Posts made by Thenomain

@Luna said:

Burners.

Please link to Urban Dictionary on this one, as I cannot imagine someone "going to a pre-paid phone".

@Ganymede said:

To reduce the chance of frustration after a rule change, staff should permit players to re-spec their +sheets in light of a rule change.

Staff should do this with regards to any game change. Not a full Respec, but try to make the change easy to take, whether it's rules or grid or game lines. Whatnot.

Footnotes? ^1

Well isn't that interesting.

@Ganymede said:

@Coin said:

People who give old folks a pass for obnoxious behavior in airplanes, but shit on babies.

Mother fucker, the baby doesn't understand pressurization.

I don't shit on the babies. That's gross. I blame the parents.

The parents shit on the babies? Also gross.

@Admiral said:

Gold gold gold gold gold gold gold, gold gold gold gold. Gold gold gold gold.

Fixed.

I downvoted Coin because I can. I have all the evil Admin powers.

@Bennie said:

@Thenomain said:

I can undermine it even as staff by simply ignoring it and leaving no paper trail, giving you no way to enforce it or even know it's being undermined.

That begs the question. If someone does not log, what do you do?

You trust your instincts, you ask probing questions, you watch the responses. I engage in something I call Follow The Rumors. I ask someone, "I heard that you mentioned this; where did this come from?" Once I hit the end of the chain, I know that I'm at the actual source and end up far better informed along the way.

Part of my argument was using an overly literal and somewhat pedantic mindset, because this is a mindset that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Someone will use the "but! but!" argument against you.

It helps that I am easily baffled by the events of "Josie Did X Because Self-Defense Against Natalie Doing Y, Therefore Z Is Allowed". I counter by being immune to it as an excuse. It has done me fairly well, and when allowed to proceed like this I'm generally in a close vicinity to fixing the problem. That is, I have a pretty damn good idea what the over-arching problem is.

(After that, it's blue and red lasers for everyone.)

I'd do well under @Ganymede's system, because I have no interest in being manipulative, and every interest to try and get everyone to trust one another. To answer my own concerns with his plans, don't hire manipulative staffers, those with agendas that conflict with garnering trust and interest from a the general player base.

No, I don't mean that. Man, you certainly got a bug up your butt if you can't let other people enjoy this game. I'm enjoying it, regardless of what you think.

Now, DA2, you're not allowed to enjoy that one.

If they didn't want you to over-level, they wouldn't have given you so much to do.

@Ganymede,

Only under the understanding that the system is a step, not a solution. I do not believe the system as posited will by the simplicity of its existence attract any beneficial behavior, therefore recommend caution.

I can undermine it even as staff by simply ignoring it and leaving no paper trail, giving you no way to enforce it or even know it's being undermined.

@Ganymede,

I already asked my question several posts back: What problem are you trying to solve? You answered it. I responded that I don't think it's a good system for other issues. I have no questions for you at this point; I am trying my best to illustrate to you (at your asking) where I see the system failing. It does what you want it to do, but it doesn't do what I want it to do.

You, too, are making guesses whether or not it will create the kind of game you want it to. I posit that you don't have enough information here to make that kind of conclusion.

Again, I want it to work for a game, but I find it to be merely a step, not a solution. Without the right staff, even transparency will not save a game's staffers from stepping all over the players.

I can see it hastening the death-cycle of a Mu*, tho, so I suppose that's a good thing.

@Chime said:

@Thenomain said:

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.

While I'm sympathetic to people that are in an awkward situation, don't want to ruffle feathers, and/or need to remain pseudonymous for whatever reason, this is fundamentally incompatible with any sort of justice.

I have managed to do this in the past. "I heard you're doing x. Please stop doing that." The player could make some guesses, but in those cases, I am the ombudsman, I am the gateway for this information. Is it perfect? No, but then we are not seeking out a perfect system.

@Ganymede said:

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.

As a system that protects the staffers, yeah, it's fine. What it doesn't do is protect the players. I am worried, and not a little bit, that your reaction to this is, "That's their problem."

I halfheartedly gave you an example before, so let me tell of the situation:

A player on Reach was obviously stalking players. I heard about this second-hand and the players would not come forward, even with the promise of anonymity. Therefore, I could not provide evidence. Therefore, if I pressed it, I would have to rely upon my reputation, yet this person very desperately needed removed from the game.

I will beat the dead horse of VASpider: There's someone who needs removed even though the evidence is more ongoing and circumstantial.

You and I are stressing different parts of the same system, so I suspect you're not understanding my concerns. If I can't express these then c'est la vie, but I don't see you focusing on the game, but trusting a system that even I could game, trusting that it will attract "the right people", though I see no evidence of this.

@Ganymede said:

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.

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.

Anyhow, I think we've both said our peace in about as clear a manner as possible. Hopefully something can come from this discussion.

&F.HEADER Housing Directory=[center(ansi(h, | Housing List |), 78, ansi(%va, -))]

They grow up so fast!

GRAR! SHEET BAD! FIRE! RAR!

Ahhem. I'm almost done with Demon, and Vampire should be much, much easier.

Social backlash implications: Wherein someone takes the knowledge of the complaint and acts upon that in an IC manner, or an extended OOC manner. People just don't come to staff about this, because there is no trust that staff will know what to do. "Prove it" comes to mind, and these are things that cannot be proven. What Billy says to Joey behind the scenes to make Joey act like a prig to Sue, because Sue once complained to staff about Billy, and now everyone knows it. Jimbo, who doesn't like Billy for no particular reason, jumps on Sue's complaint bandwagon and they form an alliance against Billy and Joey, though Joey has nothing to do with it except that he's being fed misinformation.

Whether or not Sue was right or wrong, is this is the exact opposite of the kind of game I want to play on. This is already the kind of game we play on. How does everyone knowing what everyone else thinks, or people being afraid to come to staff because of the above, solve anything? Rather, what is it that you're trying to solve? Because I don't immediately see it solving the trust issues that most destabilize a game.

Maybe if you have the right staff, and the right players. But if you have the right staff, then you don't need a system like this. They will make do with what they're handed. If you have the right players, you don't need a system at all.

@Ganymede,

That's concrete, but I don't think it answers the social backlash implications of the method in such a small group environment, is all.

@Arkandel said:

My concern is that people who play on TR feel "WORA" in general has some beef with "them"

I agree with Admiral. I don't think people are this paranoid anymore, especially since there really isn't a Wora unless you (you specifically, the person reading this post) wants there to be.

Everyone is afraid that people will bad-mouth them, make their lives harder than they need to be, and undermine their trust. Hell, look how I can flip out when I think someone's doing it to me.

People immediately disliking a forum is a risk when it's open and has lighter than usual moderation. This is why I've tried to stay in the background here, posting far less than I used to. If things change to become more trustworthy, then there's a better chance of collaboration, which means a better chance of new games and healthy playgroups.

Of course that means you (the person reading this post) also has to change. New forum, new year, new you.

I agree with this. I want to see it implemented. But.

Passive aggressive and indirect OOC revenge and politicking. Gany, when you reply, I'd like to ask for concrete examples of how it would be dealt with. Use actual examples when possible. I have known too many people who didn't go to staff in fear of making the situation worse, even under the promise of anonymity. Most of these people are women.

Promising it works is not enough, even with what the United States uses.

I don't generally like this comparison.

There is only so much thought and extra explanation I can give over my lunch break on an iPad. The impression I was trying to make is that the work they are doing for the game is work for the game. If they enjoy it, if they're invested, if they're doing it on a whim every third Tuesday, it doesn't matter. The code they are offering is defacto part of the game, not something they can offer to yank at a later time.

The contract is a social one, but it exists. Anyone who has tried to take their work back from a game has been nothing but laughed at, no matter what that work is. Work that is done for a game is for the game. There's your contract. Live by it or don't offer your work. Don't accept the work of someone who thinks anything else.

This goes well beyond code, yet code is generally the one area that people try to pull this crap on.