The Heists and Forums Update

[rukio 8909]

2 hours ago, Salvo said:

Yeah but look at him spinning

Weee

Feet

[BonesOfTheEarth 1563]

Imagine if an NL denied permission to reference their character on the forums

[Qaz_The_Great 1189]

I do have another question in regard to history posts. What if a player doesn't want to be mentioned in a history post on the forums even though their character may have done a crazy big thing in the past? I think the rule is great if applied properly as it will lower forum toxicity however there is a difference between posting someone's skin, character name, and other details for a meta-game bounty poster and reciting a historical event in roleplay on the forums.

[rukio 8909]

Feet comments to Salvo aside- I hate the arbitrary way 'meme' and 'toxic to the player ooc' etc are defined. I make legitimate, decently lengthed replies to roleplay posts based on my character's stances and I still get warned. The rules need to be fleshed out better and actually defined so it isn't on the whimsy of a forum mod to dictate what tone they ASSUME I am using when playing my character. 

[Qaz_The_Great 1189]

52 minutes ago, rukio said:

Feet comments to Salvo aside- I hate the arbitrary way 'meme' and 'toxic to the player ooc' etc are defined. I make legitimate, decently lengthed replies to roleplay posts based on my character's stances and I still get warned. The rules need to be fleshed out better and actually defined so it isn't on the whimsy of a forum mod to dictate what tone they ASSUME I am using when playing my character. 

You aren't wrong, a more defined concept with examples of toxicity can allow the staff rulings to hold more weight as rather than getting banned for toxic behavior someone would be banned for a specific instance(s) that can be cited. Makes things less arbitrary.

[hotbox_monk 955]

18 hours ago, rukio said:

Or trying to tell them what they should do in RP which floods their chat and makes it harder to keep up, et cetera. 

 

I don't think being able to block DMs should be the solution, given that's how you resolve stuff like someone running off w/o RP etc. 

 

Moderators also don't really do anything to anyone unless you're a violent offender like me or a nation leader.

That’s kinda on the person tho?  And that’s a weird reason not to support someone’s stream.  L take Rukio

[rukio 8909]

17 hours ago, Qaz_The_Great said:

You aren't wrong, a more defined concept with examples of toxicity can allow the staff rulings to hold more weight as rather than getting banned for toxic behavior someone would be banned for a specific instance(s) that can be cited. Makes things less arbitrary.

The main argument against my point that I've seen, mainly from staff, is that people will attempt to skirt the rules more if they know exactly what defines x y z. 

 

I think it actively helps prevent people from breaking rules more and keeps mods from overstepping but maybe that's just me. I think we'd see fewer issues and less 'bias' cards used when punishment IS handed out if players had more than a vague one liner thrown at them and labeled a rule. 

 

Glad we agree! 

4 hours ago, hotbox_monk said:

That’s kinda on the person tho?  And that’s a weird reason not to support someone’s stream.  L take Rukio

I have nothing against ZacClay, I'm just not a fan of what that sort of content causes.

[Salvo 1831]

23 hours ago, rukio said:

Feet

WHERE

[GoodGuyMatt 7060]

On 8/19/2022 at 8:46 PM, Burnsider said:

 

I know it sounds like a lot. Don't worry. It's not. 

 

it doesn't. make it. any less cringe. :)