Posts made by Cupcake

I was drummed out of Kushiel's Debut years ago and now I'm rather glad for it. Wow.

@VulgarKitten said in The Shame Game:

@Arkandel And the opposite of that 'hey do you mind if we FTB on this sexy times stuff?' SHAME that chick is such a prude. It's just a game. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't, depending on the person.

I think this pretty much applies to any situation in which someone is engaging in RP behavior that others decide (for good or ill) is worth shaming.

@surreality said in The Shame Game:
hat experience may humiliate someone in the process -- but it doesn't tend to be the real goal.

That's the message I'm getting. Though chalk me up as one of those people the self-awareness of a turnip. I'm trying though, and I think my current personal circumstances have upswinged to a point where I'm able to see some improvement. Admittedly it's subjective, but I'm trying.

@surreality said in The Shame Game:

(I think the intention was, "Hey, I just read this thing, and it makes me wonder how it relates to what goes on here. What do y'all think?")

Thank you. That is what I was going for. I didn't realize it was poorly phrased - obviously if I did, I would have structured the original post differently. I will go so far as to say that the beyond citing my source, the only reason to possibly "name drop" would be so any interested party could look up her work because it's done a lot for me personally and might help someone else. If so, that's wonderful, but I'm also not sitting here telling everyone to go read her stuff. At best, it's a "shout out" more than a "name drop".

@Ghost said in The Shame Game:

Just say whatcha wanna say

I actually did. I wanted to prompt a discussion about shame based on the research I've recently read about and how I thought it seemed to be applied in this aspect of the mush community (being WORA/SWOFA/MSB etc). No horrible secret sidelong passive aggressive agenda here.

@Ghost said in The Shame Game:

Honestly, since you're big time name-dropping an author and already have decided that shaming doesn't work, why bother asking what our opinion is on the matter? Cut the foreplay and just release a statement on your feelings on shaming type behavior on MSB, or don't?

...or I'm referencing the source from which I got the notion in the first place as a point of reference and validity? And already mentioned that I understand the general opinion is different and acknowledged correction of my impression?

@Sunny: Like I said, I'm willing to acknowledge it as a singular opinion than a community wide one. The fact that I was curious (and apparently mistaken) about it being a community opinion is what prompted creation of the thread. I'm not sitting here screaming about how it's true, it's true, you're all wrong!

If anything, apparently I'm wrong, and I'm not afraid to nut up to that.

@deadculture said in The Shame Game:

The Hog Pit is to fling shit. If you do not think that it suits your views of the board, then do not peruse it. Mildly constructive is for when you actually want to build something (whether that's a game idea, knowledge or merely advice) out of nothing. I prefer Mildly Constructive over the Hog Pit, myself. However, you joined the Pitcrew, so evidently you like the shitflinging.

I for one am having a much more satisfactory experience of MU Soapbox without it.

I'm not pointing fingers or even saying OH NO IT'S WROOOOONG. But it's something I've wondered about as a collective behavior. I've got no motive beyond wanting to have the discussion.

Except I've seen on previous boards people explicitly mentioning that one of the purposes of these boards is public shaming. I'll call it fair to say that may be a singular opinion I've observed, but I was curious as to what people thought about the idea.

One of the purposes of boards like this (SWOFA, WORA, etc) has been to publically shame players and staffers that individuals in the community feel have acted in an inappropriate manner. "Name and shame" is even part of our vernacular as a community.

I've seen others mention that the point of public shaming is primarily to curtail the bad behavior, whether it's by giving the person targetted a come to Jesus or driving them out of the community. The more cynical might propose that it's simply because as people we love, love, love to rubberneck and expose dirty laundry.

Recently I've been reading the works of Brene Brown, a professor and author who researches the nature of shame, in an effort to improve my mental health. One of my takeaways from this was that one of the results of her research was the discovery that by and large, shaming people is not an effective tactic to get the result of permanently altering someone's behavior. It may cause a large swing to the opposite for a brief period, but eventually it will return to the previous pattern of bad behavior.

So what is the purpose of public shaming in our community? Are we invested in the idea of helping problem players to improve? Are we knuckling up to the idea that we do it simply for our own visceral enjoyment?

@Ganymede said in The 100: The Mush:

@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:

How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to?

That's not what I was objecting to. What you described was a situation where staff adopted a dangerous mentality: "I will devote my free time only to those players who share my vision of this game."

It makes sense superficially, but it's dangerous in practice. If those players manipulate the vision of the game, then staff are no longer serving that vision; rather, staff are serving those players. This is how the Ham Clique worked; this is how Spider gets into positions of power.

I realize this is going to possibly open me up to all sorts of scorn, but I have to say I'm confused. When you log into a game, isn't it with the expectation of playing within the theme, ie the vision that the staffers have put into play? Which again may return to my question of whether or not dispensing plot to non-proactive people makes any sense, or why it's bad to respond to those who choose to be proactive.

Personally I log in to play "The 100" and I think the only time I would try to sway the theme of the game is if I felt the game was going wildly off thematic track. And if it was, there's certainly ways to approach staff civilly about it. I'm not trying to build a cult of personality, which to me smacks more of what the aforementioned clique and the likes of Spider are prone to do.

My character is proactive. I built her to be so, and I've been playing her as politically ambitious and she's made her way into a position of having some credit with her fellow Delinquents. I don't know if this makes me part of the antagonistic or "favored" folk, but I'm happy to RP with pretty much anyone, and I try to weather check when I feel like I may have come across unintentionally antagonistic OOCly (more often than not people assure me I haven't, but since it's happened to me so often in my mushing history, I'm going to keep checking.)

For the record, if a Victorian era WoD game (or just a Victorian set theme of virtually any stripe) does happen, I'll probably be there with bells on.

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

My own experience on the game wasn't terrible and I think it has potential once it gets beyond the initial high-intensity growth spurt, but it wasn't my thing at this exact moment (in large part because of the 'playing angsty teenagers' things, but that doesn't mean anyone I encountered was playing them horribly). Which is a very uninteresting opinion, I know. So it goes.

In fairness, we are now at a point in the game where "angsty teenagers" is not the only option available. We have adult Grounders and I expect probably adult Skaikru within the next month.

What I hazily recall is that staff felt that not enough people were comfortable with the period setting and its conventions. Which was a disappointment for me as I'd made a character who was a challenge to those conventions. (A woman. A Chinese woman. A Chinese woman running a business.) All elements of which became a million times less exciting or interesting as hooks when they game switched to modern era pretty much overnight. I was bummed.

@Miss-Demeanor : Maybe I'm misreading your intended meaning, but I'm confused as to why staff should be expected to divvy out plot to non-proactive players. Isn't the give-and-take of proactive play the whole point of the exercise? Why is staff obligated to throw bones for people who are, for whatever reason, seemingly uninterested? Or do you mean more along the lines of not having the opportunity for play because of timezones and obligations, etc?

You also mentioned an example of posting updates on the bulletin board of important plot points by staff. Staff is doing that, nd has been doing that for some time. Both on the bboards incrementally as well as maintaining a timeline on the wiki.

@Monogram: An argument can be made for any option to be bad for the game and risk bringing RP down. All it takes is for someone(s) to decide they don't like it and choose to abandon ship. My point is that all of these options (including the one you're concerned about) have potential for remaining inclusive to RP depending on how we as players choose to approach them.

@Monogram: Let's be honest, there's no single answer that's going to make everybody happy.

Option 1: Fall in line with the Ark, for better or for worse.
Option 2: Split off, form a separate community that will likely have to deal with both Trikru and Skaikru.
Option 3: Fall in line with the Ark with the intention of changing it from the inside.
Option 4: Joining the Ark community via force.

Option 1 takes away a level of IC choice that isn't realistic to expect.

Option 2 spreads out RP, but one of the primary points of this theme is that you can't expect to survive alone. Those that make this choice need to understand the potential of what they're getting into, a realm of "make your own fun" and speaking only for myself, if my character made this choice, I'd still have her encouraging contact and trade and interaction with the other groups. It might be a harder path, but as long as we're not splintering into a half dozen tiny gangs, it might be doable.

Option 3 is an RP challenge with lots of possibilities. Whether it's a slow burn effort to create political change or an internal rebellion. It's certainly a high risk notion but entirely feasible if PCs make the right moves. If it was understood on the OOC level that this is a viable possibility in which the story could go, it might persuade people to stay in a cohesive faction, but that depends on how you weigh commitment to story versus commitment to character.

Option 4 is much like Option 3, and may also involve driving the theme in new directions in which staff and some players might not want to go. It involves not just an OOC willingness to place one's character in a specific direction, but to also allow them to be placed in a vulnerable state which not everyone likes. There's a point at which being in what ICly feels like a despairing/hopeless situation can be a loss of enjoyment for some RPers, and it's hard to measure against how much hope and enablement to accomplish their goals to provide as a storyteller.

These are a few of the possible scenarios when it comes to addressing the population movement of the game, the Delinquents in particular.

Edited for redundancy

Group splintering may yet happen, but in an entirely organic way. Right now the Delinquents have a ceasefire treaty with the Grounders, but part of being able to get there in the first place was recognizing that in order to move forward, those who were sent to negotiate had to acknowledge themselves as part of the Ark, acting on behalf of the Ark. They chose to do so in order to get their ceasefire, well knowing that there is a possibility of some kind of splinter faction forming; those who support Ark governance and those who do not.

It is entirely possible that a second community will form made up of former Ark inhabitants that have chosen not to live under the new government. There are characters who are devoted to this idea, some who ride the middle, and others who are opposed either just in terms of their choice or as to what everyone should be doing. My own PC is still in "wait and see" mode, since the new laws have not been revealed yet. She doesn't know if they're going to be better or worse than what she's accustomed to.

The point is, opportunities for split-off are definitely there, and characters are pursuing discussion and interactions that involve such a circumstances happening - but this is something that needs to evolve over time. Right now is the time of "live together, die alone", and that has been proven ICly to be a valid line of thought.

Re: Preacher

I don't know, it felt like Seth Rogen and whoever else was behind the camera were trying really hard to tun it into a Tarantino film and didn't quite make it.

I think AMC ought to take those resources and apply them to Into the Badlands instead. Anybody else seen it? It's fantastic.

BlowTorch and Mukluk are the only two I'm aware of. I've used both and slightly prefer Mukluk because when you type in BlowTorch's buffer, you can't see what you're typing until you complete the word.