Empire Discussion Thread
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Obviously, it is Ada’s game and they are paying to keep the lights on, so they can do as they like. But if they are going to ban everyone who ever makes a slightly backhanded remark, they may end up banning a lot of people.
@helvetica and @Trashcan said it very well.
I do respect the way you and @Faraday approach it, it’s very kind to do that lifting for someone who may or may not just be having a bad day, but you’re giving a stranger the benefit of the doubt in a situation where the adult thing to do would and should be taking the time to wait out your disregulation rather than lash out at someone you barely know on their game where, again, you are only a guest and playing because they have dedicated the time, effort, and money to providing that space.
if someone decides to ban lots of very rude strangers, I mean. so what? this is honestly the only medium I have ever played where bans are considered this shocking “nuclear option.” they are actually pretty common on tons of other platforms, and it doesn’t prevent them from being diverse and active spaces, because it’s about creating and maintaining the game culture and they understand that people come and go regardless.
-
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Ada explicitly contradicts you.
You page Ada: We’re supposed to send logs?
Ada pages you: No, but there is a scene logger. That notwithstanding, have you actually done scenes with Sophia?
That’s makes it seem pretty clear that logging of scenes is not required for submittals, only that you can log scenes if you want.
See, I’m reading that differently: That you don’t need to submit logs, because there’s a scene logger built in that should be used to do it all automatically. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that’s an alternate read that I don’t think is entirely out of the realm of the reasonable.
That said, I don’t think either side comes across as particularly amazing in that log. @Warma-Sheen is a touch rude and pushy, while the headstaffer is rather knee-jerky. Though to be fair to them, it’s not unreasonable to predict that further cattiness or pushiness could be expected based on this interaction, and they want to nip it in the bud.
However, ultimately, they have their policy written on their website: “I am running this game as a hobby for myself and others. If someone is a disruptive nuisance or generally badly behaved, I can ban them as suits me.” So it’s not out of the blue, it’s not unexpected.
-
To be absolutely clear, I totally respect Ada’s right to run their game as they like. As long as they are paying for the server they can declare that everyone has to play while standing on one foot and balancing a rubber chicken on their head, if that is their wish!
I am just saying that it is not how I would run a game and that I think it might end up in them banning people that could be put back on the right track with only a pretty small amount of effort. Of course, Ada is welcome to decide that is more effort than they are willing to put forth.
My assumption (perhaps false!) is that when opening a game one wants to develop a large and diverse base of players. So for me, banning people who don’t necessarily need to be is kind of a negative thing, because it is then a player (and perhaps their friends) that I don’t have.
Of course, there is an argument to be made that curating a smaller player base of very well behaved players and cutting others at the early stage of a problem behaviour is actually a better way forward, which is perhaps what Ada is aiming for.
So perhaps that is also colouring my opinion of whether it was “good” to ban the person. In any case, I fully support Ada’s choice to ban or not ban who they like. “Thin Skinned” may have been a poor choice of words previously, perhaps I meant something closer to “reactive”.
-
@Jenn said in Empire Discussion Thread:
No, you’re not supposed to SEND logs, because the mechanic is there that will track them. Since I don’t see them tracked, can you tell me more about why this NPC should give you their ENTIRE pile of resources, and what RP has supported such a major ask being made, much less granted.
To me, if I have to proactively document something to get staff to act, that is me sending something to staff. Whether that’s emailing a copy of a log, asking staff to be present in the scene to witness it, having other PCs in the scene reach out to staff to confirm that X, Y, and Z happened in the scene, mailing it priority next day certified mail to staff, paying a pilot to skywrite it over staff’s house, hiring a process server to have it served as a summons for court, or typing +logthisscene at the start of a scene, I have had to provide staff something as part of my request. So, if I, a dumb player who doesn’t know the ins and outs of the server or even that a +logthisscene command exists, ask staff if I need to provide/send/submit/present/proffer/tender/offer/point to/any other synonym an item and that staff must review said item before they will do the thing I have requested they do, the answer to my question is always emphatically “yes.”
What Ada should have written in response to the question was some variation of “We require evidence of roleplay that makes progress towards accomplishing the thing that has been requested. We do not require that logs be sent to us, as we have the +logthisscene command that will log the scene and we will be able to refer to it. However, if you did not use the command, we will need logs or some other means of proving that roleplay has occurred moving this item forward.” Because their response is unclear and confusing to me and apparently a few other people in this thread. I went down the same path as Warma Sheen and also would have been incredibly pissed at this reaction from staff, because they couldn’t be clear in their communications.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
curating a smaller player base
Yes, please. Tangential, but I can’t with the frenzy that happens on some of these games nowadays. As soon as I start signing on the next day to a wall of new forum notifications, I find myself dropping off. Slightly more intimate player bases can be so much fun.
-
Games just run so much better without the darn players getting in there and messing things up!
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
My assumption (perhaps false!) is that when opening a game one wants to develop a large and diverse base of players.
I feel like we’re reaching a point where new gamerunners are going to focus more on just running the game they want to run rather than running a game that attracts a large crowd.
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
So for me, banning people who don’t necessarily need to be is kind of a negative thing, because it is then a player (and perhaps their friends) that I don’t have.
that’s kind of the crux of it, imo: whether or not they need to be kind is up to you to decide, you’re the one at the gate, right?
if you create a space where people who decide it’s not necessary to be kind aren’t welcome, all you’re losing are people who don’t think it’s necessary to be kind.
personally, these are just games. we’re all here to have fun, people should be going out of their way to be kind to each other because that adds to and enhances the fun. that takes effort, absolutely, but that only means it should be encouraged.
as to whether or not you need to worry so much about having big numbers to be successful, I can honestly say the most fun I have ever had in the hobby, hands down, were two games that had about 15-20 active people at a time but very respectful, engaged, and kind staff who made it very clear that they expected the same in return.
-
@Pavel said in Empire Discussion Thread:
See, I’m reading that differently: That you don’t need to submit logs, because there’s a scene logger built in that should be used to do it all automatically. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that’s an alternate read that I don’t think is entirely out of the realm of the reasonable.
Then why didn’t Ada say THAT?
As a staffer, you have a player coming to you in apparent confusion, pushy or not, about why their request hasn’t been processed. During that conversation they ask “Was I supposed to send logs?” or “Do I need to send logs?” clearly indicating that they haven’t read the +request submittal guidelines, don’t know that staff need evidence of RP supporting the request, and apparently doesn’t know that+logthisscene exists since they are asking if they need to send .txt to staff from their hard drive. Instead of a very unclear “No, you don’t have to send logs,” and leaving it at that, elaborate on the +request process and the +logthisscene command.
That said, I don’t think either side comes across as particularly amazing in that log. @Warma-Sheen is a touch rude and pushy, while the headstaffer is rather knee-jerky. Though to be fair to them, it’s not unreasonable to predict that further cattiness or pushiness could be expected based on this interaction, and they want to nip it in the bud.
I don’t read rudeness or pushiness. I read confusion, but conversational text doesn’t convey tone very well. However, if Warma Sheen has a penchant for being rude and pushy, and Ada knew that, then that might have colored Ada’s perception of what Warma Sheen was writing.
However, ultimately, they have their policy written on their website: “I am running this game as a hobby for myself and others. If someone is a disruptive nuisance or generally badly behaved, I can ban them as suits me.” So it’s not out of the blue, it’s not unexpected.
I don’t disagree. Ada’s server, Ada’s rules. Admin can forbid anyone from accessing their server for any reason, even ridiculous ones. I will not refute, disagree, or argue against that. I will, however, point out when I feel that Admin is being ridiculous. And based only on the text I am reading, I see a confused player trying to figure out why things aren’t working as expected and a staff member who is not clarifying that confusion at all and then banning that confused player for not reading their unclear response correctly, and that is ridiculous.
-
ActuaIly, this has been very interesting to me, in understanding how much “the numbers” seem to be a part of how I define the success or not of a game.
My initial thinking was definitely based on this deep assumption that one should be casting the widest possible net, pulling in the greatest possible amount of people and trying to be all things to all people. It’s probably based on my formative MUSH experience being in the big, multi-sphere WoD pit.
However, now I think of it I can totally see that not all games should or would strive for that. However, in this case looking at the available roster, it does seem like Ada is hoping to achieve a decently sized player base eventually.
In any case. Perspective broadened.
-
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
What Ada should have written in response to the question
I think that this is the crux of why Ada and Warma had that interaction in the first place.
Because I disagree that Ada SHOULD have said anything differently. She COULD have, and maybe that would have helped.
But if she said what she meant, and that was misunderstood, Warma COULD have just as easily stated, hey, I’m confused here because it reads to me like you’re asking y
He COULD even go into better clarification of where the confusion was with a politely asked, “You mentioned not needing to send logs, but also that you need RP support. What’s the ideal format for getting that support to you?”Both of them could have made other choices. But they didn’t. Ada said something. It may or may not have been misunderstood. Rather than respectfully asking for clarification, a player came at head staff sideways about it.
So, sure. Staff CAN bend further backwards to clarify a misunderstanding that instead of being conveyed as such just got snippy… Or they can say they’re not interested in supprorting snippy responses and focus on people willing to work on finding understanding collaboratively instead. Only Ada can decide which of those she prefers.
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
only a pretty small amount of effort
I also wanted to pull up this phrasing here. We don’t know how much effort it takes. We know how much it might take us, but not anyone else. And even if it’s a small amount of energy for us, I don’t really want to spend all of my free time expending that effort to gentle parent a dysregulated player when I could be doing literally anything else, like setting my head on fire, instead. So I can understand just… not doing that.
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Then why didn’t Ada say THAT?
Honestly? Probably curse of prior knowledge. She knows the system is there, expects it to be used, but also expects everyone else to also know the thing that she knows. Because psychology. It’s not a satisfactory thought, but it’s the only one I can think of given that I am, as yet, unable to read minds.
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I don’t read rudeness or pushiness.
It’s entirely possible that my dislike of Warma is colouring things, but I definitely read it as pushy.
All that being said, none of that conversation was clear. And I have to agree that if you’re expecting me to expend more emotional energy and maturity than I feel you’re meeting me with, I’m just going to get rid of you instead.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Pavel said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Honestly? Probably curse of prior knowledge. She knows the system is there, expects it to be used, but also expects everyone else to also know the thing that she knows. Because psychology. It’s not a satisfactory thought, but it’s the only one I can think of given that I am, as yet, unable to read minds.
I totally agree with this. I think this also occurs when players don’t read all of the available game documentation and just assume something is X when it’s actually documented as Y. So this may be something documented either in game or on the Empire website that is just assumed as known in every interaction.
I know if I ever get the time to build a game, I’m going to have a big disclaimer that applying for a character indicates that the player is aware of the game’s policies and rules, and that lack of understanding of those documents is not accepted as an excuse for negative patterns of behavior.
-
I would (gently, politely) just point out that I did immediately qualify the text you have quoted with:
“Of course, Ada is welcome to decide that is more effort than they are willing to put forth.”
-
@Pacha You did, and my statement was meant more generally. So I’m sorry that wasn’t entirely clear. However, the quoted phrase, and others like it in sentiment, are phrases I’d much rather we as a society (though I’d settle for just the hobby) abandon when applied to other people.
ETA: Though that’s a whole different discussion around implicit ableism in our language that’s probably worth at least a master’s thesis’ amount of research.
-
My stance is that the onus is on the individual in a position of authority to be clear in what they mean. Staff has control over the situation, so they need to ensure that the player understands them. This wasn’t a chat between two equal parties; one clearly has power over the other, and, therefore, has the responsibility to be clear in their communications.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@Warma-Sheen said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I cancelled a bunch of others cause having a bunch of actions open that we’re being addressed was really making me feel a kind of way.
This is the key bit of that log for me. It seems like this person was already being kind of passive aggressive and establishing a bad behavior pattern over waiting five days for a response from the lone staff member running the game. And it sounds like the other characters hadn’t even weighed in on the action yet for the staff member to even respond.
I don’t think log/no log was the real issue here.
-
@Ominous While I disagree with the whole philosophical underpinning of what you’re saying here, we can unpack that at a later time. I do want to suggest one thought: They both thought they were being clear and the other was being confusing (at best) or intentionally obtuse (at worst).
There’s really no use in using the word clearly so often (not in this most recent post, but previously) when talking about a miscommunication/confusion/talkyfuckery.
-
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
one clearly has power over the other
No they don’t. Let’s not be super ridiculous here. That’d be like saying Pyre has power over us because they are mods of the forum
And while we’re on the topic of being super ridiculous, we’re going off a log that was clearly copy-pasted instead of screen shotted so we have no idea what happened. Literally everything could be editted.
-
@bear_necessities said in Empire Discussion Thread:
That’d be like saying Pyre has power over us because they are mods of the forum
@Pyrephox has power over me because they still have the photos from the first (and only) Admin/Mod staff party. They shall likely never look at a turnip quite the same way.
