Out of Character and you... the grey of grey areas.

[Gravity]

Be smart.

Be mature.

Consider the consequences of your actions.

Don't talk about shit you think is probably borderline.

I know these are really unhelpful, vague things to say, but we can't underestimate the importance of just being responsible adults.

[Riev]

Again, I think the majority of people understand the "We shouldn't talk about the game because it can ruin things". The reminders are nice, and the examples that AREN'T ALWAYS THE ONLY ONE ANYONE HAS EVER WRITTEN are helpful.

I think the issue is still how to make it happen less often, not "how to eliminate it altogether". The idea of delineating offenses is a good one, fixing Original Submissions is another, and having a place where things CAN be talked about under staff supervision help as well. There are things that have happened in the game that some other player could extemporize on or at least attempt again, but without knowing what has ever happened other than "what a bunch of NPCs did, in a staff story, behind the scenes" there is only so much that can happen.

I hate to be 'that guy', but it sounds like one of the vocal cliques here are the ones that have had plots ruined by OOC, and KNOW it was ruined by OOC, which means someone TOLD them it was.

I harken back to an old story where I was playing a PC (I think I have the right one) that was kicked out of Tuluk for something that he had no part in, joined the Byn and had a mental breakdown there, and finally attempted to join Salarr. Unfortunately, the Salarri in charge was not fond of paying protection coin to a group of people that prefer it otherwise. So on my like 2nd RL day in the clan, I was told to buy some rocks somewhere, and was OneHitKilled by a backstab.

I had NO idea what happened. You get no mention that anything happened other than a mantis head. I knew I was dead because I couldn't log in, but I had no idea what happened. I pulled a LOT of strings to at least get the information that it was basically "wrong place wrong time" because my boss wasn't paying her bills. I missed my plots with that character, but they died for something and I was glad to know it. I take the game seriously, but I don't take myself seriously. Staff were not willing to share with me WHY I died or anything that happened. I ADMIT to using OOC channels to find out what happened, and I would honestly do it again. The fact that normally I'd have to wait MINIMUM one year to find out why I got 0-prompt killed on a PC that hadn't done anything to make enemies yet would, if I were a new person, outright kill my mood to play.

I know Staff and Players alike put energy into plots. And I can't imagine how it feels when they get destroyed (because I'm terrible). But its something that WILL happen, regardless of what rules you put in place. So put in official guidelines and loosen restrictions so it CAN happen without too much issue.

[Armaddict]

While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively.

A lot of things done by both staff and players can have very real negative impacts on the game and its community, I agree.  As noted, 90% with you on this topic.  The extent to which posts in this thread seem to say otherwise is that overdoing it is just as harmful, which I happen to agree with.  Do not start treating benign cases of adults playing video games as hostile entities because of not liking their actions.  They are just your players enjoying the game.

Note:  Benign cases.  That's a qualifier, I'm not condoning that everyone should just be allowed to be a chatterbox wherever they want.  I've had some things ruined/misled by (mis)information posted elsewhere, where just because someone was allowed to post it, other people took it as absolutely qualified to make the post and that they were in-the-know because they posted.

[BadSkeelz]

While I appreciate that players are pointing out the difference between intent, the fact of the matter is that even "social chatter" can affect the game negatively. It is possible to piece together the details of a plot by getting bits of the story from a variety of players. Characters who do this ICly are often called aides or spies; people who do this OOCly are often called cliques. I'll leave it to players to decide what they would rather be.

Here is a very old story about a plot being ruined by seemingly innocent OOC chatter. Sometime later today/this weekend, I will write a series of posts about plots that have been spoiled or ruined in this manner in my time as a staff member (so, the past couple of years) and post them in this thread. I will leave out player and character names, but all other facts will remain. I will ask that players don't identify themselves or others that are in these stories.

Many times, I've heard players say they'd like to be able to see behind the scenes of Armageddon. That they'd like to be able to find out what the whole story is.

This will be a chance to see one small part of the world, that you probably haven't seen before. I'm going to tell you about a quest, some of the motivations behind it, and the actions that transpired. Why am I going to do this?

Because some people were talking on isca, and spread some OOC info. I could continue the quest even with people knowing what they've heard there, but it just won't be that much fun for anyone involved, myself included. Those players spreading OOC info effectively killed the quest.

I hope that you take the time to read this, and that the next time that you are in a situation where you might feel like telling someone something that happened In Character, that you will think about how you may be ruining someone else's fun.

There was a dwarf, a defiler, named Freil. He used his magick to put people to sleep and rob them, while he slowly grew in power. For over 5 months his attacks in Tuluk and Allanak had people hunting for the sorcerer, although none knew what he looked like. Freil had his own motivations for his actions, most of which was to extend his life, as the old dwarf was nearing the end of his days. I would give you his whole life history, but this post will be too lengthy already.

Finally, Freil got overly greedy, and set upon a group of 4 Jkarr who were outside of the city. One was able to see the invisible dwarf, and Freil fled, angry that after several years of robberies, his description was now going to get out. He tried to talk the Jkarr into saying that he'd killed Freil, in exchange for money and help, but the Jkarr refused. At this point, probably 15 or more players were involved in the quest, either hunting Freil, or having been targets of his.

It is at this point, that the first player who engaged in the OOC talk that ultimitely ruined the quest, became involved. PC1 walked widely through the streets of Tuluk, asking people if they wished to go "hunting defilers", and one of Freil's spies heard him, and reported it to the dwarf. PC1 was ambushed on the road, and his backpack stolen while he slept a magickal sleep. Several more encounters between the two took place, Freil managing to stay a step ahead of PC1. Freil again, tried to bribe PC1 into telling others Freil was dead, but PC1 refused, and boasted of killing other sorcerers, and what he'd do to Freil. At this point, Freil grew so angry at PC1, that he dedicated his focus to ruining PC1's life.

Freil, in searching to extend his life, developed a new magick. He gained the ability to create an image of PC1, though the cost was great. It would only last for a short time, but Freil was able to control the fake-PC1 while his body lay dormant, for periods up to an hour or two.

Several times, the fake PC1 went forth, insulting friends, and causing trouble. Freil's goal was to eventually make things so bad for PC1, that his own friends would kill him.

Freil also never gave PC1 rest, and several times tried to drag PC1 away from his friends, put him to sleep, then defile the land until he could create the fake-PC1, and send him back in.

It was soon after this, that PC1 and PC2, out hunting for Freil, were attacked by undead from an entirely different source. PC2 sent out a message to a third person (PC3), telling him that they were probably going to die, and to pass on some final words to a loved one of his if they didn't make it out.

They made it out, although PC 3 was not around at the time to know it. PC1 and PC2 went on to have several very high-profile adventures over the next few real life days. PC1 and PC2 though, went out exploring some more, and managed to get themselves killed. No one knew where they had gone, or that they were dead.

I, as an immortal, knew they had died. However, Freil had no way of knowing, and so he continued using the fake-PC1 to set the character up. I was very gratified to see the puzzled reactions of some of PC1's friends as he told them he'd struck an agreement with the defiler, but that they couldn't talk about it until he said it was safe (so that they wouldn't mention it again to the real PC1).

I planned to continue like this, and saw many possibilities for if Freil and the fake-PC. I guesstimate that over 20 characters had been involved in the quest to this point, and if I played the fake-PC well, I could probably involve a lot of players in the game.

Until... I log in, and hear people talking about how both of these characters are dead. PC3, who had been told the two were dying, had heard OOC that they'd died. Because of this, he never bothered to ask around to see if they were still alive. He instead just started telling people they were dead. If the players of the 2 dead PC's had not spread the word on ISCA they had died, PC3, who heard of the other adventures these 2 had had after their close call, would have inquired as to the timing, and found out they had been seen for IC weeks after he'd received the contact. Indeed, soon after their death, the fake-PC1 showed up and was seen by at least 10 players.

Well, now that everyone knows they are really dead, it really does make it hard me to run the quest. Those people who were directly interacting with the fake-PC1, would have had a lot of fun, I think, as they gradually figured out their friend wasn't what they thought he was. But now they know he is really dead, even OOCly, they were robbed of the chance to figure it all out on their own by the OOC actions of all 3 players.

That is why I'm posting this. That is why I'm taking the time to tell you the whole story. When you talk OOC, you are screwing over your fellow players. Even seemingly insignificant things like this, hurt the game, and ruin other people's fun.

The next time you find yourself in a situation where you want to tell a friend something that happened on the mud, please remember this story. We all love Armageddon, and it is natural to want to talk about it. But maybe you can reminesce about a character who is long dead instead, and save that new tale for somewhere down the road.

- Thanas

If Freil had just killed PC1 instead of trying to be a magickal tryhard everything would have been fine.

And are you for sure that PC3 learned that his friends were dead OOC? It sounds like Pc3 was told IC that they were dying, and then never got IC confirmation that that was not the case. Going around treating them as if they were dead seems acceptable. And it would still have "ruined" the plot.

Addendum: This example really just seems to prove the point that plots only become "ruined" when things go off script to the disgruntlement of the plot-runner.

[Malken]

There's still plenty going on in the game.  
Edit: Mostly, just wanting to point out that lack of talking on the GDB about IC events doesn't mean nothing cool is going on, but to keep things...
On topic:  Spoiling plots sucks unless it's in the name of your own plot/personal story (i.e. It's still progressing a narrative).  Don't ruin things to try and win the game.  On the same note, don't assume everyone who ruins your plot is just out to piss in your cheerios or win the game.  It's demoralizing when you finally do something of note with a character that you hope will springboard into great things, only to have everyone get pissed off that their fun time ended and accuse you of ruining the game just because you could.

While I understand what you're saying and that I trust you when you say 'there's still plenty going on in the game', those are just your words and they don't really affect me much (in a way that would make me want to come back)

If you want to know what used to make me come back to the game and what tickles me in a way that'd totally makes me miss the game, go to the Jcarter & friends site and read some of Desertman's stories about his character Koman Locke - That's the kind of stuff that totally makes me miss the game but that stuff rarely if ever happens anymore on the GDB, so any form of hype is completely dead.

The GDB now for me is mostly just a bunch of people I barely know complaining about random stuff in their life or which video games they are currently playing.

[SuchDragonWow]

Frankly, if you care more about your plots than your players, you're looking at it back asswards.  Staff and player run plots almost never work out to exact detail, and the corpses of dead plots are like a sea of slaughtered chalton.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it, but plots are not perfect by design.  A player, on the other hand, can light up the game for a decade or more.

Nobody likes collusion.  I'm sure even the people who do it are under some self-delusion that they're doing it because "other people are doing it, so I have to" or "staff is against me".  If you have clear evidence of it, by all means, punish it.  But you're not going to stop people from talking about the game, as this is a community that often has no other social outlet in regards to this game.  How many of you, including staff, have never talked about the game to another player?

The grey area will always be grey, because it's something that has to be self-policed.  We have to be responsible for ourselves.  If you alienate people for talking about the game, you're going to have all these shiny plots, and nobody to take the helm.  I don't believe this is something you can recruit snitches among the playerbase to fix.  I don't think you can ink in a few one-size-fits-all punishments, and expect it will resolve itself.  We have to, as a community, illustrate the best ways to teach new (and old) players how to take on the responsibility, and use the correct judgment in conversations.

And lastly, expect mistakes.  Your players are humans, not robots.  There will be mistakes.  How you address them will ultimately determine the quality of the game we're playing.  My advice is to lead with a warning, and a discussion about player responsibility.

[Synthesis]

1.  Desire to share experiences

2.  Desire to figure things out

3.  Desire to achieve things
3a.  Massive benefit to cooperating to achieve things
3b.  Cooperation is logistically simpler OOC than IC.

4.  Very little in the way of secure IC comms
4a.  Obvious massive benefit to secure comms
4b.  OOC secure comms are logistically far simpler than IC methods

5.  Difficulty of enforcement

6.  Ease of OOC communication
6a.  Sometimes massive benefits to OOC coordination

Doubt it will ever change.  It seems to have gotten somewhat better, but maybe I'm just not in with the cool kids anymore (not that I ever was).  Human behavior is what it is.  You can lament it all you want, but it's not going to change significantly.

[Armaddict]

If you want to know what used to make me come back to the game and what tickles me in a way that'd totally makes me miss the game, go to the Jcarter & friends site and read some of Desertman's stories about his character Koman Locke - That's the kind of stuff that totally makes me miss the game but that stuff rarely if ever happens anymore on the GDB, so any form of hype is completely dead.

The GDB has never really been the place for game-hype generation.  It's a place where the community meets to discuss/argue about things in the game world, but not necessarily things within the game world (I think someone was making this distinction earlier and how strange that it was, but with the prevalence of the need to keep IC things IC, it makes sense).  Frankly, Malken, you've talked a long time about 'Well, I'd come back if...' or 'I sometimes want to come back but...' so that you're like a bad, on the fence ex-girlfriend.  You already know what's in the game, you already know whether or not you enjoy it, but you like using discussion of it as a way to set conditions.  If you feel like coming back, come back.  But the GDB's role is not as a hype-generator for you to lurk on and draw you back.  It's for current issues or discussions of the game and its facets, and that's that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------EDIT: Separating response from on-topic------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mostly, I concur with Synthesis, but not to the same degree, I don't think.  I still don't -want- IC things spread around all over the place.  You could cut off fingers on one of my hands, and you could still count the number of people I'm in contact with OOC'ly on that hand.  There are occasional PM's here on the GDB, but they drastically lean towards discussion of GDB topics or broad generalities about the game.  This isn't because of sheer integrity or fear of staff, but because I've seen players do really shitty things in the past based off of OOC info, where I would always assume they wouldn't (the IRC days with Delerak and company were not high points of my arming tenure).

With player viewpoints voiced as they are, I think perhaps a new method of dealing with it may be in order.  Less of the hammer based on logos, and more of the pathos and ethos of the community.  If staff think they're seeing an example of it occurring, then open up a secure communication between the one harmed and the one harming.  Get a deposition from the one who was wronged by the use of OOC info.  Have them explain positions to each other, what was ruined, etc, without revealing identities in the least.  While this may seem flimsy, it opens up those cases where you think your good intent shields you from doing harm, and if you are indeed having good intent, this should open up the path to realizing that you did negatively impact the situation.  Most of us seem to have a good deal of love for the game, and best intentions for our place within it.  Feeling empathy for another's position, rather than feeling defensive over what may be false assertions, seems a more reliable way to correct bad instances of sharing.

Meanwhile, what this also does is put a burden on the staff before jumping to the conclusion that this is OOC collusion or abuse of ooc info, because the very act of disciplining it/correcting it grants exposure to OOC info.  You're going to be sure before doing it, instead of assuming it because of first appearances and emotions on how something turned out.  Overall, this may be an incredibly unhelpful system, but it at least exemplifies a much better treatment of both the game and the players than 'We suspect this.  Punishment ensues.  Your defenses are suspect because we suspect this.'  Because whenever this topic comes up, this is the part that I -actually- have a problem with, because it is -never- the actions of players that make me want to leave this game.  It is always interactions I have with staff.

tl;dr
If OOC sharing is as super prevalent as it once was in the game, I'd be appalled.  But maybe that's just because I've been so far removed from the whole AIM/ICQ/MSN/IRC community of Arm for long enough that I no longer notice that kind of behavior in game as much as when people used to outright coordinate attacks on pc's via ooc channels.  But I think the best move for staff isn't to come down harder with bigger catapults against the walls of the OOC community; we should be trying an altogether different approach based on shared values of the integrity of the game.  When that happens, it will be painfully clear who simply doesn't have those values of the game.

[nauta]

Re: Nergal's example.  (Examples are good!)

If I were staff, what would I have done?

First, as BadSkeelz pointed out, this could have not been OOC collusion at all.  If someone ways me to say they are going into a dangerous place and might not return, and then I don't find their minds for the next couple of days, I assume they are dead, and might even go around saying so.  There's a tricky thing about the way here, something that has always bothered me -- a few things: if you are close to someone, you should be able to way their family to see if they check in, etc., etc.   But in any case, it does seem that the player in question who went around stating that his friend was dead should be given a benefit of the doubt here.

Now, even so, this is suspicious, right?  So, what would I, as staff, have done?

o Make a note -- a permanent record -- stating the suspicion.

o If this is the first note of such nature, ignore it.

o If there are other notes of such nature, then it is time to either approach the player or monitor them more closely.

How would I approach the player?

In this particular case, granted the reasonable assumption of innocence, I likely wouldn't.  But if I did, I would come to them with the full explanation up front in a manner that isn't accusatory.  Look, here's what happened when your PC went around advertising Bob's death.  This, in fact, ruined the plot.  I'm not sure if you assumed Bob was dead or if you were colluding, but here's our nice little FAQ about collusion and how even the littlest things can ruin plots and fun for staff and players.

[Iiyola]

Maybe we could have an Allanak/Red Storm/Luirs subforum?

[Jihelu]

Maybe we could have an Allanak/Red Storm/Luirs subforum?

I'm not sure how this would work.
I'd like it though.

[Ath]

So I've been sticking back and just reading for now... I haven't had too much to weigh in on, but I will add a few points.

In no way would I ever tell someone to not talk about the game at all.  I'd be guilty of that... shit, a few players that I've met know I'd be guilty of that.  I love talking about the game, I will talk about things that are kinda IC related, but I won't talk about something that could very likely have IC consequences.  I am not going to talk about the Psion that has been very active in the game.  I'm not going to talk about how I did this cool thing that will likely get someone killed.  I will talk about some awesome past characters, some neat things I did in game, and talk about some great riots that happened in the game recently.  Now I mentioned something that is recent... yes... I did.  This is an item that is public, it's on the boards...  this is something that someone could easily find out IC, so something like that I'm not worried about.  I'm not going to talk about my current character and his plot to kill Noble Fancypants Poopsmith.  Lastly, I'm not going to ask the player I'm talking with to see if they'd like to work together IC.  I can already see everyone's characters, so that cat is already out of the bag... so I don't care if a player talks recent events with me, as long as they are not near my own character.  I'll warn them if it does come near it though, as I don't want things spoiled for my own character... but you'll have to understand, it happens more than you realize.  (I accidentally found out one time that another player was out to kill my current character at the time... holy crap can that be hard to deal with.)

I hope you guys can see the difference here that I'm trying to explain.  The hope is that we can prevent people from spoiling a bit too much with other players.  To stop the people that intentionally talking OOC with each other about current events that will likely affect their character.

[Reiloth]

I think akin to saying 'Did you watch last week's Westworld? Did you get to the part where X happened?' sometimes people unintentionally ruin things simply because they don't know where the line is drawn in the sand. I think people who are veterans of the game have figured this out over time -- We've crossed the line, seen what the line is mostly, and know when to draw back.

However, I think because there isn't a base line, there isn't a document stating 'This is what OOC Collusion looks like', there's just the one story of Freil posted over and over again from 10+ years ago (15+?), there isn't anything beyond a speculative, eye-of-the-beholder line. Some people who are new don't even understand there should be a line, or why there is that line that shouldn't be crossed.

So -- I do think that spelling things out nicely would help everyone.

I do think Nergal posting more recent examples would help as well -- Having more than one ancient anecdotal story would help.

[Lizzie]

So I've been sticking back and just reading for now... I haven't had too much to weigh in on, but I will add a few points.

In no way would I ever tell someone to not talk about the game at all.  I'd be guilty of that... shit, a few players that I've met know I'd be guilty of that.  I love talking about the game, I will talk about things that are kinda IC related, but I won't talk about something that could very likely have IC consequences.  I am not going to talk about the Psion that has been very active in the game.  I'm not going to talk about how I did this cool thing that will likely get someone killed.  I will talk about some awesome past characters, some neat things I did in game, and talk about some great riots that happened in the game recently.  Now I mentioned something that is recent... yes... I did.  This is an item that is public, it's on the boards...  this is something that someone could easily find out IC, so something like that I'm not worried about.  I'm not going to talk about my current character and his plot to kill Noble Fancypants Poopsmith.  Lastly, I'm not going to ask the player I'm talking with to see if they'd like to work together IC.  I can already see everyone's characters, so that cat is already out of the bag... so I don't care if a player talks recent events with me, as long as they are not near my own character.  I'll warn them if it does come near it though, as I don't want things spoiled for my own character... but you'll have to understand, it happens more than you realize.  (I accidentally found out one time that another player was out to kill my current character at the time... holy crap can that be hard to deal with.)

I hope you guys can see the difference here that I'm trying to explain.  The hope is that we can prevent people from spoiling a bit too much with other players.  To stop the people that intentionally talking OOC with each other about current events that will likely affect their character.

Sadly, the people who -do- talk intentionally for the collusion, aren't going to respect the kind requests of those who would rather not. If they don't talk to you, they'll talk to somene else. They will eventually find like-minded people to collude with, and collusion will occur. These people are either a) not reading this thread at all, b) read it and think "yeah except, this isn't about ME, it's about those OTHER colluders," or c) read it and snicker about how the rest of us are butt-hurt over a game.

Hopefully though the ones who don't do it intentionally, but sort of just get carried away, will be a) reading this, b) recognize themselves in it, and c) not snicker but instead, reign it in a bit.

[Ath]

And those are the one that the hammer will come down on once we find them out.

[nauta]

Also, to pick up some things said about from Patuk and others:

I'd lean more on the side of taking it easy vis-a-vis the whole collusion punishment thing, and just focus on those who break a given rule in clear cut cases -- looting your own corpse, knowing the cure for heramide as a rinther, etc.  I recognize that it sucks to have a plot ruined, one that you have invested a lot of time and energy into.  But, from the other side, getting accused of something also sucks.  A lot.

o You risk alienating players who are actually innocent.  I've had my run-ins with staff, and I can tell you: nothing burnt my desire to tell a story more than this.

o You risk placing too much emphasis on winning over storytelling by adopting the assumption that someone is out to win.

o To a lesser extent (as mentioned above by some other people), those who do collude intentionally are doing so out of a zeal and love of at least one aspect of the game.  As long as it doesn't manifest in an actual ruined plot, it actually has the counter-intuitive-seeming effect of drawing more excitement into the game.

[Lizzie]

And those are the one that the hammer will come down on once we find them out.

I'm totally outing you to the player of Lord Fancypants Poopsmith.

But yeah - if you catch'em because they are truly -that- dumb, they deserve the hammer.

To those who are challenging the veracity of the Freils the dwarf story - it happened. You can say "what if" til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, the "what if" has no relevance here. It DID happen as reported, it's a legend of a story, it DID ruin plotlines, and it WAS caused by OOC collusion.

There have been other situations that - if you were on staff and logged in at the times, would have seen blatant collusion activity. Examples (hypothetical, but some variation of this stuff HAS happened):

Amos the Ranger is out hunting in the Grey Forest. Amos finds himself being attacked by an aggro critter. He gets down to 0hps and 0 stun points, and the mob stops attacking (as some mobs do).

Less than a minute later, Amos's girlfriend Talia (who wasn't in the game at the time) logs in and, with zero RP, not a think, or an attempt at Waying Amos, goes to the stable, gets her mount, and rides to the exact spot where Amos is, kills the mob, bandages Amos, and they go back to their apartment to mudsex.

Story two:

Nancy the gemmed rukkian is hobnobbing with Lord Templar Poopsmith at the Dome. Lord Templar Poopsmith goes AFK for around 15 seconds. During this 15-second period of time, Randy the Rinthi logs in and makes his way out of the rinth toward the Dome. Poopsmith returns to the scene and walks Nancy out. At the moment they arrive in sight of the road, Poopsmith gets a poisoned arrow in his neck, and Randy the Rinthi runs back to the rinth.

There's no "what if" going on here. It's pretty obvious that Randy shows up outside the Dome, because someone told him out-of-game to log in and show up there. It's obvious that Amos told Talia in IM that he was almost dead and needed rescuing, told her -exactly- where to find him, and she logged in and did exactly that.

Those are the things that you shouldn't NEED any discussion or warning over. They're against the rules, and it's obvious that's what you did, so the first time you're caught doing it, you are informed "You and Talia's player are no longer allowed to play in the same clan, AND we'll be watching you for a few months." and "Randy Rinthi player can't play in the Guild anymore, and Nancy you can't play a rukkian for awhile. Karma options are earned partly via trust, and you just lost some of that with us. AND we'll be watching you both for awhile."

[Armaddict]

When you frame it like that, it could be obvious, sure.  But I've also been that guy who randomly logged in to suddenly find myself immediately wandering into a shitstorm of things.

Make it more grey, because that's how it will normally be.  What if person A and person B are almost always checking for each other upon logging in?  When person B logs in, and checks in with person A, and gets told this is going on, and immediately moves to react, do you now make the assumption they were in contact and person A told them to log in?  Or is it circumstance?

In my experience, it is sometimes left alone, but in the case that it did just essentially change/end someone's plot, it can be assumed it was collusion even though it wasn't.  As nauta said, that's an incredibly shitty feeling, having a long-standing trend in behavior reduced to ooc collusion because of the circumstance at the time and the disappointment in how things ended.

I'm saying the hammer can come down on those in cases like your first one, but not necessarily the second.

To those who are challenging the veracity of the Freils the dwarf story - it happened. You can say "what if" til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, the "what if" has no relevance here. It DID happen as reported, it's a legend of a story, it DID ruin plotlines, and it WAS caused by OOC collusion.

I think you're missing the point of the what ifs.  It isn't to disprove the original story.  It's to make it known that it's not really a reliable precedent to make disciplinary action based off of it.  Unless you're a fan of 'It's worth punishing the potentially innocent in an effort to make sure we get all the baddies.'

[Reiloth]

Yeah, I don't doubt the veracity of the story -- But it's akin to mentioning how Thrain Ironsword was a baller RPer and blah blah blah. It's just a long ass time ago. Having a story that is relevant to current affairs (give or take a year) might hit people more in their feel-centers, as it relates more to them and they might have been around for it, so they can empathize.

[Lizzie]

When you frame it like that, it could be obvious, sure.  But I've also been that guy who randomly logged in to suddenly find myself immediately wandering into a shitstorm of things.

Make it more grey, because that's how it will normally be.  What if person A and person B are almost always checking for each other upon logging in?  When person B logs in, and checks in with person A, and gets told this is going on, and immediately moves to react, do you now make the assumption they were in contact and person A told them to log in?  Or is it circumstance?

If I were the victim, I wouldn't really care that there was ooc collusion as long as 1) I didn't hear about it and 2) the collusion was roleplayed out in game and made SENSE to be roleplayed out in game. If your character doesn't know mine from a hole in the wall and your buddy tells you that my PC hangs out in the same bar but just an hour earlier, so log in early and kill my PC - I don't care how much you RP it out - it doesn't make any sense that your character would be in that bar, that time of "week," knowing in advance that my character is someone who needs to die. But if your character has had run-ins with mine, and has already formed a negative opinion of her, and your buddy says "hey log in, Lizzie's got her PC at the bar" - I'll be blissfully ignorant of any OOC shenanigans, and I, the player, will feel that my character's assassination was legit because our characters had an unpleasant history between them.

If I found out a few RL years after that yeah you arranged for my PC's death with a pal in twitter DMs, I'd probably think - wow - and I never knew, plus I got an interesting death. Bonus for all involved.

As for the rest of the "what ifs" it's no different to me from some 8-year-old kid when mom says "You can't go out tonight." And the kid says "what if I ..." and proceeds to nag his mother about every possible possibility that could possibly crop up that might result in mom letting him go out. It'd just make me think "just stop. Really. You're not 8. Use common sense." That goes both ways - staff and players.

[SuchDragonWow]

Amos the Ranger is out hunting in the Grey Forest. Amos finds himself being attacked by an aggro critter. He gets down to 0hps and 0 stun points, and the mob stops attacking (as some mobs do).

Less than a minute later, Amos's girlfriend Talia (who wasn't in the game at the time) logs in and, with zero RP, not a think, or an attempt at Waying Amos, goes to the stable, gets her mount, and rides to the exact spot where Amos is, kills the mob, bandages Amos, and they go back to their apartment to mudsex.

Those are funny.  I think it does happen, and those kinds of players really have no class.  But let's propose another scenario.

Player A and player B are friends.  They met on Arm, and they like to talk about the game, because they have no one else to talk about this wonderful experience.  Player A isn't playing around player B, in fact, they may have played together at one time, but rarely play anymore.  So when player B dies to a scrabby, they're upset and need to vent about it, so of course, it's going to be with A.  It doesn't really affect A, they didn't know each other's characters anyway.  Is this really the worst thing that can happen?  Because I bet it happens a lot.

[a french mans shirt]

Who here remembers the time of the tuluki catgirl crap?

They had discovered that the tuluki noble was kanking what was essentially a catgirl mutant in his estate without telling anyone.

I'm wondering how long that was going on before they were caught.

[Reiloth]

Who here remembers the time of the tuluki catgirl crap?

They had discovered that the tuluki noble was kanking what was essentially a catgirl mutant in his estate without telling anyone.

I'm wondering how long that was going on before they were caught.

Not that long, from what I gathered at the time.

[BadSkeelz]

Mutant catgirl commoner would have been the real problem. Sounds like poor staff oversight, but then who really wants to be monitoring that kind of business.

[Reiloth]

Mutant catgirl commoner would have been the real problem. Sounds like poor staff oversight, but then who really wants to be monitoring that kind of business.

FWIW, I don't think it was poor Staff oversight. I mean, Catgirl's allowed existence via character approval, maybe, but I think they clamped down on that shit tight and quick. I was playing a Noble at the time and it was like maybe a couple RL days. The Nobles were there, then they weren't, and the reasons why became very clear very rapidly.