An in-deph treatise on why we can't have nice things.

[Guest]

Zip.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Guest

[Doomberg]

Let me quickly put this into perspective for you - the issue is that you are, whether consciously or not, making a vague attempt at coercing people to play the way you want them to by publicly attacking and shaming those that do not.

[Guest]

"Positive change" in your own opinion. Whether you like it or not, standards are for the administration to set, not you. This is not a democracy, despite what people would like to think.

For all intents and purposes the server does not have a clear MO. There is not standard which we can point at, at least not a standard that is being enforced.

You should not blame Inverted for going out of his way to spark a discussion on it. Just because people feel called out, or were called out as examples of it doesn't mean it's a Ad Hominem. These are fucking characters, there is no real reason not to open them to scrutiny.

As for Democracy, well, I agree most of the design choices need to be retained by the dev and admin team, as guidence is needed, but not letting players choose what the rules are to some extent, is fun way to quickly lose them.

[Skull132]

Unless someone brings out proof of me forcing anyone to play the way I want them to under the threat of anything then I will consider all accusations of me being a witch hunting slave driver and threats of curb stomping to be invalid.

 

How about we check ourselves and take a step back?

And how about we develop the functional reading skills to complement our writing skills? Allow me to break this down.

 

To shed light from another angle onto Doomberg's post, here's what we don't want happening: the weaponization of the thread and its ideas against individuals with differing views and approaches. The unfortunate fact is that this has already happened. There is a very clear line between objective criticism based on a period of observation and notation, and trying to get at someone's throat because they dared do something that doesn't seem right to you.

 

Even without Doomberg's post for reference, this paragraph can stand on its own. I outlined very clearly a danger, and in (probably some misguided ploy) decided to put it up for public consideration. This is a thing to take note of when we're discussing a very subjective topic. Am I wrong in that the warning is necessary? Considering that it was posted as a reactionary measure, after observing someone do exactly as I described: no.

Now, pray tell, where are you implicated? What everliving fiber of your ego felt implicated in this? Allow me to quote myself again:

[...] here's what we don't want happening [...]

 

Because no, we don't want what I described happening. And yet it motherfucking did. Were you behind it? No, no one said that. Otherwise we would have made contact with you, and you would have known about it.

Now, let's keep reading.

 

One is a positive experience to both parties, hopefully.

 

Ergo, I have no issues with this thread in its present form (otherwise, it'd be locked), or the threads that popped up around it (otherwise, they would be locked).

 

The second is, more often than not, a misguided ploy that ends up looking more and more akin to a witch hunt.

And let's talk about the latter. Witch hunts, the ones that I've seen, only work when two conditions are met:

• They are executed by a higher power;
• Said higher power actually has a crystal clear vision, and the ability to adhere to it.

 

And the end result is a very singular environment. Which by definition is counterproductive to a roleplay setting.

 

And this is what the person whose actions I am discussing actually did. This person wasn't you, as per my points above. But I chose to shed some light on it regardless.

Now, I had a massive fuck-off rant about something else written up, but this was an easier point to latch onto. I'll post that rant in a different thread, in a different form, later.

[Guest]

"Positive change" in your own opinion. Whether you like it or not, standards are for the administration to set, not you. This is not a democracy, despite what people would like to think.

For all intents and purposes the server does not have a clear MO. There is not standard which we can point at, at least not a standard that is being enforced.

You should not blame Inverted for going out of his way to spark a discussion on it. Just because people feel called out, or were called out as examples of it doesn't mean it's an Ad Hominem. These are fucking characters, there is no real reason not to open them to scrutiny.

As for Democracy, well, I agree most of the design choices need to be retained by the dev and admin team, as guidence is needed, but not letting players choose what the rules are to some extent, is fun way to quickly lose them.

[Guest]

Okay. I zipped up my offending posts.

Nobody is talking about the problems, thus there are no problems - and you were obviously right by threatening to curbstomp me if I didnt agree you're right.

I will /request/ (not force, mind you) that you don't post any of your characters on Jakers' new honest feedback thread, however.

People might get somewhat unnerved once you 'curb stomp' its participants for actually criticizing them.

[Skull132]

And Bokaza, here's my dilemma with what you proposed:

Would you prefer a closed community, where nonconformists are simply chewed out en-mass?

Or would you prefer the open battle ground, melting pot, constant process of synthesis we have now?

And further, let me clarify one more time. The issue is not with characters being called out. It is with actual ad hominem attacks with this used as an assaulting point.

[Skull132]

And now we if could just take one more fucking step back, and lower our childishness just one more step.

Feedback threads are fine if players actively participate them. No one is dragging anyone into anything with the threads that have popped around this one, both I and Doomberg acknowledge this. And it is ultimately neat that we have people who put themselves up for review like this (I have considered with the other feedback threads, but I rarely play, so I doubt anyone would have any actual intel on wtf I do as a player).

EDIT: and here's a point for review. Think of a blue Skull132 for a minute. Think of me, as a player. Because I promise you, I am just as blunt and outright as I am now (moreso, actually, because I won't feel bad about cursing anymore). And more than likely, with light to what I've seen and heard today, my posts would run exactly the same mile. If it was blue Skull132 posting that warning, would you have taken issue with it? Or did you just take issue with it because it was a member of staff who posted it?

[Doomberg]

I'm going to be very blunt here. With all due respect to all of you, losing extremely vocal and disgruntled players who are attacking the rest of our playerbase is no loss at all. If that's the price that must be paid to preserve the privilege of RPing as we desire without being constantly attacked and given unsolicited "criticism", then I will pay the fuck out of it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

everything said

Right, you made two points, one being YOU CAN'T CHANGE PEOPLE, and by extension, their characters, as you mentioned "very centerpoint of gameplay as a shrink, and using all the experience in that role as a further proof for the one argument I had to make and keep making over and over - you can't change people." And the second one is

.

Ok, so let's go over these, firstly, yes, people can change. This brought about Jaker's thread. I absolutely detest the idea that "people can't change". Some people strive to change, and as seen, Invy is making changes to his gameplay/characters to "improve". because some people like to improve. I'm mostly just kinda still confused if you acknowledge Daniela being a part of this lesbian group thingy. I guess you are admitting she's a part of it, and justifying it with "it's a game, we're having fun, you're not, you're in the wrong, this is a game afterall". On the other hand you're saying what Invy is saying is mean, and kinda trying to defend Dan...i think? I mean you turned defensive, but didn't say anything about Dan being a generic lesbian. No, you didn't even not defend her properly, you completely screwed your point. People come here to have fun, yes, but judging from your post YOU ARE NOT HAVING FUN. You are making playing Daniela sound like a Martyrs task. Balancing OOC and IC, while needing to pay attention to everyone and you barely even get to RP having to run around and be the active, barely characterized listener everyone needs. The only joy being a smile at the end of the day as other people go on to have fun later on in their existance on Aurora. like, shit this whole post (http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2882&start=10#p28668) makes playing Daniela seem bad, but then you go around and claim "no, i'm right, because at the end of the day i'm gonna have fun and you won't".

And if you really do admit to playing Dan like that, then jesus fucking christ, there are better alternatives. Not even the ERP aspect is important, there's servers where there are literal lesbays, there is no purpose to one being on Aurora, it's not "fun characters", they're groan inducing characters that are boring. And some people want to improve. What's your goal ultimately? to make better characters? to cultivate friendships? to make interesting story arcs? or is it just surface level lesbian shenanigans? because for the latter there are much, much better alternatives.

But ultimately you can just say "no, i won't change" and i won't give a shit, i don't even interact with Daniela.

as for the admnistration team

the problem starts with you and others publicly calling out and attempting to shame whoever you deem to be RPing in an unsatisfactory fashion. Do not try to hide behind a guise of criticism, because it has gone far, far beyond that. And the moment that gets out of hand - which it is dangerously close to doing - I will see to it that this mess is curbstomped.

Good day.

This just makes you sound childish to me, and as far as i can tell, no, this is valid criticism. It is not possible to make criticism that doesn't either sound like you're shaming people or condesending them (unless there is no problem to point out). please do re-phrase Invy's post into bringing out these points and not making them sound like terrible shaming. It's not possible, you'll always be pointing out problems no matter how you phrase it. Doomberg, Skull, if you two are afraid of people "weaponising criticism" then i'm sorry, but please re-read this

"weaponising criticizm"

Why not just argue the original criticism by Invy? IS HIS CRITICSM ACTUALLY VALID?. Invy doesn't have the power to make a withc hunt, and he sure as shit isn't gonna metahate these characters, so this paranoia is undeserving. It just comes off as the long reach of the administrations bo*** reminding people THIS ISN'T A DEMOCRACY, WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN WITCH HUNT

Edited June 21, 2015 by Guest

[Skull132]

Actually, that's a fun point.

Motherfuckers, we had a direction. But apparently people didn't agree with it. And so the arguments of "Just let us play!" were made heard. Okay, so, you get to play. The issues outlined in the original post is what you get.

Direction means conforming, conforming means a lack of freedom in certain aspects. And apparently, according to what you lot have made me hear, you don't need nor want. Which is fine, I can roll with that. But now we suddenly want direction again.

Hrr.

Hrr.

Hrr.

See the issue?

[Skull132]

It's not possible, you'll always be pointing out problems no matter how you phrase it. Doomberg, Skull, if you two are afraid of people "weaponising criticism" then i'm sorry, but please re-read this

"weaponising criticizm"

Why not just argue the original criticism by Invy? IS HIS CRITICSM ACTUALLY VALID?. Invy doesn't have the power to make a withc hunt, and he sure as shit isn't gonna metahate these characters, so this paranoia is undeserving. It just comes off as the long reach of the administrations bo*** reminding people THIS ISN'T A DEMOCRACY, WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN WITCH HUNT

 

Oh, I was of mind to fully read and give thought to this thread when I'm not hungover or otherwise mentally impaired. But circumstances dictated otherwise. Thank you for that.

Allow me to repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time:

The weaponization of criticism in question, the point that I was trying to address, did not take part in this thread, nor on the forums. It was a misguided individual who thought himself better than the rest. So, in an effort to stop further misguided individuals from befalling the same trap, I decided to throw up my words.

Is that so fucking bad, terrible, childish? To raise a legitimate point for review, a danger? Apparently, but fuck me, right?

[Guest]

No, Skull. The point you raised was fine by me once you initially explained it.

My kneejerk reaction came from Doomberg, who I will adress in the admin complaints subforum later on.

All in all, this thread is dead - I zipped the Original post it revolves around, I request someone locks it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

See the issue?

you don't need one or the other, people can be free AND be criticized for it.

And alright, i didn't pick up on that, i'm sorry, i started writing on page 2 and by the time everything was done the posts kept piling up. And maybe i'm also being a bit stupid here, but i just don't like the idea of critique being taken as this bad thing. We all want to make this place enjoyable, right? But i initially saw only Doombergs comment as, yes, a bit childish. i won't fall back on my words without a proper reason, i'm just kinda sorry i made you feel bad. i also hope you're not sad or anything, i'm sorry if i took it too far

[Skull132]

Johnny, for the last time.

I am not talking about criticism.

I am talking about a misguided individual taking what they see here, coupling it with an attitude of, "Motherfucker, I am holier than thou!" and then sidelining someone neutral with it.

See, the thing I like about the criticism threads is that they're optional, and very much favouring anyone who opts in. It's great! No sarcasm, it really is. The fact that we have people who will willingly walk themselves onto the line, raise their arms by their side and say, "Right folks. Here's a target for you, rip me up!" is amazing. And I do not intend to curb it in any way, shape or form.

But the maligned bastard child of this amazing thing is a motherfucker who lacks any sense of place, any sense of understanding, a concrete world view, and any understanding of what the fuck he's actually saying. That person does not critque. He does not offer anything constructive. He does not offer anything to the community. And yet he thinks himself important enough to walk up to a random player, rifle off a 10 line rant about how he thinks the random player is wrong, failing,and a god damned shame to the community.

OH! And what's worse! Upon objective evaluation, every single motherfucking point that person raised would be proven invalid and wrong.

And bro, I fucking wish I was dreaming this shit up. Because guess what -- I ain't. It happened. As a result of someone reading this thread.

The thread is not wrong. That one specific individual is (and no, it's not Inverted). And I just wanted to bring him into light.

[Guest]

(and no, it's not Inverted)

 

what is even happening

I dont even fucking

[Guest]

And Bokaza, here's my dilemma with what you proposed:

Would you prefer a closed community, where nonconformists are simply chewed out en-mass?

Or would you prefer the open battle ground, melting pot, constant process of synthesis we have now?

And further, let me clarify one more time. The issue is not with characters being called out. It is with actual ad hominem attacks with this used as an assaulting point.

It's not non-conformist. It's too common to be non-conformist in the traditional sense.

I don't actually agree with everything said here, by Rectum or anyone else. I am guilty of half of the stuff on the list to some extent, but in Rectum's opinion, it is getting to the point where it's hard to tolerate. Do we really want the slippery slope examples to come true?

I don't care if it's curbed or not, as it does not effect me, but I'll take Rectum's wholescale criticism and try to improve on it. It's all he's really asking; To try and curb it down, each player by their own volition. He does not expect staff to start banning anyone, he's only pointing out a problem.

And no, I do not believe these were intended as attacks. No players were actually touched until it got heated up.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Guest

[Skull132]

Slippery slopes suck, ultimately. You either have to deal with clean up once someone slips down them, or simply stop people preemptively. We prefer the former, but it has large dependencies.

Also, I was mostly inclined to stay out of this, as I did see it as something that involves players over staff. Since I am not really a player anymore, I only interjected once staff became involved (and trust me, the ad hominem attack I described at the bottom of last page is the fastest way to get my attention). And here we are, I guess.

[Cassie]

 

Right everyone. Don't get in the way of gents and their lesbians. Jaysus.

Honestly inverted, let them have it, that's my advice. Why fight for a community that clearly has strong ambitions to be Hypatia 2.0 and doesn't care about you?

Constant chair RP, consistent shunning, and poorly written deviantart tier lesbian romances are community breaking, and everyone on this thread knows this - somewhere deep inside they know this. They have their consequences (newer members feeling unwelcome, poor roleplay that leaks into others, people having disinterest in people outside their friends, fetish fuel and sues to get character attention in a non-receptive environment, cold atmosphere, and roleplay stagnation/non-initiative) and again, it's not in ignorance.

They've decided to be shit, if they aspire to be shit, let them be shit.

[Rechkalov]

Rechkalov losing his shit and acting like the drama queen he was accused of being.

Nothing to see here. Everybody go home.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

 

I leave this thread for a day and it goes into 5 pages of fanny flustering. This is one of the problems we have: disagreements aren't a conversation, they're a zero-sum game. This is probably a side-affect of the age-range of our playerbase; teenagers and young adults tend to be extremely passionate about everything.

It's not a zero-sum game. There are problems and admitting that is fine. There are problem characters and there is a needed debate on how to deal with these characters.

They are a symptom of the players who make and use them, though. This community is a gumdrop group-hugging one that doesn't acknowledge any problems until there's a meltdown, so I don't know how to fix genuinely poor and mean-spirited players outside taking the initiative with public shaming or whatever.

But I guess it boils down to this:

Stop getting angry over dumb things.

[Cassie]

there is a needed debate on how to deal with these characters.

Yeah there has. But no one is going to change, you know?

 

[Rechkalov]

there is a needed debate on how to deal with these characters.

Yeah there has. But no one is going to change, you know?

 

You will notice that apart from the bunch of you reassuring one another of how high quality your RP is in contrast to ERPers, nobody and nothing has changed, really.

Almost as if your group itself was a proof that change requires in the first place a willingness to change... oh!

[Skull132]

Eh, levy the administration with proper guidelines and a lot can be accomplished.

We just haven't really had a discussion on that matter. At least, one that actually concerned that side specifically. Or it's my own shortcomings as an Interim Head Admin. Hey, shitty times. We'll have a Head Admin soon, and then all of the fun can begin anew!

EDIT: Oh, and before you say something about admins being whatever. I can write a long text about how business in ye olden days was managed, and how things were controlled. We can do that, if certain requirements are met.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

there is a needed debate on how to deal with these characters.

Yeah there has. But no one is going to change, you know?

 

This attitude is one of the major reasons there are problems with the community.

You don't do anything to combat the problem; you post memes in a thread tackling the issue going "nothing will be done". It's asinine and not constructive to anything except serving as an outlet for your sense of spite against a roleplaying community for a 2d roleplaying game.

If you don't care about the issue and don't want to improve it, then don't be involved in the attempts to do so. It distracts from the actual conversation.

Directing back to the macro-subject. Just talk more. Be honest with one another. Seek out other people and chat with them about things. Us staff are also extremely receptive, most of the time. For example, with myself: the handful of people who actually don't hide in the shadows and approach me with concerns or constructive criticism have major influence over the direction of the lore. The people who just lounge around bitching in OOC, I don't even acknowledge, and their whining gets nothing done except maybe OOC muted.

There was a specific incident where people who wanted to roast me alive and considered me literally Hitler are now on agreeable terms with me after a simple conversation was finally arranged, rather than the impending rage thread complaining about my Nazi tendencies.

There is zero obligation to hunt you down and hold an interview. If you have something you want to say: think about how to say it, find the person you want to say it to, then say it.

And don't be so sassy.