The power emote

[Stroker]

Depending on the circumstances, it could be extremely poor rp.  If I was standing face to face, talking to someone in a small empty room and they vanished I'd have some serious questions.  In a crowded bar, or a dark alley, or with an appropriate leading emote it might feel a lot less jarring, and a lot more realistic.

What about Houdini? He can make a bahamet disappear in a crowded amphitheater - misdirection. Then again, maybe Houdini used magick.

[staggerlee]

The spirit of the staff's intervention was not simply that code trumps emotes, but that simulations of reality trump simulations of unreality, and specifically as regards emotes, in areas which the code handles well, that the code trumps said emotes. However, the code should not be trusted in areas where the code is recognized faulty.

Discussion as to what those areas are is still open.

Well said.

Simple fix. Tags for rooms that indicate either penalties to hiding or additions to scan. Make the flags scalable from 0 to 100.

I've always supported that idea.  I think that the main difficulty would be that it requires the staff to add a tag giving modifiers to every single room in the game. 
But yes, I really like it.

[Raesanos]

Hmm, I'm going to try to make a summary of the situation.

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.
If you think the code can be improved to be more realistic, let us know, but continue to use it.
If there is a bug, let us know.  We'll let you know what should be done until its fixed if appropriate.
If there is something the code doesn't handle, roleplay it.  If you and another player disagree on what should happen and there is no coded way to resolve it, ask for staff intervention.
If you found something the code lets you do but you don't think you should be able to do, don't do it.  Let us know so we can either let you know if it is / is not ok, and fix the code if needed.

And one last one, which I consider very important:

If someone else is doing something you don't think they should be able to do, give them the benefit of the doubt.  If it still concerns you, let the staff know and we'll investigate.  Don't assume someone is a bad player for this since you don't know the whole situation.  Don't complain about them on the GDB, because this benefits no one.

[lurkus ignoramus]

Ultimately, the code is there to make these decisions, because with the limited information that the game provides there is no way to authoritatively say what could and could not have happened.  Since this is a MUD rather than a MUSH or some other type of game, the code determines what actually happens.

If the code is coming to bad conclusions, the code should be adjusted.  Feel free to let us know about cases where you think the code is insufficient.  We try to make it as realistic as possible.

There are a lot of possibilities, so if the code says something is possible, a little imagination generally yields a plausible cause.  If you still think the code should be tweaked, again, the right thing to do is to let the staff know about it.

Anything is possible.  If you let the staff know about things that seem wrong rather than getting pissed off at the other person, things work out much better.

What in the above quotes implies what is stated in the one below?

The spirit of the staff's intervention was not simply that code trumps emotes, but that simulations of reality trump simulations of unreality, and specifically as regards emotes, in areas which the code handles well, that the code trumps said emotes. However, the code should not be trusted in areas where the code is recognized faulty.

Discussion as to what those areas are is still open.

[Troicha]

Look harder, I'm sure you'll find it.

[lurkus ignoramus]

...specifically as regards emotes, in areas which the code handles well, that the code trumps said emotes. However, the code should not be trusted in areas where the code is recognized faulty.

Where did Raesanos ever qualify a statement about code trumping emotes with a qualifier like "in areas which the code handles well"?

In the coded hiding vs. emoted scanning example, which player gets to decide which areas the code handles well?

Doesn't the following quote refute the stated inference that faulty code should not be trusted?

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.
If you think the code can be improved to be more realistic, let us know, but continue to use it.

Am I the only person who thinks emoting searching for someone who is codedly hidden and expecting them to show themselves is power emoting?

There are a lot of possibilities, so if the code says something is possible, a little imagination generally yields a plausible cause.  If you still think the code should be tweaked, again, the right thing to do is to let the staff know about it.

And one last one, which I consider very important:

If someone else is doing something you don't think they should be able to do, give them the benefit of the doubt.  If it still concerns you, let the staff know and we'll investigate.  Don't assume someone is a bad player for this since you don't know the whole situation.

Do we agree that coded hiding takes precedence over emoted searching yet?

Isn't emoting successfully searching for a codedly hidden person power emoting itself?

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.

[Salt Merchant]

The spirit of the staff's intervention was not simply that code trumps emotes, but that simulations of reality trump simulations of unreality, and specifically as regards emotes, in areas which the code handles well, that the code trumps said emotes. However, the code should not be trusted in areas where the code is recognized faulty.

Discussion as to what those areas are is still open.

My interpretation of this is that "simulations of reality trump poor simulations of reality".

In other words, there are areas where the code is definitely king.

However, there's an admission that while the code generally does fairly well, there are places it could be improved on. Some players have opinions on this and try to get around it with emotes. So players are advised to not freak out when this happens, instead ask the staff about it or suggest improvements to the code.

[staggerlee]

Lurkus, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're asking for heavy dominance of code over rp here.   And your quotes from the staff do support that.  That's what code is here for, to resolve conflict so that we can negotiate scenes without fighting over who can and can't do what.

But while we're quoting Raesanos  here...

If you found something the code lets you do but you don't think you should be able to do, don't do it.  Let us know so we can either let you know if it is / is not ok, and fix the code if needed.

I think that my freshly rolled assassin typing "hide" without so much as an emote when in a locked, empty room with a templar looking me in the eye, would qualify.
There are times that you shouldn't do something just because the code allows it.

In the cited example, I wouldn't bother to email the staff to ask, I'd just refrain from using hide.

If someone else is doing something you don't think they should be able to do, give them the benefit of the doubt.  If it still concerns you, let the staff know and we'll investigate.  Don't assume someone is a bad player for this since you don't know the whole situation.  Don't complain about them on the GDB, because this benefits no one.

Now... as the templar's player I wouldn't type OOC: WTF DUDE

I'd go through the rp of being totally shocked that this guy did this, and trying to figure out why and how.   I'd then politely contact the staff and advise them of the situation, so that if they were concerned they could make sure that it was appropriate behavior.



At the end of the day, I think that what Raesanos is suggesting is that we be mature and reasonable about how we handle things.

[Salt Merchant]

I think that my freshly rolled assassin typing "hide" without so much as an emote when in a locked, empty room with a templar looking me in the eye, would qualify.
There are times that you shouldn't do something just because the code allows it.

Here I would suggest that each room should have a hiding difficulty factor. A well-lit, empty room would take a magician to hide in. A dimly lit, crowded, smoky pub might allow even the unskilled a chance to hide.

I'd also suggest that the scan command not be instantaneous, but instead take time. The longer the scanning character continues to poke about, the more chance he has of spying something hidden, up to the limit of his skill.

[lurkus ignoramus]

I think that my freshly rolled assassin typing "hide" without so much as an emote when in a locked, empty room with a templar looking me in the eye, would qualify.
There are times that you shouldn't do something just because the code allows it.

Would a freshly rolled assassin's hide skill really function in this scenario?

Don't the Templarate have abilities that would negate the hide skill, if said newbie assassin were to somehow successfully hide?

Shouldn't a Templar looking a character in the eye use the 'watch' skill, making hiding, and this scenario, even more improbable?

Do I smell another scarecrow?

If a character can actually successfully hide when a Templar has them locked in a room and is watching them, aren't there plausible, but difficult to play out so that all parties involved have the entire scene, possibilities that could account for this?

Isn't that why we have this code in place?

If the code is faulty, weren't we told to report it but continue using it as is?

Lurkus, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're asking for heavy dominance of code over rp here.

Why don't you call me Ignoramus?

What makes you think that?

Isn't the idea behind hard coded abilities that the code enforces and arbitrates role play between players and the environment?

Why would one (code or RP) have dominance over the other?

Isn't the using the code still role playing?

How does this relate to power emoting?

However, there's an admission that while the code generally does fairly well, there are places it could be improved on. Some players have opinions on this and try to get around it with emotes. So players are advised to not freak out when this happens, instead ask the staff about it or suggest improvements to the code.

Doesn't the quote below inform us that we shouldn't be trying to get around existing code with emotes?

If you think the code can be improved to be more realistic, let us know, but continue to use it.

Isn't using emotes to "try to get around" code power emoting?

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.

Is repetition -really- key?

[lurkus ignoramus]

Can someone please fix my inability to edit my posts?

In the cited example, I wouldn't bother to email the staff to ask, I'd just refrain from using hide.

By not reporting loopholes, bugs, or unrealistic behavior in the code aren't you doing the game a disservice?

Don't the staff members need to know about the way code is perceived and functions in game to know how to improve it?

Wont the same issues keep cropping up if they are not addressed?

[Stroker]

Use your best judgment when dealing with these situations.

[Ghost]

lurkus can you put your thoughts into paraghraphs and explain in a rather plain sirihish rather than asking questions?

are you saying "use your common sense" is not enough for you?

have you heard about the weather code?

[lurkus ignoramus]

What is common sense?

Which players' 'common sense' rationalization takes precedence?

What is the point of code if not to arbitrate these exact issues?

Isn't it power emoting if you emote something in contradiction to the code?

What does weather code have to do with power emoting?

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.

Is that common sense?

[Troicha]

Have you read Aristophanes' Clouds?

Are you capable of constructive questioning rather than polemic division?

What sort of answer are you looking for when you ask questions about the differences in what is being said?

Can you clearly illustrate a true difference in position?

Is it possible that points of view converge towards the same goal despite being phrased differently?

What do you think the goal of the code is?

What do you think the goal of emoting is?

Do either of these aspire to be or aid 'roleplaying'?

What is 'roleplaying'?

[lurkus ignoramus]

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand?

[Troicha]

What does any of that not have to do with the discussion at hand?

[Jherlen]

Constructively:

There are scenarios that necessarily need to transcend the code. Lets say you have a character with the hide skill who gets cornered in a completely bare apartment. Anybody who isn't completely blind should be able to find your character in there, whether they have the scan skill or not. Unfortunately, the code isn't smart enough to determine how realistic it should be to hide somewhere. Whether you typed hide before someone 'watch'ed you, or even before anyone else entered, should not matter. If you are in that room, you should be able to be seen by anybody else in that room with eyes who is capable of 'look'ing around. They'd hardly need to 'scan'. (It'd be cool if we could implement the Salt Merchant's idea and set a hide difficulty for each and every room. Even cooler if the code could dynamically determine difficulty based on factors like furniture in the room, occupancy, light shading, how easy it is to cling to the ceiling, and whatever else. But the code isn't at that point, so let's not expect it to be.)

Another example: A character can get injured down to 1 hp, taking grievous wounds to several different body parts, from a nasty ferocious beast, like a mekillot. They can then get to safety, go to sleep, and be back at full health within ~20 minutes of realtime... which would be about two game hours. In other words, your character can have a near-death experience in the morning and go sparring or drinking with buddies, perfectly healthy, by midday. Should we trust the code (the current code, as it is now) to reflect somebody's "true" state of health in situations like these?

--------------------

And now to keep in the "spirit" of the thread:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a discussion about this with Lurkus that didn't result in endless questions?

Isn't it easier to talk with somebody if they will explain their point of view politely and concisely, in paragraph form?

Why do I suspect Lurkus Ignoramus is Psionic Fungus in disguise?

What is the meaning of life?

[Troicha]

I'm done now; my illustrative purpose is finished. I apologize if I disrupted any actual effort being put into the discussion on this thread.

[Ghost]

EDITED: nothing to see here, move along

[lurkus ignoramus]

Can you clearly illustrate a true difference in position?

However, the code should not be trusted in areas where the code is recognized faulty.

If you think the code can be improved to be more realistic, let us know, but continue to use it.

If you are hidden in a room, and a person walks in and starts methodically searching the room, you should reveal yourself even though they don't have scan and never in a million years will find you according to the code.

Someone that is doing a methodical search, that person is taking there time.  Someone that is hiding, would easily see that this person is searching and could move around the room still hiding to keep away from the person that is searching.  That is why there is code for these things, so that someone that has sharp eyes, can use the scan ability.  Where as the person that has the hide command, knows how to hide and get away from people that are looking for them.  Just walking in and saying you are searching for someone, doesn't mean you'll find them.

Even if the rooms have modifiers, unless you consider yourself to be the most uber elite assassin of them all, you should know when you are beat.  The code will let someone with a decent hide skill stay perfectly invisible no matter what happens against a person with no scan skill.  The code is not a catch all.  It doesn't take everything into consideration.  It looks at a small handful of variables, rolls some dice, and ignores everything else.  You, as a reasonable human, should be able to spot when the code is going to fail in properly resolving the situation by acting accordingly.

If there is something that the code handles, use the code.
If you think the code can be improved to be more realistic, let us know, but continue to use it.
If there is a bug, let us know.  We'll let you know what should be done until its fixed if appropriate.

And one last one, which I consider very important:

If someone else is doing something you don't think they should be able to do, give them the benefit of the doubt.  If it still concerns you, let the staff know and we'll investigate.  Don't assume someone is a bad player for this since you don't know the whole situation.

Lets say you have a character with the hide skill who gets cornered in a completely bare apartment. Anybody who isn't completely blind should be able to find your character in there, whether they have the scan skill or not. Unfortunately, the code isn't smart enough to determine how realistic it should be to hide somewhere.

Do "completely bare apartments" exist?

Are there virtual objects, rafters, curtains, windows, or any other possibility you aren't thinking of?

Weren't we told to give people the benefit of the doubt when the code supports them?

In other words, your character can have a near-death experience in the morning and go sparring or drinking with buddies, perfectly healthy, by midday. Should we trust the code (the current code, as it is now) to reflect somebody's "true" state of health in situations like these?

The staff says yes, and what is the alternative, do we treat them like they're half-dead for an IC month, even though they are sparring and running around as usual?

What is their "true" state of health and how is it determined if not through the code?



Do we agree that coded abilities have more weight than emotes when determining a scene?

Is attempting to "get around" code, such as emoting searching for a codedly hidden person and expecting to them to reveal themselves, power emoting?

Can we attempt to stay on topic, please?

[jstorrie]

Can we get some more questions up in this thread, please?

[Ghost]

Do "completely bare apartments" exist?

Are there virtual objects, rafters, curtains, windows, or any other possibility you aren't thinking of?

Can you think of -one- apartment where someone who is ready to trash the entire place from top to bottom can not find a person?

How about an apartment in zalanthas?

Can we get some more questions up in this thread, please?

Should I start answering any question from this point on?

[lurkus ignoramus]

Don't most Zalanthan apartments have built in furniture?

Don't Zalanthan's with a decent hide skill have super-human stealth abilities when compared to real life?

Why isn't the staff's word good enough on this issue?

[Troicha]

So no, you can't. Pity that. I'll attempt to be clear, then.

The code should be trusted when it yields a realistic result. The code should not be trusted when it yields an unrealistic result. In the event of the code yielding an unrealistic result, the staff should be informed.

The questions I see as worthwhile pursuing are these:

What constitutes a realistic result? Can we give a clear, useful definition of that without relying on examples, since examples are often flawed or potentially flawed in ways difficult to see?

Who decides what constitutes a realistic result?

Who decides if a result is realistic as defined above?

What is proper form for dealing, in the moment, with code which yields an unrealistic result?

There are possibly others. I will attempt these below.

##

A realistic result is one which, taking into account all situational variables, most closely models how things would turn out in 'real life,' while also considering and allowing for playability (or ease of resolution, if you prefer that term, meaning roughly: maintaining the ease and fluidity of interface with the game world by the players) and certain environmental constructs of the game world for which we as players give suspension of disbelief, e.g., magick.

While the staff have the authority to make changes to the MUD, the entire playerbase is continually involved in deciding what constitutes a realistic result. This is the case because we all live in the 'real life' upon which realistic results are supposedly based, and we all play the MUD. When the exact parameters are set out, I doubt very much that there is widespread disagreement in any example as to what constitutes a realistic results, the above posts notwithstanding. I can give a few such examples if desired.

Ultimately, the staff decides (in the sense of having  authority of enforcement, rather than forming an opinion) whether or not a result is realistic, and they do this by giving us roleplay guides, of which the code is one. The object proper of this MUD (if such a term can be used in this sense) is roleplay, or the fostering of roleplay. Other guidelines, which function through different mechanisms, are documentation, the concept of the game world, and specific concepts such as 'vNPCs'. Opinions on how these function and how much influence these have is where the majority of disagreements form.

I don't know the answer to this question; perhaps we can get an answer from the staff regarding it. Assume when answering this question that the code has actually failed in the aims set forth above.

##

Why is anything I just said relevant?

The "power emoting vs. code" argument is a subset of the structure defined above. It closely follows questions two, three, and four, though not so far stated as such, and deals with question one purely in the realm of specifics.