Enough is Enough

[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.