Another Open Letter

[Kyriel]

Just as a note, the idea that each character should be played as an individual and know only what they've learned themselves is not a unique or even unusual one in games that allow multiple characters to be played.

[SumBum]

(with the possibility of scrubbing the slate with exceptionally good contribution to the game)

I strongly disagree that "good contributions" should excuse cheating.

It's unfortunate that a few bad apples have pushed us beyond the Golden Rule style of moderating. You'll always have those who think the rules don't apply to them, or that they can get away with bending/breaking the rules. Some of them do it repeatedly then wonder why they're banned. Everyone else suffers from their selfish behavior. This is a society simulator after all.

[computaertist]

(with the possibility of scrubbing the slate with exceptionally good contribution to the game)

I strongly disagree that "good contributions" should excuse cheating.

It's unfortunate that a few bad apples have pushed us beyond the Golden Rule style of moderating. You'll always have those who think the rules don't apply to them, or that they can get away with bending/breaking the rules. Some of them do it repeatedly then wonder why they're banned. Everyone else suffers from their selfish behavior. This is a society simulator after all.

Fine, I would happily give up that possibility. The result would still be infinitely better than the situation now.

[EchoMan]

Of course Forgive me if I can't help thinking it could somehow have been done infinitely better.

My opinion is that the rule should have been players only have to be able to explain what each character did from the perspective of the character. If they could do that believably, they could do anything. If they could not offer an explanation of the character's motivation without revealing ideas being passed telepathically between characters or acquired from outside the character's experiences (i.e., impossibly), or if the offered explanation struck a large majority of players as truly unbelievable (from the same language group probably) (like two thirds or three fourths), then the events would need to somehow be corrected. After repeat such offences in a certain period (with the possibility of scrubbing the slate with exceptionally good contribution to the game) a player would need to be banned for demonstrating a lack of ability/willingness to play believably solely from the characters' points of view.

No, I don't think this would have to ruin the anonymity, as explanations could be posted anonymously simply as "the player of <<character name>>", no further name or username attached. And with the anonymity in tact, I don't see the point of further secrecy. Secrecy was never a part of the original Cantr, and I don't see it as adding anything useful to the game.

In this scenario, the PD would have to screen each player daily, to get the motivation for each of the players characters, and if something wasn't according to the rules thay should rollback all events? We would need more PD staff than characters to handle this. And the game disruption would be immense. I can't see this, even remotely, happening.

[computaertist]

Notice how I had the players voting? Here's how I picture it would work:

At first everyone seems to be playing fairly. Then a player (or member of PD) notices something that seems like ooc motivation and reports it, typing up what they see happening. This messages is posted anonymously to the player base (I see this as its own page so not to move down the character list, perhaps with a short notice on the main player page that x possible infractions are being investigated, and a link to participate in the jury). Voting begins immediately (so the potentially offending player can't get away with their actions by merely delaying the vote), and players are free to vote and change their vote as they get new information until a decision is made. The player of the character being reported is given a special notice (they still aren't told who reported them, ever), which they can reply to (anonymously as "player of <<character in question>>") with their explanation, which then gets attached to the original report. Other players who may have pertinent information could add to the conversation anonymously as "the player of <<character who would know what they're talking about>>" (the character name needs to be attached so not just anyone can claim anything), and the player of the character in question can respond. All of these posts (by the original reporting player, the player of the character in question, and the players with relevant information) may have game-generated event logs from one point in time to another attached (game-generated so they can't be faked). PD can monitor and regulate this process if it helps, but I don't see PD as strictly necessary for this process (except for filling the role of reporting a new situation that none of the other players saw to report). PD would be mostly for approving new players and answering questions about the rules and their intents. If at any point the votes get up to a certain number in favor of correcting the situation, that's when PD steps in to get it corrected (or at least watch for whether the votes are going to go back down in response to a new post). Also, PD would be the only ones with access to who all of these players are, and if this is the third (or whatever number) guilty offence by the same player they may have to get ready for a ban.

Past trials would be archived and view-able by all players. I would hope this encourages players to have believable in-character explanations ready for all of their actions, and to never do anything without having one they think is believable ready. Because for this process PD only has to do some initial reporting (similar to initial questioning they do already, perhaps not as much if other players pick up some of that responsibility), and then step in as the process comes toward a decision to get it resolved, I would hope this turns out to not be much if any more work than they're already doing to enforce the CR. Also, it would result in everyone (except truly bad players who need to be banned anyway) loving PD, and no one accusing them of corruption.

Unfortunately, I don't see this as ever happening in Cantr II either. That would be wishful thinking. Cantr II has very little if any hope of ever changing so radically. This is all my opinion of how it should have worked from the beginning. It's also my opinion of how a great game in the future could work. Cantr II, though? I'll have to do a great deal more thinking to figure out how we might redeem Cantr II's Capitol Rule. At the moment I don't have high hopes it's redeemable.

[sherman]

It sounds nice idea but that and current system has it's problems. Even when you have paid workers working on managing game...

Problem with that is that... People are people and do mistakes. Decision might as well be wrong or people can be bribed. A group of even 10 people could influence voting significantly and in the era of the internet they could communicate easily so their stories would match (via Skype, Facebook or whatever) So really system would have worked years ago but not anymore. And from my own experience as former game admin on other game I can say that people cheat if they get the chance... Proving they cheat is whole different matter. But the most work isn't banning them or punishing, it's then you need to stay cool and try deal the situation with them as professionally as you can even opposite side starts call you by names or even go further than that. And that's why being admin, PD or whatever job that includes monitoring game or big forum is a work so few want to take.

[prometheus]

I don't know, something like that could up reporting. A lot of times I see something that seems OOC, but I don't have enough to back it up to feel like a contact to PD is worth it (I don't want to seem like a whiner or 'hypochondriac', for lack of a better term). So I just let it slide even though as a player I now have something of a grudge against the character(s) in question, which is hard to work with, because now I have to second-guess all of my decisions around them to make sure I'm not biasing myself.
Of course, this could also increase false-alarms as well, or even straight up just trying to get someone you don't like in trouble (we've all seen the "if you don't stop bullying my character I'll kill them" OOC, it would just be "I'll report you".) The court of public opinion is not always kind nor correct.
The current system, though, does essentially punish all players, because instead of considering how to expand your roleplay you're going "okay which character is going to sleep through this visit/isn't going to go to this party/event/how do I time these characters to miss each other/this character needs to find a reason not to like this group/town". I understand why it's in place, but that doesn't mean I like it or don't think there's an alternative. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss for what, exactly.

[EchoMan]

@computaertist : It would create a too long process before things can be halted and/or altered. How many votes would be enough votes? How long would this voting process be? Should there be a fast lane for reports about very serious breeches? Should there be ten lanes with varying speed, until PD has to do the job they are already doing today? Rest assured there will never be no punishments based solely on some voting system, that could be affected and biased in many ways.

About the "several characters in the same town" issue, there are a huge number of locations in game. It's not difficult to set your chars apart. What is difficult is when you are keeping them close.

@sherman: I agree.

@prometheus: We do want reports of everything that seems like OOC or and/or cheating.

[computaertist]

Clearly, echoman, you didn't reach the end of my post. I know this will never happen in Cantr II, and I tire of clarifying it for you since it'll never happen here anyway.

[MonkeyPants4736]

@Computerist: A player having to explain the motivations of their characters to the whole player base seems incredibly unfair. They would have to explain the nature of their relationships with other characters, what their character has been doing in the past, what they are intending to do, and all sorts of information that 1) Really isn't anyone's business except the PD and it's only the PD's business when something seems wrong that needs investigation, and 2) Now there is so much more opportunity for anyone with a character near the investigated character to create and OOC breach themselves.

Further, "The player of <character>" statements seem unfair, also. For example, if I have misunderstood the rule, I absolutely want only the PD to know about it. I would have discussions with them, asking and answering questions, in what I hope feels like a safe and private environment. Then, when my understanding of the rule has been corrected, I get to put the whole thing behind me and just enjoy playing. I don't have to worry that others might use OOC info that I made a mistake in the past and now my character is always untrustworthy, or simply worry about any embarrassment or shaming that would arise from the situation. It's nobody's business except the player's and the PD's.


Additionally, you said secrecy wasn't always part of the game? It's been there since day one. "Cantr II is a very anonymous game." I understand that recently, and certainly it's happened in the past on occasion, that secrecy wasn't upheld. But the overriding theme has always been secrecy.


Finally, the sheer volume of cases would make it impossible to implement something like this. Based on very outdated info, I'd say that there are at least two or three reports the PD receives, every day, with between one hundred and three hundred separate entries. Each entry is a potential case that must be checked. Of course, the vast majority of those can be immediately dismissed as uninteresting, but it is not a small amount to deal with anyway.


Additionally, I can almost guarantee that probably every player in this game is on a report at some point. It's not feasible for, let's say even 30 people a day, to have to explain themselves to the public and for every player to have to do so at some point.

@Echoman: I disagree with you that it would be too much for the PD to have to check events, ask for motivations, etc., and to rather just say people can't have characters around each other or any other broad stroked policies. I think the reports, events searches, and discussion with the player are the best way to find out what's happening. If they aren't enough, then the ProgD can perhaps supply an additional investigative tool.

Sorry to both of you, if I have misunderstood your meaning in any of the discussion. Thank you both for taking time to discuss the matters in this topic.

[computaertist]

MonkeyPants4736, again, that was all my opinion of how it should have been from the beginning. That would have created an entirely different culture from the one we have now, in which I'm not sure any of your concerns would make sense. For Cantr II as it is though, you're completely right and my ideas would be completely wrong. I don't think Cantr II's situation can be saved in nearly the same way. I don't know if it can be at all, and if it can I don't know yet how.

And when I said secrecy was never a part of the original Cantr, I wasn't talking about Cantr II, I was talking about the friends with the legos. They added secrecy somewhere between there and Cantr II for reasons I can't at the moment guess.

[EchoMan]

@Echoman: I disagree with you that it would be too much for the PD to have to check events, ask for motivations, etc.,

That was in reply to some "report-button" or something, that would surely flood the department with cases, both valid and posted "in the heat of things".

and to rather just say people can't have characters around each other or any other broad stroked policies. I think the reports, events searches, and discussion with the player are the best way to find out what's happening. If they aren't enough, then the ProgD can perhaps supply an additional investigative tool.

I'm just saying it is a good way for players to make sure they stay out of trouble, to separate their characters. It's a tool for the player. When it comes to staff tools, that is nothing we discuss publicly, but rest assured that ProgD provide the PD with the tools they need and want.

[Kyriel]

There are many locations in the game, this is true. And given the size of the game, it should be easy for each character to have an island to themselves. That simply isn't how it works in practice, however. If one spawns 15 English characters, 8 of them are likely to wind up on the same island within a couple towns of one another. It is not generally trivial for them to simply move to a different island. It would be much easier to keep one's characters apart if they did not keep spawning next door to one another.

[prometheus]

Well and not to mention, commerce, opportunity, are located in populous, well-known towns. Big events, like I said before. Sometimes characters just can't get what they need where they are and it because increasingly irrational not to travel to said place for a time to get it.

[ObsessedWithCats]

There are many locations in the game, this is true. And given the size of the game, it should be easy for each character to have an island to themselves. That simply isn't how it works in practice, however. If one spawns 15 English characters, 8 of them are likely to wind up on the same island within a couple towns of one another. It is not generally trivial for them to simply move to a different island. It would be much easier to keep one's characters apart if they did not keep spawning next door to one another.

This, so much. I've spawned pairs of characters in adjacent towns on Treefeather twice (in one case at least temporally separated) and had two others living on the island (again, one temporally separated). Out of eleven characters. >_<