Posts made by Tinuviel

@Jeshin said in Privacy in gaming:

The real question is what is the standard community expectation of privacy. Only by establishing the norm can people be judged for deviating from it.

People are going to be judged for their implementation regardless as to how close or how deviant from the 'standard community expectation' is.

If you don't keep logs of anything at all, then you're not doing enough to protect your players. If you spy a little, then you're cherrypicking. If you spy on everything, you're a pervert or a creep.

@L-B-Heuschkel I typically used such offices for storing code I was working on, or things that were in use but now aren't but might be needed in the future... Storing NPCs that had to be actual playerbits because reasons. It was storage, like I use my real office for.

@L-B-Heuschkel There was a game I worked on during... the early 2000s, I want to say, that had a room in the 'admin section' - because this was the time when everyone needed an 'office' when they're staff. The game had hooked code onto the pose, @emit, say, etc commands to transmit RP'd things to that room. The intent was to better enable realistic reactions from NPC stellar powers and such (it was a Star Trek game), but naturally it was used to watch TS without players realising.

@L-B-Heuschkel Unfortunately for any MUer to have anything approaching a "right" there must be an overarching authority-type structure that one can appeal to when those rights are violated. Some folks think MSB is it (or should be it) but we're just a bunch of grumpy adults grumpily adulting about grumpy stuff adutily.

The only thing we can really do is appeal to the "authority" that is the wider community and, through social pressure, enforce the privileges we want.

ETA: This wasn't an argument of your point, just a general statement to clarify my view.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

Ethically, I disagree with you. Privacy SHOULD be a right.

That's not how that works. I certainly think that using such tools without notification, authorisation, or other such -ation as seems valid should be unethical but rights do not cover ethics or morality.

@L-B-Heuschkel All games end up dead. Firan, the poster child for fucked up Admin-ness, lasted a good long while. People are going to play if they like 70-80% of the things there. The head admin could be a murderous, incestuous drunk and people would still play there if they like much of the rest of the game.

That said, I think the "expectation of privacy" (it's not a right, it has never been a right, and never will be a right) is a naive expectation to have in the era where every other week some big business is being breached and it makes the news, and every other day another big business is being breached but we don't hear about it.

Don't expect any communication on a game to be secret or private. If the person on the other end of your page conversation isn't telling all and sundry, then a staffer could be reading it. We might find such things "unacceptable" but that word is virtually meaningless when we don't get a say in what is and isn't acceptable to every single person that runs or visits a game.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

If you can't trust your game's admins, take private stuff to Skype, Discord, wherever. Away from the game LEAVE THE GAME.

FTFY

@Arkandel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

Even so I doubt staff in any game have ever felt entitled to do so because there's a clause buried in a help file or wiki page somewhere.

True. They feel entitled whenever they feel they need or want to.

@Coin said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

We play in a hobby where people routinely choose not to read news files

Most folks don't read legislation either. It's still there and available to be read, it's the not-reader's fault if they break a rule that's written down. Fuck 'em.

@Coin There's a big difference between being upfront and painting it in neon colours on the door, though.

@Arkandel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

Privacy is a right.

There's no such thing as a right, least of all on someone else's MU*.

Staff should note it down in a policy file: "If suspected of breaking the rules certain expectations of privacy may be violated..." or some such, but there are absolutely no rights. I would argue with @Ganymede, though on the "valid presumption" thing. At least in this section of the community, there's a definite expectation of some form of privacy, but we've seen enough complaints that we can't really presume it anymore.

I sure don't want my "privacy" violated, but I also sure want folks to have proof before taking action on complaints. I can't have it both ways.

I miss the bug where ignoring then unignoring people would reveal their deleted post..

Might I recommend, in cases such as these, that an "Inactive" or "Retired" group is created for these such cases? Seeing "banned" with a bright red background does cause one's mind to wander.

After some reflection, I think that yes admin and staff and whoever is in charge of a game should be... concerned about offsite activity that claims to represent their game. Private g-docs full of lurid smut? Whatever. A discord server with a bunch of people on it? That should probably be kept an eye on.

I am aware that outside of their particular game staff's powers are limited, however, their reputation is not. If one's initial exposure to a game is through a discord channel, I think it would behove staff to try their best to keep an eye on any unofficial ones (that they know about) that spring up.

Is it strictly speaking the staff's responsibility? No, no it is not. But strictly speaking, it is not my responsibility to ensure my students don't get into a brawl outside their homes with students from another school. However if they are in uniform, therefore publicly representing our school, I have to care about it because it affects our reputation.

I believe this conversation has exhausted its usefulness. Thank you.

@DareDaemon No, actually. I wasn't talking about you at all. For most of the conversation, I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking about you. I wasn't even vaguely aware that you existed. I was discussing my views on the duties of staff and policy with @bored.

I'm sorry, truly, that you experienced harassment around this subject; but your personal experiences aren't going to stop me speaking about a subject, okay? You are not the be-all and end-all of every conversation that you happen to pop up in. I fully respect your right to run whatever you want the way you want for any reason you want. Have whatever boundaries you wish, I don't care.

I'm still going to call stupid policies stupid when I think they're stupid. If you think that's unfair, then that is unfortunate but that's just how it's going to be. If you don't like that, which is fine, there's an easy handy-dandy ignore feature.

Given the fact that my entire point was about the reticence of some folks in your position being unwilling or unable to report their sexual harrassment, I have no fucking idea where you pulled the "suck it up" bullshit you're spewing now. I'll quote for your benefit:

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

My argument is, if it's an argument at all, that banning something doesn't eliminate it. It drives it underground where it can become dangerous to its participants. Yes, I agree, people should abide by policy. But even those that don't, without actually cheating (in terms of its actual definition), still deserve to feel safe enough to report it. If it goes unreported, who knows how many people are abused in the same fashion?

I'm afraid I don't see one skerrick of "sexual harassment victims need to suck it up." But if you're talking about my preference against a blanket ban on TS in general? I'll expand on that by reiterating a previous statement: You are not the be-all and end-all. Your experiences were terrible, and that is a true tragedy. There is no denying or minimising that. But most games have more than one staff member. You are not required to deal with every problem on a game, in the majority of times.

I disagree with your policy, not your reasons for having such a policy.

@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

Well it looks like we have a fundamentally different view of our roles in the world, so I think we can leave it at that.

No, you don't get to argue that staff is wrong for being unwilling to deal with TS and then pretend you're not someone with massive disrespect for other people's boundaries.

Actually I do get to do that! Because arguing about it in theory rather than demanding it be instituted everywhere is the entire fucking point of this forum!

If you feel disrespected by anything I said... that's your problem, not mine. I'll remind you, once again, this is the constructive section. And, excepting everything you typed, this was a constructive conversation.

@Auspice You get into the space as quickly as you can, and when the queue is gone you fix yourself up. Duh.

@Ghost That... you know 'log' is slang for poop, right?

@Arkandel Since I don't really have anything to add to your latter questions, given our regular debates on this subject being quite voluminous, the main 'liability' issue when it comes to staff power and scope is that of reputation. We have seen, regularly, the reputation of staff stifle a game. "Do you really want to be known as the staffer that let X play your game?" and so forth.

It's all, really, a reputation game. And people here have long memories. Or logs.