Posts made by Pandora

I continue to reply because I continue to be discussed. Be the change you want to see.

I do not ascribe to a universal morality. I do not believe in karma. I believe that what I say today can and will be used against me in the court of public opinion. I accept that others will sometimes not agree with the things I say or how I say them, but since I have friends that are for the most part quite nice and pleasant and friendly in public but have been known to say some horrible shit about people behind their backs, I can and do and always have taken some measure of pride in the fact that everyone knows where they stand with me. That might not have value with others, but it means the world to me.

@ me all you like with your tsk-tsk and fingerwagging and aspersions about my character; I clearly don't mind, right? Else I wouldn't have brought up the year-old 'kill yourself' comment to make the point that sometimes I am an asshole, but certainly not all the time. Differing opinions are worth noting, and if it galls you that I have a different moral compass than you, well, that's only bothering one of us - the one that isn't me.

Also, and this one is really more for me than trying to kill @WTFE with alcohol - I really enjoy talking about me, and how special and different I am from everyone else, etc. This 'this is why you're awful' conversation is remarkably similar to the 'this is why I like you' conversations I have with my friends and literally almost every random stranger that has ever private-messaged me on MSB.

I don't mind who is offended by what, I expressed that I find it interesting what people choose to be offended over. Be offended or don't, that's your choice. I'm simply stating that unlike what appears to be 99% of the MSB population, I will not ever hold my tongue out of fear of offending someone whose opinion/well-being I don't care about. I don't call people cunts because I don't like the word. If I did, I would say it, because honestly the point of insulting someone is to insult them and apparently it's been decided that the misogynists are right: a cunt really is the most offensive thing anyone can be compared to now! Cheers.

Re: the whole 'kill yourself' thing - that's a fucked up thing to say to anyone; I don't advise anyone else to do it, but I can say it whenever I like and anyone that wants to be offended can feel free to be offended. It's literally no skin off my nose & I've never lost a friend over something I've said to someone I already didn't like.

@Roz Well now you know. I didn't kill her, so 'Sticks and Stones', etc.

I find it telling that in a day and age where there's enough real hate out there that Trump is president of the U.S., people are having fits about terms like 'Kill yourself' and 'Drop dead' and 'Don't be a dick/cunt' that have been around for decades before they were even born. It's like people are thrashing about looking for something/anything to be angry about in an attempt to feel relevant while the world is burning. I can say whatever I want, and anyone can respond about it as angrily as they like, and then we all go about our daily lives without the exchange making a bit of difference to anyone. Useless, but we're going to do it anyway.

@WTFE Read words. I said I didn't feel contrite, so I didn't apologize. No, it did not occur to me to offer a real apology for something I wasn't feeling apologetic about.

@WTFE I am not an asshole -ALL- the time, I'm certainly not an asshole to an extent that I've ever been banned from anywhere except this one game that doesn't allow kissing/handholding and I had a lesbian relationship. But I am aware that sometimes I say things that people don't like, with the knowledge that they won't like it, and yet I choose to say it anyway because my life isn't about saying what people want to hear. The last time I was overtly abusive to someone, I was drunk and told someone I don't like to kill herself, and MSB had a field day telling me how horrible I was for that, and sure it was mean, but I'm not going to pretend I feel contrite about it. So, me=asshole. Fake apologies are kind of like fake tits, they look nice but they feel fake. Who has the time?

I forget sometimes that you people know/play with one another. I mean, it's still fucked up you lot treat people you apparently know on some level so badly, but I guess it makes more sense than just flinging hate at each other without any readily apparent provocation.

Still, have a fucking Kit-Kat and chill. Life is too god damn short.

I'm sorry, are you insinuating that someone holds the rights to sanctimonious BS on this forum? Because that shit is practically the bread and butter around here, and if I'm also guilty of it then so be it, but let's not throw stones at cheap glass houses please. I'll never champion the idea that people need to 'be nice', I'm certainly not. But the way you little cliques form up and and disperse like so many swarms of cannibalistic piranha to prey on people that aren't even doing/saying anything particularly grievous is bogus as shit. At least be half-decent enough to keep it aimed at people that you can at least pretend have it coming. Like me.

Antagonizing people to the point of losing their cool and then pointing at the resulting blow up and insinuating they're a terrible person for being human doesn't make you clever or amusing, it makes you a fucking asshole. There are a lot of fucking assholes in the world, but at this moment I'm talking about the ones on MSB. At least I own being mean and hateful when I am in fact being mean and hateful, which is honestly not that often. Shameless, self-righteous fucks.

@Thenomain Please post about your pet peeves somewhere more appropriate; you're creating a new derail in response to the original one you were just bitching about. Talk about double standards.

Back on topic, I was just speaking to someone about how it can be hard to get into the swing of things on political games, if you're coming in late, or playing a character that wasn't much of a mover or shaker before you took them off the roster, but your interests lie in the social arena. I'm not a shy player, but what sort of advice would you all give someone trying to get involved without having to poke/prod people OOCly?

@Misadventure Please don't twist my words, I seriously hate that. I never said that it never happens to people, I said it's not human nature to lack awareness, just like it's not human nature to speed in motor vehicles, even though a lot of people do it.

@Thenomain I'm well aware of my derail. I deeply apologize that it twisted your precious panties, I'll be sure to stay on topic from here.

@Catsmeow said in Lords and Ladies Game:

I think everyone has moments of an amusing lack of awareness. It's human nature to not see how we are being perceived against our intention.

I hate when people apply their flaws to everyone and call it 'human nature'. Many people take pride in maintaining an acute degree of awareness with those around them. You're basically alleging that humans are hard-wired to be socially inept. I strongly disagree. I can certainly see how one might come to that conclusion if their main sources of interaction are via the internet, but not otherwise.

If you want people to RP in public, dynamic places code is a godsend, I believe.

So many good public scenes hit their stride and then peter out because many can't handle too big of a scene, but obviously a good scene is going to attract more people. And so what started out as quality turns into quantity. The ability to create a place on the fly and have people in Discussion A be able to join 'A crowded table' while Discussion B is 'Around the Dead Body' with anyone able to target just their own group for the most part, but also able to send an emote to broadcast to the entire room when necessary or for anyone that hasn't joined a place yet, it's great. The shy ones or the wallflowers can move themselves to 'A spot along the wall' and be joined by the other socially challenged visitors where they can happily out-awkward one another without being overshadowed by the current going-ons of the day.

And then once the histrionics have died down and the blood is cleaned up and Oktar Nosharik is gleefully counting up his bribes, the dynamic places disappear once empty and life goes on. No @digging or tacky furniture objects necessary.

@Thenomain said in Lords and Ladies Game:

I mean, I have to entertain people and not be boring, right?

Right.

@Thenomain
Don't clutter up threads with gigantic images that aren't somehow an insult to you. It's boring.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Lords and Ladies Game:

I just don't want you logging on to arch me, because frankly you are kind of a boring nemesis.

I've played all of these except for Five Kingdoms, Arx is far and away the trendiest of the lot currently, it's very active and easy to get involved, you'll never be lacking for RP, especially with the types of characters you tend to play. Kushiel has the benefit of very stable lore, being grounded in a series of novels. Players can get a little snappy on the public channel, easy enough to ignore. The Inquisition: Legacy & BurP2 are both based on the same setting with King Dav and burning the mages, etc. A little more code-heavy than a MUSH, which is a plus in my book, but it's not particularly invasive.

What kind of adult themed game? What will differentiate this MU from Shangrila and other such games? Will this be a sandbox game, or will there be a theme? What sorts of rules do you have in mind as absolutes already? Age limits? Alt limits? OCs only or Licensed entities as well? Will there be email verification required? Are you sane? I only ask that last one because it takes an excess of sanity to handle the nonsense that will come your way with a sexual-content focused game & we like to know up front in this community what level of 'I got this' you've got.

@Apos said in Good Political Game Design:

@Pandora said in Good Political Game Design:

Maybe it's a perspective thing. I play code-heavy games, so I'm very used to seeing 'Might makes right' & the idea of a game with an emphasis on politics and relationships going the way of 'Idiot with a big militaristic force and no political support, leadership platform, or allies steamrolling to the top via brute strength' would just be disappointing to me, personally. Everyone has their own vision for these games, I'm just stating my opinion that I am against that particular vision and can only hope it doesn't come to pass.

I am for changes in the effective strength of domains, and the system is designed for the wax and wane of domains and ultimately potentially the military conquest of other domains. I think there needs to be a careful balance between making societal change possible, so you don't have permanent stasis, and making change so easy that you have nothing that feels like a real institution. So the advantages of the status quo can't be so crushing that it is impossible, and the advantages of new people coming in can't upend the social order with a trivial investment in time. Even for a hierarchical structure, I felt the baseline for that would be to make any liege slightly weaker than any 2 immediate vassals combined, or in rough parity to a vassal that is combined with their vassals' military forces.

That said, the social systems are imo far more important than the military ones, in so much the social systems will be the single largest determining factor for wealth and a healthy economy ultimately, and it will not be possible to support significant military forces that pose a realistic threat without gaining widespread support, or a significant economic expansion. And no players are creating new domains out of thin air- they are replacing existing NPC placeholders that codedly exist, and if a war happens, those NPCs are going to take sides, and those are going to be entirely social checks. And in macro army combat itself, I think morale will be way more important than most other factors, in that battles will be over if one side routs, and that would be extremely likely if a commander isn't well liked or respected. I prefer to make significant military advantages be the logical conclusion of social victories, pretty much.

I'm fine with all of this, it's logical and fine and if it's not exactly how I would do it, so what; checks and balances and social warfare engagements are the crux of my argument. Like I said, I'm against any system in which being the stronger militaristic force, despite lacking in all other political/social/economic arenas, means you can stare down your liege and say 'Make me'.

Realism isn't often a strong argument in system design, despite it being constantly made. Realistically, people have to stand in lines, catch colds, deal with racism/sexism/wtfever-else-ism, and a million other things that are realistic but curbed or outright cut of out games to make them enjoyable.

Maybe it's a perspective thing. I play code-heavy games, so I'm very used to seeing 'Might makes right' & the idea of a game with an emphasis on politics and relationships going the way of 'Idiot with a big militaristic force and no political support, leadership platform, or allies steamrolling to the top via brute strength' would just be disappointing to me, personally. Everyone has their own vision for these games, I'm just stating my opinion that I am against that particular vision and can only hope it doesn't come to pass.