[MUD-Dev] [gods] Player Representatives? (fwd)

[J C Lawrence]

The Gods list (mostly Tiny-* oriented) has had an interesting thread
recently on handling player representation from an administrative
aspect.  They touch on several bits I don't think we've looked at in
our own discussions of the area, as well as providing some good
reports on various attempts in the field.

"...deletia..." marks sections that I deleted from the original
postings, usually because they were large unedited quotes of prior
posts.

--<cut>--
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rhonda Peters <saidar at tales.ccs.yorku.ca>
To: gods at godlike.com
Subject: [gods] Player Representatives?

Hiya. The game I run has been going for several years, and in that time
there have been several occasions where people have become concerned
about there being a gulf between the players and the admin. I've heard a
lot of other games mention similar things, so I know we're not alone in
this, and I'm hoping to get feedback from other people on a particuar
solution that's been proposed.

We've had the suggestion made several times now to have player
representatives, people who are not admin but would act as liaisons
between the admin and the players. In discussing this idea amongst the
wizards on my game, we can see both positive and negative possibilities,
but not having ever tried this or played on a game that had it, all we
are doing is guessing on the possibilities.

I was wondering if any one out there has run or played on a game that did
something like this, and if so would you be willing to share your
impressions of how well it worked and what problems it created?


Rhonda Peters
Saidar at Tales of Ta'veren
http://www.ta-veren.org
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
From: "The Silver Samurai" <jpriest at foxinternet.net>
To: <gods at godlike.com>
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:42:04 -0700

	I've never actually seen this done all the way. I will say, staff that's
allowed to maintain PCs are automatically `lesser' in the eyes of everyone.
Players accuse them of cheating with any possible powers they might have.
Or even, just as a result of closer contact with staff. They are
automatically seen as staff. Not as players anymore. Even just people with
an H flag for helper beside their name on a +where/who are automatically
perceived to be more staff than player.
	Then, the second problem comes from the "real" staff. If the liasons have
any power at all, or even, access to staff areas or anything else, then
they're suspect by the staff. This makes this, one of the worst jobs you
can possibly have. You're there to help players, yet, you can't even do
simple things, without people suspecting you of cheating, from both sides.
	My suggestion, the only way I've seen this work is, to have a wizard
(royalty, whatever) who's job title is Player Liason. They don't code, they
don't run TPs, they don't socialize with either staff or players, they act
as a player advocate. A `lawyer' if you will, in player-staff disputes. A
dedicated, trusted person who won't be blown off by staff as a whiney
player, or someone trying to throw off game balance for their own gain.
This is the route I'm taking eventually when we open. Hope it helps.

TSS
...deletia...
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:29:51 -0400 (EDT) (19:29 PDT)
From: Maxi Rose <teleute at vex.net>
To: gods at godlike.com
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?

My experience has been that players made semi-staff wind up with one or
both of two problems. Players no longer treat the "Rep" the same way,
meaning their RP can suffer. Players can see them as spies for the admin,
or might try to manipulate them as if they think these people's opinions
carry significant enough weight. Conversely, the Rep can get full of
themselves and abuse the position, however puny their powers may be, or
imply more power so as to scare people, than they actually have. They can
also expect more power or "say" than really is necessary on their part.
And as I've seen, can change or embellish stories about players they
personally dislike in order to get them in trouble.

It's a hard balancing act. Can your players trust the Rep? Can the Rep
trust your players? Can you trust _everybody_? Players already feel stared
at and scrutinized enough as their paranoid (or justified) minds let them.
Adding another layer to the staff whose job it is to try be some sort of
Ombudsman just feels like more distrust on the part of admin. Instead,
try to get your admin to be more approachable, trustworthy, or whatnot. Or
make an official staffer whose purpose it is to do this. They don't need
the wizard bit. Just @power them with whatever they need and give them the
staff or royalty flag. It should be enough.

Rather than say your staff are no good at people skills, which is what
having Player Reps can imply, simply try to get your staff to interact
more. Players cannot expect staff to be there 24/7. But staffers who seem
unwilling or afraid to communicate with players can't expect the players
to have a high opinion of them. Let the coders just code and the builders
just build, if that's what's best for your game. But make full-fledged
staff whose job it is to communicate with your players.


--
@}>-`--,-- @}>-`--,-- @}>-`--,-- {{@}} --,--'-<{@ --,--'-<{@ --,--'-<{@
Maxi Rose  Ghost of a Texas Lady   | Anime: FY, MB, KOR | Bab5, Goth
Maxi the Southern Dragon (UDIC)    | Anthropomorphics, Bisexuality, Jim
http://www.vex.net/~teleute        | Jim @ http://www.io.com/~jwtlai
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:18:46 -0700
To: gods at godlike.com
From: Kynn Bartlett <valor at lsh.org>
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?

At 04:25 PM 8/13/2000 , Rhonda Peters wrote:
>We've had the suggestion made several times now to have player
>representatives, people who are not admin but would act as liaisons
>between the admin and the players.

These people either soon become worthless and ignored by the
admins, or they become effectively admins themselves and lose
their effectiveness as voices for "the common folks."

Basically, if you think you -need- some people in these positions,
then you have some pretty serious problems, and the "band aid"
of player reps won't solve it.  Instead you have to look at the
relationship between your players and your admins and figure out
how to fix it -- and it may be hard, not a quick fix.

If you don't actually have a need for this, then what you are
seeing is players who wish to "feel important" by being given
an elevated status over their peers and a preferred station for
communicating with the wizards.  These people are generally
rather pathetic and tend to be suck-ups, so you might not
actually notice how reprehensible they are -- since, as an
admin, you are the person they are sucking up to.  If this is
the case and you don't have serious communication problems as
would warrant the advice in previous paragraphs, then you
should avoid any such suggestions of this type.

In short:  Player representatives accomplish nothing other
than further insulate the admins (bad if there is a real
problem) and add an extra layer of self-important petty
bureaucrats (bad if there is not a real problem).  So it's
a lose-lose either way.

--
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn at idyllmtn.com>                       http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta                  http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                         http://www.awarecenter.org/
Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee!             http://kynn.com/+icann
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:20:36 -0400 (EDT) (Sun 23:20 PDT)
From: Adam Dray <adam at legendary.org>
To: gods at godlike.com
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Rhonda Peters wrote:

> We've had the suggestion made several times now to have player
> representatives, people who are not admin but would act as liaisons
> between the admin and the players.

Being asked to appoint liaisons between the staff and the players suggests
a few things:

(1) the staff and players have equal power and rights on the game
(2) the staff and players fight enough that they need a negotiator
(3) the staff doesn't have the time/energy/desire to deal with players
(4) the players want more attention

The staff/wizards of a game have a lot more power on the than the players,
so (1) isn't true.  However, I grant that sometimes it's nice to have a
neutral third party between two opposing parties of different power.

However, where are you going to get a neutral third party on a game?
They're either staff or player, and will have ties and pressures from
their own group.  

You don't need a negotiator.  You don't want to reach a "fair" decision
for all parties.  You want to choose the best path for your game, even if
it pisses off some players. 

If you have enough disagreements between staff and players that cannot be
resolved by the staff, then there's a serious rift that needs patching.
If your staff hasn't the time or patience or will to fix this, then you
should find staff who do.  If your players are the problem, you can get
rid of them, too.  Sometimes it's one or two players who cause all the
trouble, and your game is stronger for getting rid of the troublemakers.

Sometimes the players just need more attention from the staff.  Are you
understaffed?  FiranMUX has a large active staff, and we also encourage
our players to help each other on the Help channel.  That frees up the
regular staff for the jobs only they can do.  Contrary to what
jpriest at foxinternet.net said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the
staff should be players, too.  Strict alt-conflict rules can prevent most 
cheating.  A staff that does not play the game is distant from the game
and unaware of the real issues; they also may start to feel superior to
the players.

A player liaison's charter is basically to champion issues.  If you don't
want to encourage argument, don't appoint a liaison.  A liaison, if
well-trained, can smooth out issues between people and achieve
satisfaction among disparate parties.  It's doubtful you'll be able to
find someone that well-trained.  Instead, you'll get a paladin who wants
to fight every cause, often siding with the players against the staff.
You can tell an obnoxious player to shut up and bugger off, but how is it
going to look when you tell the Player's Union Rep to shut up and bugger
off?  How do you fire a liaison?

I don't think it's worth it.  Encourage your staff to pick up the slack,
and appoint more regular staff if necessary.  Avoid a specialist position
that is basically a liaison. 

Good luck!
Adam / FiranMUX @ legendary.org 5000
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:42:06 -0400 (EDT) (07:42 PDT)
From: Mischa E Gelman <megst19+ at pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?
To: gods at godlike.com

> Being asked to appoint liaisons between the staff and the players suggests
> a few things:
> 
> (1) the staff and players have equal power and rights on the game

Where is this implied? Even if it were, I don't see it as a problem - on
most of the MU*s I played or administrated, staff had far too much power
and players too few rights. A liason could help reduce this discrepency
without eliminating it.

> (2) the staff and players fight enough that they need a negotiator

More like "the potential exists for conflict", as it does on any MU*. A
negotiator would help with a clear reconciliation rather than a prolonged
feud (sp?), as could easily result from conflict when there is no
intermediary.

> You don't need a negotiator.  You don't want to reach a "fair" decision
> for all parties.  You want to choose the best path for your game, even if
> it pisses off some players. 

This position sounds like "staff know best" - which is a rather faulty
assumption to make in many cases. There should be some avenue that allows
players' voices to be heard.

> (3) the staff doesn't have the time/energy/desire to deal with players

Every MU* I played or staffed had this issue to some extent. If others
don't, hurrah for them - it's a common enough problem to warrant concern.

> (4) the players want more attention

That's a pretty condescending outlook to have - who does the MU* exist for
if not the players? (And, yes, I know the listserv has discussed this in
past years ad nauseum.)

> regular staff for the jobs only they can do.  Contrary to what
> jpriest at foxinternet.net said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the
> staff should be players, too. 

I wholeheartedly agree - any division of roles will simply create tension
and an 'us-them' mentality on both sides.

> A player liaison's charter is basically to champion issues.  If you don't
> want to encourage argument, don't appoint a liaison. 

A liaison would help quell arguments though, without letting them get out
of hand. Some MU*s go for years with the same problem because it was never
resolved - someone whose responsibility it is to resolve the situation
would definitely be of use there.

> I don't think it's worth it.  Encourage your staff to pick up the slack,
> and appoint more regular staff if necessary. 

What if it is the staff or wizard who is the problem though? Their taking
additional responsibility would merely lead to more problems, rather than
less.

- Mischa

Privatization..is not any better as a controlling guide to public action
than is socialism. In both cases the primary service of the doctrine is
to provide escape from thought - economist John K. Galbraith
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jude McLaughlin <dziwozony at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?
To: gods at godlike.com

	(text/plain)
--- Mischa E Gelman <megst19+ at pitt.edu> wrote:
> > Being asked to appoint liaisons between the staff
> > and the players suggests a few things:
> > (1) the staff and players have equal power and
> > rights on the game
> Where is this implied? Even if it were, I don't see
> it as a problem - on most of the MU*s I played or
> administrated, staff had far too much power and
> players too few rights. A liason could help reduce
> this discrepency without eliminating it.

I have seen this problem several times, both as admin
and player, and I agree with Mischa: the power dynamic
is usually badly imbalanced.  It's a little like the
transformation that needs to happen in management when
a company is transitioning from a Startup to a
Company, and yet also has many of the conflicts and
difficulties that occur in a country which has
recently changed government.  One point that has
rankled me repeatedly as both player and admin is the
admin stance of "this is not a democracy."

Okay, people may have discussed this ad nauseam in the
past, and I missed it.  Has anyone ever attempted to
run a MU* with a "Town Meeting" kind of government,
where the players have representation, a forum where
they can present concerns, and voting rights?  Where
the admin have more of a service role than ruling
role?  Yes, such meetings have the potential to drag
on and on in filibusters from heck, and they aren't
the swift, efficient sorts of things that many of us
would like, but it might a) involve the players more
in the story/roleplay/administration/whatever, b)
solve a number of the problems of people being too
terrified to speak out against policies or staff who
are stultifying  or causing problems on the MU*, and
c) help prevent the kind of breach we've all seen in
long-standing MU*s.

If actual democracy on a MU* is untenable, then there
*must* be a way to give the players representation
they will trust.  A rotating role of liaison with
staff?  Of course, if it's the staff that's the
problem, then there really is no remedy, unless the
playerbase is willing to rouse from their apathy and
stage a revolution... which is in itself impractical,
because if those who control the admin bits and/or
database are unwilling to bend to the will of the
majority (what is best for the MU*, after all, is in
the eye of the beholder), then the only option the
players have is to leave... has there ever been a mass
exodus in the face of bad staffing?

At any rate, I hope I haven't wandered overly from the
topic.

JM

PS:
For those unfamiliar with the New England style town
meeting, I just did a quickie search and found a
fairly decent summary of the style at
http://www.needhamonline.com/TownMeeting/handbook.html.
...deletia...
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:53:14 -0400 (EDT) (09:53 PDT)
From: Stephanie Accongio Dray <steph at legendary.org>
To: gods at godlike.com
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?



On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Mischa E Gelman wrote:

> > (1) the staff and players have equal power and rights on the game
> 
> Where is this implied? Even if it were, I don't see it as a problem - on
> most of the MU*s I played or administrated, staff had far too much power
> and players too few rights. 

I think it /can/ be implied when you make a player representative, but is
not necessarily so.  I think Adam's bias in this regard comes from our
experience in the past when we actually have had this asserted to us as a
reason we needed to have player representatives.  

Naturally, it's a matter of opinion on what kind of "rights" you want to
give your players, but if this is a legal exercise, the only "rights"
anyone have derive from that which the owner of the game chooses to give
them.  A mush is essentially private property, not the Mall in DC.  So I
always find the discussion of "rights" on a mush to be a little strange.  
And as for power, well, whoever has the power to shut down the game
essentially has the power, and all other powers derive from that which
that person gives them.

Is that a nice or "fair" situation?  I don't know.  But I think that's the
reality.


> > You don't need a negotiator.  You don't want to reach a "fair" decision
> > for all parties.  You want to choose the best path for your game, even if
> > it pisses off some players. 
> 
> This position sounds like "staff know best" - which is a rather faulty
> assumption to make in many cases. There should be some avenue that allows
> players' voices to be heard.

The question isn't whether or not player voices should be heard, but
whether or not player reps are the best avenue for those voices to be
heard.

As for the staff knows best part, in our experience (Adam's and mine) we
may not /know/ what is best but it is our responsibility as Gods of the
game to make the decisions about what is best.  Ultimately, if the game
succeeds the praise goes to us, but if it fails miserably, that also is on
our heads.  Consequently, even though I fully concede that we can (and
have) made mistakes, it's our responsibility to make the decisions. My
guiding principle is always "What is best for this game?"  And if that
question happens to be in opposition to the interest of a player, I will
unhesitatingly make it.

Not everyone chooses to run their games this way.  Some people like rule
by committees.  Some people like rule by voting.  On my game Adam and I
are dictators.  Benign dictators, but dictators nonetheless.  Part of that
stems from the fact that the game is originally themed and therefore we
have a larger interest in preserving our vision.  Another part of it stems
from our collective experience as admins over the past seven years or so.
In my experience (and that's what Rhonda asked for), you have to listen to
player concerns and understand them, but you cannot ever make their
individiual concerns the sole basis if your decision making, or give them
undue weight.

> > (4) the players want more attention
> 
> That's a pretty condescending outlook to have - who does the MU* exist for
> if not the players? 

There's nothing in #4 that implied wanting more attention was a bad thing.  
It's a statement of fact.  On our game, as it's expanded, Adam and I have
less and less time to give to individual players.  And that's a very sad
thing.  We've appointed more staff to help us deal with that problem, but
it always pains me when I log in and realize that a year ago I knew every
single player on the game and what tinyplots they were in, and now I look
out onto the grid and go, "Who is that?"  Adam and I would not choose to
appoint player-liasons to deal with this problem, but we do acknowlege it
as a problem and have to take other steps to remedy it.

As for the assertion that the games exist solely for the players, I
disagree.  If I followed the advice of some of my players to the exclusion
of my own vision, I would cease to enjoy the game.  And if I cease to
enjoy it, I'll stop spending my time on it.  And if I stop spending my
time on it, the game will close and then the players won't have any fun on
it at all.  Conversely, if I don't accomodate the players needs in a
balanced way, we won't have any players, and that wouldn't be fun either.
So I would say that it's really something you have to carefully balance.
Adam and I are doing a good job of it so far.

> A liaison would help quell arguments though, without letting them get out
> of hand. Some MU*s go for years with the same problem because it was never
> resolved - someone whose responsibility it is to resolve the situation
> would definitely be of use there.

In our experience, player liasons become palladins and end up blowing
things out of proportion.  I've never seen an effective liaison.  The only
thing I've ever seen is a liaison that so closely identifies with the
staff that the players either hate him or her, or a player liaison that
identifies so closely with the players that the staff end up despising
that person for their constant bitching and moaning.  It's not a great job
for a volunteer organization, I think.  Especially for the untrained.

Our personal experience with this kind of thing has convinced us that it's
a mistake, but admittedly, our game is vastly different than many.  
Player reps often bring to you complaints and tell you "But I can't tell
you which player is having this problem."  This makes the information
almost useless. One of the first things that was ever suggested to us by
such a person was an anonymous complaint system.  I was totally against
this idea, and I felt that it would be bad for the game, but this one rare
time, I went against what I believed was best for the game and coded it.

I was soon to find out that an anonymous complaint system encouraged
people to report with malicious tone things that were so minor or
mean-spirited that they would never have said them if they had to take
responsibility for their statements openly.  This started making the staff
feel very underappreciated, and set up an "us" against "them" attitude
that we had never had before as the complaints poured in.  There was also
a lack of esteem and confidence that spread as the staff became convinced
that many many players were unhappy.

On the day that I found out that every single complaint issued came from
the same single player, I dismantled the system.  I will never again allow
that kind of destructive unbalanced perspective on my game again.  If
people don't feel strongly enough about an issue to sign their name to it,
then it's not worthy my time in evaluating it.

And that's the kind of angst that player reps cause, in my opinion.  If
someone has had some good experiences with them, I'd be eager to read
about it and how they structured what they did.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Dray
--<cut>--

--<cut>--
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:03:00 -0400 (EDT) (10:03 PDT)
From: Maxi Rose <teleute at vex.net>
To: gods at godlike.com
Subject: Re: [gods] Player Representatives?

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Jude McLaughlin wrote:

> Okay, people may have discussed this ad nauseam in the
> past, and I missed it.  Has anyone ever attempted to
> run a MU* with a "Town Meeting" kind of government,
> where the players have representation, a forum where
> they can present concerns, and voting rights?  Where
> the admin have more of a service role than ruling
> role?  Yes, such meetings have the potential to drag

On a game I helped code on, the wizards took the stance that since they
paid the site fee, coded the thing, and built it, they had ultimate
control of how the game would go. Sometimes their opinions clashed wildly
with the players, due to the game having a few players who felt they
deserved more consideration than their colleagues.

We went a whole year without any formal method of recognizing players'
opinions outside of them sending an email with their gripes. A couple of
players and a couple of staff championed for the idea of once a month
meetings between players and staff. In my opinion, this was met with
derision and disdain for two reasons. 1) The wizards felt that if they
set policy that the sky was pink, the players can either live with a pink
sky or go elsewhere. 2) That was work, and required you to be in the line
of fire of some of our more problematic players.

The one player meeting I attended was a debacle. The wizards decided well
in advance what issues we would take stands on and the players had no hope
in hell of changing our minds. Was that wrong? No. If the staff truly
believe they are doing the right thing, it is their right to see that it
gets followed through. What was wrong was giving the players the delusion
that we were actually going to give their wishes any sort of consideration
and actually be willing to change our minds.

These people argued for over two hours, only to be told, "Mmmmm..No."
The players then got the idea that because we did not adopt their wishes,
we "were not listening". Some players seem to believe that "listening" =
"capitulation".

Decide on your policy issues, be firm on your decision, and do not dangle
the prospect of a player/staff meeting before your players if you're just
going to dismiss their ideas, anyway. It wastes less time and causes less
grief.

As to the "This MU* is not a democracy." issue you seem to want to rip
open like a festering wound, I'll just say this.

Players do not pay the admin any money. They don't even always verbally
thank them for the work.

Players feel the game should have nifty-cool code, but many of them don't
know how to code, themselves, so can't really help.

Players want to play on a free MU*, yet hosting the MU* isn't always
free anymore.

In short, players expect an awful lot from admin, and don't want to have
to give very much back in return. And then want to spit on the admin if
they don't get their way. Bravo the few players who respect their admin
and appreciate their efforts, but ask Rhonda how frequent those kinds of
players are. She knows as well, if not better than I do, the problems
of selfish, petty players.

It is a myth to think admin need players. They need players like they need
holes in their heads. They would _like_ some players, but I can assure you
there are better time and money sinkholes than being a containment system
for social misfits and delusional people with an unnatural distaste for
current human society and natural laws of physics. It is those who view
MU*ing as a delightful and entertaining pasttime that make running a game
worthwhile. Not the ones arguing they have a God-given right to a gold
dragon and they will harass you `til the day they die and demand the author
to force your game to give them one. These last types are the misfits I
speak of, not the average MUDder.

It is getting trivial to create a MU*, thanks to the diligent and thorough
coding done by their server maintainers. If you think it is so easy to
run a utopian MU*, I respectfully request you try it. You're going to need
a lot of intestinal fortitude, or the near saintliness and careful
administration of those who run FiranMUX.

Trust me. I felt just as you did. It took several hard knocks on a few
long-established MU*s to teach me true common sense about it all. You'll
learn in time, too. Best of luck in finding or creating a truly utopian
MU*. Let us all know about it so we can come check it out. Seriously. No
sarcasm intended.
--<cut>--

--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                               Other: coder at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/        Keys etc: finger claw at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev