Seems legit. My Celestian isn't even in makodi's guild, nor is he a guild leader. Do I have your permission to care about Celest's well being and think badly of an intentionally annoying character, or do I need to submit some sort of application?
Let's illustrate a hypothetical.
Shaddus alt #299234 wishes to join Celest. Tetra finds out through the forums/facebook/ooc clan that said character is a Shaddus alt. Tetra then starts pushing to have Shaddus alt #299234 removed by spreading unsubstantiated gossip and rumours due to his OOC opinion of Shaddus as a player.
Shaddus makes a new alt and gets into Celest anyways.
See the pattern? It is futile, pointless, poor roleplay, and an overall crumby way to play the game. That is not "having fun", it is a really sh&#&$ thing to do.
I can promise you, I would never do that to anyone in good conscience, no matter how much I disliked them.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
However people want to RP, that's their choice, just be prepared for any and all ramifications, if any.
Thanks, bye?
Wondering why that's so hard.
EGG FRIGGING ZACTLY
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.
Seems legit. My Celestian isn't even in makodi's guild, nor is he a guild leader. Do I have your permission to care about Celest's well being and think badly of an intentionally annoying character, or do I need to submit some sort of application?
Let's illustrate a hypothetical.
Shaddus alt #299234 wishes to join Celest. Tetra finds out through the forums/facebook/ooc clan that said character is a Shaddus alt. Tetra then starts pushing to have Shaddus alt #299234 removed by spreading unsubstantiated gossip and rumours due to his OOC opinion of Shaddus as a player.
Shaddus makes a new alt and gets into Celest anyways.
See the pattern? It is futile, pointless, poor roleplay, and an overall crumby way to play the game. That is not "having fun", it is a really sh&#&$ thing to do.
I can promise you, I would never do that to anyone in good conscience, no matter how much I disliked them.
</block-quote
Been there, done that. That's why I no longer play my moondancer, because I've had this happen to me, and Aubrey was the one with a problem with me, gods know why.
At no point in this thread has anyone said they plan on keeping makodi from their org. The closest thing is celina saying she actively worked against people joining glomdoring who she felt were more trouble than they were worth. You're making arguments against scenarios that haven't occurred, and likely won't.
On the other hand, people tend to build up reputations. If the character Tetra asks to join Hallifax, and some of the people have heard bad things/rumours about him, or heard his shouts, or seen how he kills people with dreamweaving who aren't even attacking celest, they might not be interested in attracting that sort of negativity in their org. You don't get a clean slate every time you leave an org and join another; your reputation is a cloud that follows you overhead wherever you go.
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.
By the way, your scenario doesn't even correlate to this. The only way your point would work is if Makodi made a whole other character and tried to join an org, and the leaders kicked him out because they found out he was an alt of makodi. That's not going to happen, and if it did, it's issuable.
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.
Seems legit. My Celestian isn't even in makodi's guild, nor is he a guild leader. Do I have your permission to care about Celest's well being and think badly of an intentionally annoying character, or do I need to submit some sort of application?
Let's illustrate a hypothetical.
Shaddus alt #299234 wishes to join Celest. Tetra finds out through the forums/facebook/ooc clan that said character is a Shaddus alt. Tetra then starts pushing to have Shaddus alt #299234 removed by spreading unsubstantiated gossip and rumours due to his OOC opinion of Shaddus as a player.
Shaddus makes a new alt and gets into Celest anyways.
See the pattern? It is futile, pointless, poor roleplay, and an overall crumby way to play the game. That is not "having fun", it is a really sh&#&$ thing to do.
I can promise you, I would never do that to anyone in good conscience, no matter how much I disliked them.
Your hypothetical takes a general rule to an extreme conclusion. If that had happened, then bring it up as a topic of conversation on how not to deal with certain players people don't like. Debating about your imagined scenarios versus someone else's actual experiences with specific trolls is pointless and leads to circular arguments... as demonstrated. If you have a problem with the specific example that was brought up originally, then argue about that instead. Otherwise, more cute animals are needed.
"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."
At no point did I ever say they were doing it to Makodi. This is about Celina and Xenthos and the posts they have contributed.
Celina did not say she actively worked against people joining Glomdoring. She says she has outright kicked people from her org expressly for OOC motivations, and that her actions are justified in creating a positive, healthy environment for players.
That is bullshit if I ever heard it.
Please stop changing the topic. This is not about reputations or past actions of characters.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
I've seen celina kick people out of glom because their non-commune-linked aethershop doesn't block glom enemies. Shit happens.
If you're actually able to name a person she's done this to (kicked out for ooc reasons), feel free to bring it up and we can hash it out. Until then, you're arguing against someone because of a claim they made which may or may not actually be true. Celina could be talking out of her ass for all we know.
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.
At no point did I ever say they were doing it to Makodi. This is about Celina and Xenthos and the posts they have contributed.
Celina did not say she actively worked against people joining Glomdoring. She says she has outright kicked people from her org expressly for OOC motivations, and that her actions are justified in creating a positive, healthy environment for players.
That is bullshit if I ever heard it.
Please stop changing the topic. This is not about reputations or past actions of characters.
Then give an example of when Celina did that, and explain why it did not contribute to a healthy game environment. Do so without making up examples that suit your conclusions.
You're interpreting her words to mean a worst-case scenario, when she was speaking of a general rule- that's why you keep speaking past each other. I don't know when I mentioned anyone's reputations or past actions of any characters, all I'm saying is that you should argue with actual examples, not hypothetical ones.
"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."
Your hypothetical takes a general rule to an extreme conclusion. If that had happened, then bring it up as a topic of conversation on how not to deal with certain players people don't like. Debating about your imagined scenarios versus someone else's actual experiences with specific trolls is pointless and leads to circular arguments... as demonstrated. If you have a problem with the specific example that was brought up originally, then argue about that instead. Otherwise, more cute animals are needed.
I have already recommended snubbing, rather than OOC lynches.
The scenario outlined above is very tangible in the game. It has happened on numerous occasions to various players, and according to many of the opinions voiced -- this behaviour is not extreme, but 'normal'.
The disagreement doesn't lie in whether or not it is right or wrong, but that it is a behaviour which proves deleterious to the longevity of Lusternia.
My example is coming from experience, otherwise I would not be able to talk at great length about it. Actually, I have had a direct experience with Celina where she forced another player's hand in a decision that didn't involve her.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
I've banned people from the SDs and blocked them from Glomdoring for purely OOC reasons and do not regret it nor think twice about my integrity for doing so. I just find a way to justify it IC.
I don't need to post examples for a behaviour that 1) The person in question openly admits to and 2) I have personally experienced myself via that same character.
Also, that previous post was addressed to Shaddus, but the quotes were messy so it was posted standalone.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
Then give an example of when Celina did that, and explain why it did not contribute to a healthy game environment. Do so without making up examples that suit your conclusions.
You're interpreting her words to mean a worst-case scenario, when she was speaking of a general rule- that's why you keep speaking past each other. I don't know when I mentioned anyone's reputations or past actions of any characters, all I'm saying is that you should argue with actual examples, not hypothetical ones.
Just because the behaviour isn't extreme, does not make it any less damaging.
Her explanation for blocking people are based on the pseudo reasoning that said players are 'toxic, hateful', etc. The reason the behaviour is damaging, is because in doing this, she actually becomes the toxic and hateful one preventing other players from pursuing their desired playstyle. That is why I can't help but balk at the assertion that any kind of OOC abuse of information helps the game environment. What nonsense.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
I've banned people from the SDs and blocked them from Glomdoring for purely OOC reasons and do not regret it nor think twice about my integrity for doing so. I just find a way to justify it IC.
I don't need to post examples for a behaviour that 1) The person in question openly admits to and 2) I have personally experienced myself via that same character.
Also, that previous post was addressed to Shaddus, but the quotes were messy so it was posted standalone.
I absolutely agree that you don't have to post examples, and I very much recommend you do not. However, what Celina said is not a specific example. For all I know, a novice threatened to kill her real-life kitten, and that's why they were kicked out. Totally ooc and totally understandable.
As in my hypothetical, what you imagine to be the case might well be very different from what is the case... which is why this argument is impossible without specific examples. You don't want to give them, and no one's saying you have to... so let it go?
"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."
Okay, I came home from a long, hard, and hot day, and I saw 5 new pages in this thread. Knowing I was about to miss out on delicious drama, I skimmed through it as fast as I could without compromising reading comprehension, praying as hard as I could to every deity I never believed in that the thread wasn't locked by a Mod before I reached the end.
THANK GOD(s).
Okay, here's my input on this:
Firstly, there is one major issue I want to point out about this discussion. There is incessant semantic argument in this thread about what constitutes "clique", "communities", "trolls", "metagaming" and other etcetera terms. The discussion as I see it is very simple.
Tetra's argument is that a roleplaying game like Lusternia can, and should, be supported by everyone making an equal (or if not equal, then at least similar) effort to make the game fun for everyone else, and that no other form of action is either necessary, or acceptable. That is to say, if anyone is trying to make the game unfun for someone else, by intentionally driving them away, kicking them out of orgs or any other behavior of the sort, for any reason, including to remove other people making the game unfun for others, it should be disallowed.
This argument is founded on the premise that such a situation is indeed the most healthy, and the best for everyone - not just a lack of need for vigilantism, but also consensual effort to progress and have fun.
This argument is also founded on the premise that it is impossible on a psychological level to determine what behavior is unfun in the first place - the idea that you can't police someone doing something bad to others because you don't know the other is not enjoying it.
This argument, and these points, I believe, are highlighted by the below quotes. I hope I did not miss out important points or misunderstand due to my skimming - if I have, feel free to let me know via PM or something and I'll adjust my arguments if required.
Celina did not say she actively worked against people joining Glomdoring. She says she has outright kicked people from her org expressly for OOC motivations, and that her actions are justified in creating a positive, healthy environment for players.
I have a problem with city/commune leaders barring entrance to other players because of their OOC grudges.
If you are purposefully being an accessory to metagaming, then you are not qualified to be in your position. That is my opinion. You do not have to agree with it. Frankly, I don't care if you do.
This is all well and fine, a noble and righteous ideal that, in truth, everyone SHOULD be working toward. I mean, what's the point in policing bad behavior when you're performing it yourself in the process of policing, right?
Unfortunately, the premises this argument is based on are flawed.
First and foremost. A community with everyone being kosher with everyone else on an OOC level and only having conflict and impact on each other negatively in a roleplaying sense simply cannot exist. The very conflict psychology behind a roleplaying game like Lusternia is, in fact, OOC investment in characters. The game is designed on several levels to antagonize the emotions of not the character, but the player controlling the characters. The dejected feeling of defeat and the adrenaline of winning in PK is the most illustrative, but certainly not the only such example. Players in PK are so invested emotionally in their characters that they have been known to throw actual physical fits when they get PK'd. I actually haven't, but I've come close. This is not idiosyncratic to me, I am sure, and I am fairly certain I can be considered one of the calmer PKers in my years of IRE gaming.
If you think PK is the most egregrious of this, you will want to re-evaulate that thinking. IRE politics are designed to be nothing short of cut-throat. The pseudo election format and protections against cheating makes it so important and so significant for players (not characters) to "win" in their elections that they have been known to organize anything from smear campaigns to coups to vote-rigging. This is not possible without a significant emotional investment from the player. And this investment is designed into the system - the game WANTS their players to be so attached to their characters, that they feel the visceral rush of victory or defeat. That is, in fact, the draw of the immersion in this game.
When you perform a political backstab, you're actually doing it to the player, not just the character. Obviously, the character motivation exists, but without the player-to-player antagonism, the game would never make money. This is the "healthy" state of the game. Without the player putting so much of their "feels" into the game, the immersion would be nowhere near close to what draws players to it in the first place. If everyone is in fact so happy with everyone else, then there would be little thrill and excitement to the game. And then, that's when you will see the exodus to other games happening, and eventually, a dead Lusternia.
Secondly, the premise that it is impossible for a player to determine what is "unfun" for another player, and therefore which disallows you from policing a troll harassing another player is a fallacy. If there is a true desire to build a healthy environment, then such effort to make sense of the unknowable is exactly what is needed. Do you say, "Oh, I cannot imagine what kind of pain is going through that person's mind when he is crushed between two cars and dying, and therefore there is no way for me to help."? No, that is no way to improve society. By all means, every single one of our judgements are biased and tainted by our own subjective experience and opinions. And there is nothing wrong with that on a humanitarian note. If you see something you absolutely dislike being done to you being performed onto someone else, you cannot just go, "Oh, that person might like it, even though I absolutely hate it, so I'm not going to step in." If there is a moral motivation in this entire discussion, it would be here, and the answer would be to step forward and ask if everything is okay on an OOC level, and if it is not, to act in an OOC manner to stop the behavior if you are in the position to do so.
If a city leader sees a newbie being treated in a way that he is not comfortable being treated himself, he should step forward and stop the behavior until it is clearly established that it is consensual. Anything less would mean that leader should be removed and replaced, not the other way around.
I wrote this post in a hurry, in order that I don't get locked out of the thread before I posted it, so I might have made some spelling and grammar mistakes. Please forgive me. Hope my two cents was worth reading.
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
I absolutely agree that you don't have to post examples, and I very much recommend you do not. However, what Celina said is not a specific example. For all I know, a novice threatened to kill her real-life kitten, and that's why they were kicked out. Totally ooc and totally understandable.
As in my hypothetical, what you imagine to be the case might well be very different from what is the case... which is why this argument is impossible without specific examples. You don't want to give them, and no one's saying you have to... so let it go?
Right.
I'm not trying to say, "Look, Celina is bad and she is so terrible! Burn her at the stake!" She is entitled to play however she likes, within the rules/policies set forth by the admin.
It is not because of -her- specifically that I continue the discussion, but because of the appalling support on all sides that encourages such behaviour in the first place. Because lets be real for a moment, it is not only Celina that does this. It is a prevalent issue in Lusternia that is worthy of discussion.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
Comments
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
Been there, done that. That's why I no longer play my moondancer, because I've had this happen to me, and Aubrey was the one with a problem with me, gods know why.
At no point in this thread has anyone said they plan on keeping makodi from their org. The closest thing is celina saying she actively worked against people joining glomdoring who she felt were more trouble than they were worth. You're making arguments against scenarios that haven't occurred, and likely won't.
On the other hand, people tend to build up reputations. If the character Tetra asks to join Hallifax, and some of the people have heard bad things/rumours about him, or heard his shouts, or seen how he kills people with dreamweaving who aren't even attacking celest, they might not be interested in attracting that sort of negativity in their org. You don't get a clean slate every time you leave an org and join another; your reputation is a cloud that follows you overhead wherever you go.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
If you're actually able to name a person she's done this to (kicked out for ooc reasons), feel free to bring it up and we can hash it out. Until then, you're arguing against someone because of a claim they made which may or may not actually be true. Celina could be talking out of her ass for all we know.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
THANK GOD(s).
Okay, here's my input on this:
Firstly, there is one major issue I want to point out about this discussion. There is incessant semantic argument in this thread about what constitutes "clique", "communities", "trolls", "metagaming" and other etcetera terms. The discussion as I see it is very simple.
Tetra's argument is that a roleplaying game like Lusternia can, and should, be supported by everyone making an equal (or if not equal, then at least similar) effort to make the game fun for everyone else, and that no other form of action is either necessary, or acceptable. That is to say, if anyone is trying to make the game unfun for someone else, by intentionally driving them away, kicking them out of orgs or any other behavior of the sort, for any reason, including to remove other people making the game unfun for others, it should be disallowed.
This argument is founded on the premise that such a situation is indeed the most healthy, and the best for everyone - not just a lack of need for vigilantism, but also consensual effort to progress and have fun.
This argument is also founded on the premise that it is impossible on a psychological level to determine what behavior is unfun in the first place - the idea that you can't police someone doing something bad to others because you don't know the other is not enjoying it.
This argument, and these points, I believe, are highlighted by the below quotes. I hope I did not miss out important points or misunderstand due to my skimming - if I have, feel free to let me know via PM or something and I'll adjust my arguments if required.
This is all well and fine, a noble and righteous ideal that, in truth, everyone SHOULD be working toward. I mean, what's the point in policing bad behavior when you're performing it yourself in the process of policing, right?
Unfortunately, the premises this argument is based on are flawed.
First and foremost. A community with everyone being kosher with everyone else on an OOC level and only having conflict and impact on each other negatively in a roleplaying sense simply cannot exist. The very conflict psychology behind a roleplaying game like Lusternia is, in fact, OOC investment in characters. The game is designed on several levels to antagonize the emotions of not the character, but the player controlling the characters. The dejected feeling of defeat and the adrenaline of winning in PK is the most illustrative, but certainly not the only such example. Players in PK are so invested emotionally in their characters that they have been known to throw actual physical fits when they get PK'd. I actually haven't, but I've come close. This is not idiosyncratic to me, I am sure, and I am fairly certain I can be considered one of the calmer PKers in my years of IRE gaming.
If you think PK is the most egregrious of this, you will want to re-evaulate that thinking. IRE politics are designed to be nothing short of cut-throat. The pseudo election format and protections against cheating makes it so important and so significant for players (not characters) to "win" in their elections that they have been known to organize anything from smear campaigns to coups to vote-rigging. This is not possible without a significant emotional investment from the player. And this investment is designed into the system - the game WANTS their players to be so attached to their characters, that they feel the visceral rush of victory or defeat. That is, in fact, the draw of the immersion in this game.
When you perform a political backstab, you're actually doing it to the player, not just the character. Obviously, the character motivation exists, but without the player-to-player antagonism, the game would never make money. This is the "healthy" state of the game. Without the player putting so much of their "feels" into the game, the immersion would be nowhere near close to what draws players to it in the first place. If everyone is in fact so happy with everyone else, then there would be little thrill and excitement to the game. And then, that's when you will see the exodus to other games happening, and eventually, a dead Lusternia.
Secondly, the premise that it is impossible for a player to determine what is "unfun" for another player, and therefore which disallows you from policing a troll harassing another player is a fallacy. If there is a true desire to build a healthy environment, then such effort to make sense of the unknowable is exactly what is needed. Do you say, "Oh, I cannot imagine what kind of pain is going through that person's mind when he is crushed between two cars and dying, and therefore there is no way for me to help."? No, that is no way to improve society. By all means, every single one of our judgements are biased and tainted by our own subjective experience and opinions. And there is nothing wrong with that on a humanitarian note. If you see something you absolutely dislike being done to you being performed onto someone else, you cannot just go, "Oh, that person might like it, even though I absolutely hate it, so I'm not going to step in." If there is a moral motivation in this entire discussion, it would be here, and the answer would be to step forward and ask if everything is okay on an OOC level, and if it is not, to act in an OOC manner to stop the behavior if you are in the position to do so.
If a city leader sees a newbie being treated in a way that he is not comfortable being treated himself, he should step forward and stop the behavior until it is clearly established that it is consensual. Anything less would mean that leader should be removed and replaced, not the other way around.
I wrote this post in a hurry, in order that I don't get locked out of the thread before I posted it, so I might have made some spelling and grammar mistakes. Please forgive me. Hope my two cents was worth reading.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015