@GangOfDolls said in The Apology Thread:
An apology isn't for the person who fucked up, to make them feel better or undo what happened. That's not the point.
I dunno. I think, at a certain point, it's for both. There's something cathartic about admitting you fucked up, coming clean about it, taking whatever consequences are attached to that and moving on with your life.
Guilt is a burden.
@Sunny You know what I want? I want ctrl-f to work in real life, that's what I want.
The number of times I'm looking for something in the house when it's right in front of my eyes and I don't see it is astounding.
I never understood the privacy issue regarding e-mail addresses. They're zero dimes a dozen.
I have a game-specific e-mail account which contains no personal info (even the birthday is fake) that I only use for stuff like that - confirmation mails, password reminders, etc. Otherwise it sits in a folder of my real e-mail account and doesn't get glanced at.
What's the privacy downside?
@surreality I dunno. I mean I've literally no horse in this race as I'm neither playing on Arx nor have I ever met Custodius in any form.
But if enough players view another as the devil and he is a douche... it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy of chaos and mayhem. Especially for a game like Arx which by all accounts so far was mostly drama-free.
I guess when I asked "should people be banned on games for past behavior elsewhere?" I was really merely showing off my prophetic powers. 
@Lithium It's true, I forgot discussions were zero sum games again!
@Insomnia I posted that yesterday on Facebook! Of course my FB feed is 80% animals doing stupid shit.
Alright, then for something more controversial we'll definitely never agree on but hey.
How do we feel about games which ban some hideous acts but not others? Some of the former with reasonable causes ('rape RP because it's a drain on staff's time when drama comes of it', 'underage TS because we don't want legal trouble') but I've seen it go further ('miscarriage RP because it might offend someone'). I've even been on one game where a staff member tried to stop a PrP because it started with a drive-by shooting and one player had lost someone to it iRL.
At the same we allow other still terrible and quite illegal acts. Murder, for starters, by the numbers; people are shot, stabbed or clawed to death left and right on MU*. Gruesome acts are routine - I can't even count the things I've seen mentioned nonchalantly at times, from sucking the marrow out of people's bones to skinned still-living people hanging from ceilings... but those are fine.
Where should the line be drawn in policy?
@Lithium I'll never understand how people aren't taking me to task on shit I deserve to be chewed out over but instead it's stuff like this.
Double post! I blame it on being a late Friday afternoon, but something just occurred to me. So, you said this GoD:
@GangOfDolls said in Policies:
I'll be honest that in the scenario that if I were to run my game (this is staggeringly levels of unlikely) there are people exclusively by reputation that I would politely turn away. This list is maybe 2 people long and entirely likely obvious as to who they may be. While they may be as people not entirely garbage, their penchant for burning down games is entirely more than I would want to take on.
But you also said this:
@GangOfDolls said in Policies:
I prefer very clear policies, even at the risk of going overboard on the overly specific because it sets clear, non-subjective expectations. Example:
'Don't be a dick on +channels' v. 'Disruptive behavior and hate or harassing speech/subjects will not be welcome on channels.'
So what's the policy you'd institute on burning down games? I suspect the people you're referring to might have well managed to get that reputation without ever breaking a single explicit policy, or if they did it wasn't on par with the damage caused through general dickish behavior.
In this case "don't be a dick" seems to be a preferable guideline... unless you count reserving your authority as a (theoretical) game-runner to ban people who burn games down without needing to break a specific rule to do so, in which case you might as well have had that policy in the first place!
(Yes Gany, I know that authority is a given)
@Kanye-Qwest Yeah, I don't mean players you don't like, that's different since sometimes we just don't get along with someone but they don't necessarily need to do something explicitly horrible.
Let's say players who've done things on other games repeatedly which would have gotten them banned on this one. Keep or ban?
@surreality Yeah, I don't mean about whether it's technically feasible in the context of this thread. Let's assume that's a given.
So if you could ban a player completely based solely on behavior they displayed in other games, would you even if they haven't done anything wrong on this one?
A Plague of Swords by Miles Cameron is excellent.
It's the third part of a series taking place in a fantasy world where the Wild - the forces of nature - are traditionally opposed to the spread of civilization. What's exceptional about it though is how well it balances character development with military brilliance and political intrigue; usually writers juggle only one or maybe two of those at a time and neglect the others, but the plot here goes from strength to strength.
I consider this series to be on par with George Martin's work, and while not as grimdark as Joe Abercrombie's they are still pretty gritty and realistic. For those who care about such things it has a male protagonist but several very powerful female characters, and although the setting's 'powers' are pretty strong they doesn't steal the show from non-magic users.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Policies:
But really, this is one of those topics that people are just going to spew out opinions on, and it's highly unlikely they will lead to any change in anyone's way of doing things.
Unlike all the other things we discuss on MSB where we change our minds to well phrased arguments all the time?
... And this, folks, is how you get banned from LIFE.
How do we feel about policies which punish players for their past behavior from different games?
As in, a new game opens and @Arkandel is already banned. Come on, you've all considered it.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Shadows Over Reno:
@Coin said in Shadows Over Reno:
But I guess the jury's out on whether I pose well consistently? XD
When you're engaged and interested, you pose beautifully. When you're bored, it becomes very obvious very quickly.
I hope it becomes obvious by my apologetic but swift departure once I'm bored.
What's even more, I don't even remember the last time I looked at another character. It's always check the wiki and/or just wait to see what gets posed.
@Lithium Nah, I really think that's too much of a generalization. Given how rarely people use 'look' these days for example I don't pay a lot of attention to my @descs, and the only reason I don't have minimum ones is because I've built a library of them over the years I change and reuse. But I've never been accused of not posing in detail.
@Kanye-Qwest There are significant indrastructure advantages in this theoretical arrangement - it's cheaper to build and maintain roads used by a thousand cars an hour than for ones used by ten cars an hour, for example.
But yes, resource distribution on the planet is terrible and only getting worse. When we think about it what most of us have in mind is the one per cent - those billionaires are taking their stuff! And it's true of course, they do...but the real culprit is everyone else, too. Our western lifestyles are downright lush compared to the conditions the actual majority of the human race endures; the idea we get to drive our own personal cars, have private apartments to play video games in on our high tech computers, eat meat every day at will... if we want equality some of those perks would need to go.
