Posts made by Tinuviel

@insomniac7809 I do sometimes get screwed up with Pacific Time and Eastern. To my east is where the Pacific is, so it takes a little mental jiggering to reorient myself.

I've played it quite a bit, but as others have said... definitely not for MU. At least not large-scale fast-paced MU. Could potentially work for a MU-based-online-tabletop thing, though.

@Ganymede said in The Work Thread:

@Rinel

I think that one reaches the zenith of honesty when the audience gleefully accepts the cruelty you heap upon it.

Calm down, Marquis.

@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Auspice Even better when they don't mention a country.

USA, EST unless otherwise specified.

Get with the hegemony here.

@BlondeBot said in Model Policies?:

@surreality said in Model Policies?:

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

Yes, this. Exactly this.

Not all the other strawmen that were built instead. I thought it seemed fairly simple on the surface, but apparently there is all kinds of room for people to take the least charitable interpretation possible.

It absolutely was simple. "No sexuality/gender/orientation" is rather simple. Go on and implement it, though. What does that cover? Who does that include? What does it actually mean? Assuming it means "Do not discuss anything related to sexuality, gender, or orientation" is not a strawman or a least charitable interpretation, it is an interpretation as simple as the policy.

It's not, at all, outside of the realm of possibility for someone to say "don't talk about the queers in public." Because, you know, that's literally what people say.

ETA: Somewhat aptly, making policies to do with 'hot button' issues is itself a hot button issue. Writing out a list of explicitly forbidden things is pointless and prone to causing argument - especially if they're written down as simply as possible without explanation. If you want the focus of channel conversations to be on the game itself, say that. If you want the focus of channel conversations to be PG-13, say that. Don't say "You can talk about anything but this list of things," because if you list something as objectionable that is part of a person's identity, they're not going to feel very welcome.

@Wizz

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

I'm cringing at the idea of most of you motherfuckers being authorized to tell anyone to shut up and that being enforced, real talk.

That's why I advocate for a separate channel for such conversations.

That's an idea. I don't know of many games that have or have needed such a thing, but I won't knock it. I don't know that advocating for a separate channel for innocuous conversations that might cause someone to feel argumentative really has a whole lot to do with 'short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies' though, again.

Hey, don't blame me. I'm just following the conversation, not steering it.

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

I'm cringing at the idea of most of you motherfuckers being authorized to tell anyone to shut up and that being enforced, real talk.

That's why I advocate for a separate channel for such conversations.

@Pandora Heck, I'd say "If anyone asks you to take it off channel, don't argue about it."

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I don't think a policy that tries to police the nuance of a discussion to the degree of ascertaining whether or not a conversation is based on something that could or could not eventually possibly lead to an argument falls under OP's umbrella of short, clear, reasonable MUSH policies but that's my unsolicited opinion.

True. But I think that deciding on what kind of conversations you're going to allow, for lack of a better term, is an important discussion to have when forming policies. Because you're going to have to police conversations, not right away necessarily but eventually.

@BlondeBot Keep it constructive.

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

@Tinuviel said in Model Policies?:

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

Well sure, not "don't talk about this ever" but more like... keep such conversations on X channel, instead of the main one. It's a compromise between those that do want to talk about everything to do with 'heated' subjects and those that don't.

But I'm asking like, when and where has a policy like this ever been needed? If you're in some circumstance where something as spicy as someone's gender or orientation would be inappropriate reading material, ya prolly shouldn't be on public channel until you get home.

I specifically said "issues related to" not just the mere mention of them. I'm directly arguing against @BlondeBot's inane policy ideas. So it's not about if something is 'spicy', it's about if something is going to prompt an argument.

@Pandora said in Model Policies?:

I can't think of any time a rule like that has been needed, and I feel like having that in your policy will say more (negative) about you and your game than just leaving it out and having some sort of Be Cool policy instead.

Well sure, not "don't talk about this ever" but more like... keep such conversations on X channel, instead of the main one. It's a compromise between those that do want to talk about everything to do with 'heated' subjects and those that don't.

I'd be okay with keeping conversation based on issues related to sexuality, gender identity, and so forth off of the main "Public" channel, the same as I would be with politics and religion being kept off of the main channel.

Not because there's anything innately wrong with such conversation, but because such conversations should be opt-in during social fun personal time, not something you are obliged to listen to if you wish to remain on the main talking chatty channel.

@Auspice Even better when they don't mention a country.

"Staff reserve the right to ban, exclude, or otherwise punish any player that goes against the spirit of these rules, without necessarily breaking the rules."

@Auspice You just need sixty-four various sized cut-outs of Penn and/or Teller to hold them.

@TiredEwok said in Legends of the Old Republic - In Progress Star Wars Game:

dropped her because a self-professed 'expert' on Mandalorians ruined her for me

To be fair, that's what people said about Karen Traviss...

@Ghost With a linguist/English teacher and a bunch of lawyers. Intentionally.