@peasoupling said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:
I sometimes wonder why fantasy/science-fiction settings have to copy our familiar forms of bigotry and discrimination for the sake of 'realism'.
Another reason.
@surreality said in The Shame Game:
Or enough of 'em got caught at it it wasn't worth trying to hide any more.
Honey, no one wants to catch basement-bound nerds getting a little something-something, not even other basement-bound nerds.
And that's shaming, folks.
@surreality said in The Shame Game:
"Who should listen to you? You're just a stupid perv." <-- that kind of thing was incredibly common.
It was also stupid.
None of those people ever backed down, though. Nobody stopped admitting it. Nobody crawled off to die in a hole. None ever talked about it any differently then than is done now. People stood their ground because they were found nothing wrong with standing there, even when it wasn't comfortable.
Time passed. Shit changed. People grew up. (OK, most people grew up; there are still some folks stuck in the 90s on this one, but they're now as rare as the handful were back then.) You don't really see the hatefest toward anyone who considers TS as potentially a part of RP for whatever reason in the same way.
Sometimes the behavior being shamed is stupid. Sometimes it's the shaming itself that is the behavior that is actually stupid.
Things probably eased up because, over time, even basement-bound nerds can get a little something-something.
And shame on the idiot who decided to shame people for liking to give oral sex. YOU ARE JESUS'S PEOPLE.
TL;DR: People need to offer oral sex more often.
@Sunny said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:
I just feel like there are a million different things that set it apart as not-modern, cultural aspects that can be played up, things that folks can focus on. Seems fucked up to me to make 'women must not have too many rights' the hill to die on for authenticity.
Looked at it from another way -- maybe from @surreality's perspective -- women fighting for rights could be a central trope to play with on the game. You'd just need players willing to push back to make it interesting.
@Sunny said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:
Why is 'how women and minorities are treated' the benchmark for making a game 'historical enough'?
I think this is because this is where the largest disconnect is. The truth is that many of us have no personal experience of the prejudice that minorities felt back in these days; we only believe what we read from accounts of that time.
I otherwise largely agree with you. There's no reason why the game designers could simply kibosh the discussion.
People are stupid.
The best policy: card everyone. Don't like it? Stop setting age limitations.
@Thenomain said in New Player Onboarding:
Now I know that @Saulot doesn't always think I am the most awesome thing since sliced bread. I don't know how I'm going to live.
From what I know, I don't know how you go on living either.
Here's some aloe.
Anyhow, if it wasn't clear before: the new player helpers are simply designees from the player base. They may or may not have staff ties, but I have to wonder why a staffer would want their player alt to be a new player helper, when they can do that as staff to begin with.
@Lithium said in The Shame Game:
What I /SAID/ was that all opinions have the same propensity of equal weight regardless of who says them. It's an opinion, it is not a fact. Therefor people will judge the opinion based on their standards, that's all anyone can do.
I'm of the opinion that not all opinions have equal weight. Opinions that are formed from personal knowledge, reading and evaluating the works of others, and/or critically thinking about the same have substantially more weight than those without.
By saying that opinions "have the same propensity" of equal weight, I'm unsure if you mean that all opinions without critical evaluation by the listener have the same weight. If so, then I agree: it's all just words. In context, to say that all opinions have the same weight, however, sounds like a very dangerous belief -- the sort that promotes plutocrats to positions of power.
@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:
Say and feel things because you actually feel and care about them. That, I think, is worth a lot more respect, and will make you feel better to boot.
People actually seem to respect me more as an unfeeling robot. When they get to know me, it's like they forget about this persona entirely.
If upvoting is any indication, people here seem to care more if they are amused with or connect with what you have to say, rather than whether or not they give a shit about who said it.
@surreality said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:
Think of it in terms of learning a new language. If all the native speakers sneered and started mocking you when you flubbed a word, sure, you might learn that word -- but what you really learned is that all the native speakers are assholes.
It's true, though. French people are assholes.
@Cupcake said in The Shame Game:
So what is the purpose of public shaming in our community? Are we invested in the idea of helping problem players to improve?
Generally, no.
I'd like to think people can change or will change after their bullshit is called out, but I would never pretend that my public shaming of them here was meant to be some sort of rehabilitative effort.
One part of self-improvement is self-awareness. If public shaming leads to this, great. If not, that's fine as well; you can develop your own mature sense of self-awareness on your own, I figure. And, if you don't, I don't have any plans to meet with you in the future (probably).
@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:
When you log into a game, isn't it with the expectation of playing within the theme, i.e. the vision that the staffers have put into play?
Yes, unless the theme described by the staffers is not the same as the theme they are actually cultivating. That is a completely different aside.
I am not suggesting that staff dispense plot to non-active players or not dispense plot to the pro-active players. That's not in my analysis because that's not what I'm getting at.
What I am trying to communicate is that it is a dangerous mentality for staff to cater to any group of players. While there is an expectation for staff to work with players, staff should be expected to cater to the game.
Let's take your suggestion and play it out. Suppose the theme of the game is going wildly off-track. Suppose you go to staff and point this out, and they were to respond that they are catering to the players who are pro-active and working with them. This seems sensible, but remember that the game is going off-theme; you know it, others know it, but staff are not doing anything about it. Because they are catering to the players.
It's not about a cult of personality. That's not precisely how Spider or the Ham Clique worked. They inculcated others -- specifically staff -- into catering to them because they were active, creating other activity, and cooperating. They appear to be your best players. They become staff to simply help out with mundane jobs. And then, you cannot afford to shake loose of them because all of the plots are tied to them, all of your remaining players are their friends, and they are essentially running your game. That isn't forming a cult of personality; it is the equivalent of a hostile takeover.
Don't cater to the players. Never cater to the players when it comes to your theme and setting. Protect the game. Keep your eye on the game.
@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.
When people complain, they ought to be listened to. Reasonable, mature people can discern the difference between a legitimate concern and griping. Presuming that, the cacophony about the pervasive IC antagonism as a cause to drive players out should draw some attention. Maybe the IC antagonism is what the staff want, and that's fine, but what if the players who "follow the vision" change their preferences? Will the staff agree and shift away from IC antagonism?
Then you get a game where staff are catering to the "loyal." You get concerns about upsetting the "pillars" of the game. Then the game no longer belongs to staff; it belongs to the players. And that's not as good a thing as it sounds.
Edited to improve conclusion and clarify:
Staff should devote their free time and money to maintaining their vision of the game. Players will come and go. Serve the game.
@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
If you don't like it, cool. Mark your disagreement politely and vote with your feet. But respect that staff is devoting their own time and money to running a game for the entertainment of others. That doesn't mean all others. It means others whose vision aligns with theirs.
I think this is a dangerous mentality to adhere to.
I think staff need to seriously consider complaints such as those raised here. While it is entirely possible that staff will not heed or change policy based on what is said, I think it is important for staff to question whether they are catering to those who share their vision, or whether their vision is slowly becoming that which others are projecting on the game.
After all, there was once a time when the NRA was concerned with safe gun use and storage practices, rather than obstructionist lobbying.
@Lisse24 said in New Player Onboarding:
So I'm wondering, has anyone seen a game do a really good job at making sure that new players get integrated? If not, what do you think games should be doing to welcome new players?
Staff can find players willing to be "new player greeters," or something like that. Players sometimes find it easier to talk with other players. Just be sure your greeters are good folks.
@Arkandel said in The 100: The Mush:
Does not compute.
Imbecile.
"Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandlerâs title character in the movie, âBilly Madison,â after Billy Madison had responded to a question with an answer that sounded superficially reasonable but lacked any substance,
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote."
Link to actual court order: http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/05-56485-lmc_King.pdf
@surreality said in The 100: The Mush:
Well, we are technically land animals.
Technical arguments are the worst.
"In this case we are called on to determine whether a cow is an uninsured motor vehicle under appellantsâ insurance policy."
Link to case, if you want to know the answer: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2003/2003-Ohio-6695.pdf
I apologize for this digression, but it seemed a perfect opportunity to whip out this hilarious gem of lawyer humor.
@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:
They do not count, no. They don't taste like GROSS.
Try seared ahi tuna.
@Miss-Demeanor said in The 100: The Mush:
Uhhhhhhhh, because its NOT just me personally? Have you... been paying any attention at all or do you just pop up now and then to troll the thread for giggles?
I've been paying attention.
Just because staff have a vision that they want to adhere to doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.
Just because staff does not execute that vision well doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.
Just because staff seems to favor the more active and vocal players doesn't mean the game is a sandbox.
What makes a game a sandbox is where the game appeals and pleases only the staff and the players that they favor. This does not seem to be the case. Your impressions, measured against the experiences of others, leads to an inconclusive impression.
My personal tastes don't give me license to declare a place a sandbox.
Cat decided having less than 30% food in her bowl wasn't acceptable at 4 am. She came and whined at me until I fixed this atrocity.
Last time my cat tried this, I poured cold water over him.
