@Tapewyrm It largely depends on where you play. Good people still exist. I've been on games that were pretty chill. This is not to discount Ghost's experiences, which are wholly valid, but I think we run in different game circles and have had very different experiences.
@Ghost said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:
It's at the point that a code base used by many, many games (Ares) own creator doesn't partake in the hobby
That's mostly due to a lack of spoons and personal issues, not quitting the hobby as a whole. I think many of the Ares games are lovely, but I have very narrow tastes (which is why I've usually run my own games.)
@Tapewyrm said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:
Thus far, the answer to this question has been evaded.
Derp gave a pretty clear answer, I felt, about how rules are applied equally?
But you seem to want black and white answers on a nuanced issue. Someone could use the term "toxic femininity" as part of a healthy discussion on social expectations, tropes, etc. or they could use it as an epithet to shut down a conversation in an insulting, dismissive fashion. Same with "toxic masculinity".
Whatever you think of the context that sparked this in the first place (and I have half the convo blocked so I couldn't weigh in on the particulars even if I cared to), that context does matter.
@Tapewyrm said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:
But... don't do what? That's what I'm confused about.
Are you seriously trying to re-legislate a moderation call from over 5 years ago?
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt that you're asking in good faith, but it's hard to imagine what you think will be gained from this.
Just follow the rules of engagement and you'll be fine.
Evennia has a game index here: http://games.evennia.com/ (though some are more MUDlike)
@Ghost said in Bring back the Hog Pit:
I think it (HP) stands more than anything as a recorded history of mistreatment for far, far more people than it stands as a memory of good times for the people who thrived in it, and for the life of me cant understand why the former isnt the more important culture to protect
Burning the evidence of mistreatment may not help them either though.
But I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. I didn't read it when it was live, I'm not reading it now that it's locked, and I wouldn't read it if it were in a HTML archive.
I merely point out that a middle ground of a static HTML archive does, technologically speaking, exist.
@Ghost said in Bring back the Hog Pit:
Fuck bringing it back. Delete it and nuke the history.
Could also delete it but maintain a readonly archive on some fileshare somewhere for posterity. I've been told that buried in with the toxic sludge are some useful tidbits, but YMMV.
But bring it back? Oh heck no.
Folks who wanted the hog pit already migrated to the other forum, along with the ones who were banned from here. Bringing back the hog pit isn't going to magically reverse-migrate the community. It's the same basic problem that faces all the Twitter/Facebook competitors. Social media requires people, and the MUSH community isn't big enough to sustain two active forums.
@Ganymede said in When communication is too long to read ...:
As the parent of a ND person, I do remind them that others won't know their needs unless they speak up. Thankfully, they do. Sometimes, in inappropriate loud ways, but, hey, they are young, and they've got some time.
That's awesome, sincerely. But I am also the parent of a ND person who isn't that adept (as you say - they are young, they've got some time), and I know other ND people who are stuck by one or more of the reasons I mentioned before. So I still implore folks to approach the situation in a compassionate and constructive way instead of rushing to judgment.
@Ganymede said in When communication is too long to read ...:
Also, I believe the party receiving the communication has the responsibility to ask for clarity.
I agree that if the person literally said "that looks boring; I'm just gonna ignore it" for work-critical communications, they're acting like a jerk.
In general, though, I would implore giving them the benefit of the doubt and trying to approach the situation in a compassionate and constructive way.
Of course in an ideal world they "should" take the initiative of solving the problem themselves, but there can be many factors - shame, anxious avoidance, fear of reprisal, overwhelm paralysis, just to name a few - that may make it difficult for someone to reach out for help. Trying to meet them halfway can make all the difference.
And honestly - lots of people, even NT folks - tune out when they see a big wall o' text. Exploring different communication methods (a summary? a wiki or project board? a conversation?) may benefit more than just that one person.
@Misadventure Ask the person.
"I need to communicate this block of info to you - how can I do it in a way that you can effectively consume it?"
To be effective, ND accommodations need to be tailored. There is no 'one size fits all'.
@Misadventure said in Hidden information and enjoyment:
you are expected to provide secrets and twists and things they didn't prepare for.
I've found that players are no better at accepting unwelcome plot twists/secrets from staff than they are from fellow players, and are just as content with stuff to do as they are "secrets and twists". But YMMV depending on the game.
@Ghost said in Hidden information and enjoyment:
It's really, really hard to do anything secret when it comes to "cooperative gaming/storytelling" without effectively neutering the sense of surprise. This got me in to regular trouble in MU games.
Well yeah - surprise and collaboration are kind of opposing goals. It's like if you're co-authoring a book, you don't suddenly show up one day and "SURPRISE PLOT TWIST!" to your writing partner. It's more like: "Hey, I came up with a cool plot twist - what do you think?" And even if you sketch out a plot, you still don't know exactly how the dialogue or dice will go. There's still an improv level of surprise to it.
I get where you're coming from, though. I've had loads of fun with TTRPG plot surprises. I just haven't seen that same kind of experience mirrored in MUs. Usually it just ends poorly.
@Ghost said in Hidden information and enjoyment:
if I clear every plot twist ahead of time players tend to metagame it by having their character prepared for it.
That's where the collaboration comes in. It's not about 'clearing' a plot twist with the other player, it's about working with them to achieve something that's mutually fun.
Obviously I'm glossing over a lot. If you're staff, you can't run every metaplot by committee. And as a player, sometimes you've got jerks who just won't compromise. But this is the ideal, for me.
@Misadventure said in Hidden information and enjoyment:
Do you have personal preferences?
Well, like I mentioned - I prefer collaboration and transparency.
Many of the negative experiences I've had in RP were when players weren't on the same page OOCly. It's a pattern that has repeated itself every time I've either run or witnessed a "big twist" or mystery type plot on MUs. But that's just me.
In TTRPG there's a higher degree of trust among friends, so I really don't think those experiences necessarily translate to a MU environment.
There are different ways to play RPGs. None are inherently right or wrong, or better or worse, but it is vital that players and game-runners be on the same page.
Both Little House on the Prairie and Deadwood are westerns, but they are vastly different experiences. If you try to have a game where half the players want Little House and half want Deadwood, you're gonna have issues.
I prefer games that are cooperative storytelling experiences. In order to cooperate, some measure of OOC communication and transparency is essential. I've had good success running these types of games, but they're not for everyone.
@Ghost said in The Case Against Real PBs:
There will never be a forum for this hobby that isn't toxic
https://forum.aresmush.com/. It is not toxic. It also has no real traffic, because you're right - a large chunk of the community wants the hog pit (or the other place's equivalent) and the rest (understandably) just go where the people are.
Electric Soup back in the day wasn't toxic either. It had very little traffic compared to WORA, but we were happy in our little peaceful corner of the world. I was sad when it closed, because then I was left with "WORA or nothing" and I chose nothing. MSB gave me hope for something better because it at least tried to have a constructive section.
@Ghost said in The Case Against Real PBs:
This, I feel, is constructive.
What I advocate for is a forum that is both constructive AND civil. I don't think you can truly have one without the other.
Your points are often valid, but are presented in such an antagonistic manner that they get lost. People just end up reacting to the flames. So no, I don't feel that's constructive from a forum standpoint - and I say that as a friend who genuinely enjoys chatting with you 1-on-1.
@reimesu said in The Case Against Real PBs:
I'm watching an awful lot of people backseat mod when they don't want to step up.
You specifically asked for my suggestions; I gave them.
But frankly, no - I don't want to be a mod on a forum that for years has consistently said "thx but no" to my pleas for a different moderation style.
It's your (collective) right to choose how to run the forum. It's my right to be disappointed and frustrated when every conversation in even the "mildly constructive" section devolves into a flame war.
@reimesu said in The Case Against Real PBs:
What more would you suggest?
If you look at this thread and genuinely believe that it has on the whole stayed "civil", "constructive", and "on topic" (per the rules of engagement), then we are on very different pages about what that means. I count at least two, maybe three people who have bounced or blocked based on the convo here.
Also I'm not suggesting Ghost (or anyone else) be banned here. I'm suggesting that more active and consistent moderation can keep it from getting to that point in the first place.
@Derp said in The Case Against Real PBs:
Nobody gave it a pass. It was called out and acted upon. By two different admins.
It is your right to moderate the forum as you see fit. It is our right to point out when we feel it's not being effective.
Calling something out is not actually solving the problem. It's like if there's a kid on the playground who goes around hitting other kids, and the only thing the teacher does is say "Hey stop hitting". It doesn't actually change the behavior, and other kids will see that there are no real consequences for hitting.
That's what's happened on the MU forums, where for years the only tangible consequence for being un-constructive was getting the thread pushed to the hog pit (where those of us who wish to stay constructive can no longer participate.)
The only way to keep the mildly constructive forum actually constructive is to stop the hitting. There are various forum moderation strategies and tools for doing so.
@reimesu said in The Case Against Real PBs:
Frankly, the entire argument against PBs isn't an argument against PBs, it's an argument against unethical players who are being manipulative.
To be fair, that wasn't the entire argument, though it was the one that got the most attention. Others have raised valid points for and against that have nothing to do with players being manipulative.
@Ghost said in The Case Against Real PBs:
Even at its most realistic it's still art instead of an actual person's likeness, which avoids other issues
That's not strictly true given the current slate of AI tools. Most of them are ripping off existing stock photos, copyrighted images, or even just regular social media posts from actual people. You just can't tell where it came from or how like someone else it is. Check out some of the examples in the copyright cases.
Maybe someday when the tools are more ethically sourced I'd be on board with it, but not now.
It completely eliminates the "...I refuse to roleplay with Charlie Sheen PBs because of this one experience in 2003" drama, and also protects unwitting players who choose that PB from being related in any way to the 2003 weirdo
I get where you're coming from, but I don't see this as a problem that needs solving. If somebody's going to refuse to roleplay with me because they don't like my PB, good riddance.
@hobos said in The Case Against Real PBs:
I have absolutely been in the place where someone was kind of hounding me for TS and trying to tell me what PBs to use and pushing me to find more PBs and in the end pulled some really weird predatory manipulative stuff that had been making me feel like I just wanted to quit.
That is obviously awful, and I sympathize with anybody who's had to deal with that.
I think the only difference between us is that I see PBs as a symptom of the issue an not a cause. Because let's face it, people have been hounded for TS an faced with predatory manipulative crap long before using PBs was a widespread practice in MUs.
@Ganymede said in The Case Against Real PBs:
What I'm saying is that you're one of us. If that's a personal attack that is against the rules, so be it.
I think that calling somebody a "creepy weirdo" can justifiably be considered a personal attack, even if it is followed by "like the rest of us."
I agree with the overall substance of your points, but c'mon - that last paragraph was throwing some gasoline (even if you didn't start the fire).
(I don't consider myself a creepy weirdo, for the record. A weird weirdo, for sure, but not a creepy one.)