NEWS [UO.Com] Return of Counselors

[FrejaSP]

I believe counselors had more power and freedom back in 1998 but that was changed. When I was counselor in short before the program was closed, I was not allowed to work around outside the call, we had a place to wait for next call. Yes we could hide, when I was teleporting to a player who made a call, I would be hidden when I got to his place, then I could show myself for him only or for all around. If he was in his house, I would go outside the door before I showed myself as I feeled that was more polite to knock on the door and let him let me in.

We was not allowed to tell anyone who we was ingame or tell friends from the game, that we was counselor. Siege/Mugen was only shards, you was allowed to both play and be counselor on.

I don't have much play time now, so I will not search the job this time, even when I really enjoyed it, as I love helping people.

 

[Pawain]

Seriously... this is a wow moment.

Agreed!

I hope LS gets some good people.

 

[Magdalene]

Sounds good

 

[Speranza]

Hopefully counselors wont be able to "travel" to any player they choose but only to the ones that are needing help (ie, the ones that sent a page) and they shouldnt be able to enter in private houses unless the owner of such houses sent a page. I wasnt playing back in 98/99/2000 so i dont know if they could do this, or if they can hide like the rest of the staff (em, gm, etc) but well thats another no-no imo, they shouldnt hide. Mmm what more.. ah yes, they shouldnt do it on a shard where they dont really play.
Anyway, I welcome the news.

I don't think you understand the purpose of the program.

 

[Viper09]

Hopefully counselors wont be able to "travel" to any player they choose but only to the ones that are needing help (ie, the ones that sent a page) and they shouldnt be able to enter in private houses unless the owner of such houses sent a page. I wasnt playing back in 98/99/2000 so i dont know if they could do this, or if they can hide like the rest of the staff (em, gm, etc) but well thats another no-no imo, they shouldnt hide. Mmm what more.. ah yes, they shouldnt do it on a shard where they dont really play.
Anyway, I welcome the news.

Ugh...I don't ever recall counselors doing any of what you seem to be concerned about...

 

[startle]

I think the first words out of a Counselor's mouth should be: "Welcome to UO new friend, are you aware of Stratics?" Then once that is done, proceed to assist in whatever way you are able...
Just sayin...

 

[Lady Storm]

Counselors dont lurk..... they just blend in well with the wall paper.

As for the clean up that is so badly needed... IF they gave that bit of power... i see alot of thigns blocking placement poofing, paintings that shouldnt be hanging, and junk/eyesores removed.... but that is a dream... Oh and the pick up power of removal of the lost servants left behind by careless owners....

It's not just the young who join in the game who need help these days... returning vets get a tad bit lost with all the changes that have happened over the missing years in their UO world.
Like what I got asked the other day by a returning vet who had been gone for 10 years!
Question was: Ok I found this place with snakes how do I get by the barrier?
He was in Ter Mur and didnt know how anything worked.
I spent about an hour explaining all the new lands from Ish to Ter Mur and things of intrest to his game play....
This is not isolated and we get many old returning players who have been gone for many years... Seems the articles on UO peek their intrest to try again.

I hope Broadsword keeps this up....
Imagine the game back in full swing..... players fighting over house spots with full shards... (ok i am dreaming.... but it could happen)

Counselor greeting is:
Greetings How May I Help Thee........

As for powers...... being a blue robed pixie who can deal with the small stuff . No we cant go under your house to fetch the bag that fell througth your floor.... GM will be summoned. Do you require anymore assistance? Very well, Safe Journeys to thee.... * poof*

 

[The Zog historian]

I remember it.. I still don't understand it. The word volunteer seems pretty clear in it's meaning to me as well.
I am pretty excited about this program coming back myself!

That's what happens when a relative few find a lawyer scummy enough to waste enough of a company's time and force a settlement. It was a ridiculous claim that "We're providing services that other people get paid for!" Yes, and what about food pantry workers and Scoutmasters who also volunteer what could be paid labor, should they find ambulance chasers themselves? But don't mind me, I spent most of this morning arguing with a lawyer who thinks he smells blood in the water, claiming there's an admission of guilt, and he's back this afternoon.

 

[Speranza]

That's what happens when a relative few find a lawyer scummy enough to waste enough of a company's time and force a settlement. It was a ridiculous claim that "We're providing services that other people get paid for!" Yes, and what about food pantry workers and Scoutmasters who also volunteer what could be paid labor, should they find ambulance chasers themselves? But don't mind me, I spent most of this morning arguing with a lawyer who thinks he smells blood in the water, claiming there's an admission of guilt, and he's back this afternoon.

Or what about this legally binding contract you should sign before taking a volunteer position that states, "You will not get paid"

 

[The Zog historian]

Or what about this legally binding contract you should sign before taking a volunteer position that states, "You will not get paid"

I'm not privy to the details of the original agreement, but I figure it would have stated the counselor role is uncompensated beyond the free account. Hopefully the new language will be made more airtight so someone can't make the claims of before. Am I such a cynic, thinking some people will sign up deliberately to see what they can later sue for?

 

[Speranza]

I'm not privy to the details of the original agreement, but I figure it would have stated the counselor role is uncompensated beyond the free account. Hopefully the new language will be made more airtight so someone can't make the claims of before. Am I such a cynic, thinking some people will sign up deliberately to see what they can later sue for?

It may be wishful thinking, but I hope all of those people have moved on. Personally, I'd love to do this and already do what I can in game without blue robes. Many games and companies have gone on after this incident and done volunteer programs without any issues.

 

[Amber Witch]

If memory serves this is where the problem started:

AOL Community Leader Program

 

[Dot_Warner]

If memory serves this is where the problem started:

AOL Community Leader Program

EA required the same of counselors towards the end. Timecards and call reports as well as required amounts of time per week.

This wasn't about scummy lawyers or greedy people, this was about EA knowingly breaking US labor laws.

 

[Lady Storm]

Yes...
They gave time sheets, demanded the helping start on their time set up not the free time the Counselors had to give. That was one point... Paperwork...
I cant tell you of all the records that were kept... * faints*
Rumor has it that EA went so far as to dangle the sword of damaclese at their accounts for non-complince.....
It went from volunteer to unpaid servant as the story goes.

I can nether confirm or deny this as legaly any past counselor is still under the contract they signed when they were accepted to the program.
This means if any thing said can be used to perma ban any and all accounts with EA. I dont know if it applys to the new company bu I assure you many who served didnt quit the job willingly .....
Some were litterly dragged off and shut down.

As for the free account....
The account was back billed to each who served or was banned on the spot for refusal to pay.

 

[Lady Storm]

Apetul the GM's and Counselors could not enter your home unless you invited them and a program was inset to keep them from doing so unless you called the que.
Freja I guess I had a tad more freedom then you and was encouraged to show up at city banks and talk to players...

 

[The Zog historian]

EA required the same of counselors towards the end. Timecards and call reports as well as required amounts of time per week.

This wasn't about scummy lawyers or greedy people, this was about EA knowingly breaking US labor laws.

If you sign up for a volunteer position, you accept the hours, and like with any job (paid or not) you can always quit if you can't meet the obligations. If EA wanted timecards, I can understand that. EA would certainly want to ensure that any counselor, who after all was getting an account for free, was actually putting in the time he/she were supposed to. Consider all the BSA scoutmasters who are pure volunteers. If one shows up every other meeting, wouldn't he be fired by the local council?

The problem is that a few greedy ex-counselors, who found greedy lawyers, tried citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act does prohibit volunteers at a for-profit, private company. But being a UO counselor isn't "employment" as such. It's more of a privileged position in the game than anything else. Moreover, if someone signed up to be a counselor as formal employment, then minimum wage laws apply, and why didn't the person demand formal wages from the beginning?

 

[Dot_Warner]

The problem is that a few greedy ex-counselors, who found greedy lawyers, tried citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act does prohibit volunteers at a for-profit, private company.

That was the crux of the issue. EA broke the law. Really, this is pretty black and white.

It's more of a privileged position in the game than anything else.

That is a completely subjective opinion.

Moreover, if someone signed up to be a counselor as formal employment, then minimum wage laws apply, and why didn't the person demand formal wages from the beginning?

You're missing the point. EA broke US labor law. "The Act does prohibit volunteers at a for-profit, private company." Last time I checked, EA was a for profit company. Again, it really is that black and white.

 

[startle]

Personally, I just hope this thread hasn't devolved to the point that it may preclude many - otherwise willing - volunteers.... It sounds to me like Bonnie may well be in charge of this, and that's good enough assurance for me.
My glass is half full, how about yours?

 

[The Zog historian]

That was the crux of the issue. EA broke the law. Really, this is pretty black and white.

That is a completely subjective opinion.

You're missing the point. EA broke US labor law. "The Act does prohibit volunteers at a for-profit, private company." Last time I checked, EA was a for profit company. Again, it really is that black and white.

In fact, I am not missing the point at all. You are. The FLSA does not apply to UO counselor positions since counselors were never actual employees -- or are you arguing that counselors were? There was no employment agreement, nor any promise of actual wages. As I pointed out, if they were actual employees, then minimum wage laws would have applied. Why didn't all the other counselors complain to labor boards that they didn't get paychecks?

It's that little part about nobody getting paid so much as minimum wage that proves counselors were not employees. However, EA caved in, not because of any laws, but because, as with the typical class action lawsuit, the cost of settlement is less than the ultimate cost of settling.

If you think that EA violated the FLSA, then you're effectively arguing that counselors are actual employees. What else do you think, that they should get paid? Think of the implications of what you're saying. You're arguing a position that means scuttling the new program before it gets off the ground.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Like many of your arguments this is a false dichotomy.

In the beginning it was all free form and actually volunteer like, eventually the counselors were acting like employees with employee-like responsibility. EA cut back on actual game support because they had all this free labor, which again, is prohibited.

EA broke the law.

 

[Norrar]

Cant we all just agree that what happened back then should stay in the past, and that this is now and could be worked entirely differently?

Times change.

 

[The Zog historian]

Like many of your arguments this is a false dichotomy.

In the beginning it was all free form and actually volunteer like, eventually the counselors were acting like employees with employee-like responsibility. EA cut back on actual game support because they had all this free labor, which again, is prohibited.

EA broke the law.

There's no false dichotomy about it. If you think EA broke the law, then what are you saying? That counselors should get paid? If you think EA violated the FLSA, then the new program will also be in violation also.

If you think that counselors are "like" real employees, do you then not support this resurrection of the program? Or do you think counselors should get paid?

There's no way around the inevitable implications of what you've said. You talk about "the law" but are not considering the consequences of your claims. Nor are you addressing (1) that there are many pure volunteers who are not actual employees and to whom the FLSA cannot apply, (2) the goal wasn't to prove anything under the Act but to make it too expensive for EA to continue defending, and (3) if EA were in fact in violation of the FLSA, then where were the agreements specifying wages to be paid?

And this is all notwithstanding that "the law" in and of itself does not mean that the law is proper or just, since there have been many laws throughout history that were found to be wrong. If EA had been found in violation of the FLSA, then the FLSA would be wrong to infringe on the right of people to become willing volunteers. There's that word again.

 

[The Zog historian]

Cant we all just agree that what happened back then should stay in the past, and that this is now and could be worked entirely differently?

Times change.

The relevant labor law is still in effect, and it has not been amended since. If Dot wants to continue arguing her position that EA broke the law then, then she necessarily is arguing that the new program will be in the same violation of the FLSA.

Like most people, I'm happy to see counselors returning. I just wish a certain person would consider what she's saying and what it necessarily leads to.

 

[Amber Witch]

With all due respect all I know is that people who were not employees volunteered their time and effort without expectation of reimbursement. Plain and simple. If someone started having issues with that then it's time for them to stop volunteering. When you start feeling like you're being used it's time to step away. If you're feeling overloaded, unappreciated.. step aside. It's time for some fresh volunteers. You give what you want to give. You're volunteering your time! Having to sign up on a schedule to insure coverage shouldn't be that much of a hardship.

In my book it's good people doing good stuff. It's a shame that a few disgruntled volunteers jumped on the AOL band wagon and followed suit. It was the players that suffered the consequences. No one else.

 

[FrejaSP]

Apetul the GM's and Counselors could not enter your home unless you invited them and a program was inset to keep them from doing so unless you called the que.
Freja I guess I had a tad more freedom then you and was encouraged to show up at city banks and talk to players...

You may be right, I think we was allowed to hang out at the banks and help there. Now Siege players do not hang out around the banks, except for a few hidden thieves, so there was not much reason for me to hang there.

 

[Avenrose]

I for one am happy to see this back in the game, already applied...my brother and I both were counselors back in the day(different times) and even I admit it got a little out of hand, it started out to be a purely voulenteer program but quickly became more, they demanded a lot from us and some point it got out of hand..the point of volunteer is your giving your time to help but also have the freedom to come and go as you please, back then they started that freedom then took it away made us log our time and summit logs verifying (again not so bad) but when they started to push us to have a hourly schedule as if we were paid employees got out of hand, I still remember getting a call from then asking why I wasn't on, I was 25 minutes late due to personal reasons, and after that call I said enough and quit...I just hope that this time around it is ran different ...just my two pennies

 

[Dot_Warner]

The counselor program was a good thing for UO. The counselors had fun with it in the beginning, I know many put in significantly more hours than were asked of them. They had fun helping their fellow players.

Then EA, being evil incarnate, saw they could abuse the volunteers and shifted things into servitude mode and essentially turned it into a job without pay. This is the problem, the only problem. It doesn't matter what people thought going into the program, it matters what EA did. That is all. EA saved a lot of cash from not having to pay for ingame support staff by using player's love for the game.

Could it successfully be brought back, without running afoul of US law? Maybe. But they're going to have to avoid telling players that they have to be on from X time to Y time on Z+ days OR ELSE. They have to accept the volunteers for the time and love they can give to their game, not try to twist it into a way to save cash on the DL.

If they can manage to do it, it could be great boon for the game.

 

[FrejaSP]

Like many of your arguments this is a false dichotomy.

In the beginning it was all free form and actually volunteer like, eventually the counselors were acting like employees with employee-like responsibility. EA cut back on actual game support because they had all this free labor, which again, is prohibited.

EA broke the law.

I'm not effected of US law, I'm danish. I loved being a counselor, I know I would not be paid, I know I had to be on x hours a week. To me it was just a different way to play, mot much different for the work I now do with the guild NEW2. It was all about helping players. Yes we did spare the GM's for alot call as we took care of all them, that did not need GM power to be solved. Should we be paid, I don't think so. Could they find a way to reward the counselors for their time? I believe that would be possible but it should never give the counselor other chars unfair advance in the game.

Maybe let the counselor halls a more active part of a counselors blue robe chars life. Something like let each counselor "own" one of the halls and be allowed to changes the deco a little to make it more personly and maintain a message board there with info about when he/she may be on. I guess New Haven would need more than one counselor with base there and on Siege, Luna and Britain is the place newbies are found and need help.

 

[The Zog historian]

Then EA, being evil incarnate, saw they could abuse the volunteers and shifted things into servitude mode and essentially turned it into a job without pay. This is the problem, the only problem. It doesn't matter what people thought going into the program, it matters what EA did. That is all. EA saved a lot of cash from not having to pay for ingame support staff by using player's love for the game.

Could it successfully be brought back, without running afoul of US law? Maybe. But they're going to have to avoid telling players that they have to be on from X time to Y time on Z+ days OR ELSE. They have to accept the volunteers for the time and love they can give to their game, not try to twist it into a way to save cash on the DL.

If any organization, paying or not, moves the goalposts, then people are free to quit (as some did). But there was no relief under the FLSA or any other law by which counselors could get compensation. They agreed at the start that it was unpaid, and any person could have walked away anytime. Nobody had a gun to his head when putting in more hours than he expected.

I can understand a need for schedules. Like with Scoutmasters, a food bank or other volunteer positions, there are staffing needs so that certain times have a glut and other times have nobody around. EA needs to verify hours, to ensure that someone isn't an absentee counselor, particularly when there will be others seeking one of the limited volunteer opportunities.

 

[Tina Small]

I spent some time trying to find an online resource that outlines many of the concerns I have with this program and finally found this article from 2012: http://www.paulhastings.com/Resources/Upload/Publications/2262.pdf .

I have no intention of participating in this program because it seems pretty clear that for all practical purposes, both the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. court system really only expect to see "volunteers" offering their time/services to true non-profit organizations.

I am very concerned about the risks and legal problems that Broadsword could be opening themselves up to with it and how that might eventually impact UO's continued existence/availability.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with anyone over this. Just wanted to provide a link to what looks like a pretty good resource and say that I have grave concerns about how this program could eventually impact UO. Read the article and do your own research. I would like to urge Mesanna and her bosses to reconsider implementation of this program and instead pay attention to some of the other fine suggestions people made in this thread, e.g., letting us be in more than one chat channel at a time, in lieu of using "volunteers."

 

[Jerec KTM]

If any organization, paying or not, moves the goalposts, then people are free to quit (as some did). But there was no relief under the FLSA or any other law by which counselors could get compensation. They agreed at the start that it was unpaid, and any person could have walked away anytime. Nobody had a gun to his head when putting in more hours than he expected.

I can understand a need for schedules. Like with Scoutmasters, a food bank or other volunteer positions, there are staffing needs so that certain times have a glut and other times have nobody around. EA needs to verify hours, to ensure that someone isn't an absentee counselor, particularly when there will be others seeking one of the limited volunteer opportunities.

Actually, when you are doing work that is the same or close to the work of a paid employee, yes, you do run afoul of FLSA. The fact the previous iteration was doing so much work that could be similar to Game Master work (not counting the schedules and time cards), was likely why EA caved on the lawsuit... All it would have taken was for the counselor to recreate their work schedule in court and then compare that against a Game Master, if enough similarities occurred for the deciding power to agree, then EA would have likely had to pay damages. Was easier to settle because MOST people who don't play this game and have no knowledge of it what-so-ever, would look at this work process and see it as a job, not volunteer work. A lawyer who has never played a MMO (and really I don't think that would matter) would have looked at this and said "We've lost, settle now."

EDIT: That all said, the program was great for Ultima Online, and if they can be brought back in a way that doesn't reflect serious organization/employment, I would be all for it.

 

[Poo]

so how does being a volunteer moderator here on stratics differ from all this?

at the end of the day no one knows what the new program will look like until they bring it out.
and im sure in this day and age of CYA mentality a company is not going to do anything that even has a sniff of getting them into a legal battle.
so im sure when all this comes out we will all see we where all worried about nothing.

Namaste.

 

[Dot_Warner]

If any organization, paying or not, moves the goalposts, then people are free to quit (as some did). But there was no relief under the FLSA or any other law by which counselors could get compensation. They agreed at the start that it was unpaid, and any person could have walked away anytime. Nobody had a gun to his head when putting in more hours than he expected.

Again, that is not the point and you know it. EA used volunteers instead of paid employees for the same job. As you yourself pointed out, for-profit companies cannot have volunteers.

End of story.

I can understand a need for schedules. Like with Scoutmasters, a food bank or other volunteer positions, there are staffing needs so that certain times have a glut and other times have nobody around. EA needs to verify hours, to ensure that someone isn't an absentee counselor, particularly when there will be others seeking one of the limited volunteer opportunities.

If they have staffing needs they need to hire someone, not solicit for slaves. Why would EA need to verify hours? Why would there need to be limited slots? Now you are just trying to bolster a failed argument with nonsense.

 

[The Zog historian]

Actually, when you are doing work that is the same or close to the work of a paid employee, yes, you do run afoul of FLSA. The fact the previous iteration was doing so much work that could be similar to Game Master work (not counting the schedules and time cards), was likely why EA caved on the lawsuit... All it would have taken was for the counselor to recreate their work schedule in court and then compare that against a Game Master, if enough similarities occurred for the deciding power to agree, then EA would have likely had to pay damages. Was easier to settle because MOST people who don't play this game and have no knowledge of it what-so-ever, would look at this work process and see it as a job, not volunteer work. A lawyer who has never played a MMO (and really I don't think that would matter) would have looked at this and said "We've lost, settle now."

EDIT: That all said, the program was great for Ultima Online, and if they can be brought back in a way that doesn't reflect serious organization/employment, I would be all for it.

That the FLSA could be used to file a lawsuit shows only one of the problems with the Act. It's another example of the law of unintended consequences, protecting some, but harming others. In this case, it harmed customers since a relative few could no longer offer unpaid service that kept other customers happy, helping to perpetuate the product's lifespan. Still, it's one thing to file papers, another thing to win. It's questionable that a verdict would have resulted in EA having to pay any damages, because counselors went in knowing they wouldn't be paid. If someone could demonstrate hours comparable to a GM, really, the person was putting in 40-hour weeks for fun of it?

EA caved in because of the same old story: it's a rare class action lawsuits that isn't intended to be so costly to defend against that the defendant finds it cheaper to settle. The sad thing is that individual plaintiffs generally receive very little after the lawyers get their big cut. The guy who started a class-action lawsuit last year against MLB, claiming volunteering at stadiums should get paid, no doubt is counting on MLB settling. He accepted his volunteer status with the clear knowledge he wouldn't get paid! I haven't heard what's happened, but I expect MLB will offer a settlement. In the end, who knows, he might have done better to keep volunteering and getting official gear. One example I can't believe I didn't mention, because it affects one of my best friends, is that of volunteer firefighters/EMTs. One did win a suit last year because he was getting paid, but what will this do to towns who rely on unpaid volunteers, who can't risk that a volunteer will later sue?

 

[The Zog historian]

Again, that is not the point and you know it. EA used volunteers instead of paid employees for the same job. As you yourself pointed out, for-profit companies cannot have volunteers.

End of story.

The point is and was always that counselors knew they wouldn't receive wages, period, yet some went months without complaint. Don't like the volunteer post? Don't like it requiring more hours than at first? Then quit, the same as one would a regular job. That is the end of the story.

EA did what anyone else would do when the supply of labor exceeds demand: they can choose who they want, assign shifts to spread around the help, and find a replacement quite readily when someone won't do the assigned hours. It's not like EA was making counselors work 40-hour shifts.

And as I have pointed out, just because something is "the law" does not mean it's right or just. There have been a lot of silly, if not frivolous, lawsuits citing the Act, by people who knew they weren't going to get paid, yet later sought to take advantage of what they think are deep pockets. Such suits have only hurt UO players, MLB fans, towns that can't afford better than volunteer firefighters and EMTs, and so on.

If they have staffing needs they need to hire someone, not solicit for slaves. Why would EA need to verify hours? Why would there need to be limited slots? Now you are just trying to bolster a failed argument with nonsense.

And what if a company has no money for such help? If players are willing to use a more elevated character to help out, shouldn't EA be able to tap into that?

Which do you want, EA following your interpretation of law and not having any volunteer help, or having genuine volunteers to help out (particularly returned players who are confused by all the imbuing and reforging) because they love the game? You claim it was good before and can be again, but all your touting of "the law" would do is scuttle this program before it starts.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Can we drop the 'is it legal' talk please?
A number of people are already fulfilling a similar role, in so far as a normal account can, by running new player houses with resources, hanging out in the 'help chat' where all new accounts start and offering what help and advice they can. Anyone who 'volunteers' knows there is no monetary recompense and the level of time commitment they are expected to make should be agreed at the outset.
I think I know a tiny bit about being a volunteer. There have been some days, especially when our playguide info was so far out of date, that I put in more hours than some people do at their paid job. However as a volunteer, if I decide to go visit relatives or watch a tv program, I'm free to do so. I simply need to have the courtesy to let my team know that I'm not around.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Kinda sad that so many people are only commenting on the bs legalities that they were not even part of years ago.
Whatever happened then has absolutely no bearing on the possibility of this new program.
Do so many people really feel the need to act smart or in the know that they cant just comment on the program itself?

 

[NuSair]

There's no false dichotomy about it. If you think EA broke the law, then what are you saying? That counselors should get paid? If you think EA violated the FLSA, then the new program will also be in violation also.

If you think that counselors are "like" real employees, do you then not support this resurrection of the program? Or do you think counselors should get paid?

There's no way around the inevitable implications of what you've said. You talk about "the law" but are not considering the consequences of your claims. Nor are you addressing (1) that there are many pure volunteers who are not actual employees and to whom the FLSA cannot apply, (2) the goal wasn't to prove anything under the Act but to make it too expensive for EA to continue defending, and (3) if EA were in fact in violation of the FLSA, then where were the agreements specifying wages to be paid?

And this is all notwithstanding that "the law" in and of itself does not mean that the law is proper or just, since there have been many laws throughout history that were found to be wrong. If EA had been found in violation of the FLSA, then the FLSA would be wrong to infringe on the right of people to become willing volunteers. There's that word again.

Yes, actually they did break the law. And did it knowingly. Why do you think EMs are paid?

To help further your education on the issue: http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/employment010208.shtml

There are plenty of more articles. Bing/google is your friend.

 

[NuSair]

With all due respect all I know is that people who were not employees volunteered their time and effort without expectation of reimbursement. Plain and simple. If someone started having issues with that then it's time for them to stop volunteering. When you start feeling like you're being used it's time to step away. If you're feeling overloaded, unappreciated.. step aside. It's time for some fresh volunteers. You give what you want to give. You're volunteering your time! Having to sign up on a schedule to insure coverage shouldn't be that much of a hardship.

In my book it's good people doing good stuff. It's a shame that a few disgruntled volunteers jumped on the AOL band wagon and followed suit. It was the players that suffered the consequences. No one else.

This is where you and many other people are wrong.

Regardless of the fact that people could have walked away, EA was breaking the law. That people didn't walk away has no bearing on that fact.

 

[NuSair]

If any organization, paying or not, moves the goalposts, then people are free to quit (as some did). But there was no relief under the FLSA or any other law by which counselors could get compensation. They agreed at the start that it was unpaid, and any person could have walked away anytime. Nobody had a gun to his head when putting in more hours than he expected.

I can understand a need for schedules. Like with Scoutmasters, a food bank or other volunteer positions, there are staffing needs so that certain times have a glut and other times have nobody around. EA needs to verify hours, to ensure that someone isn't an absentee counselor, particularly when there will be others seeking one of the limited volunteer opportunities.

You are missing the point that EA went way beyond that. Having run/been a part of more than a few volunteer organizations in my time (scouts - up to regional position, recreational sports children and adults, regional judge for magic the gathering for over 12 years).

Volunteer work is always about asking, you do not demand anything. You do not treat or demand the things that EA did from volunteers. That's why things like scouting constantly ask for volunteers, it's not required, but it is desperately needed.

Volunteer work is about more than just your choice to do something or not. EA was wrong, end of story.

 

[NuSair]

Can we drop the 'is it legal' talk please?
A number of people are already fulfilling a similar role, in so far as a normal account can, by running new player houses with resources, hanging out in the 'help chat' where all new accounts start and offering what help and advice they can. Anyone who 'volunteers' knows there is no monetary recompense and the level of time commitment they are expected to make should be agreed at the outset.
I think I know a tiny bit about being a volunteer. There have been some days, especially when our playguide info was so far out of date, that I put in more hours than some people do at their paid job. However as a volunteer, if I decide to go visit relatives or watch a tv program, I'm free to do so. I simply need to have the courtesy to let my team know that I'm not around.

No offense Petra, there is more to it just just 'knowing' you are a volunteer. Also, there is a difference between people doing something on their own inside of a game and doing so as a representative of the company.

 

[Tina Small]

Can we drop the 'is it legal' talk please?

Petra, there could be serious economic and legal consequences for Broadsword if they get this wrong and that could easily lead to EA just deciding to shut down UO. So it's rather difficult for some of us to just ignore the issue. If Broadsword hasn't done all their homework on this issue and/or someone is already planning to take advantage of this program to file a lawsuit, then why would any of us pour one more dime or put one more hour of our time into playing UO? That's why people want to discuss this. We're not trying to be jerks about it and I haven't seen anyone being rude about this discussion either. Those of us who are questioning the viability of this program are just being realistic. If this thread ends up getting locked, all it does is send a message that we probably hit a sore spot and that will just make people even more uneasy about the situation.

 

[Petra Fyde]

ok. but I'd hate to see the whole thing scuppered before it starts. Broadsword will be as aware of the past as we are.

 

[Speranza]

And Broadsword will have REAL lawyers, not you arm chair Google warriors. I've volunteered for many projects in the past and never encountered any issue, Stratics included.

 

[The Zog historian]

Yes, actually they did break the law. And did it knowingly. Why do you think EMs are paid?

To help further your education on the issue: http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/employment010208.shtml

There are plenty of more articles. Bing/google is your friend.

Your link is irrelevant. EA is not non-profit.

EMs are far from the same as counselors. EMs are specifically paid. Their contracts -- they are contract employees of EA -- specifies wages. Counselors' agreements specified no money.

Kindly know the difference before claiming they're the same, all right? Why don't you go look up some articles?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="ultima online" "event moderator" contract employee

This is where you and many other people are wrong.

Regardless of the fact that people could have walked away, EA was breaking the law. That people didn't walk away has no bearing on that fact.

Actually, you are the one who is incorrect. As I pointed out, it's very questionable whether EA would have been found in violation, since there was never money disbursed to counselors. Victories for "volunteers" under the FLSA reveal that the people were in fact getting paid, making them employees. Since UO counselors specifically signed up knowing there was no monetary compensation, their claim to damages (let alone treble) is specious at best. However, one more time, the intent behind most any class-action lawsuit is to get a settlement, not a judgment.

And if they had won, then the law was wrong. There have been many bad laws in U.S. jurisprudence alone, or well-intentioned laws badly interpreted, under which bad judgments were issued. There have been plenty of class-action cases that went the wrong way. Just because certain volunteers won FLSA suits against municipalities, when the "volunteers" knew they weren't doing it for pay, doesn't mean the volunteers were in the right.

You are missing the point that EA went way beyond that. Having run/been a part of more than a few volunteer organizations in my time (scouts - up to regional position, recreational sports children and adults, regional judge for magic the gathering for over 12 years).

Volunteer work is always about asking, you do not demand anything. You do not treat or demand the things that EA did from volunteers. That's why things like scouting constantly ask for volunteers, it's not required, but it is desperately needed.

Volunteer work is about more than just your choice to do something or not. EA was wrong, end of story.

Your experiences with a few small groups is hardly comparable to the scale of what EA tried to do. Now you're clouding the issue. Whether or not EA was "right" to demand formal schedules and more hours is not the issue. It's whether EA (or Broadsword as it may be) will go through the same nonsense of getting sued by people who knew what they were getting into. Don't like the increased demands? Then don't show up. It's really quite simple.

Since you claim to be familiar with Scouting, what do you think would happen to a Scoutmaster who didn't show up to all the meetings, who appeared only when he felt like "volunteering," perhaps only at jamborees and other major events? Don't you suppose that if there are others waiting in the wings (and there likely would be) that he'd be dismissed in favor of someone who would put in the asked time?

And the hours in fact are "asked." EA is in no position to "demand" any schedule, simply because volunteers are free to walk away. Are you not aware that when the original program was terminated, the demands of hours, schedules and the like were so arduous and unfair that the vast majority of counselors still hadn't quit? The unfortunate thing was that a few UO counselors who did walk away decided to try to get some money out of it, and they found shyster attorneys.

 

[The Zog historian]

Kinda sad that so many people are only commenting on the bs legalities that they were not even part of years ago.
Whatever happened then has absolutely no bearing on the possibility of this new program.
Do so many people really feel the need to act smart or in the know that they cant just comment on the program itself?

My fear is that because the relevant law is still in effect and hasn't been altered, the same nonsense of years ago will happen again. EA should be able to get whatever volunteers are willing to sign up, and I hope this time there won't be any bad apples to ruin a good thing for the rest of us. That's all I'm saying. Yet others felt a need to chime in "EA broke the law!" without considering the implications of that claim.

 

[Tina Small]

Since you claim to be familiar with Scouting, what do you think would happen to a Scoutmaster who didn't show up to all the meetings, who appeared only when he felt like "volunteering," perhaps only at jamborees and other major events? Don't you suppose that if there are others waiting in the wings (and there likely would be) that he'd be dismissed in favor of someone who would put in the asked time?

And the hours in fact are "asked." EA is in no position to "demand" any schedule, simply because volunteers are free to walk away. Are you not aware that when the original program was terminated, the demands of hours, schedules and the like were so arduous and unfair that the vast majority of counselors still hadn't quit? The unfortunate thing was that a few UO counselors who did walk away decided to try to get some money out of it, and they found shyster attorneys.

I believe there's a big difference between volunteering for an organization that has jumped through all the hoops initially and annually to be recognized by the federal government as an IRC Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit vs. volunteering for a for-profit company. I believe Broadsword would have a tough time trying to convince the IRS and DOL that they are a nonprofit.

 

[The Zog historian]

And Broadsword will have REAL lawyers, not you arm chair Google warriors. I've volunteered for many projects in the past and never encountered any issue, Stratics included.

Not knowing what lawyers will be involved here, I hope they'll be good ones. Then again, even the best in-house counsel is sometimes told to settle, no matter how frivolous a case may be, because a suit is too costly to defend against. I say this as someone who has <cough> more a little "arm chair Google warrior" familiarity with the relevant law and lawsuits of recent years. Most volunteer projects work out just fine, like yours, but when an organization has deep enough pockets that they might settle quickly to make someone go away... Nobody bothered to sue Goodwill until they had enough money to pay out, for example. Some may consider EA "greedy" for demanding formal schedules, but it was the lawsuit-happy counselors and their lawyers who were greedy.

 

[Lefty]

Back in the day I was in the Volunteer Program as a Board Mod for the old UO.com forums. We did get compensated with game time and was scheduled 4 hours a week. We had about 20 or so mods back then. Considering working with a light schedule was not something to grumble about. I considered it a fair trade.

Now to make this all legal in today's business is a standard contract between the volunteer and Broadsword. Note that a 1099 does not need to be filed if the annual amount is less than $500 bucks. I run into this stuff daily as a internet/affiliate marketer.

 

[The Zog historian]

I believe there's a big difference between volunteering for an organization that has jumped through all the hoops initially and annually to be recognized by the federal government as an IRC Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit vs. volunteering for a for-profit company. I believe Broadsword would have a tough time trying to convince the IRS and DOL that they are a nonprofit.

Of course Broadsword is for-profit, which is the problem: what's to prevent the same nonsense as before? As I cynically asked, how many will sign up so they can sue later? So I can only hope that things will be more legally airtight this time.