Jump to content

Game Master / Community Helper Application


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

It's literally just me saying "But Bionic Flea" over and over again. The anti-spam filter is the only thing that stops me.

But Jimmy, why you gotta be a copycat . . . cat?

 

P.S.  I would give you an invisible shank too, but I am merely a small insect, not a Dev-powered cat.  So I give you this instead . . . Amazon.com : Officially Licensed RAMBO II MC-RB2 Officially Licensed First  Blood Part II Survival Knife 15.38-Inch Overall : Hunting Knives : Sports &  Outdoors

Edited by Bionic_Flea
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for weighing in, @Jimmy, and for acknowledging that checking logs is not ideal.

I notice I didn't explicitly say it, so I do want to address that my experience with the GMs thus far has been largely positive, or otherwise neutral.  So, I don't want my criticisms or mistrust of certain parts of the application process or other obscured elements of Homecoming's operation to be misinterpreted by anyone as decrying any particular GMs, Homecoming Team members, or the moderation actions that have taken place of which I am personally aware.
 

As stated, I would like to support Homecoming (not to be too presumptuous that any of you would actually even want me, of course).  But I've been burnt pretty hard in the past.  What I've seen of the processes being employed here at times bear too much resemblance to systems which are heavily exploitative. 

I appreciate having the opportunity to voice these concerns and criticisms, and I look forward to a possible day when everything can see the light of day (again, excluding matters kept private for reasonable protection), despite how much egg may wind up on my face as a result.

 

Without seeing the full breadth of the processes you utilize, and realizing that without financial incentives it can be very difficult to police the activities of volunteer moderators, I'm still left wondering if there aren't more ethically sound approaches to establishing the trustworthiness of these volunteers.

 

At the very least, perhaps giving more measurable definitions to "being an asshole" or (from an earlier thread) "uncool" would go a long way.  Naturally, there is a reason to leave some things moderately ambiguous, as to provide latitude for discretion . . . but I think it might be valuable to list the unwelcome behaviour or conduct that isn't already expressly forbidden (ie:  Bigotry, illegal activities, et cetera).  For example (if you're willing to publicly state as much), would the suspicion and criticism I have historically expressed be sufficient grounds for preclusion as "being an asshole" or "uncool?"  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homecoming Team
1 hour ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

But I've been burnt pretty hard in the past.  What I've seen of the processes being employed here at times bear too much resemblance to systems which are heavily exploitative. 

I can understand this. I guess the key thing to keep in mind here is that this is entirely non-commercial, and simply cannot ever be commercial because of the circumstances under which the project exists. I suppose technically we're all being exploited because we're not really getting anything material out of it? But we do it anyway 🙃

1 hour ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

At the very least, perhaps giving more measurable definitions to "being an asshole" or (from an earlier thread) "uncool" would go a long way.  Naturally, there is a reason to leave some things moderately ambiguous, as to provide latitude for discretion

Sure.

1 hour ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

(ie:  Bigotry, illegal activities, et cetera)

Absolutely, any of these would result in us not taking your application any further. You can also add any form of intentional harassment to that list, along with clearly having ulterior motives for applying.

1 hour ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

For example (if you're willing to publicly state as much), would the suspicion and criticism I have historically expressed be sufficient grounds for preclusion as "being an asshole" or "uncool?"  

Not at all. When I say "be an asshole" I generally mean "have ill intent, and act upon it". You've never come across that way to me.

  • Thanks 1

Got time to spare? Want to see Homecoming thrive? Consider volunteering as a Game Master!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again.

And I realize that this line of conversation has probably taken us pretty far from the original intent of the thread, so I would like to apologize for potentially disrupting that.

 

Though, one more thing for now . . . there is definitely more nuance to the matter of exploitation, particularly within the context of the games industry and the context of volunteerism.  As a bit of twisted irony (or maybe just simple coincidence), my current and most recent professional positions both involve charity/community work where we rely heavily on volunteers.  I've personally struggled with having a paid position while organizing and leading unpaid volunteers in tasks daily.  But my peers and the volunteers themselves have reminded me that not all compensation is monetary, and that volunteers do what they do for all kinds of personal reasons.  

 

But it's important to remember that exploitation comes in many forms.  Being lied to, having your work used for purposes you never intended, or playing an unwitting part in to a systemically oppressive operation (even one which is sustained by those who are unaware of the harm they're doing) are all forms of exploitation.

Opting to be a volunteer isn't quite the same thing as being taken advantage of.  But volunteering for something when you don't have all the details invites potential abuse, whether that abuse is done with wilful intent or not.  After all, true consent requires being fully informed.  And so it is to that end which I constantly make my appeals for as much transparency as possible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the support from professionals in outlining this promiscuous data policy.  And those trying to humorously mend the trust that others have broken.

 

Unfortunately, two years and dozens of Incarnates on 3 servers may be history. Haven't played Homecoming since my last post and not sure when or if I will. Minimizing communication in an insecure and unfriendly environment will be a minimum in the future.

 

In a cartoonish morality tale, the sycophants can fortunately be quite funny.

 

 

Iron Monkey guv and toady..jpg

  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's like some people have never actually played an online game before.  There is zero expectation of privacy in online games.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  There never has been, and most likely never will be.  Always, always assume that whatever you type in an online game can be and is being recorded/logged.  Same applies for Discord and online forums.

 

If you want real private communications online, use something designed for that purpose like Signal (which I personally use and recommend), Element, Threema, or Wire.

  • Like 3
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference here is that we're asking the Homecoming Team to do better than that.

After all, that's been part of their mission here from the get-go:  To meet or exceed the standards on which the original game was built.

Sure, for most players that probably just means "better graphics, better balance, better server stability."  

Some of us want things to be better is more significant ways, though.  Ways that will have lasting and deep repercussions.

 

It won't be easy.  I can't speak for everyone who asks for more accountability and transparency, but at least some of us know and respect the difficult position the Homecoming Team is in.

That doesn't mean we should relent and accept bad things that don't -need- to be bad.

 

And yes, of course there are more significant world problems that should get addressed by individuals with more power and authority on a global scale, before anyone tries to bring that up.  Of course there are.

But these sorts of things have a knock-on effect.  Doing good in one place has a tendency to promote good works in other places.  And, more importantly, erroneously accepting problems as unsolvable has a tendency to make people give up and accept more severe problems.

It's all connected to various degrees.  Maybe this game and its community are truly microscopic when it comes to addressing the full depth of world problems, but that is not any kind of reason to settle for bad things here.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I get it. There are players, whom, if I discovered they were a GM, I would literally have to force the entire HC team to eat pineapple on their pizza until they made like Mr. Creosote on that infamous Monty Python sketch. And why? Because they have shown me that they were ...less than savory characters with less than savory character. 

I just wonder about this loose definition of uncool, or pedantic asshat, or whatever subjective criteria is used. 

By profession, I am an Executive Recruiter, I work remotely at present. The way we determine who's a good fit would boggle the minds of many of you. Mind you - these are for 6 figure C-Suite positions, where someone is literally paid ginormous sums to figuratively look behind the corner ahead and see what's coming. 

It's easy enough to assess for any position, provided the criteria are well-defined. And my boss has always stated to clients - "I am about to tell you what I believe you're looking for, and if I don't understand this clearly, than you should NOT hire us." 

It's just my two cents that game knowledge, availability can be measured easily enough. But asshattery? How do you define that? 
I suppose you could look for minor violations - like, for example, I answered a question before the general chat channel came along, and got a 3 day ban from chatting. No warning, none whatsoever. And my comment wasn't the least bit offensive. Merely stating that folks will have different views so not much point in discussing it. And I guess whomever the GM was put the hammer on everyone that was using help in a given time frame. Did I break a rule? I don't think so, but it all depends on how you would interpret certain policies. 

Can the HC dev team get away with a "We know it when we see it" definition of Asshattery? Sure they can. They already have. Would we like something more clear? Yes. But so would they! Let's see if we can come up with a solution, rather than just point out the problem. Easy to say, hard to do. For now, I think these are great problems to have. We get to play! Free!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to side with those on the side of the fence against use of all in game chat logs as a basis of determination of a persons true character, and not only because it'd ruin my reputation as a prickly villain if my true deeds were given light.  

 

Like others have stated, public comments be it the forums or the various chat logs are one thing.  But private tells is an entirely different matter.  For the most part I wouldn't think I'd have any problem with what I've said but there'd be so much to cover I wouldn't know for certain everything that I've said.  Most of the time in public chat if I'm feeling frisky I'll have no problem typing something playful, or seeing random outrageous chat and giving some push back to it right then and there (as opposed to reporting someone which may just be misunderstanding).  Then there's other things like playful chat with my friends in game using the current state of today as a playful way to mock it or them. 

 

Context fully matters, so when it's stated "hate speech, bigotry, etc." when looking at the text does one stop when they see the key words or do they then delve further into the context of the whole conversation?  Then the conversation is subjective to the reviewers sense of humor because some times people are just being sarcastic which is harder to tell in type than when listening to someone's voice inflection.  

 

Now I'm not looking to be a GM or anything, this is purely recreational, but I can see the very steep slope that judging someone by random things said in a history of their entire text on this platform will at some point be misleading to the reviewer to the actual character of the person.  I've never been banned like @Ukase and I'd be safe in assuming my rhetoric is quite more free flowing, would the judging criteria then automatically eliminate him when it's likely he just stepped into the wrong public conversation at the wrong time under the wrong GM, but because I've dodged bullets I am then considered more qualified?  

 

I think the only time I get in trouble on these forums is when I voice my disappointment in the less than transparent communication about the future direction of certain things like powers and future content.   I have no problem with removing conversations to cool things down on the forums but if they don't actually disappear then I'd like to see what people have to say revert to being viewable to all after a set amount of time, like say 2 weeks, no matter who's egg is on who's face unless if it's something atrociously egregious, even if it's calling out HC to do better because we want them not to go the route of what ended last on Live.  If only for the fact there should ever be a need to defend anything you've said since what was said doesn't really disappear.

 

All in all I'm of the mindset of full on individual freedom, especially speech, then working back from there to how much of a negative impact you exerting your freedom has on another, in a very impactful way, not just subjective perceived slights.  

Edited by Mezmera
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

I'll have to side with those on the side of the fence against use of all in game chat logs as a basis of determination of a persons true character, and not only because it'd ruin my reputation as a prickly villain if my true deeds were given light.  

 

Like others have stated, public comments be it the forums or the various chat logs are one thing.  But private tells is an entirely different matter.  For the most part I wouldn't think I'd have any problem with what I've said but there'd be so much to cover I wouldn't know for certain everything that I've said.  Most of the time in public chat if I'm feeling frisky I'll have no problem typing something playful, or seeing random outrageous chat and giving some push back to it right then and there (as opposed to reporting someone which may just be misunderstanding).  Then there's other things like playful chat with my friends in game using the current state of today as a playful way to mock it or them. 

 

Context fully matters, so when it's stated "hate speech, bigotry, etc." when looking at the text does one stop when they see the key words or do they then delve further into the context of the whole conversation?  Then the conversation is subjective to the reviewers sense of humor because some times people are just being sarcastic which is harder to tell in type than when listening to someone's voice inflection.  

 

Now I'm not looking to be a GM or anything, this is purely recreational, but I can see the very steep slope that judging someone by random things said in a history of their entire text on this platform will at some point be misleading to the reviewer to the actual character of the person.  I've never been banned like @Ukase and I'd be safe in assuming my rhetoric is quite more free flowing, would the judging criteria then automatically eliminate him when it's likely he just stepped into the wrong public conversation at the wrong time under the wrong GM, but because I've dodged bullets I am then considered more qualified?  

 

I think the only time I get in trouble on these forums is when I voice my disappointment in the less than transparent communication about the future direction of certain things like powers and future content.   I have no problem with removing conversations to cool things down on the forums but if they don't actually disappear then I'd like to see what people have to say revert to being viewable to all after a set amount of time, like say 2 weeks, no matter who's egg is on who's face unless if it's something atrociously egregious, even if it's calling out HC to do better because we want them not to go the route of what ended last on Live.  If only for the fact there should ever be a need to defend anything you've said since what was said doesn't really disappear.

 

All in all I'm of the mindset of full on individual freedom, especially speech, then working back from there to how much of a negative impact you exerting your freedom has on another, in a very impactful way, not just subjective perceived slights.  

Any form of communication that a player makes in game or outside of game using a Homecoming platform is open to review. This is not unusual or strange, it is actually completely normal. This is the internet, there is no expectation of privacy. Period. There are safeguards in some countries on how this data is retained or used, but for any person who accepts a User Agreement, that is a legally binding decision. Every. Single. Time.

 

And the assumption of yours about private communication, perhaps due to the title of the chat method, being 'Private' that the recipient and the sender are engaging in some form of protected speech - that is completely and unequivocally inaccurate.

 

When a player logs in to this game, they must accept the User Agreement (Every. Single. Time.), which contains a section for Privacy (section 3). For folks who are not sure of what that means, I have previously linked the HC Privacy Policy (and it is easily available on the landing page of the forum). But this isn't something up for debate - these are the rules that players agree to. If they don't agree, they don't play. 

 

The determination of whether to disqualify an applicant from becoming a GM or CR is not via "judging someone by random things." The original post in this thread is clear, the requirements fair, and the judgement wholly up to the Homecoming team. This is their platform to decide such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

Any form of communication that a player makes in game or outside of game using a Homecoming platform is open to review. This is not unusual or strange, it is actually completely normal. This is the internet, there is no expectation of privacy. Period. There are safeguards in some countries on how this data is retained or used, but for any person who accepts a User Agreement, that is a legally binding decision. Every. Single. Time.

 

And the assumption of yours about private communication, perhaps due to the title of the chat method, being 'Private' that the recipient and the sender are engaging in some form of protected speech - that is completely and unequivocally inaccurate.

 

When a player logs in to this game, they must accept the User Agreement (Every. Single. Time.), which contains a section for Privacy (section 3). For folks who are not sure of what that means, I have previously linked the HC Privacy Policy (and it is easily available on the landing page of the forum). But this isn't something up for debate - these are the rules that players agree to. If they don't agree, they don't play. 

 

The determination of whether to disqualify an applicant from becoming a GM or CR is not via "judging someone by random things." The original post in this thread is clear, the requirements fair, and the judgement wholly up to the Homecoming team. This is their platform to decide such things.

 

Remember that when you're speaking what you think is to the wind and in the background Cortana, Ciri, Google, etc. is recording what you say.  What user agreement have you signed with these devices that you can not just speak out and open with this tech that you think should have no sway over things you're not online doing?  Yet it's being recorded to be used against you for any and all things, usually advertising, but that's not just all.  

 

So yeah I'm getting out ahead by saying I believe in speech to the max and it's little of anyone that should feel threatened by words to the wind or ink to a paper.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mezmera said:

Remember that when you're speaking what you think is to the wind and in the background Cortana, Ciri, Google, etc. is recording what you say.  What user agreement have you signed with these devices that you can not just speak out and open with this tech that you think should have no sway over things you're not online doing?  Yet it's being recorded to be used against you for any and all things, usually advertising, but that's not just all.  

 

So yeah I'm getting out ahead by saying I believe in speech to the max and it's little of anyone that should feel threatened by words to the wind or ink to a paper.  

I get that you are trying to make a point about privacy concerns, but I don't use those products specifically because of those privacy concerns you listed. And, just like if a player doesn't agree to the user agreement, they don't play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

I get that you are trying to make a point about privacy concerns, but I don't use those products specifically because of those privacy concerns you listed. And, just like if a player doesn't agree to the user agreement, they don't play the game.

 

That's all fine and dandy if this game wasn't directly teaching about the complexity of follow the letter of the law where 2/3 of this vast game is about the ambiguity and gray areas of what one will encounter pitting their ideas directly against made up rules.  

 

I have no problem with being civil nor trying to not be much of an "asshole" while playing and am under no illusion that all forms of communication is not housed.  Thus I have no problem clicking the button past that legalese.  But I do find it odd how "private" entities feel like they can just bypass local governing statutes, especially arguing for a pirated game at that.   

 

Like a lot of people I'm sure I've dropped over $1k on this game when it was active, at what point shouldn't that be considered having some ownership stake when you can spend $100 on a game and it is yours in perpetuity.  So I'm not against this "pirated" endeavor in any way, just showcasing the instant gray area you are encountering when you are even logging in, never mind the User Agreement you're clicking. 

Edited by Mezmera
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

That's all fine and dandy if this game wasn't directly teaching about the complexity of follow the letter of the law where 2/3 of this vast game is about the ambiguity and gray areas of what one will encounter pitting their ideas directly against made up rules.  

 

I have no problem with being civil nor trying to not be much of an "asshole" while playing and am under no illusion that all forms of communication is not housed.  Thus I have no problem clicking the button past that legalese.  But I do find it odd how "private" entities feel like they can just bypass local governing statutes, especially arguing for a pirated game at that.

 

Like a lot of people I'm sure I've dropped over $1k on this game when it was active, at what point shouldn't that be considered having some ownership stake when you can spend $100 on a game and it is yours in perpetuity.  So I'm not against this "pirated" endeavor in any way, just showcasing the instant gray area you are encountering when you are even logging in, never mind the User Agreement you're clicking. 

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the first part of this post, but I feel the same way about civility amongst the community. 


As for the last part about private entities, I am not an expert in international law or even copyright law, and I am willing to bet there aren't any folks on the HC volunteer team who are either - but that being said, they have had these documents looked over by lawyers and experts and they are sound. Perhaps if you had a specific concern, cited a specific statute, in a specific context, then the HC volunteer team could address it the next time they discuss things with their lawyers. 

 

Edit: Oh, the reason I say 'specific' was because lawyers are expensive 😬

 

Edit 2: Following the update to your post, I am not sure that makes any sense to me. Just because I pay rent for my house doesn't mean I own any amount of it. I have heard of leases which allow the leaser to buy out the market value of the product at the end of the lease, but what you are describing isn't what is taking place. I think what is happening is you are describing a larger problem with social interactions and protected communications versus the risk of security and privacy as it pertains to enforcement. But I could be wrong - either way I am happy to switch over to direct messages to prevent further cluttering the thread and potentially going off topic.

Edited by Glacier Peak
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the first part of this post, but I feel the same way about civility amongst the community. 


As for the last part about private entities, I am not an expert in international law or even copyright law, and I am willing to bet there aren't any folks on the HC volunteer team who are either - but that being said, they have had these documents looked over by lawyers and experts and they are sound. Perhaps if you had a specific concern, cited a specific statute, in a specific context, then the HC volunteer team could address it the next time they discuss things with their lawyers. 

 

Edit: Oh, the reason I say 'specific' was because lawyers are expensive 😬

 

I'm saying they have that User Agreement in place to cover their butts should anything come against them.  For the most part the team on HC does a good job of being quite open to things and not too harsh.  But because they put the rule in place doesn't make it moral to database and truncate every interaction one has in something you're assuming is recreational.  

 

Also I added a bit more context to this last thing you quoted me on.  I'll type something up, see something that needs more clarification, cutting, spellchecking, etc. and do that since it looks more refined once that message is posted.  Which again further illustrates the misunderstandings involved in judging someone by online data-based text.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

Edit 2: Following the update to your post, I am not sure that makes any sense to me. Just because I pay rent for my house doesn't mean I own any amount of it. I have heard of leases which allow the leaser to buy out the market value of the product at the end of the lease, but what you are describing isn't what is taking place. I think what is happening is you are describing a larger problem with social interactions and protected communications versus the risk of security and privacy as it pertains to enforcement. But I could be wrong - either way I am happy to switch over to direct messages to prevent further cluttering the thread and potentially going off topic.

 

Just pointing out the flawed reasoning arguing to obey the rules on a game that exists because some here didn't obey the rules.  We're all a bunch of Rogues if you hadn't realized.  

 

I agree though nothing either of us can say to further our points to the topic of this conversation.  So yes lets not hog the space.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of employers will conduct background checks for many positions. This includes not just running criminal and credit checks, but also things like talking to your old high school teachers, college professors, and former neighbors. The goal is to find out not just what you're like, but what you used to be like years ago.

 

Checking chat logs is no different. It's just a background check. The best predictor of future actions is past behavior. If you're against having someone look into your background then you're not qualified for the position. It's as simple as that.

If you'd rather be Lame-O the Wonder Clown instead of Homelander then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Thank you doesn't even come close to the gratitude I have for the Homecoming developers for resurrecting Paragon City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

A lot of employers will conduct background checks for many positions. This includes not just running criminal and credit checks, but also things like talking to your old high school teachers, college professors, and former neighbors. The goal is to find out not just what you're like, but what you used to be like years ago.

 

Checking chat logs is no different. It's just a background check. The best predictor of future actions is past behavior. If you're against having someone look into your background then you're not qualified for the position. It's as simple as that.

 

There's a HUGE difference between digging into someone's past through all of the various things they do currently and by asking any random associate of yours their opinion of you, even the kid you may have had a fight with in kindergarten.  But having at your fingertips the exact dialogue available without being in the moment or having any understanding of any context that may first be needed known is not a technique that should ever be available to any background check.  There's lots of laws in place against recording someone's dialogue, for instance in California it is illegal to record someone on the phone without their consent.    

 

Just so we're clear huge difference between current background checks that still don't really get it right about someone's character and having dialogue verbatim available at your disposal.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

Just so we're clear huge difference between current background checks that still don't really get it right about someone's character and having dialogue verbatim available at your disposal.

Translation: "Nothing's perfect."

 

Yeah, no kidding. However, the best predictor (notice how I did NOT say infallible) of future actions is past behavior.

 

Also, the phone call example is a bad one. Those laws don't apply to written chat logs on the internet. And those chat logs are the best way that the Homecoming devs have to find out a person's true character.

If you'd rather be Lame-O the Wonder Clown instead of Homelander then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Thank you doesn't even come close to the gratitude I have for the Homecoming developers for resurrecting Paragon City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Also, the phone call example is a bad one. Those laws don't apply to written chat logs on the internet. And those chat logs are the best way that the Homecoming devs have to find out a person's true character.

 

Yeah those phone laws were from back in a day when reason ruled.  It's too bad Silicone Valley has everyone in their pockets or we might see some changes to laws on the books like they're starting to implement in other states.  It was just one example, there's many other examples of varying degrees. 

 

Things written into law when brought to court can be judged on either the letter of that law or the intent of the law for behavior it is meant to prevent.  If you think it's cool having a detailed log of random things databased about you that's fine, but I don't think something a 15 year old wrote on Twitter 10 years ago should have any sway over that person's current character traits nor determines their employability.  Just my opinion.  

Edited by Mezmera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...