Keeping it IC when possible

[Molten Heart]

.

[Riev]

I think its more the idea that your character is being punished for an OOC issue. Even if its virtual, if MY PC is being punished, because I had to go make dinner for my family and they couldn't "report in at the Gaj", that seems massively unfair both to me as a player, and to my PC who "would be there if I didn't have RL engagements.

[Veselka]

I like the idea of virtual punishment for things like not attending something because they can't log in, for things that a player is in violation due to inaction of not logging in. It maintains continuity and immersion for others who are close but unaffected and the player effected isn't adversely effected because of their OOC real life circumstances.

It would sort of piss me off. It encourages the 'reward people who play the game 24/7' mentality that sort of drives me insane.

Virtual punishment pisses you off? It's my understanding that the punishment is just window dressing of sorts, it effects nothing. Maybe my idea of virtual punishment is different that what other people are thinking. My idea of virtual punishment is having latrine duty every day when they aren't logged in.

So...People who are logged in 24/7 aren't having latrine duty every day when they aren't logged in. But people who aren't logged in 24/7 have latrine duty when they aren't logged in? Don't you see how that creates a pretty dissonant atmosphere right out of the gates, and sort of berates casual players for being casual?

I've already seen sort of 'looking down the nose' reactions when you can't make all the RPTs, especially when they consistently don't happen during times when you can play (as listed in your playtimes). People who can regularly make those RPTs, that are in their playtimes, are treated favorably. It's unavoidable, and I don't feel any shame in not being able to play all the time, and I also think people who are able to play often will almost always get favorable treatment (regardless of the quality of their PC or what they actually do, it's convenient to have them around). But I don't think that means we should virtually punish people who can't be around all the time when you want them, it sounds sort of sick.

I think we should be understanding that people sometimes have things to do, and that's OK. Maybe they missed the RPT for a valid reason, maybe they were doing something on someone else's orders that supersedes the leader PC's jursidiction. Maybe it's just fine to forget that PC wasn't around at the time.

[Molten Heart]

.

[James de Monet]

If you don't go on contracts, you don't get paid, you don't have the fun, and you're less likely to get promoted.  If you're going to say characters get 'punished' for missing them also, why not just mail the players a stick to hit themselves with?  Because that's who you're punishing, not the characters.

If someone isn't there when everyone is or "should be" there, that's a much better time for suspension of disbelief than it is for criminalizing unintentionally jeopardizing your immersion.

[Armaddict]

...I think I got misunderstood.

I didn't mean virtual punishments should be implemented.  I meant to say that I'd seen it where 'I was on gate duty' was responded with some off-the-cuff response that essentially impacted nothing, but was a valid IC response to someone not being somewhere.  I was saying before you get up in arms about such things (since it's an IC happening), keep in mind that it's not impacting you in any way and it's valid IC.

But based on the responses, I think that might be a little too much to handle.

[James de Monet]

No, I get what you're saying, man, but it does impact both player and character.  Consider this scenario: a casual player who wants to play a meticulous, dedicated soldier in the AoD.  Every time they are logged in, their character is the picture of respect, obedience, and dutifulness.  But, the player is casual, so the character starts getting "punished" for 'missing duties' the character never would have ICly missed.  By deciding to canonize the time that the player is away from the game, you would completely inhibit their ability to play the character they set out to play.  The player's enjoyment of the character would suffer, and the character would have to internalize the "reality" that the leader created and adjust accordingly.

It might not be a detriment to a character that was already prone to getting punished, but it skews the reality of the character in a way that benefits absolutely no one, and may be a detriment to the player.  Deciding to suspend disbelief about the realism of any character's absence due to playtimes is a far preferable solution.

[Kankfly]

I once used virtual punishment as a way to explain my absence in the game.

My PC was caught doing something bad virtually, so her virtual superior punished her with this length of time virtually. This is why you won't be seeing my PC for this amount of time.

I find it adds more story to my PC and it's a more interesting explanation than "extended gate duty". My PC also ended up having a virtual "feud" with that virtual superior and it was interesting to blame certain things on that certain virtual superior.

[Is Friday]

I just wanted to pop back in to reiterate that you're an awful person if you start throwing out IC punishments or threaten subordinates for not logging in much. That's behavior that drives players away. Stop.

[Delirium]

On the flip side, try and come up with an IC excuse (if you even need one) that makes sense.

So if you're in the Byn, for example, maybe you wee assigned to another unit for a while, doing x y z virtual duties. If you tell your superior you were fucking off, then well, they kinda have to punish you for fucking off, or else resort to some really awkward handwavium.

[James de Monet]

Totally agree, but if you say you were shirking duty, you are, in essence, giving them permission to react ICly.  The corollary is not true, unfortunately.  You cannot tell your Sarge you were busy saving a Red Robe from a fire while logged out to get an IC bonus.  And before Armaddict has an apoplexy, he did say he wasn't promoting punishing people, just that a virtual punishment is fitting for a virtual crime.  I sort of agree, but strongly disagree that ANY sort of logged out duty (gate, latrines, at the medic, with another unit, etc.) should be seen as being absent from assigned duty, or treated as a punishable offense, even virtually.  Saying you were passed out at the Gaj is another matter.

I also realized I have an anecdotal experience that ties this tangent back to the main topic.  I did a stint in the Byn somewhat recently.  For the first four RL weeks of my PC's Runner year, I was on out of state training IRL, and had a ton of spare time to play (like 4-6 hours a day).  Then, for the last two weeks of that IC year, I was traveling, and then back home again, with very little time to play.  When the year mark came around, the topic of promotion came up, but my PC's superiors (apparently forgetting about the first four weeks) said, "You aren't around enough."  And (the Byn being how it is) the next one said the same thing.  And the next.  I don't know how long it was until my PC finally got promoted, but in that time, I watched PCs (more than one) who were hired after mine get promoted all the way to Sergeant and die before mine even made Trooper.  I don't necessarily blame this on the leader PCs' players.  Their perception told them a story that was a little different than reality.  But knowing that didn't stop me from walking away from those conversations grinding my teeth IRL.  In predicating my PC's promotion (IC Event) on my presence or absence IG (OOC Reality), these leaders unintentionally put me in a difficult position of trying to bridge the IC/OOC divide, leaving me three options:

• Address it ICly.  This would be difficult, because first of all, my PC wasn't the sort to argue.  This means to address it IC, I would have to bend my understanding of the character's personality.  And second, I would have to jump through some linguistic hoops to paint the situation in IC terms.
• Address it OOCly.  This would require a lot of back and forth OOC, and would be unlikely to result in a different outcome (because people expect you to argue when they say you can't have something you probably want).
• Just deal with it, and try not to be pissy.

I opted for #3, because I didn't really know how else to resolve it (or think that any other steps would bear fruit).  But I don't know that I would want to ask someone else to do the same thing.  (And if someone had tried to "punish" my PC on top of that for 'missing' duties that s/he had no reason to ICly miss?  I would have gone nova.)  For those of you taking a stand on the use of OOC in this game, how would you deal with this situation?

[Hauwke]

I havent seen any argument for the fact that there are people who get in trouble IG, or do something stupid and then immediately go: 'I have gate!' and rush off to logout.
Or there is also the people who only log in so they can spar, then rush off the second sparring is over, or even better, the ones who spar once, then log off.

[evilcabbage]

no it doesn't? you're being punished virtually. not -actually- punished. you're not being punished by being sent into the latrines for an entire week, you're being punished virtually, when you aren't logged in.

it has no effect on you playing.

[nauta]

I havent seen any argument for the fact that there are people who get in trouble IG, or do something stupid and then immediately go: 'I have gate!' and rush off to logout.
Or there is also the people who only log in so they can spar, then rush off the second sparring is over, or even better, the ones who spar once, then log off.

That one is actually documented in the Byn documentation.  It's handled OOCly (player complaint), however, not ICly.

I think JdM hit the hammer on the head here.  People with low playtimes already suffer enough.  In philosophy, there is a thing called the 'principle of charity' -- this is when you interpret somebody else's view in the strongest way possible.  The same goes for absences and logging off.

My general rule of thumb is:

Ignore it completely if you can, and if you can't, let the player tell you what their character was doing while not logged in (don't make assumptions).

As to the 'virtual contracts' -- I see nothing wrong with this.  It adds flavor to have your character doing something other than gate.  The /really/ daring can even set up a dice system: 1 in 20 you die and store the character, heheh. 

Bear in mind your PC Sergeant probably will still want to have seen you on actual contracts with them, since that's why, in part, that Sergeant is promoting you.  You can ask staff for a virtual Sergeant to promote you otherwise, I suppose.  But even in this case, I tend to not really care: if someone wants a promotion but can't log in enough, it doesn't hurt the game any to give them that promotion -- unless when they do log in they demonstrate incompetence.

[Is Friday]

Totally agree, but if you say you were shirking duty, you are, in essence, giving them permission to react ICly.  The corollary is not true, unfortunately.  You cannot tell your Sarge you were busy saving a Red Robe from a fire while logged out to get an IC bonus.  And before Armaddict has an apoplexy, he did say he wasn't promoting punishing people, just that a virtual punishment is fitting for a virtual crime.  I sort of agree, but strongly disagree that ANY sort of logged out duty (gate, latrines, at the medic, with another unit, etc.) should be seen as being absent from assigned duty, or treated as a punishable offense, even virtually.  Saying you were passed out at the Gaj is another matter.

I also realized I have an anecdotal experience that ties this tangent back to the main topic.  I did a stint in the Byn somewhat recently.  For the first four RL weeks of my PC's Runner year, I was on out of state training IRL, and had a ton of spare time to play (like 4-6 hours a day).  Then, for the last two weeks of that IC year, I was traveling, and then back home again, with very little time to play.  When the year mark came around, the topic of promotion came up, but my PC's superiors (apparently forgetting about the first four weeks) said, "You aren't around enough."  And (the Byn being how it is) the next one said the same thing.  And the next.  I don't know how long it was until my PC finally got promoted, but in that time, I watched PCs (more than one) who were hired after mine get promoted all the way to Sergeant and die before mine even made Trooper.  I don't necessarily blame this on the leader PCs' players.  Their perception told them a story that was a little different than reality.  But knowing that didn't stop me from walking away from those conversations grinding my teeth IRL.  In predicating my PC's promotion (IC Event) on my presence or absence IG (OOC Reality), these leaders unintentionally put me in a difficult position of trying to bridge the IC/OOC divide, leaving me three options:

• Address it ICly.  This would be difficult, because first of all, my PC wasn't the sort to argue.  This means to address it IC, I would have to bend my understanding of the character's personality.  And second, I would have to jump through some linguistic hoops to paint the situation in IC terms.
• Address it OOCly.  This would require a lot of back and forth OOC, and would be unlikely to result in a different outcome (because people expect you to argue when they say you can't have something you probably want).
• Just deal with it, and try not to be pissy.

I opted for #3, because I didn't really know how else to resolve it (or think that any other steps would bear fruit).  But I don't know that I would want to ask someone else to do the same thing.  (And if someone had tried to "punish" my PC on top of that for 'missing' duties that s/he had no reason to ICly miss?  I would have gone nova.)  For those of you taking a stand on the use of OOC in this game, how would you deal with this situation?

I had a similar situation pan out in which I addressed staff about. I was told "deal with it IC, think of the IC possibilities of conflict cause your leader doesn't like you because he hates you're always on gate yay". When really, the only way to "deal with it" in a favorable way for my PC was to log in a lot more.

Um, okay?

Honestly, I was disappointed I received that response because it's illogical and based around rewarding players who play non-stop. I'm not 18 anymore. I can't play 40 hours a week.

[Riev]

Regarding JdM's comment:

When I was in the Legions with my Sergeant, there was this one PC. Her name was Sulda, and she was a private in the Legions. She was almost never around for anything unless there was a pre-planned RPT. She wasn't at training, I never saw her on tavern patrol, and I don't think she'd have ever gotten a Corporal promotion or anything like that.

However, she was promoted to Private because, according to the Recruitment post, she had been around for an IC year. There was no problems, there was no discussion. If she was a "bad" private because of her lack of training, I think that was just to be par for the course. As it turned out, she was pretty fun to have around, and during a big play in the Uaptal Theater, we were BOTH late, and ended up sneaking upstairs where we weren't allowed and caused quite a ruckus.

[Is Friday]

Regarding JdM's comment:

When I was in the Legions with my Sergeant, there was this one PC. Her name was Sulda, and she was a private in the Legions. She was almost never around for anything unless there was a pre-planned RPT. She wasn't at training, I never saw her on tavern patrol, and I don't think she'd have ever gotten a Corporal promotion or anything like that.

However, she was promoted to Private because, according to the Recruitment post, she had been around for an IC year. There was no problems, there was no discussion. If she was a "bad" private because of her lack of training, I think that was just to be par for the course. As it turned out, she was pretty fun to have around, and during a big play in the Uaptal Theater, we were BOTH late, and ended up sneaking upstairs where we weren't allowed and caused quite a ruckus.

That's what you're supposed to do by being a considerate player with a brain. Good job.

[Riev]

That being said, she also made sure to post on the Internal GDB that she was around, but had low playtimes, so there was some communication. I do think there needs to be that in some way, whether its a PM or some other communication.

I have no problem, as a Militia/Military Clan recruiter with a new recruit/runner being around a year, having little to no training, and being promoted. So long as they let me KNOW that they aren't just taking up a slot and are making an effort to play. While I suspect some might apply for a Byn Runner, sit on it for 6 Rl weeks just so they can have a Trooper, they would NOT be the only shit-for-brains Trooper in the Byn. In an OOC manner, I might not trust them with the sensitive jobs, but a meat shield is a meat shield.

[nauta]

I had a few more points to make on this sub-topic that I thought of. 

So, in general, practice the principle of charity about what people are doing while logged off -- don't make negative assumptions: infer from their behavior while logged in to their behavior while logged off: if they are well-behaved soldiers while logged in, and they give you no IG reason to suspect otherwise, assume they are well-behaved soldiers while logged off; the converse, however, does not hold true: if they are putzes and shirk duties while logged in, you have no right to assume this is what they are doing while logged off.  To do so would be the same as a poweremote.  It is up to them to make up what they were doing while logged off.  That said, if it comes time for a promotion, you /can/ use the data you are given from when they are logged in to justify the promotion (or lack thereof).  But you can't pull in data from times they were logged off, since that data isn't there.

So basically, don't be a dick, obvs.  People who can't play the game already suffer from that: they miss the fun contracts, they lose connections, and so on.

That said, there are some situations where absence of play has a negative impact on the health of the game.  Two obvious areas that are already recognized but worth emphasizing are:

o Leaders.  If a leader isn't logging in, this is reason to alert staff (who probably already know).  This is in part why staff monitors this.  Plots fall dead if a leader can't log in regularly: the Byn can't leave the gates without a Sergeant; the Byn can't get paid without nobles logging in to pay them; AoD soldiers can't do squat if a Templar isn't logging in to punish criminals; and so on.

o Clan Limits.  This is a far less of a concern but there are some considerations someone who is promoted should take into account.  There are, after all, only a limited number of slots in promoted clan positions (Troopers, Privates, etc.) represented by the lockers and sometimes enforced by staff.  But it isn't just the number of lockers: those who are promoted inside the game are also in a quasi-leadership position, and plots, although to a lesser extent, do hang on them as well.  A Byn Trooper probably isn't that big of deal, but if the Sr. Aide or the Corporal or the Merchant stops logging in for long stretches, it will have a small but noticeable effect on the game.

The best thing to do, as mentioned, is communicate clearly your absences and playtimes to staff and your clan if you are in a leadership or promoted position.

[Veselka]

I had a few more points to make on this sub-topic that I thought of. 

So, in general, practice the principle of charity about what people are doing while logged off -- don't make negative assumptions: infer from their behavior while logged in to their behavior while logged off: if they are well-behaved soldiers while logged in, and they give you no IG reason to suspect otherwise, assume they are well-behaved soldiers while logged off; the converse, however, does not hold true: if they are putzes and shirk duties while logged in, you have no right to assume this is what they are doing while logged off.  To do so would be the same as a poweremote.  It is up to them to make up what they were doing while logged off.  That said, if it comes time for a promotion, you /can/ use the data you are given from when they are logged in to justify the promotion (or lack thereof).  But you can't pull in data from times they were logged off, since that data isn't there.

So basically, don't be a dick, obvs.  People who can't play the game already suffer from that: they miss the fun contracts, they lose connections, and so on.

That said, there are some situations where absence of play has a negative impact on the health of the game.  Two obvious areas that are already recognized but worth emphasizing are:

o Leaders.  If a leader isn't logging in, this is reason to alert staff (who probably already know).  This is in part why staff monitors this.  Plots fall dead if a leader can't log in regularly: the Byn can't leave the gates without a Sergeant; the Byn can't get paid without nobles logging in to pay them; AoD soldiers can't do squat if a Templar isn't logging in to punish criminals; and so on.

o Clan Limits.  This is a far less of a concern but there are some considerations someone who is promoted should take into account.  There are, after all, only a limited number of slots in promoted clan positions (Troopers, Privates, etc.) represented by the lockers and sometimes enforced by staff.  But it isn't just the number of lockers: those who are promoted inside the game are also in a quasi-leadership position, and plots, although to a lesser extent, do hang on them as well.  A Byn Trooper probably isn't that big of deal, but if the Sr. Aide or the Corporal or the Merchant stops logging in for long stretches, it will have a small but noticeable effect on the game.

The best thing to do, as mentioned, is communicate clearly your absences and playtimes to staff and your clan if you are in a leadership or promoted position.

This is well put.

Self-imposed virtual punishments make sense if you want to incorporate that. The most clear example is your PC pissed off the Gate Sergeant or whatever that equivalent is in non-Byn clans/Houses, and they've been pulling you for extra shifts. That isn't a very fun time (while you are logged off), and could be viewed as an IC/virtual punishment.

The problem with virtual punishments (and the argument that 'it's virtual so it doesn't affect you at all') is that it absolutely does affect you. If you are, as nauta put it, a good soldier, and then it's decided while you log off that you've been a bad soldier and you have been punished, that affects the IC reflection of your PC in the game. Self-imposing that is totally cool, and up to a player to decide if they want to add that flair/story to their PC. Kankfly's example was a great one -- Starting a beef with another NPC Leader or vNPC leader, and incorporating that into their biographies and story.

It absolutely makes sense to reward people who are around, are going on contracts/attending RPTs, are helpful, and are otherwise proving themselves at a much quicker rate than people who aren't around, aren't going on contracts/attending RPTs, and aren't otherwise proving themselves. What doesn't make sense (to me) and seems sort of cruel towards a Player rather than a PC, is to otherwise further punish someone for not being around, not going on contracts/attending RPTs, but when they are around, are helpful, and are otherwise proving themselves. That seems bizarre, and mostly a fuck you for not playing to a standard the leader deems as enough.

I definitely think communication is the best thing for someone to do. Telling people when you are going to be gone, and for about how long, or if you are going to have restricted playtimes or need to leave suddenly, really helps people adapt to your change in playstyle. People start assuming when they don't have enough information to go off of.

At the end of the day this is a game -- Imposed Virtual Punishments seem like the biggest OOC fuck you to people who are just trying to log in when they can and have fun.

[valeria]

Whenever I play a leader (which is like, every other character, I'm addicted guys) I don't care whether punishments that can be done virtually are done virtually.  I mean, there's danger to cleaning the latrines, but if my sarge tells you to clean latrines for a week, I'm not expecting you to stay logged in for 24 hours.  Punishments are directed at the character, not at the player.

Which isn't to say I'd never restrict someone to the clan compound just because it happens to do both.  What I am saying is that I think it's fine for people to give virtual punishments and to perform punishments virtually if they can.

[Veselka]

Back on topic, I personally find it much more jarring to see OOC song lyrics or like quotes from Shakespeare put into an IC context. Sometimes they elicit a giggle, but they definitely otherwise break down the 4th wall and are meant to make me (the player) giggle at the OOC context, not my PC giggle at the IC context.

[Riev]

Back on topic, I personally find it much more jarring to see OOC song lyrics or like quotes from Shakespeare put into an IC context. Sometimes they elicit a giggle, but they definitely otherwise break down the 4th wall and are meant to make me (the player) giggle at the OOC context, not my PC giggle at the IC context.

I've seen them done well enough before. I used to do Byn songs taking "raunchy or bawdy" limericks from the internet. I have a friend who used to sing Nightwish songs during downtime.

Its hard to make a PC giggle at the IC context, because most of us aren't familiar with popular people, celebrities, or important goings on around the Known. Its hard to 'make a reference' if every person has a different word forit.

[Armaddict]

Yeah, I regret bringing up the virtual punishments because even though some of you said you understood, the context of it got twisted into nowhere near what I was saying.  What I was positing had nothing to do with punishing off peak or those who play less or anything of that nature.  It wasn't even a rule.

I was just saying that if such a thing occurred realize that it was likely a reconciliation between IC things in motion and your OOC situation in a rare occurrence to avoid having to go around and say a bunch of 'Nevermind what we were talking about because this.'  If such a thing 'ruins a character' for you, I'm beyond flabberghasted at just how fragile your characters must be.

Hell, it's a grumbled 'Yessir' and likely never a topic of conversation again.

[Jihelu]

I like 'virtual punishments'.
Not "You are in trouble virtually" but the self imposed "I was doing x and x" but in the same ring I also like virtual acomplishments/lessons/whatever.
"I was helping one of your younger cousins learn how to speak -a language I speak-" or "I was helping one of your -whatevers- do -whatever-"
Though I tend to use these very sparingly and only things that would make sense.

That being said this shit ain't required at all and going too heavy with it just complicates things, I think.