-
This post is deleted! -
@Pavel @Coin Staff should never be required to train or educate their players on how to improve their behavior. Staff is busy staffing, for sure.
I do think there is a difference between a player doing something bad and being a toxic player. Toxic players deserve nothing and should instaban. Toxic players are problematic OOCly (like paging harassment for TS). Someone here said that toxic players usually know they’re toxic (often because they’ve been banned before), and I think that’s true. A lot of workplace analogies have been made here, and in my suit and tie corporate office world, I can attest that when a person gets fired, MOST of the time, they aren’t surprised because they know they did a thing.
Sometimes, a player just makes a bad decision but their OOC behavior has been good. I think in those cases a small explanation feels respectful. To those players, I also would consider giving them a “Hey, stop X behavior” warning/conversation as opposed to moving immediately to the boot.
-
@SingstheTails said in Concordia Thread:
@Pavel @Coin Staff should never be required to train or educate their players on how to improve their behavior. Staff is busy staffing, for sure.
See, you’re using absolutist language (‘never’) whereas I didn’t. I never used to words “train” or “educate”. I believe people should be informed as to why they’re being banned. I didn’t say staff then needed to spend time and effort helping the person change.
But do you see where my language is different from yours? I am expressing my opinion in a way that makes it clear it’s my opinion. You’re presenting yours as if they’re objective truths. But that’s not how this works. Everyone has different opinions about what is moral and ethical and, no surprise, what efficient staffing looks like.
Staff doesn’t have to do anything, they are under no obligation to do anything. But do I think they should? Yes.
I do think there is a difference between a player doing something bad and being a toxic player. Toxic players deserve nothing and should instaban. Toxic players are problematic OOCly (like paging harassment for TS). Someone here said that toxic players usually know they’re toxic (often because they’ve been banned before), and I think that’s true. A lot of workplace analogies have been made here, and in my suit and tie corporate office world, I can attest that when a person gets fired, MOST of the time, they aren’t surprised because they know they did a thing.
Playing and running a MU is not a job and if you’re viewing it as one then you’re inviting toxicity into your hobby. It’s not a job. It’s not even comparable to volunteer social work.
It is a hobby, and to me it’s clear these comparisons are detrimental to discussions about the hobby (not in small part because we start applying tactics and norms seen in capitalist organizations as justifications for actions and attitudes in non-profit, personal entertainment spaces, and we need to gtfo with that shit).
Sometimes, a player just makes a bad decision but their OOC behavior has been good. I think in those cases a small explanation feels respectful. To those players, I also would consider giving them a “Hey, stop X behavior” warning/conversation as opposed to moving immediately to the boot.
Gee, it’s almost like you understand my point, but decided to misinterpret the language so you could establish a false binary.
-
@Evilgrayson said in Concordia Thread:
You can’t have someone ennobled in play if everyone’s already a noble, and there’s a whole slew of potential conflict just… missing.
lemme just. lemme just help you out
people don’t actually WANT that conflict. they want to be ennobled all the way to the TIPPY TOP without real setbacks or consequences. or, they want to provide pushback but not in a way that actually risks anything or requires true alliances or choices.
a few, a FEW, do want that conflict, and of that few, you can probably rely on half to do it without it becoming a nasty and bitter feud. If this type of conflict is really wanted, the game needs to be set up for pvp with clear guidelines. which sounds like a lot of work to me but go off
Maybe chatGPT could come up with a good set of rules ZING
-
@Coin said in Concordia Thread:
@SingstheTails said in Concordia Thread:
Gee, it’s almost like you understand my point, but decided to misinterpret the language so you could establish a false binary.
Not only did I understand your point, I only tagged you because I agreed with you. I apologize for not expressing it better.
-
@SingstheTails said in Concordia Thread:
@Coin said in Concordia Thread:
@SingstheTails said in Concordia Thread:
Gee, it’s almost like you understand my point, but decided to misinterpret the language so you could establish a false binary.
Not only did I understand your point, I only tagged you because I agreed with you. I apologize for not expressing it better.
Lol (<-- far more self-conscious than amused).
I think I woke up on the defensive today. I apologize for reacting that way. While I don’t think our approaches are entirely the same, I think my expectations of this forum and how tagging/replies are often used made me read your post in a way it wasn’t intended.
Ugh, being a grown up is hard work, you guys.
-
@hellfrog said in Concordia Thread:
@Evilgrayson said in Concordia Thread:
You can’t have someone ennobled in play if everyone’s already a noble, and there’s a whole slew of potential conflict just… missing.
lemme just. lemme just help you out
people don’t actually WANT that conflict. they want to be ennobled all the way to the TIPPY TOP without real setbacks or consequences. or, they want to provide pushback but not in a way that actually risks anything or requires true alliances or choices.
a few, a FEW, do want that conflict, and of that few, you can probably rely on half to do it without it becoming a nasty and bitter feud. If this type of conflict is really wanted, the game needs to be set up for pvp with clear guidelines. which sounds like a lot of work to me but go off
Maybe chatGPT could come up with a good set of rules ZING
I would also say most of the time they want to be the ‘special’ person ennobled or love or their deeds. Which in theory is a good angle just very common on L&L mu*s.
-
This post is deleted! -
Man, I don’t login for a week (or more) and the place goes to hell. I knew that Felix was special, but I didn’t know he was that critical to keeping the place together.
-
not going on a hurt feelings rant moments after they make a post asking for feedback to improve
-
Well all I’ll say is the Domain System isn’t dead. They’re literally setting up for the first official Crisis phase of the first run of it. Also it’s Alpha, transitioning into Beta so things around going to work and not work and be improved or tossed out.
-
.
-
@MidnightSin You’re wilding out when they haven’t even done anything yet. The playerbase is just settling after a huge influx of people who rushed to get characters and then never used them. I don’t know you hopefully, but damn, go do something else if you’ve got this much bottled up already.
ETA: I never clicked on the forum post. But let’s not pretend it doesn’t communicate a good-faith openness to feedback.
-
First, this probably doesn’t belong in Game Gab, because if you are going to come in and call a game a pile of burning trash that’s asking for a different type of conversation.
@MidnightSin said in Concordia Thread:
being informed that there’s some improvements to be made by the way staff talks to people and to those that are trying to give feedback jst dont, dont ask questions just smiel and nod and watch the burning continue.
I don’t know what’s with the weird mixed tenses and subjects here but are you implying someone told you to not ask questions, just smile and nod? Or are you suggesting that? That seems counterintuitive to this whole post where you ask a bunch of questions and make a bunch of insinuations.
In general it sounds like you are mad that someone promised you a game that you don’t feel like you got. I get that, but honestly if you want to suggest improvements this isn’t a great way to start. Proper capitalization however is a good way to start.
-
@YetiBeard said in Concordia Thread:
First, this probably doesn’t belong in Game Gab, because if you are going to come in and call a game a pile of burning trash that’s asking for a different type of conversation.
YetiBeard’s right. Mind the tone, mind the location. We keep our trash burns in Rough and Rowdy.
-
@Tez said in Concordia Thread:
We keep our trash burns in Rough and Rowdy.
I may just be being generous, but it seemed that they were just complaining about the game rather than burning trash. Sure the complaints were almost unintelligible and brusque, but I don’t think they wandered close enough to the line that they’d be Rowdy worthy.
-
@Pavel O ok, ty. I didn’t catch it live.
she/they
-
@Tez said in Concordia Thread:
@Pavel O ok, ty. I didn’t catch it live.
I think you can still check the delete post/edit history. But yeah, it was just dumb not Rowdy-levels of offensive.
-
@Tez said in Concordia Thread:
@Pavel O ok, ty. I didn’t catch it live.
It was mostly salt, and anything constructive was buried under that. If that’s what we’re going for in this section, by all means~
-
@Tez said in Concordia Thread:
@Pavel O ok, ty. I didn’t catch it live.
FWIW I disagree with @Pavel, I thought it was Rough and Rowdy play.
she/her | playlist
