Perpetual Responsibilities

[Amanda Spikol]

Splitting this off to a separate thread...

Do we *really* need perpetual responsibilities? This is a gaming club,
not a religion. The only time I've ever seen them cited was as a
weapon and really, aren't we all adults? Do we really need to police
each other into our personal lives?

I'm told that OWBN has the maxim: "If it didn't happen at game, then
it didn't happen." Can't we shoot for something more in line with
that? We're trying to make ourselves attractive to new players and
let's be honest, younger players might balk at the idea of a constant
moral code.

Compare it to an MMO...if you cheat while playing WoW and Blizzard
catches you, you're banned, or have your account revoked, or whatever
it is they do. If you get into it on Twitter with someone you dislike,
it's got nothing to do with Blizzard nor do they care.

My 2 cents...and expecting some flames.

- Amanda S.
GWB2007029463


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Guy <istari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> b) It doesn't matter where you said something. If what you said
> violated your perpetual responsibilities as a member, it doesn't
> matter if you said it on a sanctioned list, at a game, on IRC, on
> social media or at your local Denny's. You're responsible for that
> statement.

[Jessi Sauter]

I'd rather split the difference. If it's outside game but involves
the court system or law enforcement, then I think the club should
simply reserve the right for Coordinators to act as they feel
necessary.

This gives us the option to turn people away if there's an active
restraining order between two members, or if someone is, say, arrested
for drug dealing (and the Coord is worried it's going to happen on
game site and cause a world of trouble) or convicted of assault (and
members are fearful it may happen at game), but gives them enough room
so that if the charges truly don't have anything to do with the club
and nobody is uncomfortable, then the club also has the right to
ignore them.

Jessi

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Games Without Borders - Membership Handbook Review" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gwb-mh-revie...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send an email to gwb-mh...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gwb-mh-review?hl=en-GB.
>
>

[christopher buser]

"The player of the Prince is a poopyhead" : Mean, but maybe not something that earns you a DA.

"The player of the Prince is a poopyhead and that's why I used marked cards when I ate his PC": Mean, stupid, and should be something that Officers can factor into determinations.

"The player of the Prince is a poopyhead and that's why I'm going to kick his ass in the parking lot after game" Mean, stupid, threatening, and demands Officer response.

Guy's right. If you say something, you should own the fallout. (I am very big on holding people accountable for the results of their actions or lack thereof myself, but I'm also a mean sonofabitch) Whether that fallout should include Officer response should be conditional based on the circumstance.

--
Buser

[Guy]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Amanda Spikol <amanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Splitting this off to a separate thread...
>
> Do we *really* need perpetual responsibilities? This is a gaming club,
> not a religion. The only time I've ever seen them cited was as a
> weapon and really, aren't we all adults? Do we really need to police
> each other into our personal lives?

Not per se. However, if you choose to make a promise on behalf of the
org that you have no business making (say, signing a contract for a
con when the BoD hasn't told you it was OK to do so) then yes, we have
an interest in it. If you disclose confidential information (say,
personally identifiable information about another member that you only
had access to due to your access to club resources) then YES, I think
the club should be able to give you the boot, and right quickly, even
if no one decides that the matter is important enough to take to
court.

> I'm told that OWBN has the maxim: "If it didn't happen at game, then
> it didn't happen." Can't we shoot for something more in line with
> that? We're trying to make ourselves attractive to new players and
> let's be honest, younger players might balk at the idea of a constant
> moral code.

So in other words, if Joe Schmoe hacks your e-mail, take all your
game-related e-mails, and sends them to 3rd parties, and those 3rd
parties use it to meta-game but Joe doesn't... the club shouldn't do
anything about Joe if he is a member?

Further, if someone engages in a pattern of harassment against a
member or officer of the club *due to issues surrounding their
participation the the club* then yes, I want the club to be able to
take corrective action.

Otherwise, the person who is doing the harassing just goes "neener,
neener" and makes sure that all their harassment is done outside the
club, and the person being harassed eventually quits volunteering, or
quits the club, because their life is being made hell over what is
supposed to be a fun hobby.

Guy Seggev
GWB199511-039

[Luke Hill]

Amanda,

Do we *really* need perpetual responsibilities? This is a gaming club, not a religion. The only time I've ever seen them cited was as a weapon and really, aren't we all adults? Do we really need to police each other into our personal lives?

Do we need to have a list of behaviors the club will always punish, irrespective of when someone performs them? No, honestly I don't think the club should care what you do when not at game or doing club business.

Do we need to say that what you do on club time always matters, no matter when you talk about it? Yes, I think that's relevant. However, I think that's better addressed in the framework of investigations and disciplinary actions than "perpetual responsibilities". Because honestly, if you cheat at life, or break the law on your own time, you've got bigger parties to answer to than your DC.

Luke

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Amanda Spikol <amanda...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Amanda Spikol]

I'm totally cool with the, "You say it, you own it!" mentality,
because it promotes the idea that we're adults who handle our disputes
like adults...I just think it's time to do away with the phrase
'perpetual responsibilities' and a lot of the baggage that went with
it.

I asked a coord once, in the purely hypothetical...there's a husband
and wife and they're both club members and one Wednesday night, they
get into an argument about dinner. The argument turns ugly as both
bring up issues from the past, including some game problems they've
had with each other, and then one of them says, "You're a ***** ***
***** and I hate you!" and the other is so shocked by their rage and
profanity, that they call up their coord and report their spouse for
harassment.

"What would the coord do?" I asked, and my coord told me that they
would begin the DA process, even though it did not happen on social
media or gamespace, but because they were both members and one had
violated perpetual responsibilities.

This is exactly the rules-legal silliness we no longer need.

- Amanda S.
GWB2007029463

[Luke Hill]

Amanda,

I just think it's time to do away with the phrase 'perpetual responsibilities' and a lot of the baggage that went with it.

I agree, whole-heartedly.

Luke

[Guy]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Amanda Spikol <amanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm totally cool with the, "You say it, you own it!" mentality,
> because it promotes the idea that we're adults who handle our disputes
> like adults...I just think it's time to do away with the phrase
> 'perpetual responsibilities' and a lot of the baggage that went with
> it.

I'm not married to the phrase "perpetual responsibilities". I do think
that what you do *with respect to the club* is the club's business no
matter where you do it.

> I asked a coord once, in the purely hypothetical...there's a husband
> and wife and they're both club members and one Wednesday night, they
> get into an argument about dinner. The argument turns ugly as both
> bring up issues from the past, including some game problems they've
> had with each other, and then one of them says, "You're a ***** ***
> ***** and I hate you!" and the other is so shocked by their rage and
> profanity, that they call up their coord and report their spouse for
> harassment.

This has what to do with the org?

>
> "What would the coord do?" I asked, and my coord told me that they
> would begin the DA process, even though it did not happen on social
> media or gamespace, but because they were both members and one had
> violated perpetual responsibilities.

I'm not sure what that coordinator was thinking... but they were dead
wrong. This has literally nothing to do with the club, except for the
fact that two members happen to be part of it.

> This is exactly the rules-legal silliness we no longer need.

Even in the old club, this was NEVER the way things were *supposed* to work.

Guy Seggev
GWB 199511-039

[Luke Hill]

Guy,

I'm not sure what that coordinator was thinking... but they were dead wrong. This has literally nothing to do with the club, except for the fact that two members happen to be part of it.

Well, in large part I think situations like this arise because guidelines are poorly written. When poorly made guidelines are read by people with a specific interest that does not match up with the original intent of the writing, weird things happen. So, you have to really think about how people are going to read what you write, and write to that purpose.

Which is a large part of why we are here, doing what we're doing, I like to think.

Luke

[Games Without Borders NC]

> I asked a coord once, in the purely hypothetical...there's a husband
> and wife and they're both club members and one Wednesday night, they
> get into an argument about dinner. The argument turns ugly as both
> bring up issues from the past, including some game problems they've
> had with each other, and then one of them says, "You're a ***** ***
> ***** and I hate you!" and the other is so shocked by their rage and
> profanity, that they call up their coord and report their spouse for
> harassment.
>
> "What would the coord do?" I asked, and my coord told me that they
> would begin the DA process, even though it did not happen on social
> media or gamespace, but because they were both members and one had
> violated perpetual responsibilities.

I think the most sensible answer is to tell the complaining member to
talk to their spouse and resolve their marital difficulties before
involving the club in those difficulties.

Cheers,
Liam

--
Liam T. Draper - UK2001061047 - NC Games Without Borders
IRC: Liam-OOC / Email: gir.coo...@gmail.com /
http://gameswithoutbordersltd.wordpress.com
"Whether you like it or whether you don't, it's the best thing going
today." - Ric Flair

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Well, in large part I think situations like this arise because guidelines
> are poorly written. When poorly made guidelines are read by people with a
> specific interest that does not match up with the original intent of the
> writing, weird things happen. So, you have to really think about how people
> are going to read what you write, and write to that purpose.

If I've learned anything from reading Cam Rules documents, clarity
over vagueness is best, no matter what the good intention vagueness is
supposed to address.

I can see that some things are left vague to give Coordinators
discretion and the ability to pigeonhole wrongdoing into something
they can action, which has its own drawbacks involving Coordinators
exercising that discretion to pigeonhole activities into being
wrongdoing.

[Kelley McMahan]

I love this response and to be honest some of that "poor written", in
my mind, is the poorly chosen use of the words "May and Should" I am a
former VST and I have personally seen these two words cause "Well the
handbook says should not must so I don't have to do "X" And YES it was
part of an appeal and part of a DA investigation. One of the items I
saw as part of this creation team was the requirement that mediation
and/or arbitration be attempted. I see this requirement as actually
going to cut down on D/A investigations in general and frivolous ones
in particular.

Kelley McMahan
GWB 2007060149

[Games Without Borders NC]

> I love this response and to be honest some of that "poor written", in
> my mind, is the poorly chosen use of the words "May and Should" I am a
> former VST and I have personally seen these two words cause "Well the
> handbook says should not must so I don't have to do "X" And YES it was
> part of an appeal and part of a DA investigation. One of the items I
> saw as part of this creation team was the requirement that mediation
> and/or arbitration be attempted. I see this requirement as actually
> going to cut down on D/A investigations in general and frivolous ones
> in particular.

That's the problem when you have non lawyers writing rules documents.
Language like that is lost on them. :P

[christopher buser]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Games Without Borders NC <gir.coo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love this response and to be honest some of that "poor written", in
> my mind, is the poorly chosen use of the words "May and Should" I am a
> former VST and I have personally seen these two words cause "Well the
> handbook says should not must so I don't have to do "X" And YES it was
> part of an appeal and part of a DA investigation. One of the items I
> saw as part of this creation team was the requirement that mediation
> and/or arbitration be attempted. I see this requirement as actually
> going to cut down on D/A investigations in general and frivolous ones
> in particular.

That's the problem when you have non lawyers writing rules documents.
Language like that is lost on them. :P

Actually, the language choice was on purpose: It allowed for future abuse on the part of some of the people responsible for the document.

That's something I would dearly like to see avoided this time around. 

--
Buser

[Luke Hill]

Chris,

It allowed for future abuse on the part of some of the people responsible for the document.

Yeah, I just don't have the energy or dedication for that kind of low-stakes plotting and conniving. Maybe at one time, maybe, but definitely not now. :P

Luke

--

[klmcmahan1969]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:18:22 PM UTC-5, Luke Hill wrote:

Chris,

It allowed for future abuse on the part of some of the people responsible for the document.

Yeah, I just don't have the energy or dedication for that kind of low-stakes plotting and conniving. Maybe at one time, maybe, but definitely not now. :P

Luke

 Luke; I do see your point, however, as a thoughtful person you may never cross this line. We can not simply assume that everyone will conduct themselves the same way. And this "lowest common denominator" is the reason this issue will have to be addressed in some "official" capacity.

For the record, I don't like that we have to do this either. I do think that trying to not be "the bad guy that hammers people" is akin to burying our head in the sand and I see that very sentiment as a big part of the problem in a club that many if not most of us were or are a part of. Again, just my 2 cents.

Kelley McMahan

GWB2007060149

[Luke Hill]

Kelley,

You read me wrong. I meant that I don't have the kind of energy to write rules abusable in a fashion that benefits me, that only reward me with the ability to make a teensy bit more unpleasant the lives of people I've never met or will only rarely meet, or to maybe make it easier for my PC or me personally to do morally questionable things in order to Win At LARP. It's much easier to write good rules, than it is to write the right kind of bad rules such that they both are abusable and aren't so obviously abusable that people (rightly) object to them. The idea of that kind of meta-awareness and intentional sabotage wearies me. :P

Now, my principal interest in writing rules is to achieve our purpose as simply and unobtrusively as possible, in order to impact the fun of others in as positively or as not-negatively a fashion as we can. That seems to be a bit different from the general purpose of the assembled group, but I can live with those differences since my purpose on the project is getting something written that everyone can live with, not something I personally consider ideal.

Luke

[Kelley McMahan]

> Now, my principal interest in writing rules is to achieve our purpose as
> simply and unobtrusively as possible, in order to impact the fun of others
> in as positively or as not-negatively a fashion as we can. That seems to be
> a bit different from the general purpose of the assembled group, but I can
> live with those differences since my purpose on the project is getting
> something written that everyone can live with, not something I personally
> consider ideal.
>
> Luke
>

This is the sort of attitude I was really hoping to see in GWB and the
lack of this attitude and the integrity to do what is right opposed to
what is easy is why I am here and not there.

>> Kelley McMahan
>> GWB2007060149