Well fuck.

Brus was the best of us. I mean that. We could use more like him, and we lost someone who meant a lot to me for this hobby.

Rest in peace, my good man.

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

Who doesn't want to be on Mars?

Look, just because the air I'm breathing right now is 70% smoke doesn't mean I want no air at all.

There's air, it's just very thin and almost completely toxic.

(ob. Soapbox joke here)

That's not air, that's an atmosphere. There's a difference.

...

Yup. That's what a straw looks like, alright.

Ta.

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

Who doesn't want to be on Mars?

Look, just because the air I'm breathing right now is 70% smoke doesn't mean I want no air at all.

There's air, it's just very thin and almost completely toxic.

(ob. Soapbox joke here)

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

At least when you're banned you actually wanted to be there...

Who doesn't want to be on Mars?

Fair enough.

Looks like lazy-loading images was removed on purpose due to some issues around late 2017. The quote from Julian when someone recently asked was:

Browsers are taking steps to address that now, and so that's why we're stepping out of their way

I want these browser features now, because dancing threads are annoying.

Probably only tangentally related: There are some minor image size calculation fixes in 1.13

@Arkandel said in Images Scrolling Threads:

nodeBB

What version are we on?

Is there any way to stop images from scrolling the threads? I go to "first unread" and then wait for a week for the images to load then I scroll down tring to find the post that is now no longer "unread".

I know that there are ways (three links about lazy-loading), but since I can't remember the name of this forum software I can't research this more.

Nnngh. Fine. One more, then I'm gone.

@Derp

I think we need a new rule for these threads. You've said it, I've said it, so many people have said it.

All Game Considerations Depend Upon Staff Approach.

The best game rules and considerations can be put in place, but if you have abusive staff then it doesn't matter.

The opposite is also true: With the best staff in the world, you barely need a single posted rule. You should, but good staff will have that shit locked down within minutes.

The inverted is also always true: There will be a player who thinks the rule or attitude of staff is satanic puppy-killing.

—

@mietze said in Punishments in MU*:

I guess if you do not want to have to do whatever everyone else has had to do to gain entrance to a game, then you will need to persuade the people running it that you are someone they want to participate so much that they are willing to amend or forego the rules for the sake of your inclusion.

It's my opinion that a good staff knows the reason for the rules. Anything that accomplishes the goal without disrupting other goals doesn't hurt the game.

If other players sees this as a betrayal because they believed that they "had to" follow the chargen by the letter, then maybe something's wrong with chargen.

It's easier to consider one rule to be independent of other rules, but an exception that hurts nothing should not be disallowed.

Whether or not it disrupts the game is, well, see my hilited point to Derp, above.

I bet that this /can/ be done, but seldom is it going to happen by telling them that their vetting/selection process is stupid.

I 100% agree.

Usually I see what kinds of hoops there are for participation as just as informative for me as for them. Do I like their management style? Do I think I can approach them/how do they react? If the answer is no/no/no then it seems like a good time to walk away.

Chargen is usually people's first interaction with the above, as it is staff's first interaction with the player. You can't know until you try.

I'd rather know before I try, personally, because that would save time all around.

—

I'm reserving some defenses that one can be punished in Chargen, but those will continue to come out over time.

I promise this will be my last domination of this thread for now:

@saosmash said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain What is the distinction you are trying to make between an explanation and an argument? Is an argument not essentially an explanation of a point with persuasive intention?

Yes.

Exactly.

Some people are trying to argue their method, while other people are trying to explore beliefs and methodologies, and I find the former makes the latter more difficult.

Calling this "intellectualism" (and implying "toxic") may have been unfair, but I'm frustrated.

Or to put it into pictures:

@Derp

If you're okay with my saying, "I dunno, some kind of rebel drummer type?" then fine. Like almost everything, it's up to staff to not only maintain the game, but to educate people on the kind of game they want to play.

If the goal of the essay is to put you at ease, then any act of putting you at ease should be acceptable. But a lot of staff are already overworked (ironically from their own decisions, most of the time) and they aren't willing to give players who stray outside the bounds of established methodology meet the same goals.

And that's why it feels like punishment to me.

@surreality

What's the difference between not having something and getting it taken away?

You've already answered it. Hell, I already answered it, but not as succinctly. I didn't get your "right vs. privilege" comparison at first; I liked it once I understood it.

From one viewpoint, I can see punishment is the removal of something and not the denial of something. But the outcome is still the same. That was my point, and you disassembled it well.

—

I had a second, deeper point, and it has more to do with the Let's Talk Philosophy posts on Soapbox lately, and that is there is a much wider approach to things than has been argued. A lot of people are willing to jump over a point if they disagree, but not look for the places where two people's points intersect.

I'm seeing these threads becoming cesspools of intellectualism. I can't stop it, of course, but I can point it out. Here is an example, of which I am fine with but does point it out.

Me: "The outcome of X and Y are the same, so how different are they?"
You: "Of course they're different, because they come from different sources."
Me: "But in the end, are they really?"
You: "How can you not understand this!"

I don't know; how can I? Are you interested? I know you are @surreality. Which is why I'm here, explaining.

Others are not. Everyone approaches a thought from their standpoint, but how many are willing to react if the other person is approaching it differently? How many people are willing to give up trying before it changes from explanation to argument? How many people are willing to let it go?

@faraday said in Punishments in MU*:

I am genuinely not clear where you're going with this.

Okay.

(For the audience: Faraday and I don't get each other about 95% of the time.)

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

You have to earn driving privileges in the US, you have obligations related to maintaining those privileges, and you can lose them as well. Does this make the situation more clear?

They all have the same outcome, however: If you do not follow the rules, you cannot legally drive.

Which brings me back to the question: How are not earning and losing all that different?

edit Or maybe this will help: What makes one of the two punishment?

(I didn't take any of that as blunt, btw. Communication can be difficult.)

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

One earns and loses privileges.

I'm missing the point where not earning and losing is different in this case.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Thenomain said in Punishments in MU*:

But when the outcome of doing something wrong (cyber-stalking) is the same as not following a barrier to entry (write a background of at least 3000 characters), what kind of difference is there?

A notable one, when you keep in mind that playing on any given game is not an inherent right.

So "earning the right" and "losing the right" are different?

Except from in the eye of whatever staffer is making the decision, they don't seem like it. In both cases you have to maintain that perception of being "worthy" to staff.

@L-B-Heuschkel

On AetherMUX, we had a test proving that you read the setting wiki. It was short and it was easy and it was also a chargen punishment, but if you passed it your bg could be anything that made any amount of sense. "I am an elf from the Gorge of Bliss come to town to learn how to trade fish because I've never seen a fish in my life."

Of course, I can find fault with my own argument: "Is it a punishment? Really?"

A punishment is because you did something wrong and need to be corrected. But when the outcome of doing something wrong (cyber-stalking) is the same as not following a barrier to entry (write a background of at least 3000 characters), what kind of difference is there?

@L-B-Heuschkel

I'm honestly surprised and relieved someone taking my anti-background stance—sprinkled with vitriol—honestly. Thank you.

Almost exclusively when I say why I don't feel comfortable (i.e., don't want to) write a background it's taken as if I'm telling staff that I don't respect them. It could be my approach, but I haven't found an approach that doesn't end up with "do it or you don't get to play". Fair enough; their game, their rules.

And I'm not talking about a background on a wiki page, something that I do for the benefit of those curious. This would be a writing exercise, and that would be fun because you're doing it because you want to. Like this was a hobby or something.

No, I'm talking about the background and other chargen-level hoops that gets stored in staff-only tools. If the games you're playing on has staff poking in the brain of your character to make things happen then...wow, buy them a cookie!

—

Back to the topic more directly, the punishment of my not following the rules is banishment. It's the gate to enact with someone's crafted space.

I'm not saying it's good or bad (for me it's bad because I don't RP to write, I RP to interact with other people's mental spaces), it's just no different than telling someone they can keep playing if they write an essay about what they did.

And just as likely to change anyone's approach about anything.

Late to the clam bake, but:

I've been on many, many games that ask me to write short essays. It's called Chargen. And it also often had nothing to do with the character I eventually played.

Yes, chargen is the first punishment we are asked to submit ourselves to for a game.

Yes, I'm equating chargen essays to punishment because they are not fun and do nothing for my involvement to the game. And my background has been used twice in decades. Twice. (Once, believe it or not, was from @Wretched.)

@faraday said in Staff’s Job?:

@Thenomain said in Staff’s Job?:

what is staff's job in general? What is it to staff? What is it to not-staff?

Each game is going to have a different definition for this, so I don't think there is an "in general".

Then that's your general response.

Easy.

--

@Tinuviel said in Staff’s Job?:

@Arkandel said in Staff’s Job?:

I don't know how to teach someone to be a better decision-maker, to engage people or to be a better communicator

Me neither, and they let me have children.

How dare you exemplify that "can" doesn't mean "should".

@Arkandel said in Staff’s Job?:

Either way I think @Thenomain wanted us to debate more what staff's job is and not what it isn't.

More than that.

What makes someone a "staffer" and not a "player"? Is there anything special? Do players get any advantages staffers do not?

Not any particular type of staffer (tho @Pyrephox's response was amazing), just... what is staff's job in general? What is it to staff? What is it to not-staff?