ti-legacy.com

Damnit. Amicable disagreements are the worst. XD

I think that Lei's statement is compelling and think I would find myself less inclined to shifty activity without whoinvis, and also agree with Kinaed's arguments for wanting to limit the use of it.

I have a few suggested changes as a potential angle rather than charging XP (which I'm not fond of), which could be used together or apart.

1) Whoinvis with an Argument. When entering whoinvis, a player would be required to enter a reason for wanting to use whoinvis. Staff could monitor these reasons, and speak to anyone that they consider abusing the system (which would be made clear in a help file), potentially banning the whoinvis command from the serial offenders. This would allow free use of whoinvis for those using it as intended.

2) Whoinvis Allowance. A player and/or PC is given an allocation of whoinvis hours that they can use per week, either a flat amount or a percentage of their logged-in hours.

Zeita wrote: 1) Whoinvis with an Argument. When entering whoinvis, a player would be required to enter a reason for wanting to use whoinvis. Staff could monitor these reasons, and speak to anyone that they consider abusing the system (which would be made clear in a help file), potentially banning the whoinvis command from the serial offenders. This would allow free use of whoinvis for those using it as intended.

2) Whoinvis Allowance. A player and/or PC is given an allocation of whoinvis hours that they can use per week, either a flat amount or a percentage of their logged-in hours.

I like both of these suggestions.

This is the current spec for whoinvis:
Note - I notice a penchant for people to want staff to 'monitor and resolve individual abuses' at the end of many a high profile disagreement. There are a few issues with this though:
- There are only four staff to handle all 30-odd people's stuff in a given week
- Additional burden on us to evaluate high volume, low value stuff dilutes our focus to deal with high value, high impact issues that truly require staff management
- The more involved we are, the more people cite staff bias, etc, when things don't go their way and generally give staff a headache
- If you actually do publicly say that you prefer staff to handle things on a case by case basis, please be prepared to support staff even when you think our decision was dumb as beans.

Thank you!

This spec isn't the end of the world, but reading it doesn't lessen my concerns about the cost feeling like a "covert" tax or a "crime" tax, as Lei mentioned. When a villain wants to use whoinvis to protect themselves against metagaming, which is (as I understand it) the intended purpose of whoinvis, they are going to have to pay this fee -- and that's going to deincentivize not only the use of whoinvis but the kind of legitimate gameplay it was designed to enable and protect, especially for "up and coming" characters without a lot of free XP to spare.

Zeita's suggestion of a whoinvis "Allowance" might be a decent middle ground.

Andruid wrote:This spec isn't the end of the world, but reading it doesn't lessen my concerns about the cost feeling like a "covert" tax or a "crime" tax, as Lei mentioned. When a villain wants to use whoinvis to protect themselves against metagaming, which is (as I understand it) the intended purpose of whoinvis, they are going to have to pay this fee -- and that's going to deincentivize not only the use of whoinvis but the kind of legitimate gameplay it was designed to enable and protect, especially for "up and coming" characters without a lot of free XP to spare.

Zeita's suggestion of a whoinvis "Allowance" might be a decent middle ground.

I don't think that you need whoinvis to do crimes at all, I sure never used it for them. Even if someone with a tinfoil hat will watch it and link the dots OOCly, they still have to meet help policy cnote, so they only thing that they really ruin is their own mystery by metagaming, without gaining an IC entry. If you suspect that someone is now "paying more attention" to your criminal based on OOC connection you can always drop a request to staff to make sure everything is up to par (as there is usually more than your PC will know/see).

And the purpose behind whoinvis was to allow the occasional and temporary cover from WHO when you expect meta to be at play already, not as a blanket whenever you do something vanish. The actual physical use case for which it was created was so the lawful types can lay ambushes for criminals who don't act when reeves are around. But, obviously, it was also never intended for Reeves/knights to be permanently whoinvis either, instead, it is to be a temporary and targetted measure. Just like it should be with crime, not used for every single one but when you expect that foul play may be afoot.

I favor the weekly allowance. Make it count when it matters.

Puciek wrote: And the purpose behind whoinvis was to allow the occasional and temporary cover from WHO when you expect meta to be at play already, not as a blanket whenever you do something vanish. The actual physical use case for which it was created was so the lawful types can lay ambushes for criminals who don't act when reeves are around. But, obviously, it was also never intended for Reeves/knights to be permanently whoinvis either, instead, it is to be a temporary and targetted measure. Just like it should be with crime, not used for every single one but when you expect that foul play may be afoot.

Excellent point. An allowance would be helpful to lawful types, as well.

Andruid wrote:

Puciek wrote: And the purpose behind whoinvis was to allow the occasional and temporary cover from WHO when you expect meta to be at play already, not as a blanket whenever you do something vanish. The actual physical use case for which it was created was so the lawful types can lay ambushes for criminals who don't act when reeves are around. But, obviously, it was also never intended for Reeves/knights to be permanently whoinvis either, instead, it is to be a temporary and targetted measure. Just like it should be with crime, not used for every single one but when you expect that foul play may be afoot.

Excellent point. No need to make it feel like just a "crime" tax. An allowance would be helpful to lawful types, as well.

I don't like the allowance because I am yet to see an actual case of someone coming here and telling WHY they need whoinvis to run the RP. Do we really have people who metagame the who and simply log off whenever they see you? Or otherwise, abuse who, but not in a way that can be proven for policy? I think it simply matters of having that peace now and using the benefits it provides, rather than actual metagaming at play.

On the contrary, I think some valid concerns have already been raised, and some valid reasons already stated. You disagree and have been very vocal about your own perspective, and that's fine -- but I'm in a different camp. As I've stated elsewhere, and as Lei has also noted, metagaming can happen unintentionally, often without people being fully aware. It's difficult to identify and report those unconscious choices, particularly when you're on the receiving end. So, as much as I respect your desire to NOT use whoinvis, I still respect others' desire to minimize that risk as much as possible. And to do it without feeling like they're being taxed.

And, for the record: this decision doesn't really affect me personally, at all. I don't whoinvis often, and I certainly have the free XP to afford it as much as I want. So my choice to promote a different perspective is purely in the interests of those who would benefit.