In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 20):

True, though unless that host knows all involved and their dispute well, and has their trust, I wouldn't want or expect the host to do anything more than ask the disputants to leave.

Except in an roll game, the gm is expected to know all and handle it.  Its part of the job description.

I really think the idea of players arguing out their problems in any game as being self defeating. It would be pretty hard for a game to get passed it. As a gm I'd be pretty kissed they would even try, and would likely boot them for it.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 22):

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "roll game," but no, I don't expect my GMs to handle interpersonal conflicts and I don't really want them to unless, as I said, they are already personally involved somehow. And as a GM, I never received a job description and I don't consider it a "job." If the players want something from me, they can ask for it, but I'm not obligated, and they are always free to leave.

Anyone is welcome to try to take up whatever responsibilities they feel they should, as GM, but there's no overriding set of requirements, just individual preferences. Not every player would want to play under every GM, and not every GM would want to run a game for every player.

Different discussion. The point, as I believe you said, is how to handle "a problem with IC actions of players" depends greatly on everyone involved.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:29, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

(Note: this isn't directed at engine, but this quote frames a thought I was having well)

The idea that "IC is just IC" is possibly one of the most insidiously destructive things in the tabletop gaming hobby.  It's an attitude that has left many people (especially female and minority people) feeling like they're not welcome.  Flat-out offensive actions done "only IC" are still offensive.  Being a royal jerk to the other players is still being a royal jerk.  Diving in to offensive content (while remaining within the RPOL rules, of course), is still diving into offensive content.

If your character is a racist, an over-the-top stereotype, and/or misogynist to the point that I'm personally offended, you can bet that I'm going to say something to the GM and if it doesn't drop to a level I'm comfortable with, I'm going to walk.  And while that is an easy example (and annoyingly common in RL gaming circles), it doesn't have to be so straightforward.  Say I just lost a loved one to cancer... I'd probably really rather we didn't play out a storyline that's all about someone dying of cancer (though I might be open to a "cure cancer" story).

Being bothered by stuff isn't a bad thing.  Saying something about it isn't a bad thing.  Gaming is a social experience, and some social courtesy is owed to everyone else at the table, virtual or not.  If someone's child just died you don't go making "dead baby" jokes around them.  If you had no idea, that's fair, but if you're asked to stop because it's really bothering someone, you stop.  That's your requirement as a human being.

If you somehow think that it being part of an RPG lets you gleefully push all of someone's buttons and offend them, then I won't be gaming with you.  Being "in game" isn't an excuse.

---

Now, if you're running a game that's going to deal with some tough themes like that and you make it clear, from the very start, that it's part of the game, that's a bit different.  Giving people warning can blunt the sting of the material and you'll have many people that might have been sensitive self-select out.

I (and it seems many other respondents) have no problem with players working things out on their own - but in private. The other players don't need to see it, or have it interrupt their game. GMs on this site can read PMs to make sure the spirit of the game is upheld, taking appropriate action if, and as, needed to protect the integrity of the game.

So, don't vent or argue or express your displeasure in OOC, take it to PM, either to the player of the other character or to the GM. Work things out there and allow the GM to inform other players of the results, if necessary. It's better for the game that way.

And this is what I meant in my own post with the qualifier. I'm the sort who believes stuff in IC should be handled in IC, but...



...that's a problem that probably needs to be dealt with outside of IC.

And while IC may be IC, it doesn't mean that IC is 'just' IC, as you note.  Wisely.  :D

And if the player insists on having their character do all kinds of truly offensive things, and that wasn't the point of the game (I mean, I'm sure there are some games out there where this is the norm, but let's say it's not what everyone else signed up to play and certainly wasn't written that way in the game background/description), then the GM should probably be stepping in and saying 'look, this isn't THAT game.  I'm sure you could find one.'

And I certainly wouldn't have a problem doing what you suggest as well:



Which is still, in my opinion, the best way to go rather than going straight to the player.  But that's me.

I can see the idea of taking it to PM as well, but having been burned that way in the past, these days I just lay it on the GM (haven't needed to do so in some time, really...can't recall the last, even).

As an old friend and fellow GM used to say, "Chaotic neutral is an alignment, chaotic appleberries is not."

ALWAYS take it up with the GM, for OOC and IC issues.

The GM is responsible for the game in its entirety, and there's a darn good reason why the GM can see all PMs.  May as well include them from the beginning, because they can see it anyways, and if it all goes to hell, they bear some responsibility for it.

Raffles, the way you're wording things, I don't know, you seem to imply that there's "suck it up and stick to IC" and there's "this is not tolerable, either this stops or I leave", with no middle ground.

No "hey, that last line of your character, kinda bothered me, could you maybe tone down the insults involving mimes? I'm terrified of mimes IRL and it's making this unenjoyable to read about them all the time"

or how about "I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable roleplaying romance, could we rework this OOC so that we can find an in-character way for things to not head that way?"

In reply to pdboddy (msg # 27):

Under "Use of Contents" it sounds as though a player could appeal directly to the moderators in certain situations, thereby circumventing a GM. As I read it, this could involve the removal of a player, at the discretion of the moderators, who might inform the GM, but have no obligation to confer with them. So, on this website, it sounds like a GM isn't responsible for their game in its entirety. I could be misunderstanding, though.

I had been assuming we were including in-person games in this discussion, but now I see that I probably shouldn't assume that.

You make a good point about this - mild discussion about this kind of thing, I suppose, might not be a bad thing between players.  I'll note that your thing is a notice of 'I feel xyz, could you possibly -'  Which is nice and polite and a request.

Though I feel that it should be taken to PM.  And if there is any disagreement on the matter, then off to the GM.

There's some middle ground in things.  My personal preference is that if people have problems with IC stuff, they should talk to the GM, but yes, conceded, there will be times when it could be easily dealt with by a simple, polite request...if the other person is reasonable.



That, I feel, is more of a 'I'm not comfortable writing that kind of stuff' rather than 'I don't like how you're writing your character and your posts'.

Fine line, I suppose, but to me there's a difference.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:26, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

Going to the mods is an extreme, and I'll bet that unless official RPOL policy has been violated, that incidents reported to them will be sent back to the GM.

In reply to Westwind (msg # 31):

Sorry, I didn't mean it wasn't an extreme course of action, I just meant that the buck doesn't necessarily stop with the GM, or even run by the GM.

In reply to engine (msg # 29):

I think it would be a pretty rare circumstance where, if you went to the mods without discussing it with the GM, that you wouldn't be told to work it out with the GM.  It's not the mods' job to work out in-game problems, whether IC or OOC.  If it gets to the point you've asked the GM to remove you from the game, and s/he hasn't done so in a timely manner, then you can ask the mods to do that, but that's the last resort, nowhere near the first.

No, they couldn't.

First: Moderators are not responsible for resolving in-game interpersonal disputes, that is purely the domain of the GM.  So if somebody is acting like a jerk and blocking everything that your character does, then reporting it to us, will just get an "And?"  See also here: link to a message in another game

Second: If somebody posts something that is in breach of the site's rules on content, then we might possibly get involved.  But, again, it should be pointed out to your GM first.  If they don't fix it, then the Mods should be contacted.

Yes, in fact they are.  The GM is considered responsible for every post in their game.  So if a post breaches site rules, and the GM is told about it but doesn't do anything, then they are considered to hold just as much responsibility for that rules breach as the player who posted it.  See also here: link to a message in another game
This message was last edited by the user at 18:49, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 34):

Thank you for the clarification, though I didn't mean to imply that it was any more likely to happen than "might possibly." If someone doesn't feel comfortable or able to point it out to their GM first, do they have recourse?

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 34):

I was just thinking that.  If the moderators actually got involved in game disputes then you wouldn't have time to do anything else at all.  It'd be non-stop drama resolution.

In reply to Kioma (msg # 36):

Not every game dispute, just ones that involve action counter to the User Agreement. And hopefully a GM would see and recognize such a thing and take their own steps, but they might possibly not.

Yes, they can leave the game.  Apart from that, no (at least for the personal disputes).

Exactly .  We simply don't have the time to read through a game looking for who said what to offend who, and in what order.

As mentioned above, if a GM is aware of an actual breach of the ToU, and doesn't do anything about it, then we should be contacted.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:01, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

Regardless, I feel like the GM should always be included.  The GM is the one that talks to everyone and your minor gripe with someone else's behavior might actually be shared by other people in the game.  If you all tell the GM, then that has a lot more weight behind it than one player sniping at another.

People being people, by the time anyone does say anything, they're usually quite annoyed.  It's rarely "one line that you used" but rather "one line in each of your last fifty posts".  If you're bothered by it enough to go to the GM, then go to the GM.  Going to the player is typically the wrong course of action because you don't have any real power in that dynamic.

bigbadron's posts are what I meant when I said it was in the GM job description to know all and handle all problems.  Sorry my dumb autocorrect apparently made that unclear.

But the point brought up about IC only being IC is something I've had problems with.  Players criticizing or insulting choices made by other players in a manner that was clearly directed at the player behind the character, not the character itself.  Such as "John leapt back as Greg charged forward, cursing as he thought only a total idiot would decide to do what Greg did." That screams insult toward the player controlling Greg.  This type of thing has happened many times in my game, and VERY rarely does it end with the two players agreeing and moving forward.  It almost always descends into an argument and further insult.

That's why in my games, any activity like this is not tolerated, and any problems between players will be handled by me.  I don't know anyone on rpol well enough to trust them to handle a situation in my games to my own satisfaction.  So I'll handle it myself.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:32, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

I'm curious about the incident Azraile is referring to in the original post.

There's a huge range of things it could be, but if it's the case where someone is upset that another player has an annoying tic, or always seems to be copying their actions in combat and it's starting to get on the player's nerves, yeah, I'd go to the other player first.  The GM doesn't need to get involved unless it's something important.

If I have beef with my co-worker, I'm going to talk to them first.  I'm not going to go directly to our supervisor, or our supervisor's supervisor.  Some people do this, but I want to talk to that person directly first.  If that doesn't solve the issue, I might go to the supervisor at that point.

In the same way, if another player in my gaming group is annoying me, I'm going to talk to that person first before going to the GM.  If the player doesn't listen, then I'll go to the GM.

However, if one player is intentionally needling me and I know it's intentional, I might go to the GM about that.  In that case, talking to the other player isn't going to accomplish much at all.

In a similar situation, if one student in a class is making another student uncomfortable with some pretty strongly political statements, it would be safer to talk to the teacher directly rather than talk to the politically charged student.

It depends greatly on the cause of conflict, whether it's a minor annoyance or a pretty serious issue.

I'm in the "Keep the GM in the loop" camp.

Realistically, though, unless you contact the other player off-site or through rMail (which doesn't strike me as being at all a good idea), then the GM is involved no matter what.  GMs can see all posts, all PMs, all private lines.  I can't speak for anyone else but when I post something - anything - in a game I assume that the GM/s will look at it.  Given that all GMs on the site can be held accountable for posts in their games, as big bad ron points out, all GMs likewise have a vested interest in resolving problems as smoothly as they can.

From perspective as a player, that means that if something gets out of hand (as so often disagreements can, and I don't think anyone's saying they can't or don't), the GM is there to govern over the conflict as is their responsibility because it's their game.  For my own sake, I'd contact the GM first just to get a second opinion on what it is I'm perceiving.  That alone, discounting all other factors, makes me think that talking to the other player first isn't a wise move.

From the perspective of a GM, I know that the game is my responsibility, whether I was handed a list of rules or not (spoiler: we all were - it's called the TOU and it makes the responsibilities of a GM pretty darn clear).  I often hand individual players information that can change their actions without wanting the others to know about it, to keep reactions genuine.  I've seen small wrinkles turn into snowballing disasters just on the basis of small understandings and minor issues with communication.  I would always encourage a player with a grievance of any kind to come to me first, so I can provide a second opinion and so I know there's problems well before they become Problems.

It's a multi-layered matter but ultimately a huge factor to take into account is that we're all communicating via text, which is an imperfect (but on balance still pretty freakin' cool) method.  People react differently, misunderstandings arise, autocorrect happens.  Having a second opinion and a moderating influence should things go south, especially when it's the person who's backside (and whose game) is on the line, is surely rarely ever a bad thing.

The rule isn't quite as pointed at that.  GMs are required to act on ToU violations if they are made aware of them, but the GM doesn't necessarily have to read every single thing in the game.  In fact, I'd say that assuming that they read everything (and caught the violation) might be a bad idea.  If something is a violation, it's the responsibility of every player to draw it to the GM's attention.

Have to?  Oh, I'm certainly not saying they have to read everything.  But they can, and what I'm saying is that I don't assume they're not.  'Private' is a particularly qualified concept in the bounds of an RPoL game.

My point was that if you're taking the issue up with anyone in the game, whether you're going to the GM or the player, then the GM automatically has the capacity to read it and is therefore - theoretically, at the very least - involved in the matter.  Quite aside from TOU violations (which I'm moderately sure wasn't the OP's original focus) there's no way to ensure the GM doesn't read any particular thing in their game, though they're responsible for the entire content of the game whether they read it or not.

And I wholly agree, it's every player's responsibility to draw a TOU violation to the GM's attention.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:02, Thu 20 Apr 2017.