Posts made by Tinuviel

@Ghost If you could refrain from posting pictures of my SO without consent...

@egg said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

@Tinuviel I'm used to it. Doesn't mean I have to like it...

You don't have to, that's the rather wonderful thing about communities. They'll adapt to new circumstances whether one likes it or not.

The older we get, and the more full our lives get, time becomes more of a commodity. We want to invest it wisely, getting the most bang for our buck, as it were. Some people really, really enjoy the wandering of a grid and random circumstance-based RP, and I'm sure that if a game is designed around that then it will prosper.

But a lot of us (again a reminder that we are a tiny corner of a tiny corner of the MU* population) feel like RP that doesn't accomplish a goal is wasteful in some way. And that's fine too.

@egg said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

I do get what everyone's saying here, and like I said before, I'm also a grownup with a job/life/etc., but having to work to play is exactly why I made this post...

Sure, and what we're saying is, essentially, "get used to it." That's the way it is now, and it's not really a bad thing. It's just a thing.

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

When I got an invitation to a birthday, my parents would bend their schedule around it.

Well, that was far easier when you could take a break from knapping and gathering roots and berries.

For serious, though, the not-RSVPing thing is a bugbear of mine too. I don't care if people can't attend, it is what it is, but if they don't say so then I get grumpy.

@Auspice said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Feel your feelings! But at the end of the day, staff/storytellers are the custodians of the world and the story, and if they want to put a limit on the # of amputees, I figure it's because they have a high level overview and don't want new players coming in to be like "whoah, is this game haunted by npc goblins who come at night and consume limbs?"

Maybe it is and that plot just hasn't launched yet.

The aforementioned reasons are, I think, really why the "finding RP" problem has shifted among us old fogies. We have less disposable time available, and we have less say in when we can use that disposable time. So we want to use it, when we have it, more wisely.

There's probably some psychologically interesting things going on, something like the older we get the more we appreciate accomplishment over 'play', but I don't know. All I do know is that we have X amount of time, the more vocal of us prefer having that time occupied by doing, rather than just floating.

@faraday Agreed. I have children, and work that demands my time outside of the classroom. Along with my own suite of mental fuckery. Those are my priorities, so I'm not going to make promises (which, really, are what concrete plans are) I can't be sure I can keep.

@Snackness said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

@Tinuviel I, at least, was referring to the latter.

Eh, most folk that object to making solid scheduled plans are folks that have variable or otherwise unpredictable schedules. We don't like making hard "at this specific time" plans because there's no way we can guarantee we'll be available/ready/willing/whatever at that time. Due to work, children, mood, alignment of planets, or whatever.

@Sunny said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

@Snackness said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

I was pretty bummed to realize elsethread how many people hate scheduling. It’s an extremely rare case in which I can just do pickup rp. I don’t like it either, but it’s kind of schedule or nothing for me at this point.

I do not think it's a majority of people that don't like to schedule, but instead a very vocal minority, if that helps.

There's also a difference in what people consider as 'scheduling'. "Oh when we're next on together we really have to talk about X" vs "Next Monday at eight pm we have to do a thing." The former is easier to work with, given that sometimes we don't really get to decide when we're available, the latter is saner but not as malleable as sometimes we need.

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

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

@Aria I'm watching World War II week-by-week. I don't want any spoilers.

THE TITANIC SINKS, TINUVIEL.

BUT I JUST BOUGHT MY TICKET

@Aria I'm watching World War II week-by-week. I don't want any spoilers.

@juke said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

I honestly didn't see anyone assume anything untoward about the policy-makers

I assume they're at best inept and at worst morons.

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Ban on amputees is far more socially dangerous than a temporary restriction on former pro wrestlers given the current social climate of both mushing and the world alone.

Further, a character's nature (being an amputee) and their concept (former pro-wrestler) are very different animals. Banning concepts is usually fine, if sometimes side-eyed. Banning nature is... rarely done, except that superhero game that banned straight dudes.

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

they said there was an influx of amputee apps, so by that alone it was a decision based on census rather than bigotry. It seemed pretty clean, to me.

Depending on how one defines 'influx'.

Still, I don't actually care about the answers to any of the questions I've raised from this stafferly bunch. They're not my cup of tea. But still, if one cannot understand how 'temporarily restricting' a minority group is going to come across as bigotry of some kind, I really don't trust their judgement.

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

I was just jawing on the 0 to BIGOT in 60 seconds factor.

Which, I mean... makes sense. WIthout clarification, it does come across as a bigoted thing to do. I asked on this board a while ago if not allowing trans characters would make me a bigot. The answer here was a resounding yes, even though the sensible answer is no.

And to be fair, the whole "what next" argument isn't really as invalid as it might ordinarily be, given staff (or someone speaking as if they are staff) mentioned that they had restricted applications for British characters in the past. So there's two rather legitimate questions to ask, regarding this policy: What next? and How many of X is too many for staff?

@Ghost I mean my "damning" post was sarcastic.

Disability, queerness, whatever it is. If it's an apparently arbitrary thing to restrict, it's going to get commented on. It's more about the arbitrariness than the specific thing being restricted. Mostly.

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

very little question or input from the policy-maker's point of view.

Which makes it all the more damning!

All of my characters are exactly the same.