Quote:
What can this encourage other than a mentality where certain players know the admins well, can relate to them, can understand their reasoning and see that they're people just like them, and another group to whom the administration is as Dalvyn seems to want it to be, a monolithic bloc who should not even be distinguishable from one another except as an authority to pass down judgment?
Anybody who wants to know something, or would like to understand the justifications behind a decision or a rule is free to ask on the forum or on a mailing list. I think that, during the last year or so, we have made efforts to be as transparent as possible about all "rules" and policies, and that we made it clear that nothing was set in stone and that everything can be brought up for discussion.
I am not sure why you seem so adamant on making me look like the big evil entity behind everything that would go wrong (or is it everything that would go against your wishes?) on the mud, but I'll try to explain my "monolithic bloc" conception then. I do not think that it is useful or even desirable to presents imms as individuals with different and sometimes opposed opinions about things. When a question is put to the vote and a decision is taken, all the imms present a unified front and apply that decision.
What would it serve to know who amongst the imms think this or that? The only way in which that could be used - and I guess that's what most of those who do not like this "block" idea are after -, would to be play the imms against each other. "Oh you are so level-headed, I looove you. Not like that bad imm over there. Hmm say, can you do me a favour?" It is simply the other side of the coin you labeled 'favouritism'. That's the best way to make the imm group break up and the game crumble. So, once a decision has been taken by the imms collectively, there's no need to distinguish the imms anymore.
As for having imms identify themselves when they talk to you, why would that be needed? Whatever an imm tells you, you can consider that it is said by all the imms. If you think that you have been wronged, then you can mail the imms and if we agree with you, then all the imms will apologize to you. If not, then we'll explain our point of view better.
I'm going to go ahead and be the player who will be called a "kiss up" and side with the imms on something like this. In the past, there have been multiple immortals who did speak oocly with a good amount of the playerbase. What came from that? Sore ass players when immortals at hand did their jobs. Players name dropping in situations where they think they're right, and an imm is going to fix the other person right good.
Also, let me point out some things about the "priviledge" of the chat channel. The last time I saw a single word from Dalvyn was about two weeks ago. When he was working on the Ardeep roleplay, and could not readily help a question that came in. The last time I heard something from an imm in general was them asking if a name sounded familiar from any fantasy game/book as it sounded oddly familiar to them. But here's this .. The last time I did something stupid and little "bad" that most players would not recieve feedback from, I heard about it because I am readily available.
The grass is always greener.
).