There are some serious positives and serious negatives to having the head staff and policy maker play the game. I'm personally struggling with the decision myself as to whether or not I can play TI as well as staff it. Mulling over the pros and cons of it, I thought that the pbase's opinion is an important part of the decision for me, so I'd like to know is how people on the whole feel about it.
THE POSITIVES
- If I play, I know what it feels like to be a player. The systems we devise are more intuitive and better designed.
- The number one reason I run TI is that I'm deeply a fan of RP, so my playing the game helps keep my interest in running the game and sticking around.
- As a player, I always aim to drive inclusive RP activities for the fun of the world at large, and historically have been moderately to extremely successful.
THE NEGATIVES
- I can become emotionally involved in the RP, which has the possibility to affect policy outcomes by shaping my opinion from the player perspective. Also, when emotional is when I'm personally the least stable and mature, which reduces, in my opinion, the quality of my staffing.
- There's a marked increase in player dissatisfaction. Though the rumors that I've heard about my alts and their intentions/actions simply aren't true, people who are unhappy about their RP situation and believe it to be my character's fault are far more inclined to feel justified spreading nasty, unfounded conspiracy theories (which find their way back to me regularly).
- There's a marked increase in my own dissatisfaction when I hear complaints about me or my characters, especially ones I believe to be unfounded.
Note: I cannot see how people vote, but even if I could, you're safe to do so without offending me. I'm also open to comments and insight on this subject.
Thank you for your thoughts and assistance with regard to this matter!
Warm regards,
Kinaed
Do you want your Implementor to play TI?
An interesting covo with food for thought:
(Dare I ask - do what do you think the positives and negatives are to knowing who a staff's alt is?)
[OOC] Bryne: "I'm fine with staff playing as long as they're never Guild Leaders >_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "Why?"
[OOC] CellyCell: "I don't really care about the GL thing, tbh."
[OOC] Bryne: "I've played other games before where staff members also run guilds, and those guilds tend to get a surprising amount of benefits from it, even if the staff denies it."
[OOC] Autumn: "I'm fine as well with staff running guilds."
[OOC] It's ARI: "I really think staff SHOULD play."
[OOC] Autumn: "Agreed. They have to. I have tried it the other way."
[OOC] Autumn: "You lose motivation for the game, and contact with really what is needed and going on."
OOC] Kinky: "I banned the guild thing, not because of staff/guild benefits, but more b/c I had a bad habit of hiring the best GLs to staff back in the day leaving no good leaders in the game. Also, staff would collect GL slots, do them little justice because of how many they're holding, and it'd be damn hard to tell a staffer they're not doing a good job. Finally, no opportunties for other players to move up when staff are immobile in those positions."
[OOC] CellyCell: "Having been staff on two MUDs before, though, I can tell you that there's nothing worse than being put into a "all staff cheat" mold..."
[OOC] It's ARI: "And there's no way to know how the systems you devise feel if you don't use 'em."
OOC] Kinky: "So I'm comfortable with the no GL thing."
[OOC] It's ARI would be fine with staff GLing as long as the 'one GL to a player' rule was kept but that's not really the important question, one supposes.
[OOC] Autumn: "Power, ICly isn't necessarily linked to GL slots."
[OOC] Bryne: "Maybe 'No GL-ing, unless there's absolutely no one else in the guild who can GL.'"
[OOC] Autumn: "And agreed, if they had one slot only like the players"
[OOC] Kinky: "That's true. My alts tend to end up socially powerful, even guildless, historically."
[OOC] Autumn: "With a preference towards players."
[OOC] Kinky: "Enough that it doesn't bother me one whit to make non-GL chars."
[OOC] Autumn: "Exactly."
[OOC] Kinky: "And still feel progression."
[OOC] Autumn: "So if you don't want to allow staff power, that's one thing, but to not allow just being GL, that makes no sense. I say allow it personally. I am fine with it."
[OOC] Autumn: "As players, we have to trust the staff."
[OOC] Autumn: "Regardless of GL slots or not"
[OOC] It's ARI: "Not allowing staff power would be... whew."
[OOC] Autumn: "Exactly."
OOC] Kinky: "I think players clearly don't trust the staff once their RP has been put on the line and it's detrimental to their characters, honestly."
[OOC] Autumn: "They help drive the game with their PCs as they have the best understanding of theme and world."
[OOC] Autumn: "Maybe Kinky."
[OOC] Bryne: "Also, maybe if characters didn't know who the staff-players were"
[OOC] Autumn: "But even now, that happens right?"
[OOC] Kinky: "I don't think players trust -anyone- when their PC is on the line, not just staff."
[OOC] Autumn: "It will always be an element in the game, regardless of the GL "
[OOC] Autumn nods.
[OOC] CellyCell: "People always eventually figure out who plays characters though."
[OOC] Autumn: "Yeah."
[OOC] Kinky: "I'd like to think that I hide my alts reasonably well, but people always guess. Actually, I have had chars that were not me attributed to me in the past, come to think of it."
OOC] It's ARI: "It'd probably be better to have total transparency, actually."
[OOC] It's ARI: "As uncomfortable as it would end up being for the staffers."
[OOC] Autumn: "I have almost never guessed so far on TI everyone has told me <_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "I don't mind being transparent and saying 'this is my alt'."
[OOC] Autumn: "I had no clue about alts of players much less staff"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I think that transparency might be agood idea. Then there's no feeling like the staff is trying to hide their characters."
OOC] Kinky: "I'm not sure it helps if they know or not, though I suppose by my not telling them, and their knowing, they assume I'm attempting to be deceptive or something?"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I'm speaking off the cuff, though, so please don't give me much weight."
[OOC] It's ARI: "With transparency, it does mean everything a staffer alt does will be second-guessed, but it does mean that if actual abuse is happening it might be easier to spot. Not that I think abuse IS happening."
[OOC] Kinky isn't fussed and is enjoying the views in the convo!
[OOC] Kinky: "I think people might be more comfortable saying "I think abuse is happening" too."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Well, hell."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I just think that if staff alts are supposed to be concealed, then it necessitates a degree of untruthfullness between staff and otehr players, which can damage trust overall. Maybe."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Uh, for anybody who didn't know, hi guys, I'm Takta."
[OOC] Bryne gasps.
[OOC] It's ARI: "Yeah big surprise, right?"
[OOC] Kinky: "And people hearing it might be more comfortable with 'well, say something and clear the air instead of chatting me up in IMs about it with some unlikely possibilities'"
[OOC] Kinky follows Takta's example and says, "Chloe over here." :)
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "The biggest reason I see for staff to keep anonymity is so that, when staff is on as a player and NOT on as their wiz bit, others don't ask them to do Staff stuff,."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Well, I don't care about that. I was just worried that it'd be weird and awkward."
[OOC] Bryne: "As long as we're all revealing who we really are... I'm Bryne. *removes mustache*"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "In my view, when a staffer is on their player but not on their bit, it is a clear "I jujst want to play" signal."
[OOC] Kinky giggles.
[OOC] It's ARI: "You can't has my moustache Bryne, it is my moustache"
[OOC] Kinky: "I think a staffer has a responsibility to just log their staff char out if they don't want to staff, imho."
[OOC] Bryne: "Learn to share, Ari!"
[OOC] It's ARI: "GET YOUR OWN MOUSTACHE"
[OOC] Kinky: "You don't want that one, Bryne. It's where he stores his leftovers."
[OOC] Bryne: "SHARING IS CARING!"
[OOC] It's ARI: "I'm on Takta more than any of my PCs anyway, if I can play, I can staff. *stares at pile of requests waiting* Maybe."
[OOC] Autumn returns with pancakes.
[OOC] Kinky: "Anyway, I got very depressed playing Chloe this time around due to multiple stresses from multiple angles."
[OOC] Bryne consoles Kinky.
[OOC] Autumn: "Sorry :("
[OOC] Kinky: "I ditched her and am pondering if I'd make an alt or just not make any, or if I'll eventually get over and bring her back."
[OOC] Autumn: "If it helps, I feel the same the last 2 weeks."
[OOC] Bryne whispers, "It's all Autumn's fault."
[OOC] Kinky: "It's not your fault :)"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "One needs to enter their character's life intending them to die, like I did. In doing so, you prepare yourself for the inevitable."
[OOC] Takta: "Okay, might as well just move over here, but. I strongly think that it's important that staffers play, especially the Imp."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "Everything that I do, it is to make my inevitable death fantastic and gripping."
[OOC] Martini: "Awwwww. I liked Chloe."
[OOC] Kinky: "It wasn't about the possibility of Chloe dying, for me."
[OOC] Autumn: "Staff should always play."
[OOC] Takta: "I'm not sure if what happened with Chloe was 'cause you were a staffer or just cause of controversial RP."
[OOC] Bryne: "Why retire Chloe - you just got that wicked portrait of her >_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "It's more around the stressors of being placed between two players and having my integrity questioned both as a character (a lot of accusations about Chloe's motives) and as a staffer (accusations about bias and whatnot)."
[OOC] Kinky: "And maybe some genuine personal uncertainty about my own motives/bias? *ponder*"
[OOC] Autumn: "Stopping playing though is giving up, letting people get to you."
[OOC] Autumn: "At best, a break but don't stop playing her."
[OOC] Autumn: "Chloe IS great."
[OOC] Takta: "Well, if RP is genuinely not fun, you shouldn't keep up with it, but."
[OOC] Takta: "I think as long as you have literally zero contact (or as close to it as possible) with areas where bias could interfere, you're likely to do alright."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I'm switching OOC off, since I'm getting into a scene, but I'll check in when I have a sec."
(Dare I ask - do what do you think the positives and negatives are to knowing who a staff's alt is?)
[OOC] Bryne: "I'm fine with staff playing as long as they're never Guild Leaders >_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "Why?"
[OOC] CellyCell: "I don't really care about the GL thing, tbh."
[OOC] Bryne: "I've played other games before where staff members also run guilds, and those guilds tend to get a surprising amount of benefits from it, even if the staff denies it."
[OOC] Autumn: "I'm fine as well with staff running guilds."
[OOC] It's ARI: "I really think staff SHOULD play."
[OOC] Autumn: "Agreed. They have to. I have tried it the other way."
[OOC] Autumn: "You lose motivation for the game, and contact with really what is needed and going on."
OOC] Kinky: "I banned the guild thing, not because of staff/guild benefits, but more b/c I had a bad habit of hiring the best GLs to staff back in the day leaving no good leaders in the game. Also, staff would collect GL slots, do them little justice because of how many they're holding, and it'd be damn hard to tell a staffer they're not doing a good job. Finally, no opportunties for other players to move up when staff are immobile in those positions."
[OOC] CellyCell: "Having been staff on two MUDs before, though, I can tell you that there's nothing worse than being put into a "all staff cheat" mold..."
[OOC] It's ARI: "And there's no way to know how the systems you devise feel if you don't use 'em."
OOC] Kinky: "So I'm comfortable with the no GL thing."
[OOC] It's ARI would be fine with staff GLing as long as the 'one GL to a player' rule was kept but that's not really the important question, one supposes.
[OOC] Autumn: "Power, ICly isn't necessarily linked to GL slots."
[OOC] Bryne: "Maybe 'No GL-ing, unless there's absolutely no one else in the guild who can GL.'"
[OOC] Autumn: "And agreed, if they had one slot only like the players"
[OOC] Kinky: "That's true. My alts tend to end up socially powerful, even guildless, historically."
[OOC] Autumn: "With a preference towards players."
[OOC] Kinky: "Enough that it doesn't bother me one whit to make non-GL chars."
[OOC] Autumn: "Exactly."
[OOC] Kinky: "And still feel progression."
[OOC] Autumn: "So if you don't want to allow staff power, that's one thing, but to not allow just being GL, that makes no sense. I say allow it personally. I am fine with it."
[OOC] Autumn: "As players, we have to trust the staff."
[OOC] Autumn: "Regardless of GL slots or not"
[OOC] It's ARI: "Not allowing staff power would be... whew."
[OOC] Autumn: "Exactly."
OOC] Kinky: "I think players clearly don't trust the staff once their RP has been put on the line and it's detrimental to their characters, honestly."
[OOC] Autumn: "They help drive the game with their PCs as they have the best understanding of theme and world."
[OOC] Autumn: "Maybe Kinky."
[OOC] Bryne: "Also, maybe if characters didn't know who the staff-players were"
[OOC] Autumn: "But even now, that happens right?"
[OOC] Kinky: "I don't think players trust -anyone- when their PC is on the line, not just staff."
[OOC] Autumn: "It will always be an element in the game, regardless of the GL "
[OOC] Autumn nods.
[OOC] CellyCell: "People always eventually figure out who plays characters though."
[OOC] Autumn: "Yeah."
[OOC] Kinky: "I'd like to think that I hide my alts reasonably well, but people always guess. Actually, I have had chars that were not me attributed to me in the past, come to think of it."
OOC] It's ARI: "It'd probably be better to have total transparency, actually."
[OOC] It's ARI: "As uncomfortable as it would end up being for the staffers."
[OOC] Autumn: "I have almost never guessed so far on TI everyone has told me <_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "I don't mind being transparent and saying 'this is my alt'."
[OOC] Autumn: "I had no clue about alts of players much less staff"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I think that transparency might be agood idea. Then there's no feeling like the staff is trying to hide their characters."
OOC] Kinky: "I'm not sure it helps if they know or not, though I suppose by my not telling them, and their knowing, they assume I'm attempting to be deceptive or something?"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I'm speaking off the cuff, though, so please don't give me much weight."
[OOC] It's ARI: "With transparency, it does mean everything a staffer alt does will be second-guessed, but it does mean that if actual abuse is happening it might be easier to spot. Not that I think abuse IS happening."
[OOC] Kinky isn't fussed and is enjoying the views in the convo!
[OOC] Kinky: "I think people might be more comfortable saying "I think abuse is happening" too."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Well, hell."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I just think that if staff alts are supposed to be concealed, then it necessitates a degree of untruthfullness between staff and otehr players, which can damage trust overall. Maybe."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Uh, for anybody who didn't know, hi guys, I'm Takta."
[OOC] Bryne gasps.
[OOC] It's ARI: "Yeah big surprise, right?"
[OOC] Kinky: "And people hearing it might be more comfortable with 'well, say something and clear the air instead of chatting me up in IMs about it with some unlikely possibilities'"
[OOC] Kinky follows Takta's example and says, "Chloe over here." :)
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "The biggest reason I see for staff to keep anonymity is so that, when staff is on as a player and NOT on as their wiz bit, others don't ask them to do Staff stuff,."
[OOC] It's ARI: "Well, I don't care about that. I was just worried that it'd be weird and awkward."
[OOC] Bryne: "As long as we're all revealing who we really are... I'm Bryne. *removes mustache*"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "In my view, when a staffer is on their player but not on their bit, it is a clear "I jujst want to play" signal."
[OOC] Kinky giggles.
[OOC] It's ARI: "You can't has my moustache Bryne, it is my moustache"
[OOC] Kinky: "I think a staffer has a responsibility to just log their staff char out if they don't want to staff, imho."
[OOC] Bryne: "Learn to share, Ari!"
[OOC] It's ARI: "GET YOUR OWN MOUSTACHE"
[OOC] Kinky: "You don't want that one, Bryne. It's where he stores his leftovers."
[OOC] Bryne: "SHARING IS CARING!"
[OOC] It's ARI: "I'm on Takta more than any of my PCs anyway, if I can play, I can staff. *stares at pile of requests waiting* Maybe."
[OOC] Autumn returns with pancakes.
[OOC] Kinky: "Anyway, I got very depressed playing Chloe this time around due to multiple stresses from multiple angles."
[OOC] Bryne consoles Kinky.
[OOC] Autumn: "Sorry :("
[OOC] Kinky: "I ditched her and am pondering if I'd make an alt or just not make any, or if I'll eventually get over and bring her back."
[OOC] Autumn: "If it helps, I feel the same the last 2 weeks."
[OOC] Bryne whispers, "It's all Autumn's fault."
[OOC] Kinky: "It's not your fault :)"
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "One needs to enter their character's life intending them to die, like I did. In doing so, you prepare yourself for the inevitable."
[OOC] Takta: "Okay, might as well just move over here, but. I strongly think that it's important that staffers play, especially the Imp."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "Everything that I do, it is to make my inevitable death fantastic and gripping."
[OOC] Martini: "Awwwww. I liked Chloe."
[OOC] Kinky: "It wasn't about the possibility of Chloe dying, for me."
[OOC] Autumn: "Staff should always play."
[OOC] Takta: "I'm not sure if what happened with Chloe was 'cause you were a staffer or just cause of controversial RP."
[OOC] Bryne: "Why retire Chloe - you just got that wicked portrait of her >_>"
[OOC] Kinky: "It's more around the stressors of being placed between two players and having my integrity questioned both as a character (a lot of accusations about Chloe's motives) and as a staffer (accusations about bias and whatnot)."
[OOC] Kinky: "And maybe some genuine personal uncertainty about my own motives/bias? *ponder*"
[OOC] Autumn: "Stopping playing though is giving up, letting people get to you."
[OOC] Autumn: "At best, a break but don't stop playing her."
[OOC] Autumn: "Chloe IS great."
[OOC] Takta: "Well, if RP is genuinely not fun, you shouldn't keep up with it, but."
[OOC] Takta: "I think as long as you have literally zero contact (or as close to it as possible) with areas where bias could interfere, you're likely to do alright."
[OOC] [Mr. Meowgi]: "I'm switching OOC off, since I'm getting into a scene, but I'll check in when I have a sec."
Hehe, I have no intent of GLing, or actually lifting the general prohabition on GL that staff are under.
We've had staff leave the staff world in the past when a GL opportunity arose for them, and I think it's appropriate for staff members to float up and down, but I think the staff we have right now are reconciled to not being GLs for the moment.
We've had staff leave the staff world in the past when a GL opportunity arose for them, and I think it's appropriate for staff members to float up and down, but I think the staff we have right now are reconciled to not being GLs for the moment.
I absolutely would not PK anyone unless they were ICly threatening me. At that stage, however, all bets are off. It's not cool for someone to say/do something to one of my characters and I be unable to respond. If it were going to be enforced that staff alts can't pk, then staff alts would have to be flagged as "safe from threats and PK" also. I'm not sure how that could work on TI theme.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests