Thread Renamed at Player Request
I was surprised at Kin's initial announcement that this counted as crossover because from what I was awareof: Nils was not currently intimately involved with any of Takta's characters, it wouldn't specifically reflect on any of Takta's characters depending on what happened to Nils, and Takta did not have any character involved in Nils' arrest or the actions which led up to them. (Those would be things I would suggest we should look at in a possible policy going onward). I believe this was also Takta's expectations on the rules. Given that both of us misinterpreted this, things could use some adjusting to be more clear and get everyone on the same page. In our case, it's not a matter of just being unfamiliar with the game and general expectations, but seems to be something unclear even on the staff level here. I do want to add that I'm not saying Kin did anything wrong here, and I do believe in her ability to make good judgments on policy (I'm certainly glad I don't need to have that stress!), just that we should move to more clarity.
Last edited by Temi on Sat May 28, 2016 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lets say my character adores Saint Celeste and I commission a statue to Saint Celeste in the middle of the city on an alt for wholly unrelated reasons. With the current crossover rules this would pretty much have to be a violation, yeah? If we're actually considering "anything which could indirectly benefit an alt is a rule-break" then this would have to apply to it, and this is why the rules are bizarre to me. Who gives a damn, really? How does it affect the game in the slightest? "She might have had the opportunity to play a mood difference because her alt did this!" is... really, really weird to consider a multi-playing violation, to me, and it's unique to TI (Can't speak for all MUDs ever, of course, just the ones I've played) in one of few ways that uniqueness isn't a boon.
This level of player management is not "hands off." If we're actually so focused on the written emotions of a text file that we cannot write something which might indirectly affect the -feelings- we can write about using our other text files, I have to believe we're in strange territory, and Voxumo (I so want to call you "Voxy" for some reason) this not by any means the first time it's come up. It is however the first time it's come up openly on the forums.
The situation at hand with Ariel is a wonderful example of this, and as such was the base behind the thread -- Could it have made Eamon's day better if he heard somebody spoke out at Smith's execution later? Sure. But, so what? Who could possibly care about the written emotional state of your other text file so much that it'd need to be prevented by rules? It's a pretty potent tool for folks to nitpick the RP that went "against" them and get other people in OOC trouble, but what actual tangible detriment does an alt's emotional state being double-indirectly affected by the actions of another alt make to the game? We aren't talking about anything tangible, here, and that's what troubles me and makes it so maddening to deal with. Margaux initiated cobblestone/road repair all through the city, for example. If she has an alt that uses the roads, she's just violated the crossover rules. It feels a bit ludicrous.
This type of crossover is also a thing I've noticed doesn't always or even often get reported. It's generally when the RP was contentious that people start screeching foul and grabbing at "alt-feelings" crossover straws. I shouldn't even be allowed to play my more active character right now if the rules applied universally. Her background connection (which was approved by Staff) in and of itself creates a positive relationship to a character I'm immensely fond of on my alt and have been since I started on TI. If one of my alts does something positive for the connection, under the current rules it would have to be assumed that both alts indirectly benefit. Nobody has an OOC investment in feeling pushed back against by the RP, so it's never even been brought up. (Here's hoping I don't have to retire the character now...)
I think this pretty thoroughly summarizes my thoughts on the current crossover rules, and while I am especially unhappy with the situation that started the discussion I'm really relieved the discussion itself is taking place. The conversation is overdue, imo.
This level of player management is not "hands off." If we're actually so focused on the written emotions of a text file that we cannot write something which might indirectly affect the -feelings- we can write about using our other text files, I have to believe we're in strange territory, and Voxumo (I so want to call you "Voxy" for some reason) this not by any means the first time it's come up. It is however the first time it's come up openly on the forums.
The situation at hand with Ariel is a wonderful example of this, and as such was the base behind the thread -- Could it have made Eamon's day better if he heard somebody spoke out at Smith's execution later? Sure. But, so what? Who could possibly care about the written emotional state of your other text file so much that it'd need to be prevented by rules? It's a pretty potent tool for folks to nitpick the RP that went "against" them and get other people in OOC trouble, but what actual tangible detriment does an alt's emotional state being double-indirectly affected by the actions of another alt make to the game? We aren't talking about anything tangible, here, and that's what troubles me and makes it so maddening to deal with. Margaux initiated cobblestone/road repair all through the city, for example. If she has an alt that uses the roads, she's just violated the crossover rules. It feels a bit ludicrous.
This type of crossover is also a thing I've noticed doesn't always or even often get reported. It's generally when the RP was contentious that people start screeching foul and grabbing at "alt-feelings" crossover straws. I shouldn't even be allowed to play my more active character right now if the rules applied universally. Her background connection (which was approved by Staff) in and of itself creates a positive relationship to a character I'm immensely fond of on my alt and have been since I started on TI. If one of my alts does something positive for the connection, under the current rules it would have to be assumed that both alts indirectly benefit. Nobody has an OOC investment in feeling pushed back against by the RP, so it's never even been brought up. (Here's hoping I don't have to retire the character now...)
I think this pretty thoroughly summarizes my thoughts on the current crossover rules, and while I am especially unhappy with the situation that started the discussion I'm really relieved the discussion itself is taking place. The conversation is overdue, imo.
What if policy decisions, especially borderline ones were discussed with a policy board with more than just kin on it? Have three people, or even all of the staff (minus anybody who is currently the focus of the policy complaint) study it and decide? It may slow down the process, but it gets other eyes on some of these issues, it can be discussed in boards or at staff meetings.
Most policy decisions are discussed with multiple staff. Takta's case was, and it did not appear to be borderline.
With regards to crossover:
- Mostly, we find lots of small crossovers. We usually assess the impact to the game. Mostly, it's what Voxumo said we do - tell the player we saw it and ask them to cut it out.
- Some bigger cases or repetitive cases where a player just doesn't seem to be learning get warnings along the vein of 'you need to stop or you won't be allowed to multiplay anymore'
Takta's case is unique in that she was a staff member and I had to decide what to do about that. Again, the reasoning and all of that is up in my other post.
With regards to crossover:
- Mostly, we find lots of small crossovers. We usually assess the impact to the game. Mostly, it's what Voxumo said we do - tell the player we saw it and ask them to cut it out.
- Some bigger cases or repetitive cases where a player just doesn't seem to be learning get warnings along the vein of 'you need to stop or you won't be allowed to multiplay anymore'
Takta's case is unique in that she was a staff member and I had to decide what to do about that. Again, the reasoning and all of that is up in my other post.
-
Voxumo
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:54 am
- Location: Delta Junction, Alaska
- Discord Handle: Voxumo#7925
- Contact:
As far as I understand it, Policy cases are presented to all the staff, it is merely Kinaed with the final say, though that say is often influenced by the advice of the fellow staff. At least this is the impression I received when I was an Aide on this game, and had access to a large quantity of past policy cases which I made a point to read through out of sheer curiosity.Tremere wrote:What if policy decisions, especially borderline ones were discussed with a policy board with more than just kin on it? Have three people, or even all of the staff (minus anybody who is currently the focus of the policy complaint) study it and decide? It may slow down the process, but it gets other eyes on some of these issues, it can be discussed in boards or at staff meetings.
However in response to you Pixie, specifically your example of the statue. By this same logic, anything that is added to the grid by Alt A should never be used by any other alt. Take the example of the Golden Coin, awhile ago I had an alt who managed it and added the two rooms to the original, the lounge and the patio. By this train of logic none of my alts should be allowed to even step foot in those rooms, as they benefit them.
This is the flimsy logic which is being used to further the 'reasoning' for why the policy on Crossover needs to be defined. But I see it now that it is pointless to argue against this. I can not truthfully add anything beneficial to the topic or suggestions on how to fix it when I don't truly believe it needs fixing. So I won't say anything else on the topic and let it run it's course, as I am sure once people have cooled down, this will likely be forgotten.
Also you would not be the first to call me Voxy... it's an unfortunate side effect of this alias I take on the internet.
Lurks the Forums
Kinaed has always been fair and even-handed in her policy decisions and takes a thorough approach from my observations. She's not the one that broke a rule here and I don't think it reasonable, required or beneficial to change how that is done. (I'm frankly too intimidated to share my opinion on this particular situation in this thread with the high levels of angst and insult flowing around at points.)
Whether individual policies are changed is a different question.
Whether individual policies are changed is a different question.
VOXY! I think we're actually on almost the same page, just coming to opposite conclusions. The whole point was that the logic was flimsy. You think the flimsy, technicality-based logic is why the rules don't need to be looked at. I think the flimsy, technicality-based logic is why they do. We're in agreement the examples are ridiculous. We just have different views on what that means.
Something I want to be very, very, immensely, abundantly clear about: Even if Kinaed were the only person reviewing policy cases, Kinaed is not my (and I would hope anyone else's) problem with the crossover rules. The problem with the crossover rules that have been described are with aspects within the rules themselves, not with who is charged with interpreting and applying them. Being in Kinaed's shoes would be a nightmare right now.
This is echoing other people, especially Dice, but while I don't personally agree with the decision that was made, I can put myself into Kinaed's shoes and see the train of thought that led to it. She applied the rules as they existed to the best of her ability with the betterment of the game in mind. I don't agree with the outcome, but I'm not policy Staff. I don't have the responsibility on my shoulders of making a difficult choice.
The discussion I hope continues is changing, or at the very least very clearly outlining the rules themselves.
Something I want to be very, very, immensely, abundantly clear about: Even if Kinaed were the only person reviewing policy cases, Kinaed is not my (and I would hope anyone else's) problem with the crossover rules. The problem with the crossover rules that have been described are with aspects within the rules themselves, not with who is charged with interpreting and applying them. Being in Kinaed's shoes would be a nightmare right now.
This is echoing other people, especially Dice, but while I don't personally agree with the decision that was made, I can put myself into Kinaed's shoes and see the train of thought that led to it. She applied the rules as they existed to the best of her ability with the betterment of the game in mind. I don't agree with the outcome, but I'm not policy Staff. I don't have the responsibility on my shoulders of making a difficult choice.
The discussion I hope continues is changing, or at the very least very clearly outlining the rules themselves.
Got drunk as Arien after work today and came home, read this thread.
Damn, y'all. I feel like the biggest sack of shit right now, I didn't mean for any of this to happen.
I don't deserve to comment in this thread but for what it's worth, I'm sorry. Shit. I would've warned someone if I thought it'd come to this shit. None of this was my intent. I'm just sorry as Hell that this all happened. Feels like it's my fault and this shit sucks.
Guess I'll round out this RP and log, I didn't intend for any of this to happen and now I screwed the pooch, I'm sorry again. I'll be around monday night I guess, do my best to sort this stuff out as best as I can and all.
SOrry y'all, damn.
Damn, y'all. I feel like the biggest sack of shit right now, I didn't mean for any of this to happen.
I don't deserve to comment in this thread but for what it's worth, I'm sorry. Shit. I would've warned someone if I thought it'd come to this shit. None of this was my intent. I'm just sorry as Hell that this all happened. Feels like it's my fault and this shit sucks.
Guess I'll round out this RP and log, I didn't intend for any of this to happen and now I screwed the pooch, I'm sorry again. I'll be around monday night I guess, do my best to sort this stuff out as best as I can and all.
SOrry y'all, damn.
Rothgar Astartes, Fyurii Rynnya, Nils 'Smith' Mattias, Edward Darson, Curos Arents.
-
Voxumo
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:54 am
- Location: Delta Junction, Alaska
- Discord Handle: Voxumo#7925
- Contact:
*Chuckles* At least you were sensible enough to hold off on saying anything on the topic while drunk. Can't say I would be able to do the same.Rothgar wrote:Got drunk as Arien after work today and came home, read this thread.
Damn, y'all. I feel like the biggest sack of shit right now, I didn't mean for any of this to happen.
I don't deserve to comment in this thread but for what it's worth, I'm sorry. Shit. I would've warned someone if I thought it'd come to this shit. None of this was my intent. I'm just sorry as Hell that this all happened. Feels like it's my fault and this shit sucks.
Guess I'll round out this RP and log, I didn't intend for any of this to happen and now I screwed the pooch, I'm sorry again. I'll be around monday night I guess, do my best to sort this stuff out as best as I can and all.
SOrry y'all, damn.
Though I don't know your involvement in this, I wouldn't blame yourself for this. Alot of factors are playing into this, and it is not based solely on one person's actions.
Lurks the Forums
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests