Best posts made by Sunny

@Ganymede

I mean, as a storyteller, if you're running a plot and literally no one is picking up what you're running with and there's no progress, sure, you can just continue the plot on to its conclusion and kill everyone...

Or you can come up with a new plot and ditch that one because obviously people aren't having fun with it.

ETA: This is not about the consequences of failure (I believe in them) or just letting people succeed. This is about knowing your audience, and not punishing people for not engaging with something they aren't interested in. Just because you CAN force it as a storyteller doesn't mean you should. If you can't get any bites on your story, then that's a you problem (general you), not your players.

If you get some but not many bites, then shift the scope, adapt, and run it for the people that are interested. It is completely possible to run a game and have major global sweeping plotlines happen without forcing an individual to directly engage in it via consequence.

Good. Thank you. I know it's a really hard thing to do.

@hedgehog said:

Was it one of the current staffers that did this, Sunny, or was it one of the two originals? I'm vaguely playing there, and think I even met your PC there when I first started (I've only been there six months or so). You were Lark, weren't you?

One of the two originals. I have had Lark there from very early on in the game; I walked away for a good long while after the incident in question (there were and are other issues with the game, but I am only going to speak to things that specifically happened to me). When things got passed off I went back and tried again a few different times, since some old friends played there, and there were some fun new people to play with. I'm a sucker for getting drug places I know better than to play on just because amg I haven't played with that person in forever.

I have plenty of stories about the current staff on the game, but neither group even manages to smell like scotch broom, let alone roses.

As well, keep in mind that under their full consent rules, they are very much anti-consequence. Common sense has not in the past been applied with them, and these two are very gung-ho on staff not getting involved unless it's something like harassment.

For example, someone refusing to follow in-the-book sphere rules complained about not wanting to have to do so, and in response the IC reality was changed, adding a different political group to the grid that was NPC based and did not enforce consequences that the PC in question could belong to, rather than making the character face any sort of consequences. It was quite ridiculous.

Anyone who has ever talked to me or played with me more than casually will recognize me in no longer than two hours. I have no ability to conceal my voice.

@Ganymede pretty sure it's longer than 20 at this point; Ashes was 2000, and Guilded Promises or w/e it was) was pre-Ashes.

@wizz

Yay. I'm so happy you've got it! Crisis averted!

So! We're down currently, wiki and game. No ETA right now on restoration, not entirely sure what's going on. I will update people as I find info out; this is one of two places folks will check that I know of.

Hangout site for this and the other OTT games going on / somewhere to check in is on the Vic site at smokemux.com port 2860 if folks don't have that address.

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

I just want people to treat each other with respect and if people have to spend 6 months to a year roleplaying in some kind of Eyes Wide Shut orgy mask to lessen the importance of OOC identities as being a major point of aggression? I'm alright. With that.

I agree with your ultimate conclusion here, I really do.

I'm excited.

Oooooooooooh. I love Pern. Miss it so much!

@surreality said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

@Sunny I am really sorry that happened to you. Please know that if anything like that ever happens, I will always have your back.

Hell, the (unnamed) person I am beyond furious with to the point of seeing red? I know she's been messed with as well by legitimately bad actors, and while I genuinely want nothing to do with her? If something like that ever happened to her again, I would absolutely have her back, too, zero hesitation, no question about it.

I know (and trust) you would, regardless of where we are personally at any given time. You're a good person.

@macha

Good faith efforts ought to be reserved for people you don't know for sure have been dealing with you in bad faith all along. What if they say "sure!" and then you turn down the other job, and then they say 'oh we didn't actually mean that lol'. That's really...not out of the realm of possibility with these people, based on what you've said so far.

@tek said in The 100: The Mush:

@Sunny If it was real power that impacted people in a way they couldn't avoid, I might agree with you.

Fuck you.

@Auspice said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

To be perfectly frank, I feel like a lot of people around here may not be receiving the level of honesty they think they are. Especially if everyone around here is as anxious as it appears.

Oh absolutely, I have no doubts about that, and I will say that I resoundingly agree even without the 'especially' note there, and it's based not on folks' behavior but just people being people and human behavior amongst ANY sort of social group.

All you can do is the best you can do to try and do the right thing.

I don't know where this goes, but it's not the Good TV thread, that's for sure.

They're making a Mayfair Witches TV series. Anne Rice.

what the actual fuck.

@tek said in The 100: The Mush:

@Sunny If they were hurting people emotionally OOC, that's abusive. If they were controlling and pitting people against each other, that's abusive. Making a private sandbox? That's not. Sorry.

Making a private sandbox? No, the act itself isn't a problem. Their pattern of behavior, that's the problem. The way that they lead people on, that's a problem. The way that they're not honest about their intentions with their games, that's a problem. I think they're nice people, absolutely, but that does not make them immune to having abusive patterns of behavior, nor does it make them incapable of behaving like unethical shits. The private sandbox thing is where they should have gone from the start. The way that they've treated people is absolutely problematic, and their game and staff positions (the 100) were absolutely used to bad effects.

What I am objecting here to so strongly is this absolute piece of shit statement that YOU made:

People choosing to play in an online game where they can log off at any time with zero consequence are not being abused, you asshole.

So again, fuck you.

ETA: And before you bring out the pity me pain train about your checkered past, DON'T GO THERE. I have been through shit, you don't want to get into that particular pissing contest with me.

@Ominous said in Poll: Do I enjoy this hobby more than I don't?:

The real question is do I enjoy this hobby more than the other hobbies I am able to pursue, and sadly the answer is yes.

That's a really interesting response and I appreciate it. This is not sarcasm; thanks for sharing. It's definitely good food for thought.

plz can I have some moar?

These are amazing, thank you for sharing.

@bored said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@lordbelh I think it rises above 'possibly being discomforted' to nearly baiting people to get into fights on pub about religion/politics and I really don't think that's something any game really needs. And I say this being far from the sort to worry about offending/triggering/etc as a general matter of policy. I don't think these topics should be off limits (and I presume an alt-earth version would still have religious violence, all the horrors implied by war, etc), but from a pure 'I want my game to succeed' level I think it's probably a landmine @Lotherio would be better off not setting for himself to step on.

This. Exactly this.

@Ghost

Again, 'sharing my email with my name in it' and 'existing on facebook' are the things being compared here. Yes, absolutely, hackers are scary and telnet is bad. I'm gonna mush though, so -- hey, actually, that makes a really good point.

My IP address, which is actually as scary or MORE scary than my email, is not at all secure on login into a mush, because HACKERS.

So you're at more of a risk just logging in than you are by sharing your email with your name on it.

ETA: "If you're in IT" -- I am. I just said that.

@crawfish

AAAAAAAH that is so exciting.

But no rush or anything.