(03-22-2013, 06:32 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]Ban in the context of 'warning, suspension, ban' means a permanent ban, aye. Suspensions were meant to be sharp shocks to the system, a wake-up call, but I was not a GM in '09 so I can't speak of the policies during that period with any certainty. Indeed, I was not even a member of CotH in '09!
Grakor is right, though. Many of us have come a long way in those four years.
Pretty much, yeah.
(03-22-2013, 06:32 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure you could call that bit about truth a technique, really. Perhaps I have a natural inclination to scepticism when it comes to this specific subject, and perhaps there is a great deal of evidence backing up my niggling suspicion.
While this is really short and before your explanaton, I just don't want there to be any misunderstanding that I was saying "truth" was the problem. I was inferring that the implied consent (when it is clearly not) or implying that someone is saying something when they're not is the problem. Stylized lying, straw man stuff. But regardless:
(03-22-2013, 06:32 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]To explain...
When one's conduct elicits an overt warning, and the warning is not heeded, is it not a foregone conclusion that action will be taken?
Yes.
(03-22-2013, 06:32 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to imagine that people can't feel the edge of a blade underneath their feet as they dance upon it, and I think it audacious to claim that a ban could take anyone completely by surprise. The timing might feel cumbersome or sudden, the reasoning might feel unjust, but who among the banned and formerly-banned could say in all honesty that they never imagined for a moment that it might happen?
Back in 2009, and even if we're not there and we're here, we got to a point where we started making racist jokes. We were obviously not racist and they weren't particularly violent (something about fried chicken. . .) but they were breaking a rule. I'm not trying to justify and stand up for that, I think it was the right thing to do for me to us to be punished, but to address your point, no, I didn't think I was going to be banned. I don't think anyone did until it happened. Even Touchseed was surprised.
But if you're talking about permenant bans, yes, I agree with you.
(03-22-2013, 06:32 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]If you glance over CotH's rules, most of them are pretty hard to break by accident. Profanity might slip out, tempers might flare, but the rules have a general theme of 'be nice to CotH and CotH will be nice to you'.
I agree that reasonable attempts at negotiation should be made, and that rule-breaking actions should be answered with a clear consequence that is announced to the relevant party in no uncertain terms. These codes should always be observed in a way relevant to the case in question, and no one's always right all of the time, of course. We all occasionally misunderstand, misconstrue, and are subject to human flaws. That's where the GM body in full comes into it. One person's analysis of a situation might fall prey to bias, but three, four, five, and more people analysing a problem have a very good chance of drawing the right conclusion. Especially if they have all of the facts, or a fair portion of the relevant information.
At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they will believe, but I'll put what I said earlier another way: Without self-deprecating, realising your own shortcomings is the only way to start working to improve yourself.
Of course, that's a pretty good summation of it all.
(03-22-2013, 06:33 PM)Rensin Wrote: [ -> ]I could see your reasoning here if GM's were somehow outsourced, but every GM was a player. Sorry to say it, but if they were elected by players it'd be a popularity contest that wouldn't always favor in the way of what's best for the server.
I meant to add at the end there that even if they were elected it wouldn't change anything. So yeah, not only are you right for the reasons stated but for a variety of other reasons unmentioned! My bad on that, haha.
(03-22-2013, 06:33 PM)Rensin Wrote: [ -> ]But going as far as saying they can't represent player's opinions is kind of... well.
Loxxy comes to mind. As does Caravan. And Rigley. And many, many, many other GM's that take suggestions and ideas not only for rules but for other things on the server -very- seriously. Honestly, I can see where some confusion comes from, but respect and such isn't as "broad" of a statement as you'd think. I mean, you could claim that people don't know what actions could be interpreted as being a jerk to someone, but let's be honest, that's pretty much common sense. Not to mention, if someone reports the actions of another with sufficient screenshots or other proof---well, then, it's hard to say "Well, the rule doesn't quite cover this...".
For those situations I'm not really fighting for. Lets be real here; you break a rule, you break a rule. I'm talking about when those rules are bent to sort of mean that you kind of broke a rule-ish and a player is taking offense and the GM's all agree with that player and the player who didn't actually break a rule can't even seriously defend himself. I'm trying to keep it pretty universal, too; this extends to policies for profiles being approved or denied or the validity of events or guilds, etc. . .
(03-22-2013, 06:33 PM)Rensin Wrote: [ -> ]Edit: Also, GM's don't always see eye to eye. That's why bans have to be discussed, because sometimes people don't agree with things. Sometimes, from what I remember, it could even be over-talked. Everyone thinks that the GM's are this unified power-ranger task force, but, they are all different people with different goals and motivations.
EDIT: Totally, but I'm not buying the whole "they're not power rangers", nice try.
(03-22-2013, 06:34 PM)SachikoMaeda Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a strong supporter of any sort of reform or rehaul of current systems. I stand by my statement at whichever meet and greet it was that:
GMs claimed to have better themselves but don't allow us to better the rules of CotH.
Or something like that.
And I think election of GMs would be pretty nifty to keep their opinions diverse. I doubt I'll be listened to on that end. But hey, if you want my ideas, poke me on Skype or something.
The best way to change the server or rehaul anything is to do it without ostracizing anyone, including the GM's. So I'll poke you on skype (sometime tonight) but you've gotta realize that we're on the GM's side. They're like, our allies, not our enemies. Never say they wont listen to you, because when they don't, that's when you call them out. It's an immunodeficiency problem;most of what I'm talking about is in regards to the GM's doing something to help players without realizing it is hurting them.
They're going to listen to me, to some extent, because I'm not trying to attack them. . .I'm trying to help them. I don't expect them to take everything I say and implement it (that would be most dangerous!) but we can expect that they're aware that certain things exist, and little by little things change for the better.
Alright, now lets address the issue of unity:
(03-22-2013, 06:38 PM)Delta Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:GM's are so similar in their opinions
Urgh! Naughty of me to pick out a scant few words to reply to, but...
Very untrue! I wouldn't know where to begin to convey how untrue, in fact.
I'll take your word for it.
(03-22-2013, 06:50 PM)Loxmardin Wrote: [ -> ]... Well, it's easy to imagine how the "unified GM front" is perceived. GMs have to get behind a single decision, which means even those who don't initially agree have to get behind it somehow or scrap the idea entirely. But if no decisions ever go through, no progress is ever made. A lot of GMs have had to stand up for a decision they didn't initially want to pass through at all, but that doesn't mean they all share the same opinion. Just that the team as a whole has reached a majority decision, or the admins helped decide (since they call the shots when the GMs can't / shouldn't decide on certain matters).
Decisions made for the players should be in the interests of the players. That means all players; I get a strong feeling that the GM team levitates towards a certain group and backs them up instead of acting as a mediator to a dispute. If what you're saying is true (and it most certainly is) then I've misconceived "GM's are selected" with an oblique decision making process that excludes the players and-- correct me if I'm wrong-- ends up making their decisions for them.
Now that's probably not true. The GM's talk with players a lot, maybe they inquire on their opinion to make sure that the decision is rounded and well made. But that kind of seems. . .unlikely. Maybe it isn't, I don't know.
(03-22-2013, 06:34 PM)Rigley Wrote: [ -> ]I'll note that as far as the GM team solidly agreeing on solutions all the time... that's certainly not the case.
At least from what I've seen, we've probably got one of the most assorted crews of GMs right now-- and actually, its partially to our detriment. We have people who wish to be strict with rules, we have those that wish to be lax or give light punishments. We have those who prefer to adhere strictly to lore, and those who enjoy the idea of branching out-- sometimes rather broadly.
To be honest this has actually led us to be rather inefficient at times, rather than making it as you've stated; where deliberation on something can take much longer than is needed, or processing a new idea within the team can be cumbersome. At this point, funny enough, not even everyone within the team is on chummy terms with one another, to put it bluntly.
Some of those GM's scare me with their broad lore stretching, just a note.
That's an internal issue that you guys need to solve. I think you guys need to identify where you stand and perceive those interpretations as strengths that could benefit players. If an event has some sketchy lore behind it, instead of the lore master shooting it down he should help patch up those holes and make the thing legitimate. You guys should expect the opposition and welcome it, inquire on their viewpoints and establish a consensus based off of what will benefit the players most.
So in light of Reigens post, which I can't include because I must sleep for Academic Team competition tommorow, I think we can safely say that the problem isn't "because the GM's all have similar opinions".
(03-22-2013, 06:50 PM)Loxmardin Wrote: [ -> ]As for changing the rules? I know this has been discussed many times. If people have suggestions for how the rules can be improved, I doubt Grakor/Kretol/the GM team would say no to a well-formulated draft. It doesn't mean they would change it, but I can assure you that they'll read and consider it. I've sent in multiple long letters of things I believe should be changed in the past (many really fundamental changes) and while not all of them have gone through, a couple have. And, change is change. If it works well, it works.
Change has to be planned and done tactfully, though. You can't just look at the current ruleset and revamp it without everything turning on its head. Look at the rules that we have now and bring out well thought-out suggestions for how the rules can be improved and, most importantly, what is actually wrong with them. The GM team / the admins might consider that "There's no need to fix what's not broken", but if you can show very clearly that it is broken and give a good alternative, it'll at least be evaluated and given due consideration. Then again, it's difficult to take all different factors into account when looking at rulesets, but it's definitely worth a shot.
I'm not sure who you're talking to, but yes. I've read the rules by now so often I claim myself a rule lawyer. I was, at one point, literally going to represent a player in a dispute as their 'lawyer' to defend against the GM's because I felt like their 'case' was misrepresented. . .thankfully I wont have to do that.
I'm not looking for a revamp, I actually suggested to Kretol a long time ago that I did not approve of his "don't be a dick" picture in rule #1, and if we look now. . .it's not there. Maybe it was me, maybe it wasn't. Thanks though, Loxxy.
(03-22-2013, 06:50 PM)Loxmardin Wrote: [ -> ]I think people severely underestimate the power and efficiency in a well-formulated word-document shared between just you and the admins. Gives opportunity to work things out and bounce ideas to determine what can be improved and how, or even suggest alternative solutions. Then you get input from elsewhere. Start soft, set the groundwork on the smaller playfield and proceed from there.
In a public room where everyone's shouting their opinions at eachother, someone's always going to get lost in the noise. That's why the face-to-face game is so much more efficient when discussing those kinds of proposals in their draft-stage.
That's why I'll send the draft to you guys instead of just posting it publicly. I'm not really opposed to that as much as
making a decision to do something without consulting the public about it.
I'm going to continue conjumbling this, sorry. . .!
(03-22-2013, 06:34 PM)Rigley Wrote: [ -> ]As for 'deciding things for the players'-- that is, unfortunately, the nature of the server. It's meant to adhere to Grakor and Kretol's general idea, and we're supposed to shape things within that mold. So as far as ideas go there... it's sorta 'you get what you signed up for'. We don't try to bill ourselves as branching wildly away, and we don't have interest in doing such because of that-- thus, the way we make stuff can be a bit more focused on what the GM team (and more importantly, the admins) decides.
The nature of the server is to serve the GM's rather than the players. . .See now, the statement I just made isn't necessarily true, right? But lets be real here; the rules are MADE for the benefit of the players. So why not give the players a say in it? . . .Well, they do (obviously, for instance right now) but not always. Not when they matter, in the countless examples we're all talking about or vaguely mentioning. I don't want to be far fetched and say they have nothing to do with it, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that what the community wants isn't considered enough.
(03-22-2013, 06:34 PM)Rigley Wrote: [ -> ]Now, first off, I don't find it true that dissent necessarily means that there's truth and a good purpose behind that dissent.
Good, me neither.
(03-22-2013, 06:34 PM)Rigley Wrote: [ -> ]I imagine there's dissent from -everyone- who was permabanned, be they banned for comparatively light stuff or banned for the more disturbing or easily notable sorts of behavior. I very much doubt you'll find anyone who says 'yeah, I was banned. S'fine, I get it'. It very much adheres to 'everyone is the hero of their own story'-- no one actively acts in a way that they would consider bad. Most find themselves justified in some manner or another.
That being said, there is indeed the chance that a ban is mishandled every now and then, but I personally would call it rare-- and I personally can't think of an instance of it in recent memory. I do know there were unfounded bans which the server practiced some time ago, in the form of 'cleaning up' members that the staff didn't think were good for the server-- but, we no longer practice that sort of behavior.
Bolshe once told me an elaborate series of events that included CotH GM's creating alternative accounts that would deliberately get players in trouble just so they can ban them. He also had a bunch of other bull crap. I'd just like you guys to know, when I heard it back in 2010, I believed it. I don't now, but what's important is that I did. Crazy, huh?
Gotta be careful of the illusions we make.
I can't post until tommorow; I need to wake up early tommorow. If anyone wants to reach me on Skype, I'm Quandry31 but I wont be super available tommorow.
Good work, team. I'll actually read Reigens post tommorow and respond to it then.
Keep up the questions and the inquiry, we're getting somewhere.