Posts made by Pandora

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Edit: This is ICA-ICC .... the world deserves to react, you can't hand wave it (or you can, but loses believability to me). Its like saying, we'll we killed the police chief because we wanted to, no one found us because on one was around on-line, guess we got away with it. They have to make up why they didn't notice us.

You can kill them, sure, but the story is losing verisimilitude for me by assuming it was just that easy.

There is a world of difference between killing a PC and killing a named NPC. The PC's author is here, the named NPC's author is generally staff. I'm all for intelligent debate - we all know there are differences between MUDs and MUSHes so why not discuss them, it's healthy and it's good. But when the examples become outrageous, what are we really arguing anymore? No one is saying 'let's murder the NPCs because we can!'.

@Arkandel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

and while your PC was at risk of dying in the Slaughthouse of Horror please assume I was also there fighting valiantly at the back. What, it's time for you to put in a spend for Glory 4? Me too! We're old war buddies, you and I.

So if A, B, and C go to the Slaughterhouse of Horror and die, are you going to log on dead as well? I'm asking seriously, because I'd like to know where the line between plausibility and convenience is drawn in the sand.

I think at this point, there've been so many 'What Ifs' thrown into the equation that the message is lost.

No one is suggesting making up the IC narrative for another player, it's merely suggested that if they can't be around, it's assumed they have some reason, however good/bad that reason may be, and they can let us know later when they log on. Or not. Up to them.

If anyone is giving someone a hard time OOCly about any of this, they are the ones crossing an IC/OOC line.

There is no line crossing if I ICly stab someone, ICly look for the doctor, ICly don't find the doctor, ICly bury someone in the woods.

If that's crossing an OOC line on a MUSH, then there we have yet another charming difference between MUDs and MUSHes.

So this got me to thinking - how could A -ever- murder B and make it look like an accident if C is apparently omnipresent? I know if you stuck me in a cruiser with 2 people and I wanted to kill one of them I'd just wait until the third person is asleep or in the loo and I'd say afterwards 'I called for you, but you didn't hear me' and what are you going to say? 'No, you didn't call for me, I'd have heard you.'?

@faraday said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

I like @Wretched's motto:
If someone is OOCLY unavailable, never give them dickish consequences or treat them like an abandoner.

It's a nice motto, but I suppose I just don't see someone not being around for something as a dickish consequence? And at no point did I accuse C of being an abandoner. If B dies and OOCly blames/guilts C for not being around, that's B's inability to separate IC from OOC, aka B's problem.

Edited to add: I'm not knocking any game's ability/inability to work around these types of situations. I'm just noting that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the issue, which is why it's such a good thing that there are many different types of MU*s to cater to different types of players.

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Let me rephrase this in another game.

We are playing chess. You get up to answer an emergency call, I want to capture your king. You're not there to decide you move, I do it for you ... and you can make up why you made such a horrible move.

It doesn't seem comparable, in the MU* example, no one is deciding what you DID do, they are only noting what you did not do. So the exact correlatory comparison would be:

We are playing chess. You get up to answer an emergency call, I want to capture your king. You're not there to make a move. You don't make a move. A shows up out of nowhere and stabs me (B) in the chest. If you don't get back from your phone call in time to save me, I bleed out all over your chess board. You come back, explain to the police why I am dead, and why you let your King be one move away from being captured.

@faraday said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Yeah, I really don't understand where this became about wanting a favorable outcome or not wanting to fail. I don't care about that. What I care about is being forced to come up with a preposterous explanation (I fell asleep in the crawlspace with noise-canceling headphones on!) for something that is an extremely routine MUSH event (someone not being online at the exact moment you want them).

I was just trying to illustrate that sometimes OOC communication is done in the interests of IC continuity.

What if A specifically wants to murder B, via framing it as an accident? A knocks on C's door, C doesn't answer. A is reasonably assured that C isn't around. A invites B to a 'friendly spar' in which A proceeds to stab B in the chest. A clutches her pearls and drags B into the hall, valiantly banging on the doctor's door, to no avail. Agony! B bleeds out, unable to be saved. Acta est fabula, plaudite! A carries B to the ship's chaplain, then heads off to find D, E, and F to plot their mutiny. Story! Plot! - wait, what's this? C logs in the next morning like 'Retcon, I would have been there to save B'.

At what point is the line between 'reasonable assumption' and 'preferable outcome' crossed? It's not a black and white issue. I am not a MUSHer, so naturally I stand on the side of the line that says 'If a character isn't there, they aren't there, and the onus is on them to come up with the least preposterous yet entirely-possible explanation for why they weren't available.' No one is going to court martial you for being in the shower when someone banged on your door at Implausible o'Clock at night. Or maybe they are. It's a story, albeit maybe not the one you woke up thinking you'd be telling that day.

The situation with A, B, and C (A regretful-murderer, would-be-victim, and absentee-doctor if I skimmed that example correctly) being resolved with OOC communication works on a MUSH because there is nothing stopping that from working. On a game where someone has taken the time to code critical wounds - and that's not limited to MUDs, there are MUXes and MOOs with injury code as well, you might only have X amount of time to find a doctor before Something Bad happens to the character, whether it be taking a permanent stat-reduction of some sort, or even death. In those games, the thinking is different, and I'll make the comparison thusly:

MUSH considerations:
"The doctor would be around and available to help this person, so we'll find the doctor though IC/OOC means or pause the scene until the doctor is around, and go from there, because the doctor's player can't always be around, but we also don't want Player B to bleed out on the nice new aluminum plate flooring tiles."

Code-heavier game considerations:
"Let's not fuck around with anything that could legit kill us until we have a medic on-hand." or
"The doctor isn't around (it is up to the doctor to explain why they weren't around. Maybe they fell and hit their head and were in a coma last night. Maybe they were somewhere on the ship that the people in a bloody screaming panic didn't think to check. Maybe they had on noise-cancelling headphones last night because A & B are notoriously loud when they're off killing each other at off-peak times) so let's do stabilizing techniques and CPR and elevate B's torso and deeply apologize for stabbing B in the chest and cry together and deal with the fact that B is now facing the rest of their character's life maimed/crippled in some way, or perhaps they'll die, but this is how the story turned out."

I can certainly see the appeal of having things turn out A-OK or at least more to your liking, every time something goes wrong. I just don't know that I find it altogether compels people to tell the best story they possibly could, but simply the most pleasant/convenient.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

@Pandora I've read complaints on assorted places on the interwebs who wanted more lawyer stuff on Daredevil.

... Daredevil isn't The Good Wife. It's not a legal show. The emphasis will always be elsewhere.

I don't think the emphasis needs to be on the legal bits of the show, I would just seriously like to see Foggy stiffen his spine and snap this line out at someone in one of his moments of Awesome Lawyer in the Making.

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

Just give me the damned documents.

Dear writers of Daredevil,

Here is a free line that I think your fans will love because I personally got a kick out of it and would like to see a lawyer on television use it.

I had an observer bit attached to my character on Firan, which was used by the staffer that played my IC frienemy. It was, frankly, very uncomfortable for me and led to a lot of my plot-involved RP (and yes, some of that was tinysex, I have no shame in admitting that, sex was a huge plot device on Firan) being done through ooc channels or just handwaved and decided on OOCly.
I like being in control of who sees what I type, personally. For the most part, I'm fine with staff seeing my public RP, and so on. But as staff, if you play a character, allow your players the ability to hide things from you, for the love of all that's holy. It'll be less stressful for you than reading what I OOCly think of your clunky combat code, trust me.

Avrai, Vanilla, Sugar, Baby, Juju, Loni - BuffyMUD
Geeya, Jeiki, Aldrette, the first Enigma, the last Majida - FiranMUX
Diamia - Haven: Mist and Shadow 1.0
Aria, Arielle - Haven: Mist and Shadow 3.0
The first Valencia - Arx
The second & current Ayalith - Ithir

Just in case anyone gives a damn. Oh, and I was also 'Surprise Buttsex' on WORA. Spilling people's secrets was a blast, thanks to everyone that contributed.