Posts made by Jaunt

@Gingerlily said:

That doesn't mean the feedback won't come.

I liked a lot of what you had to say. I think it's important to note that there is constructive feedback and feedback that is not constructive. For instance, because of feedback from this site, we will be strengthening the wording to make it more clear what the mission of our site is. That's cool. I agree with a couple of posters who've mentioned that the message isn't clear.

But, non-constructive feedback is calling us racists, elitists, bigots, idiots, and whatever else just because our site caters to a specific niche. It's inane. I've been happy to explain our position, and politely so, when I'm not approached with vitriol.

Constructive criticism is saying, "The mission stated on your site is unclear. Here are the points that are confusing to me."

Non-constructive criticism is saying, "Your site is a bunch of elitist dickwads because you don't give equal focus to the entirety of MUSHland. Because of this, you are a shitty person, your mother is a shitty person, and you're also probably a wife beater."

We've received both levels of criticism on this thread. The former will be responded to kindly and thoughtfully. The later will be responded to with the same level of ironic vitriol that it deserves.

I think that's pretty fair.

@Sunny said:

Also, nobody is bloody asking you to change your site to suit us. I personally want you to stop being dicknoses, and to just be honest about your site. Clearly, simply, no qualifiers.

You're right, though mistakenly so. Some people are insisting, rather than asking, that we change our site to suit them.

Have I not been very direct and honest with my answers about Optional Realities, just as I promised I would be?

I have.

As far as being "dicknoses", I've purposefully used tone and language in my responses to mirror the tone and language aimed towards me. When someone asks me something without aggression, they'll get an answer without aggression.

Like when you asked me a few questions without insulting me, and I gave you clear and specific and accurate answers without insulting you. That's how most conversation works.

@WTFE said:

Note, @Jaunt, since you lack a grasp on this, neither of these is the ad hominem fallacy

Ad hominem doesn't need to be fallacious to be ad hominem. You're the one throwing the word fallacy around as though it somehow makes your dick look bigger. It doesn't.

@Ninjakitten said:

What does "over 20 years old" have to do with anything? Are we just supposed to be impressed by the longevity? Is it meant to suggest particular validity to the genre? Is the idea to imply we're johnny-come-latelies? Why is this the bit of info about your genre that you feel we need?

My implication was that our community is comparably old to the greater MUSH community, and has developed a subset of features that it holds as its "core". Those features are the very reason why our conversation and content is geared towards a specific type of game; they simply aren't relevant for all MUSHes, or all MUDs, but they are relevant for those that we feature on our site.

I suppose that I was hoping that drawing the parallel of time to the MUSH community would encourage folks not to think that we just arbitrarily decided what "core features" define the majority of the OR community. We didn't. They've been this way for a very long time. In fact, OR's significantly less rigid than any previous attempts at definition have been, which is precisely the reason why it's doing well, continually growing, and has a much broader variety of games than previous (failed) attempts at similar things.

But, we're not going to change our target audience to include all MUSHes, just because of some chest thumping. What about H+S MUDs? What about PK MUDs? What about "RPEs" with a very low standard for roleplay? No. We're not trying to be a community for every text-based game out there. Those communities already exist, and we're not attempting to compete with them.

@WTFE said:

It's not really tangential. It strikes to the heart of the matter. They think they're special and the One True Way and everybody else that they're "building bridges" with are inferiors they're out to uplift into civilization.

Christian missionaries, in short. The repulsive variety like the ones that worked Hawaii in the 19th century.

Nope. That's not what we think. We just wanted to create a hub for a community that has already existed for 20 years. Our attempts to "bridge the divide", as they were, are specifically geared at an internal divide that has existed within our community, as it's lacked a place for developers and players from different (but similar) games directly communicate ideas and promote to one another.

Some of the developers, players, and games here overlap with our core demographic, and others don't. Get the fuck over it.

@Sunny

@Sunny said:

@Jaunt said:

I'm still willing to respond civilly to civil conversation. I could go either way, though.

Is your site geared and aimed towards text-based roleplaying, or is it geared towards a specific type?

From our website:

"Optional Realities is a community and design-blog for text-based role playing games, with a focus on character and story-driven games that include permanent death as a feature. "

The criteria for joining our connections page and receiving your own dedicated sub-forum on OR, per our website:

"1) Roleplay Centric: A focus on theme and roleplay with a requirement to roleplay as part of the gameplay on your game.

2) Perma-death: The possibility of non-consent permanent death to occur to a character by another character. Death meaning that the character’s personality, memories, and existence is lost.

3) Automated Systems: The support of some form of coded system for players to interact with the setting / game world without requiring a third party."

Personally, I think that the wording of the criteria could probably use some work. Number 3 in particular is too vague for my tastes. It's something we're discussing on OR.

However, OR does not exclude folks from games that don't fit into its connect criteria. We have a sub-forum dedicated to "Other Games". That sub-forum's actually fairly popular.

It's just that all of our contributing writers and the vast majority of our long-lived community plays/designs a specific style of game that does not encompass every RPE MUD or MUSH out there. Because of that, the content of our articles are often irrelevant to other types of games.

In short: yes, we gear ourselves for a specific type of game (that has a ton of variety within the genre). We still let other folks take part in the community, too, but our primary focus is on games of a similar type. Some MUSHes fall into that category, some don't.

It's not personal. It's practical.

@Thenomain said:

In a small scenario in my head, Jeshin on some OR staff communications board says, "I am so tired of those Soapbox guys and ..." and the knee-jerk white-hat that we Mu*ers can get in our heads took over. "Let me do this for my friend!" Which is cool and noble and all, but has begun so many feuds that never should have been.

I'm probably wrong, but it's one of the few scenarios where I can understand what the hell just happened.

You're not quite on the nose, but getting there. Jeshin was frustrated that people couldn't accept that OR isn't a site equally dedicated to every MUSH. I said, "What? You're posting on that site? It's a 20 page thread? Sound awful. I should read it."

I read that, got offended for my friend, and decided to turn the shittier folks in this thread's attention towards me.

But, I'm not really mad. Why would I be? It's just another internet argument.

In fact, it's sort of been fun to get to join in in the trolling for a bit, instead of having to moderate it for a change. Thanks for that.

I'm still willing to respond civilly to civil conversation. I could go either way, though.

@WTFE said:

Nice try, Dick Nixon.

The strangest repeated ad hominem that I think has ever been directed my way.

@Sunny said:

What you guys are really failing at, here (@Jeshin, @crayon, and @Jaunt) -- probably more than anything else -- is knowing your audience.

That's possible. It's also possible that you're mistaken in thinking that cantankerous shitposters like yourself are our audience.

We already have our token few of them on our site, and they're far more clever than you are.

@WTFE said:

Remember when @Jaunt said that we "misunderstood intention" earlier, @Thenomain? Isn't it funny that it's our fault when we "misunderstand" but now it's your fault for miscommunicating? It's one of those irregular verb declensions: I communicate clearly, you can't read.

Nope. I admitted that I didn't think that Jeshin communicated himself very clearly at points in this thread. I just didn't think that that was a great reason to start shitting on him.

@WTFE said:

And you suck as bad cop. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Your continual suggestion that I'm playing bad cop is probably my favorite thing about you. It's not really true, as I'm not really here to make threats, but it's funny to me regardless.

@WTFE said:

So come back and advertise when you know what the fuck it is you're advertising. How's that for a thought?

Nope. Gonna continue to advertise as we have been. We've gotten a lot of hits from this thread, and some cool people with great ideas taking part on OR now.

Dealing with a few pseudo-autists along the way isn't the worst thing in the world.

@WTFE said:

Name three. (Hint: if you come back with "I won't tell you" you have failed to substantiate your claim and your claim can safely be ignored.)

Go look through our user manifest. It's public record.

@Sunny said:

Also, as per what Theno said...@Jeshin has repeatedly stated that it's a site for us too, that we're included even though we're not spotlighted. So you're now telling us that he lied?

We have an "Other Games" section that you're welcome to use to advertise and talk about your games.

@Sunny said:

Maybe this is part of the problem, @Jaunt.

The 'advertisement' board is still a place for discussion, here! Amazing.

It's not the place where we prefer to discuss changing the inherent branding and nature of our website. Your inability to understand why this is does not reflect well on your critical thinking skills.

I doubt that it scores you as many points with @Thenomain as you hope it will, either.

@Thenomain said:

but that lack of self-awareness is a huge reason why I don't want OR to be successful. (Sorry, @Jeshin. I am very, very sorry to say that about what should be an awesome, inclusive project.)

Your attempts at emotional manipulation aren't as refined as you think they are.

@Thenomain said:

OR spotlights those games with three different criteria. I think these criteria are bad ideas, but because of a lot of things it became clearer on the OR site the difference between the two.

As I've already stated, OR is still in the process of adjusting its self-definition, which is precisely the norm for a new online community. While your points are entirely valid, in regards to its confusing mission and separation of services it offers to the games of its community, I'm not sure what else to do other than acknowledge their validity. Any changes are going to stem from discussions on our site.

@Jeshin said:

Truthfully I think the primary gap to bridge is that we're much more likely to discuss topics freely and with less "this is how it is" style writing on Optional Realities itself. Discussions are content and that content we take time to create we try to keep on the website.

Oh, this? Another example of misunderstanding intention and ideas. If he weren't willing to discuss things, he wouldn't have discussed things for 20 pages. What he was suggesting is that any changes to OR's purpose would be better discussed on OR, which is absolutely true.

This is an Advertisement Thread. It's not a "re-brand and design Optional Realities" thread. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.

@WTFE said:

You're succeeding at turning off your very target market. You're failing at PR. You should move forward by learning small things like "telling a discussion board you're not interested in discussion is a Bad Idea.

Please, quote me where they said that they weren't interested in discussion.

I'm not so certain that you are the greatest spokesperson for "good PR", but then again, I'm not here for PR. If I were, I wouldn't be able to write so candidly.

@WTFE said:

I have thus far refused to go to your site—to even crack it open and look at it—specifically because of the behaviour of the people from your site over here. By being so dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible, and by sticking to a definition of game that specifically excludes the styles played by most people on this board, you are actually being off-putting.

Awesome. I was hoping you'd quote this from pages back.

Our community is a specific genre of MUD that is over 20 years old. If the style of MUSH played by "most" people on this board is not represented on OR, then those people don't really need to worry about OR. It's that simple.

OR exists for the games for which it is relevant. It not being relevant to your games does not equate to us shitting our your birthday cake.

However, as we've received numerous great users from this site at OR, I would venture to say that your perception is critically flawed.

@Thenomain said:

So your own over-simplified, leading question can get Socratic with itself.

As I think that I stated previously, I do have some small level of respect for your tasteful approach to ad hominem. I suspect that my level of distrust for you is probably similar to the one that you suggest that you have for me. It's because I recognize the tactics that you've used throughout this thread.

If you truly believed that the problem lay in miscommunication of ideas, then you wouldn't write offensive remarks on the thread in regards to Jeshin and Crayon and OR ... not unless your purpose was to offend, or inspire others to offend.

@Thenomain said:

Yes, your boss said this kind of conversation was okay.

I'm not here in any sort of official capacity. Jeshin probably thinks my approach to this issue is too heavy-handed, because he's a nice guy, but I really couldn't say. He doesn't censor me, and our opinions and tactics differ.

@Thenomain said:

To you, though? I've also made a very simple, straight-forward statement twice now. I don't understand why you're not understanding the words: You First.

Be engaging, and you will be engaged. Be honest, and you will be respected.

"I'm more stubborn, you go first."

"No, I'm more stubborn, you go first!"

Well, I'll bite, but only just so.

@Thenomain said:

You, yourself, are introducing ideas not mentioned earlier in this thread meaning that of three OR representatives, no two of them have given the same viewpoint of what OR is about.

You almost brought up a point labored many times earlier in the thread that I am happy to respond to, at least in part.

You're right. The mission statement's unclear. OR's still in the process of defining itself. There is a constant internal discussion amongst its staff about where we are succeeding, where we are failing, and how we should move forward.

It's only a few months old, after all.

@Sunny -- read the entirety of your post, and then the below section a second time.

@Sunny said:

Clearly you're incapable of being civil.

If that discussion is meaningful and friendly and useful, then my response will be too. If not, well, I'm not really a turn-the-other-cheek sort of guy.
But we're supposed to be? Asshole. You might not be "trolling", but you're certainly being an abusive prat.

Do you understand the irony of everything that you've posted? C'mon.

Please, show me where Crayon and Jeshin insulted "the way you do things". Use the little quote button. I've read the entire thread twice and don't see it. If you actually support your forum vomit with something substantial (like a direct reference to whatever the fuck it is that you're talking about), then you'll have grown beyond blatant trolling and ad hominem.

@Thenomain said:

I have two immediate issues with your method of response:

Giving permission to someone when no permission is needed. ("Feel free to xxxx", etc.) I've always considered this rude, since I am going to respond how I am going to respond, and you're going to respond how you're going to respond.
Assumption about what I'm looking for. Be considerate. Ask. I told you outright what I was looking for, so if you are unwilling to engage, then please stop trying. It's not difficult to do either. You'll be surprised if you try.
You may not be trolling, but you are acting (to over-simplify what's going on) abusive, which is why I don't trust you.

I'll direct three questions to you, then.

1. Do you feel as though this community has acted abusively towards OR, Jeshin and Crayon? If so, do you feel as though you had a personal hand in that, whether purposefully or unpurposefully?

2. Do you feel that Jeshin and Crayon have failed to answer your questions to your liking due to some sort of illicit intentions, or do you feel like it's possible that there has been a breakdown in communicating clearly across the aisles?

3. Do you care enough about furthering the conversation to get the information or answers that you seek to post them specifically and clearly, and directly to me?

I'm not going to start cherry-picking responses to things over the last twenty pages, but as I've stated multiple times, I'm happy to answer anything posted from here on out.

@WTFE said:

Fuck. Off.

Go. Away.

Go with God ... just FUCKING GO.

Mmm. No. This is the Advertisement Board. We're not here taking pot-shots at other games. We don't think that "our way is the only good way", because "our way" means very little beyond three basic requirements that only matter on our own site. We're here to say, "Hey, look, for the folks that this matters to -- here's what's going on over at OR." Because it does matter to some folks here, even if none of them are you. We have some great users from this site. They probably don't post here because of how vitriolic you are.

If you are incapable of identifying your behavior as inappropriately aggressive and bullish, then I have to wonder about you.

@WTFE said:

We've been trying to get you fuckers to engage from the first page of this thread. We've been explicitly told by two of you fuckers that they didn't want to engage in conversation.

I'm not certain where you're pulling that information from. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, as I've said, I'll give you clear and civil answers. If you want to be an asshat, well, you can do that too.

Why do I get this feeling that your "engagement" is just going to be broadcasting, this time of bile instead of used car sales?

I don't know. The two individuals ( @ThugHeaven and @surreality ) that have actually tried to engage me civilly with actual conversation instead of ad hominem, I've answered very directly and with no aggression. Perhaps the reason you "get the feeling" that I'm going to answer you with bile is because you've been spitting it all over your keyboard.

@Thenomain said:

"It's up to you, not me, to be reasonable."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

If you have specific issues that you would like a specific response to in regards to OR, direct them to me and you will receive what you're looking for. If you don't care anymore, then don't care anymore.

@Sunny said:

Telling us how it is is not engaging, it's not dialogue, it's nothing but preaching to a bunch of atheists -- annoying as fuck. It's frustrating enough that it actually makes me angry with the now three of you. To say @Thenomain is just trolling...holy shit. If I could reach through the computer and slap you, I would.

Y'all can keep advertising here. We can keep rolling our eyes. Folks around here (@Thenomain and @surreality in particular, but it's not limited to them) have shown FAR more respect for OR than the representatives have shown the community they are coming in to advertise in. If you don't like us and think we're a bunch of asshole trolls, GO AWAY.

ETA: The thing that y'all seem to be missing is that this is a community that is of value to those of us that participate in it. It's not at all just a trolling/flame board, it's not about bitching, it's not about a lot of the things that the various forums have been about over the years. This is a good community with good people that contribute A LOT to one another, so the whole 'reaching out a hand to the savages' thing -- and yes, that's how a lot of this comes across you fucking pricks -- is beyond irritating.

Edited to add again: This is the MSB crowd's living room. To my knowledge, nobody's gone over there to troll / harass, AND YET you guys keep coming over here to do that to this community. You lose all credibility in that action.

I think there's some very ironic miscommunication going on here.

Did we say that we are "preaching to a bunch of atheists?" Did we say that we "are reaching out a hand to savages?" No. Folks here, like you, did. You put words into our mouths that are completely out of context with our purpose. We don't think that, nor have we said that. It's called trolling. You're trolling right now. Stop that. It makes you look bad.

Did Crayon or Jeshin act aggressively, or trollishly, here? No. You did. All they did was advertise and do their best to try to understand your points and respond to the best of their ability. As someone reading this thread for the first time, it's obvious to me that the breakdown in communication went both ways.

Try ... very hard ... to understand this. OR's not a "MUD" community. This isn't a MUD vs MUSH issue. Half of our community is made up of MUSHes. Jeshin and Crayon, their home game is a MUSH. Let that sink in for you.

I'm not attacking the value of this site to you folks. It's obviously valuable, because you have an active community here when many other communities are not active. There's some good discussion happening on this site. However, I don't think that "your best" has been afforded to this thread, universally. It's pretty clear that both parties have misconstrued each other's meanings or intentions, and that this site has been vastly more aggressive compared to OR's previous representation in this thread -- that is, until I joined the discussion, because I'm not going to be speaking through any sort of PR filter.

As I stated before, if you feel unclear about certain questions that have been asked or problems that have been posed, post them for me. I'll give you a very, very clear answer. Nobody from OR's here to troll. We're here to provide information.

If you want to roll your eyes at OR, go for it. If you want to engage in direct discussion, I'll be around. If that discussion is meaningful and friendly and useful, then my response will be too. If not, well, I'm not really a turn-the-other-cheek sort of guy.

@surreality

It'd be fairly unfeasible for me to reply to every question or point brought up over the past 21 pages of this thread individually, though I've read every post in the thread twice now. Since I've introduced myself and my perspective, but am just now joining the months-long conversation, I'm happy to start from scratch in addressing points made from here on out.

If you have any specific questions in regards to Optional Realities, you'll get clear answers from me, though. I can promise you that.

@surreality said:

Essentially saying you realize you're slumming it to even deign to talk to someone and then wondering why you might come off condescending, though, well -- that's that self-awareness problem cropping up again, I'm afraid, no matter how noble, positive, or wholesome one's intentions may or may not be.

I don't wonder why I might have come off as condescending at all. After reading the entirety of this thread for the first time, I am condescending. While there is some worthwhile meat here and there, a lot of the posts in this thread are thinly-veiled (or loud and proud) trolling. For what it's worth, I don't think that about anything I've read that you've posted here, @surreality.

I'm not here to promote Optional Realities. S'not really my job.

While I'm not really saying, "come at me bro", what I am saying is this: Jeshin and Crayon are going to continue to advertise here (for now, at least), because OR's not a MUD-only community (with about half of our members being MUSHes). I'm here and happy to receive and respond to any arguments, whether they be meaningful, thoughtful and helpful -- or whether they be poorly disguised attempts at trolling.

@ThugHeaven said:

It makes me wonder, why continue to post or update a thread where you're greeted with such opposition?

Because we've seen good players find us from this site, and contribute to the discussions specific to our community in positive ways. Because even though our content might not be pertinent to many MUSHes, it is pertinent to some.

@TNP said:

@Jaunt said:

Don't like what OR's trying to do? Cool. I don't really care, because you're not the person that I want to engage in conversation with.

Ok, bye.

Engage me, instead.

Wait...

+1

Sure, I'll amend. If you don't like OR, then you're not the type of person that I want to engage in conversation with ---> on OR. It'd be rather fruitless for the both of us.

If you're in this thread to bash Jeshin/Crayon/OR for using the site's advertising sub-forum as it's meant to be used, I encourage you to direct your energy towards me instead.