Member Questions

@Osiris. The problem is, when you have a team that doesn't gel on how management should be handled, things go south very quickly.  When different staff have different expectations, resentment builds, and suddenly the admin space is awful.  It isn't even necessarily anyone's fault, but it's happened many times in iterations on wolf, and only policy changes we've tuned over the years have made it so we can actually run effectively and enjoyably now.  This includes our "hands off" approach.

this means "training" staff isnt the important part.  This isn't a job, it is a hobby, and we don't want to step down.  We shouldn't be forced into a position where we do.  Wolf is a site for members to enjoy until they can't, and then they should find one they can.  It's harsh but it is 100% the truth and I will stand by it.

if you ever, at any point, find yourself not enjoying this site, take a step back.  Take a breather, re-evaluate, and consider why.  If it isn't something you can change, then perhaps this isn't the site for you.

We want members to come to us when they have a problem, and we do change policies or address concerns when we can.  But sometimes we don't feel comfortable doing so.  This is our right, just as it is your right to bring these things to us.

Typically we don't make a decision beforehand if we post a discussion, but I admit this is fair.  We can do a better job, in the future, of stating when a decision has been made and announcing it.  A few of the previous threads were unfortunate in that a decision was made while the discussion was happening - and if we had talked about it as a team, we may not have had a discussion in the first place.  We can be better about this! And it's something I'm going to def walk away from this with.

Hey, everyone. I'm not going to pretend to be 100% up to speed on everything being discussed in this thread, but there are a few things I want to make very clear.

If you haven't read it in a while or since you've joined, please refresh yourself on The Spirit of WOLF. For a tl;dr — yes, ultimately the community managers have the final say in what rules and policies are implemented in the game. This is not a democracy. We strive to find a balance between a wide range of playstyles and member desires and what overhead we are willing to take on as community managers; low overhead options are, generally, what will be implemented. But we do genuinely care about feedback from the membership, and we use discussions like these to guide our decisions. An idea proposed by the membership will almost never be implemented verbatim, as once again, the community management team is ultimately accountable for the work involved with enforcing and/or monitoring policies.

In regards to commentary about staff doing whatever we want because we pay for the site — I am the only person that pays for the hosting and domain of WOLF. I don't care about and don't want donations, for the simple reason that this game should be free to everyone that wants to participate. The only decision ever made directly as a result of my funding WOLF was the change in ratings, which was much more due to potential legal repercussions as a result of me paying for the things that allow WOLF to run.

To be honest, if this is how threads continue to go when membership is asked for their perspectives and ideas, we're less likely to have these discussions in the future. Being courteous is our #1 rule, and many of you disregard this rule when it comes to interacting with the community managers. We often let it slide because we want to hear you even when you're frustrated, but it is unacceptable.

We have a large base of members, many more than have spoken up in this thread, and we do our best to keep everyone in mind when making decisions — not just the most vocal or most active, but everyone. You, individually, may not agree with every decision. That's okay, too. That's life. We do expect everyone that participates here to behave as mature adults. If you feel a decision is not something you can abide by, or if you fundamentally disagree with the way the community is managed, it's your prerogative to leave. WOLF will stay standing, even if it's just two people writing together.

If you have any concerns about anything I've mentioned here, please message me on Discord (Melee#0666).

and that's absolutely fair, but again, makes it seem like wolf is just for you guys and that is it. for this reason, expect me to purge out all my characters in the near future as I close them out throughout the next few months. i will not stay on a site that is run by staff solely for their own pleasure.

That is 100% your decision and while I'm sad to see you go, I'm not going to argue.  We run wolf for ourselves and likeminded writers - this means we cater to those who want similar hands off collaboration and are okay with the occasional policy shift when we note things that aren't working or need tweaked.

So, in a way, yes - we run wolf for ourselves.  We don't give ourselves allowances to the rules - we go by the same breeding guidelines, pack creation guidelines, and guidebook as members.  Members are as welcome to nudge us as we are them, and we encourage it.  But if we didn't enjoy the site, we wouldn't be here, and there's only so far we can shift that before it's no longer ours.

and that's absolutely fair, but again, makes it seem like wolf is just for you guys and that is it. for this reason, expect me to purge out all my characters in the near future as I close them out throughout the next few months. i will not stay on a site that is run by staff solely for their own pleasure.

This is your perception and you are entitled to it. However, discussions like this one are not pleasureable for any member of staff and never have been; yet we continue to have them, because as ugly as they can get, we do gain a lot of valuable ideas and insight that aids us in determining what policies to implement and how.

If you're frustrated enough to leave, it's probably best that you do so. We do our best to make WOLF as inclusive as possible and flexible to a wide variety of player preferences, but it is impossible to make a game that's perfect for every single person that comes across it. If it's not for you, that's okay and your decision.

That being said, I want to tack on a general statement that anyone who decides they need to leave is always welcome to return, regardless of the terms they left on (except, of course, in instances of a permanent ban).

At the risk of repeating myself I would love it if the staff could review the language for the WF metagaming rule and consider either removal or new language. ;)

I generally don't get involved in these discussions for two reasons:

1. I usually don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so I feel like I should leave the discussion up to the people who do care;
2. Even when I do have a strong opinion, I don't care enough to risk attracting vitriol from one opposing side or another. It's better for my mental health to just roll with whatever

But! I'll bite this time and share my opinion, since it was pointed out that there is in fact a part of the community that generally stays silent and I'm for sure in that group. And also I just feel weirdly compelled to help this get back on track.

Regarding the discussion this thread actually started with, I think it would make sense if trespassing rules on pack lands were enforced for Wild Fauna the same as they are for wolves. Unless the WF is known by the pack to be welcome in the territory at any time, they have to stay out. It might be more realistic for WF to freely wander into a wolf's territory, but for the sake of avoiding any instances of meta-gaming, just don't allow it. And if it happens, then have the WF expect possible repercussions. Honestly, I would so love to see a pack come down on a sparrow the way they converge on other wolves lol.

And for the record, I don't like Wild Fauna. The NPC WF my characters interact with don't speak "wolf" and can't communicate, so it's always just plain awkward for me when RPing with an actual character-played Wild Fauna and for whatever reason, this is the one bird on the site my wolf does understand. I would honestly be pretty annoyed if I ended up in a war plot (actually, I could end that sentence there--I hate war plots) where another pack came at me with an army of bears, unlikely as that may be to actually happen in game. That being said, I know people do enjoy playing them and that's their prerogative and it doesn't bother me enough that I would want to take that away from anyone, except for maybe if the bear army thing happened. So, if WF is going to be played on the site, this is how I see a compromise working that would allow player freedom while incorporating some safeguards to restrict the more problematic meta-gaming scenarios.

Bye!

I love playing Wild Fauna and don't find any issues with their rules / restrictions. Communication in any plot is key; issues re: metagaming can be spotted, reported, and fixed. Plots swinging wildly based on WF involvement doesn't bug me personally (if that's been discussed with participants) as I love a good wrench. Thats.. my take on all that was discussed.

That and... nobody is forcing anyone to be here, so if you're unhappy take a step back, find a new place to participate in your hobby that is fun, or maybe try building something new! World bulding is hella fun.

No decision has been made by the staff on that point, yet, Zina. It will probably be a few days of internal staff discussions before any changes are made (if at all), and we'll let the membership know either way.

I've caught up on the original issue, and staff participation in this thread has been mainly to collect more information to help us in that discussion. We also tend to have varying viewpoints internally so it takes some time for us to reach a consensus. :)

In the meantime, I'd ask the membership to please continue to respectfully share your thoughts and ideas, and factors you'd like us to consider that may not be obvious. The reason we bring up the hypotheticals is that we don't want to introduce future issues by not thinking through at least some unintended consequences of introducing or changing a policy.

We appreciate your patience!

Why would I report anything when any time I ever did before, it goes completely ignored or I am told its out of your hands? Or the "hypotheticals" I mentioned earlier, staff in this thread tell me it's not reportable despite it being metagaming so why bother? This is my point. It's exhausting, it feels more like I'm just annoying staff as opposed to actually trying to help you guys out by pointing out troublesome players or anyone who may be abusing the system for their own personal gain. So no, due to me not feeling like an actual part of the community here and more or less just a cog in the machine for "main players" enjoyment, I have wholly given up and just look forward to closing off my plots with certain members so I can leave entirely. 

Essentially the quote above "but while we are member-driven, this is a site run by staff" essentially comes off as "it's our site, we will do what we want in the end". Which is the case so far from our perspective and we are currently trying to tell you guys how we feel about all these tread conversations. We are bombarded with hypotheticals as opposed to maybe being heard on an issue and forced to defend our own concerns publicly as opposed to feeling pleased that maybe we contributed even if it's just a note in the staff board. These discussions become arguments as opposed to just stating our opinions. It's absolutely frustrating. 

As for the breeding season, again, the majority wanted the breeding season to be abolished - and again, this is one reason why we don't feel like we are being heard since it was just a "compromise" of it being extended as what staff wanted originally anyway. We know that staff often already made up their minds before bringing it up to the public.. It's quite obvious since all staff at every instance just defend one another as opposed to having a discussion like everyone else, its obvious staff have already spoken about it and have come to their own conclusion and decision and just try to convince us it's for the better. I am just repeating myself at this point.

I admit I really don't follow this view point. Why wouldn't you want to report a rule break? If you don't report it because you don't trust a member of the CM team will handle it appropriately, how does that help facilitate better game play? It just feeds into the issue, where players expect CMs to be all-encompassing in their observance of every aspect of the game play.. and that is frankly an unfair expectation to put on anyone's shoulders. We cannot read minds. If you don't tell us there is a problem, how do you expect us to know there is a problem?

Currently the CM team is fielding a lot of complaints and accusations in this thread - some of which I feel, as a human being, are very unfair. Including the accusation that the CM team is self-serving in their interests. If that was the case and we did what *I* wanted, PPCs wouldn't exist, WF wouldn't exist, we wouldn't have non-native wolf species, and no one would be allowed unrealistic designs. But that's not the WOLF the majority of the players (or even the CM team) wants.

The decision regarding MERs & breeding season was not predetermined prior to the poll. We put a discussion up to inform our decision. It's literally written there in the first post by me. The attending ACMs at the time can attest there was no decision made before the poll was posted.

Again, I don't have a single report from you. I looked at our reports all the way back to 2016. I admit I am really not following that accusation that the CM team doesn't care/doesn't do anything about reports. No one on the CM team can help you if you don't speak up and tell us directly what the problem is.

I urge everyone who has chimed in with some grievance or complaint towards the CM team to strongly consider volunteering for the ACM rolls. This is exactly what the ACM role is set up for. You will see, as an ACM, how many of these issues are discussed ad nauseum in the chat, with lots of back and forth in attempts to find an appropriate compromise that meets player expectations without sacrificing enjoyment for all -- including the CMs, who are players too.

I also want to take a moment to reiterate that members need to approach us if they are unhappy with something, versus posting vague accusations in threads and leaving us to piece together what they're referencing. We can't handle a problem if we have no idea that problem exists. Yes, we are aware members are feeling unheard. Have any of these members taken it upon themselves to message us or open a dialogue privately with the CM team to gain insight on how decisions are made? Or offer solutions on how a compromise can be made?

With a site was large as this, compromise is the key. Not everyone is going to get their way all the time. That is not the same as being unheard.

i like everything as it is, i literally played an ant & it was fun. personally when it comes to interaction with WF, I rank it in order of realism. makes sense for wolves & birds to get along & cooperate, as they do IRL. makes less sense for wolves to get along with pumas, though they do, or bears to heed the word of a wolf -- sharing the same hunting areas does not an ally make. so I would take that into account as well if I was doing a plot that involved WF. 

the fun part for me has always been the semi realism. wolves and WF talking. interacting. allying, like wolves & WF have done here. familiars. wards. spies (as in ravens hinting toward danger). protectors. i like it tons.

it seems like there's a real schism between players and players/cms. everyone who is a CM also participates or has participated in the game and discussion as a player. it's never been just players and staff afaik. it's always been that administration comes from inside the playerbase.

if we get rid of the rule it should be a universal thing. there shouldn't be a reason for the admins to revisit the WF topic if we're going to lift all restrictions on it. i can see it putting them into this place where they have to pick and choose between different WF plots and that wouldn't be cool for anyone involved. 

my gameplay is not going to be affected if things change or don't change. still gonna participate & like it. that colors my responses in community discussions, and makes them rare. but it seems like these talks do get strained & it sucks a bit bc i feel that all of u are very wonderful

I love playing Wild Fauna and don't find any issues with their rules / restrictions. Communication in any plot is key; issues re: metagaming can be spotted, reported, and fixed. Plots swinging wildly based on WF involvement doesn't bug me personally (if that's been discussed with participants) as I love a good wrench. Thats.. my take on all that was discussed.

That and... nobody is forcing anyone to be here, so if you're unhappy take a step back, find a new place to participate in your hobby that is fun, or maybe try building something new! World bulding is hella fun.

this basically sums up how I feel ... communication solves so much.... if anybody wanted to do big stuff w WF they can easily just ask people involved, i think a lot of players love fun things as long as there isn't metagaming and, if the participants don't like it, there can either be compromise or the WF player can just respect that boundary and not do the big thing

 im also seconding ebony that ur all great

I have not a apparently a lot to say re: CM vs members. I've been on both sides of the equation (previously a CM, now a regular old member that's never even done ACM) and can say that both sides are problematic, and both sides need to be a little more compassionate with one another.

Members want to see the game shaped to what they think is enjoyable, but what members don't realize is that features that make a game enjoyable for them are often not enjoyable to manage. The really old EXP system was pretty enjoyable as a member. Absolutely not enjoyable for CMs to spend hours checking threads to award it. Unlimited breeding season is enjoyable for members but means CMs are forever having to monitor it without any kind of break, which makes it hard to enjoy as a player. While I firmly believe that agreeing to be a CM means you signed up for and accepted extra responsibilities and tasks and some of that stuff comes with the title, those sorts of things can make playing the game a chore, and this is their hobby, too. It's something I did not understand when I was a CM (duty first was my previous MO) but realized in hindsight that that led to a lot of frustration and discontent on my part, and CMs are not villains for trying to maintain a balance so they don't burn out the way I did. In an ideal world, a game could be completely member-driven, but that's just not how things actually work. If that forum is anything like it was when I served, there's an absolute TONNE of discussion behind the scenes on every suggestion made by members, CMs almost never unanimously agree on any decision, and almost every CM has to compromise on their personal wants when it comes to decision making. Unfortunately, members do not know the half of what goes into it. If CMs always have to compromise even on what they think is best for the game (e.g. the complete removal of PPCs), then members do, too.

On the flip side, there is a little bit of a tendency for CM language to come off as dismissive, and sometimes from a member standpoint it can feel like discussions with members are a nuisance to you guys. I don't think the hands off approach really helps this perception, or at least not the way it is handled. It can absolutely feel discouraging to work up the courage to send a report to the CMs and get "sorry, we don't mediate!" in response. It can, and probably should, be handled with more mutual respect and care than it currently is. Likewise, the age old "this isn't a democracy" quote, while technically true, has never gone over well when used. I bring it up only because it's been used here, too, not to police tone or anything. But it's almost always read as antagonistic and doesn't add much to any discussion, and while I absolutely think people should be able to speak frankly and not have to sugar-coat everything they say without being taken negatively, I also think there are better ways to convey our thoughts, as both CMs and members, without diminishing the other side. There is room for improvement on interacting with members in these sorts of discussions. I think it's possible for CMs to remain hands off with mediation while also having more open and understanding and inclusive dialogue with members -- instead of a generic response about CM mediation, maybe a casual chat with the member about how they might approach their issue themselves without needing CM involvement? I think a shift toward more open and honest communication with members wouldn't hurt, because the current approach does make members feel unheard and ignored, and all of this perpetuates this divide between CMs and members.

That's all I have to say about that.

I wanted to answer some of Lauren's questions to get this back to the original question:

Has the current ruling caused issues to anyone who currently plays or played a WF?

I've never played one because I frankly think it's dumb that some animals can talk to wolves and others can't, buuut I also always thought the rule was for NPCs. I really don't think it's necessary to restrict player controlled WF in this way. I don't think many, if any, issues will arise.

Would everyone be okay with Ursus rolling up on EH with three war-bears?

If the bears are controlled by players on their own WF accounts and this relationship makes sense, i.e. was developed via threads, then sure. Sucks for the other pack, but is it any more unfair than going to war with a pack who brings 3 other allied packs with them? This has also happened. I would argue that it's just as unfair, if not moreso.

Would everyone be okay with Hydra having scout eagles that overhear when a pack forms, where it forms, and who leads it because the eagle put a cameo in an important thread?

If the eagle was invited in, I guess so. I don't think WF cameos should be treated as legitimate thread participation, just like a wolf cameoing to get vital info would feel unfair, so I personally feel the eagle should be actually involved, not just a cameo. If it happened to me and I disagreed with it, I would either have my wolf stop talking when it showed up or message the eagle's player to discuss it. Communication. Bearing in mind an eagle can't just float in and somehow know the name of a pack nor the name of the leaders. That's metagaming.

Would people be okay with WF interjecting in plot-centric threads and derailing it? Pledged and forming pack players, how do you feel about this?

If it's AW, it's fair game. Wolf characters can and do also do this. I think people are generally courteous enough to ask first when it's plot-centric. I don't imagine this would be different for Wild Fauna characters.

Would you (specific) be okay with your character's pack losing in a war-plot because a WF gave your opponents an advantage?

As long as the Wild Fauna are player controlled characters, and it wasn't an obvious case where WF enters game the second a war starts and teams up with the pack in one thread (which would then be something the leaders of the involved packs should discuss the validity of), then sure. I don't see why WF shouldn't be able to participate when they're written characters, same as wolves. A bear could, at best, only realistically 1v2 a couple of wolves. It wouldn't be that significant of an advantage, and this would also rarely happen. In my experience, most people play apex predators to antagonize wolves, not aid them, and players should be encouraged to consider how realistic such a relationship is as well. A bear wouldn't risk its neck for a wolf pack without a pretty compelling reason.

Thank you @Wylla. That was all helpful and apologies for also contributing to it getting off track.

I've mentioned up thread but I can go either way with the rules: I'll enjoy WF if they stay the same, and I'll enjoy them if they don't. Just trying to get some more member input, since it's not just my perspective that matters!

That and... nobody is forcing anyone to be here, so if you're unhappy take a step back, find a new place to participate in your hobby that is fun, or maybe try building something new! World bulding is hella fun.

Thank you, I absolutely will.

Posting here because I have a question I'd like clarification on and I didn't want it to get lost in the discord.






So... Where do we stand? As I'm understanding everything said in this thread, WF cannot be used to help in wars at all, unless that policy was changed.

Again, I am not attacking anyone, I would really just like to understand.

CM Note: The CMs are still discussing this thread among the team. Nothing has been finalized or changed.  

The current rule protects members from having other members use WF as unfair leverage in conflict-contingent situations such as war plots.

The suggested revision will remove that protection from members. Members will have to collaborate among themselves rather than look to the admins for protection on unfavorable outcomes for their characters. People will use WF in ways others feel is unfair and it will be up to players to navigate that.  

Player Note: I definitely was not being facetious. Astara and Merrick would be all over following a warbear-god into battle and I would love to write that. Maybe 2021 will be the year of the bears.

To elaborate - currently, CMs do not proactively police wild fauna use.  We assume, if we get no complaints, that the way they are being played is fine and for the enjoyment of all involved! We can't see plots made or agreements had, and that's the easiest way to go about it.

The guidebook language is there specifically so that members know, currently, they have the right to speak up if they feel a WF is being used unfairly.  Because we have that rule, it's understood that WF players should ensure they are cognescent that the imbalance exists and might shift things to "unfun" a bit more rapidly than it would with a wolf.

IE - talk to each other.  If no one has a problem, it's allowed.  If we remove the rule, it's allowed regardless of problems, and we'll only really step in when it's the same issues we see with wolf characters (metagaming, power play, etc).  We won't address balance issues at all, that will be up to players to sort out.