|
Post by Azerbanjani on Mar 18, 2023 12:16:11 GMT -5
Your entire post didn't even look at the point I made.
It doesn't matter if they should or should not play. The fact they outright ignored a player suggestion and chose the easiest topics, that they likely aren't going to completely accept, shows they aren't taking the suggestions seriously.
If you poll an audience on what to do and a good chunk of them suggests you do something (60% or so, numbers come from my ass), and you decide to 'compile suggestions from the audience' you are acting like a dick bag by ignoring something a good chunk of people suggested.
It even looks better for staff to say they are debating not playing characters, then back peddling into 'we just won't play leader pcs (Even tho we weren't really supposed to before teehee').
"There's something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks that a game can be run by people who are literally not allowed to play it" I mean, most games probably work just fine. Armageddon doesn't. That still isn't the point of what I said.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,337
|
Post by mehtastic on Mar 18, 2023 12:47:44 GMT -5
The thing is it's not even a question with a binary answer (should staff play? yes/no).
It's a question of: does the level of access staff have in the game when they're playing a mortal character cause problems? And as Azerbanjani correctly pointed out, staff refusing to even ask this question of themselves is a sign of their attitude towards the question itself. They see the question as a threat to their position. Not answering the question allows staff to keep the status quo of consistent cheating, and the producers likely see cheating as an acceptable consequence of keeping the staff team as full as possible.
They could've discussed whether staff should take sabbaticals if they want to play a mortal character, and then rejoin staff after they're done. They could've talked about code and rule changes to prevent staff from looking at certain requests or monitoring certain characters while playing a mortal character. They could have talked about auditing what info staff look at while playing mortal characters. But nah, they just went with discussing the topic of "no dual logging" even though this is already a rule, and ignoring the big question.
The whole point is the intellectual dishonesty of the staff continues unabated.
|
|
ask
Clueless newb
Posts: 113
|
Post by ask on Mar 18, 2023 13:06:39 GMT -5
The thing is it's not even a question with a binary answer (should staff play? yes/no). It's a question of: does the level of access staff have in the game when they're playing a mortal character cause problems? And as Azerbanjani correctly pointed out, staff refusing to even ask this question of themselves is a sign of their attitude towards the question itself. They see the question as a threat to their position. Not answering the question allows staff to keep the status quo of consistent cheating, and the producers likely see cheating as an acceptable consequence of keeping the staff team as full as possible. They could've discussed whether staff should take sabbaticals if they want to play a mortal character, and then rejoin staff after they're done. They could've talked about code and rule changes to prevent staff from looking at certain requests or monitoring certain characters while playing a mortal character. They could have talked about auditing what info staff look at while playing mortal characters. But nah, they just went with discussing the topic of "no dual logging" even though this is already a rule, and ignoring the big question. The whole point is the intellectual dishonesty of the staff continues unabated. Multiple years of staff PCs being more than regular PCs ever could hope to be proves staff are incapable of playing characters fairly. That's all there is to it. If staff are allowed to play PCs, it should be only one or two of them, to ensure the gameworld experience is smooth, and they should be HIGHLY MONITORED by other staff... but that would also require other staff to actually have decent judgment, so. Yeah. I'd nix the whole prospect. The fact that staff won't even consider it, well... No wonder Rika, no wonder Situn, no wonder Kitanius, no wonder Brownie, no wonder Silteyes, no wonder seidhr's weirdo sorcerer Jah or Rah or whatever, no wonder the Plainsman, all existed and were more powerful than any PC in a similar position could have ever hoped to be. And no wonder they don't want to let go of that.
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Mar 18, 2023 15:04:10 GMT -5
the whole thing is a joke. people making rules for staff to follow when they don't even follow rules in the first place?
you can make whatever rules, doctrine, systems, you want. at the end of the day you have no authority to enforce it, much less even see if the rules are being broken.
the forest is being missed for the trees. armageddon is a coded version of adult-pretend. if you need a thousand rules to try to make it fair and fun, you're playing with the wrong people.
|
|
|
Post by Prime Minister Sinister on Mar 18, 2023 16:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
baobob
Clueless newb
Posts: 100
|
Post by baobob on Mar 18, 2023 17:07:39 GMT -5
I think the original request from a player was: "It is not right for staff to be creeping on players in DMs. It is not right for them to be sending unwanted dick pics. Or promises of sponsored roles in exchange for IG ERP. It's gross. Plz stahp." So, their solution to that paraphrased request is above.
|
|
|
Post by Prime Minister Sinister on Mar 18, 2023 17:19:05 GMT -5
I think the original request from a player was: "It is not right for staff to be creeping on players in DMs. It is not right for them to be sending unwanted dick pics. Or promises of sponsored roles in exchange for IG ERP. It's gross. Plz stahp." So, their solution to that paraphrased request is above. that makes more sense thanks for the context
|
|