punished ppurg
GDB Superstar
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Posts: 1,098 
|
Post by punished ppurg on Aug 30, 2019 20:53:04 GMT -5
In a recurring trend, since the GDB is too toxic to talk of anything of substance... We're going to have a decent discussion here on the Shadowboards.
This evening, isFriday posted a suggestion on the GDB to the tune of enacting "term limits" on sponsored roles. That is to say, when applying for a sponsored role, the player knows that they have a limited window of time (1.5 IRL years) to make plot moves and progress their story; and whatever stories they come across, or everyone's story. This cuts down on stagnation, keeps the leadership roles circulating, makes areas fresh with new sponsored takes and roles, etc. The benefits may be listed.
Here's the thread in its entirey.
That is, in less than two hours, this perfectly valid suggestion was moved to Moderation. Why?
"Respectful of one another." Now, that's just intellectually dishonest coming from Nessalin. Friday was being perfectly respectful of the points of the others participating in the thread, no matter how illogical, reaching, or stupid they happened to be. Why is his suggestion now pushed into the dustbin: on account of the hoard of namecalling and undermining he received for posting it?
Why are the staff utilizing the illogic and small-brained kneejerk misinterpretations by the vocal idiots of the GDB to avoid earnestly engaging this suggestion? One of the reasons why the shadowboard exists in the first place you know.
What are your thoughts on term limits? Good? Bad? I think it would be a welcome addition to the game, and here's why.
Sponsored roles are all too often left to their own devices to flop around and accomplish, essentially, nothing. We know them, we see them: it's easy to tell when they're not cut out to be playing in that situation. Unfortunately, this stagnation continues until they die or they get in an argument with staff and are force-stored. What if sponsored roles had their goals determined "in advance?" What if a narrative arc was drafted up, with cooperation between the player and their storyteller, that could be played to completion over the liberal time period of a year and a half? There's serious merit to these things; and having a game plan in advance could lead to real development and true game-changing interactions over that sponsored character's played lifetime. It would be way better than the current system of joining in with all these wild ideas, being told "No!" repeatedly, and growing jaded. I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by shakes on Aug 30, 2019 21:03:43 GMT -5
Do you feel like someone got caustic simply as a means to shut down the thread?
While I'm against term limits for leadership on an arbitrary basis, staff should do a lot better job of monitoring when a leader is either burned out or simply doesn't have time to play. I've been in clans or groups many a time where the actual leader logs in maybe 30 minutes every week tops. Often simply to rush off to the nearest private space to mudsex with a pre-arranged partner.
It's not so bad if you have a leader who says, "Hey, go do what you want to." But often these types of leaders are extremely management-heavy and won't hardly let you so much as TALK to anyone outside your clan, or start any plots, etc.
Some of my problems with leadership are just me ... I don't bend easily to the whims of others. They'd better freakin' keep me interested in THEIR schemes or I'm going to make my own. And I am a firm advocate of Lex Talionis.
But that there are bad leaders who stifle the game is a real thing.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Aug 30, 2019 21:24:14 GMT -5
dont support term limits but do support auto role storage when ur leader char is either inactive for a certain amt of time or is not doing plots/sending in proof of plot pushing whether if its due to being lazy or getting hung up on chemo
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Jeshin on Aug 30, 2019 22:02:07 GMT -5
I'm not really a big fan on term limits either, but I also have a policy against deleting entire threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by shakes on Aug 30, 2019 22:05:20 GMT -5
When you have a good leader who empowers the troops to go do their own thing ... it doesn't matter one bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 22:59:46 GMT -5
I think it was more tiktak that stopped being civil, then Isfriday. But yeah. Unless something got deleted that we cant see, it seems pretty early to pop the thread.
I have to say, teacup made me shudder. I mean like high school flash backs.
I have to admit Isfriday has something there. The unfortunate truth is that with sponsored roles nobility/merchant/templar, longevity is power. Which encourages passive ostracism/outwaiting/outboring your opponents, instead of active actions to destroy your opponents. I dont think term limits is the answer to this problem though. Lateral promotion was ment to improve on that.
|
|
seuly
Clueless newb
Posts: 103
|
Post by seuly on Aug 31, 2019 0:26:40 GMT -5
Leadership roles are ridiculously hard enough, time limits are just dumb.
I think the thread was closed more because IsFriday took it to Discord where a pack of wild Staffers stepped in. Having read this though it does look like his suggestion stems from some issue with or against present long-lived leaders ie Templars/Nobles.
|
|
|
|
Post by gringoose on Aug 31, 2019 1:40:05 GMT -5
I only know of three sponsored roles that are currently in game and have been for 1.5 years or more. One of them, I don't know what he does and the other two are the two most powerful PCs in the game. I wouldn't say those two lack plots, they are heavily involved and seem to be constantly driving plots for better or worse. I'm guessing staff apped two new Templars to knock them down but that seems to not be panning out?
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Aug 31, 2019 2:47:51 GMT -5
Leadership roles are ridiculously hard enough, time limits are just dumb. I think the thread was closed more because IsFriday took it to Discord where a pack of wild Staffers stepped in. Having read this though it does look like his suggestion stems from some issue with or against present long-lived leaders ie Templars/Nobles. post what u saw on the discord |
|
punished ppurg
GDB Superstar
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by punished ppurg on Aug 31, 2019 3:00:14 GMT -5
Having read this though it does look like his suggestion stems from some issue with or against present long-lived leaders ie Templars/Nobles. Two questions for you. First: even if Friday got the bad touch by some long lived sponsored role, does that invalidate his suggestion?
Second: seeing as I don't have any earthly idea who or what is the present long-lived leader Templar or Noble in the game right now, if I were to make the same suggestion (I'm in favor of this by the way) does that make me a better suggestion-maker than Friday? In other words, is true ignorance of the game world really the right perspective to have in making suggestions about modifying the game world?
Or are people throwing out nonsense from both sides of their mouth? Damned if you do know, damned if you don't know: we're going to shoot down the suggestion either which way. (bonus third question)
|
|
sneazy
Clueless newb
Posts: 115
|
Post by sneazy on Aug 31, 2019 4:23:46 GMT -5
Term limits don't make sense to me. Neither do sponsored roles.
Promote from within - that way you don't have a void when someone disappears from play or a sponsored role gets killed.
Determine leaders by conflict - absent players would just be demoted or kicked out if they won't fight for their position.
Byn: leadership could be determined by a sparring contest. Maybe some other requirements - no HG, have done your first year, etc.
Templars: allow initiates to take up a beginners robe and rise in the ranks (have to be an imm promoting them).
The houses: Allow adoptions into the family like the Romans of old. Whoever runs that house (imm) could adopt an interested player into the role and let them fight up the ranks.
These suggestions seem too obvious to be new though.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Aug 31, 2019 5:14:53 GMT -5
Term limits don't make sense to me. Neither do sponsored roles. the 1st isnt a thing but the 2nd is so Promote from within - that way you don't have a void when someone disappears from play or a sponsored role gets killed. already a thing but relies on pcs that can handle it rp and skillwise which isnt always a thing Determine leaders by conflict - absent players would just be demoted or kicked out if they won't fight for their position. promoted this in my last post Byn: leadership could be determined by a sparring contest. Maybe some other requirements - no HG, have done your first year, etc. they already do this unless thats changed Templars: allow initiates to take up a beginners robe and rise in the ranks (have to be an imm promoting them). only if they are nobles already The houses: Allow adoptions into the family like the Romans of old. Whoever runs that house (imm) could adopt an interested player into the role and let them fight up the ranks. thatd be cool These suggestions seem too obvious to be new though. thats because they arent and mostly have been already done |
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,699
|
Post by mehtastic on Aug 31, 2019 7:23:20 GMT -5
I didn't see any toxicity in what you were able to screenshot, so either:
- the toxicity occurred between the last post you were able to capture and Nessalin's post, and then Nessalin of all people noticed the moderation report and decided to act on it, as opposed to any of the far more active Admins
- a producer decided to censor a subject needlessly and absorb the blow from the community for it, as opposed to letting an Admin take the hit
Regarding the subject at hand, I don't know if term limits are the right approach but there is a way MUSHes handle player stagnation. It's called a roster system. I won't explain the nitty-gritty details of how that works but basically, characters that go inactive go up on the roster for another player to take. The new player gets the details on all of the character's connections up to that point and does the best they can to play that character. I don't think that's a viable solution for Armageddon or any RPI though.
I'm in favor of doing something with leadership characters, sponsored or otherwise, who aren't active though. I'm extremely wary of allowing staff to determine what constitutes inactivity, though, considering the vary wide variance in activity within the staff body itself. That fact alone makes term limits the fairest way to deal with characters that are well past their prime and are upsetting the balance of the game.
In an ideal world, where Armageddon were attracting players instead of bleeding them out, the game could afford to take long-time PCs and put them in higher positions - red robes, great lords, Byn captains, and so on - and manage the upper-echelon politics of the world. Don't hold your breath though.
|
|
