Posts made by bored

@ganymede I have no special insight beyond my own

My motivation these days, on pretty much all games, is just my enjoyment of writing (and maybe as a form of practice, as well). I like some of the characters, and have fun writing big bombastic stuff as an alternative to what's usually more subtle/serious RP in other genres (something about getting old making 'mature' themes elsewhere less special and escapism more appealing?). There is a sort of license in comic-style RP to be more over the top, and the power scales can allow for more creative breadth. The other day I posed a whole robot army (and we lost).

I also only play on these games right now. I think there's a certain ease to them, as they're generally statless and consent based, vs having to grind a bajillion xp in WoD or Fantasy doing filler rp. That said, you're not wrong about the self-aggrandizing sorts. As ever, its ultimately about finding a playgroup.

In my experience, you tend to see mostly those of the broad category and some of the general. You almost never see any of the others. I'm curious if that's because people just have no interest in such games or because someone has just not come out and made on(or at least not made on in some time).

First, there's a current X-men+ game that's been around at least a year, as well as a new alt-universe game, so 'almost never' seems extreme.

Otherwise, there's a couple things being discussed here. Some of it is very general. 'Big and sandboxy' vs 'small and focused' is not comic specific, but rather one of our oldest topics. Insert the usual debates on total RP vs. getting lost in the crowd, or on whether logins are actually a measure of game quality or success. And 'include every IP' vs 'just X-Men' is definitely a subset of this.

But FCs do add some particular dynamics.

The slope on FC popularity is pretty damn steep, with a quick fall-off from the top characters. So, unlike with other big game vs. small game stuff, there's essentially an absolute cap based on how much IP you provide. You really can't make the choice to have a 'big' X-Men game. And the harsh cut-off really impacts style preference, too. Being a Gotham fan may be kind of pointless when there's so few key characters and your chance of ever landing your favorite might well be zero unless you help build the game.

This doesn't only apply to people wanting to take the characters, but also to people wanting to play with the characters. Vibe is simply not going to attract RP the same way as Wonder Woman.

And there's a tendency of staff not to be realistic about any of this stuff: no one wants to admit 'yeah, all the good characters are taken, no reason for you to really play here.' nor admit that a given character is just not very popular (or heck, kind of a joke) and probably won't get any RP unless the player is in the top 1% of proactivity and charisma. I feel like there's even a bit of that vibe in this thread already, in the 'why should power level matter?' refrain. It seems to make unrealistic assumptions about every player being cooperative, giving, self-aware, willing to write to others and generally share the spotlight. This are great ideals but... yeah. My experience is that a lot of the players of high powered characters are typically absolutely awful at this. Some outright are in it for the power trip, others are just blithely unaware (ie, I've seen people give the Superman 'World of Cardboard' speech/quote as an OOC context on multiple occasions on these games, offered as proof they were a 'good' Superman player and knew what was up. Except the context of the speech is literally the ultimate 'Lol I was just holding back, I am a living I Win Button', given before Superman solos Darkseid. It's 100% inappropriate in a MUSH context.).

So, IDK. My preference is not to play on a style of game. My preference is to play a character I want to play, and get recognizable comic-y RP. Any game that serves that goal is acceptable, but many games will fail at it.

I don't post much any more, and I've observed all the recent chaos at some distance. I have opinions on all the nitty-gritty details, but they're hardly relevant because my final reaction boils down to something very similar to the OP here and the general direction of the thread.

I have a similar history here as a combative and probably mostly negative poster, but as time as go on and old feuds have died (either by détente, as happened with one 'ancient enemy', or by people simply moving on, or both) I've found myself leaning more and more toward this kind of view. There was a previous instance where we debated the existence/purpose of the Hog Pit. At that time, I defended its need to exist, largely under the justification of the restrictive Advertising section rules. But at the same time, I basically nagged another more constructive subforum into existence (I think it was the Game Dev one, I've lost track with how things have been renamed/reorganized). In my mind, it was about balancing things, giving people the ability to vent or be constructive, and assuming the forum would somehow 'average out' on the larger scale. But this was pretty naive. I think we've all seen that it's very hard to maintain civility when the rabid hostility is a next-door neighbor. It breeds a simmering hostility, long grudges, bandwagons and dogpiles, and does very little to preserve useful discussion.

So I think this is an encouraging direction. Rather than precariously balanced extremes, it fully embraces the middle road, and hopefully that will allow some nuanced discussion that won't immediately derail into ad hominem. Or... maybe not, and it will just kill the forum, because it really was toxicity and negativity that was the main draw. If so, well, we've learned something that is pretty telling. But there's nothing inherently wrong with having two forums, and it's an interesting experiment to see how things might develop on each.

I'm definitely not voting, just trying to give feedback and ideas. I stick by the opinion that Crab lands work well as a newbie area (to a point: the deeper Shadowlands are very much not). Fighting goblins is a mainstay rank 1 action activity, and the less precarious social environment is a good warmup. But obviously it isn't going to be for everyone. The capital has appeal for not being tied to any clan, but the high-stakes environment makes it harder to give PCs major agency to shake up the local world.

The difficulty of picking a static setting that appeals to everyone is another MU/tabletop split. I'd argue the tabletop game is not designed with a stable setting in mind (outside the box set campaigns), foremost because it assumes characters of mixed clans. This is why the most archetypical L5R party is the 'traveling magistrates': the PCs are deputies of the Emerald Champion and can be sent from one corner of the Empire to another, righting wrongs and dispensing justice, with the authority of the office giving them the freedom to travel freely and meddle in local affairs (things that otherwise are very much not the norm).

For more neutral options, I'll go back to suggesting book stuff because they're bursting with ideas. Zakyo Toshi, also in Strongholds, is effectively a neutral Ryoko Owari-lite in minor clan lands, at least before the Scorpion annex it. Naishou Province is a single-book campaign setting from 4e. It's not as detailed as the box sets, but it's well designed to work as a sandbox, neutral lands under Imperial authority (the book doesn't actually give it a canon location for the sake of letting a GM work it into any game, although the described history and geography makes the foothills of the mountains between the Dragon & Phoenix a good candidate, above the Lion plains and Toshi Ranbo).

@reason Crab settings are good, as I think was mentioned somewhere I used a Crab city for my game, and I thought it was an element that worked well. Being close to the Shadowlands adds options for more traditional 'adventuring.' And although L5R is notorious for inconsistent maps, the Crane, Mantis (or their Minor Clan predecessors), Scorpion and Unicorn are all vaguely close by so you have those interactions to work with in terms of big politics.

You'd probably want to expand to the castle town vs. strictly focusing on the actual fortification. Even if it gets more outsiders than others, the garrison would be overwhelmingly Crab and pretty regimented in terms of their daily lives. The town would let you build on that with whatever local traders, entertainment, local temples, etc. to fill out a more lively and mixed population. You would have to do it yourself, as I don't think there's any kind of write-up for it, although I wouldn't swear to it with all the material L5R has. Regardless, it is kind of an unlikely setting for 'high' politics, as it wouldn't qualify to host an Imperial Winter Court. However, lower level courts also exist. I think this is kind of a hard question to answer in a vacuum without getting into the full scope of your setting, including things like time period and what conflicts you want to focus on as overarching stories.

Basically, there's waaaay too much material to easily summarize, so it really depends what you'd be most interested in. If you just want to hunt for ideas, I recommend, again, the Emerald Empire (any edition) and both Imperial Histories (4e) books, as well as the older Way of/Secrets of the Crab (1e and 3e). FFG has Courts of Stone which is both castle and court-focused. Strongholds of the Empire (4e) is where I got some of my Sunda Mizu Mura info (although it appears a couple places), and while it doesn't have any other Crab locations it might be worth a glance just to see the way they tend to present setting info.

@jennkryst If you really wanted to fix it, you could do something like 'Everyone gets 3/2/2/2/1 for rings and your 3 must appear in the clan/family/school' and 'Everyone gets 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 (or w/e) for skills, also selected among clan+family+school.' However, this gets tricky because I think stuff like not being able to get MA is actually design intent, so do you exclude that? And what about the questions? They're important choices, but again it becomes 'unfair' if you allow them to stack, but if you don't allow it, have you devalued one choice?

I will say that I've not experienced these things being actual issues. If you look at the Questions and Heritage tables, it's clearly designed that no 2 characters should be exactly alike. It's not D&D (which I'm not knocking, I run a weekly game!), and what people can accomplish is much more contextual to their exact character and the situation. People will put 2s in skills they care about, not in just anything to save XP. Ie, a Doji courtier might take Courtesy 2 because its core, and Design 2 because they'd like to play a fashion maven who designs kimono, but not Culture 2 because... they're a little avant-garde and care more about setting new trends than aping what's popular? Or they just don't want it? And if they happen to buy Culture 2 a couple dozen sessions later because it's in their Rank 5 curriculum and they need to put a last few XP in to hit rank 6... is that a 'problem?' I'm not sure it is, especially as they had said dozens of sessions to get usage out of their other skill picks (that they probably DID continue to raise).

@Misadventure An XP refund at the end would probably be the best solution (aside from the issue of being able to buy things you couldn't have ended up with, like MA 3) and the easiest because you could just code it. You'd have to specify it not count as XP toward school advancement since the rest of CG doesn't.

@Jennkryst While I almost always prefer pure pointbuy CGs for this reason (I've complained about it for FS3), I think the issue you bring up is minimal in FFG because the gap is very small. Moreover, some of the questions outright let you choose between skill dots and other benefits (like honor). The game intentionally does not deliver 100% equivalent characters.

The 2/2/2/2/2 spread is so unlikely that you'd mostly only end up with it through an intentional sub-optimal/anti-type build. The natural result, because there are ring overlaps between Clans and most of their schools, or the families and their more unusual schools, is that you end up with 3/3/2/1/1 or 3/2/2/2/1 almost every time. The first one is 'worth' 6 more xp, but depending on your intended final Rings, the 2nd one may get you to your goal faster (remember the Void + lowest limit on Ring raises). There's also the simple fact that Rings at 1 are weaknesses. Do you live to reap that XP?

As the skills go... meh. None of the clans or families grant Martial Arts. The biggest 'main' skill you can get to 3 is Theology, and every Shugenja family gets it, as does every school, so most characters will get 2. Only Phoenix get 3 automatically, which... if you're annoyed by Phoenix being the best shugenja, L5R isn't the game for you But everyone can take it to 3 with Question 13. Other than that, the skills you can readily get to 3 without Heritage table results are Survival as Unicorn and the low skills you can raise from Question 8. Aside from sneaky Scorpion, most of these are skills people would avoid for min-maxing.

Conversely, I think if you just gave people XP... you'd see much more min-maxed results, even if they were more 'XP equivalent.' Everyone would max their chosen MA, Fitness, Theology, Courtesy, and perhaps a few others based on their character/build. They wouldn't end up reflecting their clans and families, which is important in L5R. It's part of the setting: characters strongly reflect their heritage, and breaking with tradition is rare and a big deal.

@Reason I think from all of this it should be obvious the game is a passion hobby of mine. I'd absolutely play a game using either recent system.

@reason The ring vs. attribute change is definitely interesting considering it's almost entirely an anti min-max change. For any who don't know, in prior editions, each Ring was composed of two attributes (and had the lowest value between them), but because non-Shugenja rarely rolled Rings directly, and each Ring pair split really clearly on combat/other roleplay, you'd usually polarize them. Water? Strength (damage) vs. Perception. Air/Fire? Reflexes/Agility (defense and attack) vs. Awareness/Intelligence. Earth was the exception where even though it had that physical/mental split (Stamina/Willpower) you rarely rolled Stamina and Earth gave you health points, so people left that even (and tried to get Earth 3 fast to not die so much!). This also led to a weird thing where Bushi lagged behind Shugenja in rank, because you calculated insight from Rings (among other things).

Curiously, this is a change you could actually patch backwards into the older L5R rules with almost zero issue, since any roll that required one of the old stats you could just replace with its Ring. You'd have to slightly adjust the chargen but it would be an almost trivial conversion.

re: the MU, I could get into it in a lot of detail that expands on ideas about what make MU's succeed in general, as I don't think it was any particular major thing. I was the only staffer, and it was a small playerbase, many of whom didn't know L5R, so I was teaching people through chargen and in every scene. That meant people weren't so confident to drive RP on their own. There's issues with the rigidity of Rokugani culture vs. player norms: while we had tea and sake houses, but 'bar RP' is trickier when the samurai ideal is polite emotional control. And then there's big stuff. L5R's themes are about honor and loyalty, and samurai willing to die for those things without hesitation. But MUers are risk-adverse. I created some incentives, XP refunds/ bonus XP for rerolling after a 'good samurai death.' Even had one taker, where a Battle Maiden suicide charged an oni on the Wall. That's the kind of story L5R wants to tell, but not that many players will go for it, and the game can fall pretty flat if people don't buy into those big ideas. And without those, as your average social, simulator it's going to be too stuffy for most.

@reason Better/worse is always going to be a matter of personal perspective, game goals, and so on.

The prior editions are all variations on a core design (ignoring the d20 version that came out temporally alongside 3e). They retain a distinctive system throughout, even as things have been balanced over the years. If you love it, you love it, and the FFG system may disappoint because it's not the same thing. You want to play it because technique names like Pincers and Tail or The Mountain Does not Move spark the imagination. I think 4e is the pinnacle version of that system, since it benefits from so many years of playtesting and design iteration. It's streamlined and slick, and as balanced as such a lethal game can be, shaving down some of the spikes while still giving superhero samurai as you rank up. I like it a lot and would always be happy to play it. It's why I was willing to code my own stuff to run a game in it.

But if you've played a lot of it you may run into the 'school clone' syndrome, where maybe you don't want to play another Hida Bushi because you've already played one and characters from the same school have a tendency of coming out the same (unless you heavily sacrifice mechanics to play against type). The mountain still isn't going anywhere.

So in that way, I do find something refreshing in the new system and that makes me want to play it also, especially for revisiting any of my 'old favorites' in terms of Clan and school. It lets you build characters that are a lot more varied, unique and personal. That said, because it's a new system, all those moving parts can lead to some poorly balanced outcomes. It's already got a lot of errata. There is also an outstanding question over how well the FFG approach works, as it blends modern narrative RPG design with hard crunch in ways that can be contradictory. This is going to be tough on a MU.

As a final small point: an interesting facet of L5R is that its consistency across editions, even between 1-4e and FFG, means that older sourcebooks and material are often still useful to newer games. I highly recommend 4e's version of the setting book, Emerald Empire (there is a 5e version too), or the two Imperial Histories as they offer great options on time periods and settings. Also City of Lies is basically my favorite RPG location/campaign setting boxed set ever.

As this is an FFG thread, its worth explaining that FFG L5R weakens the role protection/delineation between the traditional Bushi (warrior) / Shugenja (priest/mage) / Courtier / Monk / (Ninja, shh) schools considerably.

In prior editions, you picked a school, it fit into one of those categories, and you got a technique each rank from that school (or one technique + access to a new spell level each rank for Shugenja). So, absent (supposedly very rare) multi-schooling, Bushi would only get more combat techniques as they went on, and Courtiers only more courtier stuff. This meant that by higher ranks the niche protection was extreme: bushi could one-shot Oni and courtiers had abilities approaching mind control.

In FFG, the technique divisions exist not in Clan schools but in categories: Kata (fighty stuff), Kiho (monk chi techniques), Invocations (spells), Shuji (social, meditative and leadership techs), and Ninjutsu (dishonorable stealth-based techs that no one admits exist). There's also a general 'Rituals' category that includes stuff that is basically universal Rokugani practice (like the Tea Ceremony). Individual Clan schools have access to 3 of these, usually 2 'specialized' ones + Rituals. And MOST Bushi and Courtier schools have access to both Kata and Shuji. The differentiation comes in a rank 1 school specific advantage, and school 'curriculum' that reward you for advancing in a semi-defined path and provide early access to specific techniques or possibly even toss in something special 'out of class' (IE the Hiruma Scout has the usual Bushi selection of Kata, Shuji and Rituals, but can access a couple specific Ninjutsu techs for sneaking around).

On the whole, everything is much more mix-and-match, pick-and-choose. And with only Rings rather than stats, there's not much of the potential min-maxing statwise that would generate socially inept Bushi in earlier editions. Being high Earth means you are enduring; that can mean shouldering blows on the battlefield, but it can also mean standing firm in court. So basically, it's much truer to L5R fiction in that the average Bushi will be socially competent if they put even the tiniest effort into it.

But yeah, it also expects that you roll social stuff, in part because everyone CAN participate. If you're not comfortable with social dice, it's not a good choice of system whatsoever.

@mietze said in FFG L5R:

I think @bored had a game? Or iirc they would be a good person to talk to about it. I might be conflating them with someone else though.

I don't really read here much anymore, but yeah, I ran an L5R game although it didn't really last that long. It was under 4e rules and I had to write all that code myself (I do probably still have it but not in an easily-transmisible format), so it was much different than the current FFG stuff system-wise although mostly identical setting-wise (the rebooted setting is a bit different, particularly re: getting rid of some of the still-assumed gender norms etc and gender-flipping a couple of the old NPCs, like Hoturi). I've played FFG in table top and it's interesting, although I predict there would be some MU issues in terms of defining Rings/Approaches, as the game gives you a lot of leeway there but also requires the GM to say no on occasion, so those gray areas might lead to some arguments/rules lawyering.

More generally, there are setting challenges. Personally, STing on my game, I found getting people to adopt anything like actual social/court RP extremely difficult, there's just a lot of assumptions that are vastly different in terms of how social interaction works. Maybe the answer is just to say 'fuck it' and not try and replicate that stuff too much? I don't know.

It's still one of my all time favorite settings/lines (I was even into the CCG tournaments back in the day), so good luck to anyone who wants to try it. You'd have me as a player if nothing else.

@TiredEwok Like I said, there was a pregnancy emit.

To clarify for the class, the game included random intermittent 'mood emits,' that were sort of like ambient weather messages you might see on other games but which were sent directly to a player. They were random and mostly pretty ridiculous (one of them was about thinking monkeys are funny), and were theoretically just RP prompts. As you can imagine, the total # was limited and it wasn't long before you saw them all and most people ignored them.

Some emits were sex specific; a bunch of the male ones were about being randomly horny, for instance. While codedly pregnant, characters got special versions of these related to their condition. Needing to go to the bathroom was one of these. There was also one for craving a food item, and it selected randomly among all consumables and animal products, so it was possible to end up craving deadly poison or things that weren't strictly edible.

But there was no actual way to go to the bathroom or otherwise respond to or stop the emit, and no penalty for not doing so (same with the cravings). It was probably confusing to some new players who might have assumed they did need to react to it (waiting for the 'I locked in a room with a goat needing to pee' story in 3...2...1...).

There wasn't pee code. There was a pregnancy related ambience emit that talked about wanting to pee.

Other things people haven't seemingly mentioned:

• priests (and Ojitar) being able to buff stats
• The map in general, with its large coordinate grid system including a z axis for griffons.
• Other environmental features like a river current (that could fucking drown you pretty easily), and coded damage rooms in some areas
• Searching for hidden exits in rooms
• a crop/farming system, that was pretty underused
• a land income system based on noble ownership of actual grid squares on the above coordinate system
• the @Clan system, which is the closest thing to a discussed 'Domain system', and which handled large scale agricultural and industrial (such as it was) production for your clan's NPC population, including those in cities outside the main one. It also allowed for trading, and created a mini game where once a year or two we'd all go mad looking at spreadsheets and meeting in bars to trade dead birds for baskets, or occasionally go out and personally genocide the entire moose population of a grid square to manually fill food needs (hi)
• Speaking of that, hunting, which was basically the only place you had 'aggro' mobs in the game under normal circumstances
• Fishing, with poles or nets. My little Zin-rat commoner child made some sweet cash selling lobsters to a princess (lobster bisque was a favorite high-quality energy meal)
• messengers/mail delivery, including of objects, including objects that are technically creatures, like sending people a swarm of bees in the mail (same character)

There doesn't seem much mention of it but obviously there were also the big trademark things like crafting and combat. As a subset of this, staff could custom code magic equipment, and there were various magical weapons, divine trinkets, and so on floating around the playerbase. They could impart stat bonuses or do other things. Famously, there were also case-by-case coded powers for the demigod/Lanesh folks. These included everything from invisbility to summoning objects, spy code of different sorts, and combat powers that did damage or changed stats.

This was the last place I was playing meaningfully, and I've been gone for a bit now, so a lot really may just been general MU fatigue. Let me also say I've always liked playing with you guys on the various games we've been on, so please do not take any of this personally!

I think if I tried to get into specific criticisms a lot of them would verge into the general Ares stuff that's been talked to death recently, in that this game, like many of its ilk, seemed to have a lot happening in private scenes and smaller groups. It could simultaneously feel like nothing was happening and everything was rushing you by.

I think there were also some minor issues regarding what kinds of concepts were encouraged (vs supported) and how that meshed with the game's approach to history. On the military (my char) or political (one other player I knew who quit) side, it seemed like we were doomed to failure no matter how much we succeeded because history and theme required the march of the Magic Nazis to go on. The only place you could really move forward was by being a magical researcher (a role that's always both oversaturated and inevitably dominated by that one eager beaver or clique, you know the one) or treasure hunter.

There were more specific personal frustrations and failure points here and there, but I think on the balance it was mostly those larger kinds of issues that may not be easily remedied.

@HelloProject said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

I have no issue talking to anyone who wants to have a genuine discussion or who raises genuine concerns. I however have pretty much no real patience for what I can only describe as venting at people with no actual aim or goal and implications that "no, it is in fact everyone else who is wrong and being uncivil".

I didn't call anyone uncvil. It's actually bizarre to me that you've jumped to that conclusion and I thought I was trying to de-escalate with the "if you meant this other thing, OK." If you replied "yes I meant that other thing, you misunderstood me" we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Like, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us are over 30, and we're in a goddamned writing medium. You can't say "i'm not pissed" while making frothingly pissed off posts lashing out at people and showing literally zero desire to actually engage with what they're saying beyond your ability to vent at them on your own terms.

I'd ask what you think is actually 'frothing' but I think its pretty pointless. People here have seen me froth, though. If this is me rabid with hatred, I am seriously off my fucking game.

Like dude, this isn't Facebook,

Is it twitter? I'm confused.

That's the last thing I have to say on it. If you can't chill and be an adult I'm just gonna block you and be done with it.

Bye.

@Kestrel I wait with the most bated of breath.

@Kestrel Cool, so incivility is literally 'disagree with someone (EDIT: POC ONLY OF COURSE) in this topic.' We've come far.

@HelloProject I'm not pissed off, and it's 'weasel clause' because that quote says one thing ("I don't believe any of you and have never seen any evidence, not one piece") and then turns around and ends with "but I'm not questioning you, we cool". It can't actually be both.

Again, if you actually meant "I have not seen anything from this one guy" (although he did raise a supposed case, maybe you want to engage him on the details), OK. It sounds like you're saying that's what you meant? It's not what you wrote.

And Cirno has pretty much always been a psychotic asshole, pretty much every racial argument he's ever made about a game, everyone has immediately pointed out as bullshit if they were on the same game as him.

People were upvoting his 'OMG YOU CANNOT PLAY A PC FROM AFRICA!!! INJUSTICE!!!!' posts back during the Realms thing. I am not going to dig up the threads because search function blows here, but that's what happened, like it or not.

re: civility, I don't actually see what's uncivil here? Did anyone call anyone names? If anything, calling this out is proof that we're all old and lame. Anyway, enjoy your champagne, guy.

@HelloProject It's not clear if your'e arguing only with @TheBigD or editorializing on the thread, but

Like, so far I keep hearing all of these anecdotes about how the SJW staff came at the poor innocent people playing a POC, but I haven't seen a single receipt, log of the character being played, MU name, or hell even a goddamned app to let people take a look at anything. It's just people saying shit in the midst of making what sounds a hell of a lot like a bad faith argument. In general I'm not questioning anyone who seems to be making their argument in good faith, but when people come making straw arguments and acting like there's packs of roving nonbinary bandits coming after them if they even remotely step out of line, I'm going to go "okay so where's the receipts".

Bolds mine. All of those look very plural, very general, very whole-thread wide-net, and a weasel clause at the end doesn't really change that. If that's not the intent, OK. But that's not how the post read to me.

Your personal stance/walking anything back/etc isn't the point, the issue is whether or not you think this shit is part of the discourse or not. You brought it into the discourse. So did @Pandora, who was part of that exchange. When people think it's maybe not worth the drama to play POC/outside their sexuality, stuff like this is why (And, since you brought up Cirno, it's really hard to tell 'legit' concern from the weaponized kind. He might be a rare example, but he had a whole lot of this forum fooled, using the same language you are).

@HelloProject said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

Like, so far I keep hearing all of these anecdotes about how the SJW staff came at the poor innocent people playing a POC, but I haven't seen a single receipt, log of the character being played, MU* name, or hell even a goddamned app to let people take a look at anything. It's just people saying shit in the midst of making what sounds a hell of a lot like a bad faith argument. In general I'm not questioning anyone who seems to be making their argument in good faith, but when people come making straw arguments and acting like there's packs of roving nonbinary bandits coming after them if they even remotely step out of line, I'm going to go "okay so where's the receipts".

Let's be clear that several people very much have offered "receipts" of this sort of policing: @Auspice and @surreality discussing an incident on HorrorMU, and another about someone's wife being called a male fake lesbian. I also vaguebooked something that I'm happy to talk about mine but it's a weird, atypical case.

You personally seem pretty keen on policing sexuality (and are far from the only one, this thread had a huge example of that). So while I'm not supporting @TheBigD here, maybe some people do have negative experiences that might push toward 'staying in their lane.'