Posts made by Ganymede

@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.

@Thenomain said in Staff’s Job?:

Is a staffer a kind of player?

Yes, unless it is me: I am a robot-cat.

@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.

@Derp

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.

@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.

@Ghost said in Privacy in gaming:

1. IC Authority figures should be either staff PCs or played by staff-approved players to control how plot is driven, but then these PCs always have a crazy amount of plot armor.

If IC authority figures are either staff PCs or played by staff-approved players, then those staff or staff-approved players are responsible for the direction and activity of the sphere. Too often we find that staff or staff-approved players lose time or energy or guidance, and let a sphere languish and die off. This is a traditional method for MUSHes, in my opinion.

2. IC authority figures can be played within each faction, but only factions who support staff-driven plot direction get the most attention.

See above.

3. No one's in charge ICly, but staff plot will likely still determine pass/fail on plot-centric actions

It depends. My experience with this sort of atmosphere is that it breeds a lot of player activity until such point that staff either stop supporting certain directions or fail to do so. This can throw a game's vision out of whack, and few staff want to see a setting they created to go to pot.

@Derp said in Privacy in gaming:

They are, thankfully, going the way of the dinosaur as players who consider volunteering as staff quickly catch on to the fact that that is a thankless scenario with little to no reward and nope out of that quickly.

As a caveat, I can see and believe that there should be some limits to play in certain cases where a game is calculated to be political and deadly, but that limit is not in actual play but what scenarios may be played out.

When vying for an IC throne, a staff PC is going to have some obvious advantages over non-staff PCs.

@faraday said in Privacy in gaming:

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

Of course.

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

Rhetorically, no. Because I think I was Suzy in this case, right? (I didn't have a problem with their behavior.)

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, but I guess YMMV on that one.

Exactly. Right here is where we do not share the same opinion. And I'm just fine with that.

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.

I don't think you're a bad staffer, and I don't think you did anything wrong. Let's just be clear about that. But I'll go back to one of my previous posts regarding how I simply do not see anything productive with stern warnings.

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.

I realize this puts me in a small minority of staffers, perhaps thankfully.

@Arkandel said in Privacy in gaming:

Another factor to be considered is how easily MUSHes allow bandwagons to form, leading to one person getting presented as the fucking devil if they don't get along with a group of popular, loud players. Then suddenly every word they type can be misinterpreted or presented in a contest they didn't intend - which influences staff. If you (General You) get a bunch of complaints by different people with comments captured out of context about the same one guy it's easy to think they're right without looking deeper into it.

In my opinion, these bullying tactics are pretty easy to detect.

In my practice, the more words you use to make an argument the less effective it becomes. Such is the case with these "misinterpret words to make someone out as a villain" complaints. Maybe it's because I live in Ye Olde World of Drama (Darkness) but you get a feel for who the Click-y Dicks are pretty fast.

(The Click-y Dicks got me fired as staff once because I wasn't doing things like they wanted, true story.)

In the past, I have dealt with these situations by convening a connected meeting to hash things out. Why? Because these sorts of bullies actually hate confrontation, and will find all sorts of excuses to not allow the accused their time. They just want staff to intervene without the dirty work of actually accusing in person and being questioned on rebuttal.

And I have no problem evicting popular people from a game, not at all.

@faraday

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.

@faraday said in Privacy in gaming:

If the problem is bad enough that the person doesn't belong in your community, then you ban them. Otherwise I think rehabilitation is more productive than punitive actions.

Rehabilitation is a wonderful concept, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to be a counselor for someone who clearly has issues. I concur that rehabilitation is more productive than punishment, but I don't expect as a player that staff instruct or convert someone into a productive player; that's entirely on them.

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.

@Auspice said in RL Anger:

I know it was a kid because they left behind a whole book of stamps as well. And a young kid at that because my flask was moved and is still full of whiskey.

You can rule out "teacher" because the flask is in there, but you should also add "elitist hipster" to your list, based on what was taken.

@Tinuviel

I may be guilty of promoting banning as the bet option. I am still of the opinion that it is. But this is because time spent policing is time lost doing more productive things.

@Macha

I’ll concede that it is a possibility. It’s a possibility in every sport. A baseball in the head. A stick to the head. A perfectly legal hit that nearly killed Ryan Shazier.

And? It’s football. The guy ran up to Garrett looking to take his helmet off. The fuck, man, sensationalism? Sensationalism.

@Macha

And?

As I said, I am okay with a suspension. That was a dangerous thing to do. Garrett’s response is appropriate and accepts responsibility.

But what about Rudolph? He stepped on Garrett’s groin. After being separated, he went for Garrett’s helmet. That’s when Garrett swung.
He declined to file criminal charges.

But JFC, people are acting like Rudolph was some innocent bystander. Fuck that. Kill him with the helmet? That’s a load of shit.

C’mon. I watched that game get chippy. Garrett needs to tone back a bit before he becomes the new Burfict, but I’m not going to consider Rudolph a victim.

@Macha

On replay, Rudolph pretty much stepped on his groin. Accidentally, perhaps, but still.

I’m okay with the suspension. Garrett is taking responsibility.

Rudolph is still bitching about it because the Browns picked him off four times.

@Auspice

We’ll never know what Rudolph said to him.

@RightMeow said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Being a supportive sibling, I was like suuuuure, I'll try keto with you. It's fine. We can do this together.

Ignore the fact that my job LITERALLY is baking sweets, pastries, cakes, pies, cookies, and all the carbs daily.

FML

You can do it!

@Coin said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

We play in a hobby where people routinely choose not to read news files and, for example, things like Gray Harbor's 'don't you dare spoil Game of Thrones' had to be put in bright red in the connect screen.

So, like, neon colors, please.

It is never advisable to set policy based on the lowest denominator.

Anecdotally, I am fairly sure that most people expect privacy unless under suspicion. To think otherwise is a combination of naivete and willful ignorance.

@Arkandel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

Privacy is a right. It doesn't require justification, but taking it away does.

I disagree.

You have no right to privacy on a MUSH. You have no right to be on a MUSH. The only right to privacy on a MUSH that may exists is a code of conduct which staff informs the players that they shall adhere to. I therefore concur that, generally, staff can spy on RP.

That said, within the hobby I think there is a valid presumption that staff will not spy on RP unless there is good cause for it. Whether that is enshrined in rainbow letters is largely irrelevant. If players discover that staff is spying on RP willy-nilly they will likely report it to someone, and that report will make it to some place public. As a result of the breach of the social agreement, there is a substantially likelihood that a lot of people are going to be pissed off.

I think it is well-advised that staff should probably post some sort of policy regarding privacy, and make it clear that, if there are to be circumstances wherein staff will watch RP, such circumstances are evident and socially acceptable. For example, I think that staff are justified to spying on RP if they have reason to believe there is a violation of game policy.