12-14-2014, 08:53 PM
Up until now I haven't said anything about this, and that may have seemed odd since it has a direct impact on me. I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I want to try and keep things simple here. To that end, I am not going to try and respond much to other posts in this thread, just share my thoughts about what's being implemented.
I disagree with these changes. I would have said so, had these changes been suggested and discussed before we were informed of them, but they were not. Like Sam, I got an email on Monday telling me about Errin's changes, including my removal from the position. This was a decision that was already made. I did not think my input was being invited when I got the email, and I do not think the discussion that has sprung up in this thread was invited, either -- but it is an necessary discussion for us to have. While I don't think that every single change on a site needs to be voted on, something like this should have been talked about with the entire player base, because it requires a buy-in from everyone who plays here. It affects everyone who plays here. It is also in direct contradiction to Errin's original Mission Statement for the site:
I don't think this is a good direction to take the site. It's not simply about changing the title or rotating Storytellers. It's not simply about whether something is a Pocket Game or not, and it's not simply about burnout or system activity, even though those are all things are worth talking about as a group. This is primarily about what the site's stated goals and tone have been, and what they may become. I might think differently if this had been a decision we all made together, but this was one person's decision. We play here in part because of what that Mission Statement says, and now it's fundamentally changing without our input. To put it simply: I don't think that's okay.
--
Regarding the imposition of term limits: I am not burnt out. It's clear that Sam was feeling it, but his experience is not my experience. Keeping up with character approvals and journals has not become a chore. I am still inspired to run the occasional storyline, I enjoy playing with and storytelling for the Werewolf game and enjoy hearing about what others are doing even more. Most importantly, I have never felt pressure to treat the Admin role as a second (and unpaid) job. I don't feel pressured to try and shoehorn activity into the system, in part because I know that people will play what they want to play, when they want to play it; you can't force interest. On every site I've played on and been an Admin on, different systems have different periods of activity and inactivity, and sometimes those periods seem long. It's not something that's made me nervous. In fact, I've felt that the vast majority of Werewolf players on Denver have been quite happy that they didn't have to run at a breakneck pace to try and keep up with the system.
To be very blunt: I am being removed from a position I enjoy and do well with three weeks' notice. The only reason I've been given is that it is somehow for my own good, and 'for the good of the site'. This is the reason I have not said anything about these changes until now: I'm angry. If I was informed of complaints or problems that the player base or other Admins had with me, I would address them as best I could. If I felt burnt out I would say something. If I needed a break, I would take one. But there have been no complaints, I am not burnt out, and I do not need a break. I'm just being removed, whether it's necessary or not, and whether I like it or not.
--
Regarding storylines: my first storyline for Denver WtA took 6 months. It was vast, system-wide, involved just about every character whose player was interested in being involved, and caused permanent changes to the system, which was the point. Afterward, I let vast system-wide storylines go fallow for a time to prevent Admin -- and just as importantly, player -- burnout. I was, as of the announcement of 'upcoming role changes', planning a new system-wide storyline. I believe that periods of more and less structure to the game is a more effective way of managing a system than rotating leadership out every 12 months and pushing for more system storylines.
In between that first storyline and now, there have been other storylines, some lasting just a scene or two, some lasting a few months. They've all been enjoyable. As far as I am aware, every storyline in my system has been finished, whether by me or by the player-ST who stepped up to the plate and contributed to the system. I do not understand how removing and replacing me will motivate more storylines, or more concise, clear-end-point storylines.
Regarding the current setting and NPCS: in her email to me and in the posts above, Errin says that systems and NPCs are not to be razed to the ground: the new 'Storyteller' will need to work with what is in place. I agree with that much; with any transition of system leadership, it's important to keep continuity of RP. People should be able to keep the characters they've established, and new STs should not have to build a setting from the ground up, and players should not have to learn a new setting (and new rules) on a regular basis.
However, also in her email to me but not in the posts above, Errin said that while the system could go as-is to my replacement, her recommendation was to start over with a clean slate. Her reasoning is that because the current Denver WtA setting is unique and includes some unsolved mysteries (DIA, the Pit beneath Cold Crescent, and so on), and because the majority of the cast is new characters, it would be more convenient to scrap what is already in place: either move the current Denver WtA game to a Pocket Game (run by me) or close it altogether.
Granted, Errin told me it is my choice how the transition is handled, but the truth is: my choice is to continue working as the Admin of Denver WtA. Same characters, same setting, same game, changing and evolving over time as characters come and go and as new storylines occur. That would be my choice, but that's not one of the options being offered.
--
A few final notes before I wrap this up:
Other than the title change from 'Admin' to 'Storyteller' and the creation of term limits, Errin mentions some other restrictions, but does not describe what they are. I think what those restrictions will be should be laid out so that new volunteers know what strictures they'll need to work within.
As has been brought up by Damon and Liz and Sam, it was pretty harsh to receive notice that my term limit was up less than a month before the fact. It came as a complete shock to me. In a way, it felt like being told that I was being fired, but that I would need to keep doing the job for another few weeks. I bring this up only to reiterate: this isn't okay.
I think it's pretty clear that I don't think these changes need to be made. Obviously Sam needs a break, or to step aside entirely, because he's admittedly burnt out. Obviously we need someone to work with Vampire or decide what to do with it. But what was wrong with the site that we need sweeping top-down changes? I think we were doing pretty well at our stated goals and having a good time.
I would like to continue running Denver WtA. I like this site, I like the players, I like the setting, and I like being on a site where Admins have creative/administrative control over their systems (and where I have never seen a system Admin abusing that power in the last year and a half). That has been working -- so why is it changing?
I disagree with these changes. I would have said so, had these changes been suggested and discussed before we were informed of them, but they were not. Like Sam, I got an email on Monday telling me about Errin's changes, including my removal from the position. This was a decision that was already made. I did not think my input was being invited when I got the email, and I do not think the discussion that has sprung up in this thread was invited, either -- but it is an necessary discussion for us to have. While I don't think that every single change on a site needs to be voted on, something like this should have been talked about with the entire player base, because it requires a buy-in from everyone who plays here. It affects everyone who plays here. It is also in direct contradiction to Errin's original Mission Statement for the site:
Quote:You may have noticed that no one on Denver is titled a Storyteller. This is because their roles are going to be so much more than that. Admins will set the tone and create the backdrop of the stories that the players will tell, facilitating and enriching those tales with the occasional storyline. They will also set the rules and the structures within their systems, making judgment calls and clarifying rules at their discretion.[source]
I feel I will best help out the system admins by setting up their areas, and then getting the hell out of their way. How creative can they be if there's someone standing over their shoulder saying, "No, you can't do that because I don't like it?" The fact that I created the site is a non-issue. My role as Site Admin is that of support.
I don't think this is a good direction to take the site. It's not simply about changing the title or rotating Storytellers. It's not simply about whether something is a Pocket Game or not, and it's not simply about burnout or system activity, even though those are all things are worth talking about as a group. This is primarily about what the site's stated goals and tone have been, and what they may become. I might think differently if this had been a decision we all made together, but this was one person's decision. We play here in part because of what that Mission Statement says, and now it's fundamentally changing without our input. To put it simply: I don't think that's okay.
--
Regarding the imposition of term limits: I am not burnt out. It's clear that Sam was feeling it, but his experience is not my experience. Keeping up with character approvals and journals has not become a chore. I am still inspired to run the occasional storyline, I enjoy playing with and storytelling for the Werewolf game and enjoy hearing about what others are doing even more. Most importantly, I have never felt pressure to treat the Admin role as a second (and unpaid) job. I don't feel pressured to try and shoehorn activity into the system, in part because I know that people will play what they want to play, when they want to play it; you can't force interest. On every site I've played on and been an Admin on, different systems have different periods of activity and inactivity, and sometimes those periods seem long. It's not something that's made me nervous. In fact, I've felt that the vast majority of Werewolf players on Denver have been quite happy that they didn't have to run at a breakneck pace to try and keep up with the system.
To be very blunt: I am being removed from a position I enjoy and do well with three weeks' notice. The only reason I've been given is that it is somehow for my own good, and 'for the good of the site'. This is the reason I have not said anything about these changes until now: I'm angry. If I was informed of complaints or problems that the player base or other Admins had with me, I would address them as best I could. If I felt burnt out I would say something. If I needed a break, I would take one. But there have been no complaints, I am not burnt out, and I do not need a break. I'm just being removed, whether it's necessary or not, and whether I like it or not.
--
Regarding storylines: my first storyline for Denver WtA took 6 months. It was vast, system-wide, involved just about every character whose player was interested in being involved, and caused permanent changes to the system, which was the point. Afterward, I let vast system-wide storylines go fallow for a time to prevent Admin -- and just as importantly, player -- burnout. I was, as of the announcement of 'upcoming role changes', planning a new system-wide storyline. I believe that periods of more and less structure to the game is a more effective way of managing a system than rotating leadership out every 12 months and pushing for more system storylines.
In between that first storyline and now, there have been other storylines, some lasting just a scene or two, some lasting a few months. They've all been enjoyable. As far as I am aware, every storyline in my system has been finished, whether by me or by the player-ST who stepped up to the plate and contributed to the system. I do not understand how removing and replacing me will motivate more storylines, or more concise, clear-end-point storylines.
Regarding the current setting and NPCS: in her email to me and in the posts above, Errin says that systems and NPCs are not to be razed to the ground: the new 'Storyteller' will need to work with what is in place. I agree with that much; with any transition of system leadership, it's important to keep continuity of RP. People should be able to keep the characters they've established, and new STs should not have to build a setting from the ground up, and players should not have to learn a new setting (and new rules) on a regular basis.
However, also in her email to me but not in the posts above, Errin said that while the system could go as-is to my replacement, her recommendation was to start over with a clean slate. Her reasoning is that because the current Denver WtA setting is unique and includes some unsolved mysteries (DIA, the Pit beneath Cold Crescent, and so on), and because the majority of the cast is new characters, it would be more convenient to scrap what is already in place: either move the current Denver WtA game to a Pocket Game (run by me) or close it altogether.
Granted, Errin told me it is my choice how the transition is handled, but the truth is: my choice is to continue working as the Admin of Denver WtA. Same characters, same setting, same game, changing and evolving over time as characters come and go and as new storylines occur. That would be my choice, but that's not one of the options being offered.
--
A few final notes before I wrap this up:
Other than the title change from 'Admin' to 'Storyteller' and the creation of term limits, Errin mentions some other restrictions, but does not describe what they are. I think what those restrictions will be should be laid out so that new volunteers know what strictures they'll need to work within.
As has been brought up by Damon and Liz and Sam, it was pretty harsh to receive notice that my term limit was up less than a month before the fact. It came as a complete shock to me. In a way, it felt like being told that I was being fired, but that I would need to keep doing the job for another few weeks. I bring this up only to reiterate: this isn't okay.
I think it's pretty clear that I don't think these changes need to be made. Obviously Sam needs a break, or to step aside entirely, because he's admittedly burnt out. Obviously we need someone to work with Vampire or decide what to do with it. But what was wrong with the site that we need sweeping top-down changes? I think we were doing pretty well at our stated goals and having a good time.
I would like to continue running Denver WtA. I like this site, I like the players, I like the setting, and I like being on a site where Admins have creative/administrative control over their systems (and where I have never seen a system Admin abusing that power in the last year and a half). That has been working -- so why is it changing?
my whole life is thunder.