Posts made by Ganymede

@Tinuviel

I edited it because I spelled "perspicacious" incorrectly.

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

My dissent is premised on my belief that this is not an exception.

Your issue is important, but it is not dichotomous. In my opinion, the choice should be noticeable. If a player asks: "why did staff pick <X> to play <important PC>?", the answer should and must be "because staff trusts <X> to play that character due to his/her/its history." Anything else is a sham.

There's nothing wrong with picking a particular person to play a perspicacious pugilist to perfection. I only have an issue when someone tries to pass the choice off as being part of some impartial selection process.

@Coin said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

Man, I gotta say, I side with @Herja here, pretty hard.

I concur.

I think the question then becomes "how do we make players care?" I think the easiest way is to have game mechanics to reward players for engaging; it's a little harder on games that do not have symbolic shinies. That said, it's really nifty to play on a game where the "leader" is someone who is facilitating RP, giving PCs something to do with their existences, and actively trying to make every players' experience on the game better.

That's how I get invested in games, to be honest.

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

I dissent.

Yes, I know. I know. I know about the past corruption. I know about the present corruption; y'all have examples, yo, and I get that. And I also know that this line is abused to the shit, bro, and I have been on the receiving end of such bullshittery when I applied for IC positions.

I get that. Here's the thing, though.

If I have spent eleventy-billion hours of my time and effort to build a game, and that game needs a PC or an NPC of considerable importance who has an active part in keeping the game going, then I am going to guaran-damn-tee you that I'm not going to open him/her/it up for open application. It's just not going to happen. I am going to pick someone who I know to be responsible, honest, and, most importantly, courageous enough to stick it to me and tell me, "Gany, you ignorant slut, << their point here >>."

And that person is likely to be a friend, as close as any lawyer-cat-bot has to having a friend in the MUSH-verse.

If people don't like that, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. I am not going to let a stranger have such a position on my game, period. "Gee, why did Gany pick << let's say Caryatid >> to play << important PC on game >>, huh, huh?* Yeah, because she's got a track record in my books as being someone I can trust with that position, you dimfuck. It's my fucking game, and, like my fucking house, I'm not going to let a fucking unknown come in and potentially fuck it the fuck up. If you've a problem with that choice, so be it; deal with it or get the fuck out, I don't care.

"They can be trusted with this" is a perfectly-acceptable explanation to me (as long as that is the proffered explanation because I hate it when people try to come up with pretextual excuses to make them seem impartial when they're not).

@Rinel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I feel held hostage and I resent the hell out of this and it is taking all of my effort to make sure I don't bring up how pissed off I am about it until next week once everything is settled.

This is why I never set an appointment with them.

I walk into their office when they are around and ask if they have a moment.

@Pandora

Disagreement does not necessarily connote an inability to work with staff.

It’s really a matter of time management. I don’t mind disagreement; I live in a world where disagreement is constant (I have children and a partner). But if I have to justify every decision I make to a player to their satisfaction, then I am wasting time that is better spent elsewhere.

Disagree all you want with me; that’s fine. Demand every waking minute of my time? Out.

@insomniac7809 said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

ha ha ha it is to laugh

@Auspice said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

2 is invalid. It's a new character.

I would argue that one of the hallmarks about the Joker is that he didn't like to work with anyone in particular. In fact, he would rather cruelly get rid of his minions, seemingly at random. The fact that Harley Quinn is an attached constant is a deviation.

In the books I own re: comic writing (specifically for Marvel & DC) and in what I studied in school: that's what's important. It's not the canon (how many reboots and lines and all are there anyway?), it's the structure and motivations. This is why people on comic games balk when someone comes in and goes 'I really just want the name'

I understand this, and your example is taken. But it is an extreme example.

I mean, my version of Magma on ESH was a hard deviation. In the comics, she is more-or-less a very willful, strong woman in her own. I took the "brainwashed minion" trope as justification for making her a fearful, hesitant young woman. And then I took the "geo-thermal manipulation" power set and figured that this is a hesitant young woman with the power to generate volcanoes out of the ground, and is scared shitless by this. So, with few "real" memories, putting her in New York City makes her ... well, very different than any comic version I could dredge up.

Did this upset others? I have no idea; I didn't really interact much in the time I was there, outside a small handful of others.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

I recognise your point; it's not invalid. Still, I maintain, change small things all you like, but be wary of making large changes to canon -- it will drive future players away.

I concur, but they may not be the players I want in the first place.

Vast deviations from canon are not only acceptable, but encouraged. To-wit: (1) Mr. Freeze's reincarnation under Dini and Timm; (2) the invention of Harley Quinn; (3) Gotham's Oswald Cobblepot; etc.

If you want canon, go read a comic.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

And therein lies the problem with canon. You can't. Even if you somehow convince the entire current playerbase that Batman is a girl named Sue, new players won't know or recognise this canon.

And yet we see this sort of revisionism with comics today, and fans are just fine with it.

My thoughts are simple: let go of canon. It's not difficult. Superhero games are ultimately exercises in fan-fiction, nothing more. If my Magma is an insecure Allison Crestmere, so be it. If she's afraid of using her powers because of their destructive power, so be it. If she finds herself attracted to Barbara Gordon, so be it. And if my Magma switches hands, it's really no different than Chris Claremont coming in and fucking up everyone's shit.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in MU Things I Love:

I'm new to the forum and I have time to kill, reading older threads because some of the discussions here are very interesting.

@Pandora

I think the other posters have said what I want to say. It could come down to a simple personality clash. I could say: “so long as I run the game you won’t have an approved character here,” but that’s pretty much a ban, right?

No matter how polite you are, a ban is a ban. “This isn’t the right place for you; please go elsewhere” is just a nicer way of saying “ain’t nothing wrong with you, but don’t let the door hit you on the ass.”

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

I'd call it a notably dangerous one for this hobby. Fill a group with imaginative people with anxiety, avoidance issues, varying degrees of social awkwardness, etc. (HI!) and you're going to get some doozies.

Is it fair for me to say that I find the spiral to be built on unreasonable conclusions?

Is it also fair for me to say that if a conclusion is unreasonable, one should not come to it?

I've come across speculators. I've pointed out the speculation. It seems to ameliorate the situation most of the time. But, sure, some of us won't be reassured or appeased by that, and that's fine.

So, it can be dangerous, yes. As it applies to punishments, though, the reasons for punishment do not have to be public. The rampant speculation when bans occur without apparent reason are hardly ever quelled when the reason is given.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

...maybe scale back on the enthusiasm just a smidge from that. Just a smidge.

Anyhow, the commiseration circle is just another form of gossip played by idle minds.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

Enthusiastically, I would guess.

The thought of stabbing someone with one's rusty anchor whilst trolling for booty makes perfect sense to my pirate PC, but I'm struggling without thinking ...

@surreality

How do you stab someone with a rusty anchor?

@Alamias said in RL Anger:

My wife is a teacher. It's not a surprise or secret among people who know a teacher.

I remain a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

I know teachers.

@Pandora said in Punishments in MU*:

Banning someone is a form of public shaming; just because they're off your game now and you don't have to look them in the metaphorical eye afterwards doesn't mean they haven't been shamed and that they aren't going to suffer negatively within the wider community as a result.

That is a reasonable way to look at it, but it's not one that I share. If someone suffers public shame as a result of being banned, so be it; however, I know a handful of people who have been banned which I do not considered to be either shamed or besmirched by the act. Sometimes, a ban comes down because a player simply cannot work with staff for one reason or another.

The reasons for a banning also do not have to be egregious in the slightest. Take the infamous Spider, for example, one of the very few people I would ban on sight. Many of us know why I would do this, but not everyone. Would everyone need do know the specifics? I think it would be enough to say: I do not want this player playing on this game, and it is, at the end of the day, my game to be responsible for.

To be honest, that's what it all ultimately comes down to, right? If I, as a staffer, simply do not feel that I can or want to deal with a player, I don't want them on my game. That's all. It could be for any reason: too snarky; too back-handed; too many lawyer jokes; it's all subjective to who is running the show. And if I'm running the show, I'm going to do what I think is best.

When it comes to stalking and that bullshit, you're damn right I will call the shit out of it, but at that point the banning is secondary. I can envision many situations where I would ban someone without needing to call out the specific behavior for which they were banned.

@Lotherio said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

No one made a move, but theoretically a player should be able to move to the top, I was more focused on the other Fifths and them wanting to stomp the PC Fifth.

To be fair, I was making a move but kept on getting my head cut off.

@Pandora

Keto win.

(Cheat days are okay; too often is bad, though; but you can do this.)