Controversial posts made by Sunny

@VulgarKitten said in Kushiel's Debut:

I was excluded. Others were excluded. They can jump in if they want to. Whether you ran the Dunlin Elder plots or not, you were involved and didn't make the move to get others involved, certainly didn't bitch quite this hard (or at all) that others were being excluded. You weren't running this KD plot, but felt the need to criticize because folks weren't being included. Same hypocrisy.

I did LOTS to work at including other people. That you didn't like how I did it doesn't negate the fact that I did do it, that I did get people involved, that I did distribute information. The bulk of my RP for like 5 OOC months was spreading plot. Yes, people were excluded. Thus, why I did what I did. To include people. With staff and other player support. Was I successful in getting everyone involved? Nope, probably not. Was the ultimate reason I finally left because of Spider and her excluding people? Why yes, yes, it was. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I didn't bitch this hard. Seriously, your retelling of this doesn't match reality even a little bit. As far as the bitchfit goes, yeah, it was all you. I was told, essentially, that you were a crazy bitch and to just leave it alone, because you were so ineffective in your gossipy whisper campaign that nobody who'd had anything to do with me there would buy for two minutes what you were selling. Thus, I did, you dug your own hole, everyone was chill.

So essentially "I'm sorry but rather than actually being done, I'm going to drama anyway"?

Sure. If that's your take on it.

One is you (were you a staff member at the time? Seems like you were but correct me if I'm wrong) bitching to another player. The other is another staff member bitching to another player who went and did something else. They are the same thing, even if you sugar coat it. That the person you bitched to didn't go off and bitch to said person doesn't make your actions any different. Just theirs.

There's a significant difference between what one does in an official capacity and what one does privately. The context of the information being shared -- and the content of that information -- is important. I am acknowledging that I did complain. Yep.

@Thenomain said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Sunny

And I don't see where credibility is lost if someone does want to slog through someone's bad attitude to get to the salient points. Clearly I have to surround myself with people who know how to do that.

I am going to partly blame being on the phone and party blame being at work on my lack of clarity/expressing myself correctly, and I do apologize. I did say that; I didn't mean it. What I actually meant to imply was that @wanderer destroyed their own credibility by coming out swinging (if you disagree with me you're a closed minded idiot, essentially). It called his judgement into question, because before anyone said one word he was preemptively attempting to shame anyone just for disagreeing.

This was followed by him being engaged as if he were credible and then the equating out of their argument as if it held equal weight to what @Arkandel was saying. That, to me, is where the judgment / credibility issues come in. It seemed (to me) like @Arkandel was being taken to task for being condescending while the person he was talking to's wish of death upon children was ignored.

@surreality
I get where they're coming from, too. I've had a lot of really awful things happen to me, though, and I generally don't start off my argument shrieking at everybody and expect to be taken seriously when I do (at least after I've calmed down). I respect that you don't want to dogpile, but again...it's just frustrating to me that on one hand we have folks saying 'bad @Arkandel, you're being a jerk' while the person he's being a jerk to (probably in reaction, yeah?) is leveling death wishes.

Whatever. I am clearly so off base in my viewpoints that I'm not really sure why I am even bothering anymore. Peace out.

I've had both genders, and have had no trouble on either. I haven't really noticed any sort of lack on any of my female characters, that's for sure.

@Tyche

My opinion is that your opinion makes you a disgusting asshole.

@ThatGuyThere

The key you're missing there is the expectation that the other person knows what you mean. People get offended all the time by people answering them literally, and that's on them.

If you ask what I need and I answer that with no way of knowing what you actually mean and you walk because I don't know what your actual question is, that's not my problem.

You are missing the point. Do you seriously think any of these other games don't have the asshat standard? Don't have ethical expectations?

@Cupcake said in The Shame Game:

Except I've seen on previous boards people explicitly mentioning that one of the purposes of these boards is public shaming. I'll call it fair to say that may be a singular opinion I've observed, but I was curious as to what people thought about the idea.

And...one particular opinion expressed about a different site totally indicates the purpose and community buy-in of that opinion. Wtf? I read it on the internet, it MUST be true.

@Entropy said:

I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.

But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.

I'm not saying things like "there will be no perks for staff because fairness!" or that everything will be all rainbow unicorn farts on staff side because we'll all get along and all that. But I do think that it's possible to have a staff that is mature enough to work together to make sure some of these major pitfalls that happen commonly in games just don't become the same overwhelming serial problems that they often do. Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game. Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".

In the end, I have received a few responses offering to help staff and run things, as well as do some building. I've got enough stuff tinkering around in my head to draw up a bunch of theme and a world setting. Really I just need a game setup and a coder or two.

Best of luck. I don't believe that a game that is based on 'not like that' can successfully be what it is you're looking for. You need to be based on 'this is what I will be like, and this is how I'm going to do it'. I see 'we won't have these bad staffers and common pitfalls!' and no evidence whatsoever that you've any hope of actually accomplishing these things.

@Apos said in Finding roleplay:

@Arkandel said in Finding roleplay:

To take this thread in a slightly different direction... do you think incentivizing public scenes helps in practice?

What I mean specifically here is either +vote systems with diminishing returns for the same recipients so that players have an extra reason to seek out new partners, higher XP for larger scenes, etc.

Do you think these have a positive impact on whether you can find roleplay? Please forget any other effects of them for the purposes of this thread - power balance, etc - and focus on RP generation. Does it have that effect?

Yes. Night and day difference.

Yes. It does indeed encourage people to go out in public. A lot.

@Entropy said:

Right. Either way, this entire thing is taking away from the topic at hand, which is talking about my desire to help create/run a freeform game with a more democratic/fair staffing policy, so that people can enjoy the things that make MU*s fun, and not have to deal with as much of the stuff that makes them not so much fun... because even looking over this site... most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.

Nobody sets out to make a game with crappy, self-interested, and thoroughly corrupt staff. Your goals are noble, but unrealistic. People suck, and internet people suck worse. Beyond that, a certain measure of favoritism is actually a healthy thing for any game, and a LOT of times when that complaint is made it's completely inaccurate (someone earned something / did something that I didn't, obviously it was favoritism rather than them doing something to deserve it).

It's the sort of goal that makes experienced game runners/designers smile and go 'good luck' and then change the subject, because who wants to crush the hopes and dreams of a new ethical mecca?

@DnvnQuinn said:

Is this thread still a thing?

A couple people think it's a good idea, most of us think it's a terrible idea and the reasonings behind it (It's a play! Theater! I'm a director and my word is law!!! Or the I trust my friends and know them better than random peoples!) are terrible and the other side think they're reasonable and in the right.

Reading this, nobody is being convinced of anything.

Psst. You can actually hit 'mark all read' if you aren't interested. I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone, it's just being discussed as it's an interesting discussion involving a lot of very intelligent people.

@DnvnQuinn said:

@Sunny What are you talking about? My original question is why one genre is easier to code over another (not systems, literally just the genre)...

Because of peoples' expectations.

Then I made the observation that people here were recently talking about freeform (which I mistook for sandbox) games aren't doing well..

Right. And the question posed in answer to your observation was 'what games ARE doing well'. When coupled with the discouraging impression that 'aren't those games failing anyway' gives (and please don't say you weren't being negative, because the question by its very nature is negative), one thing leads to another.

Nowhere did I say that Mushes are failing in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

At no point did I actually say that you said mushes were failing in general.

@bored said:

Sure. Your game, your dime for the server, you can do anything you want, include being a nepotistic scumbag.

Because that's what you're going to be when you decide to play director, cast your stars, and then oh yeah, we need some extras too.

This bullshit gets you one thing. It gets you Firan.

Nobody is claiming what you're responding to.

@Jaunt said:

Blah blah blah.

@Crayon has gotten the point, now. Maybe you should talk to him, because you're still missing it.

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

To keep the game at a power level that fits with the campaign that I will be running while still allowing a very generous number of ways to earn experience.

This is not going to do what you think it's going to do.

Yes, it actually is.

Not only is a 200xp human different from a 200xp vampire different from a 200xp werewolf, two 200xp werewolves are going to be worlds different from each other.

Yes, and there is yet more of a world of difference between a 200 XP character and a 750 XP character. I am more concerned about this difference than I am between the factions. Some character choices are more powerful at some things than other characters are. That's as true at 15 experience as it is at 500.

Experience level does not relate to power level.

This is incorrect.

That largely comes down to build choice.

Build choice impacts it; how many experience you have to spend on that build also has a significant amount to do with it as well. I can do more with 500 XP than I can with 50.

And as @coin mentioned earlier, when you set a hard cap, you're just going to end up with people who frontload a whole bunch of other stats and ignore others.

This is how tabletop works.

I see the reasoning that you have. But your reasoning in this instance is faulty. It's based on the false premise that characters at the same level of xp are at rough parities of power.

Er, no. It's not. It's a limiter on upper power level. It's a cap, not an equalizer. If I was (stupidly) attempting equality I'd simply give a flat rate of XP to all characters (including those not made yet) at a set time. This system is not an attempt at making things equal.

And that's simply not the case.

Thank you, @Ninjakitten!

And as @WTFE has said, this is what we were trying to get out of you. @crayon. Welcome to the party.

@Thenomain said:

So what in Planescape is this meant to accomplish?

Long-term upper limit on power level so that with as easy as we're making it to earn and spend experience, we don't end up with characters that outgrow the stories being told. Telling a story for a 200XP character vs one for a 750XP character are very different things, and the scope of Dust is far more aimed at the former rather than the latter, at least for our first year.

It's less meant to be a throttle and more a wall. It's not meant to slow growth, but to keep characters from going past a certain point at all.

Y'all get a break from me arguing this. I can't type well enough on my phone to be useful.

I started mushing in 1993. It just sounds pretentious. Many of those here are the same.

Also, nobody is bloody asking you to change your site to suit us. I personally want you to stop being dicknoses, and to just be honest about your site. Clearly, simply, no qualifiers.

@VulgarKitten said:

@Sunny said:

@VulgarKitten said:

@Sunny Wait, what? Assumptions holy shit. I didn't quit your site for any reason other than I stopped having time to do anything. Had no clue you'd nuked the Catriona bit, which I only took for logging on so you would know who it was. As soon as you established a staff naming convention, I switched over to that. Thank you for showing your true colours. Here I thought I was giving YOU a second chance. Yeesh.

Yeah, okay. Such strange timing, then. It's amazing how that works. No assumptions here darling, just the cold, hard facts. Deny it as you'd like. I never knew you as Catriona, so that's a big fat load of bullshit, too. Do you believe your own shit? You really should consider getting professional help.

ETA: Also, your story sounds great until you realize that you didn't rename, you switched bits. Horse shit.

Believe whatever the fuck you want.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of facts. You have displayed yourself in this very thread to be precisely what I said that you were, just as you were espousing the attitude Surreality was talking about in your very shrieking about her having said it. A comedy routine could not write this better on purpose.

It's like you've thrown yourself on the ground and are screaming and kicking your feet and waving your hands around yelling, "I AM NOT HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM!" Really. That's how you're coming across right now. How you've come across every time the switch flips and you go nutters. I know it sounds snotty, but I really do recommend talking to a professional: the problem in your life is you.