MU Peeves Thread
-
@Yam said in MU Peeves Thread:
There’s also the whole concept of reputation in our very tiny community. If you have a reputation of being someone difficult to deal with
That is so.
Nevertheless, no.
I do not believe that every time, (or almost every time, or even a majority of the time) a player finds staff chronically unresponsive it’s because the staffer is justifiably annoyed with the player, or the player has a bad reputation.
It’s pretty demoralising and anxiety-provoking to tell people that unresponsive staff probably dislike them personally for probably good reasons. And it doesn’t go well with being compassionate, patient, and willing to extend trust to staff.
Seems pretty off when paired with concern over game-runners feeling discouraged because somebody admits that players can often get a pretty good idea of how active they are and where.
What @xCroaker said just exactly except I suck at video games and don’t play them.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:
I do not believe that every time, (or almost every time, or even a majority of the time) a player finds staff chronically unresponsive it’s because the staffer is justifiably annoyed with the player, or the player has a bad reputation.
I think our hobby is getting small enough that it’s getting more and more common.
-
@MisterBoring said in MU Peeves Thread:
@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:
I do not believe that every time, (or almost every time, or even a majority of the time) a player finds staff chronically unresponsive it’s because the staffer is justifiably annoyed with the player, or the player has a bad reputation.
I think our hobby is getting small enough that it’s getting more and more common.
Then people in authority need to grow up and communicate, or fuck off.
-
@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:
Then people in authority need to grow up and communicate, or fuck off.
Let me fix that for you:
Then people
in authorityneed to grow up and communicate, or fuck off.I’ve seen plenty of examples of people who have developed a bad reputation in our hobby that have been told they have a bad reputation, with receipts, and they just dismiss any argument in that regard. Sure, there are plenty of staffers who are non-confrontational, so they just ignore the people that have a bad rep, which is a problem in its own right, but largely it feels, to me at least, that the people with the bad reputation are just as guilty of bad communication skills as the staff.
I guess after watching other staffers on other games attempt to communicate and get shut down, staff on the games these people are currently on give up on attempting to talk it out. Communication is a two way street, and what it seems like we have is problem staffers who aren’t willing to talk it out, and problem players who aren’t willing to accept constructive feedback.
-
@MisterBoring In general? I absolutely agree.
@MisterBoring said in MU Peeves Thread:
Sure, there are plenty of staffers who are non-confrontational, so they just ignore the people that have a bad rep, which is a problem in its own right
But this is the point we’re talking about.
If staff have a problem with me or concerns about my reputation, and their reaction is to do nothing rather than pass me on to someone else or get rid of me entirely, just… ignore me? That’s 100% a them issue. If staff don’t want me there, they need to say so. There’s nothing to “talk out”; there’s a message that needs to be communicated that isn’t. It’s that simple.
-
All of this hinges on whether the person actually is guilty of poor behaviour or not.
Without that crucial context, all this reads as a bunch of people vagueposting past each other and probably not even imagining the same people as they do so.
乁( ⁰͡ Ĺ̯ ⁰͡ ) ㄏ
-
@Juniper said in MU Peeves Thread:
Without that crucial context, all this reads as a bunch of people vagueposting past each other and probably not even imagining the same people as they do so.
I don’t think we’re actually talking about specific cases. Just the general “Staff that ignore problem players is bad” + “Players that refuse to believe they’re an issue when they really are is bad” concepts.
Proud Member of the Pro-Mummy Alliance
-
@MisterBoring Don’t forget the age-old “staff being held to a higher standard of conduct” argument, too. We’ll do all the classics while we’re here; we’re about due.
-
@MisterBoring it’s always about specific incidents. People just don’t own up to them because they don’t want the scrutiny - for a variety of reasons, I’m sure.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@hellfrog said in MU Peeves Thread:
@MisterBoring it’s always about specific incidents. People just don’t own up to them because they don’t want the scrutiny - for a variety of reasons, I’m sure.
The conversation started about a specific incident, sure. But we do veer into talking about vague generalities pretty quick around here. Informed by years of actual situations, sure, but that’s literally the same as every other conversation.
-
@hellfrog said in MU Peeves Thread:
@MisterBoring it’s always about specific incidents. People just don’t own up to them because they don’t want the scrutiny - for a variety of reasons, I’m sure.
All patterns are made up of specific incidents, but we can still talk about patterns.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:
@hellfrog said in MU Peeves Thread:
@MisterBoring it’s always about specific incidents. People just don’t own up to them because they don’t want the scrutiny - for a variety of reasons, I’m sure.
All patterns are made up of specific incidents, but we can still talk about patterns.
I’m just a pile of patterns and anticipatory statistics in a waistcoat pretending to be a human.
