Talk:Examples and discussion
I don't want the items talked about as some of my players have asked me not to put items up as they feel harassed/presured by other players and GMs. I was keen on it, and welcomed peer-review, but given some of my players feelings and wishes I will respect their views.
Thanks in advance.
--Jono Bean 10:44, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Good manners should be applied regardless of who the GM is. Please check with the authoring GM before putting their items on this list. GMs may opt to check with the player that ended up with the item or to keep the recipient anonymous.
-- Stephen 12:10, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
While I won't be placing any of my items up here myself (only because the player needs to have a say too), I am completely fine with any players putting any of my items up here. I'll even contribute to discussions at that point. :)
-- Struan 14:49, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
I am happy for any and all of my items over the years to go up. Even the crazy ones that people should have stopped me giving out.
I am also more than happy to rewrite items should people feel they are flawed.
-- Mandos 15:01, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Removal of whole threads = Vandalism
And sorry if this in the wrong place. We need to set up a community area really to discuss policy points, but...
WTF!
That's a pretty nazi thing to do to remove the entire Winter Games talk thread like that. Very, very un-wiki dudes.
That talk page was a good example of a heated debate which *didn't* go too far. Nowhere was there any ad hominem attacks, nowhere from my memory was there any abuse. If there were single comments that went too far then those should have been summarized or deleted.
Check out the wikipedia examples of bad behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable
If it was too long or off topic then refactor, edit it or move it. It was getting a bit unreadable, I grant you that. That sort of thing is neccessary.
If this stuff doesnt get discussed in public it will just get swept under the carpet and then sometime soon everything will just explode and be unmanageable. We are entitled to free and public debate around DQ if we are going to be democratic about this. I can see why players are getting touchy about this. I can also understand why GMs might be feeling touchy about it. But the whole debate is about balancing games in a multi-GM environment, something which we should be discussing. I would happily listen to why them might be feeling touchy and help them understand the necessity of this process, please feel free to email/skype/call me, or I'm happy to do the same back.
This process really is that important to me! I dont mind if after some debate the items are still out there, just that the debate happens.
Please, please reinstate the thread. Otherwise it stinks of censorship, police states and brutality behind closed doors.
with my mortar board on...
--Dan 22:01, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
- Valid points there Dan, I'd forgotten my surprise earlier this morning when I noticed that Jono had deleted this discussion. (I note Stephen has restored the discussion since I started typing this).
- I realise that the discussion turned into something that Jono didn't intend, but you can't 'un-say' what was said, and removing the 'evidence' isn't something that should be done lightly. I'm assuming Jono's deletion was well-intentioned.--Errol 22:59, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Both pages restored pending heated discussion over potential re-deletion. There is no censorship here. We are all good honest servants of the people, only doing what is right and receiving no rewards.
btw Thx for the beer Dan!
And thanks for volunteering to write our acceptable behaviour and deletion guidelines.
-- Stephen 22:39, 19 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Hi Dan,
Yes you could say WTF, but the problem the wiki writing is that they feel that they can effectively flame people. Unlike email which comes to your desktop and then goes away with the next emails and the change of focus that those emails bring, the media of the wiki is a record which people can review for a long time after things have changed. People feel that they can comment on games that they know nothing about (of the context it was in).
I felt that a couple of people hi-jacked the talk page and made it of very little use.
I started posting items with the hope of helpful feedback. This did not happen. Some of my player (6 of them) said that they didn't enjoy the personal attacks or personal comments on the page. Most of the players felt it was rude and untrue. The upshot is they didn't like it.
Of the two new GMs I have been encouraging, Hamish will run a game, but the other will not, because of the costs involved.
Unless we adopted a much stronger supportive approach on the wiki to GMs, where people take care not to be rude (some people are rude to others and they say afterwards that they did not mean to be rude) to GMs running games, then it may continue to deter new GMs.
People may disagree with the items (as it their responability in my view) but they need to be helpful with feedback otherwise it simple turns into a nar say page, rather than anything GMs can use.
In short its not what people are saying - its how they say it. Remove the rudeness. The other thing is when involved in a large event often GMs don't have huge amounts of time to do things online, to clean up the pages into useful comments, and non useful comments, and reply to general conserns etc
--Jono Bean 12:17, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Player Concerns
It has almost nothing to do with item and everything to do with behaviour. Some GMs/Player have read the items and rang the players who won the item from the loot list, looking to buy the item off the players involved.
I will post on the Winter Games page. Unlike Email, the Winter Games page will be their for a period of time and the harassment and rudeness that some people displayed on the page will only stop new GMs. Hamish was not put off by it, but the other person I was aiming at getting to GM was put off.
--Jono Bean 11:09, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Oh ok, that seems like a pretty good reason, particularly for something with lots of players like the Lunar games.
I remove my concern. --Mandos 11:17, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Probably a good time to point out to everyone that what is on the wiki is for players and GMs.
We all need to differentiate between what we as players know and what our characters know.
Unless characters are boasting in the pub, it is unlikely that anyone outside the characters on the games and a few guild administrators know exactly what was received and who got what.
-- Stephen 11:28, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
I could talk about the two people involved who have contacted the other players.
One time it was phoning them and insisting that the med level person sell ABC item to their own character. This player doing the insisting is a GM and a player.
The second person who has been contacted for an item has been approched five times now with a consitant anwser of 'not interested'. But five times!!! This person doing the contacting is a player and not a GM.
But items on the wiki have lead these people to pick up the phone. This has unsettled some of my players who have asked me to no longer post loot, as they are being directly phoned by other GMs. Its simple not good. I was hoping that - and I was aiming that it would assist me and new GMs, but from my view point - I will not do it at any cost.
--Jono Bean 11:39, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
If you are happy to post them then feel free to post any items my characters have from your games. If I then get calls I would be delighted to share my opinions with these people and will in no way hold you responsible for their actions.
While there are a few exceptions where there are character reasons for keeping their items and abilities secret, in general I think sharing what we do and openly discussing issues and reasons can only improve the game overall. Provided that everyone involved maintains good manners and behaviour, and respect that we do not all share the same opinions and there is not always one right answer.
Stephen 12:00, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)
Please feel free to put items up that your characters owns, that have come from a game I have GMed. I don't have any problem with items I have written, being talked about or reviewed.
--Jono Bean 11:32, 21 Sep 2006 (NZST)
It seems to me that it is quite likly given the apparent contensciousness of this discussion that it would be better if items were put up without reference to GM or player - just the level of the game.
This will assist people to evaluate items in a more neutral manner. While we would lose the ability for the GM who wrote the item up to respond, we would probably get a very wide range of items and i recon the views would be of more value. Questions and concerns about the items could be put forward and answered without people having to identiy their involvement with the item.
--Hamish Brown 3:55 21 Sep 2006
If unsure then putting them up without names is a good option. The GM and Player can always add their name if they want to. -- Stephen
And people shouldn't assume that the PC currently with the item is played by the log-in that posts it ;-) --Errol 16:33, 21 Sep 2006 (NZST)
I think that what you've come up with is right. Showing items to the community is good for a lot of reasons; it helps bring balance, it's a guideline to others on what they should give out, and it helps spread flavour (I'm stealing stuff to make my bits of the world feel like they mesh with other games). Since Jono started posting his items I have seen a raised standard in item write ups, in my day *leans on his stick* they were scribbled pieces of paper and now they're all prettified. This increase in production values is great, items are valued not just on their in game usefulness but also on the way they round out the aesthetic whole of the game; they make DQ better.
Letting everyone know which player has them is not productive in any way. It sounds like there are a couple of irresponsible people out there. Mind you these people could have behaved that way without the wiki. This just makes it a bit easier to be bad.
Also I think that when posting up other people's stuff it is best to ask permission. You would do this with any other form of work, that's the basis of copyright. Because all this stuff on the wiki is GPL'ed by being up here it goes straight into the public domain. Anyone can do anything they want with any of this (no permission or attribtuion is necessary). Maybe a bit of clarification on that would be worthwhile, help people understand the medium.
--Dan 21:36, 21 Sep 2006 (NZST)
IMO all this debate feels good. Something has come of it and the wiki will be a stronger and more useful tool because of this.
--Dan 21:36, 21 Sep 2006 (NZST)
"I started posting items with the hope of helpful feedback. This did not happen. Some of my player (6 of them) said that they didn't enjoy the personal attacks or personal comments on the page. Most of the players felt it was rude and untrue. The upshot is they didn't like it."
I viewed the recently long discussion regarding the Lunar games items that Jono, William and Jon gave out was constructive. A fair amount of opinion were shared, the majority thought the items were not good, and as a consequence the GM rewrote a number of items. I viewed this as a positive outcome for the community. This discussion highlighted to me that there is a large gulf is what is various GMs deemed acceptable for items. It seems clear to me the DQ community would benefit from further discussion regarding items generation. As for personal attack on players, I had a read through and saw a comment from Mandos that one read took out of context. As for making offers for items? This is a reasonable thing to do, its happened ever since I remember.
Two comments were made; "I don't want the items talked about as some of my players have asked me not to put items up as they feel harassed/pressured by other players and GMs. I was keen on it, and welcomed peer-review, but given some of my players feelings and wishes I will respect their views."
The items I pasted were published are *all* published wiki, and some have existed there for some time. http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Examples_of_Loot
Its very important for a player to know if they have a contentious item, and they need to accept that. As a GM and player I have chosen-to/witnessed items banned/restricted in games, and its important for a player to accept that this can occur. GMs are not persecuting player, but trying to create a fun environment for them and the players. A GMs signature on a piece of paper is not the word of god, and its incredulous for a player believe this. If everyone tells you an item is stupidly thought, it probably is - stand up, and acknowledge this.
The sample I took were from five different games, if all the players object them something is very wrong. The links to all the pdf detailing these items still exist on the loot page. Perhaps you should take down the links to the pdfs of the items if you dont want and conversation.
"Good manners should be applied regardless of who the GM is. Please check with the authoring GM before putting their items on this list. GMs may opt to check with the player that ended up with the item or to keep the recipient anonymous. "
Why? As a GM when you create an item it is set free in the community, to be viewed/traded/altered to and by other players/GMs. If your not prepared to publish and receive feedback they your probably shouldn't be GMing. Many years ago items use to require vetting from the Gods meeting or independent GM, it seems standards are slipping.
There are no good standards for creating and valuing write-ups, some much is inference and intuition. A few people have created wiki pages with rules for item valuation. As you can creating anything its difficult to write, and agree, upon a standard set of rules for valuation let along item descriptions. My approach is to put together item and allow people to make constructive feedback; loopholes, valuation, flavor etc. This can only raise standards amounts our community and may alter peoples behavior, hopefully toward a vaguely consistent behavior; some people make decide they're too generous/stingy and alter the items. Ultimately GM can do whatever they want, but I believe we all to create a better environment for everyone and this discussion should facilitate that.
I believe a constructive way to use the example page would be to
1.Add items you think are appropriate for various levels. What is an appropriate medium item?
2.Put up items you think are well/poorly written. Why? What can we learn?
3.Share any gotchas or loopholes you've found. Save future GMs from suffering!
The dont even need to be existing items, make them up!
I was really impressed with the comments made my Mandos, "I am happy for any and all of my items over the years to go up. Even the crazy ones that people should have stopped me giving out. I am also more than happy to rewrite items should people feel they are flawed. " Its very positive attitude and its a shame more GMs don't think like this rather than discouraging discussion and talking their ball home.
Terry
Fake/made up items are not an issue.
If these list of loot, in the example area, continue to create problems for the players outside of any game (such as unwelcome phone calls, after asking people not to) then I will take them down.
Jono said:
"The second person who has been contacted for an item has been approched five times now with a consitant anwser of 'not interested'. But five times!!! This person doing the contacting is a player and not a GM."
If the only effect of listing things (like loot) on the wiki was to create better understand I am all for it, but these so far has not been the case.
"Good manners should be applied regardless of who the GM is. Please check with the authoring GM before putting their items on this list. GMs may opt to check with the player that ended up with the item or to keep the recipient anonymous. "
Terry said:
"Why?"
For the above clearly state problems and reasons. We play for fun, and feeling harassed is not fun.
Terry said:
"If your not prepared to publish and receive feedback they your probably shouldn't be GMing."
Again your views, and doesnt take into account the real life problems that have already been clearly stated as the main problem.
Terry said:
"Many years ago items use to require vetting from the Gods meeting or independent GM, it seems standards are slipping."
All of the items where viewed by four GMs who ran the LWGs game and also by 2 GMs not playing or GMing the LWGs game. I do not feel standards are slipping.
As far as others taking offence at what was said on the LWGs talk page, some of the comments from: Dean, Chris, Jaquies' and Mandos did get some peoples backs up. I am sure this will be fine as time goes on.
As far as my views as a GM goes, I was welcoming of comment on items, not a large debate on GM style or enjoyment of any game. Lets not try to discourage or dishearten GMs trying new things - such as running mixed level parties, multi-party events otherwise we will find others will simple not try stuff.
Sure review items and any problems try to identify them and give helpful feedback. Stick to items that are not creating problems in real life for players, and try to support GMs, without "Laying down the law".
--Jono Bean 00:09, 22 Sep 2006 (NZST)
I'm thinking maybe I re-opened this debate accecdentilly. I do not think attacking GM's generally or the Luna Games loot split specifically is of any more use. things have been said and responded too. its enough IMV.
What i am interested in if we are going to re-view item writeups (which i think is an interesting project) is looking at the most outragious / tuff items of 20 different med and high PC's without GM's being identifyed.
lets get a sense of what is actually out their and how mad / broken / or well written it actually is.
--Hamish Brown 11:20pm, 22 Sep 2006
