AbandonedCharacters

CLSWiki | RecentChanges | Preferences | Main Website

Further thoughts: As this needs a timescale, and following on from the discussion about not sending in character sheets making life difficult for refs, I suggest that a character about which nothing has been heard by refs/have not seen uptime is assumed to be 'currently in play' by default for a year. At that point, they automatically switch to being Inactive, and therefore get less(or no) ref attention when designing plot etc. If the player indicates a continuing desire to play the inactive character by submitting charsheets over the summer they remain as-is (subject to existing ref ability to edit existing flange before letting the pc see play, and to required adjustments of charsheets to reflect any AGM ruleschanges since they last saw play), if the player does not submit the current stats once a year they they remain welcome to bring the character back on 150xp indefinitely, eg: mechanically being a new pc with the previous play as their background. At any point, a character may become 'Retired' by player request, which is a one-way ticket out of the game to a (non-mechanical!) personal 'ending', as described above.

The original motion regarding creating a one-way status of "Retired" adds the ability to draw a line under a character without feeling that you have to have them killed (which is an issue people occasionally bring up), and such that refs no longer need to account that they might turn up again one day. This is to benefit players. The rest of the stuff about inactive characters and downstatting is to benefit the refs, because we have a high ref and character turnover and multiple characters per person, and so it is likely that at least some current refs will not be aware of characters who have not seen play over the kind of timescales described above. This is undermining - at the start of a ref team it should be possible for refs to get up to speed on the state of play including knowledge of all current pcs (this is why we ask for character sheets for all current pcs over the summer already), and then to proceed accordingly, this understanding will inform all kinds of behind the scenes desicions. It removes the ability to do this if later, a high level character is introduced with no prior warning (although at any time, 150xp characters may be generated by the playerbase and this is supported).

 --Zebbie

Also, the refs would traditionally just ask for this information and do everything that is in this motion anyway, but it was raised in an earlier discussion that some people feel they don't have an official remit to do that, so this just codifies that they do in fact have a remit for the things that were being done anyway... --ChessyPig

The motion as written does not contain an assurance that missing the deadline through no fault of your own doesn't get you screwed over. Can we future-proof it against dickish refs please? While I'd love to think they'll never occur, I know Durham had issues recently with eg refs rejecting a downtime that was late because someone's computer crashed while they were writing it just before the deadline... --Pufferfish

What wording do you think would be suitable for that? As in general I think it is better rule-writing practice to make firm rules and then have a social contract of allowing exceptions for exceptional situations, as then the rules are solid, rather than making rules with built in loopholes and then having to argue the toss over the validity of any one players particular personal circumstance if they feel it counts when other people don't, which can get wanky and personal fast. --Zebbie
(Also, the summer deadline usually comes with at least a month's warning plus the fact that it happens every year, so whilst I can still see several sorts of definite valid circumstances that could interfere with meeting it and therefore prolly should get exceptions, it shouldn't be such a common problem as things coming up which interfere with returning weekly downtime with the 2-day turnaround, for example). --Zebbie

Okay.... this just seems a highly complicated symptom of a baser issue - that character sheets do not appear to be passed between ref teams? Would not a sensible application of a wiki with ref permissions and player permissions solve this? Any character not on the wiki at the start of the year would be considered inactive and therefore only eligible to enter play with ref permission, etc etc.... --- Delvy

We have a password protected refwiki which contains ref info, including charactersheets for current pcs. The issue is that traditionally players are not always great at keeping the refs informed about their xp allocations/spends/etc, or make mistakes - eg: a huge number of the submitted sheets and spends during this year have been incorrectly added or wrong, I believe - and so getting everyone to send in what they think is going on once a year helps to control this and keep everyone on the same page (they can be checked against existing records, frex). If there is not a big call and sort through at least this often then some sheets begin to diverge quite far from the ref idea of them (which can cause statting issues), or their incorrectness becomes established in play (which is unfair), or it turns out neither player or refs actually know what stats the character has (general fail) - doing this sort through at the start of the new ref team has a pleasing dual function of also familiarising the new refs with the pc base, but it would need doing anyway. --Zebbie
For statistics - 1 in 6 character sheets sent in over this summer contained at least one error with a similar proportion containing errors for new character sheet. I would approximate that 1 in 4 Xp updates sent in contain errors. Most characters can send in XP updates on a weekly basis if they wanted to. Trying to maintain current and accurate character sheets on the wiki eats about an hour to an hour and a half of my time each week and is the second most painful bit of reffing after sorting out IC money. Without getting a baseline of correct stuff over the summer when there is time it would become an even harder task. --Malselene

I certainly think that this should be two separate motions- the existence of a "retired" status, which I support (ie, making "retired" an opt-in rather than an opt-out status), and... all the rest of this... which I still have no clue about. --Pufferfish
Currently I don't think we have a 'retired' status at all, just an 'inactive' one, as although some people already play to the 'Retired' status described there is no way to distinguish those characters mechanically from characters that people might someday ask to bring back. That might not be what you were saying though. --Zebbie
Yes, that's roughly what I'm saying- I think a motion to support a "retired" flag if specifically requested by a player is a good thing. I just don't want it mixed up with a probably rather less popular motion with all the other stuff :) --Pufferfish
That's why this is an entirely seperate motion to Zebbie's Retirement Of Characters motion... --ChessyPig

To address Delvy's point: Firstly, we can't rely on ref teams having kept their notes in order - sometimes it all gets too much for a ref team and the record-keeping falls behind and gets forgotten about, leading to all kinds of things not being written down, being written down wrong, not being clear etc. So it is a good precaution to have players send in their character details every summer, and be used to doing this, so that this kind of thing can get corrected. Secondly, it lets the refs check that player expectations / beliefs about their characters tally with ref expectations / beliefs. Also, often the ref team will also ask specific questions like 'what kind of plot do you want' that will let them plan better. So: character sheets aren't reliably handed between ref teams because ref teams are often not that great at record keeping especially towards the end of their tenure when they're getting worn out; players don't necessarily always agree with the refs on character details and potential communication failures need to be weeded out early; in general having a good synchronize of the system every year when the new ref team shows up keeps down the Failure... --ChessyPig

Right, something else I thought of overnight. What do we do about someone who leaves TT for a time and then wishes to return mid-year? Telling them "actually, you can't play your old character on their old stats" sounds like a recipe for them feeling hideously unwelcome, which is surely the last thing we want to do. The example that comes to mind immediately is Kirsty, who left due to burnout after two years of awesome reffing and her occasionally-played-since character Betsy. And yes, I know this motion allows for people to come back on old stats, but its phrasing suggests it's unlikely if they wish to do so mid-year, and it's setting off all my "where has your inclusiveness gone?!" alarms. I would support this motion with a stronger "unless you genuinely couldn't send us a charactersheet" clause and the removal of "the most likely option is that we will take your XP away" clause; in its current state it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. --Pufferfish


Right, I've finally come up with some alternative wording/slightly changed proposal that deals with my issues with this motion.

A well as a "retired" flag we could have a "suspended" flag. At the start of a character being suspended, the player and the refs agree on what their stats and flange are, and from then on you don't need to do anything, including not having to send in character sheets every summer. You then need to warn the refs before the refmeet in the week you plan to resume playing the character that you want to do so, and then you can. Requiring the one week's warning may be waived at ref discretion, eg for someone who moved away but finds themselves in Cambridge at very short notice. Characters who appear to be abandoned (including current characters for whom a character sheet is not submitted by the summer deadline) are automatically suspended on the current stats on the refwiki over a summer holiday if the player cannot be contacted. Refs can still say no to flange granted by previous ref teams for characters who are automatically-suspended-by-inaction.

This means:

I spoke to Zebbie about this before posting it and she seems to be happy with it. Anyone else? Can we put this forward as an alternative motion to the one already written (ideally superseding it!), or at least incorporate some of the wording?

I am very happy with the principle of having a suspended flag, but I am now reading the actual motion for the first time and I think there is a slight problem in that both the refteam and actual rules are likely to change between the charsheet being set and the character coming back, I think that the new refteam who are present when the character comes back in should still have the right to edit the flange if they like, and the charsheet may also need to be restatted to the closest equivalent sheet under whatever rules are in play at that moment (so this lets them stay at the same xp, but does not allow them to automatically reinstate the frozen charsheet as-is, which is what you have written above). --Zebbie (I see the flange bit is in fact explicitly covered in the last line, sorry, but the restat-to-rules thing still applies).
Yes, I completely agree with everything you say here. I am not very good at words, sentences, and avoiding loopholes, and my intention was purely to stop people feeling threatened with downstatting and/or unwelcome when returning to TT. --Pufferfish
You need to be explicit that "flange" includes researched spells (and possibly alchemy) as these can be some of the most "argh no, what were you thinking!" things in the game, I would expect a fair number of people to assume that as they are part of the stats of a character they are inviolate under the above proposal. Additionally, if the player won't reply to an email asking for their charactersheet (due to TT burnout, whatever) it's unlikely that they are going to reply to an email asking to agree their stats and flange before entering the suspended phase. If I just don't turn up for however many months, it's likely that I will be emailed about suspending my character at the same time that I would have been emailed asking to send in my stats and flange, i.e. at the start of the next refteam. Both proposals are asking me to send in my stats and flange, if I don't reply to one I'm unlikely to reply to the other - Bryony

OP: --Pufferfish

This looks like a very sensible compromise and involves the least amount of work for everyone involved. I like, although I do wonder if a week's notice for the reappearance of a long-suspended high-level character is sufficient. But it's probably OK :)
The week's notice was to allow someone whose previous character died the week before to play their old one the next week. More is of course welcome :-) --Pufferfish
Works for me. Seems to deal with admin issues while covering off the Ref team needs. --Delvy

The basic issue is: why can't people send us their character details every summer?

It's _once per year_.

If you ever want to play a character again, if you might ever want to play a character again, then send their details to the refs _once per year_. Easy. Sorted.

I don't see why refs should be _compelled_ to let you play a character again if you can't even be bothered to send in their details _once per year_.

Obviously some people will reasonably have actual excuses for not having done this, and those cases should and I believe will be treated individually. Just because the refs are granted a _right_ to tell people they can't bring back their characters, doesn't mean they have to exercise it.

The parts about downstatting the character or removing all their Stuff are _concessions_ - they are meant to be ways that the ref team can be _generous_ and allow people to bring back their character despite the player's lack of consideration in failing to send their _once a year_ character detail email. (Obviously genuine reasons for not doing this should be considered and the penalties not applied in these cases.)

I can't understand why this is such a controversial issue. Once per year, everyone should send in details about any characters they might wish to ever play again. (Ideally with some kind of disclaimer saying 'probably not playing this year' if that's the case, so the refs don't have to waste effort if they're not interested.) This way when we have record-keeping failure or communications failure, which we do regularly, everything gets fixed and synchronized at least once a year, at the time the refs have the most available effort to deal with it.

If players can't even be bothered to send in once a year (again, discounting those with genuine difficulties with this for whom other arrangements can be made) then I don't see why refs should be compelled to let them play those characters again, I don't see why refs shouldn't have the right to enforce whatever sanctions they feel are necessary before those characters can see play again.

I'm sorry for the rant, but this is really irritating me now. One refmeet is _not_ enough time to deal with the kind of issues that might come up, given that it might be _any_ refmeet, and hence might be a refmeet where half the refs are out (ill or busy) and other important things also need to be discussed, and given that it might be _any_ character, with any kind of awkward backstory or custom researched spells or place they retired to which was fine when it was left by the old ref team but might be ON FIRE or UNDERWATER by now, which they would kind of know about...

--ChessyPig

I also am in full agreement with every word of what Chess says here. --Zebbie

Right. The reason that people can't send character details every summer is that *they might not be playing TT at the moment*. It is not fair to ask people who might, theoretically, at some point in the future, wish to return to TT to keep thinking about the game. People burn out from TT. They are sick of TT. They do not want to think about TT. Asking them to think about TT while in this state will probably make them even less likely to come back. I cannot support anything that throws more obstacles in the way of such people coming back to play the game again.

You also seem to be missing the point that under what I proposed, a suspended character's sheet is *already on the refwiki*. It can be counted in exactly the same way as a character sheet that has been sent in over the summer holiday. Thus the refs can discuss it over the summer along with everyone else's at will, without irritating people by asking them to send again what they sent last summer and has not changed since. I'll admit that I don't know *why* taking the two minutes to copy and paste a character sheet is a problem, but apparently some people find it so and I have no wish to make life harder for them. I know I have problems and unnecessary irritation with things others consider entirely mundane.

The examples that you quote of problems when the character returns like their happy home now being underwater aren't issues with the system I proposed, because the suspended character is on the refwiki and has been updated over the summer with a note saying "character's home is now underwater". This is functionally identical to what would have happened if the charactersheet had been sent in again.

--Pufferfish

Am I right in thinking that the sticking point causing conflict here is actually the one special case in which a player leaves the society, but then later rejoins again a few years later, but wishes to play the character they had before on the stats they had before? That being the only reason other than a Special Case (illness, being abducted by aliens for the summer etc) why a player might not be realistically able to submit a sheet given two months notice. At present I believe that the position would be that a returning player cannot assume to do that (esp with the stats), and if they were allowed to do so it would be as a special concession rather than a right. Making it a right is what is being proposed, which is perfectly ok as a proposal, but is an Actual Change, and this should prolly be flagged. --Zebbie
Mostly that, yes. I think the current wording is discouraging and concentrates on what you can't do without the refs making "concessions" to you, instead of being encouraging with warnings of sanctions if you take the piss. This makes me rather upset about the impression TT might give to someone who looks at the website and considers playing. Something like "if you wish to bring a character back for whom you have not submitted a character sheet over the summer, please talk to the refs, who must take personal circumstances into account but may as a last resort do [all the penalties we've mentioned], but ideally written by someone who isn't me because I know I am bad at phrasing. I also see no reason to downstat someone to 150xp for whom a character sheet with more than that is available on the refwiki- I'm seeing the penalties as "things to do if the stats have been lost", not "punishment". --Pufferfish

I would also see a "suspended" flag as meaning 'this pc exists atm but refs can ignore them unless the player gives a weeks notice that they would like to bring them back' - after a cursory glance once a year to see which temple heads etc were on the list (so they werent overwritten without discussion with the player) I wouldn't expect them to get any further reffort. I definitely wouldnt expect refs to be constantly aware of all the suspended player backgrounds and be updating them with things which might affect them as they came up in play - this is a huge waste of ref time in the very time-pressed termtime, given that the vast majority of suspended characters will never return, I'd rather refs concentrated on knowing some of the backgrounds of the characters active in uptime tbh. --Zebbie

You cannot assume that the suspended characters details are already on the ref wiki. There were at least five characters who had been inplay last year who there were no stats for on the refwiki when I first got access to it this summer. Not all information is guaranteed to pass between one ref team and the next. How the refwiki is organised has changed over time and it is very hard to access out of date information. It took three refs about two hours of their time each just to try to reconstruct two characters financial details for a year. I personally think sending a sheet in over the summer is a lot simpler than trying put more things onto the refs to keep track of. --Malselene
"At the start of a character being suspended, the player and the refs agree on what their stats and flange are, and from then on you don't need to do anything" was intended to guarantee that a suspended character's details are on the wiki. I know how hideous UseMod? can get after a few years of use, but have never failed to find something I wanted by searching for, say, the character's name. I realise I'm going to get flamethrowered for this, but it sounds like one of the problems is that the refwiki hasn't been tidied for a while. I am more than willing to fix this if/when I get my hands on it... --Pufferfish
As I understand it the system rules tend to take slight alterations each year from the AGM. What is agreed at one point may then become out of date or no longer be sensible for the system. Several charaters also have more than one name and the one on their stats sheet is generally the one at the top of their first character creation email and then ceases to be ever used in uptime play. I could give about 5 examples including one that I spent about an hour searching for stats for. --Malselene
The name problem is a good point, and using categories on the wiki should fix it. Putting CategoryCurrentCharacter?, CategorySuspendedCharacter? or CategoryDefunctCharacter? on the relevant pages means that lists of these can easily be brought up. See CategoryCategory for more details on how to do this. Of course, it needs keeping up to date, but regardless of what happens to any of these motions, it's a really useful shortcut for finding stuff. --Pufferfish
There is a page with all the characters on it listed under various approximate categories, like probably on hold, inactive over this period of time, retired/dead. Unfortunately it's very hard (for me at least) to try to catergorise the older ones because they haven't been played since I joined the society and hence I have no idea who they are. You would probably have a better chance of sorting them out. --Malselene
I fully intend to do a massive sort out of this nature, aye (assuming the society lets me ref :p). I will say that I don't have much sympathy with a player who wants to resume playing a character after a long gap not providing the refs with information to help find lost character sheets such as other names they are known by though, yes... --Pufferfish
This theoretical player, returning after at least a year-long hiatus from TT, is going to need to talk to the refs a lot anyway. They'll need to find out what the double-buying rules are this week, whether their colour of magic still exists, who's the head of their temple, whether we've out-right forbidden PVP in the social contract but not put it up on the website, and a whole host of other issues. I don't see that adding "Oh, and can I have my old stats back?" is particularly burdensome, and don't see that giving the refs the option to respond "No" is going to hurt any form of participation other than "A bunch of externals show up on 480 XP and roll the bar for lols". --NT

I agree with everything that Chess said, except for "refs can stop you playing character entirely if you don't send in statsheet". I think the refs have more than enough to deal with as it is without players not keeping them up to date *once per year*. I think, however, that "You risk being downstatted to 150xp" is more than sufficient, and should be something the refs have the right to do if necessary/if they feel it's appropriate, not something they are obliged to do. --Locksmith
Please note that refs can stop you playing your character entirely, for any reason, anyway... see 'kidnapped by demons', 'SLAY', assassination encounters, 'the things you are doing with this character are upsetting other people OOC, please don't play them until we have resolved this somehow', 'your character appears to be primarily designed to kill this particular other PC you have an OOC grudge against' etc etc. It sets a dangerous precedent if refs can't stop you playing your character... --ChessyPig
OK, sure, I phrased that badly. I'm specifically objecting to preventing people playing a character for an administrative reason, rather than an "in play" reason. --Locksmith


Right, I've had another go at writing a version of this I might consider voting for.

For characters they intend to play in the following year, current players must submit character sheets and any 'flange' they wish to ensure is kept (including but not limited to special items, non-syllabus spells, rites and alchemy, permanent inflictions / changes to their body and soul, and particularly unusual backstory / uptime happenings) to the incoming ref team by a deadline of the incoming ref team's choosing over the Summer Holidays, by email or other means as arranged with that ref team. The ref team will provide at least a month's notice of this deadline.

If a character sheet is not submitted for a character, the refs may assume that character will not be played in that academic year. The refs may also make reasonable adjustments such as having them vacate IC positions of direct uptime relevance, ideally with full consultation with the involved player if possible.

If a character sheet is not submitted and a player wishes to resume playing a character, the refs may:

The refs must take account of special circumstances preventing character sheet submission on time, including but not limited to illness and lack of computer/internet access. Players returning after a long absence from Treasure Trap in the middle of a year should not expect to be penalised stats-wise, though they must discuss any "flange" they have with the refs and may not be allowed to return with some or all of it.

Failing to submit a character sheet and then returning to play under any of the above conditions will not cause detrimental "flange" to be removed!

Notes:

--Pufferfish

I like this, and would be prepared to vote for and/or second it. --Locksmith

CLSWiki | RecentChanges | Preferences | Main Website
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited April 27, 2010 7:12 pm by Locksmith (diff)
Search: