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

[Armaddict]

It's when the IC situation was blatantly being influenced by OOC behavior and connections that things took a turn for the worse.

I'm still not seeing where this blatant influence is.  There's been several posts by multiple people since then pointing that out.  IC actions appeared to continue in the way that it was set out to go.  Again, if they openly coordinated OOC to avoid coordining IC, and keep it out of hands of other people, that's one thing.  But I don't see anything blatantly OOC here happening on the IC level.  That entire story seemed to progress fairly naturally until the sudden jump to 'And then we sped up the timeline and refused to run anything else for them.'

I mean...left to run its course, they probably would have had to backstab each other at some point.  That would have been nice.  It's not like House B and House C are best buddies because the PC leadership happened to work together for what wasn't a common goal, but a common obstacle.

Mostly, if you can point out where this -should- have gone differently in character in an obvious way, but where the OOC interaction between them clearly led to this being just a complete waste of game time, I'm all ears.

And that's been pointed out enough times that a single line of 'No!  It was blatantly influenced!' is really kind of meh.

[Lizzie]

Either I'm the only one who's seeing what Nergal is saying, or I'm totally misunderstanding all of you.

What I'm taking from this situation as posted:

There was some OOC collusion among some players with regards to a Armageddon-style dungeon-crawl the staff set up.

Some OTHER players on the other side of things did stuff that was also OOCly unkosher.

As a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level. In other words, players were taking their OOC frustrations of the OOC situation into the game, because they knew that it was being manipulated OOCly. So the staff shut it down.

All because a few people decided they could win the IC game better if they cheated.

[Armaddict]

As a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level.

That would be entirely subjective to surmise considering that the characters were at a point of already being at war.  That's why it's being said that in having the story related here, everything appears to be progressing in a normal expected fashion (even by the original storytelling) until such a time that a character revealed that they died, and a pair of characters sent in requests with similar wording asking for the same sort of things in support of what was happening in game.

The reason why this is a something to zone in on rather than accept is that again, we've been straddled with both sides; we're both allowed to talk about the game, and we're not.  We're told we're fine to communicate, but in this story as it was related to us, the demonstration is that even though IC events went as IC'ly made sense, the players were given baddy status despite there being no evidence (at least none presented to us) that they made this an OOC collusion from the beginning and that it influenced IC events.  In other words, because they discussed the support they wanted to relate to staff through legitimate OOC means, that proved they spoke with each other and it thus ruined the plot.

As I read it, the assertion of 'playing to win' was a reference to them being in communication, not a twist in the plot, because as noted, the plot progressed as was deemed fit.  The moment of the story where that became not okay was when their requests lined up in wording, at least in how I read the telling of it.  This leaves players in the same spot; Apparently, we can be good and friendly with each other and talk about the game but not in the game...unless something happens that appears to be not what was desired or up to approval, in which case that communication will be pinned with the fault of ruining the plot, even though...that's...not their fault, as presented.  The thing that ruined the plot was the sudden withdrawal of it as a staff decision.

That's not a slap at staff.  That's just me reading it and saying 'Uh.  Either you left out some stuff that actually made it their fault, or you got mad about them talking to each other and decided it ruined the plot without actually thinking that through.'

I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

[BadSkeelz]

Either I'm the only one who's seeing what Nergal is saying, or I'm totally misunderstanding all of you.

What I'm taking from this situation as posted:

There was some OOC collusion among some players with regards to a Armageddon-style dungeon-crawl the staff set up.

Some OTHER players on the other side of things did stuff that was also OOCly unkosher.

As a direct result of the OOC stuff that was going on, the roleplay stopped being roleplay, and started turning into *player* vs. *player* rather than *character* vs. *character* and it was starting to get ugly, on an OOC level. In other words, players were taking their OOC frustrations of the OOC situation into the game, because they knew that it was being manipulated OOCly. So the staff shut it down.

All because a few people decided they could win the IC game better if they cheated.

That isn't what was happening.

There was a cave. Houses A, B, and C were all in competition over it. House A moved to secure it. This led to a House A leader PC being assassinated because he was (in-character) getting in the way of House B/C motives. So far all good.

Problem #1: The player of House A leader bitches OOC about how he died. It short-circuited some of the mystery, but it wasn't like House A players would have no idea who was behind their leader's sudden death. There had been plenty of conflict before hand, plenty of ground legitimately laid. The OOC bitching was really bad, but it wasn't gamebreaking.

Problem #2: The players of House B and C, who were already colluding IC, were also "apparently" doing so Out of Character. Whatever it was they were doing, Staff claim it was so bad it was giving them an unfair advantage in game. I'm curious to hear how it was. I'm pretty sure the PCs of House A could have obliterated the entire PC population of House B or C and perhaps both, simultaneously. So I'm not sure what the B and C colluders could have done to save themselves from a righteous asswhupping should House A players have decided to inflict one.

If people want to play to win, I say let them. They still have to do it in game, and I'll trust my chances in game any day.

[BadSkeelz]

I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

I think it's a poor example too. How's this for a better hypothetical of how OOC can ruin a plot, adapted from something that actually happened:

At a southern party, a noblewoman was assaulted by a magicker and saved only via quick thinking on the part of a nearby Templar. The assumption by all (Templar, Noble, underlings) was that a local sorcerer had just tried to whack the noblewoman. The sorcerer was blamed, plans were drawn for revenge.

In fact, the Sorcerer had nothing to do with it. The actual culprit was the Northern Templarate, using a rogue wind mage. It was a masterful misdirection because who would expect the northies to use magick? And it worked because everyone - Southern Templars, Northern Templars, Southern Lady, Sorcerer, Rogue Wind Mage - kept their fucking mouths shut Out of Character.

The Sorcerer probably knew he was getting unfairly blamed, but he never bitched OOC about it, instead they rolled with it. This let the in-character plot and fiction continue without being influenced by meta knowledge. If the Sorcerer had talked about it at all, anywhere, they could have ruined the plot. But they did the responsible thing and let in-game events play out without out-of-game commentary or chatter.

If Staff didn't like processing kudos 2 years after the fact I'd probably write that Sorcerer one now.

There's no way to legislate this good behavior. All we can do is try and convince people that, if you keep your mouths shut about the game and let things play out in the game, it's going to be funner for you. People need to buy in to the notion that OOC Communication can ruin plots. I think examples of "how plots could have been ruined by OOC communication" are stronger reinforcement for responsible behavior than examples "plots that were simply assumed to have been ruined and are shut down by staff fiat."

[Nergal]

I'm not sure how to explain that talking about a plot OOC is a bad thing to people who seem to think that there is a workaround even in the face of cheating. Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened. It's obvious when you're looking from the top-down, and I'm not going to explain how it's obvious because that gives cheaters a way to hide their behavior.

[BadSkeelz]

I'm not sure how to explain that talking about a plot OOC is a bad thing to people who seem to think that there is a workaround even in the face of cheating. Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

The workaround is that, whether a PC is cheating or not, in this particular case the player-characters of House A already knew from in-character action that the player-characters of House B and C were their enemies. All they needed to do was kill them to render the cheating moot.

Sometimes you don't know a PC is against you, and that can be frustrating. But complete secrecy is achievable enough in game anyway with the Way. That's why you have to keep your stats and skills up, so if Aidesy McAsshat suddenly tries to turn on you without any prior indication of potential betrayal, you're able to escape or kill them.

[Delirium]

I think we all know what your position is and that you're unlikely to change your mind about it. I'd like to invite people to think less inside the box of raw coded power before jumping on that bandwagon, though. Every situation has its nuances that aren't necessarily solved by one clan having more long-lived combat PCs, or by wiping out the PC population without regard to the larger, virtual world.

There's obviously a lot that can't be said, so that opens the door for argument over the smaller details. In the end though that is just missing the larger point of telling the story in the first place.

So, we don't want a witch hunt environment. Thing is, that goes for both player and staff attitudes. If you want benefit of the doubt it is only fair to give it as well. It can be hard not to get jaded but that's exactly what we as staff and players need to try and do - not get jaded. Remember we are all here to play a nerdy, immersive game on the internet and make it as awesome as we can for as many people as we can. Some won't be satisfied. That's inevitable. But reaching out for feedback like this is a solid and much appreciated move on staff's side. I'd hate to see them get raked over the coals for trying to do just what we have been asking for, for a long time.

Perhaps there are things staff could have done better in Nergal's example - we are all human after all. But that doesn't invalidate the story. There are absolutely things the players could have and should have done better. The whole point of this thread was to remind players of the perils of OOC collusion and discuss how we can better handle it as a community.

I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

[BadSkeelz]

I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about how we're talking too much OOC about the game and how to "regulate" that? Staff members (not staff as a whole) pointed fingers first.

As I've said, we need to get people to buy in to the notion that it's better not to talk about the game, not come up with a new regime to catch and punish transgressors. We'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The game is much funner when you don't talk about what you're doing in game. Support that with positive stories, positive examples, instead of this "here's how you, the players, fucked up."

Some players are going to talk, always. Some are going to cheat. Sometimes it's really obvious when they are, like the two PCs who constantly pickpocket one another to raise their skills. That can be caught and it should be punished. I just think it's easier to prove when something could have been ruined by OOC chatter, than it is to convince people of subjective "top-down" examples that we just don't know enough to believe.

[Delirium]

Did you.... not read the sentence literally right before the part you quoted? It's really hard to have a genuine conversation if you're only going to cherry-pick things so you can be right.

I even agree with some of the points you make, but you're really damaging your credibility when you approach this conversation with the very same high-horse attitude you decry.

[lostinspace]

Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

This is very enlightening and I think clears up some of the confusion. BadSkeelz, we both know that House A was an IC powerhouse, but the leader still died, to a particular magic effect. An effect with in game restrictions that were apparently circumvented with OOC communication.

[BadSkeelz]

Did you.... not read the sentence literally right before the part you quoted? It's really hard to have a genuine conversation if you're only going to cherry-pick things so you can be right.

I even agree with some of the points you make, but you're really damaging your credibility when you approach this conversation with the very same high-horse attitude you decry.

I'll confess and say I'm not actually sure who you were address, me or Nergal. I guess I should I just think examples like Nergal's are

A) not particularly good because there's nothing in it to show how the purported cheating couldn't have been overcome by actually playing the game

B) the approach is not going to reinforce the behavior we want to see from our fellow players.

There's nothing wrong with a high-horse attitude. Staff, as staff, even have the prerogative to ride one. I just think they're sitting on it backwards here.

Avoiding IC eavesdropping, coordinating the timing of actions, and other things are made extremely easy with OOC communication, and I tried my best to explain that that happened.

This is very enlightening and I think clears up some of the confusion. BadSkeelz, we both know that House A was an IC powerhouse, but the leader still died, to a particular magic effect. An effect with in game restrictions that were apparently circumvented with OOC communication.

Not really? Whatever the effect, it still killed House Leader A. The obvious culprits were House B or C. The means of how the Leader PC died are irrelevant to the fact that he died, and there was an obvious target to blame. If the dead Leader's player had done the right thing and not talked, and his former Clan had blamed House C simply because of making logical assumptions, the end result would have been the same.

[Armaddict]

The whole point of this thread was to remind players of the perils of OOC collusion and discuss how we can better handle it as a community.

I feel like we should get back to discussing that rather than devolve into the very same he said/she said finger wagging that we are supposed to be figuring out how to avoid.

I wasn't on a witch hunt.  It's just that an example was posted to show how harmful it was, and I really couldn't find the actual harm done to the game.  Just an example of exactly what -I- worry about, which is the stance of 'this is so' and punishment, whether for the better or worse of the game as a whole.  I'm not exactly sure what the point of posting the thing was if you're going to omit the part where actual harm was displayed, when that's the purpose of the example.  I don't tell you how harmful a chemical is to a plant, then show a video of it being poured on a plant, then a time lapse of nothing happening to the plant.  Because that would be silly, even if I'm already in agreement that the chemical is bad.

But that's also why I said it was a bad example and we should move on from it, after being established that indeed, as it stood (without us knowing all the details), that probably could have been handled better.

To better handle it as a community, the player side is the hard side.  Staff side...don't punish people for things that you only suspect they did (or for doing IC things that happen to not fit in well), and don't punish them unless they're actually harming the game (though frank discussions about the path they're on within those bounds might be more commonplace).  Player side is all...screwy, because as we keep saying, some people really just don't give a shit.  I can certainly promise that the game gets cooler when you stop using AIM and IRC and all that jazz, but that doesn't mean they're going to listen.  That's a serious pickle to deal with.  But eradicating its presence is -not- worth punishing contributory players over, that much I'm sure of.

The game survived fine back when I was caught for multiplaying by a long period of monitoring (That was a 2 week in-game ban, by the way; allowed to log in, put in a room with no exits).  The game survived when I was playing from the same LAN as a real life friend of mine, and all that happened was a note to be careful of it on my account.  The game survived where I made 3 characters in a row with that friend, before there was simply a send saying 'Hey, can you stop buddying up with your friend so fast?  Make some fun out of it.'  The game survived when people were coordinating attacks in an IRC room and telling each other when they died and where.  It survived all of that -just fine-, even though it wasn't good things happening.  I don't think taking it to the extreme of ending plots as punishment or jumping down people's throats because of assumptions over it is even necessary.  I think that's just being overzealous.

[lostinspace]

Well I at least now know where staff is coming from with this example now, and how OOC could have dominated anything House A did as long as they had access to that tool.

[Lizzie]

I'm pretty close-lipped about the game.  Pretty hard against the other board and its (mis)information, and all of that.  But I think this is a very poor example, because I'm just not catching the part where the plot was ruined by this.

I think it's a poor example too. How's this for a better hypothetical of how OOC can ruin a plot, adapted from something that actually happened:

At a southern party, a noblewoman was assaulted by a magicker and saved only via quick thinking on the part of a nearby Templar. The assumption by all (Templar, Noble, underlings) was that a local sorcerer had just tried to whack the noblewoman. The sorcerer was blamed, plans were drawn for revenge.

In fact, the Sorcerer had nothing to do with it. The actual culprit was the Northern Templarate, using a rogue wind mage. It was a masterful misdirection because who would expect the northies to use magick? And it worked because everyone - Southern Templars, Northern Templars, Southern Lady, Sorcerer, Rogue Wind Mage - kept their fucking mouths shut Out of Character.

The Sorcerer probably knew he was getting unfairly blamed, but he never bitched OOC about it, instead they rolled with it. This let the in-character plot and fiction continue without being influenced by meta knowledge. If the Sorcerer had talked about it at all, anywhere, they could have ruined the plot. But they did the responsible thing and let in-game events play out without out-of-game commentary or chatter.

If Staff didn't like processing kudos 2 years after the fact I'd probably write that Sorcerer one now.

There's no way to legislate this good behavior. All we can do is try and convince people that, if you keep your mouths shut about the game and let things play out in the game, it's going to be funner for you. People need to buy in to the notion that OOC Communication can ruin plots. I think examples of "how plots could have been ruined by OOC communication" are stronger reinforcement for responsible behavior than examples "plots that were simply assumed to have been ruined and are shut down by staff fiat."

This better illustrates the issue, as I understand it. I agree, all you can do is -try- to get people to keep their mouths shut and let things play out in the game. But, even if ONE person rejects your advice, that's all it takes to ruin plots. That ONE person who rejects the advice. And there really is no way to prevent him from complaining publically that his PC was scorned/killed/criticized by other characters/staff/players. That one single person rejecting sage advice and publically complaining about that one tiny little thing - is all it takes to ruin a plot. As your example shows very clearly.

[Reiloth]

Also, AFAIK the player didn't complain about their death, their killer bragged about it.

[BadSkeelz]

Also, AFAIK the player didn't complain about their death, their killer bragged about it.

Both the killed and the killer talked about the death very quickly. I believe the Killer only talked after he saw the Killed had talked, but I wasn't writing down timestamps or anything. There's plenty of players who should have behaved better, for sure.

This better illustrates the issue, as I understand it. I agree, all you can do is -try- to get people to keep their mouths shut and let things play out in the game. But, even if ONE person rejects your advice, that's all it takes to ruin plots. That ONE person who rejects the advice. And there really is no way to prevent him from complaining publically that his PC was scorned/killed/criticized by other characters/staff/players. That one single person rejecting sage advice and publically complaining about that one tiny little thing - is all it takes to ruin a plot. As your example shows very clearly.

I just don't see a way that we can enforce that kind of behavior. We can only demonstrate how it could be bad, ask players to trust each other and staff (while also reminding people that their character's life are in their own hands and to take appropriate precautions) and not let their frustrations get the better of them.

Well I at least now know where staff is coming from with this example now, and how OOC could have dominated anything House A did as long as they had access to that tool.

Want to PM it to me? Because I don't. Talking on AIM doesn't boost your skills, or add a couple of 100 day warriors to your clan. It protects secrecy of communication and can streamline coordination, but you still have to play the game. And while you're busy AIMing, your enemies can be out sparring or making alliances with other PCs. Hell, clans have Clan Forums. They're able to coordinate OOC as well. It's only cross-clan coordination that goes unregulated.

[Armaddict]

It's obvious when you're looking from the top-down, and I'm not going to explain how it's obvious because that gives cheaters a way to hide their behavior.

Ehhh.  I don't think so.  Based on personal experience relatively recently, I'm really not confident at all in the infallibility of your word on how obvious it is.

Edit: Better phrasing.

[lostinspace]

If staff okays me sharing the info Badskeels, then I'm willing to explain it to you in a PM.

[Bahliker]

What are the best ways to encourage new players (and old players I guess, but good luck with that) to adopt an attitude of absolute ic/ooc separation? I ask because the lines on the topic have been drawn pretty firm and it's obvious that the only thing we all agree on is the world would be all cherry if most players were good boys and girls.

I mentioned to someone, once, somewhere, that an integrated ooc chat on this forum would be a neat idea. Something easy to moderate. Get people off the pedestal and make them make their points in realtime rather than these long, thirty paragraph diatribes. Unleash the need to talk openly about the game, about cool stuff that happened, in an official and moderated chat. Just an idea, eat it or spit it.

A more comprehensive yet straight-talk opener in the introduction bit on the webpage, explaining how and why we play. Rant on about how awesome it is to get totally -screwed-.

[evilcabbage]

let me put it in laymans terms.

players of house a were fighting two wars.

they were fighting house b and c.

they were also trying to fight ooc coordination between b and c.

what is ooc coordination?


that would be basically house b telling house c "hey house a players aren't in this area at this moment, because they're there, so send your people here and we can get the drop on them."


is that fair to house a? no. did it happen that way? well it seems as though nergal is saying it did happen that way. house b and c weren't just ic saying "this dude is there", they were ooc working out how their people were going to move and talk and think and act.


badskeelz you may not see the issue with that, but i propose this: what if house a had spies in house b and c? but all their plans were made ooc. now you have house a spying on house b and c, but no plans are ever shared ic and things just 'seem' to be progressing because of an alliance.


that is the issue. that is why ooc chatter is such a problem, especially at that level. it prevents any of the intrigue from taking place.

[Dar]

One of my very first characters death was caused by very likely ooc cooperation. I was in Kurac at the time. My character and this half-elf joined at nearly the same time and were competing in everything. We've competed for the same girl, we've gained mercenary rank the same day, we've competed for success, trust, etc, etc, etc. Except the fucker became Regular rank ahead of me and was clearly more favorite of the Sargeants then my character was. Then one day, I enter some wilderness spot and see him there, near death, bleeding out. That day I performed my first and hopefully lamest PKill to this day. The opportunity was so great. Out of place spot, no witnesses, the guy is near death. My head span IRL, my fingers jittered. I killed that guy (who was excellently played btw) in an instant with no, or barely any lame emotes.

The first moment Sargeant logs in. She is instantly furious/suspicious of me. Other clan leaders express their puzzlement, "What are you basing this on?"

To me it was pretty obvious that there was communication. So instead of letting the story run while influenced by OOC stimuli, I've had that character get all guilty over killing a fellow Kuraci, I've confessed to the chara's mate, a blooded Kuraci and had her kill me.

Ooophhh. What a horrible experience. I was regretful for almost an entire week. And then I just shrugged it off. Shit happens. People can be shitty sometimes. I still enjoyed the fuck out of that story and it ended well!

Truth of the matter is that the game is more enjoyable when you allow this kind of cheating to happen and not give a shit. As long as there any what so ever a possibility for things that got found out, to be found out/deduced IG, just fucking assume that they were? Because if you dont. If you begin to suspect and worry. It will poison your entire gameplay. It will sap your morale out. It will drain your interest, enjoyment, and motivation. It will fucking ruin your game. Just play out your story and if others want to cheat, fuck'em. They're the ones losing out.

This is the game where I've taught someone how to be a proeffecient mugger/assassin/guilder and after dying and running a new character, had my character mugged and assassinated by my own protege.  This is the game where I hired/manipulated a dwarf assassin to blow up Anthinius Oash and his precious tavern, and then a month later, I was the Oashi Lord investigating that assassination attempt, scheming to screw my other fellow Oashi and hire Kasix to repair the blown up tavern, instead of Borsail. I've had Psions who got themselves revealed to some PC, organized their deaths, and then had the same players run characters in the psions own clan and never reveal, or hint, or act in any way that showed their knowledge of my mindbender nature. I have no joke been victim of schemes that I have myself designed and involved others in who later took over after my own character died, only to later play in a clan that was ment to be targeted. I also brag a lot, you might've noticed.

My point is that this is an RPI mud. And with perma death, it is inevitable that one day you will become part of a plot that's ment to be secret and yet you will know EVERYTHING about OOC. No need for any kind of OOC collusion, you were simply part of that plot on your previous character. So if you're running a super secret plot, just assume that it is known OOC and ... dont give a shit. Trust the players to not use it IG.

Will they use it IG? Prooobably. Will you still enjoy the plot if you dont give a shit? Yes! You will! Will your enjoyment and morale be sapped, if you suspect every sudden guesstimation of others to have an OOC origin? Fuck yeah! You're not going to enjoy any of it. You will grow bitter. You will grow jaded. You will lose heart and discontinue plots. Nothing good will come out of it.

Yes. It is a wrong way to approach this. Instead of getting cheaters to stop cheating. I'm trying to get the cheating victims to stop giving a shit. But in this whole situation. Your personal approach to what's going on is the "only" thing you can control. Cheaters 'will' cheat. It's like playing a Guild Boss and getting your panties in a bunch and crying "betrayal!" when a loose affiliate of yours spills the beans during a Templar interrogation.

If you are a recipient of OOC information. Don't use it? Just dont use it. If you are a victim of a clique using ooc communication against you, just dont think about it this way. There are some kind of IC actions performed, otherwise you wouldnt have the basis for suspicion, just assume those actions are all legit IG based and react to them.


Nergal's example is actually good. Because I might be missing something, but I literally do not understand why was his morale sapped. Leader B and C are communicating ooc? Yeah. Okey. Probably. they've probably discussed and complained at each other, how the Staff lurves House A more and supports them more. Then they both decided to file a complaint about it. They wrote a bunch of versions, proof-read it, edited it, spent a whole day perfecting it, and then sent near identical ones in. Great. Yeah. They communicate OOC.  Were there any actions IG though? Did the two discuss their alliance IG? Did the two hire the magicker IG? If all the actions were performed IG, then you shouldnt have let it worry you.   You could've commented on it, said it was a shit move, etc, etc. But come on. This affected you way too much then it should have, in my opinion.

Mistrust is a bad thing. Being objective is difficult. Being jaded and poisoned by this mistrust is disastrous. Truth is, if cheaters are smart enough, you'll never be able to catch them. You have no control over the smart ones. They're all professional Arm Players. They've probably got a few elves behind their belt. Lying, weaving, misdirecting, and s.o.b.ing is on "master" level for them.

Want to use "The Hammer" ? Sure. When people are stupid enough to really be obvious about it. Use your hammer. But know, that using your hammer might actually hurt the game more.  You cant use the hammer for the sake of "demonstration" for others. Because nobody else will know, except this one singular clique. And even if it does get known, the other cliques will think the 'caught' clique to be idiotic for being caught and since they're much smarter, will continue on doing it. So the benefits are small, while the risks of losing some whatever awesome player are ... big enough to worry about.

There is always also this side where someone has a suspicion and they begin to observe the person an extra amount. This suspicion colors "everything". I've witnessed this before. When someone performs something and yet somehow, it always ends up being seen as 'wrong' by those already jaded. I ask them to describe what it's all based on and I've got crickets chirping.

Some gentle conversations are appropriate in my opinion. Truth is, it wont even matter if the response to such inquiries is a lie. It's like taxes. Sometimes the Revenue Agency see a red flag and they send in a request for clarification. They arent planning a full audit. They arent even particularly suspicious of you. Certain factors coincided and it's procedural for them to send in a request for clarification. Most of these requests do not account to anything. Unless the taxes cheating is blatantly obvious, they're not going to get an incriminating response. But ... the people 'will' get careful. And 'will' stop cheating for awhile. And that's good enough.

If you find yourself worrying about ooc communication every second day, then you should chill for a bit.

That here's my honest opinion. I know it's a little bit on a meh side. I mean I'm basically suggesting to drop pants and take it, but ... I think it's a wiser course of action.

[BadSkeelz]

badskeelz you may not see the issue with that, but i propose this: what if house a had spies in house b and c? but all their plans were made ooc. now you have house a spying on house b and c, but no plans are ever shared ic and things just 'seem' to be progressing because of an alliance.


that is the issue. that is why ooc chatter is such a problem, especially at that level. it prevents any of the intrigue from taking place.

Intrigue only exists to determine what PCs you need to kill to protect your own. Knowing that one House is in dispute with you, and then having one of your own abruptly killed, is enough justification for revenge killings to commence. A third-party might even take advantage of this to put you and the other house in conflict, as my example demonstrates.

House A already knew who their enemies were. Public actions of confrontation had occurred. Intrigue was no longer necessary.

This is what I mean to look at the acts characters do in game. If someone is acting against you, and it is obvious, it does not matter whether it was coordinated out of game or not. You already know they are your enemy. And if you know you have enemies, you should be playing with the expectation that someone, somewhere, somehow is watching and plotting your character's demise. Hopefully their plotting is in game, but it might be done out of character if the other players are shit. For safety's sake, assume they are. Fortunately you can't be killed from outside of the game, so take appropriate precautions.

[Taven]

Wow, guys. I'm just so disappointed.

The example has people using OOC to coordinate the death of a rival. It doesn't matter that they had IC reasons for that person to die. If they'd killed them completely ICly, that would have been perfectly legitimate. But based on the example they specifically coordinated to overcome coded difficulties to a particular spell. This is never, ever okay.

I understand that there's a want to see things play out ICly, because having someone do an IC action against you (even if OOCly coordinated) can make you want to plot to get IC resolutions/revenge. But the point of the example is that the players in question who were abusing OOC communication planned to kill more of the clan, and they couldn't be trusted to do this in a completely IC manner.

Staff has routinely said that if you're chatting a little and not sharing IC secrets or coordinating, then that's something different. But that's not what this example was at all. This is a very clear-cut case of abuse, and it's utterly shocking to me that it's not being recognized.

[evilcabbage]

exactly what taven said. apparently there was ooc coordination to set everything up. that's not okay.


i don't share ic secrets or coordinate. hell, of late i don't really talk to anyone because i can't trust myself (or any of you fuckers) to keep anything secret. i'm sorry. but my enjoyment of the game has skyrocketed considerably because the people i talk to - flat out - aren't people who play this fucking game.