@saosmash I think a private apology comes first. If the person being apologised to accepts it, then they can say so in the same thread that caused the offence. Then it becomes less about the 'contriteness' of the apologiser and more about the feelings of the apologisee.
While I'm always glad to see a genuine apology where one is required... is this what we can expect now? When one offends a group, certainly a public apology is warranted, but if one person requires the apology do we really need to see it in public? Sure, public contrition is fine and dandy but when does it go beyond that and into "look at me, proving just how sorry I am for real guys"?
@admiral said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:
I'd appreciate you not abusing your position.
What position do you imagine he has?
@coin said in Unlikeable, incompetent, and inactive: Can these characters work in an MU?:
Tell that to people who roleplay on superhero games(?)
There are lots of things I'd like to tell people that roleplay on superhero games. Unfortunately, this is the constructive section.
Still, given that they are already existing entities they get a slightly different slant in their favour: They're established, and people want to play with them. (Or against them, which is playing with from another angle.)
@chet Neither of them are characters that one has to directly interact with. We're outside looking in, with plenty of information, not inside trying to have fun while dealing with them.
@sunny Given his evidential intellectual stature, the only things he can make fun of are people enjoying things he doesn't. He can't make fun of anything else without giving away the fact that he doesn't understand anything else.
@sincerely Oh there's no way I could pass it off like that, unfortunately. It was in my... verbose and purple prosiest of eras. Hawt hawt gay secks.
@faraday Oh man, I recall doing something similar once. Every bridge console on every ASpace ship was set to control one particular ship... except the ones on the ship itself.
@coin I have a very particular set of skills...
I've also fallen for the 'sure it's nearly midnight but I can get in a quick scenzzzz'
Mavved a TS pose.
In the middle of a staff meeting.
About banning TS.
@coin said in Unlikeable, incompetent, and inactive: Can these characters work in an MU?:
@thenomain said in Unlikeable, incompetent, and inactive: Can these characters work in an MU?:
@goldfish said in Unlikeable, incompetent, and inactive: Can these characters work in an MU?:
So I'm sitting here, wondering to myself: Can I make an unlikeable character?
Yes. @Coin does this all the time without even trying.
Yeah, but that's because I have honed this skill through years and years of methodical study and practice.
You're a natural, though.
True, but it's less about inconvenience and more about not wanting to publicly suggest one break a service's rules.
@d-bone Prosecution isn't the only recourse. They could just ban people.
@d-bone I just want to avoid the advocacy of doing anything illicit here, is all. So my concern isn't really about who owns what as such, it's more 'are we absolutely sure this won't get us into hot water'.
@d-bone Then how can they charge for access, unless they're paying the members of the community? In which case that doesn't really answer how it is acceptable to access materials that're cordoned off by a pay-wall.
free (and legal) scripts to emulate roll20s subscriber features
Question: If they're simulating features for which one must usually pay, how is it legal? Not legal in terms of the law, but legal in terms of terms of service violation.
Truly unlikable characters are probably best left, as @faraday says, in minor roles. That is minor in terms of appearance, not necessarily authority. That grouchy, irritable Vampire prince? Perfectly acceptable as a sort-of-NPC that shows up occasionally with the only real interaction with other people being out of necessity rather than desire. They can be interesting characters, especially as folks learn their foibles and delve into backstory to try and make working with them easier.
PCs that are in constant, sustained use being universally unlikable are likely to simply be ignored in favour of others that aren't such crappy people.
ETA: This also applies to incompetence. We all know that guy who is only in the role because he knows somebody who knows somebody. We all hate that guy. If your PC is regularly inept at things they try to do, other folks just won't bother including them. But if the Colonel in charge of your unit (for instance) is inept over and over, it provides story material when characters are forced to deal with that ineptness: Overcoming their CO's lack of ability, trying to prove he's inept, or whatever.
One must also be constantly aware that when you play X kind of character, one can fall too easily into the 'oh that's just what my character would do' defence when their action actively harms the fun or story other people are trying to tell. It takes an incredibly smart person to play stupid with any degree of authenticity that doesn't detract from the experience of those around them.
ETA2: So I guess characters with such intense 'flaws' are best used as tools rather than people. They drive aspects of the story, rather than having the story be about them.
@misadventure I'd say it depends on what the IPs are being used for rather than whether they're being used. Even with ever-rotating IPs, many of us are undoubtedly on a game while also posting on MSB, so IPs can line up from forum to character(s) on games.
But what risk do we subject ourselves to, really, if our IP gets out from here to staff on a game? (This is an honest question, it's not something I've really thought about beyond identifying Fabian@Fallcoast as Tinuviel@MSB for example.)
@bored said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:
Apologies if it sounded like I was trying to put some spin on your words.
Oh, not at all. I just didn't want my words being unintentionally misunderstood, as often happens so I lept to an explanation simply to cover my own butt.
I think in this case our craving for instant gratification is partially to blame for the rhetoric exposed in this thread. Diligent investigations of accusations take time.
That said, I think that while the investigation is being undertaken some sort of censure should be applied, i.e. some sort of suspension from official duties to show that the allegations are being taken seriously and that something is actually being done in the background.
@bored In defense of my words, I did say that no situation was going to fit the baseline I offered, and thus context is important.
Secondly, the accused exists as both a moderator and a regular user. You can most certainly strip moderator powers for violating rules or standards as a user. A police officer that regularly drink drives shouldn't be a police officer anymore (ETA: while also being punished for their crime as a regular citizen), for vague example.