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!"
Your post was worth reading, and there are points you made that I agree with, but I want to investigate a few of them.
First is the assertion that Lusternia, being a conflict-driven game, requires OOC investment to become immersed. This is true, but that immersion is not responsible for the severe compromise of roleplay boundaries. The player is always responsible here. One does not need to be entangled if there is a boundary set between a player and the recognition of 'the game'.
If you are PKed by a character, then you have every reason to ICly hate on that character who killed you. If you create a new character and carry that hate over? It's breaking roleplay.
I would not expect the entire community to be kosher or lack any kind of emotional reactions to the events in the game. But what I do expect, especially from leader figures and older players, is the common sense to follow through on the trust that has been placed in you to fulfill your position.
If you find some new player annoying because they are weaving illusions at the nexus, or emoting silly things, or just not taking the game too seriously -- maybe that is their way of enjoying Lusternia? Maybe they are immersed in learning the ins and outs of the game, even if they seem uncouth or basic? Who am I to deprive some new player of that, even if they are highly irritating to a 'veteran'?
Sure, that character is irritating. But why can't we appreciate that they are annoying? Why do we have to take it so seriously, as players? Do we not have that boundary in place? Obnoxious characters can be very interesting given the opportunity. The same thing happens with mudsexers(whole different can of worms) or cuddlebunnies, that are labelled as sub optimal entities within the roleplay environment.
The first reaction is to find a way to get rid of these people, rather than try and integrate them into the "community". That is why I believe it is unhealthy for the game to continue this way. It is also why I have appropriated the term clique to describe some of the behaviour within the game. Because if you are not playing a certain type of character, you are not invited into the community. It is an obsessive control issue.
"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'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.
I didn't assume you believed Celina to be a bad person, only that you assumed the instances when she did this were bad- well, without knowing what the circumstances were, it's impossible for me to pass judgment. I don't want kitten killers in my guild either.
On the rest, I might agree with you. But again, specifics. You're just expecting others to agree with your sense of outrage, when they're interpreting the argument differently.
Your argument seems to be that no player is the arbitrator of who is or is not a detriment to the game, which is based on your arbitrary belief that no one is a detriment to the game. If you believe that you cannot dictate how anyone else plays the game, then adhere to your own standard and let others shun whoever they deem shunnable. Seeing as how this game is a product designed to make money/entertain, the issue is: Are the players entertained, and is it making money? If the latter is true, and the former is true for the greatest number of people, then attempting to dictate how they're entertained is, by your own words, harmful to the game.
...Right?
"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."
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!"
If people are drama causing, obnoxious, lazy troglodytes OOCly, reasons to strongly dislike them ICly will easily present themselves, they always do. Even on a new character, you think you're making this sweet innocent little furrikin bunny, but within days the rest of us will just see this:
IC reasons are pretty easy to find, people have a backlog of orgs they've been in in their honours (which are IC) you ask them why they left (ICly) and cross reference it with people in that org (ICly once more!) Most of the time you'll flash up a warning sign of
and that's that as far as the matter goes. Sometimes you'll see it in their interview, I've had people come up with the biggest load of derp where it's clear they did zero research into the place they're coming into, have no respect for the RP and lore and simply just want somewhere new to cause their special brand of mischief. They throw out a ton of pseudo-intellect nonsense that they thing sounds smart, when in truth they just look like this:
So ultimately, people can, will and do find IC reasons to kick you out or deny you, because they always present themselves, and you don't need to look far or hard to spot them. So while you can claim there's an OOC agenda against you, there's a clique of people spiting you, that everything going against you is metagame because it doesn't follow your particular brand of logic, the truth is people probably don't actually care. At the end of the day they've taken IC actions, IC reasoning and employed both to remove/deny a trouble maker from being in their organisation and being toxic to the atmosphere. To which point I'd like to end with this simple advice:
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
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'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.
I didn't assume you believed Celina to be a bad person, only that you assumed the instances when she did this were bad- well, without knowing what the circumstances were, it's impossible for me to pass judgment. I don't want kitten killers in my guild either.
On the rest, I might agree with you. But again, specifics. You're just expecting others to agree with your sense of outrage, when they're interpreting the argument differently.
Your argument seems to be that no player is the arbitrator of who is or is not a detriment to the game, which is based on your arbitrary belief that no one is a detriment to the game. If you believe that you cannot dictate how anyone else plays the game, then adhere to your own standard and let others shun whoever they deem shunnable. Seeing as how this game is a product designed to make money/entertain, the issue is: Are the players entertained, and is it making money? If the latter is true, and the former is true for the greatest number of people, then attempting to dictate how they're entertained is, by your own words, harmful to the game.
...Right?
Not quite.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I expect people to know how to stay in role and honour equal opportunity for all players to enjoy the game. Clearly a lot of you don't feel the same way. Saying things like, "I kicked them out for OOC reasons and I don't care" is a very cancerous attitude to have. That is not equal opportunity, it is not roleplay, it is a metagaming.
I didn't say that nobody is a detriment to the game, I said that there are certain behaviours which are detrimental to the game. The behaviour mentioned above and discussed in tedious detail over the course of this thread are absolutely detrimental to the game.
Players being happy right now and buying credits does not guarantee the game is growing.
That's like saying, "My life is fun and I'm buying my groceries, that must mean I'm healthy."
Making this assumption is not only inaccurate but superficial. From day one, people would not play the game if they didn't enjoy it. Clearly, some people are happy, and some people buy credits. Yes, Lusternia is making money, otherwise it wouldn't be around. But games like these are dynamic entities that change over the course of time, there is no certainty that players stay satisfied with the entertainment value. For those of you who are in business you'll also understand that making money today does not guarantee making money tomorrow. So naturally, what must be done to maintain a healthy environment that ensures the lifespan of the game?
There are hundreds of thousands of MUDs on the internet. Why should anyone pick Lusternia? Plenty of reasons, of course, but a huge part of what attracts people to a roleplaying game is...Roleplay. What happens when the roleplay atmosphere is being disrespected by the playerbase? You can figure that out.
In order for the game to continue to grow and be successful, we need new players. When a game plateaus and stops garnering the attention of its audience, there are only two possibilities -- floating or sinking.
An obnoxious newbie player is generally not going to drive away a veteran player. Most, if not all of us, can probably agree with that point barring exceptional circumstances.
It is very easy for a veteran player to drive away newbies, or leave a bad impression of the game.
A veteran player may just as easily leave or quit the game because circumstances have changed in their life, they are no longer interested, apathy towards the game, the list goes on.
If you were listening instead of being pedantic, you would notice that I do not dictate anything to anyone. I have expressed my opinions and made recommendations based on what I hear.
This isn't about adhering to some kind of ethical standard. It's about players making unqualified, untrue statements that their actions are contributing to the game environment, when they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
Sorry, am replying a little late. Was a little busy.
There is a danger in conflating unliked behavior and unhealthy behavior. Parties on both sides of the argument are guilty of this, and there is no gain to be had. It is not fair to players who just want to have fun when unliked behavior is conflated as unhealthy behavior and they are lynched for no reason other than personal preference (the mag stutterer, I forgot her name, is an example). However, it is equally shortsighted to insist all behavior is just personal preference, and that no vigilantism or self-policing is justified.
The debate, if one exists, is what constitutes unliked, and what constitutes unhealthy behavior. It is not that "all behavior that is not liked is unliked, and nothing is unhealthy, and thus everything should be accepted." That has no relevance to anyone who claims a genuine wish to improve the game - at best it is delusional. When it comes to such matters, obviously there are grey areas, but just as certainly there are black ones too. It is far too idealistic to believe in the collective good of humanity and close your eyes to the fact that there is behavior that can AND should be judged and discouraged. And while the admin certainly have far better resources to deal with such issues than players have (which is one reason that vigilantism has always been controversial) it doesn't mean players have no right, or should not, perform any such self-policing at all.
Now, on to whether the ends justify the means - in this case, is it fair to use OOC methods, even metagaming, to root out such behavior? My stance is, yes, if all else fails. When reformation is not likely, rejection should be considered. Afterall, the arguments that have been mentioned before this are logical and mathematical - what is worth more to the game, one stubborn player or ten genuine novices? It is easy to point at those who "metagame and use their OOC motivations as a basis to censure others" as people who never attempted to correct such behavior. Certainly, if someone goes around doing nothing but kicking them out of orgs at the first sign of a bad trait, that would be more than toxic. But when efforts have been made to reach out to the troublesome player, to correct their behavior either through IC or OOC discussion, and perhaps even through admin mediation, and yet nothing seems to work, there certainly is more than enough justification to bring out the pitchforks.
As it is, do we have people who are being ostracised from the entire game every other day? No, certainly not. There's no "Estarra's Vigilants" group patrolling the roads of Skyrim and spreading a network where one person kicked out of Glomdoring will have their chances at joining Gaudiguch forever ruined as well. When someone is kicked out of their org, they're usually left the chance to prove their worth to the other orgs - if whatever caused their ejection has been fixed, lo and behold, you have a reformed player who is participating in the game 100%. Perhaps he will never join Glomdoring again without a stigma he has to work hard to clear, but he certainly isn't booted from Lusternia forevermore based on one action. Sorry, Munsia, but I'll use you as an example here - not the same obviously, but here's a player who is enjoying him/herself without being weighed down by past (true and untrue) mistakes.
OOC hazing isn't all good and rosy and peachy, obviously. Despite everything I've said above, and despite the best intentions, there is no doubt that vigilantism does disrupt the gameplay of poeple who are just trying to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean self-policing should be outlawed and curbstomped and rolled over by a tractor and thrown to the dogs. Arguing about where we should draw the line is a meaningful discussion. Asserting that "no line should be drawn" is not.
To be fair, very few people will find themselves kicked out of Gaudiguch or Glomdoring these days and find it possible to join the other. If their allies didn't want you, why the hell would they?
Not sure how true that statement seems to be elsewhere, Castiel going from Seren to Celest springs to mind.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
So ultimately, people can, will and do find IC reasons to kick you out or deny you, because they always present themselves, and you don't need to look far or hard to spot them. So while you can claim there's an OOC agenda against you, there's a clique of people spiting you, that everything going against you is metagame because it doesn't follow your particular brand of logic, the truth is people probably don't actually care. At the end of the day they've taken IC actions, IC reasoning and employed both to remove/deny a trouble maker from being in their organisation and being toxic to the atmosphere. To which point I'd like to end with this simple advice:
There are OOC agendas against players, cliques spiting each other, and people metagame to go against various brands of logic. Actually, your argument is a good example of this.
Also, Celina and Xenthos both openly advocated this concept of OOC vigilantism. Playing the violin of apathy and blanketing the behaviour as "normal" is not progressive or helpful, it just reinforces the negative behaviour.
"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.
Emphasis in italics.
At the end of the day they've still found IC reasons to do it. This isn't them acting to spite someone, or acting to air their personal grievances with someone, this is them denying someone they know will be a detrimental effect to the organisation, and making sure they do it properly, by the book.
As long as that's done in character any argument aganist it hasn't got a leg to stand on.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
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.
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.
Emphasis in bold, lovebug.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
:-@ this thread is never going to die if we don't let it die.
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.
To be fair, very few people will find themselves kicked out of Gaudiguch or Glomdoring these days and find it possible to join the other. If their allies didn't want you, why the hell would they?
Not sure how true that statement seems to be elsewhere, Castiel going from Seren to Celest springs to mind.
That's because he did it while the intelligent members of Celest were asleep.
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.
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.
Emphasis in bold, lovebug.
We get it. Celina deserves a spanking.
Just let it go, you've changed the subject of the argument like three times now.
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.
There's no argument to be made there, because ultimately this is a game, and people have the right to act so they can enjoy that game. So if they have OOC motivations to make sure they continue to enjoy that game then so be it. As long as they deal with it in character.
Have they given someone an IC reason why they were rejected? If yes, then the debate is over. The fact you don't like that is irrelevant, the fact they OOCly don't want someone there is, irrelevant. Their character has a reason to not want you there, and ultimately that's the only thing that matters.
If you're then going to ignore IC because of OOC, or circumvent IC because of OOC, you're metagaming. If Celina ICly rejects someone, you can't negate that IC reason because OOCly their player also doesn't want said person, you don't get to pick and choose which bits of IC you have to accept and which you don't.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Comments
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
IC reasons are pretty easy to find, people have a backlog of orgs they've been in in their honours (which are IC) you ask them why they left (ICly) and cross reference it with people in that org (ICly once more!) Most of the time you'll flash up a warning sign of
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
There is a danger in conflating unliked behavior and unhealthy behavior. Parties on both sides of the argument are guilty of this, and there is no gain to be had. It is not fair to players who just want to have fun when unliked behavior is conflated as unhealthy behavior and they are lynched for no reason other than personal preference (the mag stutterer, I forgot her name, is an example). However, it is equally shortsighted to insist all behavior is just personal preference, and that no vigilantism or self-policing is justified.
The debate, if one exists, is what constitutes unliked, and what constitutes unhealthy behavior. It is not that "all behavior that is not liked is unliked, and nothing is unhealthy, and thus everything should be accepted." That has no relevance to anyone who claims a genuine wish to improve the game - at best it is delusional. When it comes to such matters, obviously there are grey areas, but just as certainly there are black ones too. It is far too idealistic to believe in the collective good of humanity and close your eyes to the fact that there is behavior that can AND should be judged and discouraged. And while the admin certainly have far better resources to deal with such issues than players have (which is one reason that vigilantism has always been controversial) it doesn't mean players have no right, or should not, perform any such self-policing at all.
Now, on to whether the ends justify the means - in this case, is it fair to use OOC methods, even metagaming, to root out such behavior? My stance is, yes, if all else fails. When reformation is not likely, rejection should be considered. Afterall, the arguments that have been mentioned before this are logical and mathematical - what is worth more to the game, one stubborn player or ten genuine novices? It is easy to point at those who "metagame and use their OOC motivations as a basis to censure others" as people who never attempted to correct such behavior. Certainly, if someone goes around doing nothing but kicking them out of orgs at the first sign of a bad trait, that would be more than toxic. But when efforts have been made to reach out to the troublesome player, to correct their behavior either through IC or OOC discussion, and perhaps even through admin mediation, and yet nothing seems to work, there certainly is more than enough justification to bring out the pitchforks.
As it is, do we have people who are being ostracised from the entire game every other day? No, certainly not. There's no "Estarra's Vigilants" group patrolling the roads of Skyrim and spreading a network where one person kicked out of Glomdoring will have their chances at joining Gaudiguch forever ruined as well. When someone is kicked out of their org, they're usually left the chance to prove their worth to the other orgs - if whatever caused their ejection has been fixed, lo and behold, you have a reformed player who is participating in the game 100%. Perhaps he will never join Glomdoring again without a stigma he has to work hard to clear, but he certainly isn't booted from Lusternia forevermore based on one action. Sorry, Munsia, but I'll use you as an example here - not the same obviously, but here's a player who is enjoying him/herself without being weighed down by past (true and untrue) mistakes.
OOC hazing isn't all good and rosy and peachy, obviously. Despite everything I've said above, and despite the best intentions, there is no doubt that vigilantism does disrupt the gameplay of poeple who are just trying to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean self-policing should be outlawed and curbstomped and rolled over by a tractor and thrown to the dogs. Arguing about where we should draw the line is a meaningful discussion. Asserting that "no line should be drawn" is not.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Needs the caption. Shh shh shhhhhh.
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
At the end of the day they've still found IC reasons to do it. This isn't them acting to spite someone, or acting to air their personal grievances with someone, this is them denying someone they know will be a detrimental effect to the organisation, and making sure they do it properly, by the book.
As long as that's done in character any argument aganist it hasn't got a leg to stand on.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
"A man's not dead while his name is still spoken." - Terry Pratchett 1948-2015
We get it. Celina deserves a spanking.
Just let it go, you've changed the subject of the argument like three times now.
Have they given someone an IC reason why they were rejected? If yes, then the debate is over. The fact you don't like that is irrelevant, the fact they OOCly don't want someone there is, irrelevant. Their character has a reason to not want you there, and ultimately that's the only thing that matters.
If you're then going to ignore IC because of OOC, or circumvent IC because of OOC, you're metagaming. If Celina ICly rejects someone, you can't negate that IC reason because OOCly their player also doesn't want said person, you don't get to pick and choose which bits of IC you have to accept and which you don't.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!