Posts made by Sunny

Awesome.

I'll put it a little more bluntly here, I think.

You're not doing anything special. This is pretty much every game ever. It's so not special that it's just showing your inexperience to be talking about it like it's something special. You're echoing BigBad, of all people. You go and you do it right. We'll all be here waiting to hear how it goes.

ETA: My first suggestion, if you're actually going to do this, would be to shut the fuck up about your superiority (nobody is buying it except the cheap seats) and start talking about what your game is going to look like, what policies you'll be putting in place to ensure that this 'I am going to be fair' is more than blowing smoke up someone's ass, what ideas you actually have for the developing of it, the creation of it, SOMETHING that shows you have an actual concept of a game to run beyond 'its gunna be fare guyz!!!oneone!'.

I'm entirely with @Ganymede on this. We're playing a cooperative game, by the very nature of a mush. People should be cooperating. Yes, there are folks that prefer no spoilers, but this is an RPG, not a television show. There is no reason to waste finite resources (staff time and attention) when people can handle this themselves.

And tbh...if people change what they're doing IC based on somebody observing, who cares? If someone is going to change what they're doing to cheat, they're a problem player anyway. Otherwise it's just a comfort thing, or a desire to be entertaining and make it fun, or... so on and so forth. None of which are bad reasons to adjust your RP.

People really need to check themselves and remember that we're all in it for having fun at the end of the day. If your fun requires someone else not having fun, the problem is not with them.

You are missing the point. Do you seriously think any of these other games don't have the asshat standard? Don't have ethical expectations?

@Entropy said:

I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.

But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.

I'm not saying things like "there will be no perks for staff because fairness!" or that everything will be all rainbow unicorn farts on staff side because we'll all get along and all that. But I do think that it's possible to have a staff that is mature enough to work together to make sure some of these major pitfalls that happen commonly in games just don't become the same overwhelming serial problems that they often do. Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game. Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".

In the end, I have received a few responses offering to help staff and run things, as well as do some building. I've got enough stuff tinkering around in my head to draw up a bunch of theme and a world setting. Really I just need a game setup and a coder or two.

Best of luck. I don't believe that a game that is based on 'not like that' can successfully be what it is you're looking for. You need to be based on 'this is what I will be like, and this is how I'm going to do it'. I see 'we won't have these bad staffers and common pitfalls!' and no evidence whatsoever that you've any hope of actually accomplishing these things.

@Thenomain said:

People on AetherMUX really liked the public-room-watch code, to see what was going on in a room without having to go there and spam the hell out of it. It was clear when people were watching, could only be created by wizards, and was always in a place of great RP importance.

I think this kind of code is worth exploring, and since it's public I don't think it counts as "spying".

Pern games used to use this pretty heavily too, and I don't have any problem with it. As long as it's very clearly marked that people can be / are listening to particular rooms, that's fine. I'd still object to staff sitting in that room dark.

@bored said:

But you're hopefully still aware that on the game where they say they don't, its very likely if the staff is larger than one guy that someone might do it anyway.

Yup. And I would hope that were such a person caught, they would be removed from the ability to betray trust in such a fashion again. Just as I would expect for a staff member breaking any of the game's rules. There's a pretty big difference between something being allowed and something being against the rules, even just in terms of how often it happens.

Someone MIGHT do a lot of things.

@Entropy said:

No one person should really be the end all say all.

Oh for the love of all that is good and cuddly, yes. Yes, one person needs to be the end all say all. Absolutely. It is a hard requirement. The buck has to stop somewhere. At the end of the day, if nobody has the final say than nobody has the responsibility of making the hard choices. A ship has to have a Captain. Even running a triumvirate as I have, or teams I've worked with, or groups that make it LOOK like we're a democracy, someone was always in charge. Someone was always responsible. If you have no final authority, you have no final responsibility or accountability.

Maybe not like... the full on "everything needs to be voted" thing like mentioned above. That does seem like it's taking things too far, and looks as if it led to the logical result. But simply put, stuff like denying a player something that's within reason... or giving a clique of lackeys priority over everyone else... that kind of stuff should be checked. Basically, staff who moderates other staff, as well. Just in the interests of keeping things as fair as possible, and so that no rash... or overly stupid decisions... are made and are without a fair chance to be reviewed.

What about you and your idea makes it so that you and the team you find are not subject to the basic human condition?

A staffer (maybe former staff? I'm not certain) over on BNW was telling me how he had approached Elsa on behalf of a player to discuss why certain stats on a character's sheet were the way the were. Elsa had denied the sheet and demanded pretty significant changes. When the staffer made polite and reasonable suggestions about why the player had made the decisions the way they were, Elsa flipped out on him and basically said that it was her game, and that he was a bad person for daring to question her authoritah.

Yes, crazy game owners exist. I'm seeing a lot of 'we won't look like that' but no 'we will look like that'. What sort of solutions do you have? What examples can you give me of policy that you're going to implement that will prevent these things from happening? It's harder than it looks.

That... just isn't cool.

I don't know Elsa from a hole in the ground, but I'm going to bet that this Elsa person, if you told her about this situation in a way that she didn't realize it was her, she would also agree that it isn't cool. Active maliciousness is VERY VERY VERY rare. Stupidity, assumptions, and breakdowns of communication are usually the culprits.

I think that there's a lot of potential, and a lot of good people out there that could help run a game that's fun, fair and not just ruled over by one dictator, benevolent or not. But I am a bit of an optimist.

No, lovely. I am a bit of an optimist. You're in the realm of pipe dreams.

I understand that the government has access to everything I do/say, and that there's no such thing as privacy on the internet.

I also prefer to not have the people I interact with on a daily basis reading over my shoulder because it's just awkward. The chances of the government giving a shit about what I write (and therefore, paying it mind) are a lot less significant than the chances of a game runner being pissed off that I told Susie in pages about how much the site sucks.

Do I have any guarantee of privacy on the internet? Nope. Do I prefer a game where the staff says 'we don't spy' and then behave in a fashion that allows for me to trust them? Yep. I won't play on a game where I'm told someone is planning on reading over my shoulder just randomly. Don't like it.

@Entropy said:

Right. Either way, this entire thing is taking away from the topic at hand, which is talking about my desire to help create/run a freeform game with a more democratic/fair staffing policy, so that people can enjoy the things that make MU*s fun, and not have to deal with as much of the stuff that makes them not so much fun... because even looking over this site... most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.

Nobody sets out to make a game with crappy, self-interested, and thoroughly corrupt staff. Your goals are noble, but unrealistic. People suck, and internet people suck worse. Beyond that, a certain measure of favoritism is actually a healthy thing for any game, and a LOT of times when that complaint is made it's completely inaccurate (someone earned something / did something that I didn't, obviously it was favoritism rather than them doing something to deserve it).

It's the sort of goal that makes experienced game runners/designers smile and go 'good luck' and then change the subject, because who wants to crush the hopes and dreams of a new ethical mecca?

@DnvnQuinn said:

@Sunny What are you talking about? My original question is why one genre is easier to code over another (not systems, literally just the genre)...

Because of peoples' expectations.

Then I made the observation that people here were recently talking about freeform (which I mistook for sandbox) games aren't doing well..

Right. And the question posed in answer to your observation was 'what games ARE doing well'. When coupled with the discouraging impression that 'aren't those games failing anyway' gives (and please don't say you weren't being negative, because the question by its very nature is negative), one thing leads to another.

Nowhere did I say that Mushes are failing in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

At no point did I actually say that you said mushes were failing in general.

@Coin said:

@Sunny said:

@DnvnQuinn said:

@Sunny You're a stupid expectation!

I'm just saying the 'genre' of something has nothing to do with the ease of coding something.

But it does. Because some players who stick to particular sorts of genres expect particular sorts of code.

That and isn't pretty much every freeform mush failing right now? Isn't there a whole thread on that?

Could you name for me a genre of mushes which you think aren't failing, right now?

@Sunny, stop copying my interrogatory posts! YOU COPYCAT!

Shut up, I said it better.

ETA: @DnvnQuinn -- so following your logic, why should anyone be doing something besides one of those sorts of games? FFS.

@DnvnQuinn said:

@Sunny You're a stupid expectation!

I'm just saying the 'genre' of something has nothing to do with the ease of coding something.

But it does. Because some players who stick to particular sorts of genres expect particular sorts of code.

That and isn't pretty much every freeform mush failing right now? Isn't there a whole thread on that?

Could you name for me a genre of mushes which you think aren't failing, right now?

@DnvnQuinn said:

I'm not talking about expectation. Clearly.

I'm talking about what makes one 'easier to do with little coding' and more freeform. That has nothing to do with expectation.

This is a stupid statement. It's easier to run because the expectations exist. It has everything to do with expectation.

I was not joking when I said that if someone doesn't see the inherit 'why this is an awful idea' in the concept of a pay to play mush, they have absolutely no business running a mush of any sort, let alone one where money is involved.

It shows a complete lack of understanding the basic problems involved in running a game, and not enough understanding of human behavior to see how adding money to those problems makes them a terror. And again, if you start making money off of someone else's intellectual property without licensing, you're in serious trouble.

I'm pretty sure that this is a lot like....

"Hey, should I light myself on fire?"

The money going to charity would not make it worse, but it surely wouldn't make it any better. Entitlement issues are a major problem with our hobby, and adding money complicates that. Start, stop, end. There isn't theory or plan that's going to turn it from a horrible idea into a bad one, let alone into a good one.

The repercussions should be obvious. If they aren't, running a F2P mush isn't a good idea for you, let alone a P2P.

Edited to add: Also, consider licensing issues. You are now profiting from an RPG. Boom.

No. Bad. So bad. Consider everything awful about our hobby and then crank the dial to ten because now you have real money and paying customers involved.

Spying OOCly is bad. Period.

And there's so much turnover that even if a list is up to date, a couple of weeks and it's outdated.

How dare anyone request a feature I don't need!

@Ganymede said:

@Sunny said:

Let me tell you, I've seen both a Soleil and a Lili on various games lately, and I am certainly not either of them. ^^

I know; they said kind and gentle things to me.

It's okay, they'll learn soon enough that's not the way you like to be talked to.