I had much longer post originally, but as I went to submit I saw kinaed's recent post, as such I have removed what was going to be a much larger post.
I'll simply state my overall view on this. We've had many people punished/banned in time that this crossover policy has been in place. Never before have we questioned or doubted the integrity of these cases, instead assumed they were handled correctly. As such I have to question why now are we suddenly in an uproar over this? I don't know. I think, similar to what silrie said, that people are just scared because if a High-profile player can break policy, then what does that mean from them. But on that same level if they just doing what they are doing, then what do they have to fear? If you use common sense, it isn't that hard to figure out what is and isn't crossover. Though to be fair I also just avoid having more than 2 alts involved with one character. I feel at that point it opens up a can of worms.
Do I think the crossover policy is broken? No. Do I think it needs to be defined to such a point where every little detail is dealt with? No. Do I think one High-profile case requires it to be turned on it's head and reevaluated? No.
Thread Renamed at Player Request
I will simply state that I disagree that the policy is working as intended, and I feel the length and spirit of this thread suggest a lot of people also think crossover/multiplaying rules are unclear.
To reiterate the solution I was suggesting before, edited with a little more thought:
I think an accusation of multiplaying should require:
* Active involvement of both alts at the same time in a specific RP thread (specific RP thread, not character)
And an accusation of crossover should require one of the following:
* One alt doing something that directly benefits another alt - always not okay
* One alt doing something that indirectly benefits another alt - UNLESS there is clearly substantiated reason the action is IC in the case involved.
Kinaed mentioned this relied on unprovables, but as Temi said earlier, I believe we can handle this in a way that doesn't. Quoting Temi, we need to define what a specific RP thread is, we need to define direct benefit, and we need to define indirect benefit. (At the very least, even if we don't change anything, we should clarify the meaning of "specific RP thread".)
Then we need to define "substantiated reason". There is precedent for deciding how to handle this in the realm of IC/OOC information and in the realm of PK. In both cases, we require people to write a cnote that clearly lays out all the evidence that backs up their actions, and why said actions are fully IC without OOC influence. So that can be the rule here. That relies on no more subjectivity than has already been built into the system. (In fact, I've used that system to clear potential crossover actions before in the past, in fact - asked permission to take X action that could be seen as benefiting my alt, submitted cnotes to justify why this specific alt wished to do it, and gone ahead/not gone ahead depending on staff judgment.)
So the way I see this working: If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt directly, that's obviously crossover, don't do it. If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt indirectly in any foreseeable way, you must write a clear cnote explaining why your character would do it and submit a Request board note so staff can okay the reasoning in the cnote, or ask you to avoid that line of RP because of crossover concerns.
I think this isn't a radical redefinition of policy, but a clarification that will help ensure everybody knows what to do and what to avoid, and will make it much easier for staff to deal with interpreting these cases. If this basic idea seems sound, then discussions about what constitutes direct benefit/indirect benefit/RP threads could flesh out the details.
To reiterate the solution I was suggesting before, edited with a little more thought:
I think an accusation of multiplaying should require:
* Active involvement of both alts at the same time in a specific RP thread (specific RP thread, not character)
And an accusation of crossover should require one of the following:
* One alt doing something that directly benefits another alt - always not okay
* One alt doing something that indirectly benefits another alt - UNLESS there is clearly substantiated reason the action is IC in the case involved.
Kinaed mentioned this relied on unprovables, but as Temi said earlier, I believe we can handle this in a way that doesn't. Quoting Temi, we need to define what a specific RP thread is, we need to define direct benefit, and we need to define indirect benefit. (At the very least, even if we don't change anything, we should clarify the meaning of "specific RP thread".)
Then we need to define "substantiated reason". There is precedent for deciding how to handle this in the realm of IC/OOC information and in the realm of PK. In both cases, we require people to write a cnote that clearly lays out all the evidence that backs up their actions, and why said actions are fully IC without OOC influence. So that can be the rule here. That relies on no more subjectivity than has already been built into the system. (In fact, I've used that system to clear potential crossover actions before in the past, in fact - asked permission to take X action that could be seen as benefiting my alt, submitted cnotes to justify why this specific alt wished to do it, and gone ahead/not gone ahead depending on staff judgment.)
So the way I see this working: If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt directly, that's obviously crossover, don't do it. If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt indirectly in any foreseeable way, you must write a clear cnote explaining why your character would do it and submit a Request board note so staff can okay the reasoning in the cnote, or ask you to avoid that line of RP because of crossover concerns.
I think this isn't a radical redefinition of policy, but a clarification that will help ensure everybody knows what to do and what to avoid, and will make it much easier for staff to deal with interpreting these cases. If this basic idea seems sound, then discussions about what constitutes direct benefit/indirect benefit/RP threads could flesh out the details.
I'm ruminating on this. For me, a key component is the practical application.
From long years of experience, I am very aware of the level of information that I'm likely to have and be able to get on a policy case. We get snapshots of action timelines, maybe 2-3 actions in sequence that kick-off a case. We never have full-length, multi-view renditions of entire RP threads from start to finish. Even if we wanted to log all RP to the server, we can't - we'd use too much hard drive space to record everything. Relying on player logs is fraught with problems because players all approach the game timeline in their own segmented snapshots from various perspectives. Tracking an RP thread across multiple players and perspectives is beyond our game setup and the ability of most players themselves.
Whereas it sounds good on paper that we'll hold people accountable for X and not Y in lines of RP, we need to be able to detect that X has happened (and not Y) at a very minimum. I just don't see the above policy being very enforceable.
This is why the policy is written at a broad, high level. "Don't use alts to benefit your alts" or "First come first serve on an RP line". These are things are relatively easy to detect and prove/disprove.
From long years of experience, I am very aware of the level of information that I'm likely to have and be able to get on a policy case. We get snapshots of action timelines, maybe 2-3 actions in sequence that kick-off a case. We never have full-length, multi-view renditions of entire RP threads from start to finish. Even if we wanted to log all RP to the server, we can't - we'd use too much hard drive space to record everything. Relying on player logs is fraught with problems because players all approach the game timeline in their own segmented snapshots from various perspectives. Tracking an RP thread across multiple players and perspectives is beyond our game setup and the ability of most players themselves.
Whereas it sounds good on paper that we'll hold people accountable for X and not Y in lines of RP, we need to be able to detect that X has happened (and not Y) at a very minimum. I just don't see the above policy being very enforceable.
This is why the policy is written at a broad, high level. "Don't use alts to benefit your alts" or "First come first serve on an RP line". These are things are relatively easy to detect and prove/disprove.
-
Voxumo
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:54 am
- Location: Delta Junction, Alaska
- Discord Handle: Voxumo#7925
- Contact:
11 unique people have replied to this thread. 6 of which have replied multiple times, the other 5 only replying once. Just saying.Dice wrote:I will simply state that I disagree that the policy is working as intended, and I feel the length and spirit of this thread suggest a lot of people also think crossover/multiplaying rules are unclear.
I actually think this is a reasonable idea, though I feel like at least in terms of the cnote that should already be the norm.Dice wrote:So the way I see this working: If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt directly, that's obviously crossover, don't do it. If you are considering doing anything that could conceivably benefit your alt indirectly in any foreseeable way, you must write a clear cnote explaining why your character would do it and submit a Request board note so staff can okay the reasoning in the cnote, or ask you to avoid that line of RP because of crossover concerns.
Lurks the Forums
Re: Request Boarding crossover - that's sort of already in place. The help file says 'contact staff if you need help', which I'm happy to clarify being the Request Board... but!
I would prefer that people take personal accountability and just avoid doing the obvious things rather than staff having to wade through every potential issue there is and approve/disapprove it to go forward. Firstly, that's a lot of unnecessary clutter and additional work for a small staff, and secondly, staff really ought not to be approving potentially contentious lines of RP - it violates our fundamental 'hands-off' policy to encourage player agency.
I would prefer that people take personal accountability and just avoid doing the obvious things rather than staff having to wade through every potential issue there is and approve/disapprove it to go forward. Firstly, that's a lot of unnecessary clutter and additional work for a small staff, and secondly, staff really ought not to be approving potentially contentious lines of RP - it violates our fundamental 'hands-off' policy to encourage player agency.
-
Ismael
The rules are there for the playerbase as a whole to follow. When they state that a player can and must step out of the roleplay that your alt has had (minus major events where you must request approval from the staff), it means that they have to step out of the roleplay of their alt. It doesn't matter if it's RPXP-measured or not. We have cnotes and we have many other methods that define how close someone is to the other that do not rely on RPXP. Crossplaying is one of the most important policies when you create an alt, and if the policies need clarification they should be clarified, but I disagree that they must change. When the player creates an alt, they agree to abide by the policy and should be reading it before they take such a decision. It is like purchasing a house; you know you will have a debt. We provide the service and provide the rules, and we enforce the rules, making them fair for the player new to MUDs, the experienced player, and even us staff members who must follow these rules to the nail. Truth be told, we have many policies because we are a game that relies solely on the cooperation of two parties to tell a story.
The RP thread definition is nonsense. I've had many people I know play multiple characters with one of my alts.
I've played with multiple alts with other peoples' characters.
Nobody has ever gotten in trouble for that point of policy before to my knowledge.
That's one major point that makes this different from previous multiplay policy breaches.
And I do think the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's not that hard to screenshot or "save backlog" if you feel a policy breach is going on. When the consequences are this severe, you can't act on hearsay. Fortunately, it sounds like logs were provided in this case, though by the defense rather than the accuser. Burden of proof is already pretty heavy on the defender with the implementation of cnotes.
I've played with multiple alts with other peoples' characters.
Nobody has ever gotten in trouble for that point of policy before to my knowledge.
That's one major point that makes this different from previous multiplay policy breaches.
And I do think the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's not that hard to screenshot or "save backlog" if you feel a policy breach is going on. When the consequences are this severe, you can't act on hearsay. Fortunately, it sounds like logs were provided in this case, though by the defense rather than the accuser. Burden of proof is already pretty heavy on the defender with the implementation of cnotes.
-
Voxumo
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:54 am
- Location: Delta Junction, Alaska
- Discord Handle: Voxumo#7925
- Contact:
No where at all is anyone saying that RP thread is purely based on having multiple alts rping with a single character. It's when the action of one alt benefits the other alt. You can multiple alts that rp with one character, no one is arguing that.Rabek wrote:The RP thread definition is nonsense. I've had many people I know play multiple characters with one of my alts.
I've played with multiple alts with other peoples' characters.
Nobody has ever gotten in trouble for that point of policy before to my knowledge.
That's one major point that makes this different from previous multiplay policy breaches.
And I do think the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's not that hard to screenshot or "save backlog" if you feel a policy breach is going on. When the consequences are this severe, you can't act on hearsay. Fortunately, it sounds like logs were provided in this case, though by the defense rather than the accuser. Burden of proof is already pretty heavy on the defender with the implementation of cnotes.
Lurks the Forums
<REDACTED BY KINAED FOR BEING EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY>
The continued insistence by multiple sources that the fallout is due to OOC connections with Takta and this idea that now our 'clique' is ruined and we can't metagame you anymore so we're lashing out by leaving is aggravating me. Not only because it is blatantly false, but because it devalues everything I've worked for and accomplished with my past characters – and the idea that that will continue to be levied against other players like me is sickening and needs to be addressed. I come to RPs for the story, not to beat anyone. I think I've demonstrated that multiple times. So, at the end of this mildly unstable rant, completely fed by anger, I bid a fond adieu and frak you to those people who continue insisting such.
A pertinent parting quote:
A staff member's. Singular. Again, as said before, my "panties" (<REDACTED>) aren't in a bunch because my friend was punished. My panties are in a bunch because, in my opinion, Kinaed chose the wrong option in the three she had listed before her. Experience and seniority don't make right in all cases. They help you, but everyone is human, and mistakes can be made. Option number two -- punishing Takta with suspension, or else wise, would have been the better administrative decision in my opinion, rather than dismissing outright a staffer who has had no previous accusations of rule breaking proven against them and furthermore who has contributed so much to the game both as a player and staffer. The rules, as demonstrated, are obviously unclear and not semantically well-defined. If Takta were not a positive acquaintance of mine, and I heard about this case, I would feel the same as I do now – although I concede with not nearly as much passion. Kinaed maintains that she is in the right and that is admirable (and I empathize with the difficulty of it all) - I accept it, don't agree with it, and feel it appropriate to play elsewhere out of what many might call a 'misguided' stand for ethics in my imaginary gaming communities.Voxumo wrote:Let's just have a little faith in Staff's ability to handle policy cases, as they've been doing it since the start of the game, so they must obviously know what the flying fish they are doing.
The continued insistence by multiple sources that the fallout is due to OOC connections with Takta and this idea that now our 'clique' is ruined and we can't metagame you anymore so we're lashing out by leaving is aggravating me. Not only because it is blatantly false, but because it devalues everything I've worked for and accomplished with my past characters – and the idea that that will continue to be levied against other players like me is sickening and needs to be addressed. I come to RPs for the story, not to beat anyone. I think I've demonstrated that multiple times. So, at the end of this mildly unstable rant, completely fed by anger, I bid a fond adieu and frak you to those people who continue insisting such.
A pertinent parting quote:
Ava wrote:Speaking solely to the post title, players who have influence within the game are usually the target of vitriol from all sides. It's why leadership positions are difficult: some will see success and feel the need to attribute it to anything save for that player's merit. I've had it done to me on several games. I've seen staff both defend said players, and I've seen them decide that complainers are correct. Influential players bear the focused weight of malcontented players and play as scapegoats for staff.
So it doesn't surprise me that there are a number of complaints against the player, and that Kinaed decided to advertise them as controversial to defend her position. It's depressingly old hat. It indicates to me that there is a ceiling I dare not reach, whether as a successful antagonist or leader. It tells me that there is a risk in investing in this game even a fraction of the degree that others have. It makes me think that trust is a really fickle thing.
If it's seriously down to whether Kinaed believes someone or not, that seems like a rather dubious means of determining foul play.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
Just from my experiences RPing with them, I think Takta and Leech have provided an incredible amount to the game. I almost wish that Kinaed had gone with the 'ignore it' option despite agreeing that this was a case of unintentional crossover. However, her choice was certainly not unjustifiable.
Takta choosing to take a hiatus is her own decision and one that I hope she reconsiders. If you truly think that this was such an egregious action that is creates a community you don't feel comfortable in, then there is nothing that anyone can do to keep you.
Those are both personal decisions. We'll miss both of you. I think that attempting to prove Kinaed's decision wrong while you leave is unfair and causing unnecessary strife. Hope to see you back soon.
Takta choosing to take a hiatus is her own decision and one that I hope she reconsiders. If you truly think that this was such an egregious action that is creates a community you don't feel comfortable in, then there is nothing that anyone can do to keep you.
Those are both personal decisions. We'll miss both of you. I think that attempting to prove Kinaed's decision wrong while you leave is unfair and causing unnecessary strife. Hope to see you back soon.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests