New Forum, Altered Rules

Sarapis

The forum rules have been altered slightly from the old forums. #1 and #2 are the changes.  http://www.achaea.com/forum-rules

Glynn

I imagine there will quite a bit of whinging about IC consequences for what has traditionally been OOC-only interaction (forums), but I feel it's a step in the right direction if it results in more participation from the Divine and other behind-the-scenes personas.

Nemutaur

I have a question about Rule #2. If I say that God X sucks I will face in-game repercussions, that much I understand. But does this also mean we can use the forums to interact and contact Gods that we usually wouldn't be able to in-game and expect an in-game response?

Sarapis

I have a question about Rule #2. If I say that God X sucks I will face in-game repercussions, that much I understand. But does this also mean we can use the forums to interact and contact Gods that we usually wouldn't be able to in-game and expect an in-game response?

Up to the God. And of course, the God may simply just not see it, which is probably the case most of the time. 

Nemutaur

Oh ok, thanks for the really quick response. I hope people realise that Rule #2 exists, because up until now I've always thought as the forums being totally separate from the game.

Iocun

Can't say I'm fond of that particular rule. And while I'm not a fan of censuring, I'd still find it more honest and straight-forward to outright ban people from criticizing the players of god roles on the forums, rather than establishing some kind of weird forum-game link and mixing up IC with OOC stuff.

I don't think this sets a very good example for players, when it comes to the IC-OOC barrier.

Sarapis

Well, we're open to changing to to just banning criticizing the Gods, but 'criticism' is a very very broad and general term, and we didn't want people to feel like they can't say anything about a God at all for fear of the banhammer or something.

Wysteria

Well, we're open to changing to to just banning criticizing the Gods, but 'criticism' is a very very broad and general term, and we didn't want people to feel like they can't say anything about a God at all for fear of the banhammer or something.

I just imagined Phaestus forging a banhammer and wielding/waving it in front of people who question the Divine.

Glynn

[quote]Well, we're open to changing to to just banning criticizing the Gods, but 'criticism' is a very very broad and general term, and we didn't want people to feel like they can't say anything about a God at all for fear of the banhammer or something.[/quote]

I just imagined Phaestus forging a banhammer and wielding/waving it in front of people who question the Divine.

Phaestus wielding a banhammer is something I'd definitely like to see IC.

Iocun

Well, we're open to changing to to just banning criticizing the Gods, but 'criticism' is a very very broad and general term, and we didn't want people to feel like they can't say anything about a God at all for fear of the banhammer or something.

I can understand that, and it's obvious that such decisions would in the end always come down to admin/moderator discretion. I'd simply prefer if any sort of punishments/reactions to forum posts stayed on an OOC level, be that on the forums, or in extreme cases in the form of administrative (not "Divine") punishment in-game.

Wysteria

@Sarapis Just wondering if anyone else noticed the "Options" icon next this thread when on the main Discussions page. It drops down to "Dismiss" which has me thinking it's an admin/moderator function?

Sarapis

@Wysteria Not sure. Give it a try!

Glynn

@Sarapis Just wondering if anyone else noticed the "Options" icon next this thread when on the main Discussions page. It drops down to "Dismiss" which has me thinking it's an admin/moderator function?

The Dismiss function is for announcement threads and other threads which are 'sticky' and maintain their place at/near the top of the list of threads. Using dismiss will unsticky it (for you only) and from then on that thread will appear in the thread list normally rather than always being at the top.

Cooper

Instead of taking OOC comments and punishing players ICly, why don't you just ban the people who do that from the forums? That seems like a more reasonable solution.

Sothantos

It seems kind of bizarre to bring something that might be completely OOC into IC, since we're posting as players, not our characters, on the forums. Cooper's idea seems more reasonable...

Silas

Yeah, taking anything from the forums IG is a really bad precedent to set. I think I understand the intention behind it, but deal with it through forum sanctions rather than encouraging blurring of IC/OOC boundaries.

Namino

Horay. I can finally start taking cause out on people who forum troll me.

That's what you're working towards, right, Sarapis?

Achaea 2013 is going to be forum-only.

Edit: Also, while I'm at it, let me make a somewhat callous remark, having been an administrator of a minor MUD before.

If reading negative comments about yourself on the forums offends your delicate sensibilities so badly you have to breach the wall and bring it IC, then perhaps you're in the wrong business.

Or perhaps, I gently suggest, you stop behaving in a manner that is worthy of scorn.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't be true to your Godhood, IE -- if I was the God of Hateful Spite ICly, I wouldn't be nice to people.

But what I am saying is that people only post administration related grievances when they believe a plurality of the playerbase is going to be as offended by your behavior as they are.

Now, when a person makes a gripe no one agrees with, the forum usually takes it upon itself to swat it down, with players berating the poster instead (IE, "totally IC", "totally reasonable" , or various other defenses of the administrator in question).

But when you -- say -- give someone a 30 day true disfavour for ICly opposing your faction and they post about it, good grief, you've earned it. When the plurality of the playerbase agrees with the OP that you've done something worthy of derision, the solution isn't to pursue the OP across IC/OOC boundaries. The solution is to reign in your own behavior so you stop giving people legitimate gripes.

tl;dr: Player accountability is one side of a coin, upon the other face of which rests staff accountability. Legitimate forum vetting stemming from actual grievances supported by numerous players should result in staff self-reflection, not further avenues of punishing those that vet staffers.

Maya

In practice, the gods aren't going to zap you in game because you complain about an event being awful. Although... I can't really speak for Sarapis!

However, if you are continually whining about the gods on the forums, they might not want to have anything to do with you in game. I think this is closer to the intent of the rule.

Mannimar

I think it's reasonable, but only if the rule defined criticism more specifically. I mean, outright bashing of Divine is inappropriate and should be treated as such, but critiques on how a Divine may be able to improve their standings with their player-base, ie "How could x Divine appeal better to x organization" or simply things people would like to see more of.

Perhaps keeping all criticisms in its own section and limiting punishments to admin punishments like pacifism or reduced experience gain. The main issue is actually defining what is acceptable and not going overboard in punishments

Sarapis

@Mannimar Leaving it non-specific is the only way to stop it ending up like the old PK rules, with a bazillion rules covering a bazillion situations. This way, the Gods just don't do anything if the discussion is benign, which it is most of the time.

Mannimar

@Sarapis True, I just worry about extreme reactions to comments, but I guess thats a bit ridiculous of me. Over all I think it's a reasonable rule.

Profit

In my experience, preventing discussion of problems and problematic individuals has never really served to solve those problems.

A better way to solve this issue would be to encourage your Gods to listen to players in game, or solicit opinions from involved parties, or just generally take into account player input (not saying everyone, or anyone specific is guilty of this).

When people feel like their issues are listened to, they rarely feel the need to 'rant' about those issues.

I will provide an example.

About a year ago, Tecton and another unnamed divine called myself and Silas to a meeting to discuss Shallam's direction and how to best approach it's future. After asking what we thought of the situation, the unnamed divine said, "Well, we have a lot of different ideas, but I'm not going to talk about them here!" and then proceeded to ignore every analysis and suggestion we'd prepared and made over the last half hour.

I can remember ranting about this situation, and I can remember Silas ranting about it. The rants didn't arise because of incompetence or a desire to hurt anyone, they arose because people asked us to prepare an analysis of a situation and propose solutions, then effectively informed us that our input would promptly be ignored.

Bonko

Where is the troll reaction along the bottom?

Sothantos

I'm sure the Gods are likely going to be reasonable with how they respond to forum criticism, but I think the rule should be changed regardless; the game should not be encouraging blurring OOC/IC boundaries. I just can't see any good reason at all for having something that is, in principle, promoting lack of player-character separation. It's essentially just as ridiculous as, say, disfavouring someone in-game for sending you an email.

Namino

@Sarapis Being nonspecific to avoid overcomplication is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO, because it goes both ways.

If I make fun of Pandora's hair on the forums and she zaps me fifty times in game for it -- well, you didn't specifically define what could and couldn't cross the border, and what an appropriate response is.

That's an extreme example, but some Achaean gods or (just maybe) the people playing them will have vastly different ideas of what constitutes a justifiable response than you yourself.

For example, when I sent you a jocular tell, you laughed. (Something about you getting your credibility docked).

When I send a certain Goddess who I can't name for fear of being punished ICly under your new rules a jocular tell, I get kill zapped and muted for several OOC days.

I don't think anyone is going to suggest it's okay to bash the gods. The aformentioned goddess was called the C word on the forums shortly after that event, and even in the wake of my short end of the stick, I didn't think that was acceptable. No one did.

But stripping away the inherent IC/OOC protection people enjoy on the forums with this rule is just going to make people second guess themselves constantly about making their opinions about the sort of job your staff is doing known.

That's going to do a lot more to hurt staff and player relations than help it, and you'll also lose the truest medium of feedback you have -- even if the feedback you receive isn't always positive, prior to this rule, it was honest.

Profit

I'm sure the Gods are likely going to be reasonable with how they respond to forum criticism, but I think the rule should be changed regardless; the game should not be encouraging blurring OOC/IC boundaries. I just can't see any good reason at all for having something that is, in principle, promoting lack of player-character separation. It's essentially just as ridiculous as, say, disfavouring someone in-game for sending you an email.

Exactly.

This is a dangerous precedent to set and a slippery slope to commit yourself to.

Profit

That's going to do a lot more to hurt staff and player relations than help it, and you'll also lose the truest medium of feedback you have -- even if the feedback you receive isn't always positive, prior to this rule, it was honest.

This. A thousand times this.

You should appreciate any feedback you get. Positive or negative, it all helps you guide the game in a more positive direction.

Jhaeli

I'm getting the impression that the rule was put in place more for needless and overly silly whining as related to Divine Interactions, especially since (after the feedback that Sarapis got) everyone is clamouring for more Divine Interaction. I don't imagine that the majority of players will see this rule come into play or that genunine criticism is really going to be curb-stomped, so to speak.

In other words, at this point, it might be best to take a "wait and see" approach. I imagine it'll get tweaked if needed as it is put into use.

Jiraishin

A lot of the things said about Divines on the forums made me uncomfortable. Even if they're honest, not all opinions need to be shared. I'm glad to see -something- is being done to prevent the sort of extreme bitterness and negativity I'm used to reading.

Profit

I'm glad to see -something- is being done to prevent the sort of extreme bitterness and negativity I'm used to reading.

The thing is... if the negativity is that extreme and that prolific, it needs to be addressed and not covered up.

Namino

A lot of the things said about Divines on the forums made me uncomfortable. Even if they're honest, not all opinions need to be shared. I'm glad to see -something- is being done to prevent the sort of extreme bitterness and negativity I'm used to reading.

You don't think the something that should be done is a greater emphasis on staff sensitivity to players' needs and expectations?