@Roz Please explain the things with semantics other than forms. Please? Because I am not clueful enough to explain those -- and they're worth explaining.
I am specifically wondering if they are set up in a way that might make the integration easier, since it has specific property definitions.
I strongly recommend looking closely at Semantic Mediawiki specifically.
It has a lot more going on under the hood that even I don't fully grok -- but it's worth looking at. (Read: it's worth it for someone who actually knows what's really going on there server-side taking a look at it to see what the possibilities are; I just know what it allows me to do on the user end. I just follow the instructions to install it, this doesn't mean I actually know quite what I'm doing back there.)
On the user/wiki-admin side, it allows for a lot of things that aren't standard in the box with mediawiki, and to the best of my knowledge are not in wikidot at all either.
Forms are a big one for a number of reasons.
They make things much easier on non-wiki-savvy users, for one; it's possible for a user to create a page without a single shred of code know-how with them, and templates can be made fairly easily for just about anything the game needs. (I've been working up some basic ones for things like grid locations, player pages, etc. similar to the ones on BITN's wiki, and when the generic versions are ready I want to have them up where they can be grabbed and shared.) It's possible to enter specific instructions for every step of the process, for every input on the form, with as much or as little information as players or staff may need to ensure the information is correct, useful. It helps ensure it's easy to understand what to do, how to do it, and why it's needed (or even if it's needed or optional). And this is all without needing to know a single thing about wiki code on the player (or data entry staffer) end.
The extra bonus for forms is that it's possible to set up lists of default allowed values that will appear in the template; while that sounds little, it can be big for things that the MUX expects to appear in a very specific way. Whether something is 'Circle of the Crone' or 'The Circle of the Crone' can make a big difference code-wise, for instance; if it's set with a drop-down rather than entered manually, it's always going to be consistent and there's no need to remember how it's supposed to be done. (Because nobody always remembers. It always gets screwed up somewhere, some time. 
)
I am also not sure if wikidot uses/allows the use of DPL or not at all. DPL is extremely useful to create auto-populating listings throughout the wiki that massively reduce the need for constant direct human maintenance.
I'm with @Coin on this one. I literally have twenty cents to my name this month, but if I happen to miracle my way into a paycheck (dang freelance art jobs), I'm all about sending what I can.
@Pandora Quick question; I am guessing RPIs tend to be more like MOOs in terms of how they're built area-wise; namely, you have a fairly well fleshed-out representation of any given area in a sequence of multiple rooms. For instance, a forest area would have X number of rooms (X being greater than 1-2) to represent the forest?
Most modern MUSH/MUXes tend to go with one single room to represent the whole forest (and the forest may not even be a room, it may be a sentence in the desc of a room meant to represent an entire county), so even a fairly expansive area can be more or less summarized in a fairly small number of rooms. I think BITN's grid, which covers several counties of southern Maryland, for instance, is under 30 total grid rooms for the better part of a whole state, as an example, with each county included having about 1-3 rooms.
...I like some aspects of this approach and hate others, because I liked the nooks and crannies and twists and turns of oldschool grids, but I like that broad areas can be summarized fairly well. Would still love to see more hybridization of the general approach, with the few base grid rooms for areas, but with something neat and mood-inspiring or generally interesting just as a backdrop if nothing else in a sprawl of meandering rooms here or there at least. 
@Cupcake said in The Shame Game:
@VulgarKitten said in The Shame Game:
@Arkandel And the opposite of that 'hey do you mind if we FTB on this sexy times stuff?' SHAME that chick is such a prude. It's just a game. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't, depending on the person.
I think this pretty much applies to any situation in which someone is engaging in RP behavior that others decide (for good or ill) is worth shaming.
This one right here is where I always point back to the 'pretendy fun times' thing.
I mean, ultimately?
Who cares if somebody likes RPing sex. Or cooking dinner. Or killing monsters. Or going to the prom. Or whatever, really.
This always irked me even more when whatever the activity is is ultimately a case of 'two people go off to a private space where they aren't bothering anybody at all to paint each other's IC toenails/read each other's' tarot cards/watch a movie/juggle chainsaws/etc.' I mean seriously. 'People are spending too much time off in private away from the group that needs them' can be valid in extreme cases of time spent away from IC responsibilities, but really isn't more often than not. What they're doing in private just doesn't matter and is so never ever going to matter.
But people want to make it matter when it's some things, and not when it's others, and exactly... it's so arbitrary.
The solution is simple, too. "Hey, X? There's some plot stuff folks want you to set aside some time to address/folks need to meet with you to be able to move forward with their characters in the faction/etc. When can we do that?"
Set a time, run with it, handled. Easy and zero drama, everybody gets what they want.
If, that is, that's the real motive for the behavior.
Part of what's so frustrating about the excuse people use for this gossipy crap is that it's a 'problem' that's very easy to solve if you're dealing with someone who has even the slightest shred of responsibility.
Which means it's really just gossipy crap for the sake of gossipy crap with a flimsy excuse to hide behind to try to get away with being gossipy twits.
This is admittedly one of the things I also get very growly about; I don't like the high school gossipy headgame crap, and even when it's people I adore engaging in it, there is a part of me that just cringes internally at best. (I actually hate it more when my friends do it than when it's done to my friends. My friends can defend themselves; I don't like having to defend people from my friends, but I will, and shit, that's awkward.)
@Ganymede said in The Shame Game:
Things probably eased up because, over time, even basement-bound nerds can get a little something-something.
Or enough of 'em got caught at it it wasn't worth trying to hide any more. 
@mietze Gotcha; I'm thinking of something else, in that case. I have seen what you're describing in the 'public shunning' sense. I was definitely thinking of the more 'poison the well rumor mill' thing.
I've seen way too much:
Y says, "Here is what X just said about you!"
X says, "OMG I would never do that you know that Y is a total lying bitch! I would never say such things about you!"
...in different windows at the same time, or in pages at the same time, etc.
It's partly why I try to do a lot of 'observe directly before coming to a conclusion' for at least a while if I can. Admittedly, this has left me dealing with a pile of assholes others have warned me about, but has also given me a lot of great RP partners that others have warned me about, and the latter makes dealing with the former worth the effort.
Shunning tends to be about exclusion of a person (and finding some excuse to do it, no matter how flimsy) more than change (of a behavior), and exclusion is just... bleah all around.
@Arkandel said in The Shame Game:
@surreality This is also true - but if people want to trash talk they will. You don't have to withhold TS from them, often times you need not do something special to deserve it other than to exist.
Caring about the opinions of others in such a context empowers them. If we do we relinquishing power over our state of mind and self worth to folks who are not worth it.
I pay a lot of heed to criticism and points made by folks I deem worthy of my respect. It doesn't matter if they like me, but I need to know I hold them in high regard first.
The rest... well, the rest are just white noise generators when it comes to their actual emotional impact on my day.
...pretty much. (And there I went and 'me too'd' a post after... siiiiigh. Ahem. Anyway.)
I also know that some folks I hold in high regard can be wrong sometimes. Heck, there's a friend of mine I would trust with my life RL, but I think he's dead wrong in regard to one specific person and their motives and behaviors; even the best folk can have some major blind spots. He and I have observed that person in different circumstances, though, and that third person treats us both very differently, so I can't really fault him for not sharing my opinion, and so on. Happens a lot, really.
@mietze I think maybe I see it more as the difference between 'shunning' (which can be private/whisper-game or public) and shaming (public humiliation)?
I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree about the harmfulness of it, but one of the essential elements of shaming is the whole 'public, target is aware of it' things on some level -- the whisper-game horribleness people seem to want to not let the target find out about in most cases I've seen.
The whisper-game stuff like that is sometimes actionable on games, too; it depends on the game, but I know some have very low tolerance for that kind of exclusionary behavior, which -- at least ideally -- tells me that people at least abstractly understand that it is not good behavior on multiple levels. (Whether games enforce it or not, or are aware of it or not, is another ball of wax, too. )
@Arkandel said in The Shame Game:
@VulgarKitten It's not the same at all! If someone asks for a FTB and the other person objects that person is a moron. This is known.
This is the objective truth -- people know someone pushing after FTB is asked for is a jerk -- but that doesn't stop these people from slinging a whole lot of 'so and so is a tease/prude/backward/etc.' anyway.
There is a sad quantity of people who tend not to let silly things like facts get in the way of a good story when they want to tar-and-feather someone.
@mietze It might be a case of different circles? Or different permutations, too.
In all seriousness, saying, "Yeah, sex is a part of your character's identity, and you should figure out what your character thinks about it -- even if it is just to say 'my character is asexual'," was met with you have nothing but prurient interest in this hobby and should be removed from all games and similar.
I know I ended up with mountains of, "Who cares what you think, you're just a dumb slut," right out there in the open more or less any time I said anything about anything. (Seriously, I could have been talking about building protocols, and you would see that kind of thing pop up from multiple sources.)
The only person who more or less escaped it at the time somewhat was HR, and this is because his technical RPG lore was so far beyond everybody else at the time it became more noteworthy. (I suspect this had something to do with 'was male' as well, but outright sexism on the actual forums hasn't been as much of an issue as it has been on games, which is seriously frickin' weird to me, but I've noticed that one for a while.)
I see whisper-game stuff, but things like shrieking at people on channels with insults or piling on in that sense no matter the subject I really don't see the way I used to.
In a way, the fact that it's been reduced to whispers rather than a public pillory with piles of thrown rotten veggies is a pretty notable difference. It's far from perfect -- but it is a big, big change.
Ironically, the change you're talking about is just as big, and it does have an impact on and intersection with what you're describing. It's just more nefarious in a sense, since it isn't ever actually about what someone is actually doing -- but instead about what someone else says someone is doing.
I put this more in the defamation/character assassination category, I guess? It tends to be private whispers to destroy someone invisibly, while shaming has that whole public humiliation component to it. I'm running low on words today (I'm probably over quota) but the public/private divide on this one is a factor in my head on this issue.
@Pandora That, too, definitely. I was mostly thinking about the ones where there's just the downvote and no actual reply -- but you're right, there are a lot of those that are more 'this is the warning shot to inform you that a counter-argument is coming! Take cover!'
@Kanye-Qwest Agreed that what the community standards are is key.
"Liking sex" is, in fact, something that got a whole lot of shaming in the early days of previous forum incarnations, so it's actually a pretty good example to go with.
More specifically, admitting in public that you TS'ed? Doom, doom, doom in the early days of the forums -- we're going back to the late 90s and early 00s here.
This was silly in many respects because more people did it than didn't. It was treated like a 'dirty little secret', however, which meant a whole lot of people would decry it while typing one-handed in the next window over.
A handful of people admitted it. Me, @Ninjakitten, Peverel, @HelloRaptor, and a handful of others, but there really were only a handful of us. And the reputations we had at the time revolved heavily around that -- no matter what any of us were saying.
"Who should listen to you? You're just a stupid perv." <-- that kind of thing was incredibly common.
It was also stupid.
None of those people ever backed down, though. Nobody stopped admitting it. Nobody crawled off to die in a hole. None ever talked about it any differently then than is done now. People stood their ground because they were found nothing wrong with standing there, even when it wasn't comfortable.
Time passed. Shit changed. People grew up. (OK, most people grew up; there are still some folks stuck in the 90s on this one, but they're now as rare as the handful were back then.) You don't really see the hatefest toward anyone who considers TS as potentially a part of RP for whatever reason in the same way.
Sometimes the behavior being shamed is stupid. Sometimes it's the shaming itself that is the behavior that is actually stupid.
Recently, the major public outcry around here has been "don't use slur language and pretend it's cute or OK, it makes you an asshole".
I think the community is pretty much on the right course, frankly.
@Kanye-Qwest said in The Shame Game:
What is up with that? I want to know who downvotes me! I want to know so I can drink deep of their delicious hatred, or mild disagreement with whatever I've said. Mmm, delicious mild disagreement.
I know, right? It's pretty dumb.
There are basically three kinds of downvotes.
None of which are worth getting worked up over, none of which could be considered 'shaming'. The first is mild but generally useless feedback as it contains no real counterpoint, and the latter two are pretty expository of who still thinks this is high school.
@VulgarKitten said in The Shame Game:
@surreality Good lord. That needed a TL;DR that
wasn't a lame memedidn't hit a little too close to home. Trying too hard.
FTFY. (I do recall when the downvotes were visible, after all... 
)
@Arkandel said in New Player Onboarding:
Maybe link CGen to a web form? You go there, fill out your character sheet and it spits out the +commands needed to get what you wanted, so you just copy and paste it into the client.
Am working on this. 
Not this second, but have been.
@Coin said in New Player Onboarding:
@Arkandel said in New Player Onboarding:
@Coin My name is John.
Yes, I know.
I just used ambiguity so as not to tell everyone on the forum your real life name in case you didn't want it known. God, you really don't know anything.
...well clearly his last name must be Snow.
Pretty much, @Ghost.
Here's an example. This is why I'm calling you out, @Kestrel.
@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:
The 'culture of bitching' that's been explained to me as an integral part of these boards, while perhaps cathartic for some, is really not something I consider healthy or productive for anyone involved. Why bitch for the sake of bitching? Why get angry for the sake of being angry?
Observe. You take a quote, and make assumptions. All negative. Further, you use them to generalize about the community at large.
These are your words, and your behavior.
This is your advice:
But I think it pays, when you feel the need to shame someone, to try and connect with them as a person, first.
Did you do that? Did you follow your own advice? No, you didn't. Not even a little. You grabbed a comment, ascribed a lot of additional negativity to it, and attempted to use it against an entire community.
And nowhere do you address this when called out on it. You wonder why I'm calling you a hypocrite? Own your shit. This is your shit. It stinks. Be aware of it.
Instead of behaving like an adult and going, 'D'oh, maybe I should consider that!' -- which, by the by, earns people a lot of respect around here when they do it, because owning your shit earns a lot more respect than pretending your shit doesn't stink -- your next comment is, instead, a continued attempt to tar the community at large.
This is also entertaining because it includes the following inherent contradiction:
@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:
I think your thread sparked some poignant debate.
...which would not have happened if:
I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?
I mean we're two for two here, in both cases, assuming moral superiority and trying to put down an entire community, while not just ignoring what's been said by multiple parties, but doing so in a way that thoroughly ignores the advice you're saying everyone else should take.
Yes, I find that incredibly lacking in self-awareness, and I have zero qualms calling it out. If this means your buddy brigade and the hate squad I've called out before decides to pile on the downvotes, hey, I have only this to offer:
I mean, shit, the text is right there, there's a reason I keep asking if you're really reading anything, and I'm not the only one who has asked you this.
Maybe it's really time to read shit that's been written, at the very least.
I think having the legal obstacles gone is important. If people want to play the struggle, there are ways. There are always backward folk around. If the change is recent, especially so.
Think of the backlash now in terms of LGBT rights as a parallel; some but not all rights are present, and the swing is toward equality, but there's also backlash and constant chaos surrounding the issue.
@Kestrel I am thoroughly aware that I'm being bitchy as fuck to you, because your faux superiority and 'poor me I'm a victim' behavior when someone so much as questions you (which you then use for justifications to whine and bang on and hand-wring and behave nastily yourself) makes my eyes roll so hard there's a cramp forming.
Was that not abundantly clear? I'm sorry, let me clarify: I think you're exactly the sort of hypocrite that needs a long look in the mirror.
See, in your self-righteous ramble (which was corrected, I notice you didn't respond to being wrong or making all manner of crazy assumptions anywhere) you claim:
@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:
But I think it pays, when you feel the need to shame someone, to try and connect with them as a person, first.
...and yet, repeatedly, it is so blazingly obvious that you aren't even reading what you're responding to, for content or otherwise, that you couldn't connect with what's being said if someone hooked a USB port to the back of your skull and downloaded it directly, let alone with anyone else's point of view.
Is that an exceptionally cunty way to put it? Sure is.
Is it inaccurate? Nope.
Your intended barb thus sailed right past and stuck in the wall behind me; you're transparent enough I could see it coming ten miles away.
@Sunny I agree with this in one way, and don't in another.
I can see the hurdles feeling oppressive for players who don't want to have to hassle with them.
I can also see them as being an appeal, on some level. As in, "It would be a challenge to play X in the social environment of the time period, and that challenge is appealing to me."
So I can see why people with the latter approach would find things 'too modernized' on that front a downer.
I'm not sure if there's a mid-way balance to be struck there -- but it would be hard to please both sets of folks there without it. A recent change might have holdouts that cling to their old ways and provide the challenge factor people are seeking, while providing a freer environment (and no IC legal strictures that can be brought down on someone like a hammer) to those seeking that.
It'd then be on the players who are seeking those different RP experiences to work with the setting to make the character that fits the experience you're looking for. For instance, if the 'freedoms' are more embraced by the merchant classes, and you don't want to hassle with those stresses, make a merchant class character, etc.
@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:
I'm not sure why anyone thinks citing a source is pretentious.
Try reading, then. It's explained. (Even though I agree that it isn't in this case.)
I also think it's funny that someone got shamed for trying to bring up the shame game.
You clearly have a very broad interpretation of what shaming entails.
Someone expressing an opinion that something comes across as pretentious is not shaming someone, sweet creeping jesus.
Shaming someone would look a lot more like this:
"What the hell is wrong with you bringing that shit in here, don't you slather that pop psychology tripe all over the place like you're now the enlightened one coming down to talk to us sad, ignorant fucks, because you read some self-help book! Who the hell do you think you are and how stupid do you have to be to bring that crap here!"
...which precisely nobody said to anybody, even remotely.
But that would be shaming.
I would recommend that 'self-awareness' post or three that describe some of the problems that arise when someone doesn't have it.
I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?
...because nobody's doing that, nope.
Seriously, do you even read things? <-- There, that's some actual shaming. Now you can finally play victim with an actual thing to point at when you get all huffy in the knickers, lawdy be.
@Cupcake We are all the person with the self-awareness of a turnip sometimes. Every last one of us.
Sometimes, I wish more folks would remember that, really. Would prevent the decent-intentioned sorts from beating themselves up too hard when it happens, remind the folks who really suffer from it the most that hey, mayyyyyyyyyybe they should at least consider what's going on there, and... well, the shameless jerks intent on being shameless jerks, they're still going to keep shinin' on like that crazy diamond more or less no matter what.