Posts made by mietze

That's weird. I don't know who that person is, so I guess that's why I did not get "hugely important person" so much as "author of the thing I'm going to reference" I still don't understand why it is "name dropping" or why it's not okay for this person to reference a 3rd party source, when it's done quite a few times by others with no issue, but..eh. Not important.

I am curious what the "correct" method of bringing up an external thing that one read that has influenced you to bring up the topic is. Don't mention the name at all but say "I read something that talked about X, I mostly agree but think Y"? I think that would be fine too, but I don't understand why it's preferable. Need for a link to a short article or synopsis without identification? C&P relevant things without source naming (or is source naming if providing specific quotes)?

I find WoD to be very crunchy, but you have to be careful that the staff and player STs are invested in using them. Most of the time I hear bitching that CoD/WoD is too rules and dice intensive, as well as too much differentiation (because of many powers/merits putting modifiers in play, ect). Is that what you mean by crunchy? I can't really think of any pure consent games that I'm aware of at the moment (though I don't play superheros, is that where most of the consent stuff is? It doesn't sound like it to me, but I'm not sure).

I don't think there's been any implied opinion is better, just "hey I read this, here's what I read, here's my opinion, what do you think of this subject". NOT ZOMG U CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT THIS BOOK or whatever. I guess I don't understand why it is weird to reference something one read/experienced or whatever vs not at all and just give your opinion with no context. You could do both, does it matter? Why is it bad to reference a book (or life experience, or whatever) while giving your opinion? I'm not being snarky here, I just don't understand the hostility to it?

There have been linked articles and such posted as part of a discussion generator here before. I didn't see them getting this reaction (though often times the articles were disagreed with or whatever), so I just don't get why this time it's a problem. It's just a way to open a discussion, right? And the discussion is happening with little reference to the book beyond the opener.

It's not okay that someone would like a source for why they were thinking about the subject? I realize hardly anyone does that and it's mostly "I feel" but I don't understand why it isn't okay to explain the source of where the thought came from.

I thought name-dropping was more about inserting a famous figure into a conversation and relating one's personal relationship with them to show off? Possibly I am not up to date with the current definition.

I think there is comfort too in realizing that you're not alone. Especially when you've been targeted by people in game who are behaving horribly. As much as my experience on an Ashes subgroup sucked? I will say that after I got back from a 4 year mush hiatus it was actually comforting to see that no, I was not treated that way because I was a bad person or did something to make them treat me that way but because that's how they divided and conquered and treated a lot of good people that way. It made me a lot more willing to reach out/speak up when I saw ooc environment stuff, so that others wouldn't need to feel alone as well as making sure that I am trying respectful and kind in communicating with others in game.

It is a delicate balance.

IME vague public comments (the generic Some People wizzen bbposts that would probably be better as a direct and private communication) tend to go over the head of the problem people and make conscientious people worry unnecessarily.

If you read websites like this for a long time you realize very much how experiences of the same event differ wildly. (It's a good check of ones own personal behavior as well as realizing that just because someone gossips about another person/situation doesn't mean you shouldn't take it with a giant block of salt, even if it's a friend.)

What I have appreciated this time around is more community discussion. Even on hog pit. That did happen in other ideations but I think it was the minority over very very personal insult and smear fests. Here I've seen far more community standards/behavior/ethics/ect discussions (even in threads that go in and out of name calling) than ever before, and you are more likely to see others defending/devil's advocating or calling for more moderate behavior than existed elsewhere.

I think my only concern (and I believe that I've been very clear) is that when there's an attitude of "if you don't enjoy what I'm doing right now it's because you just can't handle the awesome play I do and just want tea and cake," that is something that does not benefit the game oocly ever. I don't see there have been terrible awful screams about anything going on there. I asked some questions and offered comment that if there is feedback about antagonism there's a possibility that it's more ooc scene hogging or overexposure by that one person who perhaps got frustrated because they wanted other experiences as well but for whatever reason didn't feel like they could. Given that the attitude quickly turned towards "omfg you hate conflict!" even though that seemed to be not at all what players who'd left were saying, I now totally understand why perhaps they intuited that asking around for less personal targeting for antagonism was something that would be fruitless or get them put in the pansy category. (And as I said also, this is a sort of usually unintentional dynamic I've seen very often with antagonistic rp, which is why I suggested keeping ooc tabs on it /if/ there was feedback from multiple sources that it was getting difficult to deal with.)

I do not think playing on an antagonistic themed game means that it should be forbidden to say "this is good but I'd like some other opportunities too, who is friendly to that, so that I can enjoy the antagonism that remains," without being labeled a pansy who hates IC antagonism. It doesn't sound like the creators intended the game to be that way either?

But often times any discussion of this kind of thing gets shut down by either side deciding that any "maybe watch out for this" comment constitutes someone saying "omg no antagonism/protagonist allowed!!!" I am sorry if my comments inflamed that, I did attempt to be very careful to separate out IC RP from ooc environment slippage and not being willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

@Monogram Raw fan here too. I don't really like cooked fish at all, but I love sushi of all stripes as well as raw oysters (I hate the cooked ones) I do like cooked shrimp and scallops (mostly because of pleasant childhood memories of going down to the dock in St Pete and getting some right off the boats coming in. Probably don't want to think about what they were ingesting from the bay in the 70s/80s though.

I don't want to play, but I think this could be a really fun thing, and I encourage you to develop it further/give it a try. I do think there's a pool of people who would be very interested.

I can understand that, @Coin. Though to be honest with you, given the propensity for start-bright-burn-out-quickly activity on games (especially for STs I've noticed), I do think that feeds into the antsy-ness of the playerbase, because realistically if they do wait for 2 months (reasonable amount of time IMO given the changing MUSHing community from people with no lives/minimal commitments to normal to hectic RLs), will that staffer even be around and active after that? It is annoying though if people are told "yes, you are in line" and they're not willing to give it time, or when people constantly IC and OOC bellyache about having no method for involvement even though there are bbposts/chan invites/personal @mails sent, ect. But I do think that there is a bit of horde of locust mentality on games right now. You see it in the SWARM SWARM SWARM to the NEW THING at game openings pushing things along before they're ready (though I've also noticed that being planned for a little better now), people do it with plotstuff too. Not really sure how to solve it. Other than my current strategy of giving any place I make the commitment to try 3 months of me being a friendly, active participant before writing it off (or unless 3 ugly ooc events that aren't just some crazy psycho troll that's quickly taken care of by staff inform me about the likely game culture/staff culture.) I do think that 3 months can be an eternity to people though, especially those that want intense play but have little time, so they need to maximize their bang for their time investment.

I mean yes in theory people should be able to do whatever they wish and believe would be IC, but expectation management is key. and if people already feel wronged by mistreatment it may set them up for echo chamber stuff (see? We still aren't getting anything because we are the undesirables!) as much as the "la la la can't hear you I'm just better at hardcore play than you" people do.

I struggle to understand why, in a situation where a group feels cut off from staff plot by actions of other PCs (which can be observed by staff), why splintering off into an even smaller group would help the situation. Most staff meta or -run plot is finite and not targeted to any particular player group (though it may end up looking like that through the player laziness scenario or plot hoarders). Very few people are going to have the capacity to run staff plot for every single subgroup aside from what they originally planned for. Yes it could happen, but is it likely? Or more likely to encourage the feeling of rejection when the main plot keeps moving forward but the splinters have even less access to it because of isolation?

I would say it requires proactive staff or mature player base, preferably both. Certainly that's possible.

I've done that in the past Theno. I am at the stage of life currently though where I'm tired and I would like to just be a player (or not, as the case may be) and to just either enjoy things or fade. I will give any place 3 chances or 3 months, depending on the size and how much I am into the theme. If after 3 months of good faith effort on my part it still feels like there's not much in the way of meeting me halfway, or there's 3 strikes of asshole behavior, I fade. It keeps things drama free since generally no one gives a shit, if they're having fun and the people who are not generally will leave before me--and at this point my friends in the community have ways to contact me otherwise!

That's why I leave/disengage, Ark. Is it worth fighting to stay at a place? Not usually. Is it worth creating a stink or complaining on game? No. IME staff is usually not open to listening, no matter how well they know/like you, at least not until things reach a tipping point. But is it worth discussing in a general community sense things I wish I saw more often? Yep.

I think in most survival games (admittedly my experience of the genre is Battlestar, which is a twist on it...though arguably I would say that survival/EOTW games are the most individualistic because there's so many scenarios) there's an easy way to introduce "pockets" of new pcs/survivors, the only issue is that this can also mean you perpetually have to deal with pissing angst contests about who had it worse. Which again,is cool now and then but can be tiresome/deflating of ooc morale (new pcs want to tell their story and get yawned at or alternatively the pissing contest starts). It can be managed by having staff ready to have things for people to do and ways to help incorporate the new folks in, which may not be feasible depending on the staff.

I do my best to not take anything personally. However I don't really care to invest as much time in selfish people either (which is why I walk pretty easily or don't get involved anymore). I think probably as a hobby we want to encourage less selfishness overall, but eh. I'm wrong perhaps. Telling people to suck it up feels great, but I'm not sure it encourages the type of community/environment that's good for the long run. Perhaps that too is kind of meh who cares though.

Interesting that the "chill out it's just a game" almost exclusively tends to have a silent "so lol I can be as big of a dick as I want and you're stupid if that annoys you," at the end rather than "so you know what? I'm going to do my best to not be an ooc dick."

It's because it's just a game and I do want to chill that I find I have less tolerance for ooc mean and dickish people. It ain't worth it.

The only caveat I would give to Gang of Dolls post is that there's a huge difference between a TV show and expository insight there into an antagonistic character vs. on a MUSH. A TV show is not in any way collaborative. A game is. So thinking that you can beat people over the head with expository insight into your PC and why you should still sign up for being treated like shit/more audience than participant and that solves things doesn't work very well.

It's a very delicate balance. I can see it being very very fun for the people who feel empowered to do whatever they please and write off everyone else OOCly though. In my experience though, that tends to feed to a point where even people who enjoyed being around them once don't after awhile, because it doesn't create a great OOC environment for anyone in the long run.

At least not IMO. Maybe this is why I'm finding it harder and harder to find a place to play anywhere. I really would like a genuinely collaborative environment, where there's some give and take. I could find that pretty regularly in pockets before (maybe I just had more time, or was more willing to give some time for people to "decide" OOCly that I was worthy or for me to decide "yes, I can tolerate bad first-second-third impressions and just ride it out for awhile", so I got over that first hump) but these days if I run into more than one scene dominator, or it's someone that I know should know better, it turns me off so bad it's just hard to recover.

Can people actually tell at a glance how old anyone is? I mean, obviously I can tell the difference between a child and elderly person, but 25-45 looks remarkably the same to me. Maybe I just know a lot of pact-with-the-devil well aging people or something. And usually people ping me for my mid-30s not a 40something. I think most of the grocery stores around here card anyone "35 and under", which I find hilarious. I'd have to card every adult that wasn't obviously elderly. Also find it weird that people think 30 is old. Most buddhist groups I've been to, as well as political organizations--I mean you are still in the Young/Young Adult category until you are 35.

Of course I also failed my meat judging class in college too. (Basically, where you look at a living steer or hog ass and say what you think the quality of meat will be). So maybe I'm just body-blind of distinguishing markers across multiple mammalian species or something, and most people CAN tell the difference between someone who is 34 and 42.