It's a grey area. Strictly speaking, it's possible to make an argument that all alternate currencies are OOC, because... they don't really make IC sense, and they are absent from IC lore (as far as I know). This even includes credits.
However, some of them, specifically credits, are so much a part of any Lusternian character's lives that considering them entirely OOC would make just as little sense.
I personally just treat them as OOC in terms of buying and selling (ie. I don't do stuff like, charge you more if you are from an enemy org etc) but speak about them as though they were IC when they come up in conversations.
I think a lot of people are missing the point. The point being @iytha is an individual who has a right to decide these sorts of things. Even if you don't agree with their stance, respect other people's opinions, because that's what being civilised is.
My take on it is that even if dingbats are completely OOC, gold is definitely in character. Regardless of how you read HELP DINGBATS, its definitely against Celest's laws to give gold to an enemy or accept gifts of gold from one. Now, I also think that dingbats are an in character currency (there's merchant NPCs with dialogue about them!) but even if I didn't the first point is enough on its own to make dingbat trades a nono.
There are many IC methods to obtaining dingbats, which leads me to question said statement.
I've heard it said before by players who want to consider their racehats OOC. But like you said, most people receive dingbats from purely IC tasks (influencing sleepwalkers, for instance, or completing the Wayfaire), and every single thing you buy with them comes from a denizen in-game, and has a description and name and everything. Dingbats can also be traded for gold, which is a purely IC currency. I can't imagine how any of it can be considered OOC except by way of handwaving, urban legend, and a gentleman's agreement among players.
There are many IC methods to obtaining dingbats, which leads me to question said statement.
I've heard it said before by players who want to consider their racehats OOC. But like you said, most people receive dingbats from purely IC tasks (influencing sleepwalkers, for instance, or completing the Wayfaire), and every single thing you buy with them comes from a denizen in-game, and has a description and name and everything. Dingbats can also be traded for gold, which is a purely IC currency. I can't imagine how any of it can be considered OOC except by way of handwaving, urban legend, and a gentleman's agreement among players.
Uh... somebody make a meme about this situation.
(Psst, check out HELP DINGBATS, or the quote from it @Aurik posted earlier).
I remember an event a long long time ago (I want to say it was the toymaker/figurine event) where you could get 1 dingbat per every murdered toy you turned in, and it was specifically brought up about dingbats being OOC, and that's where the admin laid the law down on dingbat status within the world.
I think the same goes for things like Great hunts where people roll alts to win the lower tiers and just transfer the credits to their mains.
There are many IC methods to obtaining dingbats, which leads me to question said statement.
I've heard it said before by players who want to consider their racehats OOC. But like you said, most people receive dingbats from purely IC tasks (influencing sleepwalkers, for instance, or completing the Wayfaire), and every single thing you buy with them comes from a denizen in-game, and has a description and name and everything. Dingbats can also be traded for gold, which is a purely IC currency. I can't imagine how any of it can be considered OOC except by way of handwaving, urban legend, and a gentleman's agreement among players.
Uh... somebody make a meme about this situation.
Given all this, I think it's far too simple(and a little insulting) to say that because someone doesn't want to trade dingbats with an IC enemy, they're 'being a jerk' since dingbats are OOC. It is a grey area- if there was someone in Magnagora/Serenwilder that I considered an OOC friend, I'd almost certainly trade, knowing that there weren't any rules about it from the admin. But that's not really the case, since I don't talk to most people OOCly. It's not personal against anyone, either, I just don't buy the argument that it's fine because there's no rules against it, or someone is a jerk because they feel differently. Very much sounds like peer pressure and social shaming, which are bad, whether IC or OOC. At least in this context.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
To clarify my thoughts on it - if you don't want to sell dingbats to an enemy of your org/someone not involved in your org, then that's absolutely fine, your choice, etc. Doesn't make you a bad person.
But if they think you're a jerk because you are, to their mind, taking IC grudges OOC, then that's also a fair view, and doesn't make them a bad person. You're allowed to sell to who you want, and they're allowed to be annoyed if they aren't in that group, they don't have to like it or support you in doing it if it screws them over.
I know I tend to avoid trading with enemies, but if I can get a good deal in my favour, and it's something semi/fully OOC, then sure, I'll trade.
To clarify my thoughts on it - if you don't want to sell dingbats to an enemy of your org/someone not involved in your org, then that's absolutely fine, your choice, etc. Doesn't make you a bad person.
But if they think you're a jerk because you are, to their mind, taking IC grudges OOC, then that's also a fair view, and doesn't make them a bad person. You're allowed to sell to who you want, and they're allowed to be annoyed if they aren't in that group, they don't have to like it or support you in doing it if it screws them over.
I know I tend to avoid trading with enemies, but if I can get a good deal in my favour, and it's something semi/fully OOC, then sure, I'll trade.
Eh... I don't think that IS a fair view, though. It doesn't make them a bad person- unless they're calling said non-trader a jerk for refusing- as people have the right to feel however they want to about anything they want. It doesn't make them right or fair for feeling that way.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
This is getting pretty subjective, but it really isn't a grey area.
The admin have clearly, explicitly stated that dingbats are OOC and can be traded freely, even if obtained via IC means. Credits on the other hand do have an explicitly stated difference between credits obtained OOCly and ICly.
This, in my eyes, means that any discussion involving dingbats, is de facto OOC, because dingbats are OOC and IC trade bans would not be applicable during an OOC discussion.
My opinion is that dingbats are OOC, but she can trade them to whomever she wants.
#meh
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
The admin have clearly, explicitly stated that dingbats are OOC and can be traded freely, even if obtained via IC means.
That's what I was getting at. I can't recall it being stated (help files are often obsolete and often not a great source for most up to date info), but I guess they have.
I don't think anyone's disputing the fact she can trade them with whoever she wants... I think they're moreso pointing out the reason she's using is bad. Just say you don't like the person, if you don't want to trade them. It's really not that hard.
(or just say you already traded them, either way works)
I don't think anyone's disputing the fact she can trade them with whoever she wants... I think they're moreso pointing out the reason she's using is bad. Just say you don't like the person, if you don't want to trade them. It's really not that hard.
(or just say you already traded them, either way works)
Uh... they're hers. Ergo, any reason she has to trade them or not trade them is a good reason. Saying you don't like the person is... kinda mean, and not necessarily true. How is that better than saying, "I don't want to trade with someone of your org even if it might be acceptable to other people?"
(It's not.)
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Comments
I say that as a recovering asshole.
Meme to come later.
Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
(Psst, check out HELP DINGBATS, or the quote from it @Aurik posted earlier).
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
#meh
That answers it, then. Case closed.
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."