Metaplay - A Retrospective

[Kaiser 2347]

23 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Petition to implement staff recusal rules because too many times moderation/admin have been blatantly biased and every time it caused near irreparable damage 

 

I actually agree with this take. I've considered several times giving my decision making powers over anything regarding Numendil (the place I roleplay) to another entity. I never really have had to on any serious issues, and I don't think anyone has leveraged the realm system has been abused in favr of Numendil (their resources suck next map haha), but it's moreso the principle of the thing. If you roleplay significantly in a nation, help lead the nation, or have a group attached to a nation, you should be barred from dealing with rules/systems that OOCly come up in relation to that specific nation. Too much conflict of interest.

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

43 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Petition to implement staff recusal rules because too many times moderation/admin have been blatantly biased and every time it caused near irreparable damage 

 

This should already be a thing, why it is not is mind boggling. 

[Nectorist 12869]

I think the intent to “change player culture” is lofty to the point of probably being detrimental, but otherwise there hasn’t been any egregious abuse of metaplay bans. I think the intention is good and has yet to really be horrifically misapplied.

 

That said, I think that the execution of some of these bans have been terrible. With the Celia’nor situation, an NL who had been harassed for weeks on end, then suffered a serious condition that forced her to be hospitalized, was thrust right back into being an NL despite clearly wanting to leave the server. The RP that emerged from it (her walking to Caurost to give us her nation) was honestly super contrived and wasn’t actually good RP at all (to no fault of her own of course). I think it was extremely poor conduct of the admins to throw her right back into that situation without any prior warning or consultation. 

 

This also ties into Flemish’s point about some of the inconsistencies between how Vinovia and how Celia’nor were handled. I really hope that moving forward, staff consult with people who were “affected” by the metaplay to get an understanding of what solution works best. I don’t think giving one nation a free CB, while forcing another to log on to do some really insignificant RP before they can quit, is really shaping the server’s roleplay for the better. I don’t think it’s disastrous, but it really wouldn’t hurt anyone if admins gave involved players a heads-up if a metaplay ban was to seriously affect their own RP.

[monkeypoacher 8055]

blah blah blah more mass bans more voiding roleplay

 

central contradiction of lord of the craft: using GOOD ooc information/mechanics in roleplay is allowed. using BAD ooc information/mechanics in roleplay is NOT allowed.

 

It's hard to think of a constructive definition of 'metaplay' that doesn't include the bizarre OOC-directed behaviors of accumulating tiles, money, activity percentages, and trading descendants of characters created by players who have left the server. But this constitutes most of what happens on LoTC.

 

If you wishcast on Discord about how EPIC it would be to destroy Haense or the Canonist Church, you are a metaplayer, but if you use that wretched Family Echo to create a justification for your character to usurp power in the Haense Discord, you are just Role Playing. It is a matter of perspective.

(also: whoever made me a CUCKOLD on the Family Echo: I WILL FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE. YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED)

 

"Metaplay is the degeneration of roleplay. It may occur with or without metagaming & powergaming—but it does not include the facilitating or gathering of RP. It is an intentional subversion of rules and roleplay to serve an OOC motive through malicious act(s)." 

 

If this is the definition of "metaplay" then there's really no forgiving the bizarre franken-4X mechanics that govern all roleplay on the server. The most "meta" set of rules anyone could conceive, and they are explicitly directed toward the OOC goals of Nation Leaders to prevent spontaneous roleplay that threatens power structures cultivated through expert manipulation of Discord Roles. There's a magic force field that prevents anyone from doing something more spontaneous or destructive than breaking a window without PRO approval.

 

Want to pitch a tent on the outskirts of town and smoke cactus green and sell counterfeit potions? Sorry, buddy. That needs an entire convoluted set of rules specifically for Nomads, which needs to be internally debated and redlined and means-tested. Or you could ask the guy who owns the region if he's okay with it, I guess. Does that kind of take the spontaneity and fun out of playing a character on this server? Does that 'degenerate' your 'roleplay?'

 

We're all playing Minecraft, but in order to actually Mine or Craft anything you have to fill out a form and pay imaginary money and get people to sign a petition. The fact that you have to facilitate or gather RP is an obvious failure of the system. We all come here to RP. If given the choice, we all RP with each other spontaneously. But it's so unbelievably difficult to find someone to roleplay with, much less do anything particularly interesting once you do, that most people don't bother. They fall back on event calendars, which have to be explicitly allowed in the rules because we've tied ourselves in knots trying to define "metaplay." 

 

You have failed completely at preventing OOC motives or information from influencing important RP. All you have managed to do is move RP conflicts out of character. People now fight wars by maneuvering to get their enemies banned, or the rules changed in some key way that changes the parameters around what roleplay is allowed and not allowed. It's maddening. Please stop.

 

Meanwhile, the actual gameplay of Lord of the Craft is set up to be as hostile to spontaneity and creativity as minemanly possible. Everything is protected by worldguard. There are no roleplay hubs. Finding roleplay involves running a command that tells you OOCly where people are, and when you actually go to one of those places you find people mainly AFKing or running around to stim themselves while they talk to their friends on Discord.

I'm hopeful that the next map will improve on these conditions a bit, but how much can it, really? If we're too busy trying to correct 'player culture' to bother playing the game? 

[Kirkigar 133]

I believe a good way to prevent metagaming is to create a sort of public registry and jurisprudence for each reported case, whether punished or not. Since the definition of MG is quite clear, but broad, a case registry could be created, describing the situation (with or without naming names) to create an extensive, real, and tangible record of MG cases and non-MG cases.

 

That way, when a similar situation arises again, both users and the administration can rely on these records to punish or appeal. While the registry may be difficult to put together, let alone punish, it is a measure that can gradually lay the solid foundations for good moderation. As long as the administration doesn't fall into the temptation of personal squabbles, conjecture, or ambiguous interpretations to create a record.

 

Nothing, that's what I think can work.

 

Spoiler

Stay Tuned (^人^)

 

[Cheese 8882]

42 minutes ago, monkeypoacher said:

They fall back on event calendars, which have to be explicitly allowed in the rules because we've tied ourselves in knots trying to define "metaplay." 

I will die a happy woman if I never have to make another event calendar again

[Malta 2811]

the real metaplayers, are the admins themselves- Charles the Bald probably

[ScreamingDingo 20568]

metaplay enforcement is okay until it is weaponised to smother any potential conflict by those who want to avoid consequences.

 

Was meant to destroy the elven plots - now it’s the justification of elven intervention to its enemies.

 

 

[Venomous_Pup 2978]

34 minutes ago, ScreamingDingo said:

Was meant to destroy the elven plots - now it’s the justification of elven intervention to its enemies.

 

[squakhawk 14038]

4 hours ago, Nectorist said:

I think the intent to “change player culture” is lofty to the point of probably being detrimental, but otherwise there hasn’t been any egregious abuse of metaplay bans. I think the intention is good and has yet to really be horrifically misapplied.

 

That said, I think that the execution of some of these bans have been terrible. With the Celia’nor situation, an NL who had been harassed for weeks on end, then suffered a serious condition that forced her to be hospitalized, was thrust right back into being an NL despite clearly wanting to leave the server. The RP that emerged from it (her walking to Caurost to give us her nation) was honestly super contrived and wasn’t actually good RP at all (to no fault of her own of course). I think it was extremely poor conduct of the admins to throw her right back into that situation without any prior warning or consultation. 

 

This also ties into Flemish’s point about some of the inconsistencies between how Vinovia and how Celia’nor were handled. I really hope that moving forward, staff consult with people who were “affected” by the metaplay to get an understanding of what solution works best. I don’t think giving one nation a free CB, while forcing another to log on to do some really insignificant RP before they can quit, is really shaping the server’s roleplay for the better. I don’t think it’s disastrous, but it really wouldn’t hurt anyone if admins gave involved players a heads-up if a metaplay ban was to seriously affect their own RP.

 

@FlemishSupremacybecause their response was similar

 

I can elaborate some on at least my perspective of that scenario

 

 

The issue that came of that was that the roleplay had occurred but the report had only come together days after - which left us in a weird position.

 

We could void the roleplay, and return to the NL (this is the act we'd done) - which allows the path to resume from where it was and back onto it's natural course without any further intervention

 

We could just ban the NL/other actor (this was the other we'd considered) - which still involved the metaplay ban(s), but this time it automatically enforces the path to go through as if the roleplay had occurred when the roleplay itself was metaplay to begin with.

 

My concern with the second path in particular was the worry that it would be seen at large that we are banning people and still getting the forced outcomes of actions that shouldn't have come to pass to begin with. This would look poorly on the administration to endorse that they wanted a specific outcome of the conflict rather than one that should've proceeded naturally to begin with.

 

 

 

In regards to Vinovia, the issue if we placed a "Wait until all their fleeps are unbanned" (or any cooldown of that kind), it'd artificially stifle roleplay and lead to mass public outcry that admins don't want anything to happen, nothing ever happens, chudjak, etc.

If we put any sort of cooldown or arbitrary OOC restriction on this from the outside, it would in my eyes,

1. Place a barrier on roleplay that still can, should, and did happen that exists only for purposes of pvpers getting their shot

2. Encourage that people in the future perform similar scenarios to buy their nation more time

3. Enable hostile banwaves for purposes of thinning a rally rather than for purposes of actual justice

4. Softly state that we want to afford some nations more protections than others rather than enabling equal opportunity

 

While a lot of the people in that banwave did have it coming already, I wanna add that of the 20 bans that went out for the Vinovia banwave, 8 out of those 20 were unbanned by the time the war started, and were involved in the first warclaim. I know some people attribute the victory of burgundy singlehandedly to the fact Vinovia had been banned en masse, but i'm not sure if twelve people defined the difference of these nations existing or not, particularly when the numbers were always thirty-some difference between the two sides with already nearly half the vinovian rally still present. 

 

 

In the future I think there's waters to navigate carefully with roleplay that has already occurred, and making the right decision in that moment that is both impartial and allows for natural roleplay to take course rather than actions that should not have happened to begin with. It'd be shitty to have something happen when it shouldn't have, ban the people involved, and still let that action take course anyways. At least in my opinion

[Venomous_Pup 2978]

20 minutes ago, squakhawk said:

The issue that came of that was that the roleplay had occurred but the report had only come together days after - which left us in a weird position.

 

We could void the roleplay, and return to the NL (this is the act we'd done) - which allows the path to resume from where it was and back onto it's natural course without any further intervention

 

We could just ban the NL/other actor (this was the other we'd considered) - which still involved the metaplay ban(s), but this time it automatically enforces the path to go through as if the roleplay had occurred when the roleplay itself was metaplay to begin with.

 

My concern with the second path in particular was the worry that it would be seen at large that we are banning people and still getting the forced outcomes of actions that shouldn't have come to pass to begin with. This would look poorly on the administration to endorse that they wanted a specific outcome of the conflict rather than one that should've proceeded naturally to begin with.

 

Thoughts on letting a comically big meteor 'cosmically correct' metaplaying Nations by obliterating them and forcing them to start from square 1 and possibly nuking noble bloodlines involved? 

[Britannicvs 2508]

3 hours ago, Malta said:

the real metaplayers, are the admins themselves- Charles the Bald probably

confirmed by his sources (real)

[Smmer 2441]

10 hours ago, squakhawk said:

 

CGV'd, not metaplay banned 

 

Good news ryan ur bans appealable!!! 

[CHARLES THE BALD 2615]

6 hours ago, Malta said:

the real metaplayers, are the admins themselves- Charles the Bald probably

 

I'm asking myself why is the story team admin giving an update on a rule instead of the moderation admin.

[Dyl 2088]

My biggest concern with metaplay is that I do not believe it is being applied fairly. I’m all for trying to shut down ooc plots and actions that would kill rp and degrade the state of rp on the server. But I do not believe metaplay is succeeding in its goal as of right now.