Empire Discussion Thread
-
@Ominous I think there’s two different meanings of the word ‘power’ at play here.
There is, of course, the authority to do something. Pyre can ban you or me or anyone from this forum (or well, collective staff can, whoever actually controls the keys to the kingdom). My boss can fire me tomorrow. Definitely all power.
But if Pyre bans me right now, she really has no power over me other than that. No influence over my life. If my boss fires me right now for not doing the work I should be doing and instead replying here, I won’t be able to buy a number of things I want to buy, and probably pay bills, and I will probably be very unhappy.
Even beyond that, my boss has a lot of influence over my life in general. He has power over me.
This is more like a peer-to-peer interaction. Your friend could stop hanging out with you tomorrow, and effectively, there was some amount of ‘power’ there in that they chose a thing and banned you from their presence, but that wasn’t them exerting power over you versus choosing who they want in their life.
-
Staff on games, and mods on forums, have power over the space they’re running. They have power to make the space as they want, and let who they want in and kick out who they don’t. They do control whether a person can interact with their specific space.
But this is different from having power over people.
-
@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:
My assumption (perhaps false!) is that when opening a game one wants to develop a large and diverse base of players. So for me, banning people who don’t necessarily need to be is kind of a negative thing, because it is then a player (and perhaps their friends) that I don’t have.
I fully believe that you can ban people who are more trouble than they are worth (cue Prue Leith’s “Not worth the calories”), and still maintain a large and diverse base of players. While there aren’t a ridiculous number of people in this hobby, there are plenty to have a nice, large, healthy database while removing the people who make staffing not fun.
@bear_necessities said in Empire Discussion Thread:
@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:
one clearly has power over the other
No they don’t. Let’s not be super ridiculous here. That’d be like saying Pyre has power over us because they are mods of the forum
Anyone in a position of power (and staffing a game, or a forum, is that) has some measure of power over those who partake of whatever gives them that power. Can a player always just quit to take themselves out of the staffer’s power? Absolutely. But while they are on that game, the staffer has some power over them. This is just an integral part of positions of power.
Formerly known as Seraphim73 (he/him)
-
@Roadspike said in Empire Discussion Thread:
Anyone in a position of power (and staffing a game, or a forum, is that) has some measure of power over those who partake of whatever gives them that power.
I think you are wrong, and it’s going to be an ‘agree to disagree’ thing here for me. An admin or staffer may have authority over the game, but they do not have power over a person playing it.
-
What would qualify as power over a person? Or is it just different interpretations on what power over a space and power over a player is?
I would think that banning a player they do not want on their game is power over a player in their space since they are removing the player from the game against their will.
Enforcing ICA = ICC would be power over the player too because even if the player disagrees with the judgement, admin is the judge and their safe is final. This could even result in the player losing their character against their will.
-
@KDraygo I’m probably being a little pedantic on the word usage here, because to me it just sounds like you have the authority to control someone. IMO the ability to decide you can’t play here is not the ability to control someone, it’s just making rules for their space.
Plus I mean to be honest saying a game admin has power over the players inevitably puts the game runner in a position that not a lot of us want to be in. Fuck when I ran Gray Harbor, I hope people didn’t think I had power over them, I barely had power over my own story lol
-
@Wizz said in Empire Discussion Thread:
if someone decides to ban lots of very rude strangers, I mean. so what? this is honestly the only medium I have ever played where bans are considered this shocking “nuclear option.” they are actually pretty common on tons of other platforms, and it doesn’t prevent them from being diverse and active spaces, because it’s about creating and maintaining the game culture and they understand that people come and go regardless.
I don’t disagree with you on principle. Obviously people should act like mature adults, and staff should set whatever limits they see fit.
My point is more practical. I’ve run a LOT of games through the years, for the most part with a reputation of them being pretty chill, friendly places. Yet even on games like that - if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players. Many would be banned, others would have left because of their friends being banned, and still others would have left because I developed a reputation where one misstep (even just a misunderstanding) leads to a ban.
But again I want to stress that I’m not criticizing Ada in this specific instance because I don’t have all the facts, and even if I did - it’s still entirely their call.
-
@Roadspike said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I fully believe that you can ban people who are more trouble than they are worth (cue Prue Leith’s “Not worth the calories”), and still maintain a large and diverse base of players. While there aren’t a ridiculous number of people in this hobby, there are plenty to have a nice, large, healthy database while removing the people who make staffing not fun.
Absolutely. I don’t think anybody is disputing that.
I think that what the calories are worth for whom and for what is up for discussion though. Obviously some people might think that donut is worth the calories, others will not.
I tend to agree with Faraday here:
@Faraday said in Empire Discussion Thread:
if I had banned everyone who was the least bit rude, pushy, entitled, disrespectful, snarky, or in any other way “out of line” on a single occasion, I wouldn’t have had any players.
But everyone has the right to choose their own diet. Perhaps I will eat the donut, and Ada will limit herself to a green salad. It is individual choice!
-
I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners. It might not be a BIG game, but from what I gather, it doesn’t look like most staffers want to staff big games anyway.
-
@Yam said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners.
Oh yeah?! Name five.
-
Thanks all, I needed a good laugh.
-
@bear_necessities That’s fair to disagree on, and it may just be a question of word use.
In my opinion, when a Staffer has the power to remove someone from the game, or the power to inflict IC consequences on that player’s character, they are in a position of power over that player.
The player can remove the Staffer from that position of power over them by leaving the game, but unless they do that, they are in an asymmetric power relationship.
@Pacha Definitely every Staffer has the right to decide what they’re willing to put up with. To go back to my other point, that’s actually one of the reasons that they have power in the situation, because they’re the one who can decide that.
And I would definitely look in askance of a Staffer who had a quick trigger on what made a player more trouble than they’re worth. Of course, my own definition of a quick trigger is likely to be different than someone else’s, just like my definition of “more trouble than they’re worth.”
-
@Yam said in Empire Discussion Thread:
I know this is gonna’ be hard to believe for some folk, but you can actually have a game of relatively decent people that, even on their off days, won’t be particularly rude or pushy directly to the game runners. It might not be a BIG game, but from what I gather, it doesn’t look like most staffers want to staff big games anyway.
That’d be nice, but I have never in my life been on such a game.
Look, I’m not excusing rudeness here, but let’s be realistic. These are open public internet games with people who don’t always know each other well, and text-only chat. Text lacks tone. People don’t always word things right. Even the best players can have moments where they get frustrated or impatient.
I’ve never been intentionally rude to a staff member, but I can guarantee I’ve said things in such a way that could be taken as rude, snarky, pushy, etc. at some point. (Actually probably with @Roadspike, lol, since we’ve had some good-natured but spirited debates about FS3 implementations.
) Many players who I consider good peeps and friends have slipped up on occasion. People make mistakes.Nobody’s saying you should tolerate a player who acts egregiously, or one who’s a constant pain in the butt. It is important to have boundaries. All I’m saying is that it’s probably in your best interests as a game-runner to give people a little grace (and hopefully they’ll give it back to you on YOUR off days).
-
In my experience the amount of grace I am prepared to give others is directly proportional to the grace I receive. Yet the numbers inherent in the math of staff to player ratio renders it almost impossible for this trade to feel fair.
