A Discussion: Conflict Resolution & Punishment System

[Dimitri Vasilescu]

I'm not sure it's leadership, my suggestion is to always use a mediator as a bulwark between you and your rage and the source of you and your rage. PAs using other PAs shouldn't be an issue in this, but perhaps some specifics in the formats for discussion are appropriate. Maybe the PAs could use an ST representative?

[Webmonkey]

Jan 30, 2014 1:46:09 GMT -8 Dimitri Vasilescu said:

I'm not sure it's leadership, my suggestion is to always use a mediator as a bulwark between you and your rage and the source of you and your rage. PAs using other PAs shouldn't be an issue in this, but perhaps some specifics in the formats for discussion are appropriate. Maybe the PAs could use an ST representative?

In the past, PA's posted issues on a forum that STs and other PA's could all see, comment on and suggest courses of action about, sometimes after a few clarifying discussions in person or over email with the player that is having the issue.

If a pa foreman is not chosen for pa discussions that involve a large number of PA's, then that would be my next suggestion. The pass-locked forum still exists and is just lying fallow.

[Dimitri Vasilescu]

I would lean towards the idea that any charter issues, and specifically charter violation issues, would include a minimum amount of people: the offendee, the offender, their two PA reps, and the staff, with more added in per request.

The forum sounds great for everything else a PA does, though.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Perhaps I see the role of a PA differently than what is being discussed but I would go in exactly the opposite direction. I cannot comprehend the idea of any issue where more than a single PA does anything more than make the situation worse. A PA should not be taking a side. A PA should be the mediator, helping all sides equally to communicate. As soon as you turn PAs into lawyers representing different sides you have created, quite literally, an adversarial system. This is not healthy for our game's needs in my opinion.

I believe that when an issue arises between players (and I'm counting staff as players in that term) a single PA should be selected to mediate matters if necessary. Let that single PA attempt to mediate matters. Honestly if they do their job correctly, as in most conflict situations, neither side should leave completely happy but both sides should be able to acknowledge an end to the matter.

As for punishments, I think it is highly inappropriate for anyone but staff to be able to levy punishments. These are the people we have elected to manage our game. Having been on all three sides of charter issues (as a staff member, as a PA, and as a player facing charter action) this is an incredibly awful job. No one wants to use the charter for punishments. Staff certainly doesn't want to if it doesn't have to. The need to levy a punishment means that attempts at mediation have failed or that the offense is too grievous for mediation to take place.

I'm with Rob here. I would err on the side of trusting the people we voted in to handle these things. For cases of obvious abuse, I rather like the staff infraction system as listed.


TL;DR The charter as it stands now works. It could use some tweaks but it works.

[Dimitri Vasilescu]

I am going to strongly disagree with that assessment on PAs, Jaron, while agreeing with your view on the voted in folks being the ones who levy punishment.


As for my disagreement, the reason for each side picking a PA is that the initial PA may be a biased, close to the original offendee, and the offender needs to have a chance to defend themselves. If I am not mistaken, that is the issue at hand here: no chance for defense.

The PAs are the mediators, but there has to be equal representation. As long as each party has representation, that gets closer to fairness. Staff needs to act judiciary and jury, which is the most logical way for the approach, as they are voted in.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

This is something that we can respectfully disagree on then. I think that turning this into an adversarial system will foster just that: adversarial relations.

However what I mostly object to is something I think we can agree on. I think the very recent change of things going to a general PA list and having essentially a committee causes a world of problems and needs to stop immediately.

[Webmonkey]

In the past PA's were required to report *something* to staff monthly, whether good, bad or indifferent.

Stuff like:

• I met new player X and introduced myself, they gave Y feedback (challenges, raves) about their game experience so far.
• I heard X complain about the new house rule. I asked for some more clarification about what they were confused about/disliked, and here are the details along with my recommendation.
• I heard X talking about how great Y plot/storyteller/rule was. I asked what they liked about it and they said Z.
• I asked a group standing around about the new X policy and they seemed indifferent, no major complaints, no jumping for joy.
• X told me they were going to be gone for 6 weeks for Y real life reason, I made them aware of how to go Special Inactive, etc.

The idea was to keep storytellers aware of trends of opinion on game mechanics, story and any potential interpersonal stuff. I'd like to see that resume.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Jan 30, 2014 22:02:46 GMT -8 Webmonkey said:

In the past PA's were required to report *something* to staff monthly, whether good, bad or indifferent.

Stuff like:

• I met new player X and introduced myself, they gave Y feedback (challenges, raves) about their game experience so far.
• I heard X complain about the new house rule. I asked for some more clarification about what they were confused about/disliked, and here are the details along with my recommendation.
• I heard X talking about how great Y plot/storyteller/rule was. I asked what they liked about it and they said Z.
• I asked a group standing around about the new X policy and they seemed indifferent, no major complaints, no jumping for joy.
• X told me they were going to be gone for 6 weeks for Y real life reason, I made them aware of how to go Special Inactive, etc.

The idea was to keep storytellers aware of trends of opinion on game mechanics, story and any potential interpersonal stuff. I'd like to see that resume.

That sounds honestly like a fantastic idea. What I'd like to get away from is the idea I've seen creeping in that the PAs are meant to be a Shadow Cabinet, there to check and balance the staff. This seems well outside what I believe a PA should be and I think creates an atmosphere of antagonism that is just unhealthy.

[The Mouth]

Jaron, where do you get this stuff? Shadow cabinet? Tone the hyperbole down, please. PA's have a perceived level of authority that just isn't there.

Each party that isn't staff should have their own PA. PA's should be selected by the parties involved (staff included) and should only have one PA per party. Why? It isn't adversarial, it is a mediation. And meditations need to be as evenly fielded as possible.

A certain set of ethics needs to be present. These are: Privacy, when to remove ones self as a PA on an issue, how to recognize conflicts of interest, conflict de-escalation, explicit goals for the 'client', and understanding of the limits of a PA. I'm sure more can be added.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

I get it from the discussions I've had with other PAs while I was one. I heard multiple PAs speak of us as being there to be a check on the power of staff. I think this is inappropriate and not the duty of PAs. Simple as that. Shadow Cabinet is the nearest equivalent (for those who do not know it is a term from British politics used to describe a second Cabinet made from the primary opposition party in parliament whose purpose is to organize resistance to the majority party) to what I observed. I do not use the term for the purpose of hyperbole, but for the purpose of providing a real-world example of an attitude I observed and think inappropriate for PAs.

However, I'm not hearing anyone on this thread supporting this position so at least here it seems to be a moot point, and rather removed from the issue at hand.