@faraday I have to admit, I got annoyed about this once. Once. One game I was on, I had a whopping two characters, both using PBs I hadn't seen in circulation before.
Within two months or so, both of them were duplicated on that same (edit: small, even!!!) game.
I'd never complain about it to the players personally, bear them any ill will, or stomp my feet like a huffy princess to staff about it, but that really did feel pretty shitty in that, "Aw, jeez, come on... " bad luck sense.
I have said this before and will say it again. If I'm ever running a place, and it comes up on MSB, or a problem comes up on MSB... ? First, I'm gonna be upset that they didn't come to staff about it first, but at least I will become aware of the problem and can do something to solve it.
I had -- to the surprise of literally no one -- policy on this.
It went like so:
We don't care if you bitch about the game or the staff on game forums; that is not something we consider 'doing harm to the game or staff' and participants here should feel free to do so without fear of reprisal on the game itself.
If that's what it takes for us to find out there's an issue we can try to resolve for you somehow, that's what it takes. We'd rather you come to us if you have a problem, but understand some players are extremely wary about approaching staff at all due to negative experiences reporting an issue in the hobby, and thus might prefer to post something elsewhere as a sounding board or other outlet. We'd ultimately rather have a game with fewer problems than a public reputation for having no problems that only exists because no one spoke up somewhere, even if that somewhere isn't here.
Bear in mind, if you burn a bridge with another player by attacking them elsewhere in this way, we're not going to rebuild it for you. Similarly, if you spread nasty gossip about someone on skype or discord or a similar venue and it gets back to them -- and it always eventually does -- we're not going to demand they pretend it never happened, and we're not going to insist that they continue to interact with you if this is brought to us with a request to sever contact with you and your characters.
@ganymede What Arkandel said.
Someone playing out the consequences of it means they're no longer a star ballroom dancer, and isn't ballroom dancing any more, and has all the other persistent mechanical penalties of leg wrack.
Losing the XP spent on it is punishing the player by forcing them to keep something that is no longer valid on their sheet, not inflicting consequences on a character.
Bear in mind, I think WoD/CoD has a lot of cognitive dissonance on this front; they have sanctity of merits, but in most of their setups, things like integrity/etc. can be bought up but lost IC (and the XP wasted) as well. (Edit: WtF2's Harmony is the exception here, and is more sensible a mechanic from my perspective.) I favor actual common sense on this front: if there's IC means of losing it, there should be IC means of gaining it back; throwing XP into the mix in any way muddies the waters and is internally inconsistent.
Barring the rare exception of crazy staffer or badly constructed policy, most games I've seen over my twenty years in the hobby have practically posted neon signs in every corner to let players know: please tell us if you have a problem!
But people still don't often report issues when they arise.
In some cases, this is for external reasons: because they distrust staff -- because of something that staff did or didn't do in the past, or even because of what staff on the first game they ever played on did or didn't do. Maybe this staff is brusque and doesn't seem approachable. Maybe no staffer they ever reported to before ever did anything but make it worse, so why would they try now?
But that's not what this thread is actually about, unless it's in a tangential fashion. This is about the internal roadblocks to getting these issues resolved, and they're rarely discussed outright. All the same, I've seen them come up every time an issue has been brought to me when I have staffed somewhere. I've seen it every time I'm just a player somewhere, and I ask someone why they haven't reported that jerk who won't leave them alone or is making them miserable. I've seen it come up in threads here, though it's often in passing.
The 'it takes two to tango' logic -- that crappy staffers everywhere so often use as an excuse for inaction -- ends up being an excuse for inaction on the part of people who could and should be reporting a problem -- but aren't -- also. This is not because they're responsible for the other person behaving in a horrible way, but because they feel they've done something that would muddy the waters somehow and make the issue less clear, and much less likely to become anything other than 'worse'.
A lot of times, these feelings focus on shame, embarrassment, denial, or guilt. Think of how many times you've seen or heard the following, either as a staffer, or privately as a fellow player, or even just as a reader of the forum:
"I can't believe I fell for that craziness!" (when hindsight makes things finally clear)
"I was OK with this, but really not OK with that. But, well, since I did the first thing... "
"How could I be so stupid as to believe <person> again when they said they changed?"
"It's my fault, I should have seen it much sooner."
"I did something really shitty to <name> because of them, how can I complain about them now? I'd have to admit all the stuff about <name> for it to even make sense!"
"I froze. I didn't know what to do."
"I thought we were friends. They know everything about me. I know what they're doing is really fucked up, but if I say anything... "
"I don't want to let them hurt somebody else, but the stuff we did isn't something I even want to think about, let alone talk to someone about. I don't want people knowing I did <potentially taboo or embarrassing thing>, even if I decided I really didn't like it at all once I did."
...yeah, probably a lot. Probably really a lot. A 'somebody get me some strong liquor to belt down, because wow, now that I think on it, that's really, really a lot'-sized a lot.
This isn't really any game's problem to solve on its own. I think games have their part to play in it, as does the community trying to behave with some basic human decency about these sensitive issues, but I don't think it's possible for a game or the community to resolve this entirely, as the problem is an internal one to any given participant on it.
What do you think games can do to help? (Not resolve, but help.)
What do you think individuals people do discuss these things with should do to help? (Not resolve, but help.)
What do you think individuals in this situation should do when confronted with these feelings?
@faraday Definitely a different thread, but I like learn times. I think they need to be more condensed to, yes, allow it to happen faster than it would in the real world in most cases, but not 0-60 in 0 seconds flat.
Some games have a necessary respec in the form of 'becomings' -- when through the course of IC events, someone literally becomes some other kind of creature. This is most common in WoD but it could be relevant in other systems, too. Some powers or abilities are only allowed for the group they started in, while others are required or available for their new one. If they're going through the process of that change, all the free -- and bought -- powers and abilities of the original group get dropped (because they must as they can no longer be used), and they get the new free or required ones for the new group. Most folks I've seen do this don't shuffle anything but these things and any other requirements around at that time, which I have zero issue with.
Typically this is magic woo woo powers of some kind, though, so in that context (read: 'this is really a magical transformation/superhero origin/etc.') it doesn't bother me.
Is this actually necessary? Objectively, no. You could opt to leave people stuck with a pile of things on their sheet they can never use again -- which could totally screw them on XP and leave things on their sheet that could mechanically complicate the coded processes of the game -- but I wouldn't be inclined to do this.
- 'Professional' behavior; this can include language, tone, spelling, etc. Is it better for staff to be aloof or to be chat with their players?
Spelling and grammar: yes, I'd like to see everyone put some effort in, but some people are simply bad this. I'm not keen on holding 'genuinely not great at this' as an ethical failure of any kind. I will side-eye a little at someone who can craft a brilliant, literate pose and is seven shades of 'lolololololol whut u say?????' OOC and on channels from their staff bit, though; not able is one thing, 'gives none fucks' is another.
Language... I swear. I always swear. I more or less always have. I would probably swear in church if I went, and I have apparently driven nuns to swear in church, so there's that. This is because I don't automatically believe profanity == abusive or rude or uncivil. That said, it should never be directed at people if being civil and friendly. "That's fucking awesome!" == OK; "You're a fucking jackass!" =! OK. That said, "You are a stupid idiot!" =! OK in the kind of environment I consider civil, so it's not about which words are being used, aside from actual slur language, which is never OK.
Tone should be positive as much as possible. In those moments in which someone has to either let off steam or has a valid frustration to express, that is always best done privately to other staff only. If someone can't keep their positive<-->negative balance skewed positive, they're probably not a good fit for staff, because they're clearly not happy with what they're doing.
Aloof? No. Approachable? Yes. Everybody's bestie? Also no. And that's a hard line to draw. I know that whenever I'm staffing, I generally do not have the time or attention span to spend in lengthy individual daily chats about somebody's art projects (and I'm including my own here) or their day or their kids or their favorite music, etc., and there are some folks that feel that unless a staffer engages in this kind of random social fu, or isn't open to this at all times, they're 'aloof'. If that's somebody's definition of aloof, well, I'm gonna be aloof and not feel especially bad about it, honestly. Channel chatter with players and OOC room chat with a group that doesn't delve into anything too personal? All well and good, and probably a net positive for approachability in most cases.
There's a positive side to 'aloof' I think staff should embrace, and that's generally the 'avoid being a petty gossip or busybody about things that aren't necessarily anybody's business IC or OOC'. Players definitely do this, or joke around about it even publicly (teasing, claiming, etc.), but when staff does this, it starts looking like bias or favoritism even when it isn't.
- Activity levels. Is a staff member doing what they are supposed to do? What are they supposed to do and how well/frequently? What's a good standard?
This depends on what job they have on the game. A coder might not be needed all the time, for instance. Same with someone who grooms a wiki once every X amount of time. Barring vacations or time away for a special purpose, I'm personally keen on 'show up at least twice a week for an hour or two to get your stuff done' as a general minimum.
That said, I'm not as interested in minimums or maximums or hourlies as I am in someone's work ethic. As in, if you're going to log in, log in ready to get stuff done, do not just log your staff bit in to socialize; use your player bit for that, dammit. I have seen too many staffers just log in and chat away merrily for hours while simple jobs that no one else can handle due to CoI or similar concerns are completely ignored, and that is just not OK. If they were on 'man the newbie channel' duty or similar, it would be one thing, but typically this is not the case. Fuck that behavior.
- Communication, following up on promises. How much transparency is a good thing? In discipline cases how much should be revealed about what happened (or the reasons nothing did)?
I am a fan of transparency, but I'm also a fan of privacy. Balancing the two is not easy. For instance, I don't believe a staffer should be required to publicly reveal their alts unless everyone on the game is asked to do so, and I'm not a fan of demanding that anyone do so publicly. That said, I'm not completely against a generic 'staff alt' label on staff's PCs that doesn't disclose which staffer they are, but I'm still not completely sold on it, either.
Similarly, in discipline issues, some targets of abuse are not going to want their names going out there due to realistic concerns about retaliation. I would say in most cases, this is undesirable. "Joe was stalking Jenny, so he got the boot." =! OK; "Joe got the boot for stalking a fellow player." == OK. I think @Sonder pretty much nails this one at FC; the basics of the negative behavior are mentioned, who did it is mentioned, and what was done about it (temp ban, full ban) is disclosed. I don't remember if she adds 'if you have any questions, direct them to headstaff' or not, but I could see this being viable and useful for two reasons: 1. all the gossipy assholes who just want dirt on somebody will reveal themselves and you get to know who they are to keep an eye on that nightmare, and 2. anyone who has a similar complaint about <name> is more likely to bring it to your attention at that time.
With the setup I was looking at, and have been pondering for some time, there's more transparency in general than is typical. Sheets are public. Spends are public, along when when they were made and who processed them, since it's all on the wiki and these things appear automatically in history.
As big as 'transparency' in staff decision-making, in my view, is the kind of transparency that reduces the disparity of information power between players and staff by default.
- Playing their own game; staff not playing alts or revealing their names, or not permitting those PCs to attain important positions.
Mostly covered above. Standard CoI rules apply. If, for some reason, a staffer has to work on something that would impact one of their own characters in some way, whether it's adding a power they plan to take, a house rule change that would apply to them, etc. I am keen on having that job published to public view, in full, while it's being discussed or once it's complete. (Whichever is more relevant. An XP spend or processing XP for a log has all public data that everyone can see no matter who is doing it for who, so if something is fishy, this can be called out by anyone at any time about anybody else, so this is more 'when complete', as opposed to 'hey, we're thinking of adding this new piece of equipment, what do y'all think?' which is more viable to open to public discussion and input anyway.)
Re: leadership roles, the setup I prefer keeps leadership roles in public factions in NPC control, and (most) NPCs can be used freely, as needed, by players or staff alike, rather than held in staff control alone.
In player-created factions and groups, whoever created it makes the rules. They can make a 'no staff alts allowed!' rule for the whole group if they want, so far as I'm concerned. Someone on staff can create a group like this as well, but must do so under the same rules and limitations as any player would. If they end up in a leadership position by whatever mechanism the group adopts to decide who gets to lead, so be it, but they aren't owed one any more or less than anyone else. (Considering how often 'has demonstrated excellent people-management and creative and story-making skills as the leader of a group' gets someone considered for a staff role in the first place, being needlessly restrictive about this is destined to hobble a group or prevent someone who would be a great benefit to the game from joining staff, and that's all downside.)
- Protecting 'appearances' by not ruling on issues close to them (friends are involved, etc); what happens in small games, or if the staff is small and everyone is involved with everyone else? What are the limits?
The small games problem is more and less hard because of what you're describing. On a small game, appearances end up being less a concern when everyone actually does know you, what you're about, and what standards you hold yourself to -- which is actually good, because, yeah, these concerns are all the more likely to come up with a small game with a small staff. They're almost inevitable, even if you have measures in place to avoid them as much as possible. The best you can really do is be as transparent as you can in these cases, and let people 'see your work', like ye olde math class in elementary school. It's essentially a trade-off that balances out, at least somewhat.
Another factor here are common genre tropes; from training montages to revelations in dreams, depending on the kind of game these sudden bursts of insight would be more... appropriate.
Not gonna lie, I picture almost any XP spend as having its very own cheesy 80s style montage sequence.
I have seriously considered (albeit, for the parody game concept) requiring NOT a justification for spends, but that people submit a song for their 'I learned a thing' montage.
...even with learn times and all the rest I may do this anyway if I do a thing, not as a requirement, but as a generic fun dorky whatnot. Because fun dorky whatnots are fun when they're optional, and I think the fun to be had from silly little bits of characterization like this are vastly underrated on the whole.
@apu said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
I think the phrase 'questionably viable' is a bit subjective. A concept that might cause one person to raise their brow at it might be perfectly fine in the opinion of another person.
It's more a factor of what some of the folks in the thread earlier were describing, re: characters that work well in fiction, but don't often make grand PCs on a MU* for a variety of reasons. (Some may make awesome plot NPCs or short-term antagonist NPCs, but they don't make for enduring PCs very well.)
There are versions of these tropes that do work -- for instance, the 'lone wolf' who is grousing all the time about all the teamwork they have to do now in <theme> when they'd rather be working on their own -- but they tend to have players aware of the limitations of the trope and compensate for it intentionally in ways that make the character not actually that trope at all in practice. Without that awareness on the player level, you have that asshole who is filing a dozen jobs a day and sucking up staff time like a shopvac on steroids because they have to do everything solo, and if they're not interacting with anybody but staff outside of OOC socializing and minimal BaRP brooding quietly in a corner and not talking to anyone, well... why be there at all?
I am a fan of open sheets.
Not necessarily a fan of open secrets; that's more a 'per game' basis.
I think open sheets -- the stats and numbers bit -- are on the whole good for a game.
Depending on the system and setup, however, this could expose character secrets fairly easily. (Only Group B can get that stat, and Character is supposedly Group D, etc.)
I am not incredibly worried about the secrets aspect for any game I would potentially run. This is mostly because I think most people in the hobby these days will tend to use this 'to the good' more often than 'to cheat' -- to create good story rather than cutting someone else's story off at the knees. I admit I may be a horrible idealist on this point, but I would rather boot the bad actors and keep as much information (this includes theme/setting/world 'secrets' generally only known to staff) available for people to use as tools to collaboratively build stories.
That's also just not the kind of game everybody necessarily wants. Some people want a puzzle to solve in the world that they, as players, are solving along with their characters. Which is also cool, and would make the above solution much less viable. It's just ultimately a different style; some players will enjoy both, some will prefer one or the other, and provided the game in question makes their policy/staff decisions in line with the kind of environment they want to create, they'll be fine. (Both of these approaches are something I see as neutral; neither is inherently or objectively good or bad or better or worse.)
@tinuviel I'm on a yes/no on this one. Yes, you can pretty easily find something for them to do. Sometimes, realistically? It's gonna be 'find a secondary skill to focus on', like driving the getaway car/etc.
The concept of a sniper typically relies on knowing a target is going to be at a certain location at a certain time and taking them out, or in defense of a specific position/ground to be held against attackers.
In my experience, very few scenes on a game are structured that way. Many consist of '...and in the course of a seemingly normal evening, OMFG SHIT JUST GOT REAL.' That doesn't leave a lot of room for snipers to be snipin'.
This is no different from being on a game in which people who translate ancient lore or research the shit out of creepy weirdness are a thing. Not every scene is going to give them a moment to use that specialization, and it shouldn't. Giles McBuffyTrope is not going to be Mr. Useful Skill At The Ready in a scene where the group wanders into the midst of a gangland shootup, or the coffee shop gets robbed -- and, frankly, neither is the sniper as a sniper (though they'll likely be more useful since they know how to generally operate a firearm in general as well).
So, yes, it's possible to give them something to do that plays to their strengths -- for instance, Giles McBuffyTrope might, with his understanding of symbolism and anthropology, recognize some element of whatever the gang's logo is from generic art or cultural history and know, 'Oh, these dudes are sporting a reference to Norse culture that's big with Neo-Nazis', even if the usefulness of that info's going to vary. Similarly, Ms. Sniper Be Snipin' would need to be pretty damned good at situational awareness, and may make the best lookout in the group, taking advantage of her well-trained perception... just not her snipin'.
Throwing in something for someone to snipe from the rooftops, though, is as unrealistic and unreasonable as deciding that suddenly the gang just has to be a group of supernaturally-affiliated cultists just because Giles showed up and needs something to do, or the character who specialized in being a seamstress needs a chance to give Grouchy McBikerchaps a tux fitting.
@wizz said in Midnight MUSH:
@apos said in Midnight MUSH:
Ten people having a blast is in my opinion more successful than two hundred people that are utterly miserable.
@arkandel said in Midnight MUSH:
To me longevity counts. I don't care too much for flashes in the pan kind of games; run it for a year+ without losing your players, then you're doing something right.
I really don't care about trying to quantify and capture things like a "right" amount of time to run or the "right" number of people to have.
The one caution I'd offer here is this: if there's a maximum or 'too much' point population-wise, don't be afraid to say so up front. You never know what's going to catch on, and functioning within the limits of what you can comfortably handle is going to create a better experience for all involved.
I've just got a strong urge to make it because it's a place I'd like.
This really is the core of what you need. Feed and nurture it well, and don't overlook its importance.
Too many folks I know hate their projects before they see the light of day/opening/release/etc. If things start going that way, take a break if you have to, indulge a little more in the things that inspired you to do it at all and work a little less, and so on. But keep and feed that. It's important.
There's a reason people call stuff like this 'pet projects'. Think of it like a pet that way: needs feeding and care, needs medicine sometimes, and so on.
Yeah, I'm generally not on board with this premise, because the entire career field I trained in exists as a thing.
That said:
...and this last one is supposed to be a shitty makeshift LARP costume, not even anything actually historical, but it still works just fine.
Sorry, but the entire field of costume design exists for a reason, and Reign notwithstanding, plenty of people in said field know what they're doing when presented with the raw materials of a modern performer who needs to look like they came from somewhen else.
(Also, you're welcome, @ixokai.)
@bad-at-lurking You should. There is also a truly 
Les Mis moment, which I thought would be hard to beat -- but that did it. 
@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
What you described sounds an awful lot like the FTB policy - written or unwritten -
that's been present on every game I've played in the last ten years. I seriously have never seen a situation - any situation - where somebody was forced to endure RP they found unpleasant. Endure the consequences? Sure. But not the scene itself. If all you're asking for is the ability to FTB out of abuse, then I don't see the controversy, at all. But it has not been clear to me that that's what you were asking for.I see 'opt-out' and my mind goes to consent-based games where you could nope out of being robbed, or beaten up, or killed, or having your house burned down, or any other consequence you didn't like. That is very different from FTB, and I and others have provided various examples of where that could be problematic to implement.
I can opt out of an assault just by saying "I got away somehow." I can opt out of dying by saying "The bullet hit a book in my pocket" or whatever. Yeah, it might stop you from "winning" but it doesn't force you to act in ways contrary to your character's belief system. Opting out of discrimination in its entirety might lead to things like "your bigot must hire my (group he hates) character" or "your sexist must treat my female character as an equal".
FWIW, I described a consent-based approach to these subjects earlier, though it was on the basis of opt-in, not opt-out, so that confusion might be my fault.
So less 'I feel like noping out of the RP but am OK with the consequences' (that would be covered by FtB quite well in most cases) and more 'before you bring up a super controversial thread of RP, get (informed) consent from your scene partners'. There's a short list of controversial or sensitive subjects I'd (personally) require this about, but 'abuse on the basis of -isms' is definitely going on it.
This may require a mutual 'tone it the fuck down' from both parties and reasonableness while in groups, which is realistic enough if people have to work together for some reason.
For instance, going to the character who is an avowed sexist and demanding a job? Yeah, you should likely ask about that first OOC, too, to not attempt to or accidentally corner that player in the position of having to agree to something they wouldn't.
The respect thing goes both ways, or, well, like I mentioned before, it doesn't get very far.
^ That. Have a list of checkboxes or something for y/n on 'can you kill this character off in a scene' (would recommend a few 'stock hug, stock police officer, stock <whatever>' nameless examples listed and statted as well to just fill out disposable numbers around named names if they're needed) and similar.
@the_generic_one said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
That people are having a fevered argument over whether playing a character in the proper mindset or theme of a particular game is something that translates to OOC racism is idiotic.
...then don't participate in it?
There are adults who play these games who are not hypersensitive Cult of The Victim worshippers.
There sure are! And the people who don't want to deal with this in their pretendy fun times are almost universally amongst them -- 'them' being 'NOT hypersensitive Cult of the Victim' worshippers'.
Somebody losing their cool because they got called a fag IC while playing a homosexual character, it's perhaps the most pathetic thing ever.
And yet...
It's not like unconsentual TS.
Actually, it's exactly like that.
Some people actually don't care about non-consensual TS, though many obviously do.
This is for the same 'it's just a character, why should I get worked up about it?' reasons you're describing above in the case of those who don't care about issues of discrimination or -ism-based abuse.
Some people care about not getting shit they put up with all day shoved down their throat when they're trying to engage in some enjoyable escapism, and some don't.
@Auspice said in King of Sex Mountain:
@Wretched said in King of Sex Mountain:
Sex mountain in my head looks like,, a pair of rounded peaks, perhaps with a rock, almost engorged spire between em. Maybe listing to one side a bit.
Wanna design the connect screen?
FINALLY A USE OF ASCII ART I APPROVE OF.
It had to happen eventually.
@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
@surreality said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Thing is, the same would be true for the choice to attack someone instead of negotiate, to murder a rival, etc. We wouldn't -- rightly -- think the player is violent or murder-happy RL based on this choice, and it's also a choice that is reasonably going to create some unhappiness or discomfort or upset on the part of the targeted player.
You've moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about assaults or murders; I was talking about IC discrimination, which is the topic here.
I see this as the same thing: you can't and shouldn't assume someone is RL what they are playing based on 'they made the choice to play that thing'.
That is not something that I see as having any special exceptions for any subject matter. Not murder, not rape, not discrimination, not sex of any kind with anyone or anything, nothing. Not when it comes to 'make negative value judgements about the player based on their choice to consider this concept or course of action'.
So, as an idea, then, I would say that there is no objective in portraying a character that cannot be done without engaging in IC discrimination based on RL "classes." And, if this is the case, then there's really no harm in banning that kind of behavior everywhere.
That pushes the notion of this not being acceptable subject matter period in the hobby, and I can't get behind that at all. Not even the tiniest little bit.
I see a lot of harm in it in a variety of ways, and a lot of them are very obvious to me beyond the really, really obvious slippery slope "What next, then?" argument about banning certain subjects from being permissible in the hobby.
It is pretty much the epitome of 'identifying a subject as wrongfun, regardless of whether or not the participants in the roleplay are wholly consenting and respectful of one another's boundaries and personal comfort zones or not'.
Bear in mind, by this logic, games like the all-male superhero adult game would be labeled wrongfun top to bottom for not even permitting female PCs to exist. I'm completely supportive of that game's right to exist, and to exist precisely as it is, even though its actual OOC policies are intentionally and overtly discriminatory as a necessary function of defining and retaining focus on the game's intended scope.
@Ghost I maintain you should be obligated to staff purely by virtue of the perfection of the loophole gif, but since I think this is one of those games that should entail a game-wide ongoing drinking game (let's be honest, it'd help), I feel that fucking the bar in this gif should be taken as a sign of your agreement to take on the task due to eagerness to fuck the actual shit out of a bar.
Just what it says on the tin, really. In constructive not so much because there isn't a lot of cussin' to be had around this topic, probably, but because not everybody reads the pit and the more constructively-minded folks who might not be opted-in there seem most likely to be the folks who would have something in mind here.
Mine:
Really, I will try to stick with a character somewhere for more than two months. Really.
Don't flake on the current project until at least the next vacation is over (late October). (Yes, there is one that's mine and not the thing I'm helping a friend with; no, it's not the pirate thing; no, I'm not posting it or even discussing it yet. 
)
Get better at code, both wiki and MUX.
Get up the nerve to ask for help about both of the above instead of being a skittish mouse about it 95% of the time.
Write down a list of the various things (concepts, code, etc.) I've either seen or heard about that I think are awesome; ask their creators if I may also use them; implement whatever gets a 'yes' with credit and thanks, and refrain from being a whiny brat about any 'no's after respecting said yes/no respectively.
Be more mindful of thanking people who make things awesome in pretendy fun land even when it seems like the world is dead set on sucking like a shopvac on steroids otherwise; find a way to do this without sounding like a crazy person.