Empire Discussion Thread
-
@Roadspike said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Anyone in a position of power (and staffing a game, or a forum, is that) has some measure of power over those who partake of whatever gives them that power.
I think you are wrong, and it’s going to be an ‘agree to disagree’ thing here for me. An admin or staffer may have authority over the game, but they do not have power over a person playing it.
-
What would qualify as power over a person? Or is it just different interpretations on what power over a space and power over a player is?
I would think that banning a player they do not want on their game is power over a player in their space since they are removing the player from the game against their will.
Enforcing ICA = ICC would be power over the player too because even if the player disagrees with the judgement, admin is the judge and their safe is final. This could even result in the player losing their character against their will.
-
@KDraygo I’m probably being a little pedantic on the word usage here, because to me it just sounds like you have the authority to control someone. IMO the ability to decide you can’t play here is not the ability to control someone, it’s just making rules for their space.
Plus I mean to be honest saying a game admin has power over the players inevitably puts the game runner in a position that not a lot of us want to be in. Fuck when I ran Gray Harbor, I hope people didn’t think I had power over them, I barely had power over my own story lol
-
@Wizz said in Empire Discussion Thread:
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.
I don’t disagree with you on principle. Obviously people should act like mature adults, and staff should set whatever limits they see fit.
My point is more practical. I’ve run a LOT of games through the years, for the most part with a reputation of them being pretty chill, friendly places. Yet even on games like that - if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players. Many would be banned, others would have left because of their friends being banned, and still others would have left because I developed a reputation where one misstep (even just a misunderstanding) leads to a ban.
But again I want to stress that I’m not criticizing Ada in this specific instance because I don’t have all the facts, and even if I did - it’s still entirely their call.
-
@Roadspike said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I fully believe that you can ban people who are more trouble than they are worth (cue Prue Leith’s “Not worth the calories”), and still maintain a large and diverse base of players. While there aren’t a ridiculous number of people in this hobby, there are plenty to have a nice, large, healthy database while removing the people who make staffing not fun.
Absolutely. I don’t think anybody is disputing that.
I think that what the calories are worth for whom and for what is up for discussion though. Obviously some people might think that donut is worth the calories, others will not.
I tend to agree with Faraday here:
@Faraday said in Empire Discussion Thread:
if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players.
But everyone has the right to choose their own diet. Perhaps I will eat the donut, and Ada will limit herself to a green salad. It is individual choice!
