- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,429
- Reaction score
- 34,414
- Points
- 663
- Age
- 33
The Permission System which came after the Trustee System, governing applications for Special Permissions, has been around for a while now. The Staff, as of a few days ago, did a full scale review of all Permission holders as well as the success rate to see where we're at, and where there is room for improvement on the system. Obviously, as with any change, some flaws have already been discovered, which hopefully will be covered by this post in some meaningful way. First however, let's review the overall performance. Trustee made way for Permissions, because in theory, the Permissions could be more easily granted while not requiring any additional quality checks or activity.
Basically, under the Trustee system, you needed to be some kind of famous roleplayer or at least a person with an impact on the community to get a special perm. This was difficult for timid people, but also for people who had just freshly arrived in the community or switched from another server to ours. To remedy this, the reasoning or permission request was added so that players could pitch their concept to circumvent all of these problems. We are still satisfied with this system, but it was obviously necessary to also make some hindsight check-ups to ensure we were all still on-target with what we promised. After all, the players who wrote a pitch made a specific promise to Lore Staff to uphold some kind of roleplay. They set out to, for example, drive a narrative to expand mage rights, or to seek active conflict with the guard. These promises are important, because they underlined the reason why the staff chose to choose one person over the other in terms of receiving a permission. It incurred a sort of society debt in terms of a person promising to do something with that perm that was granted to them, and not someone else. It was a promise, and a permission granted in faith.
Yesterday, some of us sat down to a really quick rough review of what players had promised, and what was delivered. Some promises were very straight forward, like the fore mentioned "More rights for Mages" or "Seeking conflict with the Guard". These are, as such, really easy to measure, because these kind of activities tend to leave strides in the community when they are performed. The lack of these activities, is often easy to pick up, because a story simply hasn't been addressed. We compiled a list of people who we think are "On Mark" meaning that they have committed to what they promised and in some cases more, "Sort-of-Mark" which are people who promised something, didn't deliver, but found something else of equal value, and finally "No Mark", meaning people who didn't at all try, or could not deliver on what they promised.
Before we discuss this listing however, it's extremely important to understand a few things: The only permissions that were reviewed, were Silven and Mage. This is because these two permissions are really high-profile, and because there had been calls in the community of over saturation, leading to an investigation. Backstory, Special Item (which hasn't been released yet), Fallen Nobility etc. were not reviewed because they didn't have a specific promise clause attached to them. Furthermore, people who have yet to receive their special permission (such as Magic in limbo) were not reviewed, because it would be unfair to check someone who is unable to even play out a specific role whether they have committed to it at all. Most importantly of all, this review is not a judgement call. It's a superficial evaluation that will in no way cause any person to lose their permissions. If anything, we now have a clearer list of people who we want to personally approach, to see what kind of obstacles they have experienced, and how we can help them commit more energy to the things they promised, or perhaps ask them to step aside so someone else who wanted the same permission but was not given it, can give a go at it in their stead. This is ultimately about helping people move forward, not about punishing them for not committing. Keep in mind, there may be a few errors in the listing below. We are not omniscient, and some clerical errors were also made compiling the full list of permission holders (since some are inherited left overs from the Trustee System that weren't recorded)
The current list of people who are On Mark, completed or continue to fulfill their promise:
Finlaggan, Icaruscien, Mochalattes, Timisc, AtticCat, QueenofKarma, Bellarmina, Katiesc, Lumiess, Shipit, WaterDruppel, MantaRey, Tracenator, Raeris, SupremeCripple, MrsCripple
The current list of people who did not do as promised, but found other engagements:
It means at current, the permission system has about a 50% success rate of promise to commitment. That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. Another value of the permission system is obviously how much easier it is to acquire permissions, but it should also be noted that there is also some data to be found in the approval vs. rejection rate. Currently we have 40 approved Permissions, 11 Permission approved with a stipulation (additional QA by staff), 4 Permissions that are Delayed (neither approved nor Rejected) and 80 Permissions Rejected. It should also be noted that of those 80 Rejections, some are re-applications, and many of them are duplicate applications (for example 1 player asking for 4 different permissions). The actual number of approval to rejections as such likely hovers to around 45% Approval, 55% Rejection. This is a staggering improvement over the rough 85% rejection that the Trustee System held, but obviously, it could be argued that it's not quite enough yet. Ideally, the approval and rejection rate should be 60% Approval and 40% Rejection. These numbers don't immediately mean anything yet, after all, not all rejections are done so for the same reason. Some were rejected because the player broke server rules, some were rejected purely because the permission that was being asked for had already reached a maximum, or the permission request was a faulty one. In many cases, the reviews purely came down to "What has this player promised" "How likely are they to succeed" "What benefit is that promise to the other players" and most importantly of all "Can this player achieve their promise without the permission they asked for", because either Silven or Magic have plenty of likewise alternatives in lore that are just as effective crutches for roleplay options.
Finally, there is the case of "There are to many Silven!". So turns out, there actually aren't. There are currently 32 approved Silven permissions of which the data is as followed: 17 active, 6 barely active, 7 inactive, 1 quit the server/died. So really, only about half the Silven can actually be seen on a daily basis. We suspect that, given the fact that they stand out, engage in a lot of conflict (people seek them out all the time) that they appear more prevalent than they actually are. In fact, in terms of online hours, some of the Silven Roleplayers have the highest activity markers on the server, spending many many hours online. This is why Silven appear more prevalent than they actually are. for example, in my own personal case, every event and activity I go to, I see Mae Draylas and her crew, but really, what is happening is that this crew moves around organically to follow where the roleplay goes (which is what I also do, bouncing between events or making them). Because I can always see them from the corner of my eye, it appears as if there are too many Silven and they are always around, but in reality, I am constantly seeing the same group orbiting around whatever provides roleplay, which is really what everyone does. What does this mean for the permission system? That for now, the concept of permissions being soft-capped to prevent over-population will be retired. What does it also mean? It may mean we'll approach people who have active permissions but barely use them (using their non perm character instead) to see if they will agree to retire their character. It may not be entirely obvious to players, but for those who have a permission, having that is still a privilege that is all too easily forgotten. It's kind of like holding a trophy. If you're not using it, you might as well donate the trophy to someone else so they can uphold it and have fun with it.
Ultimately, at the end of the review, we conclude that we think the move from Trustee to Special Perm review was a successful one, though one that still requires some work. We need to be more engaging to the people who got their permission, but are squandering it with inactivity or base tavern rp. Ultimately, every Permission holder has the consent of the staff and tacit consent of the community to be more special, and we think that this aspect of the permission should definitely be more respected. There is also more work for us to do in terms of examining why some of the promises were not met, what we can do about them, or whether we can encourage the players to pass the proverbial marathon stick to someone else to see if they can drive a narrative for others, or improve roleplay for those around them. We are still satisfied with the permission system in review, and we hope that everyone else is also, and for those who have been stuck in rejection limbo, we're working on better ways of addressing rejection citation to give personalized and private feedback, while also hurrying up the parlor Magic that has admittedly been delayed far too long.
Basically, under the Trustee system, you needed to be some kind of famous roleplayer or at least a person with an impact on the community to get a special perm. This was difficult for timid people, but also for people who had just freshly arrived in the community or switched from another server to ours. To remedy this, the reasoning or permission request was added so that players could pitch their concept to circumvent all of these problems. We are still satisfied with this system, but it was obviously necessary to also make some hindsight check-ups to ensure we were all still on-target with what we promised. After all, the players who wrote a pitch made a specific promise to Lore Staff to uphold some kind of roleplay. They set out to, for example, drive a narrative to expand mage rights, or to seek active conflict with the guard. These promises are important, because they underlined the reason why the staff chose to choose one person over the other in terms of receiving a permission. It incurred a sort of society debt in terms of a person promising to do something with that perm that was granted to them, and not someone else. It was a promise, and a permission granted in faith.
Yesterday, some of us sat down to a really quick rough review of what players had promised, and what was delivered. Some promises were very straight forward, like the fore mentioned "More rights for Mages" or "Seeking conflict with the Guard". These are, as such, really easy to measure, because these kind of activities tend to leave strides in the community when they are performed. The lack of these activities, is often easy to pick up, because a story simply hasn't been addressed. We compiled a list of people who we think are "On Mark" meaning that they have committed to what they promised and in some cases more, "Sort-of-Mark" which are people who promised something, didn't deliver, but found something else of equal value, and finally "No Mark", meaning people who didn't at all try, or could not deliver on what they promised.
Before we discuss this listing however, it's extremely important to understand a few things: The only permissions that were reviewed, were Silven and Mage. This is because these two permissions are really high-profile, and because there had been calls in the community of over saturation, leading to an investigation. Backstory, Special Item (which hasn't been released yet), Fallen Nobility etc. were not reviewed because they didn't have a specific promise clause attached to them. Furthermore, people who have yet to receive their special permission (such as Magic in limbo) were not reviewed, because it would be unfair to check someone who is unable to even play out a specific role whether they have committed to it at all. Most importantly of all, this review is not a judgement call. It's a superficial evaluation that will in no way cause any person to lose their permissions. If anything, we now have a clearer list of people who we want to personally approach, to see what kind of obstacles they have experienced, and how we can help them commit more energy to the things they promised, or perhaps ask them to step aside so someone else who wanted the same permission but was not given it, can give a go at it in their stead. This is ultimately about helping people move forward, not about punishing them for not committing. Keep in mind, there may be a few errors in the listing below. We are not omniscient, and some clerical errors were also made compiling the full list of permission holders (since some are inherited left overs from the Trustee System that weren't recorded)
The current list of people who are On Mark, completed or continue to fulfill their promise:
Finlaggan, Icaruscien, Mochalattes, Timisc, AtticCat, QueenofKarma, Bellarmina, Katiesc, Lumiess, Shipit, WaterDruppel, MantaRey, Tracenator, Raeris, SupremeCripple, MrsCripple
Apath, Epsilyon
The current list of people who could not be reviewed due to lack of perm, or dropped permission:
Timisc (Fallen Nobility only), Resirolas, TheyCalledMeKiko, Halsi, Walnoodle, Mooffins (Broken PC), Laejarna, Arcanus01134, GoldWolfGaming, Eccetra, prem_, Optimalfriskies, CRASHIR, OasisRP1, ETrees, Goaterguist, JokerLupus, Moondrop_, Erzly, Eimyrja
The current list of people who did not commit to their promise or otherwise:
Nesstro, brooke_stinks, BattleBrawn, Hierophant_, HodlinG, Narrju, Ailethi, Heaven_of_Ash, witchings, TheSilverSpectre, Sozzer, Catannine, Rochelle_
Again, it is important to stress: This was not an assessment of "Has this person become famous" or "did this person roleplay with staff", it was purely an assessment based on what the players promised on the Permission Application, and us polling other staff/players whether they had made any steps forward to achieving the promises set out in the applications. Again to re-iterate: this does not lead to any removals of Permissions. None of these people abused their permissions or played them out badly, they just didn't do what they promised when we approved their application. That is cause for us to approach them to ask what obstacles they have experienced, and what we could do to set them on the right path of what they indicated they wanted to do. There is a very small however attached to this. We have noticed some permission holders who haven't been online for several weeks. Originally we wanted to create some sort of fall-back where players would retain permissions indefinitely, but it seems a bit unfair to cap the Silven at the current permission check when at least several of them aren't even playing on the server anymore. That detracts from the experience of players who are currently playing. Instead, we'll likely invent a system where we soft-retract permissions from people who quit/go on a long hiatus, and allow them to quickly poke us for a re-in statement request when they come back, meaning they skip the waiting line, but also have to commit to what they promised last time. So what does all of this mean?
It means at current, the permission system has about a 50% success rate of promise to commitment. That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. Another value of the permission system is obviously how much easier it is to acquire permissions, but it should also be noted that there is also some data to be found in the approval vs. rejection rate. Currently we have 40 approved Permissions, 11 Permission approved with a stipulation (additional QA by staff), 4 Permissions that are Delayed (neither approved nor Rejected) and 80 Permissions Rejected. It should also be noted that of those 80 Rejections, some are re-applications, and many of them are duplicate applications (for example 1 player asking for 4 different permissions). The actual number of approval to rejections as such likely hovers to around 45% Approval, 55% Rejection. This is a staggering improvement over the rough 85% rejection that the Trustee System held, but obviously, it could be argued that it's not quite enough yet. Ideally, the approval and rejection rate should be 60% Approval and 40% Rejection. These numbers don't immediately mean anything yet, after all, not all rejections are done so for the same reason. Some were rejected because the player broke server rules, some were rejected purely because the permission that was being asked for had already reached a maximum, or the permission request was a faulty one. In many cases, the reviews purely came down to "What has this player promised" "How likely are they to succeed" "What benefit is that promise to the other players" and most importantly of all "Can this player achieve their promise without the permission they asked for", because either Silven or Magic have plenty of likewise alternatives in lore that are just as effective crutches for roleplay options.
Finally, there is the case of "There are to many Silven!". So turns out, there actually aren't. There are currently 32 approved Silven permissions of which the data is as followed: 17 active, 6 barely active, 7 inactive, 1 quit the server/died. So really, only about half the Silven can actually be seen on a daily basis. We suspect that, given the fact that they stand out, engage in a lot of conflict (people seek them out all the time) that they appear more prevalent than they actually are. In fact, in terms of online hours, some of the Silven Roleplayers have the highest activity markers on the server, spending many many hours online. This is why Silven appear more prevalent than they actually are. for example, in my own personal case, every event and activity I go to, I see Mae Draylas and her crew, but really, what is happening is that this crew moves around organically to follow where the roleplay goes (which is what I also do, bouncing between events or making them). Because I can always see them from the corner of my eye, it appears as if there are too many Silven and they are always around, but in reality, I am constantly seeing the same group orbiting around whatever provides roleplay, which is really what everyone does. What does this mean for the permission system? That for now, the concept of permissions being soft-capped to prevent over-population will be retired. What does it also mean? It may mean we'll approach people who have active permissions but barely use them (using their non perm character instead) to see if they will agree to retire their character. It may not be entirely obvious to players, but for those who have a permission, having that is still a privilege that is all too easily forgotten. It's kind of like holding a trophy. If you're not using it, you might as well donate the trophy to someone else so they can uphold it and have fun with it.
Ultimately, at the end of the review, we conclude that we think the move from Trustee to Special Perm review was a successful one, though one that still requires some work. We need to be more engaging to the people who got their permission, but are squandering it with inactivity or base tavern rp. Ultimately, every Permission holder has the consent of the staff and tacit consent of the community to be more special, and we think that this aspect of the permission should definitely be more respected. There is also more work for us to do in terms of examining why some of the promises were not met, what we can do about them, or whether we can encourage the players to pass the proverbial marathon stick to someone else to see if they can drive a narrative for others, or improve roleplay for those around them. We are still satisfied with the permission system in review, and we hope that everyone else is also, and for those who have been stuck in rejection limbo, we're working on better ways of addressing rejection citation to give personalized and private feedback, while also hurrying up the parlor Magic that has admittedly been delayed far too long.
Last edited:
