[6:00 PM] Kyrusia:
**NS Roleplay Symposium 2017**
LOCATION: Symposium Hall
TOPIC: "Conflict Resolution and Out-of-Character Drama"
TIME: 7:00PM - 8:30PM Eastern, Monday, July 10th
Greetings and welcome to the first of our evening panels! I'm Kyru, your discussion moderator for this session. (And will also likely be participating!)
Tonight we'll be looking at methods of resolving Out-of-Character conflicts in threads, the drama related to them (and how to avoid it), as well as OP powers (such as thread bans, post splits, etc.). We will not be providing advice or assistance related to specific cases or instances, but speaking instead in generalities.
Panelists, please introduce yourselves and tell us which subforums you haunt. (Also your preferred dessert!)
I also thank guests for their patience. We will pull your questions from the #questions_chamber. To make it easier on us, please keep chatter to the main #ns_mentors channel. Thank you.
BEGIN
::
[6:00 PM] Swith: Hello all. I'm Swith, one of the Senior P2TM RP Mentors, and one of the Founders for Madhouse Productions (a site-wide roleplayer group). I help run the unofficial training roleplay in P2TM (known as PL). Occasionally, I'll pop up north to the NS subforum for some nation-based roleplay.
And lemon anything is my ideal dessert. :smile:
[6:00 PM] Ghant: Greetings everyone! I'm Ghant, veteran N&I RPer specializing in PT and MT. I'll take anything chocolatey.
[6:01 PM] Zark: Hello everyone, I'm Zark (Zarkenis Ultima on the forums), P2TM Roleplay Mentor, nice to be back in here
[6:01 PM] Gren: I'm Gren, resident of P2TM. I like milkshakes. Especially if something with peanut butter is an ingredient. Or mint chocolate chip.
Speaking of food, I'll probably have to duck out for a few minutes.(edited)
[6:01 PM] Giovenith: Hello everyone, my name is Giovenith and I deal primarily with P2TM. Welcome to the symposium, please don't feel shy to ask your questions.
[6:01 PM] Maltropia: Evening folks. I'm Maltropia, a Senior N&I Mentor who nowadays mostly shakes a walking stick in the direction of GE&T and International Incidents. I just ate the last slice of my birthday cake.
[6:02 PM] Santh: I'm Santh, little known as Santheres or The United Dominion and a host of other puppets.
[6:03 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, panelists.
[6:03 PM] Kyrusia: Question #1: What do you think the main causes of OOC conflict are? (Asked by Thoricia)
[6:04 PM] FRFS: Q1: Misunderstandings for the most part. Someone says something that either is misinterpreted or taken out of context. The best way to keep OOC conflict to a minimum, is to be clear and concise with your wording.
[6:05 PM] Santh: Q1: a thorough lack of discussion ahead of time, and placing a lot (I mean, a lot) of personal stake in one's own characters/nations. Basically, not being able to stay a step back and remember this is fiction and nothing and no one is perfect.
[6:05 PM] Ghant: Q1: In my experience (and I have alot in this area) it mainly comes down to one thing. A failure to communicate. Often times it's hard to communicate properly over a text-based venue such as NS, and you'd be amazed how many OOC conflicts could be avoided by voice chat. Be that as it may, miscommunications, misunderstandings and the like are the primary cause. I believe that most people are good people, but unfortunately, miscommunication gets in the way.
[6:05 PM] Swith: Q1 There are two main causes, IMHO. One is personal attitudes. Not everyone gets along 100% of the time. Sometimes personalities just don't click well. But attitude is everything, and a poor attitude brings down RP and causes divisions in groups.
The second main cause is misunderstanding. Someone doesn't grasp a concept, or misinterprets something. This isn't intentional, of course, but can snowball into a heated spat if no attempt to ask for clarification (or to clarify) is made.
[6:05 PM] Maltropia: Two things. IC conflict and a failure to communicate. The easiest way to prevent OOC conflict is to make sure that everyone, OOCly, is working towards the same goal. It's not always enough to know that the other roleplayers in a thread are your friends; I've been privy to more than a few fallings-out over IC conflict, when the leaders of two regional blocs perceived the other as working against them OOCly.
It's very often very easy to fall into the trap of identifying with 'your' country, or 'your' character too much relative to the story you're all working on. Roleplay is cooperative, not combative.
[6:05 PM] Giovenith: Q1: Usually OOC conflict, from my experiences, arises at first from controversial actions in the IC, but which carry an underlying RL spite to them. Someone's action in the IC may serve as proof in another player's eyes that that person is inconsiderate or a poor sport, and thus they use the opportunity to lash out. As an RP gets older and the players become more familiar as people, OOC conflict usually isn't much different from RL conflict: different opinions, perceived insults, etc.
[6:05 PM] Zark: Q1: Well, I think the specific causes of OOC conflict are widely varied, but it all probably boils down to an inability to act in a mature way and/or distance oneself from the characters or entities they are playing. This kind of attachment could generate misunderstandings or ill feelings between roleplayers. Though not following common courtesy or attempting to subvert basic rules (no godmodding, metagaming, etc) can breed a lot of conflict as well.
[6:05 PM] Macabees: Hi guys, Macabees here. I'm a Senior N&I mentor. Q1: In my experience, the main cause of OOC conflict are misunderstandings. That being said, I think the main factor as to why misunderstandings, and disagreements, blow up is that one side, or both (most likely), isn't looking to compromise, but to force upon another player an outcome that doesn't jive with their expectations or what direction they wanted to take their canon in. For example, the loss of a battle, or of a war, or even the loss of half of one's army. These are hard things to swallow, and if both sides aren't interested in compromise and finding mutually beneficial outcomes, that's when the OOC drama happens.(edited)
[6:06 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, Mac.
[6:07 PM] Gren: Q1: I can't say I've seen much OOC drama caused by IC stuff, except for one case. Usually, IME, its been OOC things that cause more OOC drama.
[6:08 PM] Macabees: To add to the idea of a mutually beneficial outcome: winning a war is not the only way to benefit. Losing a war can segue into a direction that you wanted to take your canon in. It can lead to the change in politics the other player wants. There's always opportunities to benefit in that sense, so both sides don't need to win the war for the RP to be mutually beneficial.
[6:08 PM] Ghant: Q1: Alot of the time it's people not getting along OOCly, mistrust, personality conflicts, etc.
[6:08 PM] Gren: For example, one person saying they're a dog person, then another saying they're a cat person, and it just spirals from there.
[6:08 PM] Kyrusia: Question #2: What are some ways to resolve OOC conflicts?(Asked Jutomi.)
[6:09 PM] Macabees: Q2: Communicate. But communicate in a constructive way. Where focus goes, energy flows. Focus on solutions, not problems.
[6:09 PM] Ghant: Q2: A willingness to communicate, a willingness to see things from other people's point of view, a willingness to compromise and a willingness to let bygones be bygones.
NEW MESSAGES
[6:10 PM] Swith: Take it to TG first. Communication is essential. Don't explode. Approach the other person politely. This keeps heat out of the thread. If that fails, ask your OP to step in. If that fails, flag down a Mentor for mediation. But really, it's common sense. We can't always win every argument. There has to be give-and-take.
[6:10 PM] Santh: Q2: yeah, ultimately it all comes down to communication and some humility. Be willing to step back and turn a critical eye at yourself
[6:10 PM] Zark: Q2: Honestly, the only way to resolve OOC conflicts, at least peacefully, is to have both parties take a step back, take a breath, and try to discuss things in a civil manner. Ultimately, however, if one or both parties refuse to do so, it is the OP's responsibility to maintain order in their thread, drastic as the actions required may be.(edited)
[6:10 PM] Gren: Q2: Diplomatic communication. And I'm not talking IC.
[6:10 PM] Santh: Ask "is this really that important?"
[6:10 PM] Swith: ^
[6:10 PM] FRFS: Q2: communication, compromise and a willing attitude. You have to remember to take a step back when dealing with someone who is confrontational, take a breath and maybe walk away from the computer for a moment
[6:11 PM] Santh: Don't be afraid to walk away, either to cool things down or if you're sure things won't cool down, then just exit the situation completely
[6:11 PM] Santh: You don't have to be involved
[6:11 PM] Gren: OP and/or COOP need to play switzerland, and tell the disputing parties to either chill out and settle their differences (or leave them outside the RP), or leave the RP altogether.
[6:11 PM] Ghant: Q2: You have to be willing to trust people and give them the benefit of the doubt. That's a big one...the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to hold on to grudges or past preconceived notions about the other player, it's going to fail.
[6:12 PM] Gren: And on that note, dinner calls.
[6:12 PM] Maltropia: Bon appetit.
[6:12 PM] Giovenith: Q2: It all depends on the nature of the conflict. Typically though, it requires you to remove yourself from everything in order to better look at things objectively. You want to allow both people an opportunity to say their piece, and if they're not understanding each other, you may have to act as something of a translator between them. Use phrases like "I think" or "I feel" or "Player feels" or "I think Player just feels like, [blahblahblah], is that true Player?" This kind of language diffuses things because it tells everyone listening that you're not making definitive and thus accusatory statements. Don't be afraid to tell people to take a break, or take a break yourself.
[6:12 PM] Kyrusia: Question #3: "[What] steps can be taken to prevent OOC conflicts from appearing in the first place?" (Asked by Finium) & "What would be a good way to keep IC debates/conflict from boiling over into the OOC?" (Asked by Rhodevus)
[6:14 PM] Maltropia: I can see the follow-up in Q3. Again, communication is key. Plan where you're going. Talk it through. Know what your partners want out of the thread and be willing to compromise to meet their goals. Don't push your goals on them in a way that makes them feel shortchanged, disadvantaged or shortchanged.
[6:14 PM] Ghant: Q3: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Simply talking to people to see where they stand on things, asking them if they have any concerns about roleplays or the region, etc. And then addressing those things as soon as they come up. If it's something that involves multiple players, just speaking to them on an individual basis and addressing their concerns can help alot when it comes to avoiding misunderstandings later. As far as IC debates, best to limit them to constructive venues like IRC / Discord channels for those roleplays, or to OOC threads and if necessary, emphasizing that this is an IC perspective and nothing about it reflects anything OOC.
[6:15 PM] Giovenith: Q3: Creating basic rules about what is and isn't allowed in the RP in the first place and then sticking to them. A common one is, "Don't hurt someone else's character without their permission," or, "Leave political stuff in the TGs." A lot conflict arises just from the rules not being clear enough, people taking advantage of that, and the others calling foul. This is why many people are fond of saying things like "OP is God" or "Use common sense" - it allows wiggle room for if you ever have to put your foot down on an issue you might not have explicitly banned in the OP.
[6:15 PM] Santh: Q3 I think my previous answers apply here. Communication is the start; humility is a must. You cannot let your ego get in the way. Yes, you might have a superhero or a utopia but again, no one and nothing is perfect.
After that, know when things are getting too heated and when to walk away. If you feel like you can't walk away, see what has the other side heated, and what you can do to compromise with them. If you're not willing to compromise, then you may be RPing with the wrong person.
And remember: a player is not their character or nation. I cannot stress that enough.
[6:15 PM] Zark: Q3: Regarding the first part, I believe that an open, tight-knit group with a sense of belonging is far less likely to breed OOC conflict, so I wold say that to avoid said conflict, one should foster that type of mentality within one's group. As for the second part, like I said earlier, it's all about maturity and distancing oneself from the entities one controls in the roleplay. If everyone's working together to tell a story and understands that what happens in the story has no bearing on the way they treat each other, there should be no issue.
[6:15 PM] Macabees: Q3: To the last question, I've always been a big fan of the philosophy: all problems should be dealt with ICly. Usually, no OOC problem is really big enough to justify stopping the IC development - it's only big enough if you make it big enough. When people start to talk about whose military is better, I say, "Take it to IC. RP it out." A good way to avoid OOC drama is to be the bigger man. Sometimes accepting the OOC 'flaw' is better than making a big deal over it, especially if making a big deal over it leads to the complete failure of the RP.
And I agree with everyone else in that you're less likely to even have to face the issues if you're communicating from the get-go, and taking preventative steps to make sure these misunderstanding and mistakes don't happen. And when you're communicating from the get-go, you're also creating a culture of communication, and for the most part you'll see most OOC issues being taken care of quickly and without much ado.(edited)
[6:15 PM] Swith: Q3: Again, it's communication. Not just between players, but between the OP/CoOPs and players. The OP needs to be on top of things, putting out sparks before they turn into raging fires. And players should be able to approach their RP staff with concerns or issues, without fearing reprisal.
Our games and our characters, and our nations, are our brain children. We protect them, fiercely at times, and don't take criticism well. When IC stuff begins to sour OOC interactions, it's time to take a step back and ask if the bluster is really worth it. A game comes and goes. The player bonds we form over time should last much longer.
[6:16 PM] Swith: But also, bow out if you know you're causing issues. Let it go. Find a new game or group. It's not worth the stress on your, or the stress you put on your old group.
[6:16 PM] Maltropia: Just as an addendum to what Santh said: if you think your character is justifiably coming out on top and the other guy feels aggrieved, be prepared firstly to explain your reasoning and then to back down if that fails.
[6:17 PM] Santh: We are here to have fun, so backing down should always be an option you're willing to take
[6:17 PM] Ghant: Q3: It's important to remember, if you're going to walk away from an RP or an RP group, make sure you do it on good terms. Doing so on bad terms can damage your reputation and make things harder for you in the future. Bow out with grace, be willing to swallow your pride and wish them well.
[6:18 PM] Kyrusia: Question #4: [What] if you have two or more players that don't like each other and don't want to play together, but both want to be part of the RP, [or] both are important for the story? (Asked by Doom Legions)
[6:19 PM] Ghant: Q4: I was involved in a thread where that happened quite recently. What I told the players involved was to participate in the thread as they would, but not worry too much about the other player that they didn't wish to interact with. I encouraged them to find ways to contibute to the thread in ways that wouldn't step on the other person's toes. It worked out okay thankfully.
[6:20 PM] Giovenith: Q4: The best case scenario is telling them both to consider probably finding another RP. If they absolutely refuse and you don't risk their ire by flipping a coin and banning one of them, you'd really have to be on their ass about making sure they don't bring their conflict into either the OOC or the IC. Have their characters avoid each other as much as possible, or at the very least be formal about their interactions, encourage them to avoid speaking in the OOC, don't be afraid to step in at the slightest sign of trouble.
[6:20 PM] Zark: Q4: I believe the answers given earlier can apply to this question just as well. Have them take a breath and try to talk it out, basically. But in the end, if everything fails, the roleplay will likely have to take the hit and move on. Better to have the roleplay continue in a diminished capacity than have it be torn apart by the conflict.
[6:20 PM] Zark: I also concur with what Ghant said
[6:21 PM] Santh: Q4 There really are two choices there. 1) Suck it up and cooperate or 2) someone has to accept that they are not actually needed, and everyone else has to work around that.
If you're able to communicate and stop yourself from getting overrun by ego, the first option should be possible. I've RPed with a lot of people I don't like just because I wanted to be a part of that particular story. You just need to not let your personal opinions get in the way. Shut that stuff down good and hard and don't let it ruin your day/thread.
[6:21 PM] FRFS: Q4: Unfortunately sometimes the RP is trashed just for those reasons. But it is better that to happen than a continuing problem.
[6:21 PM] Swith: Q4: OP are not babysitters. Players should abide by some sort of player etiquette, and ignore each other. This doesn't work in RP - a collaborative effort to tell a story or play out a game. So both parties need to approach it with humility and maturity. Do they want the game to succeed? Then agree to disagree about past issues. If that fails, Gio's advice is solid.
[6:21 PM] Macabees: Q4: Either they agree to be civil and to compromise each other for whatever is within the context of the RP, or it's an RP you may consider skipping. I know the latter sounds cynical, but, personally, I have only so much time in my day to write for NationStates and so why invest in a thread that's likely to devolve into an argument? I think it there's only one offense, it's worth working with them again. But if it's a recurring thing - if there's a long history of it -, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.
In my region, there is a situation where there is one player that absolutely refuses to interact with another. I can't force the RP. I don't even want that RP to happen, because last time it did it cut the RP short (although we ended it - we just sped up the ending). My approach is to talk and mentor them outside of the RPing sphere, so that hopefully one day I can persuade them to try it again.
[6:19 PM] Ghant: Q4: I was involved in a thread where that happened quite recently. What I told the players involved was to participate in the thread as they would, but not worry too much about the other player that they didn't wish to interact with. I encouraged them to find ways to contibute to the thread in ways that wouldn't step on the other person's toes. It worked out okay thankfully.
[6:20 PM] Giovenith: Q4: The best case scenario is telling them both to consider probably finding another RP. If they absolutely refuse and you don't risk their ire by flipping a coin and banning one of them, you'd really have to be on their ass about making sure they don't bring their conflict into either the OOC or the IC. Have their characters avoid each other as much as possible, or at the very least be formal about their interactions, encourage them to avoid speaking in the OOC, don't be afraid to step in at the slightest sign of trouble.
[6:20 PM] Zark: Q4: I believe the answers given earlier can apply to this question just as well. Have them take a breath and try to talk it out, basically. But in the end, if everything fails, the roleplay will likely have to take the hit and move on. Better to have the roleplay continue in a diminished capacity than have it be torn apart by the conflict.
[6:20 PM] Zark: I also concur with what Ghant said
[6:21 PM] Santh: Q4 There really are two choices there. 1) Suck it up and cooperate or 2) someone has to accept that they are not actually needed, and everyone else has to work around that.
If you're able to communicate and stop yourself from getting overrun by ego, the first option should be possible. I've RPed with a lot of people I don't like just because I wanted to be a part of that particular story. You just need to not let your personal opinions get in the way. Shut that stuff down good and hard and don't let it ruin your day/thread.
[6:21 PM] FRFS: Q4: Unfortunately sometimes the RP is trashed just for those reasons. But it is better that to happen than a continuing problem.
[6:21 PM] Swith: Q4: OP are not babysitters. Players should abide by some sort of player etiquette, and ignore each other. This doesn't work in RP - a collaborative effort to tell a story or play out a game. So both parties need to approach it with humility and maturity. Do they want the game to succeed? Then agree to disagree about past issues. If that fails, Gio's advice is solid.
[6:21 PM] Macabees: Q4: Either they agree to be civil and to compromise with each other for whatever is within the context of the RP, or it's an RP you may consider skipping. I know the latter sounds cynical, but, personally, I have only so much time in my day to write for NationStates and so why invest in a thread that's likely to devolve into an argument? I think if there's only one offense, it's worth working with them again. But if it's a recurring thing - if there's a long history of it -, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.
In my region, there is a situation where there is one player that absolutely refuses to interact with another. I can't force the RP. I don't even want that RP to happen, because last time it did it cut the RP short (although we ended it - we just sped up the ending). My approach is to talk and mentor them outside of the RPing sphere, so that hopefully one day I can persuade them to try it again.(edited)
[6:21 PM] Kyrusia: Question #5: What was the worst OOC conflict you have dealt with in an RP (don't have to name any specifics), and how was it handled? (Asked by Ched)
[6:23 PM] Santh: Q5 I hope no one remembers ODECON and the Conglomerate. That was entirely personal and some of the members involved hate each other to this day. It was handled poorly, as many things in the Bad Old Days ™ were. Mass ignores, a net loss for everyone involved. That whole incident actually formed a lot of my views on conflict resolution re. NS. You can't let this stuff get out of hand because once it does, there's rarely any going back
[6:24 PM] Macabees: Q5: One group of players who thought that the second group was actively out to get them and degrade them and troll them, and the other group that thought the same exact thing. They asked me to mediate. There was no mediating that, because each player was only interested in putting the other ones down -- that's not a constructive environment. I recommended they walk away from each other and cool down, and only come back together if they were interested in talking about solutions, and not what the other one is doing wrong.
[6:24 PM] Ghant: Q5: I was involved in an RP in 2014 in Esquarium that was OPed by Koyro, called the Koy-Kulsandia War. Things weren't going well in the region OOCly at the time, and there were many personality conflicts, especially between myself and the thread OP (Koyro). At one point during an OOC argument over something not related to the RP, he said that he would have his characters ICly execute their hostages that were from my nation (Ghant). It was handled by me basically cowing to him, since he was the OP of the thread and I didn't want to risk metagaming of the thread in a way that would ruin my arc because I wasn't getting along with him OOCly.
[6:26 PM] Santh: Q5 Macabees Two big II alliances is apparently a recipe for OOC disaster
[6:26 PM] Giovenith: Q5: I'll tell you my second worst.
There was an OP who insisted on controlling minute things that didn't matter and yet refused to do anything about stuff that actually did matter. He would try to control insignificant details about what people's characters could be like, from their appearances to what jobs they were allowed to have based on their status. Most of all, he would CONSTANTLY TIMESKIP. No one had any time to play out anything interesting, because he insisted on jumping us ahead months in IC time over the course of two days. As for the stuff he refused to control, he allowed a random player to take control of an important canon character without asking and use them to derail the whole story by having the act out of character. He was more concerned with making sure his own character's quest succeeded than anyone else's.
A lot of RPs die with time, but I'm pretty sure this one could have lasted a long time if not for the terrible OP. Pretty much everyone left because he made it impossible to game.
[6:26 PM] Zark: Q5: As I recall, in a large RP I participated in a while ago, there was one particular player who constantly brought up that his character was being aggravated in an undue manner by the OP (something that was not quite true). The player remained in the RP long after that sort of behavior began, and was given several chances to compromise and such, but eventually, when it became too disruptive and he refused to stop, the player was banned from the thread. I believe the player and the OP were able to move past that, though.
[6:26 PM] Zark: Apologies for not giving names
[6:26 PM] Kyrusia: No apologies required. I expect nothing less than anonymity for questions such as these. :wink:
[6:26 PM] Swith: Q5: It was years ago, in N&I. A member of our group enjoyed harassing minors. He was an old salt, and should have known better. Regardless, he insisted on running around behind the scenes (IRC, Zetaboards) talking poorly about them. It got to the point where one of these kids (only 14) lost all confidence in their ability to write and roleplay. The RP's OP and CoOPs didn't have proof. Hearsay is what it is. However, the player got careless and got caught by the OP.
Our RP group's leader at the time was Fritz. He handled it behind the scenes, in a mature manner, but left it perfectly clear to our entire group that tearing down player psyche will earn a person a boot. The player was blackballed from our group, and his nation canon was stripped from ours for every last RP he was in.
[6:27 PM] Zark: T'was to the crowd Kyru, you gotta earn their appreciation
[6:27 PM] Kyrusia: Question #6: What happens if OOC conflict becomes large-scale and is between many people? (Asked by Jutomi)
[6:27 PM] Santh: Q6: Leave
[6:28 PM] Kyrusia: There goes the lichmeow. Playing it up to the audience. ;P
[6:28 PM] Macabees: Q6: First question, who is most relevant to the conflict? If the conflict is really between two players, the conversation needs to be between those two players, not the players and the peanut gallery. It's often the case that it's many players ganging up against one -- all you're doing is overwhelming that person. But that's not always the case, some times it's between sides that are equally sized. It's still overwhelming and it distracts the players who are actually directly relevant to the conflict from overcoming the problem.
[6:29 PM] Kyrusia: We are about to reach the first thirty minute mark. Simple reminder to panelists.
[6:29 PM] Giovenith: Q6: You probably have to go Red Alert, put up a post that says "NO MORE POSTS UNTIL I SAY SO," and give everyone time to breathe while you sort things out. This is never going to be easy. You're going to have to make judgment calls, pick out who started what and what players need to stop doing to feed into it. It will be hard, but you're going to have to remain detached as you do so. You may have to kick someone.
[6:29 PM] Santh: Q6 Bluntness aside, this really is a recipe for disaster, as previously said. I've never seen a recovery from large-scale OOC conflict.
Do you want to try to resolve it anyway? Then you need to keep the coolest head. You need to be as impartial as possible, no matter who your friends are. Focus people on common goals and sort everything out OOCly, preferably in real time on IRC or Discord, and manage sarcasm and flaming as best as possible
[6:30 PM] Ghant: Q6: Then it gets ugly. I've seen situations like that, and if it's within an RP group, you can bet that it would split in two, with bitterness and bad blood existing between the two divergent groups. Also, generally the more people that are involved in a dispute of that magnitude, the harder it is to resolve to everyon's satisfaction. One thing you can try to do is address the issues that the various groups have, and try to break them down. Ultimately, the best thing to do whether it's two people or two groups, is to focus on the bridges that connect people than the canyons that divide them.
[6:30 PM] Kyrusia: Question #7 (PANEL-PROVIDED): What about player thread bans - when an OP bans a player from a thread? What are your general thoughts on the usage of this, and - more generally - the best way to go about it? When to get Moderation involved?
[6:30 PM] Macabees: Q7: If the player is hurting the RP, kick him -- after trying to reach out and mentor first, of course.(edited)
[6:31 PM] Ghant: Q7: I think it should only be used as a last resort by the OP of the thread and at their discretion, in the event that the player in question is trolling, violating the rules of the thread or challenging the OP in some way.
[6:31 PM] Giovenith: Q7: Ideally, this should be a last case scenario for when someone has caused serious grief or trouble to the RP or someone in it. Moderation should get involved if it involves something rule-breaking or potentially law-breaking.
[6:32 PM] Santh: Q7 I am all for thread bans to ensure a thread goes smoothly. If someone can't play nice, take away their toys. Moderation is only for forum rulebreaking but if you're unsure, just ask them. They're very nice people, if overworked.
[6:32 PM] Swith: Q7: We have the ability to ban for a reason. Use it. If you must ban a player, at least do it in a professional manner. "Player A, you are banned from this RP for [x] behavior". Make it a unique post. Then add that player's name to your OOC's first post, along with your post timestamp. This allows Mods to enforce your ban, should that player return. They'll go by your "ban post" timestamp.
[6:33 PM] Zark: Q7: I concur with Ghant and Gio. As for the best way to go about it, I believe that would be to provide the incident with as little fanfare as possible. Be polite and professional. Like Swith said earlier, don't let players gossip about that person once they're gone. And get Moderation involved if they try to bypass the ban, of course.
[6:33 PM] Kyrusia: Q7: OP authority is unilateral. While compromise is always the best first-go, this does not always work and, at the end of the day, is not required. From a Moderation perspective: the OP - and only the OP, not Co-OP or a puppet of the OP account - can ban a player from their thread for any reason, including none.
Get Moderation involved if - and only if - the player returns after you have banned them or if you suspect they are using a puppet to evade. For more information, as well as this explanation in greater detail, see here: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=390032#oppowers
[6:33 PM] Swith: "Little fanfare" is good advice, Zark. I don't recommend killing characters out of spite, either.
[6:33 PM] Macabees: I keep using the word 'mentor' when I really mean 'help that player improve communicating with them whatever issues you have', because the only way a person learns is by knowing what they're doing wrong. But I keep using the word 'mentor' because everyone is a mentor, and when you have a problem with another player you should use it as a teachable moment (for the other player or for yourself).
[6:33 PM] Zark: True. Best to work them out in a manner that appears natural.
[6:34 PM] Kyrusia: Question #8: Would it be unfair to stop playing with a certain player just because of his/her OOC views? Or is it an acceptable reason? (Asked by Sailor.)
[6:34 PM] Giovenith: Q8: Pragmatically, you can refuse to play with someone for whatever reason you want. Whether that reason is good or not is a matter of opinion.(edited)
[6:35 PM] Santh: Q8 You get to choose who to play with. If you don't think you can handle playing with them because of their OOC views, then do everyone a favor and bow out.
[6:35 PM] Zark: Q8: I think ultimately it is a valid reason if "stop playing with a certain player" merely implies bowing out of roleplays that involve that person. Everyone is free to manage their time as they choose and spend it with whomever they want. However, if they demand the other person to get the boot instead? That is unacceptable.
[6:35 PM] Ghant: Q8: I think that's poor form, but I can understand why other players do that. I encourage people to remember that in a thread, you leave OOC things at the door, especially differences with other players. Alas, some people can't get past that and you shouldn't feel compelled to RP with someone that you can't get along with OOCly. This is a leisurely pursuit during your free time, and thusly writing is a thing meant to be enjoyed. If you won't enjoy it, then don't do it.
[6:36 PM] Macabees: Q8: If his/her OOC views are going to cause tension and have a high chance of being the cause of RP failure, then it's reasonable to stop RPing with them. The game is about having fun.
[6:36 PM] Zark: However, going back to the advice given already, I think it would be best to see if both players can't take a step back and work out their differences in a civil manner.
[6:36 PM] Swith: Q8: If you have exhausted all avenues, and the player's bad attitude remains (or you simply can't work with them anymore), it isn't unfair to place them on ignore and move on. Life is short. You don't have to put up with bad things, or let those things eat at you. But that means letting go, yourself. Don't run around badmouthing them in threads.
[6:37 PM] Santh: Swith And don't go to offsites doing it, either. Discords and the wikis are no place to continue your conflict
[6:37 PM] Swith: Totally agree, Santh.
[6:37 PM] FRFS: Q8: who you decide to play with is completely up to you. If someone's personal views ruin the experience for you, do not continue to engage with them.
[6:38 PM] Santh: As a personal point of order, as owner of iiWiki, I will ban people who are dragging conflict over, even if they're not "the one who started it" or are otherwise in the right. I've done it before.
[6:38 PM] Swith: Though it is alright if you let your friends know that you have issues with a player. It's simply, "Please don't try to mediate. I've washed my hands of it and moved on. Thanks."
[6:38 PM] Ghant: I want to stress this too, try not to gossip or lie about players in an attempt to discredit them or ruin their reputations. That's not an okay thing to do, and anything done out of spite and malice is especially destructive (and totally uncool).
[6:38 PM] Macabees: ^ I agree
[6:39 PM] Santh: Ruin reputations because you dislike someone is typically a witchhunt. And we all know how that ends
[6:39 PM] Kyrusia: Question #9: Speaking as leadership of an RP region. Since this is an inherently political game, is there any way to keep OOC political disagreements from causing animosity amongst RPers? (Asked by Essexia; potential follow-up.)
[6:40 PM] Maltropia: Don't get into them. I've never had trouble over RL politics because I don't want trouble over RL politics.
[6:40 PM] Giovenith: Q9: Simply tell people to take it to TG or another thread if it comes up.
[6:40 PM] Ghant: Q9: Yes, and in my experience, it's simply not to air your political beliefs around people that you don't know or are not sure how'd they take it. This is an RPing venue, and so sticking to RP related conversations and topics will never do you wrong when it comes to OOC relationships with other players.
[6:41 PM] Santh: Q9 Place huge emphasis on the fact that players are not their nations or characters, and that an OOC and IC separation is a must. I also agree with the above: don't get political OOCly if you think there will be a problem
[6:41 PM] Swith: Q9: Outside my area, sadly. I bow out of this answer.
[6:41 PM] Zark: ^
[6:42 PM] Macabees: Q9: As the founder of GD, that's been around since 2005, very few times has an OOC political disagreement caused animosity among RPers. And I'm surprised, because I can be an ass. But, seriously, we try to preserve a culture of fun, so ultimately when we get rough with each other on Discord or w/e about politics the soreness usually ends there.
[6:42 PM] Santh: Q9 But also, it's important to note that everyone has various beliefs and if you're letting that get in the way of playing with your region or group, then you should consider finding a new region or group
[6:42 PM] Kyrusia: Question #10: [Let's] say you have to kick an player out, but said player's character is important to the plot. How do you deal with that? (Asked by Eridani.) & What if a Player that's known for being AFK most of the time and making other OOC problems has very IC [influential] on the RP? (Asked by Belkan America/Erutenia.)
[6:44 PM] Zark: Q10: Regarding the first part, you'll just have to take control of that for as long as the character remains important, or find some way to work them out of the plot. Alternatively, instead of doing so yourself, you can entrust the character to a Co-OP or another player that is seen as trustworthy both to you and the players. As for the second, I'm afraid I don't entirely understand, but I figure what I said might answer that too.
[6:45 PM] Santh: Q10 I've always been fond of NPC stand-ins to cover the major events involving others. Never steal IP, but general events are pretty open and unownable most of the time. Be willing to adjust details for the loss of some of the IP involved
[6:45 PM] Giovenith: Q10: You may have to godmod them, at least until the end of the story, but if you do do so, you'd have to keep it minimal. Just describe them doing what they need to do and nothing else. This is the last case though, you should try to find another character to replace them, even if it requires a few asspulls.
[6:45 PM] Ghant: Q10: Depending on the relationship between the player and the OP (since their involvement in the thread is at the OP's discretion), the OP can either choose to keep the kicked-out player's work in the thread as canon, or retcon it and find replacements for that important canon. Canon can be replaced, after all, and the key to a successful thread is flexibility and adaptation.
[6:45 PM] Kyrusia: [Just a note... You cannot use another player's intellectual property without their permission. Stand-ins or simply finding a way to drop a player and their characters is the least messiest option from a Moderation perspective.]
[6:45 PM] Macabees: Q10: Very difficult question. It depends. Sometimes you can 'kill a character off' like in a show. Like when characters suddenly have to go to jobs somewhere far away. You have to do it in a way that minimally, and ideally doesn't, influence the character's canon -- because it's not a character you have ownership of.
You may have to tweak the story by having another player fill in with a very similar character, but changed enough to make it their own. So the story still makes sense and the tweaks you need to make are minor.
If you have OOC contact with the AFK player, you might consider talking to them outside of the RP and asking permission to RP their forces or their character. You may need to lay out a plan, or choreograph the RP, so that they agree with the outcome.
[6:47 PM] Swith: Q10: It depends upon the RP. Each is unique. Revenge killing is bad. Having the character suddenly and unexpectedly die "off set" in order for someone to fill its shoes, if handled properly, is plausible.
[6:47 PM] Gren: I'm back.
Q10: Killing the character off, and writing an asspull around it is probably the most canon-friendly solution.
[6:47 PM] Gren: As I mentioned in the last panel, though, mass-hallucination that is conveniently forgotten is the most convenient method overall.
[6:48 PM] Santh: It was all a dream!
[6:48 PM] Ghant: Q10: I'm generally against godmodding in the sense of deciding what happens to other player's characters, as it's poor form. I suggest just writing them out or retconning them without saying what happens to them explicitly.
[6:49 PM] Swith: There are times when a GM must move a character along or park it. This technically isn't seen as "godmodding" in P2TM. Rather, its the GM using a technique in order to preserve elements and advance the story. Usually, they don't "play" the character as much as they frog-march it to a parking space.
[6:50 PM] Maltropia: In the British political sitcom 'The Thick of It,' a scandal emerged between seasons one and two that the lead actor, who played a government minister, was in possession of, y'know, illegal stuff. In the first episode of season two, the character was voted out of government while on holidays; his reactions aren't seen except in how other characters talk to him over the phone.
[6:50 PM] Gren: In one RP I was in, the OP found out that one of the players had lied about something (like, an actual felony, I believe, but nothing life-threatening), and was so repulsed by it, that he kicked the guy out. ICly, our characters were effectively pin-point neuralized.
[6:51 PM] Maltropia: Sometimes, you need to introduce the departmental staff on the phone.
[6:51 PM] Kyrusia: Question #11: [Is] there any way a player can assist in solving RP drama? Or, aside from keeping the OP informed, is it best to leave it to the OP to handle? (Asked by Temp.)
[6:51 PM] Maltropia: Sometimes, you need to introduce the departmental staff on the phone.
[6:52 PM] Giovenith: Q11: Unless you're effected in some way or hold some kind of important information that no one else is aware of, you really should keep to yourself. You'll just make people mad at you for meddling.
[6:52 PM] Ghant: Q11: Advice is free and doesn't cost anything. I think what makes a good thread OP is a willingness to accept advice and criticism about the thread, especially when it comes to player conflicts.
[6:52 PM] Macabees: Q11: Tbh, unless if you're directly related to the conflict, it's better to stay out. It's too easy to distract, and it's easy to do it unintentionally.
[6:52 PM] Zark: Q11: If the player is trusted by one or both parties and is unbiased, I don't think there should be any issue with said player attempting to mediate or aid in mediating between the two conflicting parties. Otherwise, I believe it would be better to leave it to the OP.
[6:53 PM] Swith: Q11: IC drama? Conflict breeds character. OOC drama? Please keep your OP in the loop. They want their game to succeed, and they'll want to know if things are brewing behind the scenes. If you really can't solve the issue, and your OP won't or doesn't know how, have the OP flag down a RP Mentor. We mediate these things all the time, and we don't mind helping your group out as best we can.
[6:53 PM] Santh: Q11 If you're a friend of one of the people involved, I might recommend to rein in your friend. Otherwise, I would recommend staying out of it for the most part
[6:54 PM] Gren: Q11: In most cases, neutrality is best.
[6:55 PM] Macabees: Remember that OP has thread ownership too. If the OP doesn't appreciate you bringing in outside help, that can factor in too. Always, always keep the OP in the loop if you do plan to take action.
[6:55 PM] Swith: ^ on so many levels.
[6:56 PM] Kyrusia: Question #12: What would be the best way to work out a grudge between a player and the OP if both sides are not willing to change? (Asked by Mini.)
[6:56 PM] Kyrusia: Notice to panelists: we are approaching the hour mark. Thirty minutes (and some change) remain in this panel.
[6:56 PM] Giovenith: Q12: I would just leave at that point. If the OP themselves refuses to be mature, then there's not much you can do.
[6:56 PM] Zark: Q12: If neither side is willing to budge, I'm not sure the grudge can be worked out.
[6:56 PM] Swith: Q12: The player is free to play wherever they wish. If the player doesn't get along with the OP, find a different game.
[6:57 PM] Santh: Q12 Not willing to change? OP should boot the player and be done with it. Why are they dragging it out? Are you the other person? In that case, why are you still there?
[6:57 PM] Macabees: Q12: I try to discipline myself to not directly reach out over a conflict. If I talk to someone about a problem they're having with another player, it's usually because they came to me or if it's an aside to another conversation we're having. I don't want to be a distraction, so I only talk if what I say serves to pull focus back toward what they should be focusing on - which is solving the problem.
And you have to be blatant. Sometimes I have to tell players who are friends that they are acting like bullies and that they need to stop if they want a better relationship with that other player.(edited)
[6:58 PM] Gren: Q12: The player doesn't have to stay in the RP, and the OP doesn't have to let them be welcome in it.
[6:58 PM] Ghant: Q12: I was involved in a situation like this recently, where the thread OP was having problems with one of his thread participants. He wanted to kick the guy out of the thread for challenging him, but I cautioned him against this, saying he should only kick him out as a last resort. The way that I helped work out the grudge was to encourage the OP to set limitations upon the player in terms of what they could do in the thread, and the player generally accepted this as a condition of continuing involvement in the thread. The two still don't get along, but at least they resolved their plot arcs within the thread to each other's general satisfaction.
[6:59 PM] Santh: In that scenario, though, the OP was willing to change. And good on the OP for that
[6:59 PM] Ghant: I think it goes back to the first question, Santh. A willingness to see things from the other player's point of view and a willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt.
[7:00 PM] Santh: For sure. Those are some of the best of traits
[7:00 PM] Kyrusia: Question #13: If a OP were to leave their RP, give it to another player to have their IP, and if they were to come back to try and reclaim it, how best should the old-OP and the new-OP do to resolve the possible IP ownership conflict? Would Mods get involved? (Asked by Ched.) & How would you handle an OP that gave permission for a co-OP to reboot an RP, OP CTEs, co-OP decides not to and puts RP up for adoption, OP returns and is displeased with the third party's new direction for the RP? (Asked by Tilt; will provide Mod input momentarily.)
[7:01 PM] Santh: Q13 Yeah, I would just ask a mod for their input first(edited)
[7:01 PM] Zark: ^
[7:01 PM] Gren: Q13: That's really complicated, and I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer for what to do.
[7:01 PM] Swith: Q13: I would approach a Mod, if both people couldn't agree to work together. Gren's right. There isn't an easy answer.
[7:01 PM] Zark: Unoficially, all the advise given thus far can potentially be put to use in attempting to mediate between the OP and co-OP to reach an outcome that favors everyone; officially, mod input.
[7:01 PM] Ghant: Q13: That's a complicated situation that I think necessitates moderation involvement. Generally though, I would assume that whoever's account is the thread OP has ownership of the thread.(edited)
[7:02 PM] Giovenith: Q13: Seems more like a question for Moderation. I imagine it would depend on how long the other person has had it and how much it's changed though.
[7:02 PM] Macabees: Q13: In my region, I occupy land that was owned by players who I RPd with quite a bit, but who eventually CTEd. My personal policy is that if they come back and are serious about RPing, I prefer to do a "liberation" RP, but their country is their country. Their opinion > mine.(edited)
[7:02 PM] Kyrusia: Q13: In instances such as this, unfortunate as it may be for the gifted-OP, if it is the former OP's IP, they retain control of that intellectual property. This means if a player returns and wants their thread back... If the gifted-OP doesn't comply and the old OP gets Moderation involved, well, it's likely I would rule in favor of the old-OP.
These cases are rare - very rare. I've never personally even seen it occur. This is, however, one of the reasons we recommend avoiding these types of situations. They are often burdensomely messy - as are most cases involving intellectual property, copyright, and/or plagiarism.
[7:03 PM] Santh: Q13 Excellent. That works for me
[7:03 PM] Swith: Quick clarification. You can not use someone else's work without permission. If the original OP did NOT given you explicit permission to use their RP material (code, concept, name, character, setting), they retain all rights to it.
[7:04 PM] Swith: That's why I recommend old OP give their blessing via a public post in the old thread before turning it over to a new person.
[7:04 PM] Zark: To add onto what Kyru said, in cases like these the simplest thing to do to avoid such a situation would be to have the Co-OP tweak the concept until it is recognizably their own brainchild and not the Old-OP's. Taking inspiration is fine, but anything more can be considered plagiarism if unsanctioned.
[7:04 PM] Kyrusia: Q13 Addendum: In one instance of memory, a player was DOS'd. Many, many players dogpiled their territory in an attempt to both seize it and annoy the likely still-observering DOS. From memory, this is the only instance where Moderation has stepped in to unilaterally ERASE FROM IC EXISTENCE an NS entity.
[7:04 PM] Macabees: There's an economist in me tho that wants to give a more caveated answer. If you build a fence on your neighbor's land, your neighbor has X years to bring it to court. Because if you bring it to court 60 years later, the question is whether you really value that land at all -- and whether it was better to create value in the way the neighbor did it vs. stymying that value. i.e. there is such thing as a cause for loss of property rights.
The fact is, the most constructive way of dealing with the issue is to accept that the original owner's opinion > your opinion. You can make suggestions, but at the end of the day I would just accept the other player's decision.
[7:06 PM] Kyrusia: Question #14: If an old thread was abandoned due to arguements and such, when do you believe is the right time to revisit the old thread? (Asked by Deramen.)
[7:06 PM] Macabees: Q14: If you have a reasonable belief that this time is different.
[7:06 PM] Santh: Q14 I would honestly consider never doing so. Do you think the group can handle a restart, though? If you're sure, then whatever, whenever, give it a go. You're kind of asking for trouble though
[7:07 PM] Swith: Q15: When the OP indicates they are ready to restart the thread or start a new thread for the game.
[7:07 PM] Ghant: Q14: Never, honestly, as reviving it is likely to revive the same arguments that ruined it. In the event that those IC events need to be continued, then I'd recommend a new thread that makes vague references to the events of the previous thread.
[7:07 PM] Maltropia: Definitely not before all the participants have worked through those arguments and resolved their differences.
[7:07 PM] Maltropia: Swith's preempting the questions a bit there.
[7:08 PM] Giovenith: Q14: Pretty much what Ghant said. Trying to restart it will likely just attract the same problems that killed it in the first plac.
[7:08 PM] Gren: Q14: Why not just create a new group instead?
[7:08 PM] Macabees: Btw, last time people thought things were different, the housing market crash happened.
[7:08 PM] Swith: I'm psychic. :smile: I'm also asked about this in P2TM, frequently.
[7:08 PM] Macabees: Don't let your RP be the next housing market crash. :stuck_out_tongue:
[7:09 PM] Kyrusia: Question #15: [You] have a military based RP - how common is it to restrict players to, say, Junior Enlisted (pvt, pfc, corporal) ranks and only allow the OP and Co-Op to be NCO's? I know it's a pretty dumb question, but I've done so in an RP because rank is everything. (Asked by Torii; potential source of OOC conflict.)
[7:09 PM] Ghant: Q15: I've never seen it done that way. Usually, players involved in a military thread can RP characters of any rank from their nation.
[7:10 PM] Gren: Q15: Depends on the scope of the RP, and the capabilities and goals of the unit in question.
I.E., a battalion in a Character RP probably shouldn't have 15 generals, but a nation in a nation RP certainly should.(edited)
[7:10 PM] Macabees: Q15: If you're the OP, you can run it like you like, as long as people can opt in and out. And I am 100% for experimenting with rules like that. How we RP goes through constant improvement and experimentation is vital to that.
[7:11 PM] Giovenith: Q15: I don't know much about military RP, but I suppose it depends on the story and set-up. I could understand someone doing it so people don't apply with a Mary Sue if you're going more for a "life in a particular military" RP, but if it's more about several militaries coming together, you might want to allow more wiggle room. Ultimately though, OP is God, take it or leave it.
[7:12 PM] Macabees: Real talk, I've been thinking of running my next RP by deciding the outcomes of major battles by dice rolls, just to see how it goes.
[7:12 PM] Swith: Q15: When I run military based RP, I look at my player's abilities to research and play out a role. I won't appoint someone as an officer if I see that they don't know tactics or their only experience with combat is via FPS. I'll appoint a veteran player, and have the less-experienced serve as enlisted. This allows the player to learn from the IC experience and from how that veteran player goes about planning things, conducting missions, etc.
[7:12 PM] Kyrusia: [Mac. The Rogue.]
[7:12 PM] Santh: Q15 If you mean a character RP where the players are all playing one person in a squad, then sure. Giving the OP and co-OP the ranking characters means they can direct both OOCly and ICly
[7:13 PM] Santh: I've done that for tabletops. The DM had me play "the leader" because I was an experienced player and no one else was
[7:13 PM] Gren: In Excalibur Squadron, the highest officer we get is the Wing Commander, while the OP's primary character is Squadron Leader (i.e., immediately subordinate to the WC). And since its an air force unit, most characters are going to be officers of some sort.
[7:13 PM] Swith: Santh, that's how we do it for games like Millennium's End, in our RL game group.
[7:13 PM] Macabees: Relatedly, and speaking to gren 's answer, I ran an RP where it started in basic training - so context demanded that the other players were all newly enlisted soldiers doing basic for a PMC.(edited)
[7:13 PM] Maltropia: There is a certain logic to not giving players you don't know the IC authority to countermand your OOC decisions on the direction of the RP.
[7:14 PM] Maltropia: You also don't want to go so far as to stifle their creative freedom and ability to determine their own characters' arcs.
[7:14 PM] Gren: In an RP called Antediluvia, it was a mechanized infantry battalion, so the highest ranking character was the Lt.
[7:14 PM] Ghant: It goes without saying that players that you don't really know or aren't very familiar with should have limited roles and abilities in your thread to avoid any unwanted shenanigans.
[7:15 PM] Swith: ^ This.
[7:15 PM] Kyrusia: Fifteen minutes remain.
[7:15 PM] Kyrusia: Question #16: [How] could I, as OP, shoot down a plot idea nicely, or at least help the player modify it so it's not so disruptive? (Asked by Eridani.)
[7:15 PM] Swith: Panelists, I'm going to politely bow out now in order to prepare for the next panel. Thank you for allowing me to participate, and thank you to Kyru for serving as our mod tonight.
[7:16 PM] Gren: Q16: Generally, explain that while its a good idea, its hard to fit into your current plans for the RP.
[7:16 PM] Giovenith: Q16: Try to politely as you can explain in detail why something someone has planned might be disruptive. People are usually quite reasonable and don't want to step on toes, if they can see clearly why their plan isn't the best, they're usually more than happy to adjust things.
[7:16 PM] Santh: Q16 I'm not known for my niceness. However, I generally look at anything that sounds illogical and see if those holes can be filled... or stretch them until the person realizes they don't work. Or ignores me entirely
[7:16 PM] Macabees: Q16: "Actually, very interesting idea. My only concerns are x, y, z. Here's my reasoning. I am open to discussion."
[7:17 PM] Giovenith: Thank ya Swith!
[7:17 PM] Zark: What Mac said probably sums up my thoughts on the matter
[7:17 PM] Zark: See you Swith!
[7:17 PM] Ghant: Q16: I've been in many, many situations as a thread OP when other players made suggestions or pitched ideas for the plot that I wasn't really interested in. Basically what I'd tell them is that while I think it's an interesting idea that has it's merits, this isn't really the appropriate situation for that plotline. Then I'd suggest what they could do in the thread, or suggest another thread down the line where that plot they want can be put to use.
[7:17 PM] Kyrusia: Question #17: Say one joins an RP which looks promising and is run by someone pretty congenial. One gets a page or two in - and it becomes painfully apparent that everyone else is supporting cast for OP's Mary Sue/Stu(s). Some players really do want to improve... Is it ever appropriate to tell this guy what they're doing wrong, and how would you mentors go about that? (Asked by Amicable Crescendo.)
[7:18 PM] Ghant: Q17: In situations like that (and I've been in a few), I'd send a PM or TG to both the players about my obsevations that I considered alarming, and to the OP. I try to present that constructively, but whether or not the other player accepts it in that way is entirely up to them.
[7:19 PM] Zark: Q17: Well, as soon as the issue becomes apparent, I say it's a good time to try to talk it out with the OP, always politely of course. If he doesn't budge, though, you're just going to have to choose between putting up with it or bowing out of there, I'm afraid.
[7:19 PM] Gren: Q17: I'm not a mentor, but personally, I'd bail, and only give an explanation if TG'd, and even then, phrase it extremely diplomatically.
[7:19 PM] Giovenith: Q17: Your best chance is to try to talk things out with the OP or get a Mentor to help you talk things out. Speaking from experience though, I wouldn't get your hopes up, you're going to have to be prepared to bail.
[7:20 PM] Gren: It seems like the only option that doesn't escalate the drama factor.
[7:20 PM] Macabees: Q17: Is an OP 'taking the glory,' so to speak, a bad thing? It might be disagreeable. But this is one of those times where the OP is the OP. I always recommend communicating with others, because they may be more flexible than you think. Or they might not have even realized they were doing that. But, ultimately, if that's what the OP wants to do, the best solution is to politely leave the RP -- if you're not interested in that role.
[7:20 PM] Macabees: Or did I misunderstand?
[7:21 PM] Macabees: What I love about NS, anyways, is that all relationships are voluntary.
[7:21 PM] Macabees: You don't have to be in a thread that you don't want to be in.
[7:22 PM] Gren: That is the beauty of NS. You can ignore almost anything.
[7:22 PM] Santh: ^ and sometimes bailing really is the best option, even if you would like to mentor them. I've spent a lot of time trying to mentor people who didn't actually want to change even if they were okay with talking stuff out
[7:23 PM] Macabees: Also, think about the last question, where we asked if it was okay to give players minor roles. If it's okay to give players minor roles, then what the OP is doing in that situation is also okay.
[7:23 PM] Gren: Don't like the stats? You don't have to use them. Don't like the issues? You don't have to answer them. Don't like this RP group/setting/etc.? You don't have to participate.
[7:24 PM] Kyrusia: Question #18 (LAST QUESTION): [Sorry] if something similar was asked but what was the most drastic thing you've had to do to stop an argument in a thread? (Asked by Deramen.)
[7:24 PM] Macabees: Q18. Streaked! jk jk
[7:25 PM] Zark: I sadly don't have any interesting story to tell here, I haven't had any arguments that heated in roleplays I manage
[7:25 PM] Giovenith: Q18: Threaten to shut down the entire group if everyone didn't shut up for two seconds and let me speak. It takes A LOT for me to finally lose my patience, so yes, I do think that was necessary given the circumstances.
[7:28 PM] Santh: Q18 Shut them all down, hurry!
[7:29 PM] Kyrusia: Thank you to our panelists, but that is all for this panel this evening. Thirty minutes will be provided between now and our next panel: Observations on Gameplay. This panel will feature a guest panelist from The Black Hawks raiding organization that has extend their time and attention. We're grateful for the opportunity and hope this will be an enjoyable panel.
NS Roleplay Symposium 2017
TOPIC: "Conflict Resolution and Out-of-Character Drama"
TIME: COMPLETED
**NS Roleplay Symposium 2017**
LOCATION: Symposium Hall
TOPIC: "Conflict Resolution and Out-of-Character Drama"
TIME: 7:00PM - 8:30PM Eastern, Monday, July 10th
Greetings and welcome to the first of our evening panels! I'm Kyru, your discussion moderator for this session. (And will also likely be participating!)
Tonight we'll be looking at methods of resolving Out-of-Character conflicts in threads, the drama related to them (and how to avoid it), as well as OP powers (such as thread bans, post splits, etc.). We will not be providing advice or assistance related to specific cases or instances, but speaking instead in generalities.
Panelists, please introduce yourselves and tell us which subforums you haunt. (Also your preferred dessert!)
I also thank guests for their patience. We will pull your questions from the #questions_chamber. To make it easier on us, please keep chatter to the main #ns_mentors channel. Thank you.
BEGIN
::
[6:00 PM] Swith: Hello all. I'm Swith, one of the Senior P2TM RP Mentors, and one of the Founders for Madhouse Productions (a site-wide roleplayer group). I help run the unofficial training roleplay in P2TM (known as PL). Occasionally, I'll pop up north to the NS subforum for some nation-based roleplay.
And lemon anything is my ideal dessert. :smile:
[6:00 PM] Ghant: Greetings everyone! I'm Ghant, veteran N&I RPer specializing in PT and MT. I'll take anything chocolatey.
[6:01 PM] Zark: Hello everyone, I'm Zark (Zarkenis Ultima on the forums), P2TM Roleplay Mentor, nice to be back in here
[6:01 PM] Gren: I'm Gren, resident of P2TM. I like milkshakes. Especially if something with peanut butter is an ingredient. Or mint chocolate chip.
Speaking of food, I'll probably have to duck out for a few minutes.(edited)
[6:01 PM] Giovenith: Hello everyone, my name is Giovenith and I deal primarily with P2TM. Welcome to the symposium, please don't feel shy to ask your questions.
[6:01 PM] Maltropia: Evening folks. I'm Maltropia, a Senior N&I Mentor who nowadays mostly shakes a walking stick in the direction of GE&T and International Incidents. I just ate the last slice of my birthday cake.
[6:02 PM] Santh: I'm Santh, little known as Santheres or The United Dominion and a host of other puppets.
[6:03 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, panelists.
[6:03 PM] Kyrusia: Question #1: What do you think the main causes of OOC conflict are? (Asked by Thoricia)
[6:04 PM] FRFS: Q1: Misunderstandings for the most part. Someone says something that either is misinterpreted or taken out of context. The best way to keep OOC conflict to a minimum, is to be clear and concise with your wording.
[6:05 PM] Santh: Q1: a thorough lack of discussion ahead of time, and placing a lot (I mean, a lot) of personal stake in one's own characters/nations. Basically, not being able to stay a step back and remember this is fiction and nothing and no one is perfect.
[6:05 PM] Ghant: Q1: In my experience (and I have alot in this area) it mainly comes down to one thing. A failure to communicate. Often times it's hard to communicate properly over a text-based venue such as NS, and you'd be amazed how many OOC conflicts could be avoided by voice chat. Be that as it may, miscommunications, misunderstandings and the like are the primary cause. I believe that most people are good people, but unfortunately, miscommunication gets in the way.
[6:05 PM] Swith: Q1 There are two main causes, IMHO. One is personal attitudes. Not everyone gets along 100% of the time. Sometimes personalities just don't click well. But attitude is everything, and a poor attitude brings down RP and causes divisions in groups.
The second main cause is misunderstanding. Someone doesn't grasp a concept, or misinterprets something. This isn't intentional, of course, but can snowball into a heated spat if no attempt to ask for clarification (or to clarify) is made.
[6:05 PM] Maltropia: Two things. IC conflict and a failure to communicate. The easiest way to prevent OOC conflict is to make sure that everyone, OOCly, is working towards the same goal. It's not always enough to know that the other roleplayers in a thread are your friends; I've been privy to more than a few fallings-out over IC conflict, when the leaders of two regional blocs perceived the other as working against them OOCly.
It's very often very easy to fall into the trap of identifying with 'your' country, or 'your' character too much relative to the story you're all working on. Roleplay is cooperative, not combative.
[6:05 PM] Giovenith: Q1: Usually OOC conflict, from my experiences, arises at first from controversial actions in the IC, but which carry an underlying RL spite to them. Someone's action in the IC may serve as proof in another player's eyes that that person is inconsiderate or a poor sport, and thus they use the opportunity to lash out. As an RP gets older and the players become more familiar as people, OOC conflict usually isn't much different from RL conflict: different opinions, perceived insults, etc.
[6:05 PM] Zark: Q1: Well, I think the specific causes of OOC conflict are widely varied, but it all probably boils down to an inability to act in a mature way and/or distance oneself from the characters or entities they are playing. This kind of attachment could generate misunderstandings or ill feelings between roleplayers. Though not following common courtesy or attempting to subvert basic rules (no godmodding, metagaming, etc) can breed a lot of conflict as well.
[6:05 PM] Macabees: Hi guys, Macabees here. I'm a Senior N&I mentor. Q1: In my experience, the main cause of OOC conflict are misunderstandings. That being said, I think the main factor as to why misunderstandings, and disagreements, blow up is that one side, or both (most likely), isn't looking to compromise, but to force upon another player an outcome that doesn't jive with their expectations or what direction they wanted to take their canon in. For example, the loss of a battle, or of a war, or even the loss of half of one's army. These are hard things to swallow, and if both sides aren't interested in compromise and finding mutually beneficial outcomes, that's when the OOC drama happens.(edited)
[6:06 PM] Kyrusia: Welcome, Mac.
[6:07 PM] Gren: Q1: I can't say I've seen much OOC drama caused by IC stuff, except for one case. Usually, IME, its been OOC things that cause more OOC drama.
[6:08 PM] Macabees: To add to the idea of a mutually beneficial outcome: winning a war is not the only way to benefit. Losing a war can segue into a direction that you wanted to take your canon in. It can lead to the change in politics the other player wants. There's always opportunities to benefit in that sense, so both sides don't need to win the war for the RP to be mutually beneficial.
[6:08 PM] Ghant: Q1: Alot of the time it's people not getting along OOCly, mistrust, personality conflicts, etc.
[6:08 PM] Gren: For example, one person saying they're a dog person, then another saying they're a cat person, and it just spirals from there.
[6:08 PM] Kyrusia: Question #2: What are some ways to resolve OOC conflicts?(Asked Jutomi.)
[6:09 PM] Macabees: Q2: Communicate. But communicate in a constructive way. Where focus goes, energy flows. Focus on solutions, not problems.
[6:09 PM] Ghant: Q2: A willingness to communicate, a willingness to see things from other people's point of view, a willingness to compromise and a willingness to let bygones be bygones.
NEW MESSAGES
[6:10 PM] Swith: Take it to TG first. Communication is essential. Don't explode. Approach the other person politely. This keeps heat out of the thread. If that fails, ask your OP to step in. If that fails, flag down a Mentor for mediation. But really, it's common sense. We can't always win every argument. There has to be give-and-take.
[6:10 PM] Santh: Q2: yeah, ultimately it all comes down to communication and some humility. Be willing to step back and turn a critical eye at yourself
[6:10 PM] Zark: Q2: Honestly, the only way to resolve OOC conflicts, at least peacefully, is to have both parties take a step back, take a breath, and try to discuss things in a civil manner. Ultimately, however, if one or both parties refuse to do so, it is the OP's responsibility to maintain order in their thread, drastic as the actions required may be.(edited)
[6:10 PM] Gren: Q2: Diplomatic communication. And I'm not talking IC.
[6:10 PM] Santh: Ask "is this really that important?"
[6:10 PM] Swith: ^
[6:10 PM] FRFS: Q2: communication, compromise and a willing attitude. You have to remember to take a step back when dealing with someone who is confrontational, take a breath and maybe walk away from the computer for a moment
[6:11 PM] Santh: Don't be afraid to walk away, either to cool things down or if you're sure things won't cool down, then just exit the situation completely
[6:11 PM] Santh: You don't have to be involved
[6:11 PM] Gren: OP and/or COOP need to play switzerland, and tell the disputing parties to either chill out and settle their differences (or leave them outside the RP), or leave the RP altogether.
[6:11 PM] Ghant: Q2: You have to be willing to trust people and give them the benefit of the doubt. That's a big one...the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to hold on to grudges or past preconceived notions about the other player, it's going to fail.
[6:12 PM] Gren: And on that note, dinner calls.
[6:12 PM] Maltropia: Bon appetit.
[6:12 PM] Giovenith: Q2: It all depends on the nature of the conflict. Typically though, it requires you to remove yourself from everything in order to better look at things objectively. You want to allow both people an opportunity to say their piece, and if they're not understanding each other, you may have to act as something of a translator between them. Use phrases like "I think" or "I feel" or "Player feels" or "I think Player just feels like, [blahblahblah], is that true Player?" This kind of language diffuses things because it tells everyone listening that you're not making definitive and thus accusatory statements. Don't be afraid to tell people to take a break, or take a break yourself.
[6:12 PM] Kyrusia: Question #3: "[What] steps can be taken to prevent OOC conflicts from appearing in the first place?" (Asked by Finium) & "What would be a good way to keep IC debates/conflict from boiling over into the OOC?" (Asked by Rhodevus)
[6:14 PM] Maltropia: I can see the follow-up in Q3. Again, communication is key. Plan where you're going. Talk it through. Know what your partners want out of the thread and be willing to compromise to meet their goals. Don't push your goals on them in a way that makes them feel shortchanged, disadvantaged or shortchanged.
[6:14 PM] Ghant: Q3: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Simply talking to people to see where they stand on things, asking them if they have any concerns about roleplays or the region, etc. And then addressing those things as soon as they come up. If it's something that involves multiple players, just speaking to them on an individual basis and addressing their concerns can help alot when it comes to avoiding misunderstandings later. As far as IC debates, best to limit them to constructive venues like IRC / Discord channels for those roleplays, or to OOC threads and if necessary, emphasizing that this is an IC perspective and nothing about it reflects anything OOC.
[6:15 PM] Giovenith: Q3: Creating basic rules about what is and isn't allowed in the RP in the first place and then sticking to them. A common one is, "Don't hurt someone else's character without their permission," or, "Leave political stuff in the TGs." A lot conflict arises just from the rules not being clear enough, people taking advantage of that, and the others calling foul. This is why many people are fond of saying things like "OP is God" or "Use common sense" - it allows wiggle room for if you ever have to put your foot down on an issue you might not have explicitly banned in the OP.
[6:15 PM] Santh: Q3 I think my previous answers apply here. Communication is the start; humility is a must. You cannot let your ego get in the way. Yes, you might have a superhero or a utopia but again, no one and nothing is perfect.
After that, know when things are getting too heated and when to walk away. If you feel like you can't walk away, see what has the other side heated, and what you can do to compromise with them. If you're not willing to compromise, then you may be RPing with the wrong person.
And remember: a player is not their character or nation. I cannot stress that enough.
[6:15 PM] Zark: Q3: Regarding the first part, I believe that an open, tight-knit group with a sense of belonging is far less likely to breed OOC conflict, so I wold say that to avoid said conflict, one should foster that type of mentality within one's group. As for the second part, like I said earlier, it's all about maturity and distancing oneself from the entities one controls in the roleplay. If everyone's working together to tell a story and understands that what happens in the story has no bearing on the way they treat each other, there should be no issue.
[6:15 PM] Macabees: Q3: To the last question, I've always been a big fan of the philosophy: all problems should be dealt with ICly. Usually, no OOC problem is really big enough to justify stopping the IC development - it's only big enough if you make it big enough. When people start to talk about whose military is better, I say, "Take it to IC. RP it out." A good way to avoid OOC drama is to be the bigger man. Sometimes accepting the OOC 'flaw' is better than making a big deal over it, especially if making a big deal over it leads to the complete failure of the RP.
And I agree with everyone else in that you're less likely to even have to face the issues if you're communicating from the get-go, and taking preventative steps to make sure these misunderstanding and mistakes don't happen. And when you're communicating from the get-go, you're also creating a culture of communication, and for the most part you'll see most OOC issues being taken care of quickly and without much ado.(edited)
[6:15 PM] Swith: Q3: Again, it's communication. Not just between players, but between the OP/CoOPs and players. The OP needs to be on top of things, putting out sparks before they turn into raging fires. And players should be able to approach their RP staff with concerns or issues, without fearing reprisal.
Our games and our characters, and our nations, are our brain children. We protect them, fiercely at times, and don't take criticism well. When IC stuff begins to sour OOC interactions, it's time to take a step back and ask if the bluster is really worth it. A game comes and goes. The player bonds we form over time should last much longer.
[6:16 PM] Swith: But also, bow out if you know you're causing issues. Let it go. Find a new game or group. It's not worth the stress on your, or the stress you put on your old group.
[6:16 PM] Maltropia: Just as an addendum to what Santh said: if you think your character is justifiably coming out on top and the other guy feels aggrieved, be prepared firstly to explain your reasoning and then to back down if that fails.
[6:17 PM] Santh: We are here to have fun, so backing down should always be an option you're willing to take
[6:17 PM] Ghant: Q3: It's important to remember, if you're going to walk away from an RP or an RP group, make sure you do it on good terms. Doing so on bad terms can damage your reputation and make things harder for you in the future. Bow out with grace, be willing to swallow your pride and wish them well.
[6:18 PM] Kyrusia: Question #4: [What] if you have two or more players that don't like each other and don't want to play together, but both want to be part of the RP, [or] both are important for the story? (Asked by Doom Legions)
[6:19 PM] Ghant: Q4: I was involved in a thread where that happened quite recently. What I told the players involved was to participate in the thread as they would, but not worry too much about the other player that they didn't wish to interact with. I encouraged them to find ways to contibute to the thread in ways that wouldn't step on the other person's toes. It worked out okay thankfully.
[6:20 PM] Giovenith: Q4: The best case scenario is telling them both to consider probably finding another RP. If they absolutely refuse and you don't risk their ire by flipping a coin and banning one of them, you'd really have to be on their ass about making sure they don't bring their conflict into either the OOC or the IC. Have their characters avoid each other as much as possible, or at the very least be formal about their interactions, encourage them to avoid speaking in the OOC, don't be afraid to step in at the slightest sign of trouble.
[6:20 PM] Zark: Q4: I believe the answers given earlier can apply to this question just as well. Have them take a breath and try to talk it out, basically. But in the end, if everything fails, the roleplay will likely have to take the hit and move on. Better to have the roleplay continue in a diminished capacity than have it be torn apart by the conflict.
[6:20 PM] Zark: I also concur with what Ghant said
[6:21 PM] Santh: Q4 There really are two choices there. 1) Suck it up and cooperate or 2) someone has to accept that they are not actually needed, and everyone else has to work around that.
If you're able to communicate and stop yourself from getting overrun by ego, the first option should be possible. I've RPed with a lot of people I don't like just because I wanted to be a part of that particular story. You just need to not let your personal opinions get in the way. Shut that stuff down good and hard and don't let it ruin your day/thread.
[6:21 PM] FRFS: Q4: Unfortunately sometimes the RP is trashed just for those reasons. But it is better that to happen than a continuing problem.
[6:21 PM] Swith: Q4: OP are not babysitters. Players should abide by some sort of player etiquette, and ignore each other. This doesn't work in RP - a collaborative effort to tell a story or play out a game. So both parties need to approach it with humility and maturity. Do they want the game to succeed? Then agree to disagree about past issues. If that fails, Gio's advice is solid.
[6:21 PM] Macabees: Q4: Either they agree to be civil and to compromise each other for whatever is within the context of the RP, or it's an RP you may consider skipping. I know the latter sounds cynical, but, personally, I have only so much time in my day to write for NationStates and so why invest in a thread that's likely to devolve into an argument? I think it there's only one offense, it's worth working with them again. But if it's a recurring thing - if there's a long history of it -, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.
In my region, there is a situation where there is one player that absolutely refuses to interact with another. I can't force the RP. I don't even want that RP to happen, because last time it did it cut the RP short (although we ended it - we just sped up the ending). My approach is to talk and mentor them outside of the RPing sphere, so that hopefully one day I can persuade them to try it again.
[6:19 PM] Ghant: Q4: I was involved in a thread where that happened quite recently. What I told the players involved was to participate in the thread as they would, but not worry too much about the other player that they didn't wish to interact with. I encouraged them to find ways to contibute to the thread in ways that wouldn't step on the other person's toes. It worked out okay thankfully.
[6:20 PM] Giovenith: Q4: The best case scenario is telling them both to consider probably finding another RP. If they absolutely refuse and you don't risk their ire by flipping a coin and banning one of them, you'd really have to be on their ass about making sure they don't bring their conflict into either the OOC or the IC. Have their characters avoid each other as much as possible, or at the very least be formal about their interactions, encourage them to avoid speaking in the OOC, don't be afraid to step in at the slightest sign of trouble.
[6:20 PM] Zark: Q4: I believe the answers given earlier can apply to this question just as well. Have them take a breath and try to talk it out, basically. But in the end, if everything fails, the roleplay will likely have to take the hit and move on. Better to have the roleplay continue in a diminished capacity than have it be torn apart by the conflict.
[6:20 PM] Zark: I also concur with what Ghant said
[6:21 PM] Santh: Q4 There really are two choices there. 1) Suck it up and cooperate or 2) someone has to accept that they are not actually needed, and everyone else has to work around that.
If you're able to communicate and stop yourself from getting overrun by ego, the first option should be possible. I've RPed with a lot of people I don't like just because I wanted to be a part of that particular story. You just need to not let your personal opinions get in the way. Shut that stuff down good and hard and don't let it ruin your day/thread.
[6:21 PM] FRFS: Q4: Unfortunately sometimes the RP is trashed just for those reasons. But it is better that to happen than a continuing problem.
[6:21 PM] Swith: Q4: OP are not babysitters. Players should abide by some sort of player etiquette, and ignore each other. This doesn't work in RP - a collaborative effort to tell a story or play out a game. So both parties need to approach it with humility and maturity. Do they want the game to succeed? Then agree to disagree about past issues. If that fails, Gio's advice is solid.
[6:21 PM] Macabees: Q4: Either they agree to be civil and to compromise with each other for whatever is within the context of the RP, or it's an RP you may consider skipping. I know the latter sounds cynical, but, personally, I have only so much time in my day to write for NationStates and so why invest in a thread that's likely to devolve into an argument? I think if there's only one offense, it's worth working with them again. But if it's a recurring thing - if there's a long history of it -, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.
In my region, there is a situation where there is one player that absolutely refuses to interact with another. I can't force the RP. I don't even want that RP to happen, because last time it did it cut the RP short (although we ended it - we just sped up the ending). My approach is to talk and mentor them outside of the RPing sphere, so that hopefully one day I can persuade them to try it again.(edited)
[6:21 PM] Kyrusia: Question #5: What was the worst OOC conflict you have dealt with in an RP (don't have to name any specifics), and how was it handled? (Asked by Ched)
[6:23 PM] Santh: Q5 I hope no one remembers ODECON and the Conglomerate. That was entirely personal and some of the members involved hate each other to this day. It was handled poorly, as many things in the Bad Old Days ™ were. Mass ignores, a net loss for everyone involved. That whole incident actually formed a lot of my views on conflict resolution re. NS. You can't let this stuff get out of hand because once it does, there's rarely any going back
[6:24 PM] Macabees: Q5: One group of players who thought that the second group was actively out to get them and degrade them and troll them, and the other group that thought the same exact thing. They asked me to mediate. There was no mediating that, because each player was only interested in putting the other ones down -- that's not a constructive environment. I recommended they walk away from each other and cool down, and only come back together if they were interested in talking about solutions, and not what the other one is doing wrong.
[6:24 PM] Ghant: Q5: I was involved in an RP in 2014 in Esquarium that was OPed by Koyro, called the Koy-Kulsandia War. Things weren't going well in the region OOCly at the time, and there were many personality conflicts, especially between myself and the thread OP (Koyro). At one point during an OOC argument over something not related to the RP, he said that he would have his characters ICly execute their hostages that were from my nation (Ghant). It was handled by me basically cowing to him, since he was the OP of the thread and I didn't want to risk metagaming of the thread in a way that would ruin my arc because I wasn't getting along with him OOCly.
[6:26 PM] Santh: Q5 Macabees Two big II alliances is apparently a recipe for OOC disaster
[6:26 PM] Giovenith: Q5: I'll tell you my second worst.
There was an OP who insisted on controlling minute things that didn't matter and yet refused to do anything about stuff that actually did matter. He would try to control insignificant details about what people's characters could be like, from their appearances to what jobs they were allowed to have based on their status. Most of all, he would CONSTANTLY TIMESKIP. No one had any time to play out anything interesting, because he insisted on jumping us ahead months in IC time over the course of two days. As for the stuff he refused to control, he allowed a random player to take control of an important canon character without asking and use them to derail the whole story by having the act out of character. He was more concerned with making sure his own character's quest succeeded than anyone else's.
A lot of RPs die with time, but I'm pretty sure this one could have lasted a long time if not for the terrible OP. Pretty much everyone left because he made it impossible to game.
[6:26 PM] Zark: Q5: As I recall, in a large RP I participated in a while ago, there was one particular player who constantly brought up that his character was being aggravated in an undue manner by the OP (something that was not quite true). The player remained in the RP long after that sort of behavior began, and was given several chances to compromise and such, but eventually, when it became too disruptive and he refused to stop, the player was banned from the thread. I believe the player and the OP were able to move past that, though.
[6:26 PM] Zark: Apologies for not giving names
[6:26 PM] Kyrusia: No apologies required. I expect nothing less than anonymity for questions such as these. :wink:
[6:26 PM] Swith: Q5: It was years ago, in N&I. A member of our group enjoyed harassing minors. He was an old salt, and should have known better. Regardless, he insisted on running around behind the scenes (IRC, Zetaboards) talking poorly about them. It got to the point where one of these kids (only 14) lost all confidence in their ability to write and roleplay. The RP's OP and CoOPs didn't have proof. Hearsay is what it is. However, the player got careless and got caught by the OP.
Our RP group's leader at the time was Fritz. He handled it behind the scenes, in a mature manner, but left it perfectly clear to our entire group that tearing down player psyche will earn a person a boot. The player was blackballed from our group, and his nation canon was stripped from ours for every last RP he was in.
[6:27 PM] Zark: T'was to the crowd Kyru, you gotta earn their appreciation
[6:27 PM] Kyrusia: Question #6: What happens if OOC conflict becomes large-scale and is between many people? (Asked by Jutomi)
[6:27 PM] Santh: Q6: Leave
[6:28 PM] Kyrusia: There goes the lichmeow. Playing it up to the audience. ;P
[6:28 PM] Macabees: Q6: First question, who is most relevant to the conflict? If the conflict is really between two players, the conversation needs to be between those two players, not the players and the peanut gallery. It's often the case that it's many players ganging up against one -- all you're doing is overwhelming that person. But that's not always the case, some times it's between sides that are equally sized. It's still overwhelming and it distracts the players who are actually directly relevant to the conflict from overcoming the problem.
[6:29 PM] Kyrusia: We are about to reach the first thirty minute mark. Simple reminder to panelists.
[6:29 PM] Giovenith: Q6: You probably have to go Red Alert, put up a post that says "NO MORE POSTS UNTIL I SAY SO," and give everyone time to breathe while you sort things out. This is never going to be easy. You're going to have to make judgment calls, pick out who started what and what players need to stop doing to feed into it. It will be hard, but you're going to have to remain detached as you do so. You may have to kick someone.
[6:29 PM] Santh: Q6 Bluntness aside, this really is a recipe for disaster, as previously said. I've never seen a recovery from large-scale OOC conflict.
Do you want to try to resolve it anyway? Then you need to keep the coolest head. You need to be as impartial as possible, no matter who your friends are. Focus people on common goals and sort everything out OOCly, preferably in real time on IRC or Discord, and manage sarcasm and flaming as best as possible
[6:30 PM] Ghant: Q6: Then it gets ugly. I've seen situations like that, and if it's within an RP group, you can bet that it would split in two, with bitterness and bad blood existing between the two divergent groups. Also, generally the more people that are involved in a dispute of that magnitude, the harder it is to resolve to everyon's satisfaction. One thing you can try to do is address the issues that the various groups have, and try to break them down. Ultimately, the best thing to do whether it's two people or two groups, is to focus on the bridges that connect people than the canyons that divide them.
[6:30 PM] Kyrusia: Question #7 (PANEL-PROVIDED): What about player thread bans - when an OP bans a player from a thread? What are your general thoughts on the usage of this, and - more generally - the best way to go about it? When to get Moderation involved?
[6:30 PM] Macabees: Q7: If the player is hurting the RP, kick him -- after trying to reach out and mentor first, of course.(edited)
[6:31 PM] Ghant: Q7: I think it should only be used as a last resort by the OP of the thread and at their discretion, in the event that the player in question is trolling, violating the rules of the thread or challenging the OP in some way.
[6:31 PM] Giovenith: Q7: Ideally, this should be a last case scenario for when someone has caused serious grief or trouble to the RP or someone in it. Moderation should get involved if it involves something rule-breaking or potentially law-breaking.
[6:32 PM] Santh: Q7 I am all for thread bans to ensure a thread goes smoothly. If someone can't play nice, take away their toys. Moderation is only for forum rulebreaking but if you're unsure, just ask them. They're very nice people, if overworked.
[6:32 PM] Swith: Q7: We have the ability to ban for a reason. Use it. If you must ban a player, at least do it in a professional manner. "Player A, you are banned from this RP for [x] behavior". Make it a unique post. Then add that player's name to your OOC's first post, along with your post timestamp. This allows Mods to enforce your ban, should that player return. They'll go by your "ban post" timestamp.
[6:33 PM] Zark: Q7: I concur with Ghant and Gio. As for the best way to go about it, I believe that would be to provide the incident with as little fanfare as possible. Be polite and professional. Like Swith said earlier, don't let players gossip about that person once they're gone. And get Moderation involved if they try to bypass the ban, of course.
[6:33 PM] Kyrusia: Q7: OP authority is unilateral. While compromise is always the best first-go, this does not always work and, at the end of the day, is not required. From a Moderation perspective: the OP - and only the OP, not Co-OP or a puppet of the OP account - can ban a player from their thread for any reason, including none.
Get Moderation involved if - and only if - the player returns after you have banned them or if you suspect they are using a puppet to evade. For more information, as well as this explanation in greater detail, see here: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=390032#oppowers
[6:33 PM] Swith: "Little fanfare" is good advice, Zark. I don't recommend killing characters out of spite, either.
[6:33 PM] Macabees: I keep using the word 'mentor' when I really mean 'help that player improve communicating with them whatever issues you have', because the only way a person learns is by knowing what they're doing wrong. But I keep using the word 'mentor' because everyone is a mentor, and when you have a problem with another player you should use it as a teachable moment (for the other player or for yourself).
[6:33 PM] Zark: True. Best to work them out in a manner that appears natural.
[6:34 PM] Kyrusia: Question #8: Would it be unfair to stop playing with a certain player just because of his/her OOC views? Or is it an acceptable reason? (Asked by Sailor.)
[6:34 PM] Giovenith: Q8: Pragmatically, you can refuse to play with someone for whatever reason you want. Whether that reason is good or not is a matter of opinion.(edited)
[6:35 PM] Santh: Q8 You get to choose who to play with. If you don't think you can handle playing with them because of their OOC views, then do everyone a favor and bow out.
[6:35 PM] Zark: Q8: I think ultimately it is a valid reason if "stop playing with a certain player" merely implies bowing out of roleplays that involve that person. Everyone is free to manage their time as they choose and spend it with whomever they want. However, if they demand the other person to get the boot instead? That is unacceptable.
[6:35 PM] Ghant: Q8: I think that's poor form, but I can understand why other players do that. I encourage people to remember that in a thread, you leave OOC things at the door, especially differences with other players. Alas, some people can't get past that and you shouldn't feel compelled to RP with someone that you can't get along with OOCly. This is a leisurely pursuit during your free time, and thusly writing is a thing meant to be enjoyed. If you won't enjoy it, then don't do it.
[6:36 PM] Macabees: Q8: If his/her OOC views are going to cause tension and have a high chance of being the cause of RP failure, then it's reasonable to stop RPing with them. The game is about having fun.
[6:36 PM] Zark: However, going back to the advice given already, I think it would be best to see if both players can't take a step back and work out their differences in a civil manner.
[6:36 PM] Swith: Q8: If you have exhausted all avenues, and the player's bad attitude remains (or you simply can't work with them anymore), it isn't unfair to place them on ignore and move on. Life is short. You don't have to put up with bad things, or let those things eat at you. But that means letting go, yourself. Don't run around badmouthing them in threads.
[6:37 PM] Santh: Swith And don't go to offsites doing it, either. Discords and the wikis are no place to continue your conflict
[6:37 PM] Swith: Totally agree, Santh.
[6:37 PM] FRFS: Q8: who you decide to play with is completely up to you. If someone's personal views ruin the experience for you, do not continue to engage with them.
[6:38 PM] Santh: As a personal point of order, as owner of iiWiki, I will ban people who are dragging conflict over, even if they're not "the one who started it" or are otherwise in the right. I've done it before.
[6:38 PM] Swith: Though it is alright if you let your friends know that you have issues with a player. It's simply, "Please don't try to mediate. I've washed my hands of it and moved on. Thanks."
[6:38 PM] Ghant: I want to stress this too, try not to gossip or lie about players in an attempt to discredit them or ruin their reputations. That's not an okay thing to do, and anything done out of spite and malice is especially destructive (and totally uncool).
[6:38 PM] Macabees: ^ I agree
[6:39 PM] Santh: Ruin reputations because you dislike someone is typically a witchhunt. And we all know how that ends
[6:39 PM] Kyrusia: Question #9: Speaking as leadership of an RP region. Since this is an inherently political game, is there any way to keep OOC political disagreements from causing animosity amongst RPers? (Asked by Essexia; potential follow-up.)
[6:40 PM] Maltropia: Don't get into them. I've never had trouble over RL politics because I don't want trouble over RL politics.
[6:40 PM] Giovenith: Q9: Simply tell people to take it to TG or another thread if it comes up.
[6:40 PM] Ghant: Q9: Yes, and in my experience, it's simply not to air your political beliefs around people that you don't know or are not sure how'd they take it. This is an RPing venue, and so sticking to RP related conversations and topics will never do you wrong when it comes to OOC relationships with other players.
[6:41 PM] Santh: Q9 Place huge emphasis on the fact that players are not their nations or characters, and that an OOC and IC separation is a must. I also agree with the above: don't get political OOCly if you think there will be a problem
[6:41 PM] Swith: Q9: Outside my area, sadly. I bow out of this answer.
[6:41 PM] Zark: ^
[6:42 PM] Macabees: Q9: As the founder of GD, that's been around since 2005, very few times has an OOC political disagreement caused animosity among RPers. And I'm surprised, because I can be an ass. But, seriously, we try to preserve a culture of fun, so ultimately when we get rough with each other on Discord or w/e about politics the soreness usually ends there.
[6:42 PM] Santh: Q9 But also, it's important to note that everyone has various beliefs and if you're letting that get in the way of playing with your region or group, then you should consider finding a new region or group
[6:42 PM] Kyrusia: Question #10: [Let's] say you have to kick an player out, but said player's character is important to the plot. How do you deal with that? (Asked by Eridani.) & What if a Player that's known for being AFK most of the time and making other OOC problems has very IC [influential] on the RP? (Asked by Belkan America/Erutenia.)
[6:44 PM] Zark: Q10: Regarding the first part, you'll just have to take control of that for as long as the character remains important, or find some way to work them out of the plot. Alternatively, instead of doing so yourself, you can entrust the character to a Co-OP or another player that is seen as trustworthy both to you and the players. As for the second, I'm afraid I don't entirely understand, but I figure what I said might answer that too.
[6:45 PM] Santh: Q10 I've always been fond of NPC stand-ins to cover the major events involving others. Never steal IP, but general events are pretty open and unownable most of the time. Be willing to adjust details for the loss of some of the IP involved
[6:45 PM] Giovenith: Q10: You may have to godmod them, at least until the end of the story, but if you do do so, you'd have to keep it minimal. Just describe them doing what they need to do and nothing else. This is the last case though, you should try to find another character to replace them, even if it requires a few asspulls.
[6:45 PM] Ghant: Q10: Depending on the relationship between the player and the OP (since their involvement in the thread is at the OP's discretion), the OP can either choose to keep the kicked-out player's work in the thread as canon, or retcon it and find replacements for that important canon. Canon can be replaced, after all, and the key to a successful thread is flexibility and adaptation.
[6:45 PM] Kyrusia: [Just a note... You cannot use another player's intellectual property without their permission. Stand-ins or simply finding a way to drop a player and their characters is the least messiest option from a Moderation perspective.]
[6:45 PM] Macabees: Q10: Very difficult question. It depends. Sometimes you can 'kill a character off' like in a show. Like when characters suddenly have to go to jobs somewhere far away. You have to do it in a way that minimally, and ideally doesn't, influence the character's canon -- because it's not a character you have ownership of.
You may have to tweak the story by having another player fill in with a very similar character, but changed enough to make it their own. So the story still makes sense and the tweaks you need to make are minor.
If you have OOC contact with the AFK player, you might consider talking to them outside of the RP and asking permission to RP their forces or their character. You may need to lay out a plan, or choreograph the RP, so that they agree with the outcome.
[6:47 PM] Swith: Q10: It depends upon the RP. Each is unique. Revenge killing is bad. Having the character suddenly and unexpectedly die "off set" in order for someone to fill its shoes, if handled properly, is plausible.
[6:47 PM] Gren: I'm back.
Q10: Killing the character off, and writing an asspull around it is probably the most canon-friendly solution.
[6:47 PM] Gren: As I mentioned in the last panel, though, mass-hallucination that is conveniently forgotten is the most convenient method overall.
[6:48 PM] Santh: It was all a dream!
[6:48 PM] Ghant: Q10: I'm generally against godmodding in the sense of deciding what happens to other player's characters, as it's poor form. I suggest just writing them out or retconning them without saying what happens to them explicitly.
[6:49 PM] Swith: There are times when a GM must move a character along or park it. This technically isn't seen as "godmodding" in P2TM. Rather, its the GM using a technique in order to preserve elements and advance the story. Usually, they don't "play" the character as much as they frog-march it to a parking space.
[6:50 PM] Maltropia: In the British political sitcom 'The Thick of It,' a scandal emerged between seasons one and two that the lead actor, who played a government minister, was in possession of, y'know, illegal stuff. In the first episode of season two, the character was voted out of government while on holidays; his reactions aren't seen except in how other characters talk to him over the phone.
[6:50 PM] Gren: In one RP I was in, the OP found out that one of the players had lied about something (like, an actual felony, I believe, but nothing life-threatening), and was so repulsed by it, that he kicked the guy out. ICly, our characters were effectively pin-point neuralized.
[6:51 PM] Maltropia: Sometimes, you need to introduce the departmental staff on the phone.
[6:51 PM] Kyrusia: Question #11: [Is] there any way a player can assist in solving RP drama? Or, aside from keeping the OP informed, is it best to leave it to the OP to handle? (Asked by Temp.)
[6:51 PM] Maltropia: Sometimes, you need to introduce the departmental staff on the phone.
[6:52 PM] Giovenith: Q11: Unless you're effected in some way or hold some kind of important information that no one else is aware of, you really should keep to yourself. You'll just make people mad at you for meddling.
[6:52 PM] Ghant: Q11: Advice is free and doesn't cost anything. I think what makes a good thread OP is a willingness to accept advice and criticism about the thread, especially when it comes to player conflicts.
[6:52 PM] Macabees: Q11: Tbh, unless if you're directly related to the conflict, it's better to stay out. It's too easy to distract, and it's easy to do it unintentionally.
[6:52 PM] Zark: Q11: If the player is trusted by one or both parties and is unbiased, I don't think there should be any issue with said player attempting to mediate or aid in mediating between the two conflicting parties. Otherwise, I believe it would be better to leave it to the OP.
[6:53 PM] Swith: Q11: IC drama? Conflict breeds character. OOC drama? Please keep your OP in the loop. They want their game to succeed, and they'll want to know if things are brewing behind the scenes. If you really can't solve the issue, and your OP won't or doesn't know how, have the OP flag down a RP Mentor. We mediate these things all the time, and we don't mind helping your group out as best we can.
[6:53 PM] Santh: Q11 If you're a friend of one of the people involved, I might recommend to rein in your friend. Otherwise, I would recommend staying out of it for the most part
[6:54 PM] Gren: Q11: In most cases, neutrality is best.
[6:55 PM] Macabees: Remember that OP has thread ownership too. If the OP doesn't appreciate you bringing in outside help, that can factor in too. Always, always keep the OP in the loop if you do plan to take action.
[6:55 PM] Swith: ^ on so many levels.
[6:56 PM] Kyrusia: Question #12: What would be the best way to work out a grudge between a player and the OP if both sides are not willing to change? (Asked by Mini.)
[6:56 PM] Kyrusia: Notice to panelists: we are approaching the hour mark. Thirty minutes (and some change) remain in this panel.
[6:56 PM] Giovenith: Q12: I would just leave at that point. If the OP themselves refuses to be mature, then there's not much you can do.
[6:56 PM] Zark: Q12: If neither side is willing to budge, I'm not sure the grudge can be worked out.
[6:56 PM] Swith: Q12: The player is free to play wherever they wish. If the player doesn't get along with the OP, find a different game.
[6:57 PM] Santh: Q12 Not willing to change? OP should boot the player and be done with it. Why are they dragging it out? Are you the other person? In that case, why are you still there?
[6:57 PM] Macabees: Q12: I try to discipline myself to not directly reach out over a conflict. If I talk to someone about a problem they're having with another player, it's usually because they came to me or if it's an aside to another conversation we're having. I don't want to be a distraction, so I only talk if what I say serves to pull focus back toward what they should be focusing on - which is solving the problem.
And you have to be blatant. Sometimes I have to tell players who are friends that they are acting like bullies and that they need to stop if they want a better relationship with that other player.(edited)
[6:58 PM] Gren: Q12: The player doesn't have to stay in the RP, and the OP doesn't have to let them be welcome in it.
[6:58 PM] Ghant: Q12: I was involved in a situation like this recently, where the thread OP was having problems with one of his thread participants. He wanted to kick the guy out of the thread for challenging him, but I cautioned him against this, saying he should only kick him out as a last resort. The way that I helped work out the grudge was to encourage the OP to set limitations upon the player in terms of what they could do in the thread, and the player generally accepted this as a condition of continuing involvement in the thread. The two still don't get along, but at least they resolved their plot arcs within the thread to each other's general satisfaction.
[6:59 PM] Santh: In that scenario, though, the OP was willing to change. And good on the OP for that
[6:59 PM] Ghant: I think it goes back to the first question, Santh. A willingness to see things from the other player's point of view and a willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt.
[7:00 PM] Santh: For sure. Those are some of the best of traits
[7:00 PM] Kyrusia: Question #13: If a OP were to leave their RP, give it to another player to have their IP, and if they were to come back to try and reclaim it, how best should the old-OP and the new-OP do to resolve the possible IP ownership conflict? Would Mods get involved? (Asked by Ched.) & How would you handle an OP that gave permission for a co-OP to reboot an RP, OP CTEs, co-OP decides not to and puts RP up for adoption, OP returns and is displeased with the third party's new direction for the RP? (Asked by Tilt; will provide Mod input momentarily.)
[7:01 PM] Santh: Q13 Yeah, I would just ask a mod for their input first(edited)
[7:01 PM] Zark: ^
[7:01 PM] Gren: Q13: That's really complicated, and I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer for what to do.
[7:01 PM] Swith: Q13: I would approach a Mod, if both people couldn't agree to work together. Gren's right. There isn't an easy answer.
[7:01 PM] Zark: Unoficially, all the advise given thus far can potentially be put to use in attempting to mediate between the OP and co-OP to reach an outcome that favors everyone; officially, mod input.
[7:01 PM] Ghant: Q13: That's a complicated situation that I think necessitates moderation involvement. Generally though, I would assume that whoever's account is the thread OP has ownership of the thread.(edited)
[7:02 PM] Giovenith: Q13: Seems more like a question for Moderation. I imagine it would depend on how long the other person has had it and how much it's changed though.
[7:02 PM] Macabees: Q13: In my region, I occupy land that was owned by players who I RPd with quite a bit, but who eventually CTEd. My personal policy is that if they come back and are serious about RPing, I prefer to do a "liberation" RP, but their country is their country. Their opinion > mine.(edited)
[7:02 PM] Kyrusia: Q13: In instances such as this, unfortunate as it may be for the gifted-OP, if it is the former OP's IP, they retain control of that intellectual property. This means if a player returns and wants their thread back... If the gifted-OP doesn't comply and the old OP gets Moderation involved, well, it's likely I would rule in favor of the old-OP.
These cases are rare - very rare. I've never personally even seen it occur. This is, however, one of the reasons we recommend avoiding these types of situations. They are often burdensomely messy - as are most cases involving intellectual property, copyright, and/or plagiarism.
[7:03 PM] Santh: Q13 Excellent. That works for me
[7:03 PM] Swith: Quick clarification. You can not use someone else's work without permission. If the original OP did NOT given you explicit permission to use their RP material (code, concept, name, character, setting), they retain all rights to it.
[7:04 PM] Swith: That's why I recommend old OP give their blessing via a public post in the old thread before turning it over to a new person.
[7:04 PM] Zark: To add onto what Kyru said, in cases like these the simplest thing to do to avoid such a situation would be to have the Co-OP tweak the concept until it is recognizably their own brainchild and not the Old-OP's. Taking inspiration is fine, but anything more can be considered plagiarism if unsanctioned.
[7:04 PM] Kyrusia: Q13 Addendum: In one instance of memory, a player was DOS'd. Many, many players dogpiled their territory in an attempt to both seize it and annoy the likely still-observering DOS. From memory, this is the only instance where Moderation has stepped in to unilaterally ERASE FROM IC EXISTENCE an NS entity.
[7:04 PM] Macabees: There's an economist in me tho that wants to give a more caveated answer. If you build a fence on your neighbor's land, your neighbor has X years to bring it to court. Because if you bring it to court 60 years later, the question is whether you really value that land at all -- and whether it was better to create value in the way the neighbor did it vs. stymying that value. i.e. there is such thing as a cause for loss of property rights.
The fact is, the most constructive way of dealing with the issue is to accept that the original owner's opinion > your opinion. You can make suggestions, but at the end of the day I would just accept the other player's decision.
[7:06 PM] Kyrusia: Question #14: If an old thread was abandoned due to arguements and such, when do you believe is the right time to revisit the old thread? (Asked by Deramen.)
[7:06 PM] Macabees: Q14: If you have a reasonable belief that this time is different.
[7:06 PM] Santh: Q14 I would honestly consider never doing so. Do you think the group can handle a restart, though? If you're sure, then whatever, whenever, give it a go. You're kind of asking for trouble though
[7:07 PM] Swith: Q15: When the OP indicates they are ready to restart the thread or start a new thread for the game.
[7:07 PM] Ghant: Q14: Never, honestly, as reviving it is likely to revive the same arguments that ruined it. In the event that those IC events need to be continued, then I'd recommend a new thread that makes vague references to the events of the previous thread.
[7:07 PM] Maltropia: Definitely not before all the participants have worked through those arguments and resolved their differences.
[7:07 PM] Maltropia: Swith's preempting the questions a bit there.
[7:08 PM] Giovenith: Q14: Pretty much what Ghant said. Trying to restart it will likely just attract the same problems that killed it in the first plac.
[7:08 PM] Gren: Q14: Why not just create a new group instead?
[7:08 PM] Macabees: Btw, last time people thought things were different, the housing market crash happened.
[7:08 PM] Swith: I'm psychic. :smile: I'm also asked about this in P2TM, frequently.
[7:08 PM] Macabees: Don't let your RP be the next housing market crash. :stuck_out_tongue:
[7:09 PM] Kyrusia: Question #15: [You] have a military based RP - how common is it to restrict players to, say, Junior Enlisted (pvt, pfc, corporal) ranks and only allow the OP and Co-Op to be NCO's? I know it's a pretty dumb question, but I've done so in an RP because rank is everything. (Asked by Torii; potential source of OOC conflict.)
[7:09 PM] Ghant: Q15: I've never seen it done that way. Usually, players involved in a military thread can RP characters of any rank from their nation.
[7:10 PM] Gren: Q15: Depends on the scope of the RP, and the capabilities and goals of the unit in question.
I.E., a battalion in a Character RP probably shouldn't have 15 generals, but a nation in a nation RP certainly should.(edited)
[7:10 PM] Macabees: Q15: If you're the OP, you can run it like you like, as long as people can opt in and out. And I am 100% for experimenting with rules like that. How we RP goes through constant improvement and experimentation is vital to that.
[7:11 PM] Giovenith: Q15: I don't know much about military RP, but I suppose it depends on the story and set-up. I could understand someone doing it so people don't apply with a Mary Sue if you're going more for a "life in a particular military" RP, but if it's more about several militaries coming together, you might want to allow more wiggle room. Ultimately though, OP is God, take it or leave it.
[7:12 PM] Macabees: Real talk, I've been thinking of running my next RP by deciding the outcomes of major battles by dice rolls, just to see how it goes.
[7:12 PM] Swith: Q15: When I run military based RP, I look at my player's abilities to research and play out a role. I won't appoint someone as an officer if I see that they don't know tactics or their only experience with combat is via FPS. I'll appoint a veteran player, and have the less-experienced serve as enlisted. This allows the player to learn from the IC experience and from how that veteran player goes about planning things, conducting missions, etc.
[7:12 PM] Kyrusia: [Mac. The Rogue.]
[7:12 PM] Santh: Q15 If you mean a character RP where the players are all playing one person in a squad, then sure. Giving the OP and co-OP the ranking characters means they can direct both OOCly and ICly
[7:13 PM] Santh: I've done that for tabletops. The DM had me play "the leader" because I was an experienced player and no one else was
[7:13 PM] Gren: In Excalibur Squadron, the highest officer we get is the Wing Commander, while the OP's primary character is Squadron Leader (i.e., immediately subordinate to the WC). And since its an air force unit, most characters are going to be officers of some sort.
[7:13 PM] Swith: Santh, that's how we do it for games like Millennium's End, in our RL game group.
[7:13 PM] Macabees: Relatedly, and speaking to gren 's answer, I ran an RP where it started in basic training - so context demanded that the other players were all newly enlisted soldiers doing basic for a PMC.(edited)
[7:13 PM] Maltropia: There is a certain logic to not giving players you don't know the IC authority to countermand your OOC decisions on the direction of the RP.
[7:14 PM] Maltropia: You also don't want to go so far as to stifle their creative freedom and ability to determine their own characters' arcs.
[7:14 PM] Gren: In an RP called Antediluvia, it was a mechanized infantry battalion, so the highest ranking character was the Lt.
[7:14 PM] Ghant: It goes without saying that players that you don't really know or aren't very familiar with should have limited roles and abilities in your thread to avoid any unwanted shenanigans.
[7:15 PM] Swith: ^ This.
[7:15 PM] Kyrusia: Fifteen minutes remain.
[7:15 PM] Kyrusia: Question #16: [How] could I, as OP, shoot down a plot idea nicely, or at least help the player modify it so it's not so disruptive? (Asked by Eridani.)
[7:15 PM] Swith: Panelists, I'm going to politely bow out now in order to prepare for the next panel. Thank you for allowing me to participate, and thank you to Kyru for serving as our mod tonight.
[7:16 PM] Gren: Q16: Generally, explain that while its a good idea, its hard to fit into your current plans for the RP.
[7:16 PM] Giovenith: Q16: Try to politely as you can explain in detail why something someone has planned might be disruptive. People are usually quite reasonable and don't want to step on toes, if they can see clearly why their plan isn't the best, they're usually more than happy to adjust things.
[7:16 PM] Santh: Q16 I'm not known for my niceness. However, I generally look at anything that sounds illogical and see if those holes can be filled... or stretch them until the person realizes they don't work. Or ignores me entirely
[7:16 PM] Macabees: Q16: "Actually, very interesting idea. My only concerns are x, y, z. Here's my reasoning. I am open to discussion."
[7:17 PM] Giovenith: Thank ya Swith!
[7:17 PM] Zark: What Mac said probably sums up my thoughts on the matter
[7:17 PM] Zark: See you Swith!
[7:17 PM] Ghant: Q16: I've been in many, many situations as a thread OP when other players made suggestions or pitched ideas for the plot that I wasn't really interested in. Basically what I'd tell them is that while I think it's an interesting idea that has it's merits, this isn't really the appropriate situation for that plotline. Then I'd suggest what they could do in the thread, or suggest another thread down the line where that plot they want can be put to use.
[7:17 PM] Kyrusia: Question #17: Say one joins an RP which looks promising and is run by someone pretty congenial. One gets a page or two in - and it becomes painfully apparent that everyone else is supporting cast for OP's Mary Sue/Stu(s). Some players really do want to improve... Is it ever appropriate to tell this guy what they're doing wrong, and how would you mentors go about that? (Asked by Amicable Crescendo.)
[7:18 PM] Ghant: Q17: In situations like that (and I've been in a few), I'd send a PM or TG to both the players about my obsevations that I considered alarming, and to the OP. I try to present that constructively, but whether or not the other player accepts it in that way is entirely up to them.
[7:19 PM] Zark: Q17: Well, as soon as the issue becomes apparent, I say it's a good time to try to talk it out with the OP, always politely of course. If he doesn't budge, though, you're just going to have to choose between putting up with it or bowing out of there, I'm afraid.
[7:19 PM] Gren: Q17: I'm not a mentor, but personally, I'd bail, and only give an explanation if TG'd, and even then, phrase it extremely diplomatically.
[7:19 PM] Giovenith: Q17: Your best chance is to try to talk things out with the OP or get a Mentor to help you talk things out. Speaking from experience though, I wouldn't get your hopes up, you're going to have to be prepared to bail.
[7:20 PM] Gren: It seems like the only option that doesn't escalate the drama factor.
[7:20 PM] Macabees: Q17: Is an OP 'taking the glory,' so to speak, a bad thing? It might be disagreeable. But this is one of those times where the OP is the OP. I always recommend communicating with others, because they may be more flexible than you think. Or they might not have even realized they were doing that. But, ultimately, if that's what the OP wants to do, the best solution is to politely leave the RP -- if you're not interested in that role.
[7:20 PM] Macabees: Or did I misunderstand?
[7:21 PM] Macabees: What I love about NS, anyways, is that all relationships are voluntary.
[7:21 PM] Macabees: You don't have to be in a thread that you don't want to be in.
[7:22 PM] Gren: That is the beauty of NS. You can ignore almost anything.
[7:22 PM] Santh: ^ and sometimes bailing really is the best option, even if you would like to mentor them. I've spent a lot of time trying to mentor people who didn't actually want to change even if they were okay with talking stuff out
[7:23 PM] Macabees: Also, think about the last question, where we asked if it was okay to give players minor roles. If it's okay to give players minor roles, then what the OP is doing in that situation is also okay.
[7:23 PM] Gren: Don't like the stats? You don't have to use them. Don't like the issues? You don't have to answer them. Don't like this RP group/setting/etc.? You don't have to participate.
[7:24 PM] Kyrusia: Question #18 (LAST QUESTION): [Sorry] if something similar was asked but what was the most drastic thing you've had to do to stop an argument in a thread? (Asked by Deramen.)
[7:24 PM] Macabees: Q18. Streaked! jk jk
[7:25 PM] Zark: I sadly don't have any interesting story to tell here, I haven't had any arguments that heated in roleplays I manage
[7:25 PM] Giovenith: Q18: Threaten to shut down the entire group if everyone didn't shut up for two seconds and let me speak. It takes A LOT for me to finally lose my patience, so yes, I do think that was necessary given the circumstances.
[7:28 PM] Santh: Q18 Shut them all down, hurry!
[7:29 PM] Kyrusia: Thank you to our panelists, but that is all for this panel this evening. Thirty minutes will be provided between now and our next panel: Observations on Gameplay. This panel will feature a guest panelist from The Black Hawks raiding organization that has extend their time and attention. We're grateful for the opportunity and hope this will be an enjoyable panel.
NS Roleplay Symposium 2017
TOPIC: "Conflict Resolution and Out-of-Character Drama"
TIME: COMPLETED