You all need to get rid of players (and maybe imms) who cause more frustration than they are worth. You have to trim some dead branches for this thing to grow again. This is 100% true in any organization - firing both staff and customers is necessary part of healthy growth.

Also, the landing page looks good. Why haven't you started advertising and driving traffic to it?

Alright - I'll be quiet for another year or so now.

I've been playing this game for more than a year and put countlesses hours on it but I'm seriously thinking of quiting for good and I want to share a few thoughts before I take the decision to leave.

Like with many other muds, I've been facinated to discover many aspects (areas, items, pk, RP, classes, skills and races) of the game. I think CF has definitly a very nice setup and this is not the reason why people eventualy leaves or don't stick to the game. The learning curve is hard but, I think, most of real mud players will expect one when starting a new mud.

This game is about pk'ing (in or outside cabals) and if people stop playing it, it's because they get frustrated at it. Any good teacher knows the only way to make a student be willing to continue to learn, even if it's hard, is to make sure he experiment success. If your student is only experimenting frustration, 95% of the time, the desire to learn goes away.

I think a big part of the problem is in the fact that vets gets a too big advantage from their knowledge of the game and access to powerfull items. That is probably why CF was more popular years ago: vets didnt had 10-15 years of experience to help them in pk situations and there was probably much less players with a 50-2 pk stat.

One solution to balance chances between would be to get rid of the gear advantage that comes from knowledge of the game. There's nothing that discourage me more to engage someone when, at lvl 15, I see him full gear of midnight dragon and wielding some crazy weapon. We cannot barter stuff to get venom to see invisible people, or successfully recite 50 lvl scrolls, when we're at lvl 15 : I don't see why this restriction would not be extended to all gear.

Also, part of the problem is the OOC communications (using MSN to oordinate ganking or letting know your pal that 'I left some good stuff on the floor at this mob'), but right now I have no suggestion for this.

I think if this game doesnt get more balanced in his pk aspect, sooner or later, you'll end up with 10-15 super knowledgable vets and friend always winning their fights and, by doing so, discouraging all newcomer to stick to CF. Eventually the vets will get tired to see the same 10-15 players will look for something new.

If Stunna is right and the playerbase is diminishing because CF lack a vision for his futur, I can only suggest this one: Everything must be done too give a chance to the newbies, or players who have been away for a while, to win PK fights because this is the core of the game. The learning curve to CF is already hard enough....

* Sorry for my bad english and, by the way, is there anybody managing new passwords request on Dio? Been waiting for weeks for a new one...

Email Gabe. AFAIK he's the only one who can do that: gabe@qhcf.net

First of all there is no "ideal" system.

The judges in the real life are very well paid, they also have monthes to think about every crime. Yet we all know the stories about someone sit in the jail for 15 years before people create DNA analysis and then judges agree that they made the mistake and ruined someone's life.

I think in 90% situations imms are right when they punish someone, but in other 10% they are wrong. But there is no better solution for this.
What would happen if IMMS didn't control CF at all? The next day Torak (i'm using this name for example, i know there are other cheaters too) and his 7 men OOC gank would force everybody to leave CF because it's impossible to fight against 7 men OOC gank.

Could IMMS act better? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At least every IMM spent at least 1000 hours helping CF and they care about CF for sure.


Imms are too soft. Just look at this. Torak (again, i'm using this name for example) is breaking every possible rule for 10 years already. Then he comes to the forums and demands the right to make OOC groups (few threads down). And other people really listen him and discuss it.


Just ban from CF and from forums few people who are destructive for CF and delete all their threads. It will be better for anybody.

Over the last few months I have had some free time, my real life is quite well in order, and I have been playing video games (EvE and Diablo 2).

I have come dangerously close to playing CF again.

Two things have kept me from doing so:

1) Every time I check here and Dios, I see the same people having the same fights they have had for the 15 years on and off (jesus, yes that long) I have played CF. It is just kind of depressing in an old-man-sitting-on-the-same-bar-stool-he-sat-on-when-you-were-21-and-are-now-30 kind of a way.

2) The time required to get a character up to speed coupled with the time required to recover from death.

Might not be worth much, but there it is. To be honest, the first is a much bigger reason for me not playing than the second. Also FWIW, there are no IMMs included in the list of posters on both forums who turn me off when I have considered playing recently.

Glad CF is still around though!

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

Two things have kept me from doing so:

1) Every time I check here and Dios, I see the same people having the same fights they have had for the 15 years on and off (jesus, yes that long) I have played CF. It is just kind of depressing in an old-man-sitting-on-the-same-bar-stool-he-sat-on-when-you-were-21-and-are-now-30 kind of a way.

I'd agree here. Unfortunately, one way some players and staff handle this is by either withdrawing from the community entirely (your option), or just playing and ignoring the forums (where we lose a reasonable voice, and the problem compounds).

2) The time required to get a character up to speed coupled with the time required to recover from death

To be fair, time-to-hero is lower now than it was earlier in the decade, and the various changes to Outfit, ghost time, XP loss on mob deaths, more prevalent limited gear, etc. likely make recovery from death faster in an absolute sense, at least vs. anything past the first couple years of CF.

I suspect what has changed is that:

A) That time is being drawn from your more demanding schedule. 10 minutes now feels like an hour did some years ago. However, if we tailor the game to your schedule (and I'd argue we have been, to some extent), we run the risk of radically changing the game to other people with more time to play if we aren't careful.

B) Your standards are higher. Most novice players either don't know what the best "stuff" is, or they've just written off ever having it. A novice might feel quite good about covering all their wear slots with non-horrible stuff, keeping up a 1:1 or 1:2 PK ratio, and being a rank-and-file member of cabal X. You've been higher up on the heap, and now that would feel like a failure to you.

Your points are both valid, but I don't think you would say either is trivial to solve.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>I suspect what has changed is that:
>
>A) That time is being drawn from your more demanding schedule.
> 10 minutes now feels like an hour did some years ago.
>However, if we tailor the game to your schedule (and I'd argue
>we have been, to some extent), we run the risk of radically
>changing the game to other people with more time to play if we
>aren't careful.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that that time investment is too much for what CF is, just that it is too much for me, now. Even when I was still playing, the game had (for the better I think) had many changes to make the slog up more tolerable and less time intensive.

>B) Your standards are higher. Most novice players either
>don't know what the best "stuff" is, or they've just written
>off ever having it. A novice might feel quite good about
>covering all their wear slots with non-horrible stuff, keeping
>up a 1:1 or 1:2 PK ratio, and being a rank-and-file member of
>cabal X. You've been higher up on the heap, and now that
>would feel like a failure to you.

>Your points are both valid, but I don't think you would say
>either is trivial to solve.


Also really well made. And my 'successes' were admittedly modest, but even those makes my vision of what a 'fun' character is in CF substantially different than what that vision was before the small handful of characters I had that did relatively well.

Glad for the game that you are back around. I wasn't aware till a couple days ago.

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

I don't have the logs handy thanks to a computer switch, but there was an example some years ago with Jhyrbian and two other common visitors to the Realm of the Dead forming a low-level PK perma, ganging anyone that moves, and going through their usual routine of all-caps OOC taunting.

I did a little case study on that. The day they got denied, they killed about 10 unique lowbies (as in, excluding multi-kills). Three observations:

1) All 10 logged off soon after a death. A couple got killed twice, the rest left after one.

2) All of those sites stayed dormant for days. In other words, the players logged off and (as far as I could tell) stayed away in the short term.

3) Several (I want to say 3 or 4) of those sites stayed dormant. As far as I could tell, those players left and didn't come back. None of these players had long histories with us, and going from the limited information we logged at the time, they didn't stand out as skilled.

Had Jhyrbian had rules problems before? Definitely. Was he allowed back after each one, eventually if not immediately? Yes. Is he alone in this? No.

If one takes a laissez faire attitude towards obnoxious players (which I assert has been CF's stance longer than I have been on staff), one wagers that the gains outweigh the losses I'm describing, perhaps by:

1) One may hope that the obnoxious players reform their behavior over time. Counterpoint: If I made a list of the more problematic game or forum presences today, it would almost exclusively consist of people that have been playing for years. I'd have more trouble thinking of more than a couple exemplary players who were previously long-term problems.

2) One may hope that fostering a hard-edged culture (and accepting that it will entail more players going over the line periodically) will draw in other players looking for a high-challenge environment. I feel we've tried this approach, intentionally or not, and it merely perpetuates the problem a 'generation' later. It's akin to the phenomenon of hazing, where people who absorb a lot of abuse feel more inclined to dish it out when they are able to. Counterpoint: You can instead aim to foster a high-challenge environment while enforcing a strict code of conduct.

3) One may hope that 'any press is good press', and that trolls and drama queens keep the forums busy, which keeps people checking often, which keeps the game in the front of their mind. Counterpoint: I think the present forums are terrible for attracting new players, and they waste a lot of staff energy that could be channeled into more productive avenues. I think ignoring the forums is a worse approach-- you'd save on wasted time, but you compound the train-wreck effect. Unfortunately, it's the easy approach (moderating any Internet forum is typically unpleasant and unappreciated work), and that's why some staff simply don't post.

4) Being very laissez faire has the inherent advantage of consuming few resources in the immediate term. Counterpoint: Most offenders are repeat offenders. If you ask many of our "champion" (to borrow a term from the sprawling thread) players about their rules history, they usually can honestly answer that they've either never been to the Realm of the Dead, or they went there once or twice for stupid stuff and cleaned up their act soon after. In the long term, you might save integrated time and energy by "trimming some branches", to borrow Stunna's term.

I'd encourage people again to peruse the 'party analogy' thread from 2003: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=34742&mesg_id=34742&page=40

We'd like to have a big party, but there's a reason big parties have a few bouncers who will show troublemakers the door. Now, the guy who just got thrown out may make a lot of noise about how the bouncer is a fascist, or a power-abusing jerk, or that he bounced the wrong guy, or that someone else was a bad party guest too. But the bouncer's responsibility is to make what is going on inside the party better.

I'd assert (without proof, or necessarily any implied endorsement by my colleagues) that CF would profit from more bouncings.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Another Amen.

There are some things interfacing with players will help (creative suggestions, ideas, Santa Zulg) and there are other things that no form of interfacing is going to improve.

I happen to think some of the more recent incidents fall into this category.

Great post V.

Great thread. Thror glad you're active again. You've been one of my favorite Imms for a long while. I think this discussion has been really good and has been something I was hoping for for quite some time. The lines of discourse are opening and I'm very glad that there are people on both sides keeping it civilized. The outliers will always exist, but you can't satiate everyone's need to be right 100% of the time.

This post itself is great as it addresses the issue of new players vs older players. I'm totally in agreement with Valg on the fact that we can't allow new players to escape due to some assholish behaviors, but at the same time, I think it's also significant to keep our veterans. It's too steep of a learning curve to hope that we can retain more then a small % of the people that find CF through advertising. Plus, I would imagine that veterans would put in more time on a weekly basis then newer players and also be more influential in cabal wars/politics which to me has always been CF's bread and butter as far as setting it apart from other games.

I've been bystanding/playing CF for quite a while now and I've seen the ebbs and flows and I really think that some things need to be clarified so that we can enhance the entire CF experience by possibly bringing back some old players and bring in some new players at the same time. I'm not going to go super sentimental in this, but I'd like to see where the Immortals stand on some views based on how they were in 1994 when I started playing and and based on how I perceive things to be now. I'm in no way saying that old CF is better then new CF, but I'd just like to analyze the differences and see if there's a middle ground that might benefit everyone's experience with the game and increase the playerbase as well. I'll apologize in advance for any skewed opinions I may have regarding the past or now based on assumptions I've had from watching/playing the game.

(The Past): No one cared. RP was optional. I think someone posted a crazy old log of myself and Nepenthe where people were just blatantly not RP'ing whatsoever. You did what you wanted, and that included super shady multicharring. Definitely a negative of the time period. At the same time, you had the ability to roll up a character with friends who were new to CF and help them find the niche of the game that you knew they'd enjoy, ultimately sucking them in and paving the way for them to become multi-hero long term players. Roles didn't exist and rewards were titles and tattoos which were both revered very highly. Although class/cabal disparities existed, it was a very simplistic polar environment with cabals balancing themselves out ie master/rager, knight/shadow, entropy/arbiter. Cabal alliances were more prevalent and generally decided by the leader of the cabal with Immortals letting the natural food cycle take its course and not really interrupting except for the occasional Cador slay or to interact for a global quest such as the Orihalcom statue quest. Areas were minimal and for the most part not complex or thought provoking and the player count was high so player to player contact/fighting was almost impossible to avoid. Damage reduction was found with sanc on a stick available to almost everyone. "Prep'ing" was definitely not time consuming.

(The Now): RP enforced, rules heavily enforced. Much easier to immerse yourself into a character knowing that someone isn't going to say that he ran out of toilet paper and needed to use his x-men comic book to wipe his ass. Rolling up a character with friends, inducting friends into your cabal. Definitely a no no, but I did it with a few characters somewhat in the past and had no problems, but at the same time, I took risks and wasn't attached at the hip with any of them and basically just used them to get over the monotony of levelling. Some people are punished and there doesn't seem to be a line that needs to be crossed, but for the most part it seems like people were taking advantage of their numbers in some way to take away some enjoyment for others ie ganging, but it's somewhat of a random gamble and I always felt the enjoyment of introducing and playing with my friends on CF was worth it in the end. Cabal wars are somewhat polar and still prevalent, but there is more of a chaotic dynamic with less cabal alliances. Significant prizes seem to be given out in the form of monthly role contests and for good RP, but possibly not as much for being courageous and consistently fighting with odds against you. The role contest/imm exp seems like an incentive to players, but to me it just seems like an opportunity to add more "work" to the game for players and immortals who should just want to relax and enjoy the game however they see fit. The amount of areas is immense and complex with amazing writing and very unique puzzles/items/mobs, but the playerbase is low so player to player interaction is reduced, and it's a bit easier to find reclusive spots to avoid people altogether. Large scale quests seem to be lacking, but I could be wrong in this assumption. Damage reduction is available in many manners with healers still being significant, but for the most part, it seems that exploring for some classes is a must in order to find prep items which seem almost vital to these classes before the hero ranks. Once you've attained this knowledge, it is much easier to go forward with a next character.

(As a total aside, I'm not sure the uproar of ooc groups going through areas because I don't think that is a detriment to any other player's fun, but maybe I have a skewed view of it all. If it was truly RP enforced then wouldn't everyone have to pretend that they didn't recognize any rooms or any areas with every new character they had? Just because an area takes multiple people instead of individuals ie Hell vs Silent Tower, does it change the RP/abuse factor? If it's that impactful to have knowledge in this as well as with observation xp/prep items, should there be more thought into why knowledge is so powerful which in turn skews CF against newer players?)

Sorry for the horrible grammar throughout this; kind of stream of consciousness while taking a break from studying.
-thinnie

I felt like this was a well thought out post and worth answering:

Keep in mind that times have changed and the availability of time (for almost anyone that calls themselves a vet) is much more limited. Some of us are in business or have families. This means time is either money or takes away from another valued aspect of our lives.

You're right about the past. However, contemplate the newness of the past CF. There were a lot of things people could relate to (particularly non-original CF material). The areas of the game were literally crafted from books. Creativity among your collegiate peers was very high and we mostly didn't care whether it was RP or it wasn't. Keep in mind though, RP was highly rewarded back in those days.

There was a very obvious transition. Those that became Immortals were typically the ones that had superior RP. These personas ended up being the ones that Administrated the game and basically gave the game this unspoken vision which leads us to where we are now.

I'll be honest: I'm still not quite sure how to categorize the 'New CF. I was gone for nearly 5 years and it changed drastically. Immortals and players alike seem to alienate the "douchebags." There are still the same vocal people who abuse the game, it's mechanics and attemp to find loopholes in the rules. Unfortunately, I see the players siding with them quite often. I do see more Immortal interaction on the forums but I feel this has a lot to do with posting while not gaming. Both parties are still a little more jaded but what really, really stands out to me is this sense of entitlement the playerbase feels it has earned.

Bonus XP for rules, immxp for RP, empowerment, lack of global quests or of perks for doing certain things really has become a hot topic on multiple forums. I still can't discern if it's the lack of attention or the fact that players feel that this gives them a distinct "edge" over other players.

Remember - none of this was prelevant in the old CF. Maybe we players who have been given the rights to Administrate the game have fostered this environment by pushing XP for RP heavily. In either way, there are now a lot more unwrittens that even today I'm catching up on.

I think our biggest detriment is comparing the game to the past. In both rules and roleplay. It's really nowhere near what it once was. In some ways that's great - in others it's easily a downfall.

Anyhow, good to see you around. Hope to see you return.

HI! Still love ya.

I miss CF being not so serious. It used to be REAL EASY to regear after a death. Now, the wide band between what we used to think was adequate and what is adequate now has created a huge divergence in the risk/reward system. Not saying the rockin' eq isn't cool, cause it is. But back in the day, a set of green spikey armor, two nightwings, a poncho from the high tower, and you were back in the game, and STILL a ghost. STILL had time to get some armor and you ahd a dam roll of 24-28 depending on how creative you were. Which was HIGHLY competetive. Now you hear people talking about needing 60+ damrolls to be seriously considered? Come on...

(Since the nightwing replacement is only +1 dex, why not shrink the -dex penalties on the green armor?)

I deleted my last character because I needed to log off, but I was sitting around waiting and waiting and waiting for that damn aura talisman to reappear just so I'd have a chance with some characters. Granted against my main enemy it did zero squat. I slept that whole group of villagers (infront of you even! HAH!) without one single protective and we retrieved the key, and all I had was that stupid major ward I bought from the Island. No stone skin. No flight. Nothing. It was a BLAST. A trip would've killed me... but it was still a blast. But that was EXTREMELY rare because I had help. Most of my fights were 1 on 1, and I needed that damn aura talisman. I was in control of it. I knew when it vaporized. I knew when I had to go retrieve it. WHY oh WHY did I have to wait 30 damn minutes to get it back when I could've gotten it, and gotten back into the fighting we all thought was fun?

If I have to say one thing about CF is that I look at it as a daunting task to undertake. I look at a writing project with the same look. I remember looking at the contracted work I used to do for the hospital with the same eye I look at a single character with CF, and it's just way too much. I really want to play again because it was fun... when it was fun. But the time between the fun and not fun is too big. I think the staff needs to focus on shrinking that time. Not eliminating it, because the bitter makes the sweet sweet. But shrinking it.

We all have ideas on how that could be accomplished. But in essence, I think this is the problem people are talking about. (The whiney little bastards are always going to be whiney little bastards. There isn't a magic pill for that yet.)

Great line. I think this is one of the things that keeps people from returning to CF some times along with the learning curve of new areas and preps. I remember the days of being able to fully re-equip before unghosting too =)

-thinnie

IMHO, re-equip from nothing before unghosting is a lot easier than it's ever been -- outfit gets you at least food/water and something for every slot.

If you happen to have stashed some cash in the bank, there are also a number of decent regear things you can just buy as a ghost, if you're a character who can use money.

Combine those two things and you probably have a good 20 ticks left to strategically go after upgrades to that based on whatever stats or kinds of weapons you need. Not bad.

"Significant prizes seem to be given out in the form of monthly role contests and for good RP, but possibly not as much for being courageous and consistently fighting with odds against you."

I had one character that was not *that* long ago in the scheme of cf that was rewarded for just that. I got a lot of love from the entire staff without being a brown nosing knob slobbing ass bag. I think if more people were actually willing to hang their asses out there a little more in terms of play style, they would find they would be rewarded and respected for it.

You, sir, are amazing.

*I need to quit inhaling paint fumes from the people remodeling next door.

And I would also like to say that I am one of the players that often don't post because I think many dicussions are just someone crying about gotten bounced. But the last discussions on here has been so much an attack on the Imms I felt all of us that love the game and what you do (for free mind you!) needed to speak up.

Again good post. And I like how you show the point that cheaters do drive away new players.

And everything else you do.

You're not going to get much of an argument from players like me.

With some players, there is either just too much BS piled up or they have some kind of grudge against the staff and people who actually enjoy the game. To them I say good riddance.

Until you guys get comfortable enough to market your own product, you'll continue seeing it dwindle into oblivion. You can blame the players all you want and "bounce" as many rowdy party goers as you want but that won't solve the actual problem.

I'm not so sure those 3-4 IP's that went cold back in 2001 are the reason you see 20 players regularly today. I can think of many, many more players than that that have left the game because of Immortals and/or decisions that have taken gameplay/winning out of the hands of the players. I'll be pleasantly surprised if that ranger/conjie in scion with all the perks are actually played by non-imms but I won't hold my breath.


Cheers,
Jhyrb

That party analogy thread has probably been more destructive to the game and relationship between players and Imms than any other incident in the ten+ year history of the game.

We all know your opinion. I'd be fine with the other Imms letting you give it a shot and take a "strict code of conduct" approach but only so long as I reserve the right to point out after the fact how bad of an idea it was.

I work with a lot of marketing efforts and the shockingly common concept amongst the successful ones is brand loyalty and users who are not only satisfied but so satisfied as to be evangelical about your service.

I can either lean on your case study (which obviously doesn't have a control or any number of other pieces to track whether or not its even worth paying attention to) or I can lean on my years and years of validated experience.

I've thought about a response for awhile now but a few have articulated it well enough to avoid another TLB vs Valg day. On a side note, the post is from late 2008....not 2003. That's your member date, Valg - huge difference

On a funny note: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=34742&mesg_id=34807&page=40

Ya, it's got nothing but worse....since that post let's see how many people even made it to Satan (that I didn't lead or were OOC) or did anything significant like killing stuff never done before or even attempting fights past Dis. Oh that's right, they haven't been done...ever.

This thread also had Eskelian's response - http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=34742&mesg_id=34813&page=40

And ironically that thread had several deleted responses if I remember right - and I'd venture to say we're at about half or a third of the numbers were were two years ago. So maybe the party analogy isn't working...

I've thought about a response for awhile now but a few have articulated it well enough to avoid another TLB vs Valg day. On a side note, the post is from late 2008....not 2003. That's your member date, Valg - huge difference

Just in case that confused anyone else, scroll down a bit-- the forum software credits the "thread" date (the original poster, which was my post at the top that was linked) per its last update. But if you scroll down, you'll see that the first batch of responses are from 2003-- the first from Yanoreth. It was bumped in 2008.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

~

And when an employee (player) doesn't adhere to the brand loyalty concept created by the owners and management (staff), what happens to the employee?

The big difference being that we don't fire the players (normally).

We are customers not Employees! And according to business dogma we are always right!

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Right. In this analogy the staff is the employees and the players are the customers. The fact that you view the players as employees is why you have this many problems to begin with, you have the analogy all wrong.

We aren't employees and we aren't customers. Not even ####ing close.

This relationship we have, is more akin to us having a few friends who like to DM d&d for us every weekend. You know what's funny, the same thing applies here as it does for d&d(or whatever tabletop you prefer). Lots of people like to run characters, not that many people like (or are capable) of running a decent campaign. So when you get a solid DM, even if the game is a bit harsh, you suck it up because you enjoy the game and you have someone willing to run it. You don't bitch when you get ####ed in the ass because you can't play within the confines of the system.

And as an aside, to that whole Torak thread. I have given it more thought, because at first, I didn't really give a #### that he had cheated to explore hell. It sounded innocent enough. But really, if you can't explore hell without cheating, and the staff doesn't want to alter the area. That's pretty much the end of the conversation. You can quit playing cf or you can find your enjoyment elsewhere if all that does it for you is hell and you can't explore it the way you want.

I'm fine with that perspective on it. I've never had a problem with the party analogy - except wherein the goal is to retain players. You don't retain players by being an ass, as a DM or otherwise.

Here is what it boils down to, Valg is talking about player retention - you don't retain players by being hostile, negative and defensive. You do it by being positive and creating a positive environment. I can disagree with the man on how to retain players without having any feeling of entitlement at all.

If a player doesn't want to be reacted to negatively in game or here, they should...I don't know...not cheat and force the imms to do a part of their job that no one really enjoys? Or blatantly try to stir the pot on dios.

Hell, I'm pissed off because I feel like I was duped. I didn't really remember who torak was until all of this. His original post framed everything in such a way that it seemed reasonable and that maybe I should listen to him. So I read, and I read some more. His posts are relentless and now I don't feel like he is just trying to state his opinion. He intends to try and get something changed whatever it takes. I also don't think he's going to stop cheating or stop complaining when it happens. Had I been in the imms position to have all the info up front I probably would have been negative to start with as well.

I feel like we're talking about two different things.

You seem to be focus'd on torak but I'm not even referencing him at all.

I guess you are focused on their attitudes in game/on the forums and how it affects player retention.

I have been playing this game off and on since 97? I got in trouble once when I first started for spamming the #### out of someone. I got a temp ban for a few days after a talking to for being a douche bag 13 years ago.

I haven't caused any problems since then that I'm aware of and I haven't had an issue with an imm in game or on the forums.

I pretty much feel like if you aren't deserving of it, you don't get it. It being the ####ty attitude.

If you follow the business management literature, there's a very active discussion on how successful businesses recognize that there's a threshold to customer service beyond which you are wise to turn away difficult customers. The CEO of Southwest Airlines has been a vocal advocate for this topic, which many businesses practice but never say out loud.

If you enter a restaurant and complain that your meal is horrible, they will frequently offer a refund, a replacement entree, a gift certificate, or some other compensation.

If you enter that same restaurant again the next two nights, and each time complain that the food is horrible... they will probably suggest that you consider other restaurants for future dining. If anyone really thought "the customer is always right", this would not be the case-- they would just endlessly offer that customer free meals. There are weak exceptions (Nordstrom's comes to mind from my experience as a business that bends over backwards even when they know they're being taken advantage of), but they are few.

The more realistic adage from my industry is "Trust, but verify." Customer complains about a meal once? Offer compensation, politely take away the food, and inspect it back in the kitchen. See if one particular chef draws all the complaints. Smell or taste a little for yourself. See if the customer will describe why they were displeased. If you diagnose a problem, fix it.

The same customer always complains regardless of your efforts? There's a higher probability that it's the customer, and you're losing more business by catering to their unusual tastes than you are by sacrificing that customer.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

n/t

...who you propose happens much less than you seem to think, regardless if I agree with you (I do) or don't.

I've seen certain customers get free meals 1/3 of the time they come into a restaurant, granted, they would be in 3 to 5 times a week.

Only restaurants that general cater to what you say are the non-chain ones. Chain restaurants such as TGI Friday's, Denny's, Olive Garden, etc are more concerned with customer complaints on the corporate level. Even though corporate usually has no idea how to run a restaurant.

Player != employee

Imms != management

-------------------

Player = customer

Imms = staff

Imps = management

-------------------

You aren't management, Lyristeon. Might want to get your priorities straight.

Edited to add: Doesn't equal symbol didn't show up.

Edited to add: Thought I'd just throw this in there, since there's been some talk about it.

The game being free and the staff volunteering is nice. The players are also volunteers too, who contribute to the immersive nature of carrion fields. Most people aren't out there trying to take advantage of it. We just play the game for different reasons. And you shouldn't be allowed to go all vigilante in the game or on the forums if our reasons don't match yours, especially if no game rules are being broken.

We play the game because we enjoy it (presumably). The Imms/Imps volunteer their time in a different way because they enjoy that aspect of the game (presumably). It is meant to be a mutual respect. Not an argument point that is somehow supposed to make the staff members better than its players.

I feel that you've been violating that mutual respect lately and you don't even care, because you've got a big head.

It was how it was put to us to respond. I didn't label it that way.

The customer isn't always right either.

You've got two analogies mixed up from two different posts.

nt

>That party analogy thread has probably been more destructive
>to the game and relationship between players and Imms than any
>other incident in the ten+ year history of the game.

I'm lost...why is it destructive?

>We all know your opinion. I'd be fine with the other Imms
>letting you give it a shot and take a "strict code of conduct"
>approach but only so long as I reserve the right to point out
>after the fact how bad of an idea it was.

Because the laisez-faire attitude is working out so well...

>I work with a lot of marketing efforts and the shockingly
>common concept amongst the successful ones is brand loyalty
>and users who are not only satisfied but so satisfied as to be
>evangelical about your service.

Hard to argue with that.

>I can either lean on your case study (which obviously doesn't
>have a control or any number of other pieces to track whether
>or not its even worth paying attention to) or I can lean on my
>years and years of validated experience.

So lean on your years and years of validated experience and tell me what to do.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

It's destructive because its inherently hostile and negative, coming from a top level Admin of the game. I don't want to be where I'm not wanted, I could care less about your game if you could care less about wanting other people to play. It reads like, "If you ever have a problem go **** yourself, we don't care." That's the message you're projecting, whether its the one you want to project or not because its an inherently negative post.

You guys don't have a laisez-faire attitude, as an aside.

What would I do? I'd start by telling Imms that can't keep it together to not post and not interact with people. Less is more. Better to be thought as a jerk than proven one.

In general, you foster positive environments with positive behavior. If you're generating more negative situations than you're generating positive situations then what do you expect to happen? Most people's sole interactions with Imms is being criticized. Imm goes over CB and says, "Why don't we have our cabal item?" Etc. It's inherently hostile and it fosters hostility back towards you.

Edited to add: In most of these comparable analogies to other online games, they have "faces" that talk on the forums. There is a reason for that, it keeps the signal to noise and drama minimized. Power tripping about banning people isn't going to do you any favors but if you disagree with me, hey, stop threatening and go for it just don't hold your breathe for great results. Most of the arguments you guys have is not about what you do, its about what you *say* and how you guys handle perception.

>It's destructive because its inherently hostile and negative,
>coming from a top level Admin of the game. I don't want to be
>where I'm not wanted, I could care less about your game if
>you could care less about wanting other people to play. It
>reads like, "If you ever have a problem go **** yourself, we
>don't care." That's the message you're projecting, whether its
>the one you want to project or not because its an inherently
>negative post.
>
>You guys don't have a laisez-faire attitude, as an aside.

We don't, but some of the player base wants us to have one. And that isn't prudent to the 90% of the folks who play nice.

>
>What would I do? I'd start by telling Imms that can't keep it
>together to not post and not interact with people. Less is
>more. Better to be thought as a jerk than proven one.
>
>In general, you foster positive environments with positive
>behavior. If you're generating more negative situations than
>you're generating positive situations then what do you expect
>to happen? Most people's sole interactions with Imms is being
>criticized. Imm goes over CB and says, "Why don't we have our
>cabal item?" Etc. It's inherently hostile and it fosters
>hostility back towards you.

If 10% of the playerbase is negative, how is that more?

Just because 10% of the playerbase is verbally hostile, it doesn't mean that most of the playerbase is.

>
>Edited to add: In most of these comparable analogies to other
>online games, they have "faces" that talk on the forums.
>There is a reason for that, it keeps the signal to noise and
>drama minimized. Power tripping about banning people isn't
>going to do you any favors but if you disagree with me, hey,
>stop threatening and go for it just don't hold your breathe
>for great results. Most of the arguments you guys have is not
>about what you do, its about what you *say* and how you guys
>handle perception.

When it is someone who strays and doesn't have a repeat history of overall blehness, they are treated differently. When it is someone who is a repeat offender, there is no reason to be gentle because they will continue to do it anyway.

See the difference is when you go after a "repeat offender" it doesn't come across to everyone like you're doing the right thing. It looks like you're holding this individual to a higher standard so that you can start drama with them.

Not everyone interprets it that way, but enough people interpret it that way that I'm inclined to say either ban them or treat them like everyone else.

This half and half treatment of letting them play but holding them to a higher standard *causes* drama. And its predictable and preventable.

Do you think anyone would care if you banned a repeat offender? No, probably not. But holding them to a higher standard while not banning them causes people to perceive inconsistency and risk when dealing with you. That perception causes hostility.

Edited to add: Regarding the whole laissez-faire thing, I have no idea what you're driving at here. It's like you guys have a hammer and now every situation looks like a nail. There's many, many ways to deal with things to achieve results and sometimes the best answer is to really do nothing, insomuch as its inconsistent. Nothing I've said on this thread is controversial and most of it is just common sense. Let's face it, this isn't a party. This is a game, one that people have put years of programming into and years playing and spend weeks writing up roles for and invest hundreds of hours into their characters on. It's not a casual weekend party. If you "bounce" someone's char after they spend 200 hours on it, they're going to be a lot more angry at you then if you toss them out of a party. Drop the bad analogy already or keep walking into the same wall over and over again and blaming other people for it.

Part of the reason why Mekantos left was because of the "higher standard" they expected from him because of his epic characters. Things like Daevryn saying in his immortal comments "I expected more from you" is just wrong on so many levels considering they supposedly don't know who plays who and that his characters, which wasn't on the level Urden was, were getting flack for it. It's a game and it started to feel like a job - and great characters like Molo got #### in comparison to many others at the time.

Another big problem is they don't hold themselves to the same standards. I could go into details of immortals cheating, abusing items/bugs then fixing them or even IM conversations *happening now* with Immortals with players where they clearly break the rules. Generally in this realm it's been retorted with "it's our sandbox" and it's very "do as I say but not do as I do".

On a personal note, banning a repeat offender like Krilcov has been beneficial to the game - some people can't "fix" the problems they have and move on. Others can. Not tooting my own horn but considering what I did many years ago and now, it's a world of difference and I've changed. Jhyrbian from Valg's example and the Pittsburg crew and several others have adjusted. A lot of it would benefit from discussion as well instead of "the council has voted, you're out!"

The thing that hasn't adjusted? The Immortals.

Okay, you got me. Generally, if you can't quote me in context, I'd rather you not quote me.

>Part of the reason why Mekantos left was because of the
>"higher standard" they expected from him because of his epic
>characters. Things like Daevryn saying in his immortal
>comments "I expected more from you" is just wrong on so many
>levels considering they supposedly don't know who plays who

1) I don't stalk players by IP; however, some players are extremely obvious. There isn't much helping this. Sometimes this is because they aren't great RPers; other times, they just have tells. (Not to bag on you specifically, but you're one good example of someone I can almost always pick out -- there's just something about the way you phrase your tells that is a big give-away to me.)

2) In the case of the character in question, it was merely obvious to me that this was a very good/veteran player.

You may not think how I decide which characters I personally like or do not like is fair. However, my opinion is my opinion.

>Another big problem is they don't hold themselves to the same
>standards. I could go into details of immortals cheating,
>abusing items/bugs then fixing them or even IM conversations
>*happening now* with Immortals with players where they clearly
>break the rules. Generally in this realm it's been retorted
>with "it's our sandbox" and it's very "do as I say but not do
>as I do".

No, generally we say that if you have proof of cheating, send it to the IMPs and we'll do something about it.

...what if one of those examples was you talking internal game mechanics with a friend of yours over IM? It would be questionable if you consider that cheating or not but a common friend between us mentioned said conversations. And yes, we have a common friend

In the strict land of no-OOC, getting firsthand answers from you over IM is pretty borederline.

I can't even think of the last time I fired up an IM client.

I don't think I've provided answers via IM that are very different than what I provide on the forums or via e-mail.

I can say that, yes, you have never told me anything that I don't suspect you'd say on the forums - I just approached you via other means because I didn't want to spread MY business all over the forums.

I may also be that friend he's talking about, and if that's the case he's certainly over stating things a great deal. If not, cool.

asdf

It's likely not a higher standard but more that repeat offenders no longer get the benefit of the doubt in a questionable situation.

>See the difference is when you go after a "repeat offender"
>it doesn't come across to everyone like you're doing the right
>thing. It looks like you're holding this individual to a
>higher standard so that you can start drama with them.

It doesn't look like we are holding them to a higher standard at all. Most people play with the "normal" standard. They are REPEAT offenders who get busted for REPEATING the same offenses.

>
>Not everyone interprets it that way, but enough people
>interpret it that way that I'm inclined to say either ban them
>or treat them like everyone else.

They are treated like everyone else when it comes to the rules. The only difference is they repeat the offenses. Just like at our judicial system. Plenty of them have the "3 Strikes and Your Out" rule. We are way more lenient than that.

>
>This half and half treatment of letting them play but holding
>them to a higher standard *causes* drama. And its predictable
>and preventable.

See above.

>
>Do you think anyone would care if you banned a repeat
>offender? No, probably not. But holding them to a higher
>standard while not banning them causes people to perceive
>inconsistency and risk when dealing with you. That perception
>causes hostility.

See above.

>
>Edited to add: Regarding the whole laissez-faire thing, I
>have no idea what you're driving at here. It's like you guys
>have a hammer and now every situation looks like a nail.
>There's many, many ways to deal with things to achieve results
>and sometimes the best answer is to really do nothing,
>insomuch as its inconsistent. Nothing I've said on this
>thread is controversial and most of it is just common sense.
>Let's face it, this isn't a party. This is a game, one that
>people have put years of programming into and years playing
>and spend weeks writing up roles for and invest hundreds of
>hours into their characters on. It's not a casual weekend
>party. If you "bounce" someone's char after they spend 200
>hours on it, they're going to be a lot more angry at you then
>if you toss them out of a party. Drop the bad analogy already
>or keep walking into the same wall over and over again and
>blaming other people for it.

Broken down to the most basic concept is that CF is a free optional place for you to hang out as long as you don't cause problems. If you cause problems, you will get "bounced". It is not the place of business that you are trying to make it out to be.

Seriously Eskelian, you shoulda been an Immortal.

It's destructive because its inherently hostile and negative, coming from a top level Admin of the game. I don't want to be where I'm not wanted, I could care less about your game if you could care less about wanting other people to play. It reads like, "If you ever have a problem go **** yourself, we don't care." That's the message you're projecting, whether its the one you want to project or not because its an inherently negative post.

Not at all. Hosting a party is a positive act, even if it means you have to bounce a few troublemakers. The goal is to make a good experience for the group, even if it comes at the expense of certain individuals. It can promote long-term retention precisely because you protect the (numerous) honest players from having their time ruined by the few troublemakers. You're only "not wanted" when you bring down the experience for the strong majority of other players and staff. If that sounds like "Go #### yourself, we don't care.", you're only viewing it from the perspective of someone who is a serially negative influence.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I have plenty of negative posts, as do you. Difference is I don't really feel compelled to deny it. I don't need to lie about it or call it something it's not.

Call it what you want, what you call it won't change what it is.

>It's destructive because its inherently hostile and negative,

I really don't think it is.

If I have a party, most of the people are there because I want them to be there -- but it's also my job (whether or not I would like it to be) to deal with people who are ruining the fun of the other partygoers.

Along the same lines, I don't enforce the rules of CF because I enjoy enforcing the rules.

The entire post is justifying that you can delete player's characters and "bounce" them purely because you made that decision - that you don't need to support it and you don't need to defend it.

That's negative, whether its true or not or whether you *agree* with it or not its certainly not a positive post. You can call it positive, you can call it a pink rose or a flying car but that does not make it so. This was not about people dealing with other players and the Imms protecting those helpless players from other players. This was about Imms dealing with people criticizing *them*.

The fact that we can't agree on that is a good indication of my frustration with you guys. It is like you're from a different planet. Literally. Like you claim on one hand to hate drama, yet on the other repeatedly do things that you know cause drama. I think you're sharp, so I have to believe it isn't that you don't understand these things but that you do understand them and choose to ignore/lie about them because you enjoy drama like this.

>That's negative, whether its true or not or whether you
>*agree* with it or not its certainly not a positive post. You
>can call it positive, you can call it a pink rose or a flying
>car but that does not make it so. This was not about people
>dealing with other players and the Imms protecting those
>helpless players from other players. This was about Imms
>dealing with people criticizing *them*.

An analogy can be put to a number of purposes. I'm not sure that I've read the post you're referring to, but let's say it's negative in that case. That doesn't mean the analogy in general is negative.

I do have more negative metaphors on this topic. I try to keep them to myself.

>The fact that we can't agree on that is a good indication of
>my frustration with you guys. It is like you're from a
>different planet. Literally. Like you claim on one hand to
>hate drama, yet on the other repeatedly do things that you
>know cause drama. I think you're sharp, so I have to believe
>it isn't that you don't understand these things but that you
>do understand them and choose to ignore/lie about them because
>you enjoy drama like this.

I think you're trying to reduce a complex situation too far -- trying to simplify it to a point wherein it no longer resembles the original situation enough to be instructive.

For example, sure, I create drama by posting to the forums.

(Of course, I can also see that I create drama by NOT posting to the forums, such as during the about previous two weeks before tonight in which I wasn't reading and posting and it looks like Torak bumped a post you made demanding a response again and again and again. Can I win there? I submit to you that I can't.)

Does posting to the forums mean that I'm drama-seeking? I don't think it does. I view it as something I do that yields other benefits that I think are important enough that I'm willing to accept the unwanted consequence of drama to get them. Clearly you see that calculus differently.

think you're trying to reduce a complex situation too far -- trying to simplify it to a point wherein it no longer resembles the original situation enough to be instructive.

For example, sure, I create drama by posting to the forums.

(Of course, I can also see that I create drama by NOT posting to the forums, such as during the about previous two weeks before tonight in which I wasn't reading and posting and it looks like Torak bumped a post you made demanding a response again and again and again. Can I win there? I submit to you that I can't.)

Does posting to the forums mean that I'm drama-seeking? I don't think it does. I view it as something I do that yields other benefits that I think are important enough that I'm willing to accept the unwanted consequence of drama to get them. Clearly you see that calculus differently.


--------------
(I hate the reply to functionality on this dcboard so I pasted your comment):

I don't really think you are. You're one of the guys I cite as someone who really does well representing the staff generally. People doth love the Daevryn and Zulg for that matter. That's why I know its not like what I'm saying is a concept you guys don't get.

On the other hand, other Imms do things that generally inflame people and start drama where there are no real benefits and lots of unnecessary crap that follows up (like re-bumping of this stupid party thread).

I don't think there was much drama about the Torak thing. Or at least, the thread he linked wasn't dramatic to me. Not in the same sense as the Jindicho/Orcfest/Recent Guy with cut movement stuff.

The torak thing was just a discussion about whether or not we should rethink how the rules are structured, those other three boil down to "X char got punished, it looked unfair, there was a nasty dialog following and its inconsistent with history and the enforcement of the rules".

They happened, logs were posted, other players didn't like it and posted threads here (not I) and the end result is a re-bumping of a thread that basically says "we don't need to justify punishing you."

That's a net negative for no real reason. It's not like any of those three were done to stop some larger scale persistent problem or had any net gain. It's also not like any one of those three things had to do with cheating. It's also not like dropping the ban hammer on the players involved either in being punished or posting about it would prevent things like this from happening in the future or retain players.

The simplest way to handle it really is to be positive, not negative, be consistent in applying the rules and then try not to fan the flames if something makes it to the forums.

Edited to add: And on a personal level, the reason I seem so annoyed by all of this really boils down to the fact that this stuff is avoidable or within the realm of control just using normal damage control strategy. I see some posts from the staff and I just want to bonk the guy on the head for posting it and fanning the flames when he could've and should've just not posted anything at all and left it for you or Twist or Kasty or someone else to reign things in.

>Edited to add: And on a personal level, the reason I seem so
>annoyed by all of this really boils down to the fact that this
>stuff is avoidable or within the realm of control just using
>normal damage control strategy. I see some posts from the
>staff and I just want to bonk the guy on the head for posting
>it and fanning the flames when he could've and should've just
>not posted anything at all and left it for you or Twist or
>Kasty or someone else to reign things in.

I agree that there are some people on staff, past and/or present, who are not cool-headed about forum responses. That is to say, they can't always just let it go when someone's trying to provoke them or is taking a position they believe to be wrong.

I include myself in that group, incidentally, even if sometimes I can show restraint.

It's a hard problem to deal with, because we are are a volunteer staff, and on balance I think everyone we have on staff is a net asset to the game even if they may make some decisions I wouldn't, on the forums or otherwise.

So in a sense I agree with what you're saying, although I think there isn't often a solution to the problem that I'm happy with.

>It's destructive because its inherently hostile and negative,
>coming from a top level Admin of the game. I don't want to be
>where I'm not wanted, I could care less about your game if
>you could care less about wanting other people to play. It
>reads like, "If you ever have a problem go **** yourself, we
>don't care." That's the message you're projecting, whether its
>the one you want to project or not because its an inherently
>negative post.

I agree with both Valg & Daev on this point, and don't think it's hostile at all. We're all entitled to those opinions.

>You guys don't have a laisez-faire attitude, as an aside.
>
>What would I do? I'd start by telling Imms that can't keep it
>together to not post and not interact with people. Less is
>more. Better to be thought as a jerk than proven one.

Oops...missed a response. Personally, I think responding to any of these rules infractions on a public forum is stupid, and isn't going to be successful no matter how much diplomacy you have on your side.

>In general, you foster positive environments with positive
>behavior. If you're generating more negative situations than
>you're generating positive situations then what do you expect
>to happen? Most people's sole interactions with Imms is being
>criticized. Imm goes over CB and says, "Why don't we have our
>cabal item?" Etc. It's inherently hostile and it fosters
>hostility back towards you.

The problem I have with your arguments is that you ONLY focus on the negative (or what you perceive as negative), for every "Why don't we have our cabal item?" there are empowerments, random snoops/interaction, etc. I'd also argue that having someone call you out over CB isn't hostile, it's pushing you to actually roleplay your character.

>Edited to add: In most of these comparable analogies to other
>online games, they have "faces" that talk on the forums.
>There is a reason for that, it keeps the signal to noise and
>drama minimized. Power tripping about banning people isn't
>going to do you any favors but if you disagree with me, hey,
>stop threatening and go for it just don't hold your breathe
>for great results. Most of the arguments you guys have is not
>about what you do, its about what you *say* and how you guys
>handle perception.

This is why I don't typically discuss this #### on the forums. If you've got a problem, mail the imps/imms or pray in game. That of course doesn't stop people from constantly posting here or on Dioxide's about it. So the noise continues to drown out the signal.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

"The problem I have with your arguments is that you ONLY focus on the negative (or what you perceive as negative), for every "Why don't we have our cabal item?" there are empowerments, random snoops/interaction, etc. I'd also argue that having someone call you out over CB isn't hostile, it's pushing you to actually roleplay your character."

You were asking me what I'd do on a topic that is obviously larger and more persistent than me. If it's one guy, its that guy. If it's five people, maybe it's just those five people. When it gets to be a dozen? Twenty? Thirty? Then it's not just me focusing on negative stuff.

I think we pretty much agree on everything else, though Valg being entitled to his party analogy opinion doesn't make it a non-negative, non-damaging post. It's a waste of forum space, all it does is cause conflict, re-posting it causes further conflict. If it's a rally cry that improves Imm staff morale maybe it has some value there but outside of that no it holds no value at all other than polarizing people.

The only people it polarizes are the people trying to have a good time and the people being ####-bricks.

There's a difference between evangelical promoter, and one bad apple spoils the bunch that I think you're missing.

Also, as to your 10 years of experience being all we should listen too. Meh. Opinions are like assholes, and all that. Even smart guys have stinky assholes sometimes.

Last I checked, party analogy thread was posted in 2003, bumped in 2008 and now re-bumped in 2010.

You're right, I could be wrong. Maybe it'll kick in...working...any minute now...

While I'm waiting for it to take effect I'll just go back to doing my thing. You guys obviously have this all figured out.

If douchebag players were the sole measure as to why an internet game lives or dies then games like World of Warcraft, Counter Strike, etc. would never have made it off the ground. I would dare say the rate to obnoxius douche bags in those games is off the charts compared to CF. I think blaming players who don't agree with how things are run here for why the game isn't flourishing is a very convient excuse. Also as for your little experiment what was your controls? How many new players log off and don't come back after being killed by anyone vs. OOC jerks? How many people take an extended break after dying vs dying to the OOC jerks? Etc.
You say the forums drive off people because players dare to complain about things they see as unfair in the game, have you ever been to any other game forums? Number one this is the place players are supposed to vent their fustrations, number 2 I would say this place is a serene pond compared to the violent tempests most game forums are. Impart because any disagreement with staff is immediately locked down or deleted, which in turn creates more animosity by ignoring the problem until you get an explosion like this.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Those games' forums are harsher to their players and ignoring complaints is more prevalent and yet...they flourish. So that kind of runs counter to your whole argument about their attitudes crushing the player numbers doesn't it?

Not sure what forums you are talking about but WoW's forum are definately not harsher to their players. They do lock threads as well, but they definately don't use a condescending attitude in dealing with players like we often get here. They also listen to outcry on their forums, take for instance the whole real ID issue.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Personally I always saw these forums something like the newbie channel
where as everyone should be calm, considerate, and understanding. I
had my transgressions with the Imms in the past and I've also been asked
to join them at one time. Just want to remind everyone this is a game
played for fun, people who purposely make it not fun for others should
hold their tongues a bit more. Also if all these complainers spent half
the time enjoying the game and bringing others in there wouldn't be any
population complaints.

Just my 2 cents.

And thanks for the link. It's interesting to see that it's the exact same guys argueing against it (though hardly surprising).

For better or worse, CF stirs up intense emotions for short periods of time. If it's a house party, it's a really rowdy house party with readily available drugs, guns, and alcohol. Personally, I can sympathize with people that feel disenfranchised by recent events because I've been there. I think there can be a discrete way to talk to these people without it blowing up into a 100-post thread, but I haven't thought out a way, yet, without requiring a couple hours individualized attention and emails.

The "troublemakers" that irk me are the malcontents that:
(1) aren't playing, and
(2) are posting non-constructive and/or insult-laden and/or trolling comments
(3) about issues they have no connection to.

I think that because perception creates reality, especially in a community-based game like CF, the malcontents I described above can be very destructive - and they know it. Unfortunately, you can ban them from posting here, but they'll still have access to unofficial sources so there's no way to completely silence that element.

asdf

To play with the party analogy further, the question is whether logging onto CF is to attend a rave or to attend a soiree; people who want the former desire a large attendance and to hang out with their boys so they can play hard and have backup if things get out of hand, and the latter are looking to hook up with whoever is there for a good time.

The problem with wild parties is that they may be fun to attend, but hosting them means you can expect your house to be trashed. Oddly enough, the people who do that party scene usually go from one party to the next, but rarely host the party themselves.

Valg's post shows an analysis of contrary perspectives, which is something often lacking on these runaway threads. It has an objective tone without coming across as cold, aloof, dismissive or patronizing. It alludes to the existence of obtainable data supporting its points and acknowledges where there is fact and conjecture. I also feel the analogy he made fits CF fairly well.

Good job, sir.

The problem with wild parties is that they may be fun to attend, but hosting them means you can expect your house to be trashed. Oddly enough, the people who do that party scene usually go from one party to the next, but rarely host the party themselves.

I find that a very valid extension of the analogy I like to use. Tragedy of the commons, and all.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

This is a great post.