Posts made by Tinuviel

@three-eyed-crow Hindsight is twenty-twenty, as they also say.

I doubt anything will seriously change over this except regarding the specific individuals involved.

@rucket While I'm a fan of not-me drama... is airing things out to the court of public opinion a wise decision? When we are the complainants, are we fit to be the jury and judge as well?

@gangofdolls The problem may well come from not believing in the credibility of some 'testimony.' Especially from people who have, in the past, displayed any sort of similar behaviour or indeed prior animosity towards the accused.

I'm not saying this is what's happening, as I'm not privy to Arkandel's brain, but it is what I'd be thinking in his place.

@gangofdolls said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:

It seems like a lot of viciously spread rumors isn't really checking boxes where integrity is concerned?

It's also a matter of proving it, and determining the best course of action in the face of unproven allegations. Overreacting to simple accusations and allegations can be as dangerous as not reacting at all.

@bored said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:

And, in terms of administration, what the fuck actually counts as 'misconduct'?

Using their official powers in a way contrary to established codes of conduct and rules. That's the baseline I work with, though naturally no situation is guaranteed to fit. I'd also extend it to include any behaviour, official or not, that has resulted in warnings or bannings for people before.

Being a dick in the hog pit is one thing; a not insignificant portion of this community does so, thus I don't expect administrators to be above such things. Being a dick elsewhere and spreading such alleged rumours and so forth would probably get an ordinary user warned, at the very least.

@ganymede Something, something, electoral college...

@wizz said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:

This was just...a weird way to do everything you all just did.

@arkandel I can! I've no horse in this lasagne, just doing my best to translate the verbosity.

@arkandel There was a reasonable and seemingly well-intentioned apology made. Folks appear to have deduced the source of the initial misinformation that caused the behaviour that is being apologised for and have expressed their displeasure.

ETA: ELI5: Person got told things. Person did bad. Person said sorry. Other people found out who told person wrong things. Other people hate wrong-thing-teller now.

Weird. We don't need to be reminded to vote, because we have to else we get fined.

@faraday Most likely. In my view survival is the barest ability to do anything. Survival versus actually living, for a vague example.

@three-eyed-crow said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

I don't personally think the idea of games as permanent and unending is positive for a lot of stories.

To a point, I agree. I'd also say that the idea of characters being permanent has also lead to some pretty poor situations. Not like 'characters can never die' or anything, but the fact that many places have so-called dinosaurs bopping around two or three years after creation. We should, generally, probably be more open to the idea of shelving a character and starting something new.

@faraday In my defense, what I actually said was:

@tinuviel said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

If a game relies entirely on you to function

Which has indeed happened, on a few occasions, though it's not the general way of things and thus is likely to have caused confusion to those that haven't experienced it frequently enough. Though it does seem to be the case with the game the OP was talking about, as without the headstaff husband-and-wife duo the game apparently can't function.

@sunny I started this segment of the conversation.

@sunny The time taken is irrelevant. If tens of people are relying on you to always be around for every single meaningful thing (which most games don't do, regardless of size) then that is a failure of design.

@sunny said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

There are ALWAYS going to be things that only she can handle on her games, and those things WILL have to wait, and that is NOT a problem.

Yes. And she has also said that not every single thing relies on her. That is not a problem. If nobody could run anything meaningful without her, if no tasks could be done without her supervision, if nothing was capable of moving forward at all without her, that would be a problem. And that is literally what I'm talking about.

@sunny Did... did you read what I actually wrote?

@kanye-qwest Eh, if you're the only staffer that can actually do anything? Take a week off, then next week spend time catching up on all the stuff you didn't do, some jobs sit idle for that week, some jobs take a while to process for reasons, more jobs come in and you have to do those, you burn out hard again and take another week...

Not being available isn't the problem, it's being unavailable while also having the entire thing pinned to you, exclusively, being around.

@mietze said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

It seems kind of silly to say that unless you as headstaff/game owner can create something to run in perpetuity in your absence/after you have long lost interest you're "doing it wrong."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the game relies on you, entirely on you, then you are doing it wrong. I have been on several games with a control-freak headstaff that burnt out and the game died because nobody else could do anything - staff or players while the headstaffer took a break.

@mietze said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

I agree that probably no one but the actual game owner/headstaff should be indispensible

That's actually not what I'm saying. Nobody should be entirely indispensable.

@mietze said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

If they were destroyed by being out of commission for a /week/,

This part was mostly hyperbole. If a game can't survive without you, you're doing it wrong.

@apos said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

Any implication that a game runner is not incredibly dedicated is basically a red flag for anyone debating whether or not they want to invest time in the game.

There's a difference between dedication and being the sole linchpin to an entire operation. I'm saying that one should spread the load and not concentrate the entire story of the game in your own head, as has been done before.

@apos said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

Saying 'this game will have a one year run' probably means it is effectively dead by month five, since no one will want to join a game that's half over.

True, but again that's not what I said. Every story has an ending, so too should every game. Go out with a bang than with a whimper. Games will die, regardless of staff's wishes, though 'people not joining' isn't at all the same as a game being dead.

@mietze said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

that sounds like it's populated by some seriously needy and demanding players

It's more that it was run by a controlling headstaff that refused to spread the responsibility around.

@thenomain said in When Staff No Longer Cares:

Make a game that takes the parts that you like and create your own original thing.

I'd also add that one should build their game with the idea that 1) It will eventually end, and 2) You might not be the one to guide it there. If a game relies entirely on you to function, then all it takes is a week off with the flu to send your work crashing down.