Strike Systems
-
Same. If I have to talk to someone twice about the same misbehavior, they’re gone.
Some people can change. Others can’t. If they need more than one warning, they’re more than likely in the latter category. And it’s a better use of my time to RP with trusted regulars than to try to help a chronic problem player.
-
@Jenn said in Strike Systems:
Like. If you’re one of those places with an activity requirement? Then yeah, some strikes are better than a perma-ban because someone’s kid got ill and they couldn’t make the one scene a week minimum. Aside - thank eff we got rid of that ish for the most part.
Getting banned for not meeting an activity requirement seems very extreme. What game did this happen on? Is it still up? I’d love to read this policy.
-
Couldn’t tell you. Read it in policies, knew it would be a bad fit. Didn’t continue reading or app anything.
-
I’ve staffed in places (outside of RP) that had strike systems and I think it was more because that was the done thing in gaming culture, rather than any deliberate and conscientious design.
It didn’t work. People get really mad if they’re given a strike they feel they didn’t deserve, it becomes a technicality and a debate-magnet. Also, we were a bunch of immature teenagers.
Growing up is realising you can just talk to people instead of issuing ultimatums from your ivory tower.
-
Back in the day of three strike rules, I remember giving what felt like endless WARNINGS before even getting to the first strike.
It was a bad system.
-
@Juniper I had someone once explain it to me as “If you wouldn’t invite them into your living room why would you invite them into your game?” Whether it’s a game, a scene, or whatever. The same concept remains.
My in person friendships get a lot more grace and chances. I’ve also had online friendships get to the point of earning those chances because of my history with the person.
Boundaries aren’t bad (whether as staff or player) though especially for people you don’t know outside of a game and who haven’t put in the effort to receive additional chances.
Giving someone you hardly know, who has shown a negative behavior, the continued chance to add to your stress and the stress of those around you?
I’m a hypocrite sometimes though and still have trouble having a spine. The older I get though? The less fucks I give.
-
@Roz Yet no matter how many warnings or strikes you give the banhammer always comes “out of nowhere” -_-
-
@SockMonkey I NEVER EVEN GOT TO BAN ANYONE
-
-
@Roz yeah we REALLY should have banned some people. We put ourselves through a lot of toxic nonsense in the effort to both be fair and appear fair, and the people we should have banned and didn’t did not actually benefit.
-
Looking at the current state of reality, my tolerance for bullshit is at an all time low. At this point if I ran a game and someone spoke some right wing shit id ban them. I think a lot of issues have persisted because people have wanted to be nice or polite. Sometimes it’s just best for everyone to just move on without them.
-
@Rucket said in Strike Systems:
At this point if I ran a game and someone spoke some right wing shit id ban them.
Amen to that.
“A-bloo-boo-hoo, freedom of speech, blah blah”
Nah. Go away. I’m tired of playing how far they can boil the frog before there’s a problem. -
@Rucket I had this rule in the 20-teens and would absolutely do it again. I don’t remember banning anybody for bigoty hatredy shit, but I had to be reminded that I banned somebody for attempted IC kiddy-diddling. There were no strikes, people were expected to read the rules, there is some shit I will not eat., it was clear, and I’m not in the business of potty training, we’re here to have fun and make friends.
