Posts made by Ganymede

@Bennie

Thenomain hit the nail on the head well, but I'd like to add further thoughts.

Presuming they have not been doctored, logs are excellent proof of what was said. However, if there is no argument that something was said that caused a negative reaction, then what was said is immaterial.

I used to think that evidence was necessary to make a decision. I used to think that staff should act as a judge would. I was wrong.

Staff should act like a bouncer at a bar would, unconstrained by notions of due process. Figure out who's telling the truth to the best of your ability, and take action. If you make a mistake, you make a mistake and own up to it. Just do yourself a favor and make a considered, reasonable decision.

@Thenomain

You could do that, but you won't. I know you won't because I know you well enough. You care enough about your reputation to defend it.

Anyone can undermine anything on a game. As the price of freedom is, so is the price of a good game. The players must be confident in policing one another, but I realize the goal will be difficult to attain because of years of top-down oppression.

That doesn't stop the marches in New York or Ferguson.

And, yes, the system is a step. Transparency is a part of the puzzle only. There are a lot of pieces to consider.

@Thenomain

Actually, I'm not making guesses. I am fairly certain the system is a benefit. I base this off of my experiences from other games, as staff and a player, and my observations of "successful" games. It is not a panacea, but, as you said, a step. More properly, it is a stone for a foundation.

You are correct that it will hasten a death cycle if the game does not have the right staff. This is a good thing. I do not believe it will hasten the death cycle of a game with the right staff. And that's equally as important.

As you admitted, what we have now isn't working. We should try something else. The issues you've raised exist, regardless. I do not believe those would be exacerbated by the proposed system. I therefore posit to you that it is a preferable choice, and should be implemented.

@Thenomain

I understand your concern, but you are asking for answers without a question. That is, you haven't asked an actual question; you have only made statements. I therefore can only presume your question, which makes it difficult for me to pinpoint the response you seek or communicate directly.

I believe your question is: how does the "justice" system protect players from the consequences of their complaints? The only fair and honest answer is: it doesn't. The follow-up is: it isn't calculated to do that. The next follow-up is: that's not its purpose. My admonition therefore is: what protects the players from the backlash is the responses and decisions of staff regarding the complaint.

I have been in a similar situation, which occurred on Victorian Reverie. I never saw the conduct complained of, but only heard, second-hand, that the behavior was driving players away. I directly confronted the accused, who did not deny the behavior, and her reaction to my questioning led me to conclude that she was not a good fit for the game and that the allegations, though second-hand, were true. I removed her from the game, and the players that had been driven away returned.

Apply this to the system: the complainant alleges the accused is stalking other players. Upon learning of this, staff makes inquiries of the accused, whose reaction to the questions leads them to believe that the allegations are true. If the staff is satisfied that action should be taken, then it should be taken. The only evidence necessary is your word and your belief.

Some may cry out: "this is unjust!" Yet I have specifically declined from truly considering the system "just." This is because justice isn't the point of the system; transparency is. While it is admirable to cling to precepts of fair and substantial justice on a game, the fact is that a game is not a nation and staff is not the government. Staff is, at best, like a corporation's board of directors: it has a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation, and can act without regard to "due process."

Staff needs to stop resorting to those notions if it hopes to be effective. Instead, "due process" when dealing with complaints ought to be discarded in practice in deference to "doing what is right." And what is "right" ought not be more than what one's experience and knowledge informs them of.

What transparency demands is an explanation for that action. If your action is justified in your mind, state so. The people may criticize your decision, but no decision will ever escape some scrutiny. And the people should appreciate that you are willing to take responsibility for the choice, rather than hide behind a curtain of confidentiality to "protect" those involved.

@Thenomain said:

I want to agree with you, but we need the right staff to be consistent and just (not fair, but just) to everyone. The idea that we can go through a revolving door of staffers, or that staffers do not act in a timely manner (because this is a hobby) undermines this from the start. The thought that players won't approach staff because they don't want to be outed undermines it. People should feel safe from retribution for their concerns.

You always need the right staff. How do you plan on recruiting them? With good systems. I would posit that if this system were implemented, you'd have good staffers lining up at your door. Why? Because the system protects good staffers by showing the players that, indeed, nothing nefarious is going on behind closed doors.

People are never safe from the petty, weak, and jealous. To expect it is to expect a fantasy. It's nice to dream, but that doesn't mean that one should not strive for a better reality. As you said, right now, we have nothing, so unless there is evidence or argument that the proposal will undermine what security exists, I'm not sure if your doubts are founded.

@Thenomain

In the case where Billy defames Sue to Joey, Joey thereby acts on it, and Jimbo jumps in to assail Billy and Joey jointly, there are several solutions. Mine is to suspend everyone involved in order to get to the bottom of the problem. Presuming the above facts to be true, I would release Sue, who has actually done nothing wrong, and admonish Joey for acting like a prig based on Billy's statements. My ire would be directed at Billy and Jimbo, as they have no cause to start the problem. The punishments would fit whatever the nature of the malfeasance might be.

There is an immediate deterrence in a system where "justice" is transparent: calling in the authorities will bring the truth to light, or could make one look like a fool. Also, it demonstrates the mindset of staff in their investigations and determinations. "Trust" means "predictability" in the land of the anonymous. If you can count on staff to decide things swiftly and decisively -- and in a direction that promotes security -- that should enhance player trust.

It's not perfect. Nothing is. But, in my opinion, the right staff should approach player complaints this way. And it may be enough to put the system in place to encourage players to resolve their issues themselves.

Your "social backlash implications" are undefined. Based on what you said before, I can only presume and advise as follows.

Regarding passive-aggressive behavior, this will always exist. Deal with it, or cut through it, but there can be no staff policy that can effectively address how despicably and cowardly people treat one another.

Regarding indirect OOC revenge, that may be raised in a complaint as well, or added to an existing one. That's the beauty of an open system: you can complain as you will, have an investigation, and a determination as to whether something shall be done or not. But, be careful: if it is found that one is abusing the system, I would not hesitate to have it cut back.

Regarding politicking, this is another thing that people have to deal with. I have no remedy for it; worse, any policy that may be enacted will be yet another thing for people to use in their petty political worlds. I haven't the time for such nonsense.

Beyond these three things, there is the potential backlash that the small group will tear itself apart. That is telling, under the circumstances: if provided with a reasonable, real-life mirror of a "justice" system, a group that tears itself apart is likely unworthy of efforts to keep it together.

@Thenomain : It would be easier if you were to give me a hypothetical to address; otherwise, I'm just speculating as to what you want me to tell you. Thus, I'm unsure if my response would be "concrete" for your purposes. But, here's what I would do.

The complaint is made, the parties are known and published. I would ask for the usual bits of evidence, like logs. And then I would perform my own investigation, asking questions and whatnot, and looking at prior history. Finally, I would write up a summary of: (1) what I reviewed; (2) what I discovered; (3) what facts or inferences may be established from the above; and (4) what I will do to address the situation. And then, I will do it. I don't expect the process will take any longer than a week.

The purpose of the procedure is to demonstrate my mindset, and my process. Not everyone will agree with it, and I don't expect anyone to. The hope is, by publishing the decision and the process getting there, players are satisfied that something was done, and that something was reasonable. The outcome may be debated (e.g., whether the punishment fit the crime), but I think that players will be reassured that someone is doing something. And if they disagree fundamentally, then will have cause to depart.

Regarding complaints against staff, I think it's important to administratively suspend staffers while they are investigated. This may cause a disruption in staff services, but that disruption is outweighed and justified by the fair play promoted by the process. I honestly do not think this process would be especially difficult to implement, fairly and promptly.

@Alzie : The blind that follow the blind are no less blind because they walk in a group.

You're as welcome to your opinion as I am to ride a horse, or to directly state my judgment of your opinion in direct terms.

Perhaps one of the more damning points of your previous post is the suggestion that I am on a "high horse." There is absolutely nothing to connote that I consider myself somehow superior to you, or that I am looking down upon a plebian opinion. Stating my opinion that you are wrong is no different than your adherence to your own, but your attempt to erode mine with a personal attack is uncharacteristically low.

The other damning point is how you've missed that, despite having played it thoroughly, I too dislike this game, but for different reasons that have been previously discussed.

New place, but same patterns.

What about choices that affect the nature of an NPC, and how it reacts in the future? That's on the same line as many of the choices made in the romance paths.

If you decline to finish the Before the Dawn path, I hear it makes Samson nigh-invulnerable.

I guess I can't rule that the choices make no differences until I play the game again, but, by all accounts, your opinion is yours alone. Which is sort of like your madness.

@Alzie : Raptor is entitled to point out where you are just flat-out wrong, namely that your choices do not make a difference. They do; they just may not be as ground-shaking as you'd like it to be, but, really, no one ought to give a shit that I adore Sera.

@ixokai : You faced the Ferelden Frostback; that's the issue. The first dragon you can feasibly take down at the level at which you face it would probably be the Northern Hunter, which is in Crestwood after you drain the lake. If you want a challenge, try the Highland Ravager: it does everything the Frostback does, but it also sets Fire Mines, throws up a massive Guard, and dodges around like a fucking cat on crack. It took me around 40 minutes to kill it as a Lvl. 22 knight-enchanter (with the rest of my party dead as fuck).

The High Dragon in DA:O's Andraste's Ashes quest was far more difficult. I can't remember how I did it; I must've used FF's Ultima or some shit, I don't know.

For the record, I sided with Morrigan. They really needed to work on her model a little.

There is no reason not to employ a system similar to what we have in the United States. All parties to the complaint are known, as are their allegations and claims. All decisions are public, as are the findings, the reasons for them, and the consequential rulings.

I've heard staff opposition to this. To that, I respond: if you are incapable or unwilling to express your reasons for a decision that detrimentally affects another, then you should probably not make that decision.

I've heard player opposition to this. To that, I respond: if you are incapable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of making a complaint, then you should probably not make it.

Staff don't need to be transparent about how they come up with policies. But they do have to be transparent about how they decide specific complaints of conduct, against them or between players. Without the latter, all support is based on supposition and imaginings.

I cook. This is because my partner does not / cannot. I can bake as well, but not as proficiently.

Mostly, though, my "things" include working out an awful lot. I just like the rush. Oh, and drinking. And Dragonforce.

Corruption,

You have omitted three points that must be considered before your own list.

1. Look at your life to determine whether you have the time necessary to create and operate the game you intend. Do you have it? If not, don't start. Factors include, but are not limited to: (1) your work schedule; (2) your spouse or significant other(s); (3) your family; and (4) whether you intend to carve large chunks of your time to devote to other hobbies, like macrime.

2. Look at the people you want to bring on-board as staff. Presuming you like, respect, and can work with them, examine their life to determine whether they have the time and motivation necessary to participate and assist you. Do they? If not, don't start.

3. Look at the people you want to bring on-board as players. Presuming you like, respect, and want to entertain them, examine their life to determine whether they have the time and motivation necessary to devote their time to your game to make it better. Do they? If not, don't start.

Ignoring these three points will likely result in your losing any motivation for running a game.

Raptor,

I don't put out shitty product even if I'm arguing before a small claims court. Good lawyers put out good product regardless of their client or venue.

Same with good game companies. Don't put out shitty products. I'd rather it not be released for the lower-generation consoles if they're going to put out shit.

The sort of problems I experience are signs of an unpolished release, which is a shame. I think a majority of DA:I players are on a older-gen console of some sort, so it's shitty when the developer decides to ignore those gamers in favor of those who own newer consoles or PCs. I mean, I understand why, but it's still shitty.

I suppose the Knight-Enchanter is over-powered. Just a little. I do enjoy solo-ing on giants.

It's a solid game, and it's probably great on a PC that can handle the graphics. For me, I can't get over how poorly-polished it is for the console. Play-wise, it's smooth, but the movements and graphics are unpolished, and the game crashes more often than it rightfully should.

I fucking hate EA.

I hear it won 2014 Game of the Year. It still doesn't hold a candle to 2013's. Not even close. Then again, I don't expect that many games will for a long time.

Thank you to EmmahSue, et al, for putting something back up.