Best posts made by Miss Demeanor

ANDERSON! I missed you when you fell off the earth! I was Winifred. ^_^

@tributary And now I know you live south of the Mason-Dixon line. XD But yes. Publix always has ham. At least three types. Deli meat (sammiches), steak/boneless (for meals), and sausage/bacon (breakfast!).

I'm well aware it wasn't a sphere'd game. Which is why my original post said 'or not have their PC's in such prominent/leadership roles'.

Prurient Perfume is a Possessed Vestment. Not a merit.

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

@Ominous said in The 100: The Mush:

To be actually constructive for once, I am growing into the opinion that if staff want to have PCs that aren't on the bottom of thr totem pole, the game needs multiple spheres and if someone has a character in a sphere, they cannot staff it.

Definitely.

I just have no need to have my characters high on the totem pole.

Granted, I have had characters in places of power/leadership, but never on a game or in a sphere where I was a Staffer -- which sometimes has its own problems, where you are the lead Staff of one Sphere, but have a high power character in another, and then people are wondering if you're making Staff decisions about your sphere because it benefits your PC elsewhere. It is kind of a hard road to travel.

I have to stop you here and say something. On The 100, you were so eager to get Grounder characters available. And then when they were, you specifically asked me if I thought it would be a bad thing for you to have the 'Lincoln' type of Grounder. (ie. the special snowflake, different from the rest of the Grounders, got put into a spotlight position often kind of character. For anyone that didn't want The 100..) The simple fact that you felt the need to ask a third party about it shows that you understood that you would be putting yourself into a spotlight position and setting yourself up as a major character. So its rather disingenuous of you to say that you never have characters in positions of power/leadership. Doubly so since your husband put his first character into a position where he was very loud and opinionated and strong enough that few people really wanted to challenge him outright, which put him into a leadership position even if he's protesting that he doesn't want to be. Also.. that you and a handful of your friends had started playing the game weeks before it was open to everyone, and thus were guaranteed to have more xp/higher stats that nobody else was privy to? Kinda shitty. You set yourselves up as players to have every advantage, to be at the front of every new thing, every major decision... and then claim that you don't do that.

I'm not saying you're a terrible person, you aren't. But you are definitely lying to yourself and others about what you do in a game.

Barghest!

@Ghost I think @lordbelh's point was more along the lines of... if every time someone said 'this person should not make anymore games!', that person stopped making games? There would quickly be no more games. Everyone has their feeling on who is or isn't a good game runner, but that shouldn't stop people from making games. I applaud @GirlCalledBlu and @Seraphim73 for their invite-only sandbox game. Its a good way for them to get the small group RP that I think they're looking for. They've even acknowledged there's parts where they failed and at the least, @GirlCalledBlu is making an effort to understand how her perceptions of what's okay differs from how others view it. That's good on them. Maybe someday they'll open up a public game where they can try running things in a new way that departs from the style that was turning people off from The 100/Fifth World/whatever else. I rather hope they do, since it would show that we as a community can learn from our mistakes and move past them.

AND WE SHALL IT... THIS LAND.

I think we should call it your GRAVE!

Gah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

@tragedyjones I grew up reading Gen 13 and Witchblade.

I did. I'm severely disappointed with myself.

Double-post for missing this first time around.

@derp I prefer to treat players I don't know as if they aren't mouthbreathing morons or manipulative fucks regardless of what character they play. If someone isn't capable of separating the player from the character (their own OR someone else's), that's reached an unhealthy level of escapism and they should probably not be on a game in the first place.

But I'm also of the old school that remembers when losing a character happened at least once a week, if not once a session! I always keep a backup concept at the ready. Shit happens, that's what makes these games fun. Deadly stakes are just an occupational hazard.

@ZombieGenesis Holy shit, man. Fast and speedy recovery and well-wishes!

@kanye-qwest I'd say more YMMV. I played an absolutely horrible bitch of a vampire on TR. But everyone was aware that it was IC. But part of it may have been that I absolutely let her be wrong, and publicly so. She was a beatstick, a dog on a chain, but man, she'd bark her damn head off if she had an opinion. I still snicker to this day that she ran the only Elysium in town for awhile. Folks either loved or hated how she ran it.

Will removing the Dark tag really keep the staffers that only log in and idle from continuing their behavior? They can just set themselves to Off-Duty or Busy or AFK for forever (and some do). I've seen staffers stay logged in for 3-4 days at a time and never in the many hours I was about take themselves out of Off-Duty. The tags aren't the problem at that point, the staffers that abuse them are.

Mind, this is not a rant about how all staffers suck and should be penalized. Its recognizing that just like for players, sometimes a few bad staffers can ruin a nice thing for all.