Member Questions

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.