Credibility as a Goal for Star Vault

Credibility as a Goal for Star Vault
from 2011 and the Mortal Online Forums, as posted by Najwalaylah

Proposed Goal for Star Vault:
Re-establish some credibility.

    Don't take the proposal as a comment about your integrity. That will lead to resistance to the idea, which won't be useful.

    Learn to regard your integrity and your image as separate entities, because even the most scrupulous care for the first doesn't automatically address issues with the latter. If possible, one must be good and get good; but, that's not enough. One must be seen (if possible, and by reasonable people) as good.


First Major Roadblock:

The (for lack of a better word) "Anonymity" of GMs, Councillors, and Moderators.

    (This is actually a kind of Animal House-esque "Double Secret Anonymity", since it layers one nickname on top of another for most or all of those affected. That simile is chosen on purpose, as the idea is working out to be no less laughable than Dean Wormer's Double Secret Probation.)


This practice currently

    serves little purpose-- except to be laughed at and trolled. It's not working as intended.
    is counter-productive
    (and)
    should come to an end. If there ever was a time for it, that time has passed.


Counterproductive how?

    A system is in place whereby only those who are familiar with the game and subscribed to it can fill the GM & Councillor positions. Forum Moderators (who, along with Stratics personnel, patrol the official IRCs) are subject to this as well.

    This means that everyone's a player. Not a bad thing, on its own.

    Nearly everyone who plays is or has been affiliated with a guild or guilds. Practically inevitable. Since you cannot change that, it's best to deal with it up front.

    At this point, either everyone knows who these people are or everyone thinks they know, with exceptions so much in the minority as to have no effect on community morale.

    Some of the assumptions are wrong, and funny-- laughable-- but still destructive of morale when people really believe that Whoever Is Who belongs to That Bunch That Has It In For Us, and will abuse his powers. The Double Secret Anonymity just increases the opportunity that disgruntled and plain sociopathic players have for trolling the rest of the community, asserting that this abuse is constant-- which it is not.

    On the other hand, though not constant, there has been abuse. Whenever people have powers, some fraction of them abuse that power. There is no counter to this but supervision and as much transparency as possible. Let GMs and Councillors and Mods handle just one reputation, not two.

    Sometimes, only sometimes, Whoever It Is does belong to That Bunch That Has It In For Us. This has happened. The facts to me are not in doubt; my witness reports that one GM-type told him that another (possibly a councillor) had messed with my witness's character's basic speed-- for a joke of sorts. This was corrected. Even so, it happened. It could still happen. Stuff like that happens. Names that don't correspond to the individual as he is otherwise known in the community don't help it not to happen.

    Names that correspond to the individual as he is otherwise known in the community are not (in my opinion), as they've mysteriously come to be regarded, a disaster. While almost no one likes to be moderated, moderators have worked before under the nicknames with which they made their reputations as players, and there was no disaster. They were sometimes groused at for doing their jobs, for favouritism, for all the alleged faults for which moderators, et cetera are complained about now, but those accusations could be judged and dealt with just fine.

        My first example: @Necromantic. Was he more or less honest in his distaste for nearly everyone, equally? I think more so. And that he was using the only nick by which he was known did not negatively affect that. He was either fair or he wasn't. At least there was no possibility of it looking like he was trying to hide.

        Second: It would not hurt Talwin's credibility a bit to be known as... whoever he was in that first persona.

        Third: If Black Opal is who he is rumoured to be, or if he's not, either way he has nothing to lose by being identified as he originally was.
    More examples could be given. Their credibility is Star Vault's credibility, for to the majority of players they are the face of Star Vault.


Can you afford to change the system? Does that look 'weak', somehow?

    Of all the things that Star Vault is most often accused of, true or not, right now, the main one is inflexibility and unresponsiveness. The overall effect could only strengthen your image.

    My best advice to you is that you cannot afford not to change this, and that changing it would be cheap in the long run and also easier than some might suspect. Improved credibility will never be such a bargain again.

    Take a deep breath, do it, change the nicknames and openly identify "yourselves", and it's done. It will only hurt for a minute, if at all.

    There's no need to even apologise, if you consider that a sign of weakness or just a waste of words. The simplest statement might be "That was silly. All right. 'Game' of anonymity over."