Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
# of dectives in an agency
  <<First Page  |  <Previous  

R Anstett
R Anstett

Nov-11-2006 15:36

On other threads the discussion about how many cases you can turn in is happening.

The idea that there is a rule that you can only have 2 detectives in an agency seems to be a false one to me.

If you can access every detective in the agency because you have their password then do you control all of them?




Replies

R Anstett
R Anstett

Nov-16-2006 12:31

I agree Solve and Roamie, that each agency sets up their own rules for what is allowed in conjunction with Password Sharing. That is part of what makes each agency different.

I do disagree with the two of you on the idea of control based on paying a subscription. I have given out gift subscriptions to "friends and enemies", does that mean I am now in control of that detective? I do not think anyone would think that reasonable.

The other point of somone being unsubbed and you just logging into to use their contact (a very reasonable and common use of PW sharing). If the only reason they are in the agency is for that use, then it seems you are controling them.

The reason this is a topic of discussion here is the percieved ambiguity of Ben's statements back in Jan 2005.

"A single player should not control more than 2 single detectives within any given agency. This has always been the semi-official policy, but I will start to enforce it more regularly. " and "Password sharing is OK. What I'm trying to avoid is having an agency that is entirely controlled by two or three people."
( http://noir.playsleuth.com/map/cityhall/post.spy?id=3794&first_record=31299 )



roamie
roamie
Well-Connected

Nov-16-2006 12:43

If you are paying a subscription for someone else, then No, you dont control that detective. The person you gave the gift to controls it.

You say "A single Player should not control more than 2 detectives" if all the directors of an agency use that detective for PE verification then a SINGLE person isnt controlling them.

And I thought I made it clear in my previous post why we kept detectives around who werent playing. Sorry if this was not clear. We do it in extreme circumstances i.e. work -like the person who was gone for 6 months or illness-like the person whose detective became unsubbed. Of course, having people who can work their own detectives is much better in my opinion. I would much rather work my own detective and spend the rest of the time socializing with my agency.

Solve A Lot2
Solve A Lot2
Assistant Librarian

Nov-16-2006 12:51

RAnstett,
I think you are saying the same thing we are.
1) I have given out gift subscriptions to "friends and enemies", does that mean I am now in control of that detective?
NO, You are not in control of this detective, because you GAVE it to someone as a gift. You did not create this detective for your personal use.

2) The other point of somone being unsubbed and you just logging into to use their contact (a very reasonable and common use of PW sharing). If the only reason they are in the agency is for that use, then it seems you are controling them.

We do not keep unsubbed players in our agency to use their contacts, although that is a perk. We prefer to have an agency of active players - trust me, working on PE cases all day is not fun for me. We may keep INACTIVE players in our agency (all are subbed btw) because they have been with us for a long time. They may just be taking a break for work or health reasons. If an active player approaches us to join our agency, regardless of their contacts or lack of, we bring them into our group - and let the inactive go to an agency we have created for the inactives. That way, they have a home.

R Anstett
R Anstett

Nov-16-2006 14:11

I do think we are saying the same things Roamie and Solve.

We all three agree that PW sharing as described above is the norm. The three of us would likely get along great in an agency with those ideas.

The point where we differ is if that is controling the detective.

As roamie & others alluded to, people consider some detectives to 'belong to the agency'. The problem with that is someone has to be 'credited' with controling that detective.

We have had players go on sabatical for months at a time. I have their PW and use the detective as described above. I consider that control. It does not mean that the orignal player does not retain control also.

Roamie that quote was from Ben not myself but you do highlight that same issue I think.

If a detective is shared by the 4 active players in an agency is there 1 person in control because they subbed and created them? or are 4 people in control because they all share that PW?

Thank you both for considering the various opinions on this.

BadAss
BadAss
Charioteer

Nov-16-2006 20:08

I can see your point ranstett how you might look upon using an unsubbed detective by one or more team-members as control. However, don't forget that this player can change a password any time if he or she feels abused by that.

It's a matter of choices. An unsubbed player is in some ways a "handicap" (pardon me for this loaded word) as not able to travel. If this player specifically states he or she doesn't want the character to be used by others, then this should be respected. The consequence of course could be that we'll ask this player to resign should another (subbed) player show interest to join. If the unsubbed player however is someone we grew fond of and for some reason not able to get/want a new subscription I guess I'd prefer the social aspect over the element of competition.

So, to get back to your original statement. Yes, it could be considered control but the kind of control that is allowed on a voluntary base.

crunchpatty
crunchpatty
Old Shoe

Nov-17-2006 00:16

I'm very glad people have returned to the question of what constitutes "control" here, and I would agree with these recent posts from S.A.L2, roamie, RAn and BadAss -my own personal understanding of control relates to personal use, rather than agency use. In other words, irrespective of subscription status, I understand a person to be controlling a detective if that detective's cases are put towards personal, rather than collective advancement. What I mean is, in MY personal definition:

a) It's not at all problematic for a given agency to retain a detective provided that that detective is retained for collective reasons - e.g., a particular PE contact that is useful to others, used for treasure hunts, etc. - it's entirely possible for a person to use an 'in-house' detective to advance agency goals without taking credit for the cases they solve while using that detective.

b) Payment does NOT constitute control.

c) (and this is a slight departure, yeah) it might be the case that there is a third option here in the form of a house detective, who is understood as formally 'uncontrolled', or collectively controlled, by members of that detectives' agency up until a point at which it is clear that that detective is being used for individual, rather than collective advancement.

So, having said that, I find myself returning to the question of enforcement. And again, it seems to me that the only way to control whether a given detective is being used for personal rather than collective goals is to limit the number of cases an individual detective can solve in a day or to reduce the value of cases solved by an individual detective after some threshold.

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Nov-17-2006 02:29

Just going to point people over to the game announcements and Ben's new post...

  <<First Page  |  <Previous  

[ You must login to reply ]