FanaticusIncendi Player Admin. Platform and Q&A

[FanaticusIncendi]

If you are elected PA will you let Dan run things as he wants or will you give him a mandate to change some things? If there are going to be changes, what will they be?

If I am elected PA, I will mandate that Dan run things as they will best support the community as determined by the office and staff.

As for changes, it is hard to say what exact actions may be taken. I hope that my views have been clearly expressed thus far. Those will be the basis for my actions.

[Rusty]

Thanks for the answers FI.

I'm afraid I have a few follow-ups/clarifications, as perhaps I was insufficiently precise previously.

Standard of Proof

Of the offences listed in the Rulebook, a number cannot be proven by reference to system logs, even with the improved logging facilities NWNx4 will provide. For example, while it may be possible to provide log-based support for a charge of Twinking or Farming, it is considerably less likely that such evidence can be adduced in support of a charge of Metagaming, or even Griefing. Presumably, then, the evidence adduced will take the form of some kind of witness statement, doubtless one from each of the parties involved. Now, my question is what standard of proof would you require to be convinced that an offence has taken place, i.e. would you regard it as necessary to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has taken place, or convinced on the balance of probabilities? Secondly, should different offences carry a different burden of proof, and if so, which & what?

Individual Server Bans

The individual server bans were introduced because of the failure of the current disciplinary system to adequately deal with non-log based complaints. How will you restore DM confidence in the disciplinary system sufficient to remove the need for this policy?

Hypotheticals

I'd like to combine the two points above into a pair of hypotheticals, both of which are of the kind observed in-game with disappointing frequency. I apologise if they come across a little like examination questions, but it is this type of low-level problem that DMs most often complain to me about, and which our current system seems unable to satisfacorily resolve (assuming server bans are unsatisfactory). If you could explain what action you would take in each case, and what you would expect from the DM Team in each case, I would be grateful.

Hypothetical 1

DM Team Alpha complain that Player Beta is a constant source of annoyance. Amongst their allegations are that Player Beta regularly spams the DM Channel with demands for OOC information, criticism of DM actions, and generally inappropriate commentary. DM Team Alpha claim that Player Beta's presence has a negative impact not only on their own enjoyment, but also (directly and indirectly) on those of all the other players on the server. DM Team Alpha approach you seeking advice.

Hypothetical 2

Player Gamma's PC has an Intelligence score of 8 but regularly solves intricate logical puzzles and reads and writes without difficulty. DM Team Delta have raised the issue with Player Gamma, but they insist on an absolute right to roleplay their PC as they see fit. DM Team Delta approach you seeking advice.


Thanks!
Rusty

[Zelknolf]

[Not a question.]

[Mikayla]

Rusty:

Individual Server Bans

The individual server bans were introduced because of the failure of the current disciplinary system to adequately deal with non-log based complaints. How will you restore DM confidence in the disciplinary system sufficient to remove the need for this policy?

This is an inaccurate statement made, I believe, as an attack on me and my administration. So be it, however, as I am the actual person who gave the final "ok" allowing individual server bans, I can more accurately relate my motivation for doing so than Rusty can.

The motivation for my allowing individual server bans was much simpler than Rusty suggests - it comes down to this: I did not believe that DMs and DM teams should be forced to play with players they did not want to play with. So, my question to FI is do you think that DMs and DM teams should be forced to play with players they do not want to play with?

EDIT/Additon: Also, the idea that DMs could give Temp Bans and Server Bans to players without the PA being involved goes back to the beginning of ALFA live and though I approved of it during my term, the concept and the practice did not originate during my term, but long before. Question: FI, would you want to overturn this practice and take away the DMs ability to regulate who plays on their server?

[Rusty]

People, questions are for FI to answer.

Go start a discussion thread if you really have to comment. PM FI or the questioner if you have a piece of info for them. Otherwise, leave them for the candidate to answer. Like usual.

[FanaticusIncendi]

Rusty, thanks for your clarifications.

Standard of Proof

Based on your clarification, I see that I only partially answered your question. Let's see if I can answer it more completely here.

As I had said before, I will not be a slave to the logs. That said, logs are the surest proof that we have. However, the ability to have logs in some situations does not preclude the validity of other forms of evidence, specifically witness accounts.

Obviously logs are going to provide more 'beyond a reasonable doubt' proof in many cases, while the word of a DM and a player or two may provide far less substantial 'proof'.

When making a determination, I feel that it is my duty to keep the needs of the community in mind first and the needs of the individual second. We are not a society where finding someone guilty of a crime can be ruinous to their lives, with the result that we need to be absolutely positive that they have committed a crime, or infraction.

We are a gaming community that wants to have as enjoyable a time together as we can, and if someone breaks our rules, punishing them carries no greater stigma than (at worst) an inability to play in this community.

As such, I am less interested in ensuring that we prove wrongdoing absolutely and more interested in making sure that the spirit of the community remains intact and that everyone is enjoying themselves

Does this mean that, from time to time, an individual here and there may end up being treated unfairly? Quite possibly. But this must be balanced with the unfair treatment of those who must constantly deal with a negative situation.

The greatest example of this that I can think of is the one of Khondar and Hazelthorne. While to many they were ultimately found to not be breaking any 'rules' (or at least it was VERY difficult for the community to agree that they were), the whole situation caused headaches for MANY people, across several servers.

Simply removing them might not have been fair to those two individuals, but it ultimately served the greater community by removing two individuals who were causing a large number of people issues with their breaking of at least the spirit of the rules, if not the letter.

So we find that there may be cases where it is hard to show that rules are being broken, yet action must be taken. I agree that this can happen and tying our hands with 'litigation' in a gaming community is certainly not my idea of a good time.

Ultimately, we must see to the needs of the community while acting in as balanced and fair a manner as we can towards the individuals in the community.

As for standard of proof, I feel that in order for me to act within my domain, I will require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for almost all offenses, if a strike or ban is warranted and/or sought. The burden of proof will be on the accusing party. Warnings will not necessarily require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What form the proof takes is a far broader question.

Individual Server Bans

Since this was established to deal with a perceived (I will stand outside of any debates as to whether the perception is justified or not) inadequacy in non-log based complaints, I can only repeat that I will not adhere strictly to logs as a form of evidence. That there are many other forms of evidence.

I will NOT impose a strike on someone simply because DM Joe says Player Sue is cheating.

DM Joe: "Player Sue is cheating."
Player Sue: "No, I'm not."
PA Me: "What do you have that shows us she is cheating, DM Joe?"
DM Joe: "I say it!"
PA Me: "Whatever, next!"

Outside of logs, there are the following: Screenshots, while not as powerful a tool as the logs, can be given. Witness testimony is another one. Text logging of a session (which ANYONE can do) with time stamps. I'm sure there are more that I cannot think of off hand. Some forms of proof are more easily subject to alteration and this will be taken into account, as will the source of the proof.

Hypotheticals

Hypothetical 1

Start with direct DM to player counseling. Explain that they are on the verge of breaking rules 2.1 (Metagaming) and 2.3 (Griefing). Take notes of each instance. If a DM says the player was doing something inappropriate and I ask for examples and the response is, "Just... all the time!" then I feel less inclined to do something about it.

If I ask and the DMs are able to provide me with notes (not even that detailed):

On Feb 6th During DM Joe's Wednesday plot, Player Sue spammed the DM channel with "This is dumb."

On Feb 7th during DM Sam's ad hoc campaign, Player Sue complained that the Sphinx's riddle was too hard and demanded clues.

Etc.

I feel that in a case like this, the player should be warned by the DM team at least once, possibly twice for their behavior. Perhaps an ADM first, followed by the HDM after, though it is certainly within the right of the DM team to move all such handling of these issues directly to the HDM.

If, after the HDM has warned the player, the behavior pattern continues, bring it to the PAs attention, where all of the facts will be taken into consideration and a decision will be made. Assuming that the situation is as described in your scenario, and that the DM team has their ducks in a row (ie, more than just "That guy's obnoxious, we hate him", but rather "this is what he or she does, here are the examples we can recall, this is the day HDM PlotMaster counseled the player"), then I would most likely rule that the player receive a strike for the offenses of 2.1 Metagaming (attempting to derive IC information from an OCC source), 2.3 Griefing (repeatedly targeting DMs with inappropriate chatter on OOC channels, negatively impacting their enjoyment of the game), and now 2.7 Failure to Comply (ignoring a DMs request to stop the behavior).

Hypothetical 2

This situation falls first under the purview of the DMA. A DM team has the right to make in game rulings. If DMs notice that a PC is incorrectly playing their stats, they apply IC consequences first (PC with an 8 strength RPing that they pick up a wagon on their backs might be hit for a few HP of damage, told they sprained their back and have their Dex temporarily lowered for the rest of the session).

Second, DMs should counsel the player, giving them a chance to correct their RP and informing them of the possible consequences.

Our hypothetical assumes those are done (in this case, the first measure does not apply... I've hurt my brain on occasion, but hard to manifest that in our game engine)

Finally, DMs will consider permanent restructuring of stats.

I would like to see the DM team discuss it amongst themselves first, then go to the DMA for approval. Once approval is gotten from the DMA, then the player should be taken aside and given the first choice of how to restructure the stats (voluntary). If the player refuses to cooperate, the DM team can impose restructuring of stats according to the methods determined by the HDM or DMA (involuntary). If the player logs off before restructuring can be done, then they are in danger of violating rule 2.7 Failure to Comply.

Now the player has the option of disputing the call and bring it before the PA.

NOW, it comes to me. The player accuses the DM team (and the DMA) of being unfair and possibly griefing. The burden of proof is on the accusing party, in this case the player. The player must prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the entire DM team and the DMA are acting in a manner that is unfair, unbalanced, and aimed at creating a negative experience for the player (as opposed to aligning the player with the standards and rules of ALFA).

If the charges are unfounded, and the player refused to allow either voluntary or involuntary restructuring, the DM team has the right to pursue 'charges' against the player for 2.7 Failure to Comply.

Also, at this point, the restructuring of stats will be according to the methods determined by the DMA (involuntary).


DMs are members of ALFA to and they are as entitled to enjoyment of the game as anyone else.

[FanaticusIncendi]

For Mikayla:

So, my question to FI is do you think that DMs and DM teams should be forced to play with players they do not want to play with?

No member of ALFA will be forced to play with another member of ALFA. This includes 'breaking-out' mid plot.

'Forcing yourself' into a group that has made it clear, OOC, that they do not want you to play with them is grounds for strike under 'Griefing'.

FI, would you want to overturn this practice and take away the DMs ability to regulate who plays on their server?

This is a tougher question. DMs cannot be forced to DM for a player. However, saying that DMs cannot be forced to DM for a player is not the same as removing a players right to come onto a server. A player may have IC reasons to associate with other PCs on the server, outside of DMed plots and sessions.

It is my feeling that DM teams should reserve the right to make temporary bans in order to remove an offending player 'in-the-moment' and allow 'cool-off' time, or during an open investigation if the circumstances warrant.

Not allowing a player back onto a server after an investigation is closed seems unnecessary to me. Either they are found innocent of any wrongdoing and should not be punished (though DMs still reserve the right to not actually involve the player in plots if they so feel) or they have received their strike and so should not merit further punishment.

If DMs are worried that the player will revert to former behavior after receiving a strike, it is likely that the player will go on to receive a second strike if they do so. If they think the player will continue after that, well, the third strike means no one has to worry about it ever again.

However, I do not feel it is my place to remove the HDMs right to ban individuals from servers. If elected into the position of PA, I will likely talk to the DMA about it and see what he thinks and then perhaps try to find some common ground.

[HATEFACE]

For Mikayla:

So, my question to FI is do you think that DMs and DM teams should be forced to play with players they do not want to play with?

No member of ALFA will be forced to play with another member of ALFA. This includes 'breaking-out' mid plot.

'Forcing yourself' into a group that has made it clear, OOC, that they do not want you to play with them is grounds for strike under 'Griefing'.

Is it your intention to alienate players or will the OOC need to be justified? Like, say Burt is a god damn jerkface. . . Well, let's not say he is, cause everyone knows he is, but let's say I didn't want to play with him because of OOC feelings does this mean that I don't have too cause he makes me uncomfortable with his Burtimus ways.

[Mikayla]

FI:

FI, would you want to overturn this practice and take away the DMs ability to regulate who plays on their server?

This is a tougher question. DMs cannot be forced to DM for a player. However, saying that DMs cannot be forced to DM for a player is not the same as removing a players right to come onto a server. A player may have IC reasons to associate with other PCs on the server, outside of DMed plots and sessions.

FI, your distinction here is a valid one, absolutely. But let me put a real life spin on it for a hypothetical: a group of players, all of whom play a specific type of player (be it drow, evil, good, dwarf, whatever) decide that for IC reasons they would like to venture on to a server that is not their usual 'home' server, but when they notify said server's DM team of their intention, the DM team makes it clear in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome on the server at all as they are concerned about their indigenous players. What then would you do in that situation? What do you think the PA could do? Should do?

And yes, this is a real-life example from ALFA's not too distant past; identites left out to prevent fires.

[FanaticusIncendi]

Is it your intention to alienate players or will the OOC need to be justified?

It is the second of course.

However, a few things to address here.

One, it is not for me to 'justify' your OOC reason. What may seem like a small thing to me ("Oh, come on, you're being unreasonable!") may be a HUGE thing to you ("I'm sorry but he has refused to stop making 'your mom' jokes after I repeatedly told him my mom is in an unfortunate circumstance").

Reasons are reasons. It should be more than a simple, "I just don't wanna."

Second, your question somewhat implies that you feel arbitrary exclusion will be rampant. Again, perhaps I am just a bit more optimistic than you. I do not think people will be 'griefed' by exclusion. I've yet to see anyone excluded 'just because'.

Three: reasonable exclusion can change depending on the situation. If two players don't like you, and you try to join a situation where it is JUST their PCs, then you are in the wrong.

If Joe doesn't like you and you are joining a group of ten players that Joe is a part of, the DM has every right to include you in the plot. Joe then has a choice of whether to continue play with the group or not. He is not being forced to play with you.

Now if the DM railroads Joe by putting inescapable spiked pit traps behind the party and saying Joe MUST go on with the group, he is forcing Joe to play with you and the DM is in the wrong.

It is not necessarily the player that someone takes issue with who must be excluded from a group. Sometimes it will be the player who takes issue with him or her, especially when you take into account how others feel about their reasons.

[FanaticusIncendi]

...a group of players, all of whom play a specific type of player (be it drow, evil, good, dwarf, whatever) decide that for IC reasons they would like to venture on to a server that is not their usual 'home' server, but when they notify said server's DM team of their intention, the DM team makes it clear in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome on the server at all as they are concerned about their indigenous players. What then would you do in that situation? What do you think the PA could do? Should do?

I do not think that even the allowance or temporary or even permanent server bans allows for the exclusion of a player on a server when that player has done nothing wrong.

HDMs are the Stewards of ALFA's servers, not the Masters of them. While they do (and should) have broad authority when dealing with what is alright for their server and what isn't alright for their server, their authority is only granted on the basis that they provide the infrastructure necessary to allow the community access to the server.

Section 5 of the Charter states simply:

Contributors of in-game content to ALFA which is accepted for use may not later attempt to deny ALFA the use of said content—either in whole or in part.

Builders, DMs, scriptors, and artists who contribute content to ALFA, whether it is the module, granted temporary use of a physical server (in so far as ALFA can either use it, or ALFA can't), haks, etc have all agreed that they will not later deny ALFA that content, in whole or in part.

While I am certain that I do not have every detail of information concerning the situation, the way it is presented above, the DM team attempted (and succeeded) at just that. This would seem to be a violation of the Charter, regardless of their concern.

While I can certainly understand the hesitation of a DM team to allow a large group of powerful characters entry to the server when they feel that there is a very real possibility that their relatively lower powered characters may suffer for it, the team had several other options available to them that would not have violated the charter. These options could be used individually or in conjuntion with others:

Allow the group of players on, but ignore them
Explain to them that there is no reason for the group to antagonize the PCs directly when there are plenty of NPC populated locations and that attempting to do so will be looked upon as griefing (and failure to comply)
Allow the groups regular DM temporary access to the server to run whatever plots are necessary for the temporary cross server event
DM them
Ask them nicely not to come
The DMs actually have methods at their disposal to discourage such a group from coming without outright denying access to the server; use those methods
any number of other things; we're RPers, aren't we supposed to be creative?

However, simply denying access to the server is not right, and I would fight for that player group to have access and ensure that there was no retribution against them once they gained access.

Again, this all assumes the situation was just as described above.

If the group stated they were coming with the intention of murdering all the other PCs on the server, then I would encourage the HDM to enact a temporary server ban (on the grounds that there is/will be griefing) until everything is sorted out.

The group could not mandate that the DM Team make special allowances expressly for the group to play on the server (such as building areas specific to the characters or bypassing server portal access). To do so would be presumptuous

[Mikayla]

Interesting answer FI - I wish you'd been PA when it happened - as it was, I was a part of the group denied entry onto a server and I felt that I should not protest the situation as my being Admin would constitute a conflict of interest, so I and the others in the group let it go. That said, I find your answer interesting as I said - but though your answer would have been advantageous to me, do you really mean to say that if all the DMs on a servers DM Team expressly do not want a certain player or players on their server, that you would try to force them to allow said player or players on the server? And assume the player/players in question have done nothing wrong at this point, and while CvC is always possible, the group in question has expressly stated their intent is NOT to slay all the other PCs on the serveer - but basically, its a situation where the incoming group is not a good fit for the server, so the server team says "no". Now, while I like your answer, do you think its even within the sphere of the PA to get involved? Or is this a DMA issue? A multiple Admin issue?

And note, at this point, I am not arguing to change things - the situation is long since passed and could not be changed even if we wanted to - its an academic question that goes to the heart of the roles of the two Admin, to the "power" of the DMs, and the "rights" of the players, such as those things are. Thanks for your patience and your answers.

[HATEFACE]

Is it your intention to alienate players or will the OOC need to be justified?

It is the second of course.

However, a few things to address here.

One, it is not for me to 'justify' your OOC reason. What may seem like a small thing to me ("Oh, come on, you're being unreasonable!") may be a HUGE thing to you ("I'm sorry but he has refused to stop making 'your mom' jokes after I repeatedly told him my mom is in an unfortunate circumstance").

Reasons are reasons. It should be more than a simple, "I just don't wanna."

Second, your question somewhat implies that you feel arbitrary exclusion will be rampant. Again, perhaps I am just a bit more optimistic than you. I do not think people will be 'griefed' by exclusion. I've yet to see anyone excluded 'just because'.

Thats all the questions I have, thanks for answering them.
I am a bit of a pessimist. Feel free to read my books entitled, "ALFA's Greatest Blunders." "ALFA's Biggest Mistakes." "Just Who Is This FanaticusIncendi Person Anyway." and "Well That About Wraps It Up For ALFA."

[FanaticusIncendi]

do you really mean to say that if all the DMs on a servers DM Team expressly do not want a certain player or players on their server, that you would try to force them to allow said player or players on the server?

It's not their server, it's ALFA's server. It should not be a question of 'forcing'. If there is no good reason not to allow a player or group of players onto a server, then they should not make such a restriction.

If they feel that they have a good reason, then such should be brought up to the DMA on their end. DMA will work with PA who will work with the players to determine the validity of stated reasons. Best case scenario, fears allayed and players are allowed onto an ALFA server as they should be.

I will not say that I will charge right in and demand that players be let onto a server, without a full understanding of the reasons. I will say that I will act as an advocate on behalf of the player group in determining what the issue is and fixing it, whatever form that may take.

do you think its even within the sphere of the PA to get involved? Or is this a DMA issue? A multiple Admin issue?

Ultimately, I feel this is an issue that falls in the realm of multiple Admin. I could be wrong. If that is the case, I will state my feelings, DMA will state his feelings, the Lead will determine the exact domains it falls under and the situation will be addressed accordingly.

However, I would hope the situation could be remedied before it got to such a point, amiably and to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

[Mikayla]

Good answers FI, even I am not sure I agree 100% I generally like the response and appreciate its thoughtfulness. Thanks for answering. At this point, I do not think I have any other questions for you. Good luck.