The 100: The Mush

[ixokai]

wistful sigh

I don't really have anything to say but: I wish I was still playing this.

[Booriley]

@Auspice @Three-Eyed-Crow On Witchcraft and Wizardry, if there was /no/ last will set, people got sent to the roster, so people could hopefully be picked back up by their original players if they returned. The only time anyone's last will wasn't gone with was if characters very attached to the character in question (S.O.s and Family Members) petitioned for them to not be removed from play, or if they held a position in game like a prefect or the like that had (at the time cause policies shifted) were in short supply and would affect continuity to have a revolving door of different characters filling the same roll that should thematicall be filled by one character. I do not recall you being told that in such a way. That is not how it was intended to come across. I hope you'll accept my sincere apology that you were affected like this. There were also cases of human error if the lists were long and big. I have intentions of having the code in the future game to be automated and remove that risk. Just wanted you to know lessons were learned and to again apologize sincerely.

[Ghost]

@Booriley I think it's cool you took the time to do that. Publicly no less.

[Cupcake]

@Booriley Was this meant for the Apology thread?

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@Booriley said in The 100: The Mush:

@Auspice @Three-Eyed-Crow On Witchcraft and Wizardry, if there was /no/ last will set, people got sent to the roster, so people could hopefully be picked back up by their original players if they returned.

This doesn't really make any sense. If the intention is for the original players to reclaim them, making them NPCs that are off-screened in unobtrusive ways is simpler. Putting characters up on a roster implies they're community property for anyone to take (it will usually not be the original player). And if that's what you're doing, OK, but that was not at all clear upfront and I as a player emphatically would have wanted something different to happen. It's over and done now, and in the grand scheme of things I'm not bent about it, I just wish I'd had a clear understanding of it and hope it's VERY clear now.

[Auspice]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in The 100: The Mush:

@Booriley said in The 100: The Mush:

@Auspice @Three-Eyed-Crow On Witchcraft and Wizardry, if there was /no/ last will set, people got sent to the roster, so people could hopefully be picked back up by their original players if they returned.

This doesn't really make any sense. If the intention is for the original players to reclaim them, making them NPCs that are off-screened in unobtrusive ways is simpler. Putting characters up on a roster implies they're community property for anyone to take (it will usually not be the original player). And if that's what you're doing, OK, but that was not at all clear upfront and I as a player emphatically would have wanted something different to happen. It's over and done now, and in the grand scheme of things I'm not bent about it, I just wish I'd had a clear understanding of it and hope it's VERY clear now.

I appreciate the apology, but yeah. At the time, it wasn't clear. I'd wanted her shuffled off and untouched by anyone. That was the intent of my last will. That no one else ever play her. And I was largely told 'too bad' at the time when I had stepped back in, which is why it'd been so upsetting for so long (esp. when I had friends coming to me upset about her subsequent players).

But I do thank you for the apology (though it does seem to be in the wrong thread!).

[Booriley]

@Cupcake Yes! Sorry! Still finding my way here. How can I get it put in the right place?

[Ghost]

@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:

@Booriley Was this meant for the Apology thread?

The apology thread has a 50% chance of just turning into a shooting gallery for bitter cunts.