Enough is Enough

[Halaster]

In the past few weeks I know that I alone have locked a few threads and so have other staff due to sensitive IC information being posted.  Honestly, I'm tired of doing it, so it's probably to the point where we should just start being more liberal with the twit flag since some people are being more liberal with posting sensitive IC information.  It's probably better that those people simply don't participate in our forums if they can't abide by the rules.

Now, having said that, perhaps there's some uncertainty what is and is not sensitive IC information?  What do people think?  Are the rules of what is and is not acceptable (in terms of IC info) too vague and hard to understand?  Do we need to clarify them better?  Is that the reason why this keeps happening - because we're not clear enough?  (or are some people just pushing the envelop just to see what they can get away with?)

[Anonymous]

I think they're too vague.

I've seen a lot of information on these boards that I would not have known if it were not for these boards.  People seem to lump a lot of things into the "commonly known" category that I wouldn't have originally. While it's something they find innately familiar, it's not something other players necessarily would.

I still remember when the staff wouldn't allow me to put descriptions of common animals on my website because people were supposed to find out what things looked like "IC".  People argued that rangers would know this sort of stuff, and the justification was, if you knew that the giant lizard was a mek, or that the hunched whatever was a braxat, you wouldn't pick a fight with it, where you otherwise might IC.

Same for ginka fruit, horta fruit, various types of northern plantlife... if you knew it was poisonous, you wouldn't eat it, and learning IC would be preferred.

I guess now it's just a matter of degree.

[mansa]

It's probably better that those people simply don't participate in our forums if they can't abide by the rules.

I'd rather have a probation period.  Can't post for 24 hours or something like that.  You could up that to 72 hours, a month, a year, whatever.

Now, having said that, perhaps there's some uncertainty what is and is not sensitive IC information?  What do people think?  Are the rules of what is and is not acceptable (in terms of IC info) too vague and hard to understand?  Do we need to clarify them better?

I would like them clarified.  Can we talk about things that were once in the help files but are now removed?  Can we mention the different clans we used to belong to with characters long dead?  How long is long dead?  What about suspected reasons why things happened to your favourite characters?

Is that the reason why this keeps happening - because we're not clear enough?

I think so.  Should we even talk about characters we onced played?  What about the clan forums?  Do we post who we're playing and our typical playtimes in our clan forums, or is that too much information?

(or are some people just pushing the envelop just to see what they can get away with?)

I'm not pushing the envelope, because there are pretty clear examples in the past of what happens when you pass that.


I think the GDB became most popular in 2000, after the 'post your favourite' threads started poping up.  We started, or, at least, I started to associate the characters that I used to love and play with with the users who posted on the GDB.  Aol Instant Messenger was also a big play in the past, and before that, it was ISCA.

However, this is 'the offical armageddon discussion board' and it should be the example of what we should be able to talk about and what we shouldn't.  


What if there was a probation period handed out to users?

[Pantoufle]

Defining this notion of "IC sensitive" is so obscenely vague that it makes myself (and I'm confident I speak for other posters here) expect to receive a March of the IC Fascists for so much as even breathing.  It tickles me to tears when someone is accused of citing IC sensitive information in a thread when it happens to be in a public help file somewhere.  If I start talking about Cavilish being a guild_merchant skill, everyone and their brother is going to hound on me for daring to talk about something that is blasphemously IC.  Yet, honestly, is it really that big of a deal?  Are you truly going to lose any sleep if I post the fact that only guild_defiler can gather mana or that Red Storm is situated south of Allanak?  Actually, I think some people might, yet both pieces of information are publically available.

I find that policing IC sensitive information here, at times, approaches inconsistancy and injustice.  What is IC sensitive one day may not be the next, particularly when we're posting about different characters in the game (nevermind how long ago they died).  That isn't meant to be sheer criticism, rather a matter of fact statement about an issue I'd like to see changed (and am happy someone on staff has taken the initiative to ask how it can be improved).

I also find inconsistancies in what is considered offense language and what isn't.  I had a post edited once for using the word 'faggot' (which is American slang for homosexual, British slang for cigarette), yet lo and behold, encountered even more offensive words pertaining to gays in other posts.  I also don't think the word faggot falls under the category of 'offensive vulgarity', especially when standing along words such as fu**, sh**, or ni**er, some of which are used quite liberally here.  And that isn't to say I'm offended by such language, just that I think it's unfair to censor minor vulgarities (because it offends YOU) and disregard major vulgarities (because it doesn't offend YOU).

[Malifaxis]

I have never seen anyone get bitched at for stating anything truly obvious in the GDB.  Never seen anyone crucified for the cavilish mention.  I've never seen people strung up for Red Storm's location.  You're reaching for examples by grasping at straws... give it a rest.

I'd say 95.5% of the playerbase can define IC sensitive.  95.5% of the playerbase don't need to have it explained to them because it's flippin common sense.  Just like it's common sense that you cant sneak/hide out of an extremely guarded facility just because someone left a cell door open.  Just like it's common sense that no single dwarf can take out a bahamet.

Yet.. there is a 4.5% of the playerbase that does not understand.  That will sneak/hide out of The Guild's extradimensional demon lair.  That will take that 20 day twink dwarf out and murder a bahamet before hopping down to the silt sea for some mid day horror hunting.  Does this mean that we have to bind down the notion of "IC Sensitive" with bureacracy?  Terms and meanings?  The only thing that that will serve is for some of that 4.5% to get bored on ocassion and look for loopholes to exploit in the IC Sensitive terms and then act the martyr when they get treated as they should be.

And as for the dissertation on vulgarity:  There is a *clear* difference between shit, fuck, and faggot.  Shit and fuck are Neutral Vulgarisms.  Faggot is a Bias Vulgarism.  If you don't understand the border between the types, then that's a sad thing.  It's pretty clear to me.  One is simple, can be used for emphasis or punctuation.  The other type is specifically insulting to a group of individuals, one of which may have complained about the use.

And I would say that *most* of the censorship that goes on by the imms on the GDB is sourced from the complaints of other players.  If someone saw your famous faggot post and got offended, then they probably wrote in to the imms and said "This shit is fucked up, could you fix it."  

There's a bajillion players here who have been here for more than a year or two who understand the exact line that IC Sensitive is.  It doesn't NEED terms.  Drawing firm lines around something with so many obvious borders just gives more options for people to feel victimized by the imms.

"But, but what I said wasn't illegal!  Look, it's in the rules!"  Rules are the first thing that villians try to hide behind.

[jhunter]

I agree that it's too vague. It takes some time to figure out what's acceptable and what's not.

[Intrepid]

I do think we could use some clarification.  I've been made to feel, on more than one
occasion, that I was being needlessly cryptic about something while posting when a
poster would go ahead and post the exact thing I was trying to avoid revealing in
the first place.  It's rather frustrating, actually.

[Delirium]

I do think we could use some clarification.  I've been made to feel, on more than one
occasion, that I was being needlessly cryptic about something while posting when a
poster would go ahead and post the exact thing I was trying to avoid revealing in
the first place.  It's rather frustrating, actually.

While I agree with Malifaxis that it's largely an issue of simple (un)common sense, Intrepid has a good point.  I've been in this situation before as well.  I also get ragged on for being a stickler about not sharing code/gameworld sensitive info and limiting OOC contact, but as far as that goes, fuck 'em.  The game is far more enjoyable when you can go through the thrill of discovery and see it as an ongoing storyline, rather than "you know Laura's playing that evil defiler, right?  And Malifaxis over there, he's playing her love slave.  Oh, and you should practice seventeen times an hour for maximum skill benefits."

One is fraught with creativity and boundless imagination.  One is boring reality.

[Marauder Moe]

If you can't figure out if something is or isn't IC-sensitive, if you have even the slightest doubt, don't post it!

It really is that simple.

[Malifaxis]

Edited to add:
If any terms are evolved for the use, then I highly suggest that it be kept simple and easily interpreted.  Simple suggestions:  NO magick talk, code wise, effects wise, or IC referencing.  (all magickers are karma, simple reason)  NO sdescs, mdescs, names, or referencing events that are under one year dead/ended.  (and that's a really low estimate, I'd prefer it 1.5 or 2 years)  NO plotline discussion.  E-VAR.  NO IC popularity contests.

Any of these rules could be, naturally, set aside under direct staff mention:

"I want this thread to be the discussion of the psychological effects of the krathian diarrhea curse."  "Please give feed back to how the player base thinks 'the mansanian candidate' incident could have been handled better."

[Nao]

I think if you would explain a bit more WHAT exactly was too IC int hat thread you just locked and why exactly you did it, that would help a lot.

Examples?
Don't just lock a thread with the comment of 'there's been some stuff in here that's been too IC' - with a thread that went oer several pages, that's a bit vague and you don'T now what exactly was - the hints poster A gave, the information that would be common knowledge for your average nakki but isn't in the helpfiles that poster B gave or poster C, who wrote abotu completely different stuff? All of them? Something entirely different I didn't even think about?

Those comments like 'Please don't reveal the specific location of stuff on the GDB' or 'No talk about the guild - that's IC-sensitive, what your joe average would know is [insert stuff that's not too IC sensitive here]' that you give when locking a thread are a lot more clear so we as the players know what's allowed in the future and what isn't. Maybe even explain a bit more on a case-to-case basis, even if this IS a more work.

I see no way to give real guidelines for this without getting too strict (only reveal what's in the helpfiles, leaving out the very obvious stuff every commoner would know but that isn't in the helpfiles) or remaining as vague as it is now (don't reveal anything that joe average wouldn't know).

[marko]

I think the problem lies with what players may consider to be IC sensitive and what the staff considers it.  What I might think is fair game and acceptable to talk about someone else will have a different view.

I don't agree that 95 of the player base understands what IC sensitive is.  I know I don't.  Sometimes it seems to me that innocent information is blasted for being too IC and sometimes it seems that information I would consider to be sensitive is freely spouted.

I think the policy should be altered to give examples of what would be considered acceptable and what would be unacceptable.  Further, I think it should reinforce the concept of - if in doubt ask the staff privately via email.

What is interesting having read this I wanted to read the policy and couldn't find it within 30 seconds so I'll look about for it later.  With that in mind, if the "no IC-sensitive information" bit at the top of the page could be linked to the policy directly I think that would be very helpful as well.

I believe some baselines need to be established for the policy and those lines should not be crossed.  I suspect that each person has internalized what they consider IC-sensitive and thinks they know where the line is - but I don't think it is the same line for everyone.

As per vulgarity - I believe that is outside the bounds of a discussion about IC information.

[RunningMountain]

Marko has the right of it. And honestly, if people don't talk about stuff here, they'll find ways to talk about it elsewhere, whether it's aim, icq, etc.

[mansa]

And honestly, if people don't talk about stuff here, they'll find ways to talk about it elsewhere, whether it's aim, icq, etc.

Yes, but, THIS is the OFFICAL General Discussion Board.  This should be the example that everybody should look to, about IC/OOC info, because this is the only forum that is moderated by Armageddon Volunteers.

[Cenghiz]

Let me be the bitch here....

In my all involvements with staff, everything's vague.. IC sensitive? Most players can get it, right.. But not all..

Thread locked.. Good.. Why? Stuff edited.. Good.. Why? Note attached.. Good.. Why? Even sometimes karma added/docked.. Good.. Why?

I know staff is often way too busy to write a detailed mail/post of four pages about 'why'.. But sometimes 2 lines are more than enough.

Note: Still I have never seen a thread locked for information available to the whole playerbase. We have a map so everyone may see Red Storm's south of Allanak or we have the helpfile 'guild_sorcerer' so everyone may know sorcerers gather. They didn't know? It's itchy.. Aren't we supposed to read 'all' helpfiles for a better understanding of the gameworld?
And I'm nearly sure everyone knows why 'fuck' isn't that vulgar and accepted while 'faggot' is found offensive.

Note 2: Please never ever post information you 'assume' to be true. It's wrong 95% of all times.

[marko]

Thanks to mansa here is a link with what could be considered the baseline policy:

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=72576#72576

and

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=83582#83582

I believe these two posts should be combined to form the policy and have it linked from the "no IC-sensitive information" part of the board description.

I think we can all do with rereading these posts.

[ale six]

I think there is a bit too much spread of IC info, and I think in general most players know where the line is or ought to. More staff definition is a plus, but in general I think the line is drawn by common sense. Don't talk about your current PC, or any other current PCs, or any recently dead PCs. Don't post stuff that people could use to link you to any character/event in the game. Don't post logs. Don't post discussion or questions about IC events. Don't post information that can't be found in the docs or helpfiles. Basically, I think Malifaxis put things well.

[Intrepid]

If you found something out anywhere except the help files, even if it was on this gdb,
it's not something you should be discussing on here.

That's really the long and short of it.

[RunningMountain]

If you found something out anywhere except the help files, even if it was on this gdb,
it's not something you should be discussing on here.

That's really the long and short of it.

I disagree.

[mansa]

I too disagree.  The Web Page is full of useful information.

I originally had the idea to post a few 'spoilers' that are listed on the web page and also in the help file, but I decided against that.

A friend of mine who I look up to said this:

I think documentation, either obtainable from the helpfiles or the web site is stuff that your character COULD know, and is fair game for talking about on the GDB. The thing to be careful on is 'do you remember that cause you read it in a helpfile', or 'is it from some old character'.

I fail most because I sometimes post things that I learned a long time ago, which is now removed from the helpfiles and the docs.  Back in the day, ALL the psionic skills used to be able to be read from the help files.  NOW, you have to have the skill in order to read about it.  Back in the day, some descriptions about certain classes said they get certain spells, NOW, those spells aren't available for that guild, and the helpfiles have been modified to explain this.

And that's the reason why it's so confusing and hard to keep track of what is 'right' to say and what isn't right to say, at least for me, because I'm full of information that I learned, but I forget where I learned it from.

[Intrepid]

I meant the webpage as well.  I consider that a portion of the files used to help people,
but my morning brain did not register this when I wrote my aforemention statement.

[TheGivingTree]

I've always believed in the consensus: "You" know, but "your character" doesn't know. O_o A great majority already knows about the great noble houses and etc, but such knowledge are kept away from one's character, simply because of the common logic that occ knowledge are generally kept in the background. Tis a matter of politeness and courtesy. Well, maybe not all of us are kind and courteous in such a fashion, but I do keep faith that all of us are sensible adults who all agree to keep their in-game characters oblivious to outside knowledge.

[gfair]

The rules on posting IC information in the boards have always been perfectly clear and simple to me. And hopefully I haven't just stuck my foot in my mouth by having revealed information in the past, I think my record is clean.


That said, IMMs some times think one way and I think another and I don't get the full scope of what they are talking about. Halaster, could you and the other IMMs please elaborate on specific categories of IC information that you have seen posted recently to see if that is something that us players may not be fully aware of?


Intrepid's rule is the one I have always stuck to. Any information you get through your character is off-limits anywhere else but in your brain, it is totally unacceptable to post any information like that.

I even dislike the "Hey, thanks for the awesome RPT" or "To the Templar that helped me out yesterday, thanks" type of posts. Kudos are nice, but they can now be sent through the request form, at least kudos for IMMs can. Those sorts of posts reveal which GDB names were involved, and through past experiences it can sometimes be possible to pick out a player's style in-game, so if you know your stuff you can identify who plays which character through these sorts of posts.


But no way Halaster, the rules on posting IC information are plain and simple. We could create a policy, and also a thread in the forums for IMMs to add additional remarks about what is and isn't acceptable, and then point to those to read for new players and players who break the rules.

[Xygax]

Intrepid's rule is an excellent one.

Another good rule is, if you're unsure, then just assume it's too IC.

-- X

(of course, there are some helpfiles that only people who need access to them can read, so a good addendum to Intrepid's rule is -- only if it's a helpfile you can find in the web-based help docs)

[Hot_Dancer]

I think the criminals should be forced to post nude photos of themselves. That'll learn them.

Hot Dancer

[X-D]

I look good nude and simply have no modesty at all...so, not much of a threat there...where should I link the pics?

Myself, I normaly go with the when in doubt rule.

Though, I also have the same problem Mansa has.

I don't go check and see if something has been removed from the help files in the last 12 years. For the most part, if it was in there once it is still in there as far as my posting, unless the staff/weekly update says otherwise.

That being said. The funny thing is, the longer I play, the less I'm willing to give away...heh.

Another couple years and I Won't be willing to admit there is a giant steel dragon in nak.

[Bebop]

Hrm.  Even now I am not so clear on what has been posted that is IC sensitive.  The closest thing I have seen is the recent post where people were talking about PCs they liked.  And that got locked and I was confused because I thought it had been said it was done before o.O.  And then I was like oh, because some of the PCs may still be alive that is not good, but I thought it was okay because I didn't post anything to specific.  At least I didn't think so, and that it got locked and I was like oops.  I guess that crossed the line to post in that thread.

So... I would have to say I think things are perhaps a bit to vauge.  I really haven't noticed this problem myself.  But maybe I am just unclear of the specifics?

[Pantoufle]

There is a *clear* difference between shit, fuck, and faggot. Shit and fuck are Neutral Vulgarisms. Faggot is a Bias Vulgarism. If you don't understand the border between the types, then that's a sad thing. It's pretty clear to me. One is simple, can be used for emphasis or punctuation. The other type is specifically insulting to a group of individuals, one of which may have complained about the use.

I also find inconsistancies in what is considered offense language and what isn't. I had a post edited once for using the word 'faggot' (which is American slang for homosexual, British slang for cigarette), yet lo and behold, encountered even more offensive words pertaining to gays in other posts.

The only "sad" thing, as you put it, is that you've completely bypassed my point and put words in my mouth.  Doing so discredits yourself, however, rather than what your goal was, which was to discredit me.  As evidenced in my above quote, there are people who have used more offensive derogatory terms for gays than "faggot" and not been edited out.  The point of my post is about inconsistancies regarding censorship on this dicussion forum, be they pertaining to what is considered IC sensitive or the use of profanity, it makes no difference.  An inconsistancy is an inconsistancy.  Thank you for your polite and constructive reply, though.

[Jherlen]

This thread is about posting of IC-sensitive information, not language rules. We could get sidetracked into debating semantics and rules of moderation, if we really wanted to, but I would rather attempt to define a non-inclusive list of things people ought not to post, as a reference for GDB users.

[Bushranger]

fagot also faggot
Noun.

  1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
  2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I've previously used the word faggot In-Character in Armageddon. It is especially useful when talking about foraging for kindling, starting fires and other general lumberjack style RP. As an random example:

The bland, boring man moves around the agafari tree, picking up twigs and small broken branches from the ground as he finds them and ties them into a faggot with a length of hide cord.

OR

The bland, boring man lights a faggot of kindling with his bone torch and then blows upon it until a strong flame has taken hold. Then, with a grunt, he drags a heavy branch over the faggot to start a good-sized campfire.

Yes, the word does have slang terms attached to it. So do the words 'queer', ' 'bang', 'tart' and even (though not generally a term found in Armageddon) 'Snowball' yet these are not the primary use for these words. Just bringing this up because its been mentioned here and I do not think that it deserves a topic of its own. As Jherlen has said though, this thread is about IC-Sensitive information and I'll stop derailing...

NOW!

[Pantoufle]

Everyone forget what I said about the obscene language.  It was actually an attempt to reinforce the original topic itself, not get sidetracked.

[spawnloser]

That's great, bushranger...but when people use that word as slang, referring to a person rather than a bundle of twigs, they are no longer using an innocuous word.

I don't care who said what in the thread being referenced.  All I know, Pantoufle, is that you are defending your usage of a term you used in a biased, derogatory and hateful manner.

It doesn't matter that it was a derail.  Don't defend prejudice, or the appearance of prejudice.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that the rule "if you aren't sure if it's IC sensitive or not, don't post it" is a good one to follow.  I think the main problem is that most people are taking for granted the information they know from having played their characters.

A great example... There are several foods that are widely available in the North, but not in the South.  In the South, due to their relative rarity, they are very expensive, and often prepared - I would like to assume this is ICly due to the need to preserve them for long-term transport, but I'm sure at this point someone just grows them in the South, too...

But, either way, my poor as dirt PC had never had any exposure to these, so I, as a player had never had any exposure to these.  So, when I walked North and started rummaging around, and I found certain foods, I had no idea if I could eat them, or if they would kill me dead.  So I collected them and took them into the city and I asked people if they were safe to eat - or I sold them to people and watched them eat them and checked to see if they died from them.

But now, with everyone using these in their short descriptions (and I'm over this, really I am, it's just a convenient example), more and more OOC information is being posted about them so that people can figure out what is going on.  I doubt anyone thinks twice about this anymore, even if their character hasn't seen it.  The sense that, since a fruit is described in depth in the helpfiles or on the boards, means that everyone in the known world knows everything about it, is growing.  I feel like it cheapens the flow of IC knowledge in certain ways, even if it enhances playability and a sense of world in some ways.

Other than the ever-changing PC organizations or clans, and the occasional change to a zone, where are the mundane mysteries that made playing new characters fun?  Especially if everyone is just going to come onto the boards and talk about extensions of things that are available in the help files that might or might not be common sense or widely available OOC knowledge.

[Medena]

To carry along with Davien's line of thinking, I don't believe that "if it's found someplace in the documentation it's always okay" is a good rule of thumb either.  I remember back to when I was a relative noob and someone posted that Magicker Type X could cast a spell that did "such and such" with pretty explicit descriptors.  I made a post expressing my disappointment that this surprise had been spoiled for me and then had several people post retorts that it was found in the publically available magicker docs.  But that wasn't really the point.  I'd never read all the magicker docs because I didn't figure I'd be playing one for quite some time and I truly did feel that I'd been robbed of some of the mystery, of some of the potential joy of finding out myself one day.

I think people should give some thought to whether the info they are posting is something everyone really does know or ought to know, or is it something they might like to find out or experience for themselves.  There have been several threads lately where people have posted things that really cross the line and even though it has always been for the best of motives -- genuinely trying to help a new player or to address a perceived problem in the game -- this doesn't serve as adequate justification.

[gfair]

someone posted that Magicker Type X could cast a spell that did "such and such" with pretty explicit descriptors.  I made a post expressing my disappointment

I think people should give some thought to whether the info they are posting is something everyone really does know or ought to know

Since the person posting the description didn't find out about it IC, there was no breaking of the rule on sharing IC information.  This should be a separate thread, a thread on sharing help file information that is rare, or region-specific.

I see some merit to password restricting regional and magick helpfiles. You could put the passwords in House/clan helpfiles or their GDB area, which are already password protected, leaving only unclanned people who could get the necessary passwords from staff. Then declare those help docs to be IC-sensitive information (even if they aren't actually IC information).

You could then add a Magicker and Northerner/Southerner GDB areas that clan/House IMMs could also add when a PC joins the IMM's houses/clans. For unclanned people they could write to mud@arm and request to be added to these GDB areas, as needed.

Does this seem viable?

[ashyom]

someone posted that Magicker Type X could cast a spell that did "such and such" with pretty explicit descriptors.  I made a post expressing my disappointment

I think people should give some thought to whether the info they are posting is something everyone really does know or ought to know

Since the person posting the description didn't find out about it IC, there was no breaking of the rule on sharing IC information.  This should be a separate thread, a thread on sharing help file information that is rare, or region-specific.

I see some merit to password restricting regional and magick helpfiles. You could put the passwords in House/clan helpfiles or their GDB area, which are already password protected, leaving only unclanned people who could get the necessary passwords from staff. Then declare those help docs to be IC-sensitive information (even if they aren't actually IC information).

You could then add a Magicker and Northerner/Southerner GDB areas that clan/House IMMs could also add when a PC joins the IMM's houses/clans. For unclanned people they could write to mud@arm and request to be added to these GDB areas, as needed.

Does this seem viable?

If I read what you said right...You are incorrect in that this is not a breach of IC/OOC sharing policy.  If a PC cannot find out information about magick/spells ICly or via his access to helpfiles, then he should not be able to find out OOCly.
Ashyom

[Larrath]

If I read what you said right...You are incorrect in that this is not a breach of IC/OOC sharing policy.  If a PC cannot find out information about magick/spells ICly or via his access to helpfiles, then he should not be able to find out OOCly.
Ashyom

I can't fully agree with this.  Templars are a good example - I can't imagine any templar, Tuluki or (especially) Allanaki wouldn't have a pretty good idea of what magickers can and cannot do and what sorcerers can and cannot do.  But most templar PCs are probably not played by players who have prior experience with all other sorts of magickers, so I think it makes sense for the Templarate documentation to have some information about magick.

And sometimes helpfiles can say a little too much.  The paths of magick helpfiles are particularly at fault with this.

[EvilRoeSlade]

But most templar PCs are probably not played by players who have prior experience with all other sorts of magickers, so I think it makes sense for the Templarate documentation to have some information about magick.

It might make sense, but questioning magickers and determining their abilities In Game is a great activity for a templar.  Therefore though I refuse to disclose whether or not such documentation exists, I am or would be opposed to its inclusion in the documentation.

[Anonymous]

But most templar PCs are probably not played by players who have prior experience with all other sorts of magickers, so I think it makes sense for the Templarate documentation to have some information about magick.

It might make sense, but questioning magickers and determining their abilities In Game is a great activity for a templar.  Therefore though I refuse to disclose whether or not such documentation exists, I am or would be opposed to its inclusion in the documentation.

I agree.

And you have to understand that not every templar has the same exposure to magick, nor is the type of magick to which a templar is exposed necessarily the same type as that in use by your stereotypical street-mage.  This is another one of those cases where I feel like the assumption that because it is in the help files -everyone- knows it just plain sucks.

[Xygax]

If you believe the templar documentation should be extended to provide a "what you know about elemental magick" (whether there is such a document already, or whether it needs improvement, I haven't even looked, personally.  You'll find out when you're playing a templar.) section, I invite you to offer a submission of such a document for approval and addition.  Absent that, I would prefer that you play your templar PCs as ignorant of elemental magick beyond the few spells they personally know how to call upon their Sorcerer King to cast.  I emphasize that, because it highlights the fact that what some templars can do in the way of magick is NOT elemental magick, and therefore does not indicate any particular expertise in areas of elemental magick.

If you want to discover some tidbit about elemental magick ICly, go detain a magicker.

Always err on the side of -not- giving your character knowledge of things you're not sure they would know, please.  The result is a lot more fun.

-- X

[Xygax]

Oh.   And the above post holds for non-templar PCs also.

-- X

[gfair]

If I read what you said right...You are incorrect in that this is not a breach of IC/OOC sharing policy.  If a PC cannot find out information about magick/spells ICly or via his access to helpfiles, then he should not be able to find out OOCly.
Ashyom

No, Medena said that those people releasing the info justified it because it was in publicly available magicker docs (Which I assume to be found under the General Information link on the homepage). How could that be IC info?

I'm on the side of not releasing information. But if that information is available without a password, then it isn't IC info. If that's information that shouldn't be shared, then it has to have a pretty explicit warning on the page, or it has to be password restricted.

[MorganChaos]

I didn't read the whole thread, just the first page, so I don't know where the discussion is now. But it seems like I don't have a clear view of where the line is. Or at least, mine doesn't jive with the staff's. I happen to think it's okay to talk about buying a cloak. How many cloaks are bought on a daily basis? And I think it's okay to give an opinion when I'm thinking about a PC point of view, whether or current, recent past, or far past. And come to think of it, I don't think I know what the staff means by recent PCs either. If it's what I think it is, well, technically my first PC is recent (or very newly not-recent. Recent = less than an OOC year dead, right?), but she's out of living memory for any current PCs. This I know, because I would have noticed any PCs then that are still around now. Sure, there's NPCs who might remember her...but NPCs aren't goign to read the GDB, are they?

So yes. Clarification please. I may start emailing the staff to ask "is this okay to post?" if it has even a hint of IC info. And I'll still probably trespass. Because just recently I was told to edit something, and I stared at it and went "edit...what? There's nothing IC there..."

[Xygax]

You should try reading the rest of the thread, since there have been staff posts clarifying various issues.

-- X

[mansa]

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=68658#68658
I found this.  I'll quote it.

The line has indeed shifted over the years; I'm not sure you can ascribe a good or bad quality to the change.

When I started playing Armageddon, OOC chatter was a lot more frowned upon. Admitting that you knew another Armageddon player immediately led to suspicions of player collusion from the staff. When several people put up a room in another mud in order to chat about the game - not exchange secrets, but just chat  - the staff wrote threatening email about banning everyone involved.  

ISCA (a bbs) was pretty much the gathering place for people, and there wasn't a list of all the Arm players - you had to piece it together through reading the Mudding forum and looking at posts and profiles. This is the atmosphere in which the Thanas plot was spoiled - having seen that incident from the periphery, I'm well aware what a cool plotline it was and how easy it was for careless talk to ruin it.

At the same time there were several little in-groups (this is said from an outsider perspective, so take it with a grain of salt), such as the Blackwing, the gypsies, etc, who got to play on Sundays, which were "Quest Days". Only people with the staff stamp of approval got to play those days. Many of these little groups had their own docs; a certain organization who shall remain nameless, for instance, had published all the spell and skill trees on the web at one point, and caused scandal and talk until they came down.

Nowadays, it's a different sort of social arrangement. For one thing there are (imo) more RL friendships. There's some Arm people on my Christmas card; I'm married to another. And with that move towards increased openness comes problems. People like to say who they play; they like to swap stories. This is a normal human instinct and (imo) it's one of the main drives behind the APM.  

This does mean that instead of the model of a harsh and angry staff perpetually looking for cheating players, there is a model where the players are self-policing for the most part. I know there are still groups out there exchanging information; certainly I get plenty of tattles and forwarded email, or other clues appear. But people also lie and gossip and do other human things which are, imo, pretty unpreventable.

For the most part, I think we've got a pretty good system, with only a few pockets of OOC corruption here and there, and it's certainly a much more pleasant atmosphere. When we relaxed the "no free emails" rule, we were aware of the problems that would cause but figured the trade-off was worth it in order to keep the playerbase at a healthy level.

I'm more laissez-faire than some past staff, mainly because I'd rather mess around fiddling with aspects of the game than zorching characters or answering aggrieved emails about how player Z is really truly sure player Y is cheating.  If I had my druthers, no one would know who plays any other character, but I have no way of enforcing that.

The rule of thumb with the GDB is, imo, use a grain of common sense when posting. Are you describing something most players would not have seen? Is it something which would be cooler if you learn it in game rather than being told on the board? Is it going to cause a problem that will result in an email Sanvean will have to answer? Maybe you might want to reword it then. Common sense goes a long, long way.

[Anonymous]

I wish common sense were common.

[Intrepid]

Man, I remember those days.

I was on Isca and was unfairly accused twice--both my staff no less.  I am rather glad
calmer minds have prevailed since then.