific jobs. There's not necessarily any correlation there.

And honestly, if staff is too overworked to get to apps in a timely fashion, you're going to lose players no matter what.

@mietze said in Aesca Sneak Peak:

I do not think that an automated cg that spits a ton of people out onto the grid quickly solves the problem and may in fact exacerbate it especially on an original themed game where there may need to be some front in quality control.

You can have automated (not fully automatic) and still have quality control, especially if you build some of the quality control into the system itself. On BSGU for instance all of the limits, requirements, etc. were baked into the system. The only thing I had to review was whether the background made sense and the skills fit the background. That allows pretty quick throughput. Not all systems will work that way, of course, but if you can make it work for your system, you can alleviate the chargen backlog greatly.

@Pyrephox said in Gamecrafting: Excelsior:

Ah! I see where we went wrong. I do not mean 6 as in 'this is the number each die must hit' I mean 6 as in 'this is the number in the opposing pool you roll against'.

Oh sorry, misunderstood. 6 just happens to be the default target number so I thought that's what you were referring to. Opposed rolls are intended for actual NPCs with skills. Using them for difficulty is not ideal from a mechanical standpoint either (it generally makes rolls much more difficult - as I rambled about to Karma from Grey Harbor as well) but YMMV. Anyway, carry on!

Sounds like a neat game.

@Pyrephox said in Gamecrafting: Excelsior:

Someone will have to make a Survival roll vs 6 + the number of specific criteria (So, “I want to find an edible vegetable” is a straight 6 but ...“I want to find a sweet vegetable...would be an 8...

Just FYI - FS3 mechanics (I assumed you're using FS3 since you mentioned background skills and luck points) don't work that way. Modifiers add or remove dice; the target number never changes. While you could of course modify the code to do whatever you want, changing target numbers would require some extreme code surgery and have significant game balance implications.

@surreality said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

That said, I get why it's hard to be that person when it's a stranger. It is REALLY EASY to come across as 'wrongfunning someone' if they are perfectly OK with what's happening by asking if they're uncomfortable when they're not, which could in turn make both parties uncomfortable.

This, exactly. If somebody wants to reach out? That's their business. But this is why I personally would not be comfortable doing so, especially on games where I also staff. It just sets up this weird dynamic where you're kind of implying the other person might be doing something wrong. Like I can just imagine the person on the other end being all... "Um.... no, I'm good. Why? Should I not be? Do you know something about this person I don't know?" and so forth.

But mostly I just get uncomfortable at the idea that somebody behaving in an IC way that we personally find distasteful should automatically be cause for OOC protective action. That just seems like a slippery slope.

@Ghost said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Is voring with your feet enough to risk not participating in the hobby to stand your ground on your ethics? I was able to answer that question, for myself, of course.

As was I, which is exactly my point. We're all adults here. We choose what we're willing to tolerate. No one else bears that responsibility for us.

That's why, to the original scenario posted, I say deal with it ICly. Play the concerned patron all, "Is this guy bugging you?" and let it play out. Dragging it OOC without any indication that there's a problem strikes me like someone wandering onto the set of Mad Men and being concerned that Don Draper is an a-hole. Unless you see Jon Hamm being creepy between takes, it's just fiction.

@Ghost said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

This is something MU needs to figure out to evolve, IMO.

Fear of retaliation is a legitimate concern when we're talking about RL harassment. I understand why people won't always want to risk speaking out against powerful people, bosses who can ruin their careers, people they have to see every day, folks they're living with, someone who might cause them physical harm, etc.

But these are games we're talking about here. The scope of any potential "retaliation" is so minimal that it's almost hard for me to call it that with a straight face. Speak up. If staff won't act to your satisfaction, type QUIT and good riddance. If people stop tolerating toxic games, then staff everywhere will be motivated to address the toxicity or else they won't have any players. It really is just that simple IMHO.

@Auspice said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Now I know we think: this is just a game.
The issue is... how many people quit games because of the discomfort? How many of us witness this and then worry...what if I'm next? What if another woman is next?
That is why I began this discussion.
Not to see a flood of people go: ugh, mind your own business.

But I hear everything you say and my answer is the same: It's IC. It's not my business, as a player or staff, until it crosses OOC boundaries.

If you disagree with that - that's cool. We don't have to agree. But just because "a flood" of people think "or not" is the answer to "how to approach (or not)" in the situation you described, that doesn't mean we're engaging the discussion in bad faith.

If I'm next? I'll deal with it ICly. If they refuse to acknowledge my IC boundaries and make a pest of themselves, I'll deal with it OOCly - first by telling them "Hey knock it off" and then escalating to staff if need be. Both of which I've done in the past. If somebody complains because their behavior is somehow being disruptive OOCly (as opposed to just unlikeable ICly), then I'll deal with that too. Until then though? Not my business.

@Derp said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Can you imagine what sort of hobby this would be if all of us were judged OOC based on the actions of our PCs? (Moreso than we already are.)
Every Daeva would be a secret rapist. Every werewolf would be a violent psychopath. Every superhero would be dangerously delusional.

So I generally agree with what you're saying.

But.

The hobby doesn't generally have a problem with players acting on their delusions of grandeur or psychopathic murder rampages. We do have a problem with players tromping over boundaries, harassing other players and just generally being creepy sometimes when it comes to IC relationships. So I don't think it's quite the same.

It's not unreasonable to be alert for these things, and potentially reach out if you're comfortable and willing to do so. It might be received poorly, but that's your choice to make.

But the white-knight with a harem of six different women? If it's all among consenting adults, no rules are being broken, and nobody's being made OOCly uncomfortable? It's not my business.

@Arkandel said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Sometimes it can be as easy as paging someone with a simple "hey, it came to my attention Bob has been flirting with your character pretty heavily. I'm just checking if that's okay with you".

I have a problem with the idea that ICly flirting (even coming on strong) is a red flag worthy of staff concern and/or intervention. Most MUs have as much IC relationship drama as the average Shondaland soap opera. If it's IC, deal with it IC. Tell them to go away, throw a drink in their face, call over a bouncer, etc.

There's only reason to be concerned if there's an OOC component. Like if the target of their affections can't get any public RP without being harassed by this person, or has asked them to leave them alone and they won't, OOCly creepy chat remarks, etc. In those cases, I agree with @Derp that the onus is on the player to speak up. I'm not going to get involved, as a player or a staffer, unless they've given me some indication that there's a problem.

(Side note - I think it's fine for a concerned friend to complain on their behalf, but that complaint needs to be substantiated either by logs or by the target confirming that something is amiss. I can talk to them, but I'm not going to white-knight for someone who's denying that anything's wrong.)

@Derp said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Not to sit and hawk over everyone to make sure that whatever artificial boundary exists in my head is being honored by the entirety of everyone.

This. Everyone has different boundaries. We can't all be expected to guess whether someone is amused and/or enjoying the aggressive IC flirting or whether they're squicked out by it. If it's IC, then it's preferable to deal with it ICly. If there's an OOC problem, then the player needs to make that clear to the other players and/or staff.

@mietze it’s really not possible for something to get behind your eye unless your eyeball first pops out itself. At which point, like you say, you’ve got bigger issues.

But I second the sentiment that contacts are a PITA overall.