Process to request alterations to Homecoming Policies

[Kistulot]

Hello! 🙂

 

We've recently learned that there are many homecoming policies that are not publicly known but are internally very solid.

 

While I would like to request those being made public--if only so we can know what rakes not to step on--I would additionally suggest that a process by which disagreements with policies might be handled in a manner that allows for actual consideration and debate, not merrily a "no and this is why" that ignores a reasonable rebuttal.

 

Obviously, this can be declined as all suggestions may, but I believe that a formalized process for communication between those in the community and those making decisions would help both sides have a much easier time with interactions! 🙂

 

NOTE: As the two prior threads have been closed, please do not bring up those topics here. I am not attempting to simply make a new thread for the same exact purpose. As I continue on the forums I started with a request, and then with a critique, and now I believe that the synthesis of those ideas is to pursue this path not in a way that is solely for anything which I may have a problem with, but for all such problems that could possibly exist in the future.

 

Please do not attempt to state that I am angry for being told no. Please do not treat me simply as a troll. This is a sincere subject that I believe has already shown it has reasons to come up. I am not seeking privileged Dev/City Council/GM access. I do not believe that opaque, hidden discussions between one player and the staff is as useful to the health of the game as open, visible discussion, which is a reason why I believe the forums have a value in this and other issues past, present, and future.

 

Any reason from requesting reexamination of policies around a protected class, to changes to game rules based on shifting content or power sets or etc, so on, are all valid reasons why someone may wish to have a discussion that falls within these lines. By seeking to understand a process by which such situations might be navigated in a way that does not result in friction on either side, I believe taking what has already occurred into a count means this is the next logical course of discussion.

[Glacier Peak]

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/code-of-conduct/

[Kistulot]

1 minute ago, Glacier Peak said:

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/code-of-conduct/

 

Since you're being so helpful, could you please pinpoint the precise section? 🙂

[Glacier Peak]

1 minute ago, Kistulot said:

Since you're being so helpful, could you please pinpoint the precise section? 🙂

There are three overarching ground rules that must be followed at all times:

1. Anything an Administrator or Game Master says overrides anything else in this document - if they give you an instruction, please follow it.
2. Don’t try to do anything you couldn’t get away with on the retail servers.
3. Enforcement of these rules is based on intent. If we deem that it is your intent to be breaking the rules and causing trouble, then that will be cause for action. If you unintentionally break these rules we will be far more lenient.

[Kistulot]

Just now, Glacier Peak said:

There are three overarching ground rules that must be followed at all times:

1. Anything an Administrator or Game Master says overrides anything else in this document - if they give you an instruction, please follow it.
2. Don’t try to do anything you couldn’t get away with on the retail servers.
3. Enforcement of these rules is based on intent. If we deem that it is your intent to be breaking the rules and causing trouble, then that will be cause for action. If you unintentionally break these rules we will be far more lenient.

 

🙂 I'm not seeing anything in here that allows for what was described!

 

I see that it requests that we listen to Admins and GMs, but I don't see any of them in this thread!

 

Additionally, this is something I would have felt comfortable posting on the original forums!

 

Additionally, my intent has been plainly laid out. Unless my words are taken out of context or misconstrued, I believe it would be very easy to see that I am not attempting to break rules, but instead, I am proceeding in a new path as the previous paths have been sealed 🙂

Thank you for sharing these rules so I can make sure that I continue following them in the future.

[GM Impervium]

Just now, Kistulot said:

I see that it requests that we listen to Admins and GMs, but I don't see any of them in this thread!

Hi.

Give it a rest for now, please and thank you.

[Kistulot]

Just now, GM Impervium said:

Hi.

Give it a rest for now, please and thank you.

 

Hi!

 

Of course, as instructed by a GM, I am very happy to stop this for now.

 

I would however like to ask that you explain what I did wrong when I was following the exact instructions in the quoted section? 😕

 

If you believe that I am making this a hostile environment instead of attempting to pursue a positive path forward, then I believe I should be made aware of how I am creating this disruptive environment so that I do not recreate these issues in the future.

 

Thank you for all of the work you do for us! 🙂

[Starhawk32]

I always went at it with the attitude that it's their world and they just let me play in it

[Ghost]

38 minutes ago, Starhawk32 said:

I always went at it with the attitude that it's their world and they just let me play in it

That’s exactly what it is.

We are playing on THEIR version of the game.

 

 

[Excraft]

I don't believe we need a formal mechanism to make policy change requests.  This isn't a democracy, it's a passion project run by volunteers who are sharing their labors with us.  I think the HC team should set policies they are comfortable with and make the most sense for them.  They have the final say and what they say goes, whether we agree with it or not.

 

With that said, I do agree it would be nice to have more communication from them.  More communication is always better, but I can fully understand why they choose to remain quiet, and I don't fault them at all for it.  From my perspective, they have engaged the community at large on several big changes over the years.  We all may not like the decisions they make on any changes, but they do ask for our feedback. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:53 PM by Excraft

[Shin Magmus]

I agree with the GMs about everything.

[Videra]

I too agree with the GMs about everything. Be Excellent To Each Other!

[Indystruck]

I don't have much heart or fire remaining after the past few days.

 

It would be nice to at least have there be an internal consistency, if not outward clarity, so we don't run into issues like this one where a GM tells us to go to the forums and create a topic to request something then have another GM answer in another topic that they don't do that thing anymore.

[Shin Magmus]

You don't need "heart" or "fire", you just need to agree.  Become one with the excellence.  Join us...

[Shin Magmus]

3 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

I don't have much heart or fire remaining after the past few days.

The best I was able to find for you was a Heart of Fire.  Hopefully it helps: 

 

[Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

I don't have much heart or fire remaining after the past few days.

 

It would be nice to at least have there be an internal consistency, if not outward clarity, so we don't run into issues like this one where a GM tells us to go to the forums and create a topic to request something then have another GM answer in another topic that they don't do that thing anymore.

But that is the process 

Make  requests here on the forums, of changes you’d like to see happen.

Sometimes they get implemented, a lot of times they don’t.

 

If you just look through the sheer volume of requests, hopefully you will understand why they can’t all be made.

[Indystruck]

If you would read the post you'd see that is not what I took issue with.

[Seed22]

Because a GM follows my account and I don’t want another demerit I too agree with the GMs on everything. Surely nothing wrong can come with this. Surely.

[Seed22]

2 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

If you would read the post you'd see that is not what I took issue with.

So here’s the thing about this. You don’t want them to just read the content. I think(but am probably wrong) that everyone here can READ the content.

 

But comprehend the message? Now THAT’s where the gold is.

[Shin Magmus]

Just now, Seed22 said:

Because a GM follows my account and I don’t want another demerit I too agree with the GMs on everything. Surely nothing wrong can come with this. Surely.

My best friend GM would never follow your account... but this comment will disappear when your comment disappears.  I agree with you about agreeing, but I don't agree about that other thing.  It's not being excellent.

[Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

so we don't run into issues like this one where a GM tells us to go to the forums and create a topic to request something then have another GM answer in another topic that they don't do that thing anymore.

sorry, guess I misunderstood this part.

[Indystruck]

Just now, Ghost said:

sorry, guess I misunderstood this part.

 

S'alright. For clarity's sake in case someone else misread it:

 

The GM team should know where they, internally, stand on issues, so we don't have, as the most recent example, a GM tell us to request a feature that the GMs have already internally decided will not be done. It just creates less work for everyone involved.

[Ghost]

Just now, Indystruck said:

 

S'alright. For clarity's sake in case someone else misread it:

 

The GM team should know where they, internally, stand on issues, so we don't have, as the most recent example, a GM tell us to request a feature that the GMs have already internally decided will not be done. It just creates less work for everyone involved.

Dammit

Gotcha now.

 

[Shin Magmus]

What about a conference?  I suggest they have a little meet-up and drink tea and eat cookies, but also become unified on policy in a manner of much excellence.

[Seed22]

4 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

 

S'alright. For clarity's sake in case someone else misread it:

 

The GM team should know where they, internally, stand on issues, so we don't have, as the most recent example, a GM tell us to request a feature that the GMs have already internally decided will not be done. It just creates less work for everyone involved.

This would cut down on a lot of issues and back n forth between people on the forums, as well as reduce the amount of suggestions that would never make it into the game to begin with, I think.