Posts made by mietze

@surreality said:

Taking the 'distrust by default' approach, which RfK initially did in this case, exacerbates the problem considerably. Why? Because you've already established that you needed rules to prevent staff from playing because they can't be trusted to not cheat or be unfair if they're doing both. When you establish and foster that mentality among the playerbase, you encourage the worst elements of paranoia and staff vs. player dynamics from the top down.

I want to address this directly. I think taking that viewpoint above is a very combative one as well. Why is it that, vs. "We wish to establish an environment for players where they do not have to worry about PvP conflict with staff alts, as part of the culture of our game."

As I have mentioned above, there was a high degree of trust given and intrinsic to RfK staff that is largely absent on other games (I think this was more circumstance than anything else--it was single sphere and small based. Even TR had rules about playing in one's own sphere now and then (and always broken too). Many massively multisphere games I've seen don't permit sphere staff to hold important positions in their own spheres.

If anything the policy was not "distrust by default" but "establishing trust by having clear boundaries that are adhered to." The fact that you assume that it's distrust by default and staff slamming /is/ part of the problem, created by us as a community with our us vs. them mentality.

Establishing boundaries does not have to be us vs. them. If anything, I think it does a lot to head it off.

Setting rules of engagement to create the environment you want (and there are many ways to do this) does /not/ say anything about the level of trust involved--it's just a tool/vision for how to accomplish your vision.

Should we assume that all staff who set up a game where there is no chance of any player being able to wield a faction head or sphere-head position ICly are doing so because they hate/distrust all of their players? Some people do, but I think that's stupid. It's just staff on that game establishing the boundaries they are comfortable with and making it clear to everyone where those are. And personally, I feel that's a valid thing to do as well.

I play on a variety of game setups, and I support each one. It's easy for me to do because I don't give a shit about positions. However, a staff that sets boundaries with clarity wins a lot of sanity points with me.

As a player of a PC who was ineligible to hold domain, I disagree that if you couldn't then there was no other reason to log in other than to chat with friends. If anything, RfK was a place where there was often too much to do to get it done, even if you were not a territory holder.

I do think that attitude of I must be eligble to have all things/do all things and be staff is part of what has contributed to a lot of player-staff mistrust in general, though.

Staff on RfK was not divvied into spheres. All staff on RfK played in their own sphere. All but a very few (the "helper" people) had access to everyone's +jobs and everyone's weekly beatsheet submissions, which frankly gave a ton of inside info on alliances, who was plotting with/against whom, ect--and most if not all also had people they were allied with ICly (they could support people and help people, just not take that position themselves or be the kingpin of that territory). So frankly, there /was/ a high degree of trust required of virtually all staff members top to bottom that I've not really seen elsewhere.

I believe that even "scarred" people were able to relax on RfK because there were very clear boundaries and lines. Most places do not do that well--and it sets everyone up for resentment/failure. There are different ways to go about it--for example, Eldritch has unmovable NPCs occupying all major roles, don't they? So that is one way to eliminate staff alts from even the appearance of using insider info to grab that prince/major mover and shaker spot, because you're denying it to everyone, not just staff. I see that as a valid thing (and there are people who will refuse to play at a place they have no hope of getting whatever they want, just as there are people who will not play or staff at a place that puts restrictions on what staff alts can do). Could the boundaries been moved, sure. But when they started to slip without clarity (I've said many times and I will say it again--it's the absolute clarity of boundaries that I think helped make that community) then things really started to unravel trust wise and otherwise before it closed.

And also, yes--having headstaff willing to /fire/ cheaters and abusers staffside and playerside...immensely, immensely helpful. Most do not have the guts. It's been a rarity in what I've seen in MUSHing. Even better, Shava was able to say no/issue warnings/ect without being a massive asshole (most of the time. She's human, I'm sure there must have at least been SOMETIMES where she failed at that). Like I said, customer care--with big gonads.

It had nothing to do with processing jobs.

From a player's perspective:

Pretty much the entire XP award process was done by 1 person (most of the time Shava did this, sometimes others, but I do think it tended to be done by one person for the week, there were no autogains). I understand why, as it gave immense insight into what people were doing--I was often shocked at the level of personal feedback I sometimes received (in a positive way). I know that people were even rewarded XP they didn't report themselves, due to other people's entries. That level of personal touch is awesome--but IMO pretty unsustainable when you start getting over 30-40 people. Though I waffle on that a bit, as I am friends with many Jr High and HS teachers, who certainly grade more essays than that on a regular basis--but then again this is per week. On a MUSH.

Plot slowness. To my knowledge while there were meticulous notes kept somewhat on things like Trello (including by players), I don't know that there seemed to be a lot of staff communication about currently running staff plots. (The real ones, not the "crisis scene" experiment that was tried). So that too tended to get narrowed down to waiting on a single person. (this is a very VERY common thing on mushes though). My entire time playing there I had a devil of a time getting plot jobs coordinated. Eventually I got smart and just asked to have it resolved via job rather than scene. Not my preference, but I had a great deal of empathy to how swamped people were and how much they were getting picked at. But by the time I figured out that was the better way to go things were really really realllllly slow.

Lack of communication between staff and then between staff and players. I personally saw polar opposite things being said by different staffers about even simple rulings or questions. Sometimes I saw the same staffer give two different answers to two different PCs as well, but most of the time it was the former. I suspect there was not very good recordkeeping that was easily accessible about what had been said to what player. This is also pretty common. But it does tend to really throw a wrench into things when you have two groups of people proceding forward on things relying on what they had been told by staff as the ruling, to find out later on that they'd been given conflicting information and then nobody knew how to sort it out because there wasn't really a record anywhere. This happened numerous times. Again, when you have 30 people on a game, that's less moving parts. When you have multi-tiered surges of people that push it higher, who came in at different times/talked to different staffers, and depending on who was on that day getting some pretty different answers, it leads to a lot of snap and snarl between players at each other and at staff at times, as people wonder what the fuck is the problem with these other people (not realizing they'd been told something totally different, until the players sat down and talked it out).

I don't think this as an automation-solved issue (except for maybe the XP), so much as a documentation and staff /team/ diligence issue. What works for a smallish place, which tends to be a LOT more forgiving in that regard, does not translate once it goes large. IMO.

Surr, the draconian policy on no staff alts being allowed to have positions of power or huge influence was one of the things that kept the community (of players who are/have been/probably will be at each others throats and princessing and cutting each other out of play on other games) from doing that on RfK. Huge, glaring You Shall Not Pass CoI demarcation with wide lines. It was fantastic. I think that's what made the politics happen ICly as much as the downtime system. That and headstaff with balls AND a customer service touch.

I agree it's not sustainable on a larger game, and I also agree with Gany that having the huge influx of people suddenly hurried along its demise.

Would playing the same PC in different scenes just be like proxying (which most WoD places sanction as long as they're not exactly in two places at once, and there's some time wonkability)?

i kind of wish that you had to disclose real PC name when doing that vs using Alts, ect. It seems to be fair to inform others you're scening with that you're dual screening. But I think there are some folks that prefer anonymity because they're Ooc/ICly hiding the activities (sometimes this is legitimate, sometimes it's kind of weird).

I also understand that everyone has their different peeves. For me it's not people talking about the good times they've had somewhere that tends to irritate me so much as the bashing that happens especially on a new game that opens. "OMG Everything's going to be So Much Better/Drama Free/Awesomer blah blah blah because this time we have eliminated this nasty person or that rule that everyone hated, ect. Oh, the people on X place are just horrible," and the like. I find that to be a different version of the same rose colored glasses, that for whatever reason is far more irritating/stressful to me personally than reminiscence. I guess this is just my crusty old lady musher showing, because as I've mentioned before, since largely it's the same damn people everywhere, I'm always irrationally irritated at other people's irritation a short time later that OMG I'm still not getting the RP I want/there are annoying people here/I can't do whatever I want/ect.

When I decide to play on a place, I'm throwing in my support for the staff there. Don't have to like them, don't have to agree with them always, I don't expect anything done for me personally. But if I choose to be part of that community, then I am going to respect the vision I see there, which means not bitching at staff and trying to change it unless there's someone asking for input. Most places I play I end up running things for folks, both those I know and those I don't, because I like doing that--it's one of the things I truly love about this "age of mushing", that it's no longer forbidden to run plot (within limitations) as a player. If I find that staff isn't responsive/is rude or the playerbase is rude/unresponsive, then I'll drift. I am pretty sure that's what most people do except for the people who like to make a big blowup.

RfK certainly had some glaring problems. It had roughly the same amount of irritations I've had elsewhere, personalities and slowness/ST problems wise. However, the single sphere vampire was a "new thing" (I know it's not, truly, just that the trend in the last few years has been for massively multisphere games), the 1 alt policy, very strong limits on staff PCs policy, the structure that rewarded non-lethal PvP, structure that made mortals and ghouls useful mechanically and not just socially, social skills not demonized or ignored but also made mechanically advantageous while still not turning it into the Rapepalooza people are always afraid of--for me this created a game environment that suited a lot of my personal tastes, and it'd been a very long time since I'd encountered something like that.

There were still dumb people doing dumb things, bitchy people doing bitchy things, cheaty people doing cheaty things (though staff seemed to be pretty good about catching/dealing with those or addressing things as they came up, at least that I saw), there was still some of the same "you only got that because you're staff pet" on both sides of any conflict, still weirdos, still staff calls that I did not agree with. There was, I would argue, the same staff neglect/falling down on plot that happens in almost every game I've ever played on. Maybe more since there were so very few active ST staff. It was not, IMO, Paradise and MUSH perfection.

However, it was the most rewarding time I've had on a mush in a long long while. And the first time in a long time that I actually felt like the headwiz actually truly did give a shit about me as a player, even when she said "no" or made rulings that I strongly disagreed with.

Yes, I can't wait to see what folks come up with. I just really don't think "be the systematic change on an existing place you wish to see" is very appropriate on a existing MUSH. RP and PrP stuff, sure. But more than that I think is pretty disrespectful (unless it's with invitation) of the staff that is hosting you--and I do know that people who have asked about political/downtime/influence changes elsewhere have been met with hostility. (granted, they could have asked in a very snotty way too)

But if I decide to play on a place, as a player I feel that to be be a good guest and asset to the game, it's important that I try to support/learn/understand the vision of the staff that are running it, and to respect that. If I can't, then I should not be wasting both our time, if that makes sense.

I do think there's been a lot of discussion across many threads about what went well and what people would like to see (or what didn't work as well). However, I do think walking into an existing mush and pushing for change (even driving it oneself) is often a losing prospect on a MUSH where staff doesn't also have that vision or cannot (for whatever reason) support the players' activity. I do know many people who played at RfK who concurrently played on other games (or are playing now) trying their best to support them as well, while respecting the vision that those staff have for their games. (or trying to keep their own activity afloat where there is minimal other activity). It is pretty natural for people to look at places they really enjoyed with rose colored glasses and being unwilling or unable to adapt to 'different' or heap unrealistic expectations on the Next Newest Better Thing, but yes, frustrating for all concerned. That's not really a RfK ex-player thing so much as a MUSH player thing, however.

Finally getting a diagnosis and medication that already is helping in a huge way. The last two years have been pretty hellish for me healthwise, with a lot of non-answers from my doctors. I finally went outside of my HMO for a 2nd opinion and full lab work up, got a hypothyroid diagnosis for certain with some pretty strong indicators for Hashimoto's (more tests to see if that's actually the case soon, and at least now /those/ will be covered by insurance and supported by my HMO!) but I got to start treatment for the hypo and for the first time in almost 2 years I feel like I'm getting the old me back. So good when the medical professionals /listen/ and are willing to investigate without putting you into a box. Now I just need to find a doctor that will do that that's also fully covered by my insurance.

Alzie said he had a copy of the wiki stuff I think, so he might be your best bet to contact.

Updated list. I'm almost always open for BG connections or hooks at any place I play, so feel free to tag me if you would like them.

It'd be a FS game! Embrace the drama! From the No Really I'm An Ancient History Scholar So I Know You're Not Playing Your <Insert Noble Surname> Right snooty slapdowns on public, to typical hijinks by the same people, I dunno how much worse it is that an NPC that people are familiar with is part of things than an NPC that's just staff created is.

They may. There's no guarantees except in a game you run yourself, and even then--a lot of people find they need to end things in a way that they didn't anticipate (either abruptly or neglect-fizzle).

The game itself shut down abruptly. But people hung around on it and ooc chatted for a week or two, got into contact with people they wanted to, ect. The wiki did go away abruptly which kind of sucked, but I think that may have been a payment timing thing (and they did warn about that). But for over a month you could log in to everything intact. So if you left and then came back to "everything's gone, and it was running before" then you were gone for a lot longer than a week or so. Unless by "or so" you meant 5 or 6. If you're looking to get into touch with specific people, I have a lot of people's skypes/where they are right now--and would be happy to get a message to them that you'd like to be in touch. Just PM me with who/and ways they can get into contact with you if they would like to (or post it in the ISO section of soapbox, I'm pretty sure someone can assist. )

The latter is what I am most cautious about; people who are expecting games to be a balm to their losses on previous ones tend to be a huge hefty resource drain, yes--sometimes unwittingly. And generally do not stay active beyond the initial shinynew.

Most of the time when I've heard complaints about WoD in the last few years, it's been less about setting and more about people and activity issues. Which is why they tend to repeat since it tends to be the same people, minus a few scapegoats du jour. I do think the different setting and very firm and open stance about the way things will go (no PC king/queen, period, end of story) is helpful though.

I would be cautious. I do not think different genres really tend to convert people. Especially since IME people tend to less run from systems than people--so an influx of the same people trying to get away from each other sometimes works (It did for quite some time on RfK because of the staffing there) but much of the time it does not. Especially if the people are coming into it thinking it will solve all their RP woes. People are people, and when it's the same people, they're even more the people they've always been. IMO.

I enjoy the genre of that game and like variety, so I anticipate having a lot of fun. I worry a wee bit about some of the expectations I've seen, if for no other reason that people have unfortunately been trained into some very VERY bad habits over the last series of WoD games.

I actually enjoy learning about new places/times/cities to be honest. So for me what I love is to see staff buy in and excitement, real tie ins for storylines, theme enforcement, and the like. If the staff barely scratches the surface in involvement with their city/area, if there's nothing to really help shape things in CG/theme, ect, then I don't think you can expect player buy in and it will slide to generic no matter if it's set in Paris, Fargo, or Mexico City.

I don't know that I've seen any proposals to remake SC--just to create a FS place.

To me, while certainly SC was FS, FS is not SC. And yes, Ap, the scale is different, but the system could adjust/account.

I felt that SC tried to do too many things at once on too big of a scale, for the size/availability of the staff they had. And yes, there were some pretty glaringly huge discrepancies in expectations.

I don't feel that sours me on a political pvp FS place though. I am not a big fan of mush do-overs because you have people then coming in with extremely mismatched expectations. So I'd never advocate for a SC reboot (even though that makes me sad, I really loved the setting/world building).

You seem to be making the presumption that PvP politics means going to actual physical war with each other with armies. While it's true that nobles were supposed to jockey with each other, I think given there was an external enemy that was supposed to be closing in or be eradicated and people were loosely allied with each other, that people were supposed to do that through non-warfare so their armies could be used to stomp out the external enemy first.

However, when that's not available, and the only thing people think they have is armies/combat stats then yes, in the absence of thoughtful and competant staff management of PvP politics that is what players tend to do. Give them lots of other stuff to do that's actually meaningful + alternatives to PK/utter destruction that lead to better stories and many times people will end up choosing that over just ooc cockfighting. It's by no means easy on staff, and there are some people who get off on the cockfighting, so it's not a failsafe. But there really wasn't a lot of moving, great options for fun conflict between PCs. I have seen that done well though, now.

I believe that a political game run more like RfK would be very popular, in that setting. But I do think that it'd have to be focused. I'm not sure that staff could do that AND an adventuring game (which seems to me to be even more staff intensive, though very fun). I don't think that a game can support intense PC driven politics and focus on adventure/exploration.