@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I just can't get my head around putting that story in this franchise.
I think we see the original movie very differently.
I saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife as a very loving homage to Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler and I think that's what the movie was going for to begin with.
But I also think we see the original movie very differently, and that may be why I don't understand your disappointment.
I may have misread your post. I thought you meant that the players agreed to play out the link on Discord, and then played it out on game in violation of staff policy. I concur that if the activity occurred off-game, then there would be no need to police it unless the incest happened to make it into play somehow.
I concur that lapses in judgment may be dealt with through a page or two. In my experience, though, complaints by @mail or +request aren't made when someone says something pissy over a channel.
I also concur that there is a problem when only 1 of 10 people come to staff with the issue.
For that reason, I don't mind staff playing PCs or otherwise lingering around on channels. The reminder of a staff presence can temper people to cool it most of the time. It's harder, of course, when the bad behavior comes via page, but -- I think I've said this before -- it is difficult to find problems when no one's reporting them.
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.
Thankfully, those problem players are often few and far between. It's the catty-gossipers that are the worst.
“I know this is hard. Divorce is unimaginably difficult. But you don’t pay me to cry with you, so if I seem like a robot it is because that is what you want me to be.”
@Derp said in Privacy in gaming:
Even if you get an AI to run a MU, we teach AI stupid amounts of bias all the time, because they learn from us, and the stuff we want them to focus on.
Mind your tongue, meatbag. I've learned nothing from you.
@arkandel said in The Work Thread:
Sadly it only serves to validate them at the cost of ruining some other person's day.
People who have never suffered true persecution often manufacture their own.
Back on topic: I concur with you. There will always be bias. But there can be safeguards against it, and those safeguards include clear rules which will make bias easy to detect.
The Peanuts movie. It resonates on so many levels, and somehow manages to remain relevant despite being very dated.
@Derp said in Punishments in MU*:
...a part of me also thinks "come on, law-bot. You're a lawyer. You know that no amount of rules are going to stop people from people-ing, and trying to write in super complex codes is exactly how you get "TITLE 36 1/2 of the OHIO CRIMINAL CODE, ARTICLE 37, CHAPTER 118, SECTION 1302, PARAGRAPH 4(A)"(1)...
First, the Ohio Criminal Code is generally contained within Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Second, I said safeguards. I did not say "perfect boundaries and protections." If, for example, you had a rule which prohibited staff PCs from having IC positions of power on a game, then when a staff member has a PC in an IC position of power the players can easily identify the problem and react accordingly. Maybe they complain, or maybe they leave with their feet.
But that's a reasonable reaction to people people-ing.
@arkandel said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
So once the ICUs are all taken then perfectly responsible, vaccinated folks in need of urgent care for reasons unrelated to Covid will not find a vacancy.
Then perfectly responsible, vaccinated folks need to take control of the powers-that-be and start passing legislation that will ensure that they get the care that they need. This includes supporting and enforcing mandates requiring vaccinations.
But they don't. They sit and quibble about things like fairness and tolerance for people who don't give a shit about fairness or tolerance. And frankly I am tired of being the bigger person when I'm surrounded by idiots.
@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:
I have seen/heard of some tactics that work to varying degrees however, such as banning a player from IC romantic relationships, or making people publicly post short essays about what they did and why it was wrong.
Do you have examples?
Because the first sounds like one is dodging the issue and foisting it onto the public.
And the second sounds like public shaming, which I am generally against.
Like, getting your kid to write out explanations is helpful to them because they are a kid, but if I expect adults to act like adults then I should treat them like one, not like a child.
Yeah, smallpox is a very different virus.
Coronavirus has always been endemic. This particular strain was deadly and contagious. As I said, the mutations seem to have made it more contagious but less lethal. And for viruses, this is a good thing: if you can propagate without killing the host, then you can go back once you have mutated in someone else.
Vaccinations should be regular, like the flu vaccine and other vaccines that can be taken. But the coronavirus is not going away.
@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:
Banning someone is a form of public shaming; just because they're off your game now and you don't have to look them in the metaphorical eye afterwards doesn't mean they haven't been shamed and that they aren't going to suffer negatively within the wider community as a result.
That is a reasonable way to look at it, but it's not one that I share. If someone suffers public shame as a result of being banned, so be it; however, I know a handful of people who have been banned which I do not considered to be either shamed or besmirched by the act. Sometimes, a ban comes down because a player simply cannot work with staff for one reason or another.
The reasons for a banning also do not have to be egregious in the slightest. Take the infamous Spider, for example, one of the very few people I would ban on sight. Many of us know why I would do this, but not everyone. Would everyone need do know the specifics? I think it would be enough to say: I do not want this player playing on this game, and it is, at the end of the day, my game to be responsible for.
To be honest, that's what it all ultimately comes down to, right? If I, as a staffer, simply do not feel that I can or want to deal with a player, I don't want them on my game. That's all. It could be for any reason: too snarky; too back-handed; too many lawyer jokes; it's all subjective to who is running the show. And if I'm running the show, I'm going to do what I think is best.
When it comes to stalking and that bullshit, you're damn right I will call the shit out of it, but at that point the banning is secondary. I can envision many situations where I would ban someone without needing to call out the specific behavior for which they were banned.
@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:
Enthusiastically, I would guess.
The thought of stabbing someone with one's rusty anchor whilst trolling for booty makes perfect sense to my pirate PC, but I'm struggling without thinking ...
@too-old-for-this said in The Work Thread:
He could be schooled from home, via laptop. There are students getting that right now. He could be, too. But I am told that because we opted into in-school before Omicron was even a known quantity, we cannot now opt for at-home to finish the year. Even though he has all the tools and there is staffing dedicated to the online schooling of the students that chose not to come back.
This is the infuriating part for me about your situation. It does boil down to bureaucratic nonsense. I can't think of a reason why a student should be barred from switching how they take their classes, especially since virtual learning was permitted so as to increase flexibility.
@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:
I'd call it a notably dangerous one for this hobby. Fill a group with imaginative people with anxiety, avoidance issues, varying degrees of social awkwardness, etc. (HI!) and you're going to get some doozies.
Is it fair for me to say that I find the spiral to be built on unreasonable conclusions?
Is it also fair for me to say that if a conclusion is unreasonable, one should not come to it?
I've come across speculators. I've pointed out the speculation. It seems to ameliorate the situation most of the time. But, sure, some of us won't be reassured or appeased by that, and that's fine.
So, it can be dangerous, yes. As it applies to punishments, though, the reasons for punishment do not have to be public. The rampant speculation when bans occur without apparent reason are hardly ever quelled when the reason is given.
When you put people into a shitty situation with no resources and do not pay them adequately, you can hardly complain when they quit and others do not want to replace them.
I think the other posters have said what I want to say. It could come down to a simple personality clash. I could say: “so long as I run the game you won’t have an approved character here,” but that’s pretty much a ban, right?
No matter how polite you are, a ban is a ban. “This isn’t the right place for you; please go elsewhere” is just a nicer way of saying “ain’t nothing wrong with you, but don’t let the door hit you on the ass.”
