Posts made by surreality

I think all games do this to some small extent, though it is typically subtle.

Things like 'all characters will be 18+' automatically rules out a lot of things like high-school setting RP, for instance. (Similarly, 'all of our characters are 16', like the high school setting game that came and went recently would rule out things like classic pickup-hookup BaRP, since I think we can reasonably agree that the replacement 'pizza parlor' or 'arcade' style replacement doesn't play out quite the same way.)

Things like Arx's 'we will not be accepting sex workers as PCs' as characters is similar: "this is not an area we want to explore or have as a PC focus".

These things are totally reasonable and are simple examples of basic policy already creating certain restrictions of subject matter or character concepts that don't even really touch on theme or setting directly. So on one level, this already does happen, it's just not so 'in your face' that it is necessarily obvious on first glance.

@aria I would be tempted to blast the churchiest of church music back at 'em. This is the only proper use of church music, to my reckoning.

I ended up digging through the css on chrome and editing it. I pulled up a PM window, typed 'test' in it, and then right-clicked on 'test' to pull up the contextual menu, then scrolled down to inspect it. I scrolled through there until I found what color property the text was using in the css that pops up (this will be the first 'color' property without a strikethrough) and edited it to a color that would show up against the dark background. (In my case, #FFFFFF (white) on the slate skin.) Thankfully, thus far it has stuck. Thus far. Fingers and toes remaining crossed.

@insomnia I really like that idea, and it would be really cool if that could be implemented. I dunno how much work would be involved, but having 'is staff on' tags by posters names with the game name would be seriously fantastic for a variety of reasons in the same way we have things like 'pitcrew' or 'reader'/etc.

I'm not sure why all of them don't necessarily show (they don't for me, anyway)... I kinda wish they did.

Another thing to consider -- this is veering a little off the main question but is tied to @Derp's idea -- is to have certain things included in alt limits.

It's another of those things I wanted to try if I did something, for instance: 'no more than one of your characters can have Resources at 4+'. (I was going to allow 16+ for age, so another was 'no more than one character under 18', if this helps clarify the idea here.)

This wasn't tied to what kind of character it was or any other limit, but was basically a means of preventing someone from making 'and this is my stupidly rich X, my stupidly rich Y, and my stupidly rich Z!' No, pick your X, your Y, or your Z to be the rich one -- doesn't matter which, but it's going to end up being just the one.

It strikes me as a pretty simple means of preventing certain types of oversaturation that get a little ridiculous and skew things in peculiar ways on a game without locking down too hard on alt counts or creating other complications.

(Also in memory of Rex.)

@insomnia Being a random, nearly forgotten entirely, specific-niche local god just scraping to get by would be amazing. (I'm getting flashbacks to Eddie Izzard's 'Jeff, the God of Biscuits' here, but that wouldn't be too horribly far off in terms of scale... )

If you stuck to stuff on that level, you could keep the power levels pretty easily in the range of the standard angel or demon easily, they'd just probably be less actually powerful due to being massively more specific. Like the god of some local creek's powers may allow them to heal someone or purify someone of illness or provide water-based foodstuffs or such, but only if they're standing in their creek and get somebody to chant some specific thing or another, if someone poisons their creek they'd take damage wherever they are, etc. It would be pretty easy to incorporate these as protagonist types or antagonist types, and the ever-more-popular 'sometimes they help, and sometimes they have their own agendas' type that the series is (wonderfully) full of.

@wretched You could potentially make something like a parallel status/influence merit that people settled in a certain area could take on this one, as a basic, with a point or two granted for their home base in CG. Then something akin to '<other location> Credentials' or similar for 'everywhere that isn't their home base'. So the rich doctor that has hometown cred in richville that does a lot of pro bono no-strings medical aid or runs a free clinic in poorville may have a few points of 'is respected for <reason> in this part of town'.

ETA: I was considering something like this for something, so... naturally I like this idea. If I can find my actual notes at some point, I'll pass along what I had if it's of any help.

@arkandel True enough. There's a specific ep much like she's describing (and I think it's the one she mentioned even but I don't remember seasons or numbers, just whatever I nicknamed things mentally).

@insomnia They do have that episode or two in the 'alternate future' where something like this happened -- it may make for a good template. From what I recall, people were set up in encampments, etc. and traded resources a lot, similar to something in The Walking Dead vein from what could be gleaned of it.

(I mentally refer to this as the Stoner Castiel episode, if that helps pin down which one I mean.)

This looks like a good idea to work from. I think just about anything that allows people to have a more customized niche -- which becomes even more important on a very large game, when the TR/FC chain has historically been and this one will likely be the same -- is a good idea.

Players like to have something special about them, or something they are known for. This isn't always a snowflake extreme; it's a very natural human thing. This kind of breakdown could foster that very well from how you've presented it, and I think it will be interesting to see how it works out.

@bored That's why I've been asking for a space like that for ages now -- I think it's something that would be a net positive without screwing anybody else or forcing any other changes on folks -- and it's something scattered right now and that makes it confusing re: what rules apply where to such threads. Thankfully... @Auspice just created a space for it. So this is a good thing all around, yeah?

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@surreality I maintain that my initial post was no way meant as hostile (the 'those plots are stupid' was in reference to a general trope of plots, not anything specific to your game) and that most of it was misinterpretation of tone and and a death spiral of hostility/defense, but it's fine, I'm no more interested in re-litigating that thread than I imagine (or hope) you would be. I'm not going to.

Regardless, your (prior) thread is still a good example not because of the fight, but because of what you wanted and didn't get: a controlled conversation based on certain positive elaboration on your initial concepts. We fought in that thread because I fundamentally didn't believe the 'Mildly Constructive' forum allowed you that restriction, but I am in favor of you having a place where you could have that. I don't know what more I can offer or say than that.

But it would probably need to be a new high-moderation zone.

@faraday I agree all those specific things are not constructive and should be subject to moderation even in Mildly Constructive (and if any of them are me, my bad). That said, I still think there's levels of skin thickness, hostility and defensiveness across the entire spectrum of forum posters where it would be beneficial to have a designated high moderation area.

I agree with all of this, actually -- and it is a prime example. Generally we seem to agree on most basic things more often than not and I long ago chalked most of that up to the death spiral of worst case scenarios in terms of personal whatever. Hence the 'my favorite grudgewank' being, genuinely, a joke. (Which I figured you got, but if you didn't, now at least you know the intent behind that reference.)

Where we disagree is that I'm not against 'I don't like'. I'm actually interested in that -- when that's the focus area I'm looking at, and if it's relevant. If I'm making a DC comics game and someone's only feedback is 'I hate DC comics games, I only like Marvel', well... that ship has sorta sailed and it isn't useful feedback.

If I am asking specific questions, I'm looking for answers to those specific questions. Instead, I got slammed and insulted and told I was making some formal representation and introduction advertisement for a game (which I most certainly wasn't) with a deliberately tongue-in-cheek bullet point list of some of the elements involved so people would have a very basic and general context for their answers.

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@faraday @surreality

Suffice it to say, I think given the variable tolerances of different people for different levels of criticism, I don't think you want what you claim you're asking for, or it's not realistic. Split the hairs however you want, on language and what is 'constructive' and what isn't, but people will react to things very differently. Your very ongoing line of complaint basically proves that the forum that exists can't suit your needs, which is why I think it's perfectly reasonable to create a new one for you.

We can go back to @surreality's last game project thread as an example of this, where basically any level of 'I don't like this theme element' or 'I think this won't work' was interpreted as 'you are the destroyers of all hopes and dreams.' Heck, even ignore my interactions with her, since I'm obviously satan or whatever. She reacted this way to @Arkandel too, in the same discussion. I'm pretty sure you all regard him positively.

So call the kinder forum whatever you want to satisfy that it sounds like it's focused on mature, intelligent discussion, but you want a (more) heavily moderated forum where people are very limited in the degree they can dissent or criticize the primary poster. Hell, @surreality even created a prototype for what I'm describing in her thread, where she tried to limit the scope of discussion but people didn't feel she had that authority. Create a forum where she has that authority!

Seriously, I'm really not your enemy in getting what you want, but you need to be realistic about what you're really asking for.

@Arkandel, I actually don't mind being an example, because I think it is an effective example of the problem.

@Arkandel claimed that having areas that only one faction could access -- the example being a single bar for water-breathing folk -- would destroy the game. Full stop. This is demonstrably untrue and has been proving so for decades over endless games; many games do this, have done this, and continue to do this now and it does not destroy the game.

This was also the first response in a thread that asked specific questions; this was a question wholly unrelated to any of the questions asked. So from post #1, the questions asked were completely ignored, and the tone was set that they could be completely ignored and 'this is a free for all' was established by a well-respected member of the community.

@bored, you claimed that you hated a thematic element 'because it is only ever stupid end of the world plots'. When told there was no intention for any end of the world plots, or anything involving those aspects of the inspiration, you kept banging on endlessly about it anyway as though this had not been said at all. I'm not the kind of person who spends a ton of time building something just to drop people into the middle of 'and now you have to work against impossible odds before everything explodes!' -- it's completely contrary to the 'I want people to be able to build and add things to this world' principle I was working with as the entire basis of the project. "Ha ha now staff's going to come in and smash all of your creations!" is about as contrary to that goal as one could possibly get.

p.s. I don't think you're satan at all -- I joke about you 'being my favorite grudgewank' but I don't actually have a grudge. I do think you were going way too far into personal attacks and deliberately reading nasty whatever into things, but if that was a sin that marked someone for all eternity around here, nobody would be talking to anybody any more. You often make a lot of good points; I think you dig in your heels on an overblown negative view of someone sometimes that isn't accurate, but again... kinda common and not some huge years-long reason for war to break out.

@Roz I can PM it if you want on that point; I've seen you stand up against that stuff more than a few times and have no qualms saying so, or that it's appreciated when you do.

@arkandel Some of those ways are valid in civil discourse, and some aren't.

Those examples aren't unclear.

"I don't like giant monsters, so I don't like this game because it has a lot of focus on giant monsters showing up all the time."
"I don't like giant monsters because they're stupid, anyone who likes them is stupid, and that means this game is stupid."

There's zero call for the latter.

ETA: The former is an opinion. The latter is an attack.

@faraday That, yep.

There's also the huge difference between "I don't like <thing> about this game," which is also totally chill as a stated opinion, and "this game is <thing> and that makes them completely stupid and everyone who likes that is also stupid."

(This gets back to the One True Way-ists thing somewhat, but also hits on the whole 'wishlisting' problem, where a lot of people want something that will conform to what they personally want... and if that's the only way they can be happy, they probably need to make their own game and not try to force other people to make an existing project conform to their personal wish list.)

ETA: Dammit, @faraday, your edit makes me wish I could upvote something twice again.

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

There are posts in this thread suggesting that basically the entire forum (with the exception of the Pit, should it be allowed to exist) should operate at a very polite / moderated level. It has also been part of the longer discussion about moderation that goes beyond this thread.

That's... actually been my understanding of how things are supposed to be from the moment the Pit was created. Vitriol was to be confined there. Personal attacks were to be confined there. They haven't been... like, at all.

Again, I really don't care how its organized. But its important to clarify that 'highly moderated discussion with almost no criticism' (which seems to be your / @surreality's / etc's preference, and don't think is bad, to be very clear) is very different from 'criticism OK but no flaming' which is different from 'poo and gifs.' Everyone can have all these things, as far as I'm concerned, but we should be cautious of any of them being removed or diminished.

It's possible to offer constructive criticism, and that's what I think people are talking about. There's a difference between 'this is just a pile of shit' (which people still do) as criticism and 'the way they have the economy set up is unbalanced and makes the game hard to play, and the staff pressure to engage in TS is pretty creepy to me' which is not exactly light or gentle criticism. The latter contains useful information that the poster can ostensibly substantiate, the former really doesn't. It's just a slap from out of nowhere for no stated reason.

@faraday said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Just wanted to note that nobody is suggesting that negative reviews be shunted off to the Hog Pit. Reasonable adults should be able to post a negative review: "I cannot recommend playing on this game because staff did (this bad thing, with facts)" without the entire thread turning into a freaking dumpster fire complete with people posting popcorn GIFs and random snarky commentary to egg on one side or the other. Sadly we've seen more of the latter.

It's the latter that gets moved, and should be moved -- because it has no place in an ad or constructive thread.

I'm not sure how I feel about deleting things. I don't think completely unfounded accusations about others (read: deliberate attempts at character assassination with zero basis in reality) should be allowed to stand anywhere on the forum.

This is not OK and it's gone on a whole lot.

I should not be able to post something like:

Jane is a useless slut who just whores around for attention and doesn't give a shit about cheating if it benefits her but she'll scream bloody murder if somebody is given something she isn't because she's so insecure she can't stand anyone else ever getting attention so she'll stalk and abuse them in pages because she's a narcissistic rapist.

Joe is a soulless piece of shit who should be locked up, he makes little kids fuck dogs and tries to convince people he's the smartest person in the room when he's actually a dumb piece of shit.

Sue tries to deliberately sabotage any game she's on because her family life is crap because her husband cheats on her all the time and she can't stand being anything but the center of all male attention on every game she's on, this is mostly because she's a rotten person and it's no surprise he cheats because she's such a slovenly cow and so self-righteously full of herself.

Jack is always lying about everything and is in cahoots with Jody. They can't be trusted. They pretend to be enemies but it's really a long con and you stupid shits are all just fooled by it because you're so fucking stupid you can't see through their transparent ruse. They go to games together and then fight all over the channels thinking they're being so clever and funny but this just proves they're sad shitsacks that can't hold a job or they wouldn't have time to do this over the endless games they've done this shit on.

I mean, seriously. We have someone this past week making similar claims about me and most of them are still there. All of them are patently false. But this is OK? No, it's kinda not. And it wasn't OK when he did so to Ghost or Cupcake or any of the other people he did it to, either, and I said so then, too -- but the poster was allowed to stay around continuing to do it over and over and over with the insistence the rules just didn't apply to them, they didn't respect the mods, and had every intention of continuing on in this way no matter where they were on the forum, without any proof of their fucked up claims, and so on. This is the kind of raving, unsubstantiated, patently false bullshit that doesn't deserve a home anywhere on the forum.