Best posts made by Derp

@Ghost said in Punishments in MU*:

players banned from the community itself.

Woaaahhhh there cowboy. I usually agree with most things, but this one I think is a bridge too far.

Getting removed from one, or even a handful of games, does not necessarily mean anything for the community at large. I've seen players that I consider perfectly acceptable banned from multiple games at the same time because they pissed off one gamerunner who was friends with other gamerunners. (Those are a very small subset of this community, and despite defenses to the contrary, notoriously clique-y.)

You're never going to find anyone banned "from the community" because nobody in "the community" has that kind of control over anything. I guarantee you that even the most notorious villains like Spider and BigBad and whoever are playing somewhere happily.

@Nymeria said in MUers in the news?:

@Ganymede said in MUers in the news?:

Or you could offer explanations for potential players that make sense for your world. The choice is yours, but you could help applicants instead of asking them to be mind-readers.

I haven't said that we don't? If someone wants an unusual concept, we work with them. But yes, we do ask that they know the material and have MUSHed before in those instances, because it is harder to play as an outsider.

Why must they be outsiders? Why not descendants of a previous political intermarriage? Why not any of the ten thousand other ways people of color can and do exist? People move. Spread. It’s what we’re best at. And we know they do in this world. So why not just embrace that instead of the consistent doubling down on this idea that skin color somehow matters to the setting when we know it doesn’t?

This is the part that I don’t get. You have been handed opportunity after opportunity to be diverse and inclusive and avoid all the pitfalls of systemic or overt racism and you consistently say “no.”

What else are we supposed to make of that?

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

they are not fun and do nothing for my involvement to the game.

As someone who requires these short essays, let me counter this with: they aren't for you, so whether or not they do anything for your involvement with the game is only half the story.

Staff have no idea what you have in your head for a character. If all we see is a sheet, I can show you a collection of dots and skills and merits for a person, and then show you an equivalent sheet, and only in the background would you find that one is a doctor and one is a knife assassin.

I require those short essays because I need to know what you have in your head, and where you see the character fitting into the world, because I need to maintain some internal consistency. And players really should be willing to give staff some slack in that regard, whether or not it's fun for them. Doing apps isn't fun for staff, but we do it because it's necessary to maintain consistency within a set of rules and theme.

Carthago delenda est.

ETA: You'll be including the United States as an ally to ancient Rome, yes?

whistles innocently

My thoughts on this are, both as a player and a staffer:

I am not your dad. It's not my job to decide for you what is or is not appropriate for you. If a player acts in a way that you feel is inappropriate for you, then it's your job to take the first step, either by telling the other player or telling me.

I very rarely step in and tell people to knock something off IC unless I receive a complaint about it first. OOC is a slightly different matter, but IC? You are empowered to raise your voice. I make it very clear that you are empowered to raise your voice. If you don't do that, then that's on you. I'll act swiftly if you lodge a complaint and provide evidence or examples of the behavior that you're talking about.

But if you don't even do that? Then how am I, or anyone else, supposed to know that you aren't ok with this? My job is to provide fun, either as a staffer or a character. Not to sit and hawk over everyone to make sure that whatever artificial boundary exists in my head is being honored by the entirety of everyone.

Christ, that sounds exhausting. Even just dealing with the complaints that get formally lodged is exhausting.

Ares has me totally spoiled. A friend of mine and I are both playing on another TinyMUX game and are constantly finding ourselves going 'man, we need Ares here'.

@Faraday has got me all hooked.

@Auspice said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

'You're the only one for me'
'Name blushes profusely as she looks his way'
The white knight, the overly romantic 'husband' material ........ who is somehow in a deeply committed relationship with multiple women at the same time.
Those are the creeps we usually see pop up.
...But the guy who seems to be collecting a harem of women meant to be latched onto him and him alone while he's juggling six of them? That's fucked up.

You know, I would see a red flag here. Just not the one you're seeing.

This is all IC, in that scenario. Character presents as white knight material, but is secretly something else.

That's fine. If you report that to me, I'll advise you to act on it IC. Go talk to the other women. Have them run into each other and start talking about their boyfriend, and put the pieces together. Go full-on Carrie Underwood and have them take a baseball bat to his shiny pickup and carve their names into his leather seats.

But if you ask staff to make a judgment about a player based on the actions of his PC, I'm probably going to red flag that, because that is a pretty distinct blurring of IC/OOC lines. That, to me, is a red flag.

Can you imagine what sort of hobby this would be if all of us were judged OOC based on the actions of our PCs? (Moreso than we already are.)

Every Daeva would be a secret rapist. Every werewolf would be a violent psychopath. Every superhero would be dangerously delusional.

If there's some kind of OOC component, that might be actionable. But if it's just IC? Ngh.

@mietze said in To OOC Room or Not to OOC Room (and Other Artifacts):

I think it would be a little harder to adapt for a permanent-grid-less game, for me personally, because I like being able to use rooms I dont have to create in order to seek RP, but for the right game I would definitely be willing to try and adapt.

Well, yeah. The grid still serves a purpose. It shows you the layout of the world. My thing is more -- too big of a grid and you just start to dilute players and RP, really. So the question was 'how big is too big'?

One of the bit things on games lately is that people just aren't actually playing them, I've found. There are plenty of characters, plenty of places, ongoing plots -- and a ton of people just idling in the OOC lounge or private builds and not even bothering to try to leave to go find RP. I'm just curious if taking away some of the barriers/crutches that are used to avoid going out to the grid at large might ease some of that.

Yeah, this is getting a little ridiculous.

"There is always OOC" is just trying to justify branding a player based on how the character acts, and not being able to differentiate between the character and the player, which will never, ever be ok with me.

Also, I don't think that anyone is saying 'paging the person to check in' is not ok. The message more has been 'it is not your place to take up a cause on their behalf if they have expressed nothing that would lead you to draw that conclusion'.

Because yes, as other people have stated, that isn't you acting on their behalf. It's acting on yours. Because you don't like the style a character is being played in, and therefore wish to have someone approach the player of the character in an official capacity.

Feel however you want about the IC actions, but it is massively not cool to brand the player based on those.

@faraday said in Hello!Project's Mysterious Game Project Thread:

You could disassemble half the castle and try to build something on top of it, but are you really going to be happy with a weird castle/highrise hybrid?

I dunno, man. Xanatos's pad was pretty dope:

@Roz said in Model Policies?:

@mietze I am very much reminded of the amount of public naysaying that went on when Faraday first started announcing her Ares plans and development. Many of the people who called certain efforts pointless, unnecessary, or even bad can now be seen singing the praises of the system.

A lot of the times? Players have no idea what they'll actually like/enjoy on that level. People get very attached to what they're used to, good or bad.

I think that I was one of those people. I mean, I'm still kind of torn about it because I softcode a LOT of personal things for my own reference, but it's really nothing that I can't use notes for.

But I have to say, after seeing what Ares offers, I am absolutely sold on it. Even if it sometimes still baffles me and I have to ask @faraday to hold my hand a little. <.<

But I'm kind of interested in this as a larger discussion outside of model policies, so I think I'm gonna branch this a bit.

And also:

This is the Announcements thread, as mentioned before. This sort of discussion/behavior is best suited for the hog pit, as @Lithium said. I originally posted in this thread again just to make @Glitch aware that a forum feature was broken, but it's spun way out into left field.

@saosmash said in Faraday Appreciation Thread:

Faraday is a class act and a half, and she won't even take money for the work she does for this hobby even when people are trying to throw it at her.

I would, no lie, contribute to some kind of tip jar for her work.

Every game, for good or ill, seems to get an MSB thread eventually. I don't think 'posting about you on MSB' is like -- as bad as people think it is.

@mietze said in The Fate of MUSHdom:

If I were a game runner I would be pretty leery of paying for a service like this. Or even participating in something more similar to groupon for games, after seeing how having an influx of clients that you didn't anticipate and could not accommodate at the pace that they expect can impact a business in RL.

Here's the big, open secret: MUSH isn't dying. It's just becoming more exclusive and tribal. There are plenty of games out there. They just aren't as widely advertised. Many games are unlisted. Most of those are invite-only. I know of at least a half dozen offhand. There are probably many more that I don't know about.

Size was an issue. Clashing personalities was an issue. Entitlement was an issue. That's how some people solved it.

@Tinuviel said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

ETA: Why do I call myself gay then, you ask? Because fuck you, that's why.

Also because it's just easier. It's easier for me to tell people I'm gay and have them get all surprised when I hook up with a woman than to try and explain bisexuality is a real thing. @Auspice and I have talked about this at length.

You're not allowed to be not-an-extreme.

@Pacha said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

You should be an expert in art, fashion and design, an expert cook and have perfect hair/skin/teeth/abs and whatever else.

This.

Like -- dudes. I shop at Wal-Mart. I don't know shit about fashion. Or makeup. I don't know which wedding dress looks perfect on you. I missed that day in orientation, alright?

@paperbrilliant said in Good places to Sandbox/Anyone interested in forming a group for Sandbox RP.:

The problem seems to be finding people more than finding something to facilitate gameplay. All the MUSHers grew up got mortgages and kids and have no time for RP.

To be fair -- a good many of those that grew up and got mortgages and had kids are now getting old enough that the kids are moving out of the house and they're staring at retirement soon, so.

Bright side?

@de-villefort said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

World of Darkness is even worse because you are literally trained ICly to see everyone as a potential enemy who isn't in your click.

I mean, that's only half true. You're also trained to see them as a potential valuable resource and a way to get a leg up on things for a nominal price, so it actually does foster social RP. Just -- people never do it.

@arkandel said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

My anecdotal example in this regard was from years ago when someone rolled a new chef into a sphere and the existing chef complained OOC about it. There can only be one!

I remember this happening at least twice, actually.

@ganymede said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

And yet I can count the number of times I have seen players with the crown fulfill the responsibilities that come with it on my fingers.

Pretty much. It's why I don't allow PC leadership, and why people whine at me so much. They promise promise promise they will do it better than the other guys. (Spoiler: They don't.) So now all top-tier leadership is NPC, and I let PCs have middle management.