Dismissive, and Troll Encouraging Behavior

[Kistulot]

I must have hit a size limit, or something, because I responded to everything in your post! ;-;

 

18 minutes ago, Americas Angel said:

The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. Sad but true. And I daresay the motive was to nip the inevitable flame war that was forming in the bud before it got any worse.

 

Widower's response, while not what many folks hoped for, was understandable. As was GooglyMoogly shutting the thread down after Greycat's request got denied. The suggestion thread had served its purpose. IMO Players are better served by starting a new thread with a new request, now that the parameters for what is potentially on offer has been provided by Widower.

 

I'm sorry you got brigadier'd against by the usual suspects. This forum has become quite an ugly place. And I can absolutely empathise with not wanting to use/promote the Fallen But Not Forgotten section due to the people that frequent this place.

 

One question that might be worth thinking about, if only to move the conversation back to something that encourages healing rather than debate: 

 

If a memorial NPC for Eildath isn't possible, what is the sort of collective memorial wall/plaque that she would approve of? By this I mean, if she was still with us, what sort of memorial for all those have died would she want to see added to the game?

 

 

I'll respond to this over again. Apologies if it's not as good.

 

Well, Squeak squeak squeak! Also, if they closed the thread for that purpose, I believe that not saying so shows a lack of confidence in their moderation, or a lack of respect for the moderated.

 

Widower's response was to express what was already set, yes, but I really cannot see why one, it went that direction, and two, when none of the suggested ideas were addressed and the ongoing issue of how the thread was treated was not resolved anyone would bother to say more.

 

Moving on to healing?

 

I don't believe healing comes before the problem is solved, and for me, it hasn't been. It's like sticking a bandaid over an infected wound that needs a direct balm. Maybe a burn wound? I'm a writer, not a doctor.

 

Honestly, would a wall satisfy me? No. We have a cathedral in Echo Plaza that's nothing but a development test project posted onto the live server, then we can have a process to make further memorial NPCs in the game. Also, frankly, memorials aren't for the dead. They're for the living. Eildath never asked for this, but the way that this whole situation has been treated feel inherently disrespectful to everyone mourning our loss. People have said "I'm sorry for your loss" plenty, and while at times I respect it, I feel like if you say "I'm sorry for your loss, but..." that it loses all of its meaning.

 

People don't die every day, not on our servers, but even if they did... 30 people a month needing to be added somewhere?

 

Needing a verification process is unnecessary if we focus on it being for the living. The community is here, and can discuss things.

 

I would be happy to discuss this, and more, in private with those making decisions...  but honestly, I was referred to here, so...

 

It only feels right to leave it here, and allow other voices to speak.

[Cipher]

Firstly, I'm sorry for your loss. I didn't know Eildath personally, but I've heard only good things.

 

I'm not going to speak on our policy w.r.t. memorial NPCs as Widower has already spoken about it here other than to state that the reasons for this policy are not just what was stated by Widower. The reason for this policy is not because we are simply unwilling or because we don't care, it is in place because we have already seen how this can go wrong, it is a much more involved process than you'd expect, and we'd rather find another solution - ideally one that also reduces the burden on our volunteer team and puts the power in the community's hands. We have started discussions internally about what we can do here, such as providing the ability for players to create a named and costumed entity in bases (sort of like the holograms you see in some missions), but we can't commit to anything right now, and any solution that we could come up with would not likely happen in the immediate term.

 

With that said, I do want to provide some clarification on this situation with your support request and the two threads from our perspective. Our team is trained to always direct players submitting requests or suggestions for the game to the forums because it puts it in reach of our wider team and other players to discuss; our development team doesn't have access to support requests, and it's not feasible for the leadership team to keep up with the volume of support requests that we see in order to filter them to the right people (for context, our team has resolved over 75,000 support requests to date). As your support request appeared as a request for the game rather than for support, the responding GM acted within our policies / training and directed you here. In this particular situation, it may have been better to raise the issue with the team internally before responding given the nature of the request, and that's something that we can reflect and improve on moving forward.

 

With regard to how the policy thread was handled and where the clarification of our policy on memorial NPCs was given - I believe these decisions were made to address that thread and its specific point of discussion as it grew quickly and became very hostile, so our staff started getting reports and alerts about it. I do agree that we should have replied stating our policy in the original request thread as well once it had come to our attention, though - we'll do better; just know that the intent was not to ignore the original thread, but rather to address the growing issue before it got any worse. I understand how locking the thread would come across as dismissive, and I want to make it clear that we're open to the community discussing options as long as it remains civil. I've reopened the thread for that purpose, and we will be keeping a close eye on the discussion and handing out warnings if people can't be respectful and constructive.

 

With all of that said, please treat both our volunteer staff and other community members with respect and civility. People are free to criticize and provide feedback on what our team does and our policies as long it remains constructive and respectful, and it's a shame that we've lost so many valuable opportunities to discuss and learn because people can't behave. To those intent on consistently derailing conversations and disrespecting your fellow community members, enough is enough. If hiding posts with personal attacks and issuing warnings hasn't gotten the point across then we'll start issuing bans.

[Snarky]

2 hours ago, Americas Angel said:

TOne question that might be worth thinking about, if only to move the conversation back to something that encourages healing rather than debate: 

 

If a memorial NPC for Eildath isn't possible, what is the sort of collective memorial wall/plaque that she would approve of? By this I mean, if she was still with us, what sort of memorial for all those have died would she want to see added to the game?

 

I studied a bit about the vietnam war memorial in an art class.  How the overall structure was like a scar carved into the land.  This list of names is a place where people can go and make a deep connection with the memory and feelings they have for someone who is gone.

 

[NorseStar]

I would like a grave marker in any one of the many cemeteries.  Either a stone statue of a main or just text on a gravestone. Cremation your thing? A nice “Sprinkle Ash” emote would work. Maybe an Urn or 2 in Room Details for placing in your base. 

[tidge]

IMO neither the thread expressing sadness over the loss of a friend nor the thread asking what the dev's thoughts on 'memorials' was trolling. It is disingenuous to suggest that.

 

As for why the devs chose a conservative path (i.e. a reluctance to make physical changes to the open world), this should be no surprise. The game has certain elements dating from live that a tied to some rather problematic personalities (no need to bring them up, as those threads get "hidden" and are not-to-be-discussed for reasons) which haven't been particularly addressed in-game. It isn't like the powers-that-be have a hate for the lost friend (because the memorial threads still exist!), it's just that they aren't going to implement wholesale changes in-game to the (potentially tiny) fraction of players that feel strongly about the personality.

[lemming]

Haven't really responded to any of this, but I think people need to read with a bit more compassion rather than assuming personal attacks.

 

And should be pointed out, the GMs & Devs are not a hive mind, but a dispersed group of individuals around the world.

[Oklahoman]

8 hours ago, Americas Angel said:

This forum has become quite an ugly place.

 

👆

[Super Atom]

Reopening the other thread, missing the point of this one, AND encouraging people to engage with it is a miss.

[ScarySai]

23 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

Reopening the other thread, missing the point of this one, AND encouraging people to engage with it is a miss.

 

Reopening that one is profoundly confusing.

 

Maybe they thought it best just to keep all the heat off the genuine one, but this has the indirect effect of, you know, reigniting all the arguments about why such a thread is in poor taste.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

Two things:  First, it's probably best not to speak for the recently departed, especially if you didn't know them.

 

Second: Let's try hard to NOT live up to the thread's title and encourage trolling behavior.  And that is not directed to a person or a group, but to everyone.

 

Believe me, I understand grief having lost a brother, both my parents, and too many other friends and family to count.  Grief can easily turn to anger if you feel that your loved one is being disrespected.  But let's all do our best not to poke each other.  Please.

Edited Monday at 05:27 PM by GM_GooglyMoogly

[Kistulot]

8 hours ago, Cipher said:

Firstly, I'm sorry for your loss. I didn't know Eildath personally, but I've heard only good things.

 

I'm not going to speak on our policy w.r.t. memorial NPCs as Widower has already spoken about it here other than to state that the reasons for this policy are not just what was stated by Widower. The reason for this policy is not because we are simply unwilling or because we don't care, it is in place because we have already seen how this can go wrong, it is a much more involved process than you'd expect, and we'd rather find another solution - ideally one that also reduces the burden on our volunteer team and puts the power in the community's hands. We have started discussions internally about what we can do here, such as providing the ability for players to create a named and costumed entity in bases (sort of like the holograms you see in some missions), but we can't commit to anything right now, and any solution that we could come up with would not likely happen in the immediate term.

 

I appreciate the condolences. Sincerely. I want to stress that in my frustration with how this situation is being handled, I do appreciate the genuine kindness and caring that has come from the community, and the community involved in the staff.

 

Here's the thing: Why are these discussions solely internal? If there's time, and they won't be done for quite awhile (no one on the dev team works in December and I respect that) then this seems a perfectly good thing to open up to the actual people affected. I'm still not really satisfied with "yeah, I don't feel like addressing that but trust me it's gone and will go poorly" but I'm willing to just kinda move past that for now for the sake of discussion. Gotta make concessions or nothing ever gets anywhere. This however, shines a perfect light on the frustration I described. I don't see why this process benefits the GMS, the devs, or the community... especially not when it relates directly to the community and the GMs/Devs will already be honored like this with no objection.

 

Kinda comes off as "we've got ours".

 

8 hours ago, Cipher said:

With that said, I do want to provide some clarification on this situation with your support request and the two threads from our perspective. Our team is trained to always direct players submitting requests or suggestions for the game to the forums because it puts it in reach of our wider team and other players to discuss; our development team doesn't have access to support requests, and it's not feasible for the leadership team to keep up with the volume of support requests that we see in order to filter them to the right people (for context, our team has resolved over 75,000 support requests to date). As your support request appeared as a request for the game rather than for support, the responding GM acted within our policies / training and directed you here. In this particular situation, it may have been better to raise the issue with the team internally before responding given the nature of the request, and that's something that we can reflect and improve on moving forward.

 

I want to clarify that I was not blaming the GM who sent me here, nor do I feel any desire to call them out. I knew they would be following procedure. My issue is twofold. Why, if this policy was so clearly established, was this not simply something that we could see? You've had it cause issues before? I feel like that's the kind of thing a dev digest could explain to the community and be a quick point of reference. Otherwise, no offense, it's a very "citation needed" kind of situation. It also leads to a situation where a suggestion to make a request will instantly be shot down because of a policy that the response is "you want this? well we don't. sorry." That's not really something that anyone wants to deal with, much less in this situation.

 

This is also a situation where the corporate CYOA language of "may have been better" and so forth just comes off as a bit disingenuous. Was this a bad choice or not? Can you even accept that as something we agree upon, or do you think this was a good experience? It is, at best, an attempt to save face that insults both of us.

 

8 hours ago, Cipher said:

With regard to how the policy thread was handled and where the clarification of our policy on memorial NPCs was given - I believe these decisions were made to address that thread and its specific point of discussion as it grew quickly and became very hostile, so our staff started getting reports and alerts about it. I do agree that we should have replied stating our policy in the original request thread as well once it had come to our attention, though - we'll do better; just know that the intent was not to ignore the original thread, but rather to address the growing issue before it got any worse. I understand how locking the thread would come across as dismissive, and I want to make it clear that we're open to the community discussing options as long as it remains civil. I've reopened the thread for that purpose, and we will be keeping a close eye on the discussion and handing out warnings if people can't be respectful and constructive.

 

I do appreciate that you are directly addressing my concerns. I will say however, that I feel there's an issue here that needs to be directly brought up: there are at least four people in these threads, I'm not even going to bother naming names, who are either making false arguments and dragging it all down, or, and you can look across their other threads, kinda just there to be argumentative or unempathetic with other players. I feel like starting there might be a good decision.

 

I also feel like reopening the thread but not responding to me is, essentially, in my direction, not reopening it at all.

 

That, is dismissive.

 

8 hours ago, Cipher said:

With all of that said, please treat both our volunteer staff and other community members with respect and civility. People are free to criticize and provide feedback on what our team does and our policies as long it remains constructive and respectful, and it's a shame that we've lost so many valuable opportunities to discuss and learn because people can't behave. To those intent on consistently derailing conversations and disrespecting your fellow community members, enough is enough. If hiding posts with personal attacks and issuing warnings hasn't gotten the point across then we'll start issuing bans.

 

This as the only response to everything said feels like there's been no attempt to actually read anything I've said besides to tick off PR boxes. I want you to reread over that, the idea that it's a shame we've lost opportunities, and see how incredibly patronizing it is. If a bad actor speaks up, how does that limit the opportunities? If the people with power over the conversation says it does. None of this is without responsibility, and placing that in the community's hands to have no bad actors is, again, cowardice.

 

Especially considering that basically the response to my response is "we've made up our mind" I do not actually see how anything that I've said has had any meaning.

 

Openness to the community seems to be "we'll hear you, tell you how we feel, and if you're unhappy with it, we will lock the thread even if you obstain from violating any rules of conduct."

 

Essentially, everything I said is only being proved more and more and more.

 

There's still no malice.

 

But there's no empathy, or understanding that this side of the game and the efforts running the game are not so separated as there is an attempt for it to seem.

 

Why is there such a concern with if someone turns out to not be dead?

 

Why is there such an insistence that a policy has been set and will not be reviewed yet a claimed statement of being open to listening to the community?

 

Did you even read the discussion of our poster child for npcs based on player characters?

 

Frankly at this point it would feel less insulting if you just told me you wanted me to shut up and you didn't care.

[lemming]

2 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

Why is there such a concern with if someone turns out to not be dead?

I was on a different board that wound up having two people who were complete fiction.   Pick an emotion, people had it about that.    It's a great way to break trust.

 

I don't feel the GMs and Devs are being dismissive.   I'm in an industry where I have to clamp down on my emotional responses and still make some rather delicate decisions.   It's not that I'm not being emotional about it, but in order to be fair, i have to keep it in check even when I have people yelling at me.

 

It's obvious there's different opinions in the HC area as well, and they're talking and presumably taking some input from the forums (and discord I guess). 

[Kistulot]

Just now, lemming said:

I was on a different board that wound up having two people who were complete fiction.   Pick an emotion, people had it about that.    It's a great way to break trust.

 

I don't feel the GMs and Devs are being dismissive.   I'm in an industry where I have to clamp down on my emotional responses and still make some rather delicate decisions.   It's not that I'm not being emotional about it, but in order to be fair, i have to keep it in check even when I have people yelling at me.

 

It's obvious there's different opinions in the HC area as well, and they're talking and presumably taking some input from the forums (and discord I guess). 

 

It breaks trust in the people themselves, not the people who attempted to honor others.

 

I appreciate that you do not feel this is dismissive. This statement, however, does not reflect my reality.

 

The constant discussions of internal conversations shows me that one of my core frustrations is being outright ignored to the point where I'm starting to wonder if I've been deleting parts of my own posts.

[lemming]

1 minute ago, Kistulot said:

It breaks trust in the people themselves, not the people who attempted to honor others.

More than just the people involved.   Who else may be a sock puppet?  Why didn't the moderators catch it earlier, etc...  

[Rudra]

24 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

I'm not even going to bother naming names, who are either making false arguments and dragging it all down, or, and you can look across their other threads, kinda just there to be argumentative or unempathetic with other players.

Just because you don't like what a person has to say does not mean that person is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or that the person is arguing in bad faith or that the person's arguments are wrong.

[Kistulot]

17 minutes ago, lemming said:

More than just the people involved.   Who else may be a sock puppet?  Why didn't the moderators catch it earlier, etc...  

 

I believe we're being asked to act like adults here, right?

 

If we're being asked to be civil in this situation, to be patient, calm, and understanding, then, might I ask, why would this not simply be the call in any situation?

 

11 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Just because you don't like what a person has to say does not mean that person is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or that the person is arguing in bad faith or that the person's arguments are wrong.

 

It does not, you are correct.

 

However, the inverse, that disagreeing with what someone says and pointing out that their argument does not further anything in a positive manner and that while their points could be genuine they don't help anyone move forward in any constructive way, is not inherently wrong.

 

In short: Perhaps it might be best to say that intended or not, some are entering the discourse with no desire to actually hear others, and in fact have resorted to pretending like the people involved are not aware of already visible solutions, or being so unhelpful that their responses do nothing to move anything forward but instead stoke frustrations.

 

This is also, all perspective.

 

At no point do I insist no one can disagree with me without being wrong.

 

I do however feel that some responses, some lines of reactions, are not constructive, and appear to have no way that they could be: IE a thread about a request for something in game being responded to with a link to a forum thread made by the poster of the thread asking for something in game as if they are not aware that it exists.

 

I do not see how that provides any significantly constructive input.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

 

It does not, you are correct.

 

However, the inverse, that disagreeing with what someone says and pointing out that their argument does not further anything in a positive manner and that while their points could be genuine they don't help anyone move forward in any constructive way, is not inherently wrong.

 

In short: Perhaps it might be best to say that intended or not, some are entering the discourse with no desire to actually hear others, and in fact have resorted to pretending like the people involved are not aware of already visible solutions, or being so unhelpful that their responses do nothing to move anything forward but instead stoke frustrations.

 

This is also, all perspective.

 

At no point do I insist no one can disagree with me without being wrong.

 

I do however feel that some responses, some lines of reactions, are not constructive, and appear to have no way that they could be: IE a thread about a request for something in game being responded to with a link to a forum thread made by the poster of the thread asking for something in game as if they are not aware that it exists.

 

I do not see how that provides any significantly constructive input.

Then please let me ask you this without you getting offended. How is anyone supposed to know what anyone else knows? There have been many instances where someone made a post/suggestion without knowing that what was being asked for already exists. For instance, I didn't even know there was a "Fallen but not Forgotten" forum until the first time a memorial discussion came up simply because I don't bother exploring the forums. Or the number of times players ask for things to be added to the game itself that already are in the game, but they needed to be shown where it was or how to make it using what is available in the game for the purpose of making that request and others that use those elements. I can't speak for others, but while there seems to be a trend of others viewing my approach to posts as being insulting, my approach to dealing with someone and their request is to do so from the perspective that the individual may either not know such a thing exists or is unaware that something is/was being done about it or that it has already been ruled out for various reasons.

 

Add to that for when alternate options are suggested for the request but the author and his/her/their allies refuse to accept such alternatives because it is not specifically what the author and his/her/their allies want. And how often those alternatives are suggested specifically to be as all-encompassing as possible and not alienate or step on others, simply to see responses that insist on stepping on others because only what the author and his/her/their allies want matters regardless of how it may affect others.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Kistulot said:

Here's the thing: Why are these discussions solely internal? If there's time, and they won't be done for quite awhile (no one on the dev team works in December and I respect that) then this seems a perfectly good thing to open up to the actual people affected. I'm still not really satisfied with "yeah, I don't feel like addressing that but trust me it's gone and will go poorly" but I'm willing to just kinda move past that for now for the sake of discussion. Gotta make concessions or nothing ever gets anywhere. This however, shines a perfect light on the frustration I described. I don't see why this process benefits the GMS, the devs, or the community... especially not when it relates directly to the community and the GMs/Devs will already be honored like this with no objection.

 

Kinda comes off as "we've got ours".

 

I can understand the frustration here, but I will add - and I absolutely don't mean this to be insulting so please, do not take it that way - your remarks are coming across with an air of entitlement.  I can understand why GMs and Council folk want to steer clear of these discussions because it should be abundantly clear that they'll never be able to please everyone.

 

Objectively, and whether this is a good thing or bad, this server belongs to the HC team.  We are here at their pleasure, not the other way around.  This isn't a commercial property anymore, so it's not like a commercial product in that it's not reliant upon a thriving community to keep the lights on.  The people on the HC team are the ones maintaining the code, handling all of the support requests, managing finances and the rest, all on their own time.  If God forbid some of the volunteers running this server should pass on, I have zero objection to HC memorializing that person in game.

 

HC is a volunteer group who are graciously sharing their efforts with the rest of us.  This server doesn't belong to you, me or anyone else that isn't handling the code or doing everything else that needs to keep this operation running.  We can all disappear tomorrow and HC will continue on.  It will still be there for their family and friends to enjoy whether any of us are here or not.  I'm not saying this to be mean, it's just a simple fact. 

 

Let me be very clear - I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that the people on the Council or HC are cruel or heartless or in general don't care about us or the community.  Far from it.  As I said, they're graciously sharing their love and passion for the game with us when they really don't need to.  It speaks volumes about how they feel about everyone, and should be obvious to anyone here how much passion they have for this project with how gracious they are with their free time in sharing the game with us.  They deserve our respect and thanks.  I know it's something I need to do better at myself, and I'm trying to do better myself.

 

I'm very sorry for your loss. 

Edited Monday at 07:42 PM by Excraft

[Kistulot]

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

Then please let me ask you this without you getting offended.

 

Similarly, I'm going to ask you this the same: when has this ever been a good way to start anything? I want to emphasize something: you have not as of yet offended me. Have I felt at times, many times, that you haven't been constructive? Yes. Have I been annoyed here or there? Sure. That's not the same as being offended and I can say that you have most certainly used proper civility to avoid me being able to point to anything you've done which I feel would be "objectively" labeled as offensive. (The quotes there are because I feel objectivity is overused, not to insult you, or any others. This parenthetical is not a CYOA, but because I am physically incapable of putting two sentences out at the same time and having them both be read at the same time.)

 

4 minutes ago, Rudra said:

How is anyone supposed to know what anyone else knows? There have been many instances where someone made a post/suggestion without knowing that what was being asked for already exists. For instance, I didn't even know there was a "Fallen but not Forgotten" forum until the first time a memorial discussion came up simply because I don't bother exploring the forums.

 

If you had looked for even a moment you would see that I had already been there.

 

If you have posted 7k times on a forum, and link to a part of it, I believe the expectation that you know it is only reasonable. If you don't, at that point, the ignorance doesn't feel like a defense--but that may be my personal opinion.

 

5 minutes ago, Rudra said:

 I can't speak for others, but while there seems to be a trend of others viewing my approach to posts as being insulting, my approach to dealing with someone and their request is to do so from the perspective that the individual may either not know such a thing exists or is unaware that something is/was being done about it or that it has already been ruled out for various reasons.

 

This trend, I feel, does not come out of nowhere. I don't need to agree with your perspective, but if I'm attempting to do anything other than just drop a ten ton weight and act like that justifies everything, in other words, to discuss and convince, then I need to be able to show empathy.

 

I feel it would not be shocking that I feel myself, and many others, do not see evidence of these traits in many of your responses.

 

7 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Add to that for when alternate options are suggested for the request but the author and his/her/their allies refuse to accept such alternatives because it is not specifically what the author and his/her/their allies want. And how often those alternatives are suggested specifically to be as all-encompassing as possible and not alienate or step on others, simply to see responses that insist on stepping on others because only what the author and his/her/their allies want matters regardless of how it may affect others.

Considering that you just stated people don't appreciate your lack of visible empathy it feels kinda funny to say that you take issue with others not agreeing with another person's compromise.

 

I will no longer be responding to your posts, as while I do not feel you have violated any rules, I feel your methods and goals from communicating do not align with what I believe to be constructive.

[Kistulot]

1 minute ago, Excraft said:

 

I can understand the frustration here, but I will add - and I absolutely don't mean this to be insulting so please, do not take it that way - your remarks are coming across with an air of entitlement.  I can understand why GMs and Council folk want to steer clear of these discussions because it should be abundantly clear that they'll never be able to please everyone

 

You did not attempt, nor did you by accident succeed, at insulting me--promise! 🙂

 

The word entitlement, imho, is given a bad reputation. I do feel I am entitled to things, that we are entitled to things. We will likely, and often, disagree on these things. But I would say that in this instance, what I'm attempting to discuss is important and I feel like we as a community deserve, and at the very least should be entitled to, something different than what has been offered. I'm also going out of my way to type in a way that while less conversational, hopefully leaves less room for misinterpretation.

 

This does make it seem a bit self important, but there's a reason I've been emphasizing community.

 

I don't just want any of this for me.

 

I want the things I've discussed for us. You may very freely disagree, and insist I do not speak for you and I will not argue or try to convince you that I do.

 

I do sincerely wish I could be more playful, jovial, and straightforward with this, but if someone comes at me with corporatese I've kinda learned you have to respond in it to be taken seriously. FWIW, I don't talk like this in casual conversation. Promise.

 

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Objectively, and whether this is a good thing or bad, this server belongs to the HC team.  We are here at their pleasure, not the other way around.  This isn't a commercial property anymore, so it's not like a commercial product in that it's not reliant upon a thriving community to keep the lights on.  The people on the HC team are the ones maintaining the code, handling all of the support requests, managing finances and the rest, all on their own time.  If God forbid some of the volunteers running this server should pass on, I have zero objection to HC memorializing that person in game.

 

This is a very fair point! However, I would like to emphasize: I don't feel like the benefits of HC being HC matter without its community. Being devs and GMs for an empty, dead game with no one logging in isn't really anyone's goal there.

 

I do not desire a lack of volunteer memorialization.

 

I simply believe that they are only one part of what makes homecoming matter to them, or to us.

 

8 minutes ago, Excraft said:

HC is a volunteer group who are graciously sharing their efforts with the rest of us.  This server doesn't belong to you, me or anyone else that isn't handling the code or doing everything else that needs to keep this operation running.  We can all disappear tomorrow and HC will continue on.  It will still be there for their family and friends to enjoy whether any of us are here or not.  I'm not saying this to be mean, it's just a simple fact. 

 

Let me be very clear - I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that the people on the Council or HC are cruel or heartless or in general don't care about us or the community.  Far from it.  As I said, they're graciously sharing their love and passion for the game with us when they really don't need to.  It speaks volumes about how they feel about everyone, and should be obvious to anyone here how much passion they have for this project with how gracious they are with their free time in sharing the game with us.  They deserve our respect thanks.  I know it's something I need to do better at myself, and I'm trying to do better myself.

 

The server is payed for by our donations. They are donated, yes, with no expectation of authority, but to pretend that means that there's no buy in, that it's not a community effort, feels to me like it misses the point. If they want it to be just for their family and friends, they could afford much cheaper server architecture and would have no needs of crowdfunding support, official licenses, etc. We have to judge this setup for what it is, not the theoretical it could be.

 

I don't think any of them are heartless either. If I felt no one did care, then I wouldn't be wasting my... finger breath? I don't know what to call it, but the endurance of my fingers.

 

Respect, and thanks, can be delivered at the same time as criticism.

 

I'm only bothering to continue this discussion because I respect those putting forth these efforts and I feel that a reasonable dialogue has merit and value.

11 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I'm very sorry for your loss. 

 

Thank you.

 

I appreciate the time you took to express yourself, and the kindness and empathy you showed in making sure that even if you feel my methods or goals may be astray, you still value me as a human being.

 

That feels so dry and detached, but it's sincere.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Kistulot said:

You did not attempt, nor did you by accident succeed, at insulting me--promise! 🙂

 

Good to know and thank you.

 

1 hour ago, Kistulot said:

This is a very fair point! However, I would like to emphasize: I don't feel like the benefits of HC being HC matter without its community. Being devs and GMs for an empty, dead game with no one logging in isn't really anyone's goal there.

 

Well, it wouldn't be empty or dead, it would just have less people on it.  I'm sure the HC people and their friends and family would still log in and play together if there were no one else.    Remember, this server had a much smaller population prior to going public.  Other CoX servers are out there with much smaller populations as well and they're all still getting development effort on them.

 

1 hour ago, Kistulot said:

The server is payed for by our donations.  They are donated, yes, with no expectation of authority, but to pretend that means that there's no buy in, that it's not a community effort, feels to me like it misses the point. If they want it to be just for their family and friends, they could afford much cheaper server architecture and would have no needs of crowdfunding support, official licenses, etc. We have to judge this setup for what it is, not the theoretical it could be.

 

It was a much smaller architecture before the game was forced to go public.  Remember, they didn't have a choice per se, since someone broke NDA and announced its existence.  A lot of the legal effort behind getting a license was to make sure the people involved were covered legally, not any of us.  Not to rehash history, but the code for this game wasn't shall we say purchased legally.  I'm not criticizing anyone as its totally understandable that they wanted to protect themselves. 

 

Objectively, the current setup here is for our benefit, not theirs.  They needed crowdfunded donations if we wanted to continue as they weren't going to bear the financial burden of paying for a larger architecture out of their own pocket, nor should they.  I'm not at all suggesting they would, but HC could turn off public access to the servers tomorrow if they wanted to, condense to a single server and make it invitation only again.  We already know it was affordable for a small group of people to pay for out of pocket, and it could be again.

 

I agree, donations do not come with any expectation of authority, nor should they.  It does seem to me though that there are people out there who feel entitled to something here because they made a donation or run in game events and such.   I don't think anyone is entitled to anything here, nor do I believe that we should be dictating what HC does or what they work on.  Again, this a volunteer group working on a passion project in their free time who are graciously sharing their work with us.  I'm sure they all love having us all around,  but they don't need us. 

[Kistulot]

2 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Remember, this server had a much smaller population prior to going public.  Other CoX servers are out there with much smaller populations as well and they're all still getting development effort on them.

 

I do not believe this is the dismissal of anything I've said that you think it is.

 

This is proof that they did not simply maintain the circumstances of the past.

 

3 minutes ago, Excraft said:

It was a much smaller architecture before the game was forced to go public.  Remember, they didn't have a choice per se, since someone broke NDA and announced its existence.  A lot of the legal effort behind getting a license was to make sure the people involved were covered legally, not any of us.  Not to rehash history, but the code for this game wasn't shall we say purchased legally.  I'm not criticizing anyone as its totally understandable that they wanted to protect themselves.

 

This situation is not what was required to happen. The source code was handed out. Those previously invested could well have scattered to the winds. If they did not, and chose to be a part of ongoing community efforts outside of a very small server, then this changes the situation by virtue of not being the same circumstance. I feel that's tautological, but there we go.

 

I outright stated the illegality of the circumstance. I'm very well aware for it.

 

I am also, however, stating something that's been very clear to a lot of people in this community for awhile: though this is essentially the continuation of pirate server days, much as you said, it's somewhat bizarre to act as an opaque monolith towards the community. I respect protecting one's self. However, that's not really the point here.

 

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Objectively, the current setup here is for our benefit, not theirs.  They needed crowdfunded donations if we wanted to continue as they weren't going to bear the financial burden of paying for a larger architecture out of their own pocket, nor should they.  I'm not at all suggesting they would, but HC could turn off public access to the servers tomorrow if they wanted to, condense to a single server and make it invitation only again.  We already know it was affordable for a small group of people to pay for out of pocket, and it could be again.

 

So, let's say that you make something for someone else's benefit. Let's say that they then ask for something. They see it's been done before, for other people, but you insist to not play favorites, you wont be doing it anymore. I uh. yeah, I'm sorry, there's flaws here. HC could do that, but they haven't, and while they don't, it should be treated as what it is.

 

7 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I agree, donations do not come with any expectation of authority, nor should they.  It does seem to me though that there are people out there who feel entitled to something here because they made a donation or run in game events and such.   I don't think anyone is entitled to anything here, nor do I believe that we should be dictating what HC does or what they work on.  Again, this a volunteer group working on a passion project in their free time who are graciously sharing their work with us.  I'm sure they all love having us all around,  but they don't need us. 

 

It really feels like whenever someone wants to dismiss the idea that someone thinks something is a good idea or naturally flows from the circumstances they're called entitled. It's like people who say other people are entitled think they're entitled to pretend that no circumstances exist outside of the small bit they're nitpicking.

 

They don't need us, but they want a community or they wouldn't have bothered.

 

While they do, that means that the community is assumed to have some degree of consideration. Or entitlements.

[ScarySai]

The whole "volunteer" line gets tiring when used as some sort of 'gotcha'.

 

Is HC maintained by volunteers? Yes.

 

Does that mean they can do whatever they want without any criticism or retaliation? No.

 

Good will buys you a lot of leeway, but said good will can also be burned. We are not entitled to anything simply by donating, but HC isn't entitled to an echo chamber either.

 

Remember: HC is only the most popular server because it was first. You can't claim to be all about the community but neglect it and hide behind the 'volunteer' defense when you screw up. This situation was handled extremely poorly and is hopefully a learning experience.

Edited Monday at 09:52 PM by ScarySai

[Shin Magmus]

     ...I get that you still are hopeful for anything about this place to improve OP, but it's a lost cause.  The GMs have literally shielded the most vile shit-stirring contrarian trolls ad infinitum here for as long as this forum has been active.  It is 100% okay for someone to respond with "nu uh, [the opposite of what you said], feels fine to me" to any point you make, even if that point was "the Earth orbits around the sun."  In fact, being a contrarian shithead is an easy way to get threads locked!  You don't need to come from a place of kindness or communicate in good-faith, just "nu uh" until you bait enough people into disproving your "nu uhs" and presto changeo: Threadicus Lockicus!

[Kistulot]

6 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

The whole "volunteer" line gets tiring when used as some sort of 'gotcha'.

 

Just clipped this part to keep the post short, buuuut...

 

Thank you. Sincerely. Your support as this situation has gone along has been very appreciated. You've articulated this really well in a jovial way that I don't trust myself to do right now.

 

I appreciate it a lot.

 

4 minutes ago, Shin Magmus said:

     ...I get that you still are hopeful for anything about this place to improve OP, but it's a lost cause.  The GMs have literally shielded the most vile shit-stirring contrarian trolls ad infinitum here for as long as this forum has been active.  It is 100% okay for someone to respond with "nu uh, [the opposite of what you said], feels fine to me" to any point you make, even if that point was "the Earth orbits around the sun."  In fact, being a contrarian shithead is an easy way to get threads locked!  You don't need to come from a place of kindness or communicate in good-faith, just "nu uh" until you bait enough people into disproving your "nu uhs" and presto changeo: Threadicus Lockicus!

 

Thank you for trying to look out for me. 🙂

 

I value that you've had these frustrations to the point you've given up. Maybe if I'd been as active on here as you have I'd be in the same boat by this point! I certainly can't argue with what you've said as far as how I would feel about it.

 

But City of Heroes, and the homecoming shards specifically, are important to me. I've told stories, made friends... it's been one wild ride and I've loved it. I want to keep on loving it for a long time.

 

My only intention was to follow through on what people in game were telling me they wanted.

 

I had no idea the experience would go like this... and Maybe I'm more stubborn than sensible. This would not be the first time it was suggested...

 

...but I care.

 

I care, and I believe it's worth being stubborn about.