MSB: The meta-discussion

  • Pitcrew

    @Arkandel said in MSB: The meta-discussion:

    Fucktard Johnson on TR

    Long live Fucktard Johnson!

    On topic: I feel that MSB is generally a good thing. When it's applied with productivity in mind. Slinging mud for the sake of slinging mud(of which I have been guilty of too) rarely really has a purpose other than to take a swing at someone else.

    Overall I'm generally very happy with the more positive side of MSB. I think that it's good for the hobby in general for places like MSB to be more positive. You can take in the opinions of others much more easily and give them due consideration when you're not preparing to attack someone or defend yourself every other post.

    Don't get me wrong, sometimes you've just got to call someone out or whatever but I think it reached a point in the past where it became a practice which was utilized toward the most mundane of issues. Both barrels would sometimes be fired at someone simply for deigning to exist as though it would somehow deter them forevermore from the hobby and an inconvenient presence would be removed.

    No, I tend to appreciate the act of compromise that seems to becoming more prevalent. Even if a compromise isn't found, the disagreeing parties at least tend to be able to just nod at one another and go their separate ways. Venom isn't there as often as it once was, which I think is altogether good for the hobby.

  • For wiki, you can also separate what someone says about themselves, and a complaint article written by another. That allows freedom of discussion, without requiring that one sort through the kitchen sink. If you want just what the person says, read their entry. If you want to know any warnings someone has to offer, read another entry.

    I'd almost like a comments thing like the WoD books where each person offers their own notes on a given topic.

  • @Misadventure My instincts tell me that this idea would end badly. Subjectivity is wielded like HellHathNoFuryNapalm(tm) by some of these people.

    Like the time, after getting yelled at via pages and being let in on some very personal, unsolicited marital issues (and tooooook a step away from the person because I cannot(will not) be held responsible for so much RL well being of, really, a total stranger), was accused of: Purposefully making her fall in love with my character and then sociopathically breaking her heart, on purpose, for my enjoyment

    Yeah, let's give people unfettered, subjective player reviews. I get that some people are hurting, some take the hobby more seriously than others, and some can take it or leave it, but I think, in the end, such a thing would just be used by the subjectively jilted to fuck people (they want to scorn) from finding rp.

  • Coder

    The original goal of the Wora Wiki was to have a place to permanently file game information. It was about 40/60 useful vs. trash; having a place where every game any one of us ever played on was surprisingly helpful when people were snapping their fingers saying, "That ... one game with the ... thing that happened?" Well 'the thing that happened' may be on the wiki, or some other mnemonic reminder, and blamo!

    The 'user' page was sacrosanct. Nobody was allowed to edit what someone had to say about themselves. The rest of the wiki, tho, was fair game, so there was one entry where I listed a bunch of thoughts I had ("Rules of Staffing" was an ongoing pet project), and another entry in the main wiki by @RDC where he leveraged my disgust of anything scatological to post a picture of a giant turd, which he did after I said something he didn't like or something like that. (I honestly can't remember and am over it.)

    It would be pretty trivial to have and enforce a few basic rules, in spite of @Ghost's ongoing negativity understanding of human nature. Unfettered, it would be a scat-show. Gently moderated, it could be a lot of fun.

    It's not like Wikipedia isn't a haven for drama llamas at its highest level. (It is.) People will try to abuse the rules. (They will.) I personally think that a common-sense approach somewhere between Wikipedia's rules ("don't make us care") and Stack Overflow ("ze must follow ze rules achtung!!!") with a hobbyist flavoring ("this is for fun, folks"), and I believe that it's entirely possible.