Posts made by Apos

@deadculture said in RL Anger:

I think you defeat that sort of lapse in rationale with good arguments, not mockery.

Mockery only serves to infuriate and dig one's personal view further into a trench.

I actually disagree. If someone has a fundamental lapse in understanding then it is frankly easier to jar them out of a comfort zone with shock, particularly if they think they are being reasonable and adult and are speaking from a position of false authority that is patronizing and they are doing real harm without realizing it.

@Arkandel The problem is you think it's an even dialogue, and it really isn't. What @Derp is doing is not reasonable, not friendly, and not even handed, and to think so illustrates an extremely large degree of bias. That is why it is appropriate for him to be mocked, since he is attempting to present it in that way.

"Hey, someone that's been assaulted before is talking about someone acting creepy that's making her feel unsafe. Now is my time to chime in that not all men are creepy and maybe that guy didn't mean harm." While that qualifies under 'no fucking shit', saying so demonstrates such a mind boggling cruelty that even if it wasn't coupled with a lecture to older and wiser heads on 'how to adult', it would have been despicable.

So yes, he should have been mocked, and I devoutly hope if he says something as jaw dropping-ly idiotic in the future he is again.

@Thenomain You have no idea how much of a smug, entitled dipshit you come across as, do you? I mean I thought you just acted like it and didn't care, but your flailing about and demanding answers suggests you don't.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

I realize it's an emotionally charged issue. I realize you have strong opinions. That shouldn't stand in the way of a civilized conversation.

While that's coming from a reasonable place, it's kind of dumb. Okay, a lot of people in this thread have been assaulted (they've mentioned it in the past). This is a lot like going to a particularly angry member of Black Lives Matter and going, "Well, I know your brother was shot for no reason by the police, but not all police are bad, and your tone isn't constructive."

But it's a lot better than @Tyche who is pretty much like, 'Oh yeah you guys being assaulted is bad and shit but you shouldn't talk so much about it and I doubt it happens nearly as much as you think and your experiences aren't valid. Whelp glad we wrapped up the systemic problems of sexual assault in one curt dismissal, let's move on.'

@Ganymede It is more than a little depressing to me that the redpill types aren't actually trolls trying to be absurd on purpose and it is actually a thing.

@Derp Let me share something with you that will make you a better person and also probably depress you. Virtually every woman you know has been harassed and to a far greater extent than you realize, or you would not be posting the way you are. The things they are talking about are not the exception to the rule, they aren't wild stories, they are common and they are pervasive. Asking for evidence is well and good, but these claims are no more unlikely than someone saying they drove in rush hour and ran into delays due to traffic. This is particularly awful to do when no such evidence can exist except for actual testimony.

The reason why someone says, 'you are part of the problem', is because talking about terrible shit that happens to you, then running into disbelief about it, isn't exactly fun.

@Arkandel said:

IMHO one of the benchmarks to see if your game might be going the wrong way is if you have Flintstones-minded people trying to fix the apocalypse on channels, purely OOC. Let's build a steel wall, surrounded by an acid-filled moat leading into corridors with zombie-killing grinders powered by zombies on treadmills who're also providing infinite electricity, woohoo. If that gets traction it's all going into a different direction.

I think that might be lack of clear thematic direction really than a game breaking down. Some people, me included, agree that post-apocalyptic games are fun because you can play up the pathos of these tragic interactions and how they deal with a new, broken world and the whole struggle for survival. Other people are like, 'The characters on the Walking Dead are dumb, I would be so much better on it and if I'm playing a game like that I'll show them all'. It's totally different mindsets and I think it just has to emphasize the first is what the game is going for and not the second.

It depresses me and I do not see any reason to doubt its accuracy, even if I hope that it was not recent. Not sure it isn't though. Tabletop is still one of the most niche gaming there is, and I would be surprised if any of us on this forum could NOT name at least one genuinely fucked up personality they had met in MUs or tabletop type gaming (HI REX). Which isn't even counting the wildly inappropriate behavior of terrible dumbasses in this hobby who do not know they are being painfully offensive and basically lack fundamental social skills in general.

That doesn't excuse their behavior or make it in any way okay, but I think you have to draw a distinction between the kids (and man-children, which is more common) who do not know any better and really could benefit from a talk, and the really vile ones.

@mietze said:

This may be my bitch-fu speaking but in the last 6 months in particular there are a whole /hell/ of a lot of players playing on games that they never stop bitching about on chan, privately, here, whatever--all the while saying there's no where else to play.

Bitching is easy but making games is hard.

I'd say the larger games do a pretty good job of appealing to multiple subsets of players, which is pretty much the reason they are large. Even with staff at their least fair and most arbitrary towards players, it's not like most GMs are randomly picking players out of the rooms they never leave and killing them, so even the more player-death and non-consent-y type games can still support people that would be perfectly happy on pure consent games with no pvp whatsoever, since the super risk averse players just hang out and avoid obviously risky behavior.

I think saying, 'I will punish those 'relationship players' and make them engage in risky behavior' would just largely result in a much more niche and smaller game and there's no reason to do so when games can easily support both. Sure, there's people like Cirno that go, 'THIS GAME IS A CAREBEAR RELATIONSHIP SIM' even when it manifestly is not, but I think going to extremes to appeal to someone like that is a recipe for failure.

@VulgarKitten said:

MU Thing I Love: When someone does their damndest to make your character unplayable/make it unenjoyable for you to play your character, BUT you still play your character and still LOVE playing your character, and others still play with you and love your character, too.

Man, who DOES something like that? Glad you made it through fine.

@Ghost I don't really think it's so much player bases as the way a lot of games are designed. It's not so much that there's very few players interested in deeply plot driven stories or intricate themes or anything like that compared to a huge amount that want to ignore it for TS, in my opinion. It's that the former is very reliant on GMs and highly active staff or an incredible code base to keep active, while the later is like, 'Well. Nothing's going on. Guess time to make our own fun' which will inevitably happen in between stories or when waiting on GM responses.

YMMV, but I met very few people that were like, 'Just going to ignore everything going on in the game to have my social rp with the one person I like' and a ton that just did that while waiting on things to happen. I can think of, I dunno, maybe 40 or 50 players I know in the later camp and I think that'd be enough for me to get a game going.

@Three-Eyed-Crow I kind of lean towards saying more players are okay with a low alt cap limit than not, judging from the popularity of political heavy games that were low capped or didn't allow alts at all. I do recall some players being noticeable exceptions, like despite a listed cap of 3 alts some players getting caught cheating having way more than that by apping through VPNs. One player I remember having something like 20 characters when they got caught, including doing some things like literally roleplaying with themselves only and no one else.

Definitely not the norm.

Some of the forum play-by-post roleplaying things are downright gigantic in population and there's some really huge MMO roleplaying communities, and most all of them are dominated by younger people. It's kind of a hard sell for a lot of them to try out MUs, since extremely few people have played tabletop games before- most have never even heard of them, let alone MUs, but I found even roleplayers used to total free form, system-less full consent things tend to be fine on MUs once they get used to them.

I think mushes are the best format for offering one very specific roleplaying experience, in having a truly dynamic world with a lot of people at once that is still persistent and accessible. It's just kind of hard to get that across in an elevator pitch to people that have never heard of it.

@Arkandel @Misadventure I don't think @skew was suggesting it but asking if that already existed and was in place, since Cirno claimed it was, if I understand correctly.

@Sammi Every scene in public rooms would be open in some games, to make it not open would be a break of the game culture and incredibly rude, since you are forcing everyone else to conform to your own sandbox, ie being very entitled and imposing upon everyone else on the game. In that environment of course individuals would rp immediately, since being in public rooms is an actual advertisement and invitation to RP.

I really think you are confusing distinct and different gaming cultures with entitlement. Speaking to someone oocly would be flat out rude, since you are destroying the mood of their scene by doing so, much in the same way spamming people with ooc chatter in an intense scene would be on most games.

@Sammi said:

Like this. Obviously, I'm not saying you're entitled for stating your preferences. I'm saying that your preferences indicate an intense sense of entitlement. I'm saying that what you do when you walk into a room where people are RPing is just think about yourself and then get upset when people don't bend over backwards to accommodate you.

How is that entitled and expecting the entire game and the rest of the player base to conform around your sandbox not entitled? Plenty of games have the expectation that public rp be accessible and scene sets conform to a universally accessible paradigm because of that. IE, saying, 'X scene is going on at Y' precludes anything else that anyone else might want to do, and staking claim on it in a sandbox edges out any other approach. Doesn't work in non-sandboxes at all. Just saying your way of doing things is a game culture thing and treating it as selfish or non-selfish is weird.

@Thenomain Put in a bug report ticket a little bit earlier on that github run by that Potato developer, though I figure might be a while before I hear back. If @Warma-Sheen managed to get it working I'll definitely try to tinker with it but I don't have windows 10 on my box so I can't reproduce it myself.

@Warma-Sheen Are you on windows 10 with the latest version of potato, just for clarification? Seems like previous versions of potato are fine on 10, and newest version of potato is fine on anything but 10.

@Three-Eyed-Crow I think it ultimately comes down to the game runner being willing to make more sedentary players unhappy as a trade-off for allowing a much more dynamic environment. The players that want to tell those kind of stories (like the very marriage focused ones) tend to not be big fans of unstable, shake up style meta plots that can throw their big carefully woven plans into the dumpster for obvious reasons and there's a lot of push back against it, much in the same way that some other political MUs (like vampire) can have players that get a position, feel they've won, and then fade out immediately which creates a stifling vacuum. It really just needs a story runner that's okay with, 'Yep, he's absent, so ignoring him and moving past him even though that means he'll come back and freak out' or 'Yeah sorry this story is going forward even if it means that carefully plotted marriage doesn't make sense anymore, sorry'. I think the ones that really would freak out are a tiny minority of even that subset of players, but for a lot of staff that are doing this on their own fun time and conflict averse, even one or two are enough to make them say 'yeah sure fuck it, I won't shake things up at all'.