System RP Detractors
Do the group/ungroup commands actually work for you? I may need to revisit them, because I have never been able to get group/ungroup to actually stop a specific follow. Might be I was using the wrong syntax all along.Taunya wrote: 'alias shake group all || ungroup' to ditch those pesky followers in the meanwhile.
Thanks for the tip!
-
Starstarfish
- 2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:13 am
- Discord Handle: Starstarfish#4572
I think that the issue with rumors and metrics is linked - now that metrics influence assets and thus income, there is a financial incentive to playing the rumor game to gain the IP to push your desired metrics outcome. This links with Gambits and Seneschal races wherein rumors gaining IP gives political power. They are coded systems wherein you gain coded political power for essentially talking junk without their being a real possibility of recourse or reaction as they are untraceable.
The rumors or replies don't have to be unique, interesting, scandalous - they don't have to represent the kinds of backdoor politics or info that would give IC power. Many times major things that you'd think should get rumors don't in favor of the same topics being cycled around again and again. A rumor about the topic is quashed, there's a slightly different way to bring it up on a different rumor thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. So they quickly turn into a personal soapbox by what feels like a very minor subset to push a certain agenda rather that represent the varied opinions of the populace of the city.
I feel that as long as there is a coded reward for quantity over quality, the rumor system will have a problem. That rumors aren't strongly meant to represent the opinions of your own character can make it worse as there is no RPA link to who started a rumor and there's no solid link to RP. I feel the biggest thing is to establish that unless someone uses QP for Minor RPA to establish a rumor as an NPC opinion, these thoughts/rumors should be things your character was willing to be possibly known they had been the one to first say. IE - things they themselves know about in some way. I feel like without accountability of any kind there's too much incentive right now to abuse the system to grind IP.
Further, as all "rumormonger" NPCs/code often share the same rumors this can lead to situations wherein ... a rumormonger that is linked to a Guild will openly spawn rumors that talk poorly about their "boss" sometimes when their GL is standing right in the room. You can RP yelling at them about it (Lord knows I have) but it's sort of awkward to RP. I'd say a big way to address some of this - in addition to looking at the purpose and policy of rumors in general, is to better link rumor "circles" with what rumormonger reports them. IE - link "Order" rumors with Order only rumormongers. Link "Freeman" rumors with Freeman rumormongers. Which maybe this is already set up and it's more a case of people using circles correctly.
I think adding a Metric slot in the rumor POLCA would be keen and to have that displayed to people adding to the rumor to remind folks about the current Metric status. Rumors that are talking off Metric should be submitted as "Inverse" - and I feel should circulate in more clandestine places. But this idea that every rumormonger in grid would feel openly comfortable in the middle of the Queens spouting rumors heresy or sedition against the Order or the Reeves seems ... off. I feel better breaking up rumors so they all can't be purchased everywhere also gives more clout to the Bards role of being rumormongers themselves. I feel like this role may increase if folks would rather seek out one Bard PC than need to - more realistically go around town to get the hot gossip from the various ranks of society.
The rumors or replies don't have to be unique, interesting, scandalous - they don't have to represent the kinds of backdoor politics or info that would give IC power. Many times major things that you'd think should get rumors don't in favor of the same topics being cycled around again and again. A rumor about the topic is quashed, there's a slightly different way to bring it up on a different rumor thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. So they quickly turn into a personal soapbox by what feels like a very minor subset to push a certain agenda rather that represent the varied opinions of the populace of the city.
I feel that as long as there is a coded reward for quantity over quality, the rumor system will have a problem. That rumors aren't strongly meant to represent the opinions of your own character can make it worse as there is no RPA link to who started a rumor and there's no solid link to RP. I feel the biggest thing is to establish that unless someone uses QP for Minor RPA to establish a rumor as an NPC opinion, these thoughts/rumors should be things your character was willing to be possibly known they had been the one to first say. IE - things they themselves know about in some way. I feel like without accountability of any kind there's too much incentive right now to abuse the system to grind IP.
Further, as all "rumormonger" NPCs/code often share the same rumors this can lead to situations wherein ... a rumormonger that is linked to a Guild will openly spawn rumors that talk poorly about their "boss" sometimes when their GL is standing right in the room. You can RP yelling at them about it (Lord knows I have) but it's sort of awkward to RP. I'd say a big way to address some of this - in addition to looking at the purpose and policy of rumors in general, is to better link rumor "circles" with what rumormonger reports them. IE - link "Order" rumors with Order only rumormongers. Link "Freeman" rumors with Freeman rumormongers. Which maybe this is already set up and it's more a case of people using circles correctly.
I think adding a Metric slot in the rumor POLCA would be keen and to have that displayed to people adding to the rumor to remind folks about the current Metric status. Rumors that are talking off Metric should be submitted as "Inverse" - and I feel should circulate in more clandestine places. But this idea that every rumormonger in grid would feel openly comfortable in the middle of the Queens spouting rumors heresy or sedition against the Order or the Reeves seems ... off. I feel better breaking up rumors so they all can't be purchased everywhere also gives more clout to the Bards role of being rumormongers themselves. I feel like this role may increase if folks would rather seek out one Bard PC than need to - more realistically go around town to get the hot gossip from the various ranks of society.
Some interesting ideas!
In response to Rabek's suggestion of more self-policing and reporting:
Rumors are quite subjective, and what may seem like a perfectly legitimate criticism to one person may seem highly unthemely to another. Rumors now also have to fit city metrics, in addition to circles, which can be an additional point of contention. Sure, we could ask staff to have more of a hand in drawing the line, but staff are a limited resource. So, no, I don't think calling for more reporting by players and placing additional burdens on staff is the right way to go. It's a bandaid solution -- it treats the symptoms, not the underlying problems built into the system, and it's bound to create more frustrations between players and staff.
The underlying problem, I think, is demonstrated by the following example:
The thematic "truth" is that the Order is a powerful and scary force. The populace in general should be fearful of speaking out against them.
However, as an individual, I can go to a public place and "post" (not actively circulate as my own PC, but "post" as a third-person vNPC, in a very OOC manner) a rumor criticizing the Order for going soft on heretics and accusing the Order's most powerful PC leaders of being in bed with the Manus. Most members of the populace "in general" would likely never say such a thing out of fear of repercussions, or if they did, they would only do it in hushed whispers and behind closed doors. But I can set the source as "some disgruntled former soldier" and post it anyway, and suddenly we have a rumor in the system that seems legitimate to a certain group of people (those hard on crime and loyal to the Order itself, not its GLs) and really unthemely to others (people who equate the two as one and the same), being spread in extremely public places, in front of powerful public figures... and it's all completely disconnected from an actual PC -- no consequences whatsoever.
Someone would have to report that rumor, then staff would have to review it and then take it out of the system if they thought it was harmful to the game, which would be tantamount to pooping on one person's arguably legitimate point of view and supporting another's. Frankly, I don't think staff want to be in that position. I know I wouldn't. I also don't think we want to encourage a culture in which people use reporting as a knee-jerk response to things they don't immediately identify or agree with.
So, instead of treating the symptoms of the disconnect, we should be building the solution into the rumor system itself, so that there are REAL IC INCENTIVES to being hush-hush about things that the populace "in general" WOULD be hush-hush about.
In response to Rabek's suggestion of more self-policing and reporting:
Rumors are quite subjective, and what may seem like a perfectly legitimate criticism to one person may seem highly unthemely to another. Rumors now also have to fit city metrics, in addition to circles, which can be an additional point of contention. Sure, we could ask staff to have more of a hand in drawing the line, but staff are a limited resource. So, no, I don't think calling for more reporting by players and placing additional burdens on staff is the right way to go. It's a bandaid solution -- it treats the symptoms, not the underlying problems built into the system, and it's bound to create more frustrations between players and staff.
The underlying problem, I think, is demonstrated by the following example:
The thematic "truth" is that the Order is a powerful and scary force. The populace in general should be fearful of speaking out against them.
However, as an individual, I can go to a public place and "post" (not actively circulate as my own PC, but "post" as a third-person vNPC, in a very OOC manner) a rumor criticizing the Order for going soft on heretics and accusing the Order's most powerful PC leaders of being in bed with the Manus. Most members of the populace "in general" would likely never say such a thing out of fear of repercussions, or if they did, they would only do it in hushed whispers and behind closed doors. But I can set the source as "some disgruntled former soldier" and post it anyway, and suddenly we have a rumor in the system that seems legitimate to a certain group of people (those hard on crime and loyal to the Order itself, not its GLs) and really unthemely to others (people who equate the two as one and the same), being spread in extremely public places, in front of powerful public figures... and it's all completely disconnected from an actual PC -- no consequences whatsoever.
Someone would have to report that rumor, then staff would have to review it and then take it out of the system if they thought it was harmful to the game, which would be tantamount to pooping on one person's arguably legitimate point of view and supporting another's. Frankly, I don't think staff want to be in that position. I know I wouldn't. I also don't think we want to encourage a culture in which people use reporting as a knee-jerk response to things they don't immediately identify or agree with.
So, instead of treating the symptoms of the disconnect, we should be building the solution into the rumor system itself, so that there are REAL IC INCENTIVES to being hush-hush about things that the populace "in general" WOULD be hush-hush about.
Last edited by Andruid on Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Part of the problem with recurring rumors that have already been quashed or reported, unfortunately: if a rumor has been removed from the system, it's impossible for folks to tell unless they were around to see it the first time.
As for rumors getting away from the original subject or rumor replies being used to push an only passingly related agenda, well... that's how it works IRL. People respond to the things they care most about in a discussion. Staff could make it policy that your rumor reply HAS to respond to the original rumor, but the rumor system would lose that element of things "getting away from" the poster's original intent, which I think gives the system its more organic feel.
As for rumors getting away from the original subject or rumor replies being used to push an only passingly related agenda, well... that's how it works IRL. People respond to the things they care most about in a discussion. Staff could make it policy that your rumor reply HAS to respond to the original rumor, but the rumor system would lose that element of things "getting away from" the poster's original intent, which I think gives the system its more organic feel.
-
Starstarfish
- 2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:13 am
- Discord Handle: Starstarfish#4572
True, but sometimes you also have like multiple active rumors cross-posted all on the same subject, and it can feel slightly gamey as the IP bonus for opening a rumor is different than the one for adding to one already active. When it isn't really a "new" conversation so to say.Part of the problem with recurring rumors that have already been quashed or reported, unfortunately: if a rumor has been removed from the system, it's impossible for folks to tell unless they were around to see it the first time.
I completely agree. My thoughts were one idea on how to deal with that. End the idea that rumors are anonymous. Require you post who said them - connect it to the possibility to use mail profiles as AKAs (In for linking them to messenger profiles to - IE make them more game universal) if we want to leave the option they could be investigated but not always give a straight PC name. But until there is a connection between needing to be discrete and the risk of discovery and thus the actual risk of IC consequences, I think this is what we'll continue to see.So, instead of treating the symptoms, we should be building the solution into the rumor system itself, so that there are REAL IC INCENTIVES to being hush-hush about things that the populace "in general" WOULD be hush-hush about.
There are IC ways to do some of this stuff - the last Gambit implied posting flyers etc around town about things. That's a viable thing via the Artwork abilities now. I'm all for people to have all manner of opinions, but I feel like if we want them to move into a realm were they can be RPed and acted with, we need to encourage more accountable on-grid actions and less stuff that requires staff input or oversight.
True, but IRL you can also back track and hunt down who is talking smack. There's a colorful phrase IRL about talking ... nonsense, and getting hit.As for rumors getting away from the original subject or rumor replies being used to push an only passingly related agenda, well... that's how it works IRL.
Which given that the IC theme and the IC law now supports rules on dueling I'd think that opening up that possibility would add to more RP. "Antagonistic RP" isn't just causing angst without consequence or accountability, it's the back and forth that leads to the depth of a good story, and at the moment, that's what seems to be lacking at times. And can be super frustrating to deal with, at least IMHO.I dislike the idea of removing anonymity from the rumors though I do feel you should have to post a rumor within a circle of rp your actual character is involved in, such as a Noble shouldn't be posting a rumor in freeman circles.
I feel if certain restrictions like that were in place, you could feasibly say "hey some gentry are talking smack", etc.
The problem with wholly removing anonymity is that the system will quickly fall into not being used.
I feel if certain restrictions like that were in place, you could feasibly say "hey some gentry are talking smack", etc.
The problem with wholly removing anonymity is that the system will quickly fall into not being used.
From the counter-arguments, it sounds like the problem is lack of transparency and punishment.
A way for people to be notified of a rumor being taken down and why would help people create better, less contentious rumors in the future.
And the IP farming could be stemmed by making the cost of posting an inappropriate rumor higher than the benefit one gets from posting them.
While this may be harder on the staff to start, I believe this is a matter of people just being unaware of the problem behaviors (as you said, differing perspectives) rather than a problem with the system itself. Once people are aware of what is and isn't acceptable in a rumor, ideally via more staff transparency when removing them (discussing what is and isn't okay on the forums does not help this at all; many people don't come here), then the problem will right itself as people know what they can and can't post.
A way for people to be notified of a rumor being taken down and why would help people create better, less contentious rumors in the future.
And the IP farming could be stemmed by making the cost of posting an inappropriate rumor higher than the benefit one gets from posting them.
While this may be harder on the staff to start, I believe this is a matter of people just being unaware of the problem behaviors (as you said, differing perspectives) rather than a problem with the system itself. Once people are aware of what is and isn't acceptable in a rumor, ideally via more staff transparency when removing them (discussing what is and isn't okay on the forums does not help this at all; many people don't come here), then the problem will right itself as people know what they can and can't post.
What is or isn't acceptable, beyond gross examples, really comes down to splitting hairs, and I don't think it's the best use of staff time to be engaging in that kind of policing -- either by actively monitoring/moderating rumors, posting things other people wouldn't have IC reason to know, or by making examples out of other players' mistakes. Especially not if the system itself can be altered to support the desired outcome.Rabek wrote:Once people are aware of what is and isn't acceptable in a rumor, ideally via more staff transparency when removing them (discussing what is and isn't okay on the forums does not help this at all; many people don't come here), then the problem will right itself as people know what they can and can't post.
Establishing some sort of IC cost in order to be able to "cover one's tracks" (hide behind a vNPC) might do the trick. I think it's not so much the original rumors that tend to be a problem but, rather, the rampant rumor replies -- which have no source attached at all.
There are two systems RP detractors for me:
1) Craft levelling, which is not RP friendly because it focuses on quantity over quality, and is all OOC. That has been discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1629
2) The user interface for asynchronous RP is, in my opinion, not user friendly: too much tools, serving similar purposes (rumor, ic events, plots, bids, city metrics...). It is hard, for a new usuer to learn about their existence and their meaning, before even being able to learn how to use them. I would be in favor to mix them all in a single event system. I wrote more about this here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1655
1) Craft levelling, which is not RP friendly because it focuses on quantity over quality, and is all OOC. That has been discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1629
2) The user interface for asynchronous RP is, in my opinion, not user friendly: too much tools, serving similar purposes (rumor, ic events, plots, bids, city metrics...). It is hard, for a new usuer to learn about their existence and their meaning, before even being able to learn how to use them. I would be in favor to mix them all in a single event system. I wrote more about this here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1655
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests