Posts made by faraday

@Wretched Your contacts can fall OUT or get kind of folded up in the corner of your eye or under your eyelid, but they can’t get behind your eye. The folding thing would happen to me every once in a while. Annoying but not in any way dangerous.

@Coin said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

You're deviating from what spurred this topic of conversation

Um, no, I was responding to a thread about there being some kind of problem with narrativity and coded systems co-existing, and you were quoted, perhaps out of context. I don't have the entire thread memorized. If we agree, then great.

@Coin said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

I mean that, in that moment, that player is, within their own bubble of context, playing an OOC game. If what drives me is exclusively getting the shiny object or stat, then I'm playing an OOC game.

I would agree with you about the shiny object/stat thing, if it's motivated for OOC reasons, but what if it's IC reasons?

I'm playing a Firefly ship captain. My character's goal is to keep the ship flying. I do lots of RP about this. Some portion of that RP is supported by coded systems, whether it's a haggle die roll to get a good deal, or a coded econ system where I have to spend some measure of my playtime running cargo from point A to point B. Is that an OOC game? I, as a player, don't give a crap about virtual cargo or imaginary money. I'm just abiding by the game's framework that lets me tell stories about them.

Combat is another instance. My poses are literally influenced by what the combat system says - was my character shot in the leg? OK, RP that. Did they just blow somebody's head off? OK, RP that. Bob is getting piled on by Cylons? OK, RP going to help him. These just really don't feel like OOC games to me. They're just as much a part of the roleplaying experience as the rules and dice in a TTRPG.

@Sunny said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

System depth/whatever you want to call it, and narrative focus, are separate things. They are not linked. They are both sliding scales, and both can be at either extreme without disrupting the other. They complement each other, they are both necessary choices to make, but the severity or lack thereof of one does not imply the severity or lack of the other.

I would agree with this. Look at games like Firan and TGG, which had heavy mechanical/system aspects but also heavy narrative aspects. These things are not in any way contradictory.

I'm not sure that I'd call it an "OOC game", as @Coin suggests, because these systems assuredly drive RP. Either in a direct way (posing in-between combat actions) or in an indirect way (doing whatever crafting stuff leads to a RP scene about the shiny new sword you made for someone).

Many MU players are happy to dip in and out of narrative/system as their mood suits them.

@Ominous said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

However, it is /easier/, if they're complimentary

I would agree with this too. If you put people through the grueling effort of Shadowrun chargen, for instance, but then don't let them meaningfully use those stats (i.e. they're only background info for your narrative RP) - that's kind of weird. I think @skew ran into that somewhat on Chontio by using a gear-heavy system (FFG Star Wars) but without a coded component for gear.

I mean, sure you can do this, but you have to be really clear about how and why. Otherwise you'll end up with a clash of expectations.

@Ominous said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

If you're wanting narrative games, why have we not started looking at all of the developments in the past decade with storygames aka Narrativist RPGs?

Some of us have. There have been games using Fate. FS3 was designed with a narrative focus. Ares has some concepts, like the freeform scene system, inspired by freeform PbP/Storium games.

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Today in Punishments in MU*: Faraday gets turned down.

It’s worse than being banned. :sniff:

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

Faraday is from Venus; Thenomain is from Columbus.

C’mon, I made ARES. At least give me Mars.

@Paradox said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

I know we WANT to believe that the incentives of good story and the like are what drive it; but if we're genuinely honest with ourselves is that really enough?

Yes. If you're looking for more incentive than having fun telling a good story with other people, my games are not for you. And that's fine. Not every game is meant for every player. I don't like code-heavy games because they tend to stifle story too much for my tastes. That doesn't mean they're bad, they're just not for me. Just as WoW wasn't for me because I couldn't care less about doing this endless grind to get my character better gear just so I could... grind some more for even better gear? That is SO not my thing. Yet it has millions of players who do just that.

Just as movies don't generally find success picking "all humans" as their target audience, games shouldn't try either.

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

Which brings me back to the question: How are not earning and losing all that different?

Basic human psychology?

The guy who had a million dollars and then went bankrupt is going to react very differently than the guy who never had any money in the first place. Even though in the end both of them end up with nothing in the bank.

I am genuinely not clear where you're going with this.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain 3000 characters is a lot, too. I mean, yes, I'm a professional copywriter by training, I can definitely do it, but if I only have content for 1200 words, I am going to absolute -hate- bloating it into drivel just to meet some imaginary standard of verbosity. Long != better.

I haven't seen a game in decades that required thousands of words for a background. Yes, it did happen back in the day, but it just doesn't any more (at least not commonly). Most games just require a few questions like "why are you here (in the place where the game is set)" and "what's special about you". To which, by the way, "Nothing" is a perfectly valid answer.

I had a couple chars on BSG who were unfamiliar with the setting whose backgrounds were basically: "A nobody from <insert colony here> who graduated high school and joined the army." That's fine. The purpose of the background is to gatekeep people who want to be the "top of the class fighter pilot who also happens to be the son of a mafioso and a world-class expert in microbiology who won the medal of honor for being a big damn hero early in the war". Or the people who lack rudimentary understanding of the theme. Because yes, those things happen. And they're annoying to deal with once they get out there and RP.

We all have things we don't like doing. For Theno it's backgrounds. For me it's character personality quizzes. For someone else it might be stats. We all have to conform to whatever requirements the game sets forth for entry. That doesn't make it "punishment".

@Pandora said in Staff’s Job?:

Or would you say, 'People doing the tasks required for the McDonald's Corporation to keep making money.'?

Actually I would say "people hired by McDonalds to do some kind of job" because that is literally the definition of employee.

But sure, we could apply that same definition to MU staff to say "people 'hired' (appointed might be a better word) by a game owner to do some kind of job'." Or to use something closer to your words: "People doing any variety of tasks that the game owner deems necessary for the game to operate."

Which seems remarkably similar to what I've said:

The only distinction between a non-staff role and a staff role is whatever the game's internal policies say there is.

What I object to are more specific descriptions that include things like "people the players go to" or "tasks that players don't have access to" or "people driving the direction of the theme/game", which I believe are too narrow to be a good definition for "staff". Yes, some staff on some games do these things, but they are examples, not universal constants embedded in the definition of "MU staff".

@Tinuviel said in Staff’s Job?:

Four if you count "the guy that actually knows what to do."

Lol, point.

Unrelated -- one way to look at the permissions/role/title angle is Ares' roles system. Instead of simple flags like WIZ/ROY/JUD, Ares lets you define custom roles, each of which is granted permissions to certain commands.

You might have a builder role that can build/desc/teleport around. You might have a wiki manager role who has permissions to manage wiki pages, or app review role who can view apps and jobs.

Which of these are roles are considered "staff" and which aren't? The game owner decides in the game configuration, but that decision doesn't actually change anything on a practical level. The only distinction between a non-staff role and a staff role is whatever the game's internal policies say there is.

@Pandora said in Staff’s Job?:

If a game goes down, who do players look to? Staff. If there is a disruptive theme breach? Staff. If a plot conclusion needs a game-wide emit? Staff.

I just disagree, sorry.

You're not going to look to build staff if there's a disruptive theme breach, but these people are still staff. On some games, any storyteller can do a game-wide emit, yet not be staff. There just is no universal constant.

In any kind of 'authority' system you basically have three components: Title, Responsibilities, Permissions.

Often people that a game calls "staff" sign up for additional responsibilities (building/storytelling/app review/whatever), and in turn get more permissions (access to the jobs system/commands to build or code or schedule events/etc.) and a title: "Build/Plot/App Staff".

But that's not universal. On some games you have players who agree to additional responsibilities, or get additional permissions, but without the title of "staff". Faction heads, coders and builders are prime examples of this. Sometimes they're considered staff, sometimes not.

@Pandora said in Staff’s Job?:

The job of staff as a whole in any text-based game is to maintain the code, theme, and community standards through all of the back-end tasks that players do not have access to,

It's as decent a generalization as any, but it's still not quite accurate. We can generally divide MUSH activities into roleplaying your PC, and everything else (administrivia, coding, building, etc.). But there's a huge amount of overlap among player/staff roles even on a single game.

On many games, both players and staff can build, run plots, code (less so these days), or do any number of other things. Sometimes they even do community review/approval of character apps.

On the flip side, players can't access the server, but most games don't consider their server admin to be a member of staff. Even builders often don't show up on the staff list.

It just varies a lot. There's no other way to put it.

@Thenomain said in Staff’s Job?:

what is staff's job in general? What is it to staff? What is it to not-staff?

Each game is going to have a different definition for this, so I don't think there is an "in general".

In the broadest sense, staff manages the game, but there's still no consistent definition of what that means exactly. Is the system admin who keeps the server operational 'staff'? Are the builders, even if they have no other duties? What if anyone can build? I remember back in the day there were volunteer "Judges" who could mediate RP scenes - were they staff? Or were they just helpers? What about faction head or FC roles that have some measure of responsibilities attached? Each game is going to answer these questions differently.

So for me, staff is what an individual game says it is. I do think @Pyrephox's list is a great starting point for games trying to figure that out for themselves.

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Sometimes not just the best but the only deterrent is publicly pointing a finger at someone and telling them they are assholes.

I have to disagree. I want players on my games to be constructively contributing to the game's community. They are very unlikely to do so if I point a finger at them - especially publicly - and call them an asshole.

Someone said it in the other thread - staff are managers. An effective manager doesn't publicly name-and-shame employees who screw up. That erodes trust. It creates an adversarial environment. You either steer them toward a path toward redemption (if you think they're redeemable) or you let them go.

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

But I'll go back to one of my previous posts regarding how I simply do not see anything productive with stern warnings.

That's fair. Personally I have had good success in the past. Often a player is used to stuff being tolerated elsewhere and just needs firm boundaries established. But different strokes and all that. I respect your perspective.

It's worth noting that in this case, I reviewed the channel comments that were reported and found them borderline. I've seen similar comments from other players laughed off without a thought. So for me it was worthy of a warning/probation but not an instant boot. It's a judgment call.

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

I think I was Suzy in this case, right? (I didn't have a problem with their behavior.)

No, you were someone allegedly run off by their behavior. Which of course wasn't actually true. (ETA: Actually no, that was someone else. But it still wasn't true.) All of which is why I think statements that it's easy to sort through this kind of thing are misguided.

Aaaanyway, steering back to the original topic. Sure, I could have saved myself a lot of drama by spying on this player and reviewing all their private logs and chats and everything. I probably would have picked up on the problems earlier. But I still think that's creepy and inappropriate. What's better is creating tools so players can report inappropriate behavior (which Ares now has), and cultivating a culture where players feel safe to do so.

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

I don't mean to pick at history, but that one problem player ran off a lot of folks, and some people apparently did not believe you would take meaningful action in response. I was completely unaware of what was happening; all I know is that the people I was playing with were quietly leaving. And I'm usually that one person that pipes up. What I've learned is that certain behavior must be addressed swiftly.

Absolutely. But which behavior?

Unsubstantiated rumours that Bob is driving off a players, but the players in question have gone and can't be reached for comment? Come on, that's not a bannable offense, that's gossip.

Accusations that Bob is harassing Suzy, but Suzy denies it? Really? You'd ban them for that?

Once I had a couple players come on record with specific complaints (about insensitive/inappropriate channel comments), the player received a stern warning to knock it off. To leave channels if they couldn't restrain themselves. When they didn't, they were banned. I personally don't think that should have been an instantly-bannable offense either, that a warning was appropriate, but I guess YMMV on that one.

If folks feel that makes me a bad staffer, that's their prerogative. I did my best to be fair and even in hindsight I don't feel that I did anything wrong.

But if even one of these alleged harassment victims had come forward with a specific allegation instead of just assuming I'd do nothing and bailing, things would have gone down very differently.

@Ganymede said in Privacy in gaming:

And, let's face it, we're not talking about people who just "don't understand how to MUSH." The problem players we are talking about are legitimate problems on a game, and need removal rather than coddling.

I wasn't aware that we were talking about any specific kind problem players. I thought this was a discussion about discipline in general.

There are certainly players who are behaving so egregiously that they need to be removed.

But I would say MOST of the incidents I've dealt with as staff are otherwise-decent players who lose their temper, say something inappropriate, make a poor decision, cross a boundary, etc. As staff, you have to make the call as to whether they're worth the effort to try to help, or if you're better off without them. That decision is made considerably more difficult if 10 people are having issues with a person but only 1 of them will come to you to say there's a problem.

Either way, I don't think that "punishment" (short of banning) is particularly effective as a deterrent.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in Privacy in gaming:

No names, no details, but as a complainer, you knew that your complaint hadn't just ended up in somebody's spam filter.

I personally am not in favor of that, as I still think it makes the person who was disciplined feel singled out even if they're not identified. Everyone knows that the immediate response to a post like that is more gossip about "OMG who was it? What's going on?"

Either people are going to trust you as staff or they're not. The ultimate way you build trust is by making the problematic behavior stop. Whether that takes some coaching, a warning, or a ban, that's the final barometer of whether staff is effectively acting on complaints.

@Tinuviel said in Privacy in gaming:

Unfortunately for every complainant, there's bound to be a few people that had a similar issue with a person but didn't do anything about it - for whatever reason.

If they don't complain, then they're not entitled to a status update about the complaint, IMHO.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in Privacy in gaming:

"We are looking into it and trying to handle it, let us know if it happens again" will get you a lot further than radio silence, in terms of player patience.

Absolutely, but that's targeted to the person making the complaint. There's a HUGE difference between that and public shaming of a bbpost saying "Faraday screwed up and has been warned." If I saw a game doing that for every infraction, it would be a huge red flag to me. But that's just me personally.