Nepotism
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:19 pm
In the past two days, I've been accused of favoritism and Conflict of Interest (CoI) twice. I want to address this matter as best I can and publically because it is a matter of confidence with our staff.
It is true that I am friendly with some players more than others. Some players get reputations for being naughty (Wilderop and Jaxon are obvious examples). Others tend to be quite reasonable and nice, and may even cross the boundaries into friendship. This does impact my decision making with regards how I treat those players, and in times of important decisions, it also impacts those. I believe most people would agree it should, and several would say we're overall too lenient - I was told that Wilderop simply shouldn't have been given a chance on TI:L because of his history on TI:A, for example.
The question of "favoritism" and whether or not it exists isn't really an issue. It exists. It's natural and inherent in human relationships. Those who do not wish to participate in the social graces that allow one to gain favor tend to simply appear to be jerks, anti-social, and frankly, not deserving of said favor. This is true both amongst peers as well as in a heirarchal structure where some people have more power than others (take staff or guild leaders, for example).
So this raises questions that I've attempted to answer for myself. For example, should people who are friendly with me allowed to hold positions on TI, or should they be automatically disqualified from any role simply because they are friends? I don't think so. Should I be allowed to have friends? I definitely think so and don't think my relationship with any given player is anyone else's business. It does irritate me that people think so poorly of me overall to believe that I always put friendship before running a good game. I have to balance those priorities, and in general, I'd like to think I'm balancing them reasonably well, and better than most other games around. Certainly, overall, the staff seem to be very open with most of the GL positions and so on, so anyone who wants to do those sorts of things, can.
Should all players have equal opportunity for all roles? Well, at first thought, because of my democratic upbringing, I want to say yes. But when I think about it, I believe the answer is no. Firstly, not all players can handle roles of authority (see players mentioned above). Secondly, some roles (such as the monarch) are extremely important for the success of the game. Not everyone can pull it off, not everyone would act with the best interest of the game over their own best interests, etc. And, not everyone has the rapport with the staff necessary to carry out big decision activities, so in a way, a relationship with staff is required. The players who can cut it are few.
Another thing that bugs me is that I've seen a plot that seems against Cellan solely because the players enacting it don't agree with my decision OOCly to put Cellan in the monarch role. On one hand, I think players should be allowed to do anything they want ICly, provided they have an IC reason to do so. On another hand, I see that as a bit of an OOC attack, and I think it's pretty sad because I think Cellan should have to do something to deserve the rancor she's receiving from that quarter other than simply be friends with myself or Sephone.
In the long run, it just makes me sad and feel abused when the accusations come flying my way.
On that note - if a player has a beef with staff, I'd like to encourage them to speak up. But please, when speaking up, be careful about HOW you speak up. The message can be lost in the context, and if staff feel attacked (or heaven forbid, actually are being attacked), there's a good chance they'll respond in a negative, and quite possibly damaging, fashion. I don't support my staff being abused, called names, patronized, or in any other way socially molested, and I will support them if they decide to do something about it, even if there was a message under all of it that should be addressed. It's that good old saying "What you're doing speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying."
It is true that I am friendly with some players more than others. Some players get reputations for being naughty (Wilderop and Jaxon are obvious examples). Others tend to be quite reasonable and nice, and may even cross the boundaries into friendship. This does impact my decision making with regards how I treat those players, and in times of important decisions, it also impacts those. I believe most people would agree it should, and several would say we're overall too lenient - I was told that Wilderop simply shouldn't have been given a chance on TI:L because of his history on TI:A, for example.
The question of "favoritism" and whether or not it exists isn't really an issue. It exists. It's natural and inherent in human relationships. Those who do not wish to participate in the social graces that allow one to gain favor tend to simply appear to be jerks, anti-social, and frankly, not deserving of said favor. This is true both amongst peers as well as in a heirarchal structure where some people have more power than others (take staff or guild leaders, for example).
So this raises questions that I've attempted to answer for myself. For example, should people who are friendly with me allowed to hold positions on TI, or should they be automatically disqualified from any role simply because they are friends? I don't think so. Should I be allowed to have friends? I definitely think so and don't think my relationship with any given player is anyone else's business. It does irritate me that people think so poorly of me overall to believe that I always put friendship before running a good game. I have to balance those priorities, and in general, I'd like to think I'm balancing them reasonably well, and better than most other games around. Certainly, overall, the staff seem to be very open with most of the GL positions and so on, so anyone who wants to do those sorts of things, can.
Should all players have equal opportunity for all roles? Well, at first thought, because of my democratic upbringing, I want to say yes. But when I think about it, I believe the answer is no. Firstly, not all players can handle roles of authority (see players mentioned above). Secondly, some roles (such as the monarch) are extremely important for the success of the game. Not everyone can pull it off, not everyone would act with the best interest of the game over their own best interests, etc. And, not everyone has the rapport with the staff necessary to carry out big decision activities, so in a way, a relationship with staff is required. The players who can cut it are few.
Another thing that bugs me is that I've seen a plot that seems against Cellan solely because the players enacting it don't agree with my decision OOCly to put Cellan in the monarch role. On one hand, I think players should be allowed to do anything they want ICly, provided they have an IC reason to do so. On another hand, I see that as a bit of an OOC attack, and I think it's pretty sad because I think Cellan should have to do something to deserve the rancor she's receiving from that quarter other than simply be friends with myself or Sephone.
In the long run, it just makes me sad and feel abused when the accusations come flying my way.
On that note - if a player has a beef with staff, I'd like to encourage them to speak up. But please, when speaking up, be careful about HOW you speak up. The message can be lost in the context, and if staff feel attacked (or heaven forbid, actually are being attacked), there's a good chance they'll respond in a negative, and quite possibly damaging, fashion. I don't support my staff being abused, called names, patronized, or in any other way socially molested, and I will support them if they decide to do something about it, even if there was a message under all of it that should be addressed. It's that good old saying "What you're doing speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying."