New Forum Rules Discussion

[mikestrauss]

For the most part, the new forum rules don't seem remarkably different from most other forums I am a part of and the rules mostly seem reasonable. But, there are three points that I personally disagree with and probably points that others disagree with. The purpose of this post is for people to have a place to discuss parts of the forum rules that they disagree with. For me, those points are:

1. Moderator Anonymity - This didn't change from the old forums to the new and I think it is harmful to the organization as a whole. I personally also believe it is disrespectful to the player base.

To be clear, I have softened my stance on this a bit. I think moderator names should be public, BUT their identity should not be linked to a specific Paladin identity. This mirrors the other non fully transparent officer positions in the Alliance, like owners, members of ARC, and plot team members. Often teams / councils will make a decision, but individual votes / opinions of members are not public.

Just to be clear, every single other position in the Alliance is a matter of public record. This is the only position that is not. The reasons for anonymity makes sense on individual actions, but not on group activity. Players should have the right to dispute a person's qualifications for a position as moderator in the same way players can dispute a person's qualifications for any other position in the Alliance (technically, even chapter owner). It is inappropriate that this is the one position that is secret, especially given the much more strict forum rules.

2. Three Strikes - I like this rule, with one exception. It has no expiration date. This means that forum violations are currently treated more harshly than safety violations at games.

Simple example: If someone hits someone else in the head twice during a game, the first will probably result in a warning and the second will probably result in a long discussion, a cool down period, and a warning that another lapse can result in being kicked off site. If that person then goes two years without any safety violations (and has clearly cleaned up their act) and then gets really excited and hits someone too hard once during a fight, in almost every chapter, it will be treated like a first time breach (warning).

In other words, when it comes to safety (and rules mistakes), in game, we acknowledge when people attempt to correct their behavior, and acknowledge that everyone makes the occasional mistake. Heck, in 20 years of playing, I've probably been called out by marshals (for rules or safety) about 8 to 10 times total. That is actually rather low in 20 years, but based on the forum rules, I would have been perma-banned over a decade ago.

I strongly believe the three strikes rules need to include expiration guidelines (just like points on a driver's license).

3. Rules Discussion / Rules Theory Removal - I am having trouble responding to this in a way that doesn't violate the rules I just agreed to, which sorta says a lot by how troubled I am by the removal.

In the politest way I can phrase this, I think this removal is heavy handed. I personally understand that these boards really only offered the illusion of influence to players that posted on them, but that illusion of influence is important. It is a lot better than simply removing what little voice some players have. It also means that people with highly differing opinions or experiences have absolutely no way to discuss one of the most important aspects of this game in an easily accessible setting.

Restricting the ability of players from around the country to discuss rules is pretty much just a statement that the the only opinions that count are those that are in cahoots with the powerful few. It is classic Old Boy's Club behavior. And while I won't accuse anyone of doing that intentionally, that is the message I feel this portrays.

Respectfully,
Michael Strauss

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

1) Your objection is noted, and believe it or not, it was discussed. Ultimately, it came down to the point that YOU, the average poster, don't need to see the accountability for it to be there. That's the bottom line, it's one that the President, Chair, and responding Owners felt was correct, and if you would like to discuss the point further I recommend switching to PMs.

2) That's a fair criticism. My counterpoint is that safety violations in game are, by and large, accidents. Someone was too worked up, someone's hand was sweaty, sometimes someone gets hit in the face because that's an inescapable natural consequence of what we do in real time. Posting on the internet does not need to happen in real time, and if you're the sort of person who has gotten to their second strike on the back of a hot temper, it behooves you to stop posting in the moment. I, personally, drew back from a discussion about a week ago for exactly this reason. Three times isn't a series of accidents, it's a failure to improve your ability to not hit "Post Reply" before making sure you're not over the line. With that said, I do think it's a reasonable concern over the span of several years, and I will bring that concern and my agreement with it to the next discussion on the matter at my level.

3) I completely and totally disagree. The rules forums WERE an Old Boy's Club. It was the same handful of people generating more than 90 percent of the content on the forums, and doing so in a way that was very, very bad for the Alliance organization from a public relations standpoint. Yes, not every conversation got contentious. Enough of them did, and to a sufficient degree, that sacrificing the illusion of influence you agree was all that was being accomplished was a worthwhile decision. Please note that this doesn't remove the ability to ask questions about the rules at a national level. It removes the ability to question how other people implement the rules in a direct manner. If you, Mike, want to continue to have those conversations about "What if we changed..." then you can absolutely do so, via other media or here through PMs. If you want to be involved in the rules answering process, talk to your chapter owner about the Alliance Marshal position which will be implemented in the not-to-distant future.

The facts of the matter are that the vast majority of Alliance players were not availing themselves of those discussions, and many that dipped their toe in found them unpalatable. This is not a case of a powerful minority silencing or disenfranchising the majority. This is a case of a powerful minority silencing a passionate, separate minority on the behalf of an overwhelming and uncomfortable majority.

If you would like to express yourself without concern as to the code of conduct, feel free to send me a private message with all the profanity and personal comments you like. I won't mind, and I won't tell.

I know that I and others appreciate that you voiced your concerns in such a calm and comprehensive manner.

-Daniel S. Beshers,
Owner, Alliance LARP NH

 

[Draven]

So. This is my thoughts on the changes. For background, I've been LARPing for a bit more than 15 years. I've seen games fall apart, and I've also seen a LARP that was simply so unfriendly to new players that it doesn't grow. It's played almost entirely by people who've been playing the game for a long, long, long time, and it caters to that group.

1. As I've stated before, moderators should remain anonymous because I don't feel there's an advantage to it. There are players who feel that moderators are "the enemy." They feel that moderators are part of the exclusive club of people with influence. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that feeling exists. They don't deserve to be harassed or looked negatively upon because people are immature. Knowing who they are contributes nothing. Public identities are only applicable in organizations where those identities are accountable to the public. The moderators are not. Therefore, making them public only makes them vulnerable to social consequences, and that's definitely not something that should be a part of Alliance.

2. I have no opinion on this.

3. I'm someone who enjoyed being a part of the rules discussions and the thought experiments. I contributed a fair amount of posts to this effect. But I also know that these posts led to a lot of the discussions that caused people to have negative thoughts about our game and our chapters. They contributed to feelings that chapters were set against each other, "this coast versus that coast; this style of gameplay versus that style" blah blah blah blah blah. It wasn't helpful, and I feel it was a toxic part of our community. As a new player representative, one of the biggest obstacles I ever ran into trying to get people to use the forums is the very thing that caused us to lose this portion of the forums.

So if losing the Rules Discussions/Theory threads means that more players will actually be able to feel like a part of the Alliance community? Worth it. So very, very, very worth it.

And realistically? Our views on the rules pretty much don't matter. We didn't author this game. We don't have a right to influence it, and we shouldn't be under any such illusion that we can, for that encourages feelings of entitlement that we shouldn't have. That's for owners, and I have so much respect for what they contribute to this game that has helped me meet some of the most fantastic people I've ever met, that I'm totally okay with them having all the say with all the rules, my opinions be darned.

We need to own something, as a community. We lost those threads, not because people are playing Old Boys Club, but because we, collectively, acted like immature people who didn't have respect for each other, and we got a spanking for it.

 

[Muir]

<cut for length>

3. Rules Discussion / Rules Theory Removal - I am having trouble responding to this in a way that doesn't violate the rules I just agreed to, which sorta says a lot by how troubled I am by the removal.

In the politest way I can phrase this, I think this removal is heavy handed. I personally understand that these boards really only offered the illusion of influence to players that posted on them, but that illusion of influence is important. It is a lot better than simply removing what little voice some players have. It also means that people with highly differing opinions or experiences have absolutely no way to discuss one of the most important aspects of this game in an easily accessible setting.

Restricting the ability of players from around the country to discuss rules is pretty much just a statement that the the only opinions that count are those that are in cahoots with the powerful few. It is classic Old Boy's Club behavior. And while I won't accuse anyone of doing that intentionally, that is the message I feel this portrays.

Respectfully,
Michael Strauss

I agree fully with the above and will state no more per TOS than that I do not believe that this decision reflects well at all on the organization, and am concerned that this stands to alienate players who clearly care deeply enough about the game to spend time theorizing on how it could be made even more fun.

Kiefer

 

[RiddickDale]

I want to be clear regarding the removal of those forums... This is not intended to be some harsh message that people shouldn't discuss possible rules changes. Some of the most interesting things to come about in the past have been from a few friends talking (wands and high magic come to mind).

The key is that those discussions should be at dinner after game, or on Facebook, or in email. Places where people can discuss their ideas without shouting them out into the world for criticism.

We want people to talk about rules. Just not HERE.

Stephen
National Customer Service

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

I will reiterate that this does not prevent those discussions, it prevents them from happening in the public eye on the website that is our face to the world. You can use PMs, facebook, group emails, google chat, actual face-to-face talking or any other medium to have those conversations. Just not this one. For every individual person who posted in Rules Theory or Rules Discussion in the past two months, there are multiple people who have complained about the aggressive, antagonistic and insular nature of those forums.

I agree fully with the above and will state no more per TOS than that I do not believe that this decision reflects well at all on the organization, and am concerned that this stands to alienate players who clearly care deeply enough about the game to spend time theorizing on how it could be made even more fun.

Kiefer

It is, in the end, simple numbers. If 17 people are alienating 100, that's unacceptable, even if the solution then alienates some of those 17.

 

[Draven]

I agree fully with the above and will state no more per TOS than that I do not believe that this decision reflects well at all on the organization, and am concerned that this stands to alienate players who clearly care deeply enough about the game to spend time theorizing on how it could be made even more fun.

There's no reason that players couldn't create a FB Group for that purpose, and present any ideas worth pursuing to their appropriate owners. All rules modifications go through them anyways. But those discussions can, have, and most certainly will result in conversations that others will feel intimidated by, and want to avoid participation. Since these conversations previously occurred on the national forums, they reflected on the national organization, which isn't positive in the goal of creating a national community.

 

[MaxIrons]

I may be working on a separate non-affiliated forum for just this purpose, I didn't want to say anything until I had something more concrete, but... sometimes things move faster than anticipated.

 

[Gunnar]

Thank you Ben; please let me know when you are finished. I'm happy to have a post up that includes where people who would like to discuss that kind of thing may go to do so. It just no longer belongs here.

-Ali

 

[mikestrauss]

1) Your objection is noted, and believe it or not, it was discussed. Ultimately, it came down to the point that YOU, the average poster, don't need to see the accountability for it to be there. That's the bottom line, it's one that the President, Chair, and responding Owners felt was correct, and if you would like to discuss the point further I recommend switching to PMs.

-Daniel S. Beshers,
Owner, Alliance LARP NH

I do believe it. And despite your recommendation, I am not willing to switch to PMs at this time. Right now we have a situation that is analogous to a secret court. And, while I know the President agrees with this situation, it continues to stun me, since from past conversations I have had with him, I believe he is strongly opposed to secret courts. So am I. That is why I choose to pursue this harder than the other two pain points.

1. As I've stated before, moderators should remain anonymous because I don't feel there's an advantage to it. There are players who feel that moderators are "the enemy." They feel that moderators are part of the exclusive club of people with influence. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that feeling exists. They don't deserve to be harassed or looked negatively upon because people are immature. Knowing who they are contributes nothing. Public identities are only applicable in organizations where those identities are accountable to the public. The moderators are not. Therefore, making them public only makes them vulnerable to social consequences, and that's definitely not something that should be a part of Alliance.

Honestly, this logic could apply equally to almost any position in the Alliance. I certainly know players who feel ARC members, plot members, marshals, logistics members, and even owners are "the enemy." Yet none of these positions are protected by anonymity (even though most could be -- owner would be a bit tough). Similarly, as per Daniel's argument, the average player doesn't need to see accountability for any of these positions (okay, except probably owner), and (per Draven) knowing who they are contributes nothing. Yet every one of these positions is public, because it is expected for the purpose of transparency.

To be clear, some of these positions even make decisions on matters of rules enforcement and punishment, yet the people who hold these positions are public. It is disingenuous to claim the vitriol and negative feelings that people in every other position deals with (and, I know for a fact that every position in the Alliance receives vitriol at various points) can be handled by the people in those positions, but the few sour grapes that would occasionally rage on moderators (who would still be semi-anonymous per my suggestion) is beyond the ability of those members to handle. Every position in the Alliance deals with upset players. There is no reason to believe that it would be any worse for moderators.

Paint it as you will, it is still a secret court, for no good reason, especially given new harsh rules that would slam anyone who inappropriately raged on a moderator or revealed the real name attached to a Paladin title.

-MS

 

[RiddickDale]

Mike,

Allow me to be direct.

The time for pitchforks and torches is over. The anonymity of the moderators will NOT change.

Discussing it on these board any further is not going to be productive as you are advocating for something we as a National staff will not do.

This decision was made with the support of Mike V and the ownership of the game and whether you are surprised or not is of no consequence here.

If you would like to discuss this further and will not take this to PMs then I invite you to meet me at HQ in the spring. We can talk then.

Regards,

Stephen
National Customer Service

 

[mikestrauss]

I should also point out that it concerns me that "rules discussion" is a potential strike. The line between "game discussion" and "rules discussion" is often very thin and very easy to cross. It feels like someone could build up strikes for discussion that simply strays over that line, without even realizing they were straying over that line.

Do Paladins still have the power to remove posts that cross a line without also giving strikes or do we all have to be super paranoid about what we say about the game when discussion even vaguely involves rules?

Also, while I'm asking questions, do people who are Paladins have the right to reveal they are Paladins (even if they can't reveal which Paladin they are)?

-MS

 

[EC-JP]

Restricting the ability of players from around the country to discuss rules is pretty much just a statement that the the only opinions that count are those that are in cahoots with the powerful few.

Mike, and anyone else having similar concerns,

First, thank you for raising them.

I want to take a moment and peel back the curtain and provide some context for anyone having similar thoughts.

Many of you likely do not know me personally, so by way of brief introduction, my name is James Pocklington. Most of you that do know me call me JP. I have been a member of the ARC since 2004. This is my forum handle, my Alliance related email address is JDarion@gmail.com. I have think it is probably safe to say that, by any definition, I am one of the "powerful few." The fact that I feel an introduction may be needed should demonstrate how rarely I post on these boards in anything but my local staff capacity.

I enjoy theorycrafting and "what ifs" as much as the next supernerd, and FREQUENTLY discuss same with friends and fellow players. I have written more proposals and thought exercises than I can count, some of which were amazingly well received (see High Magic in collaboration with Eric Gibson), others were so absurd that they should never again be mentioned. I think creative and passionate people is a major factor in growth.

I stopped regularill reading and participating in discussions on our Rules Theory board a long time ago, unless someone brought something to my attention or a topic jumped off the main page. I can't speak for other ARC members (past or present) or Owners, but I highly doubt I am alone. While there were/are clearly strong opinions and ideas, the level of toxicity required to drill down to the good was off putting

This change does NOT indicate an intent to stop conversatione. It merely says that this type of topic does not belong here, given its history and perception. I invite you, or anyone to start your own place for discussion, be it a seperate forum, a Facebook group, etc. Keep discussing, keep trying to improve the game, and at the end of the day, remember the protocol for changes.

Talk to your owner(s) and appropriate national staff. They are the ones that dictate what ARC discusses. If you have an amazing idea, and an owner is on board, it will go miles and miles further than a thread on these boards.

JP

 

[Gunnar]

Mike,
There will be no changes to this policy. That is National's ruling at this time. Please also refer to other's multiple points wherein it was encouraged to take Rules Theory somewhere other than these boards.

Please understand that this is what National agreed to, -including- the President. As per Mike V's own words during that conversation, these boards are a privilege, not a right.

None of this was considered lightly. Not a single part of it.

So please take this into account, and respectfully use the appropriate way to file a formal complaint, which does not include this forum, or speak to Stephen at HQ.

This is your final request from National Staff.

Respectfully,
-Alison Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman

 

[Alavatar]

I want to be clear regarding the removal of those forums... This is not intended to be some harsh message that people shouldn't discuss possible rules changes. Some of the most interesting things to come about in the past have been from a few friends talking (wands and high magic come to mind).

The key is that those discussions should be at dinner after game, or on Facebook, or in email. Places where people can discuss their ideas without shouting them out into the world for criticism.

We want people to talk about rules. Just not HERE.

Stephen
National Customer Service

My concern with removing the Rules Discussion/Theory is that by segregating them from this one-stop-shop forum (that is supposed to tie Alliance players together) it could potentially impact rules proposals. What I mean by that is that should a person have an idea for a proposal to the rules some folks have been putting those proposal ideas into the common forum to get broad feedback that could not be acquired locally. By segregating those discussions to "talks among friends" it is in effect separating the players and promoting rules proposals that do not account for the rest of the chapters. This could lead to additional non-value added rules proposals to ARC/Owners as well as a reduction in understanding across the Alliance about what regions find what to be important.

I also echo Mike's concern about the three strikes policy.

My two cents.

 

[Gunnar]

Please let me be abundantly clear on this topic.

This is not up for discussion here in regards to policy changes. If you have concerns, please send them to Customer Service, and CC myself.

Thank you.
-Alison Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I know that we rely on volunteers for our organization, but, in a sense, we are also a business. I may not be running this for profit, but there are chapters that do (even if they put most of that profit back into the game).

It is important that a business has an image with the public -- and this forum is our public image. It's our face, and it needs to be welcoming and inviting. And I don't think this is much different from any other business' official bulletin board.

For many many years I was of the opposite position; that information should be free and people should say whatever they want. I've seen that this has hurt us, alienated potential players, and has not helped our reputation with the public. I have come to the conclusion (after many discussions with and encouragement from the owners) that limiting the harmful and often angry discussions will encourage people to once again visit the boards to be with friends, and not be scared away by out-of-game arguments.

I know some of you love those arguments, in much the same way I used to love debating politics here on the Boards. I started my own blog because people were upset about the discussions, even though others enjoyed them. And I think, in retrospect, the board is better without my rants and political cartoons getting people angry. (www.VentrellaQuest.com if you're interested)

So I actively encourage someone to start an "unofficial" bulletin board if you wish, but we need the basic Alliance boards to be a happy place to go.