Thread Renamed at Player Request

[Pixie]

Accusations should always be supported by logs. Not logging is not an excuse nor has it ever been an acceptable one on any game I have ever played or in any internet environment that involved some form of oversight.

Double this, again. I've never in the history of my MUD experience seen a system that successfully judges accusations or defense without logs to support them.

Personal suggestion: Have confidence in the players to keep their character identities emotionally and motivationally (not a word) separate from one another. Perhaps make an addenda that the same player can't use multiple alts to -harm- a single character.

[Ava]

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.

[Kinaed]

Accusations should always be supported by logs. Not logging is not an excuse nor has it ever been an acceptable one on any game I have ever played or in any internet environment that involved some form of oversight.

Double this, again. I've never in the history of my MUD experience seen a system that successfully judges accusations or defense without logs to support them.

Personal suggestion: Have confidence in the players to keep their character identities emotionally and motivationally (not a word) separate from one another. Perhaps make an addenda that the same player can't use multiple alts to -harm- a single character.

A lot of players aren't using clients that even CAN log. My mobile phone client doesn't for example.
The Mud Portal client that our website links to can log, but it's not intuitive or easy.

[chronodbu]

Accusations should always be supported by logs. Not logging is not an excuse nor has it ever been an acceptable one on any game I have ever played or in any internet environment that involved some form of oversight.

Double this, again. I've never in the history of my MUD experience seen a system that successfully judges accusations or defense without logs to support them.

Personal suggestion: Have confidence in the players to keep their character identities emotionally and motivationally (not a word) separate from one another. Perhaps make an addenda that the same player can't use multiple alts to -harm- a single character.

A lot of players aren't using clients that even CAN log. My mobile phone client doesn't for example.
The Mud Portal client that our website links to can log, but it's not intuitive or easy.

Then they should consider using a client that does if they intend to submit accusations that can potentially damage another player's reputation.

[BattleJenkins]

I personally think we should put more emphasis on moderation and arbitration rather than relying on rules to resolve conflicts. I don't think we'll ever find a perfect rule to apply in every situation and always get a satisfactory result. This game is built on a foundation of human relationships, which are far, far too complex to try to regulate - if there are ever accusations of 'unfairness' between players, I think they should probably be handled case by case, with an emphasis on resolving the feelings of tension satisfactorily for everyone rather than trying to suss out who is or is not 'in the right' based on rigid metrics.

[Pixie]

In the case of mobile clients, on another game I puttered around on for awhile (LOTJ -- where if you don't have a log your side of the argument is immediately moot) you were expected to screenshot for anything that could fit into one. If you had no proof, the complaint or defense is null.

I really think the crux of this is that a) The game is too small to never interact with the same character twice, opening up the opportunity for disgruntled individuals to label just about anything a policy infraction and get their opposition brought up on rulebreaking by Staff; and b) The crossover rules don't work for the first portion of the above reason. They're way, way too stringent and put little to no confidence in the ability of the player to separate their own character motivations.

I would say preventing the same player from bringing the combined influence of their characters down against a single target should always be against policy (e.g. Writing a letter to the Grand Inqusiitor on multiple alts trying to frame or incriminate the same guy for magery), but following a more lax, generally RP-MUD-accepted mode of interactions for non-contentious threads should be the norm. What benefit does it really give us to stop one of my alts from being friends with the same women my other alt is? So what if they both think that X was bullshit because they have separate relationships with the same character? Does it really affect anything? I would say no. In fact, anything that -doesn't- limit who you can RP with and how deep you can get to know them/interact with them/support them would be a benefit to the game, not a detriment. We need more reasons to RP, not reasons to avoid being involved because your other character used to hang out with the same person.

Edit: And of course, in addition to "can't bring the might of multiple alts against one person", "can't benefit your own alts."

[Temi]

I am going to cautiously wade into the waters of this conversation and propose a solution to the multiplaying issue. It is absolutely true, in my mind, that' it's impossible to keep distance from people you know on your alts on a game of TI's size.

So 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 alt doing something to directly benefit another alt - always not okay
* One alt doing something to indirectly benefit another alt - UNLESS there is clearly substantiated reason the action is IC in the case involved. This should ideally be established via cnote/Request board beforehand.

I like this in general and I don't think that it necessarily needs to know the motivations of the characters involved. What it does need is firm definitions of what defines an RP thread and what defines an indirect benefit. Is it an indirect benefit if a friend of theirs is not killed? If so, what is the threshold of the sort of friend that matters? Whether these definitions define something that would have crossover in this situation or not, it would likely be less stressful for everyone in general if well-meaning people felt like they were on the same-page ahead of time about whether it was okay or not, for the future.

[Kinaed]

If it's seriously down to whether Kinaed believes someone or not, that seems like a rather dubious means of determining foul play.

Regardless of the policy, it's up to people to enforce it. Human error is the best you can get with Policy because it's highly subjective. With that, the question becomes which human is handling it.

Systemically, I approach policy as follows:

1. Inform a player that an a problem was detected.
2. Ask them to respond and give them an opportunity to provide supporting evidence.
3. Investigate any other information on hand, particularly system information if it's available.
4. Determine if it was a breach and the severity.
5. Decide the best resolution.

Sometimes, I do muck up - I had to apologize to a player recently for skipping some steps in that process, even. But it seems to work pretty well overall as those things go.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I don't agree with the necessity of logs. While a good thing to have around, they should by no means be required. What if something happens when I'm on via my phone because my internet is dead? Am I suddenly a target for anything against me, suddenly in the wrong? Should I just keep away? I think not; this is a game about writing, not one about winning or bitching about rules.

I also would not be happy with only being able to have one character. I've played games where that's been the case and every single time I've found that policy to remove the quirky, antagonistic characters that make the games so fun. We want to get attached to our characters, want to see them assume some form of satisfaction. We become invested. It's just how this works for the vast majority of us; if I was only allowed to play one character, for instance, it would almost certainly not be Farra, who is a stressor for me to play.

I mostly agree with BattleJenkins — the rules won't always be perfect. I do not agree that the "One Alt Engaged in an RP thread" would be the best way to go about it; while it would be great if we were all mature and could keep things separate, which they won't. People will try to abuse the rules or game the system and I think that, in general, Kinaed and the staff have always handled things to the best of their ability; not always correctly imho, but fairly, which is much more than we'll find on most MUDs. Hard decisions are hard.

I do think staff alts need be a bit more careful than typical players about crossover or the power their characters possess. I think Ariel is a magnificent role-player, I don't think she ever abused the power she had with her characters, and I don't think that her removal as Staff is a net positive by any means. But I don't disagree with Kinaed's decision, either, in its entirety.

I like this in general and I don't think that it necessarily needs to know the motivations of the characters involved. What it does need is firm definitions of what defines an RP thread and what defines an indirect benefit. Is it an indirect benefit if a friend of theirs is not killed? If so, what is the threshold of the sort of friend that matters? Whether these definitions define something that would have crossover in this situation or not, it would likely be less stressful for everyone in general if well-meaning people felt like they were on the same-page ahead of time about whether it was okay or not, for the future.

I would love this; the problem I see is that we won't account for every situation. Something will happen that's in an undefined area and Staff will have to decide between doing what's "fair" and letting the player off with a warning, rewrite/update the rules, and move on — or do what's "right" and punish the player, rewrite/update the rules, and move on. Either way, people will be upset.

[Dice]

Agreed with... pretty much all of you.

Alts being involved with the same people are bound to happen - it happens constantly, every day, and we do not only not punish it right now but often explicitly allow it. For example, we approve BG connections when the applying player already has some form of connection on another alt.

So I think we need to be flexible and not apply a one-size-fits-all measure, but instead recognize people are generally pretty good at separating their alts and accept proof of intent when it can be offered.

And we need to clarify the rules a great deal, while we're at it, indeed. "RP thread" is incredibly unclear.