@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@Ghost Well, of course it's fucking weird. It's a bunch of nerds talking about sex with people on the internet.
Dont you mean: artistically written character scenes?
Not the way I do it. It's like (The Watchmen's) Alan Moore got to write a revised edition of the Kama Sutra.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I'm really not getting what the great injustice is here.
Then why are you still going on about it?
@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:
Do you disagree that if no one is currently seeking RP with this NPC, that the player behind it should be free to do what they want with it, provided it is not some shared NPC?
No. If nobody is seeking RP with it, it shouldn't be used (ETA) outside of events, or other such RP-producing endeavours. It's a tool, not another PC.
ETA: Allow me to explain my view further. When you are using an NPC, as I have defined them previously, to roleplay, you are at work. You are performing a job. An NPC can, ICly, bang whomever or whatever. A person in charge of that NPC does not need to typefuck at people for that to have happened. TS is a luxury, not a necessity of the job.
You want to typefuck? Do it on your own time, not when you're using a game resource. In this case, 'your own time' is literally logging into your own PC to do it.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It was still a lie whether he meant it to be or not.
No.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
This confuses me
I don't care.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
So... he was just following orders?
I'm going to assume you're just ignorant, but that particular phrase has a very specific reference. The rest of us call it "doing as he's told." You know. Like every entry-level schmuck does.
@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
I still think the TS bit is unnecessary, but whatever.
What does that mean?
When is TS necessary?
It isn't. But I'm of a mind that those running a plot should only do what is necessary for the furtherance of that plot. If you don't need TS to show that two characters did the dirty, don't do it.
But that's a peeve, rather than anything that I expect or want action on.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Then please do not waste my time with false offers to explain things to me; though I suppose it's a little funny you'd lie to me in the same discussion you try to tell me what is and isn't a lie. Not side-splitting or anything, but worth a smile, so thanks for that.
I did explain. That you didn't understand is no longer my fault. As for 'what a lie is' it's simple. A lie is a deliberate mistruth. Deliberate.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Phrasing it differently feels like a euphemism to me and I dislike using euphemisms, since they seem to exist to obfuscate.
Except that phrase very much is a euphemism.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I am willing to modify my behavior if you have suggestions.
Alright. Then stop making this thing a fucking issue. Two people disagree about something, and you're the one making it a big deal. Nobody owes you an explanation, as you weren't part of the initial conversation. So if you ask for help, don't act like a smug or entitled prick.
But fine, I'll try again.
First, this doesn't matter. It's two peeves coming into conflict. That doesn't matter. It isn't important. Nothing written here actually matters. Okay? Okay.
Second, nobody here knows all of the facts about any of this so making judgement calls based on next-to-no information is unhelpful.
Third, if one is trained to say "this is the reason" then one will say "this is the reason." If you have never been told, or learned, anything different that is not a lie, even though it is wrong.
Fourth, this shit still doesn't matter. At all. Stop asking about it. It doesn't matter. And don't try to be condescending, I do it far better than you.
@Ghost ITT people have opinions and other people disagree with those opinions and suddenly argument and then Magee typed stuff faster than I could play 'whack a dipshit' with their fingers as the targets.
The usual.
@Ghost We come here for the shitty. It's like a sewer, but one of those old Victorian sewers with the nice brickwork, but it's still coated in shit.
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
And, presumably, the game doesn't explicitly prohibit TS. (I've encountered people who wouldn't let such a rule stop them.)
I absolutely don't let such a rule stop me.
If you don't like that a game prohibits TS, don't fucking play there. It's fucking gross to violate such a clear boundary.
Well, yeah. Did you not read the whole post?
You edited it while I was responding.
Yeah, well the page updates when posts are edited.
My overall point is still the same. Anti-TS policies are stupid and will always, always be violated. If I really, really want to do something (TS is not actually on that list, by the by, but it does illustrate my point) people are going to do it. And so long as it remains underground, people that engage in it and then have to deal with negative consequences from that don't have anyone to report it to.
TS is like prostitution in that way. Make whatever law you want about it, it's not going away only being driven underground. You can either be sensible, and treat your adult players as adults (naturally none of this applies if your game is catering to children) that want to and will do adult things, or you can be stupid about it and assume that because it's written down it's going to be obeyed and then make anyone that needs to report something too afraid of punishment from you to report it.
@Auspice said in The Work Thread:
All I could think: 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.'
And those that can't teach go to Law School.
@mietze just listen to dubstep. That's basically the jist.
@Ganymede said in The Work Thread:
@Tinuviel said in The Work Thread:
And those that can't teach go to Law School.
In my case, I did both.
You weren't educated. You were programmed.
@DareDaemon No, actually. I wasn't talking about you at all. For most of the conversation, I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking about you. I wasn't even vaguely aware that you existed. I was discussing my views on the duties of staff and policy with @bored.
I'm sorry, truly, that you experienced harassment around this subject; but your personal experiences aren't going to stop me speaking about a subject, okay? You are not the be-all and end-all of every conversation that you happen to pop up in. I fully respect your right to run whatever you want the way you want for any reason you want. Have whatever boundaries you wish, I don't care.
I'm still going to call stupid policies stupid when I think they're stupid. If you think that's unfair, then that is unfortunate but that's just how it's going to be. If you don't like that, which is fine, there's an easy handy-dandy ignore feature.
Given the fact that my entire point was about the reticence of some folks in your position being unwilling or unable to report their sexual harrassment, I have no fucking idea where you pulled the "suck it up" bullshit you're spewing now. I'll quote for your benefit:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
My argument is, if it's an argument at all, that banning something doesn't eliminate it. It drives it underground where it can become dangerous to its participants. Yes, I agree, people should abide by policy. But even those that don't, without actually cheating (in terms of its actual definition), still deserve to feel safe enough to report it. If it goes unreported, who knows how many people are abused in the same fashion?
I'm afraid I don't see one skerrick of "sexual harassment victims need to suck it up." But if you're talking about my preference against a blanket ban on TS in general? I'll expand on that by reiterating a previous statement: You are not the be-all and end-all. Your experiences were terrible, and that is a true tragedy. There is no denying or minimising that. But most games have more than one staff member. You are not required to deal with every problem on a game, in the majority of times.
I disagree with your policy, not your reasons for having such a policy.
@Coin said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:
We play in a hobby where people routinely choose not to read news files
Most folks don't read legislation either. It's still there and available to be read, it's the not-reader's fault if they break a rule that's written down. Fuck 'em.
@surreality Coffee does that to me too. Drink it and it goes right through.
Not right through my face, usually, though.
@L-B-Heuschkel All games end up dead. Firan, the poster child for fucked up Admin-ness, lasted a good long while. People are going to play if they like 70-80% of the things there. The head admin could be a murderous, incestuous drunk and people would still play there if they like much of the rest of the game.
That said, I think the "expectation of privacy" (it's not a right, it has never been a right, and never will be a right) is a naive expectation to have in the era where every other week some big business is being breached and it makes the news, and every other day another big business is being breached but we don't hear about it.
Don't expect any communication on a game to be secret or private. If the person on the other end of your page conversation isn't telling all and sundry, then a staffer could be reading it. We might find such things "unacceptable" but that word is virtually meaningless when we don't get a say in what is and isn't acceptable to every single person that runs or visits a game.
@Tinuviel To continue that achingly dull point, I definitely think part of the privacy issue needs to rest in the hands of players. Though it's a rather banal statement, if you don't have control of it assume someone can access anything you send over it. It's a common joke that the NSA or whoever is watching everything, that should prompt people to be more circumspect in what they say when they're on someone else's service - be it a game, social media, whatever.
@Macha said in The Work Thread:
@Tinuviel that is my stance. Aka "For Pete's sake".
Exactly. It's grammatically possessive. "For the sake of fuck/Pete." So "for fuck's sake."
