@Wolfs What I think will make or break them in the playoffs is how the referees treat them. One of the main reasons they have the record they do - other of course than the fact they have several amazing shooters and passers at the same time - is the illegal screens they get to set to get Curry/Klay open looks.
If they get to do that in the playoffs then I don't think they can be stopped. I hope the Spurs do - I really want Timmy to get one last chip on his way out - but it's impossible to know.
@Sunny I don't think anyone but @Arkandel suggested staff make people RP together. He just likes his straw men.
Alright, maybe I was wrong. Let's see.
What I said was... If you (in this case, actually you as your persona on KD) accepted a position of authority/power/etc (such as you have) and went two weeks without giving someone something other than "yeah we should totally RP eventually" despite their repeat efforts, AND you failed to go to staff or otherwise find an alternative to RPing with this person, then I would want staff to take action, mostly in the form of removing you from that position.
... Huh. So you are not saying staff should force people to RP together... just that they'd punish those people unless they do so. Gotcha. 
Again, since apparently I was unclear, if you stand up and say "I will do this thing" in an RP community and then do not do this thing, I think you should no longer be in charge of this thing. No one is suggesting forcing two people to RP together, because that's absurd. To quote myself: "Don't want to have to RP with anyone? Don't sign up to be a leader. Don't want to RP with a specific person? Talk to staff. Agreeing to do something then not doing it is rude."
How are you sure, without knowing the rules of that game, that that's what the person who plays Sam signed up for? For all we know unless shown otherwise all he stood up and said was "I'll play Sam". I even demonstrated how on many games the only responsibility of FCs towards each other is to not have conflicting backgrounds - so for example if Jean Grey hasn't been through the alternate universe stuff and someone apps Rachel Grey, the latter needs to figure out a way to explain her birth. Somehow. It's all still confusing to me.
Now, @Arkandel has pointed out that we're apparently talking about a Maltese Falcon game, or playing characters from that story, which I honestly know nothing about (which I guess makes me the ignorant slut).
I googled it! Although Sam Spade did ring a bell.
My whole point was based off @Arkandel's statement: "No matter what you are never obligated to play with one specific person."
And I absolutely stand by it. You never are and you should never be. I would be willing to clarify though that by "play with" I didn't mean a random one-time scene but something consistent and ongoing; you should never have to, unless it was part of what you signed up for, and if it was you should have obviously said no.
Staff - sane staff - would never make anyone do so. As @Sunny said, if someone went over and told KD staff that because she has a position she has to play with them and they should totally make her, they'd laugh that person out of the +job.
So let's talk Stephen Curry.
How the hell do you stop a guy who can do this?
@Misadventure It's my understanding the OP already tried this (and even had other characters do so on her behalf)?
@Ganymede said:
It is reasonably inferred from Ingrid's statement about having her background tied intimately into Sam's. You generally don't do that without Sam's knowledge or consent, so I presumed that Sam had knowledge that Ingrid was coming in as Ingrid.
If that's the case I'll retract my statement, but my assumption was the background ties were due to the source material - in the Maltese Falcon the two are tied together - rather than that Sam explicitly asked Ingrid to roll the character then neglected her. Yes, that'd be a very dick move to make.
In many cases staff only make sure FC game-specific backgrounds don't actually conflict though. We don't even know if they make sure players communicate when someone applies to someone they are intimately tied to in canon.
@Ganymede said:
If I make a PC to play with someone, and that someone asked me to make the PC, I will be downright bitchy if they turn me down thrice and are playing with others
And you'd have been justified to, but where did you read Sam asked the OP to make Ingrid?
@Pondscum said:
I think it's both rude and ignorant to say 'sure, we'll RP' and then never be available or always have something else that takes precedence.
No, I agree, and I made the disclaimer to begin with. He should have been clear if he just doesn't want to play with OP for whatever reason.
@skew said:
If you accept a position of power in the game, if you take on a lead role in a staff-run plot, if you make yourself integral to the continuation of the game, you are accepting the obligation to work with other PCs. If you don't work with other PCs, I'd expect you to be removed from said position, as a staffer and as a player.
This isn't a Prince meeting a newcomer once. I had to refamiliarize myself briefly with the Maltese Falcon (it'd been forever since I last read the book and probably longer since I watched the film, which is a shame on both accounts) but the two characters had a turbulous relationship to say the least, and perhaps that's not something Sam's player wanted for the character at this point.
Not all FCs - or games - are ran the same way, granted. Some require FCs to be played very close to the original material in which case Sam's player might just be out of luck and he might be obligated to interact with Igrid (which is a very bad reason to do so, but them's the breaks).
On other games though the requirements for FCs are very relaxed. For example if I'm playing Dr. Strange on a game with dozens of FCs around - he's not the 'central character' by any means, just one of many - and someone whose roleplay or personality I don't particularly like for any reason rolled Clea, someone often romantically tied to that character, I wouldn't consider myself to be obligated to play with her. If staff tried to force the issue (which they won't because they are sane) they'll just have to find a different player.
Games shouldn't try to force interaction. The idea is to encourage it, to make it appealing. "Do this or else" is a laughable practice.
The right answer in this scenario for instance for staff wouldn't be to come in wielding a baseball bat but to get the two players in touch with each other and figure out what the problem is, if indeed it exists; maybe Sam's player has no idea Ingrid is bottlenecked without him. Maybe his RL schedule prevents him from meeting with her.
Ideally when FCs who're supposed to be intimate with or particularly tied to existing ones are applied for there should be a mandatory step where this communication takes place ahead of time - that way (for example) could have made it clear his version of the character doesn't like Ingrid that much, they might interact very sporadically but it'll never be A Thing. Or staff could offer to find or run plot for them so there is a different relationship between them, things to do with these two, etc.
But no, forcing people to play... hahah, no. Why would the other person even want them to? I'd be insulted if someone was told they had to play with me.
@Pondscum said:
If he's actively logging in on other characters, and even RPing on his Sam character, he's being willfully rude and ignorant
Other than the fact he said 'okay, let's rp sometime' (which it sounds like it wasn't exactly offered enthusiastically but which can still be misleading) I don't think he's being rude or ignorant.
No matter what you are never obligated to play with one specific person. Remember, we have no reason to think he's inactive - the OP said he's playing the character with other people. Maybe he doesn't like Brigid's character or maybe he doesn't like Brigid's player but he's not doing anything wrong here other than not communicating more clearly.
If the implied relationship between the two characters would be romantic or sexual that's even more complicated. Either way there's no happy ending here, would the OP really want someone to play with her because staff forced him to?
Yeah, those rule of thumbs make sense.
My own guideline is similar - I make it clear I'm available so there can be no misunderstandings, then... if it's gonna happen it will, else it won't. Sometimes stuff gets in the way, and that's fine.
@BobGoblin said:
How long is it appropriate to wait on Sam before shrugging and moving on?
You can move on at will. You're playing the character to have fun, so do what it takes to do so within the game's thematic framework.
Is it acceptable to develop Birgid's story and if it results in Sam's Partner getting killed because of his inaction that is acceptable?
Have you spoken to Miles about this OOC? Communication is key - if he's okay with this possibility then why not? But make sure it's because the story led to that, not to make a point about Sam's player; this isn't about him, it should be about you and Miles' player.
At what point does it become an issue on the wider game scale that Sam Spade, the main protagonist isn't making the time to scene with others who need him their story lines because he's involved with his own circle only?
That's up to staff to decide according to the game's rules if applicable.
Also keep in mind that it sounds like this particular FC is active, just not with you; unless his circle of roleplaying companions is truly small or the FC rules are pretty specific about how accommodating he has to be, it might be difficult to justify removing the character from him.
It doesn't sound like he's interested in playing with you, though. So the real question is, do you really want to have to force him to?
As an Admin, how do you address this?
Not knowing the game's rules on FCs it's impossible to say. Can you provide any information about it? What are the requirements? How small is Sam's roleplaying circle?
As a Player, how would you address this?
Let staff know of the problem as objectively as you can. Explain the situation and ask them what they believe you should do. You've made your intentions known to Sam's player, clearly he's aware you're available and want scenes with him. Unless something changes very soon I suggest you move on - either from Birgid or from roleplaying threads which require Sam's active participation.
@ThatGuyThere said:
I don't consider RPing and writing to be the same sort of thing. A string of words being an example of being good for one is not necessarily good for the other.
Fair enough, but I don't think anyone says they are the same thing, only that they are related - especially on a certain level - and that being good at one translates into the other.
For instance in the analogy above gymnastics and basketball are definitely not the same thing but they share certain skill sets. Someone who's able to leap high, is athletic, strong, has good control of their body, if given time and guidance, would have a better chance at either than another person who had none of those tools.
In fact someone who pointedly lacks one or more of those tools - say, has a walking impediment, which I could parallel to bad grammar or spelling - would probably be severely capped at either thing. In fact the only place the analogy fails here is that, with the possible exception of conditions like dyslexia, it's far easier to overcome the latter than the former.
@ThatGuyThere said:
@Arkandel
But we are talking about rp not good writing. There is a world of difference, if all I cared about was good writing I would never log onto a game, as there is much better writing out there then any one on a mush is creating.
That makes no sense whatsoever. I play basketball although I'm not as good at it as a professional player. People play music although they're not the best musicians.
If you want to compete with someone, compete with yourself and improve.
As for your examples... I honestly don't know where you are going with them. I mean look at this one:
The other two are the scene having run it's course but no one wanting to end it for whatever reason, or the scene just is not clicking. I don't see how either of those two situations is helped by a lot of filler.
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
@skew said:
I went to 39dollarglasses.com on Monday, input my new prescription, paid $150 for one pair of prescription sunglasses and one pair of (back up) glasses.
The math seems sketchy.
@Coin said:
P.S. I think that commas are important; that the Oxford Comma gets a bad rap; and that you should always, always use a semi-colon to separate items in a list if that list is in the form of a sentence and one of those items contains a comma in it, even if those commas are helping something superfluous, such as word repetition for emphatization or the explanation of something pointless in an overly long sentence that didn't need to exist in the first place and that no one really wants to read anyway.
Double post: I'm terrible about my use of commas and semi colons. It's empirical if anything, and I use it when it ... feels... right.
Which is one of the reasons monsters like you get to correct me, and why I don't correct others unless it's really getting out of hand. I'd use the fact english is not my first language as a defense but it's not yours either, so you're making me look bad, so fuck you.
@ThatGuyThere said:
@Arkandel
True I never said there were no errors just not a spelling error. I freely admitted punctuation errors which the failure to capitalize is.
And I wasn't referring to just one line in one post any more than you dislike that particular long pose and not others in the same vein.
And yeah I still do not consider the six lines to nod to be well written, different strokes for different folks, but if the point of a pose is He nods, I would rather read it as he nods. If for no other reason then it takes less time.
Much of literature entails using more than one word where one would probably suffice. You'd lose content - and if you read the pose in question there is content to be lost aside from "he nods", especially in terms of subtlety, emoting complex emotions, emphasizing a particular attribute, etc. It's not good writing's sole purpose to take less time.
Now I would hope I as someone in the scene could produce content that would encourage a long meaningful pose but if the choices are long and without meaning and short without meaning I will take short every time.
Although you are of course entitled to your own taste, I am trying to point out your definition of without meaning may differ from other people's.
@ThatGuyThere said:
I am not seeing the spelling error, lack of punctuation sure possibly horrible grammar but all the spelling made it through the spell checker.
I don't usually get snippy about stuff like this but you got snarky about an otherwise well-written pose because of its length so I took a cheap shot at you. I kinda felt bad about it though if that helps.
Having said that,
honestly I read all the way through it here but in actual rp. I doubt I would have, you would have lost me no later then remembering the cigarette in your fingers.
You started a sentence with a small case letter and typed 'then' instead of 'than'. Not all errors are caught by the spell checker.
@ThatGuyThere said:
@Halicron
No offense but if that six line nod pose is an example of good rp to you, I sincerely hope we never rp.
honestly I read all the way through it here but in actual rp. I doubt I would have, you would have lost me no later then remembering the cigarette in your fingers.
No offense but I get the same reaction from poorly spell checked writing.
@mietze Oh, the number of players who're hacking military sites from their iPhones on a starbucks wifi.
@mietze As usual there's a flipside to that - players who're playing PCs specialized in the same thing they (think they?) are experts at.
Anything can be it. Is the guy a sysadmin? They'll paste the results of nmap right in their poses. Are they a lawyer? It's precedent rulings. Or they'll go on and on with gunsturbatory rifle models for their IC sniping firearms or whatever.
I mean it's not a bad thing unless they go too far or expect others to respond with equal OOC knowledge if they're playing an IC peer.