PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: emeraldfool on January 24, 2007, 10:54:30 pm
-
We all seem to romanticise evil in PS, and the Roleplaying scene in general, but I feel we all forget what 'evil' really is. There's evil in killing, or even gratuitous torture and violence, but the raw reality of 'evil' always seems to be left out in our RPs.
After reading this CNN report (http://us.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/sex.workers/index.html), I've begun to re-think the concept of evil.
For one thing, the evil we portray is not an accurate description of what pure evil is. But do we really want to emulate that? (ignoring the issue of PS being a PG-rated game, I'm talking in a more broad sense)
Real evil, like the stuff evident in that report, seems wide-spread through-out the world, and is thusly an integral part of it. Without it, there wouldn't be locks on doors or a police force.
So, what are your thoughts? Do you think that being a good RPer is most important (i.e. RPing/creating a soulless rapist for realism's sake), or do you feel we should keep the sinister stuff toned down, but in the process create a faker 'utopian' society (again, I'm talking more about 'good RPing vs. tasteful RPing', rather than avoiding it for the younger audiences).
Just something I've been contemplating...
-
That's interesting
(Your moral dilemma, not the rapey-killy stuff in the report. I'm not that screwed up :P)
Personally I'm all for a nice seedy novel/RP - the grisly details give it a more immersive (and darker) feel.
The thing with RPs though is that not everyone might feel the same, and it could get awkward if one of the other RPers has had a real-life experience with the subject matter (one of my friends was raped. S'all fun and games 'til someone makes a 'surprise sex' joke. Probably the most awkward I've ever felt, if you can believe that :P)
-
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip011.html
What the hell?
-
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip011.html
What the hell?
LOL. Sorry, not that. This (http://us.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/sex.workers/index.html).
I was right the first time :P
-
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip011.html
What the hell?
Huh? What the heck just happened here...?
-
http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip011.html
What the hell?
Huh? What the heck just happened here...?
I was trying to juggle two comically mis-matched URLs and I got confuzzled. Let's pretend that never happened, m'kay? :P
-
"Pure" is nothing like whats in that article. That is evil but its not completly soulless.
"Pure Evil" is like it doesnt need to proclaim itself to be heard, you know that when somthing like that appears you dont screw it around, or your likely to end up on the floor without much hope of ever coming off said floor.
It doesnt care. I view pure evil as in some ways an ultimate strength. The ability to cast aside all ties if it suits you. Whats more, is that pure evil takes ultimate satisfaction in what its doing. Rape/Torture/killing/mentally breaking someone, basically inflicting pain on somthing in all sorts of ways. You experiment, you branch out and you have fun. much the same way have fun playing video games.
That article doesnt portrait pure evi;l. it just portraits evil. Thats Evil that uses other, doesnt care weather they hurt or not, its for self benefit, and not much else. There is no real feeling of fun. If it was "pure" evil they wouldnt have made a profit off of it. They wouldnt have drugged the girls. They wouldnt have sold them. it would have done it all itself. rape without drugs, beatings, mental and physical torture that type of thing.
Because it gets you off.
-
You're right, but you're talking about evil as an entity - as a person who is doing evil things.
I'm talking about evil as an action - a choice that results in horrifying consequences.
It doesn't really matter to the victim whether or not the rapist is taking full pleasure in her torment. And they could never really know that anyway - the trauma is just the same.
What I'm wondering is whether there's enough evil in the world without glamourising or virtually re-enacting it. Then again, I'm also wondering if that would make literature a whole lot less interesting :P
-
Did someone ever surpassed this individual in brutality, lack of humanity and oppression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)
I do not know any other larger example of the concept of evil in a person or organization, except for this one, if it is a fact, not another fruit of paranoia... "The Truth is Out There":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29)
Scary...
What they pretend to do in politics, if they exist
* Enforced Political Correctness
* Gradual loss of civil liberties, with the Constitution being reinterpreted and rewritten along pro-UN lines
* Gun control, leading to the eventual elimination of private gun ownership
* Homeschooling and private schooling made illegal, with not only a UN-approved public-school curriculum, but also the possibility of forcing all students to remain in school until graduation
* Local responsibilities taken over by the Federal government
* Black helicopters, paramilitary militias organized from urban gangs, and the imposition of martial law; FEMA concentration camps for dissidents
* All national and local elections monitored by the UN
* The UN taking the responsibilities of the US government
* Foreign troops on US soil
* The US constitution replaced by the UN charter
* World-wide economic equalization under UN control
* All cash money eliminated (and the use of such being made illegal), with payments made using implanted microchips; See VeriChip
* Surveillance, implants, and mind-control
* Only approved religions permitted, leading to world-wide introduction of an official "New Age" religion
* The Mental Health system to be used to keep critics in line
* Those who are Fundamentalist Christians/Pagans/Muslims to be executed, or imprisoned in concentration camps and/or in mental hospitals
Hitler is just one of their pawns, if this is true:
The conspirators thought to be responsible for the new world order are also suspected of staging many historical events such as World Wars and UFO sightings. New world order conspiracy theorists say that world leaders throughout history have successfully manipulated their people into wars (so-called false flag operations). To support their assertion that the take-over they fear is possible, they cite what they consider to be previous examples of such manipulations:
* The Nazis capitalized on the Reichstag fire by blaming the Communists for it, thus eliminating support for the Communist party in Germany, and leading to Nazi domination of the legislature.
* The United States supposedly knew in advance of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and President Roosevelt used the attacks as a "legitimate" reason for entering World War II.
* Operation Northwoods, a proposed series of false flag operations to be used as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba, was rejected by President Kennedy shortly before his assassination.
* The Gulf of Tonkin Incident led President Johnson to escalate U.S. hostilities in Vietnam
Other new world order theorists see the conspiracy at work in globalization, or in the various intellectual movements evolved from Marxism, ranging from social democracy to the Frankfurt School. These are thought to be intended to homogenize cultures and values by political normalization, as in the European Union and African Union's gradual "communitarian construction" scheme of a common economic and legal framework.
-
We all seem to romanticise evil in PS, and the Roleplaying scene in general, but I feel we all forget what 'evil' really is.
No. PS is a game, and the stories are stories. People here know about evil in the world. I don't see a need to stop romanticising things given that this is a fantasy game with an emphasis on storywriting.
There's evil in killing, or even gratuitous torture and violence, but the raw reality of 'evil' always seems to be left out in our RPs... the evil we portray is not an accurate description of what pure evil is.
There is no accurate description of what pure evil is because "evil" is a construction. You will get a different definition depending on who you ask. For instance, your use of the word "gratuitous" suggests that you think that torture and violence can be ok in some situations. Ask someone else and they might say that such things are never moral.
The evil in PS is Shakespearean and I don't see anything wrong with that.
(Pure evil is) the ability to cast aside all ties if it suits you.
Oh, you mean like Buddhists?
*****
@lordraleigh: The article you quoted is bullcrap.
The constitution is being rewritten by neo cons along ANTI-UN lines. The neo cons are anti-Kyoto, anti-Geneva Convention, anti-Habeas Corpus, etc etc.
"All national and local elections monitored by the UN", which would be so much worse than the last two American elections, right?
"Foreign troops on US soil" - a nice change from US troops on foreign soil.
"World-wide economic equalization under UN control" - bad because Indonesian people don't deserve the same quality of life as us Westerners? Neo cons are not for this. Neo cons want to keep things IMBALANCED so that they can exploit 3rd world labour.
"mind-control" - oh no! They have magic!
"Only approved religions permitted, leading to world-wide introduction of an official "New Age" religion" - New Age meaning something like Unitarian Universalism? You mean a religion where people believe in tolerating other religions? Again, this is wrong. Neoconservatives believe in Christianizing the world.
"Those who are Fundamentalist Christians/Pagans/Muslims to be executed, or imprisoned in concentration camps and/or in mental hospitals" - neoconservatives are by and large supporters of fundamentalist Christianity.
The only conspiracy is the haves versus the have-nots.
-
The only conspiracy is the haves versus the have-nots.
LOL I said "or another fruit of Paranoia"
Anyway this reminds me of a certain concept from a certain writer...
(http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/images/class_struggle.jpg)The Haves Versus The Have-nots (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/game.php)
Who is willing to play?
-
Hey I think I saw that game at a convention 20 years ago...nice!
-
Emerald, I don't believe you need to re-think your concept of evil. You read the CNN article and recognized evil for what it is, and it turned your stomache.
As to your discusion on roleplay evil, it is my opinion that it should be done as tongue in cheek as possible. PS is very public, you are on display for all to see, and any acts that could be misunderstood should not be done at all. In this reguard, I agree with Zanzibar on the Shakespearean evil. Although, I would prefer more of a James bond kind of evil than Shakespear.
It almost goes without saying, but there have been lots of threads on this very topic. Most of them center on the idea that evil is more of a social concept than absolute. On this topic may I sugest reading Immanuel Kant instead of Nietzsche.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
-
Shakespeare's works have plenty of secret agents and assassins. Plenty.
Kant was a Christian moralist and his idea of the "Categorical Imperative" is filled with as much assumption as any of Nietzsche's one-liners.
-
Shakespeare's works have plenty of secret agents and assassins. Plenty.
You say that like you think I did not know that. I sugested "James Bond evil" because I personally find the Bard to dark for my tastes. I am not suggesting that you could not rp an assasin via Shakespeare. But for my self, evil is best, when it puts the giant self destruct button on the front of the control panel of the death ray cannon.
-
You say that like you think I did not know that. I sugested "James Bond evil" because I personally find the Bard to dark for my tastes. I am not suggesting that you could not rp an assasin via Shakespeare. But for my self, evil is best, when it puts the giant self destruct button on the front of the control panel of the death ray cannon.
Putting a minion in a decompression tank and cranking it until his eyeballs explode isn't dark?
-
If your thinking of the James Bond with Timothy Dalton, I believe his head exploded not his eyeballs, and compaired to a tragedy like Romeo and Juliet, yes.
-
If your thinking of the James Bond with Timothy Dalton, I believe his head exploded not his eyeballs, and compaired to a tragedy like Romeo and Juliet, yes.
Romeo and Juliet weren't dark. They were just emo and lacked parental supervision.
-
Romeo and Juliet weren't dark. They were just emo and lacked parental supervision.
[/quote]
And Hamlet was not dark either, his family was codependant in a medieval sort of way.
-
And Hamlet was not dark either, his family was codependant in a medieval sort of way.
Hamlet was different because they were adults and therefore had real emotions. Romeo was just all like "OMG UR HOT!" to every girl he saw. Mercutio was on E all the time, and Juliet should have known better than to fall for a bad boy. R&J is still better than A Midsummer's Night Dream though. MSND was basically a drunken slumber party with a bunch of horny 15 year olds in the middle of the woods.
-
I never read Midsummer's night dream. Ill have to take your word on that one. In R&J I remember it a bit different, but I always had a bit of trouble with the old english verbage, maybe I missed something.
Goodnight Zanz.
-
I never read Midsummer's night dream. Ill have to take your word on that one. In R&J I remember it a bit different, but I always had a bit of trouble with the old english verbage, maybe I missed something.
Goodnight Zanz.
Middle English. You wouldn't be able to read actual Old English.
-
Romeo and Juliet weren't dark. They were just emo and lacked parental supervision.
evil is best, when it puts the giant self destruct button on the front of the control panel of the death ray cannon.
Lol, lotsa funny quotes in this thread ;)
So basically what you're saying, Zanzi, is that evil shouldn't be toned down for RPs because everyone's smart enough to not be disturbed by it, yet it doesn't matter because most don't RP evil properly anyway (i.e. RP 'Shakespearian evil')?
And what you're saying, Derwood, is that we should tip-toe around the darkest stuff to avoid injuring someone's innocence?
I'm not saying anything, I'm just trying to figure out the general consensus...
-
So basically what you're saying, Zanzi, is that evil shouldn't be toned down for RPs because everyone's smart enough to not be disturbed by it, yet it doesn't matter because most don't RP evil properly anyway (i.e. RP 'Shakespearian evil')?
That's not even slightly what I'm saying.
Shakespearian evil and Tolkienesque evil are not simply toned down real world evil.
It's entirely proper to RP evil in a Shakespearian style.
A lot of people in game do a good job of RPing evil.
Playing a rapist and doing a realistic job of it in the game is NOT ok. It violates quite a few of the rules, it's rude and mean spiritted, it's hazardous, it's potentially triggering to certain players, it's just a plain bad idea.
-
So basically what you're saying, Zanzi, is that evil shouldn't be toned down for RPs because everyone's smart enough to not be disturbed by it, yet it doesn't matter because most don't RP evil properly anyway (i.e. RP 'Shakespearian evil')?
That's not even slightly what I'm saying.
Shakespearian evil and Tolkienesque evil are not simply toned down real world evil.
It's entirely proper to RP evil in a Shakespearian style.
A lot of people in game do a good job of RPing evil.
Playing a rapist and doing a realistic job of it in the game is NOT ok. It violates quite a few of the rules, it's rude and mean spiritted, it's hazardous, it's potentially triggering to certain players, it's just a plain bad idea.
But you admit that Shakespearian and Tolienesque evil is substantially more toned down than "doing a realistic job", by saying that real-world evil is "hazardous, mean-spirited and a bad idea", but the other stuff isn't.
And when I say 'properly' I don't mean that it's bad RP, I mean that it doesn't actually reflect 'proper evil' - proper evil where when somebody rapes somebody else, they get HIV and die slowly. That's evil, not this nice clean 'duelling to the death' that goes on.
The thing about Shakespearian evil is that it's not real. I'm just wondering if we can really expect to create a world that lacks a shadow. It's indeniable that darkness like this is inherent in any real society - you might even say that without evil to make people seek each other out for safety, there would be no society, or at least not one recognisable to us. And PS lacks that edge. But is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
-
Planeshift is not real, so get over that.
The evil to use in RPs is Shakespeare- and Tolkien-like.
If anyone tries to RP evil "more real", like raping, they're going to get banned.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
And if you think that's restrictive, it's not. Just use your head, this is a game you know.
-
Planeshift is not real, so get over that.
The evil to use in RPs is Shakespeare- and Tolkien-like.
If anyone tries to RP evil "more real", like raping, they're going to get banned.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
And if you think that's restrictive, it's not. Just use your head, this is a game you know.
I'm not talking about Planeshift, I'm talking about RPs in general, and I'm talking about the morals of realistic rping vs. emulating evil, not whether or not it's against the rules...
How many times to I gotta say that? :P
-
But you admit that Shakespearian and Tolienesque evil is substantially more toned down than "doing a realistic job", by saying that real-world evil is "hazardous, mean-spirited and a bad idea", but the other stuff isn't.
Shakespearian and Tolkienesque evil is not toned down - it's fundamentally different.
Shakespearian has shadow enough for anyone. It's both surreal and superreal at the same time.
-
But you admit that Shakespearian and Tolienesque evil is substantially more toned down than "doing a realistic job", by saying that real-world evil is "hazardous, mean-spirited and a bad idea", but the other stuff isn't.
Shakespearian and Tolkienesque evil is not toned down - it's fundamentally different.
Shakespearian has shadow enough for anyone. It's both surreal and superreal at the same time.
So... your saying that Shakespearian evil is just as bad as brutal real-life rapings and such, but in a different way?
I don't follow... I've never been that disturbed by anything in Shakespeare...
At least not as much as when reading 'A Clockwork Orange'.
-
Well here are more examples of Evil(both in ideas and in actions) that do not necessarily involve rape and alike and are truly medieval:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum)
And another example, although not very fitting with the world of Yliakum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust)
There is no "Evil" literally. The problem is that something called lust for power is what drives mankind history throughout the centuries.
And as was said many times: "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and the end of achieving and maintaining power is many times done through the use of several unethical means. The basic nature of what is called Evil is the hunger for power, over others, over land, or over everything. That can be the basic concept for the Evil in Planeshift that is not exclusively Shakespearian or Tolkienesque, as in the struggle for power, things like slaughters, torture, oppression, genocide among others even worse were common, and still are common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Darfur_conflict). Of course madness, ignorance and hatred together with power lead to other levels of brutality as well, like in the Witch Hunts and Inquisition.
P.S.: Here is a excellent phrase to express this:
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.
-
But you admit that Shakespearian and Tolienesque evil is substantially more toned down than "doing a realistic job", by saying that real-world evil is "hazardous, mean-spirited and a bad idea", but the other stuff isn't.
Shakespearian and Tolkienesque evil is not toned down - it's fundamentally different.
Shakespearian has shadow enough for anyone. It's both surreal and superreal at the same time.
So... your saying that Shakespearian evil is just as bad as brutal real-life rapings and such, but in a different way?
I don't follow... I've never been that disturbed by anything in Shakespeare...
At least not as much as when reading 'A Clockwork Orange'.
I said that Shakespearian violence is fundamentally different than real world evil. You can't compare the two - it's wrong to ask which is worse, because they're apples and oranges. One is real life suffering. The other is fictional, albeit a superreal reflection of real life, dealing with ideals.
Well here are more examples of Evil(both in ideas and in actions) that do not involve rape and alike and are truly medieval:
Actually, witches were routinely raped, as were women who were arrested by the Inquisition. The vast majority of torture devices were invented for the Inquisition - and the vast majority of the devices were for women.
"Power" is just one paradigm among many to frame evil.
-
Just an important notice: no one should be banned because of a private RP in /group with 18+ people, with the fully consent and knowledge of everyone involved on it that is not known by the whole community. I do not want to pull that discussion again. But I think that the way it is, realistically all that could happen publically to keep the PG rating is not the Shakespearian or Tolkienesque one, but the DISNEY concept of "Evil". X-/
It is ironic how no one cares about violence, slaughter and such but when anything related to sexual content is mentioned:
The Nuisance Known as **** was banished to Another Realm by Laanx.
Let this be a Lesson to All!
This makes me willing to watch South Park Movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Movie) again ::), to laugh on the way this movie mock these Ratings again, that are fully based on certain unilateral values (http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=26685.0)
-
Just an important notice: no one should be banned because of a private RP in /group with 18+ people, with the fully consent and knowledge of everyone involved on it that is not known by the whole community.
I disagree. How can you know that everyone involved is 18+? How can you know that full consent was given? Further, it encourages others to act similarly - and they might not be as responsible with it. Further, it encourages people to seperate themselves from the rest of the community.
-
OMG you killed Kenny. Now thats evil.
If nobody except the people involved knew the rp happened how does that encourage anyone to do anything?
-
OMG you killed Kenny. Now thats evil.
If nobody except the people involved knew the rp happened how does that encourage anyone to do anything?
If no one except the people involved know, then obviously the GMs can't take action because the GMs aren't aware that it's going on.
However, there is no realistic way for the Planeshift GM team to monitor and control such potentially explicit storylines, and there's no way to guarantee that it's being "contained". Along side the other reasons I gave, and taking into account that Planeshift should protect its image, I think you can only conclude that as soon as GMs become aware of such activities they need to take actions to stop them.
-
Well Zanzibar, you just gave me inspiration for a very unique definition of evil:
"A team of GMs hunting and banning immediately anyone that mentions privately any PG-18 rated content or coarse languange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Police), that runs for 24 hours a program in the server to detect certain keywords and watches mercilessly all chats in private channels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Privacy)"
Yes and of course... let the LEET pwnz with their mediocre roleplaying while if a roleplayer decides to make something in private that contains coarse language BAN HIM IMMEDIATELY!
That would be scary...
Of course I would gladly leave Planeshift if the GM Team is supposed to work this way.
-
i. Planeshift is supposed to be PG13, so PG18 is way out of line. Anything PG14 or worse must go.
ii. Banning a player is not the first or only thing you can do. Wiping their inventory works too, and there's also talking it over.
iii. You don't have to use swear words in order to have good roleplay. In fact, I would argue that not swearing forces you to be more creative, and that's a good thing.
iv. Personally, I don't see Tolkien or Shakespeare as mediocre. That's just me though.
v. I feel that you ignored the points I made in my previous posts.
-
What I meant is that a GM Team should not behave the way you are suggesting to, like some kind of online secret police searching through private channels for anything that goes above whatever PG Planeshift is supposed to be.
There is a large amount of adult players inside Planeshift, and I think the best word to describe what you are suggesting, is fascism.
So suddenly hunting people that are making a private and small roleplay with some bits of mature content is more important than encouraging roleplay and hosting GM Events? I think this is not only completely absurd, but also enough of a reason for many people to leave. I believe that such rules should be enforced only in the public channels of chat while on the rest it should depend on the players. Whatever happen in /group and /tell, as long as it is not the use of coarse language to disregard and offend someone, is a private matter. If you think that people that putted some more mature elements in their RP deserve to be punished while the "This game sux!" types run around spoiling immersion, go right ahead and turn this game into another Runescape by banishing everyone that already talked about mature things in /tells or /groups, you can be sure many roleplayers will be gone.
It is not a question of the concept of Evil what are you meaning now, but a question of whether Planeshift should be a virtual police state on this PG thing or not.
I - Planeshift is supposed to be PG - free from what I heard, so if we wish to enforce this kind of rating, well lets use the Disney concept of evil as I mentioned before.
II - Still the way you put it before, it seemed that there should be a "no mercy" policy against RPs with mature content in private channels
III - I meant not only swear words, but also mature content, and mature does not necessarily means sex(Extreme violence for example, genocide is another mature topic, I wonder why only the "sex" part of the PG-18 bothers).
IV- You misreaded it, I said about "mediocre roleplayers" referring to the "leets" that sometimes are seen around. In my opinion Shakespeare is not bad, neither is Tolkien... but the latter is a little overused in roleplay games.
V- This was a somewhat offtopic reply about isolated RPs with mature elements in private channels.
Just one thing I forgot to mention: Just because the witches were raped in RW history, it does not mean that if there is some kind of evil based on it in PS, is necessary to include such thing as well.
-
What I meant is that a GM Team should not behave the way you are suggesting to, like some kind of online secret police searching through private channels for anything that goes above whatever PG Planeshift is supposed to be.
When did I suggest that?
There is a large amount of adult players inside Planeshift, and I think the best word to describe what you are suggesting, is fascism.
How would you suggest that GMs react to inappropriate, unwelcomed, or unwanted behaviours?
So suddenly hunting people that are making a private and small roleplay with some bits of mature content is more important than encouraging roleplay and hosting GM Events?
It's not a matter of mature content. The example given was akin to rapists in a very real world sense with the potential for explicit and graphic communications. Also, if people are being isolationalist, I think that has a tendency to hurt the roleplaying atmosphere. It's bad enough that people have group chats infront of Harnquist and then they whine when others wonder what they're talking about.
I think this is not only completely absurd, but also enough of a reason for many people to leave.
If people want to roleplay with others in ways which are very sexual, violent, and explicit, then perhaps it's best that they leave Planeshift. Everything I've read by the game's developers points to the conclusion that Planeshift is not intended for such things. Since young children play this game, it's asking for trouble to allow such behaviours in game.
I believe that such rules should be enforced only in the public channels of chat while on the rest it should depend on the players.
It's not a matter of allowing it. If people do it and keep it to themselves, then GMs won't be able to do anything about it because they won't know about it. However, the instant someone complains, GMs should take action.
If you think that people that putted some more mature elements in their RP deserve to be punished while the "This game sux!" types run around spoiling immersion, go right ahead and turn this game into another Runescape by banishing everyone that already talked about mature things in /tells or /groups, you can be sure many roleplayers will be gone.
Why is it so difficult to roleplay effectively without explicit language and subject matter? Anyway, while comments like "This game sux!" can be annoying, they're in a different category than text which is pornographic in nature or triggering.
Just because the witches were raped in RW history, it does not mean that if there is some kind of evil based on it in PS, is necessary to include such thing as well.
My statement about women being raped during the Inquisitions etc. was for the sake of historical accuracy.
-
Interesting argument. You both have decent points, though I'm inclined to agree with Lordy in that the level of explicitness should be determined by all those involved in an RP, not a pre-defined set of rules. Rules are set in place to protect us, not screw us over.
Usually, explicit content doesn't come up that much with me - except for swearing, but that's heavily censored anyway (you can't even say 'damn' for fudge-brownie's sake... :thumbdown:) - but when I do feel that it would fit, artistically, it's easy enough to just say '[anyone here opposed to a bit of explicit content?]'
There's just one little thing: This has nothing to do with my thread :P
-
Rules are set in place to protect us, not screw us over.
Rules are also set in place to protect the Planeshift project. If the rules are permissive, and a minor is subjected to improper communications, then the project could be liable to a civil lawsuit.
-
Rules are set in place to protect us, not screw us over.
Rules are also set in place to protect the Planeshift project. If the rules are permissive, and a minor is subjected to improper communications, then the project could be liable to a civil lawsuit.
I'm not saying remove the rules, I'm saying that if every single person involved in the RP gives their consent to be 'subjected to improper communications', and the RP is still censored simply because "those are the rules", then who are the rules protecting, exactly? Their enforcement would be completely unnecessary to begin with.
And that's not even going into the fact that if a 'minor' is even on the internet, it's only a matter of time before they're exposed to things far worse than mere words...
-
I'm not saying remove the rules, I'm saying that if every single person involved in the RP gives their consent to be 'subjected to improper communications', and the RP is still censored simply because "those are the rules", then who are the rules protecting, exactly? Their enforcement would be completely unnecessary to begin with.
And that's not even going into the fact that if a 'minor' is even on the internet, it's only a matter of time before they're exposed to things far worse than mere words...
It's next to impossible for the staff to make sure that everyone affected gives consent and that everyone involved is old enough.
-
Anything taking the rights away from an unwilling and undeserving person is Evil, Censorship is evil. Murder is evil. Smoking laws are evil. Drug laws are evil. Gun laws are evil. slavery is evil. And of course....... Genocide is evil
Look at Darfur, noone gives a care about them because people seem to only care about what is fashionable to care about so in other words.... Society and Humanity is evil because we seem to not care about rights taken away from others.
-
Anything taking the rights away from an unwilling and undeserving person is Evil, Censorship is evil. Murder is evil. Smoking laws are evil. Drug laws are evil. Gun laws are evil. slavery is evil. And of course....... Genocide is evil
Look at Darfur, noone gives a care about them because people seem to only care about what is fashionable to care about so in other words.... Society and Humanity is evil because we seem to not care about rights taken away from others.
I have the right not to breath in toxic gasses against my will.
I do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre if there is no actual danger.
As far as gun laws are concerned, I don't see why any civilian needs a wall of fully automatic machine guns. Of course, a lot of people are racist on this point: They're fine with Billy-Bob and Cleetus having weapons, but it's out of the question for Abdul and Nabighah.
-
Anything taking the rights away from an unwilling and undeserving person is Evil, Censorship is evil. Murder is evil. Smoking laws are evil. Drug laws are evil. Gun laws are evil. slavery is evil. And of course....... Genocide is evil
Look at Darfur, noone gives a care about them because people seem to only care about what is fashionable to care about so in other words.... Society and Humanity is evil because we seem to not care about rights taken away from others.
I have the right not to breath in toxic gasses against my will.
I do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre if there is no actual danger.
As far as gun laws are concerned, I don't see why any civilian needs a wall of fully automatic machine guns. Of course, a lot of people are racist on this point: They're fine with Billy-Bob and Cleetus having weapons, but it's out of the question for Abdul and Nabighah.
You have the right to avoid that smoke, and yelling fire takes away someone else's right to safety
Also the way i see it, if everyone is armed then noone will want to try to attack someone for the sheer knowledge of the chances they'd have. Plus the need for such things as the patriot act would be gone since we would all have new national security plans... a nation's people is much scarier then it's army
-
You have the right to avoid that smoke, and yelling fire takes away someone else's right to safety
Also the way i see it, if everyone is armed then noone will want to try to attack someone for the sheer knowledge of the chances they'd have. Plus the need for such things as the patriot act would be gone since we would all have new national security plans... a nation's people is much scarier then it's army
You're right. I do have a right to avoid that smoke. And to avoid it, all smokers need to do their smoking in their own homes. Unless they have children, in which case the'll go to special houses where smokers can smoke their drugs. Just like crack houses.
Cigarette smoke is nearly impossible to avoid given how rude and inconsiderate nearly all smokers are. My conclusion is that smokers aren't evil, they're just ignorant. They can't smell it, so they don't realize how badly they stink or how far their smoke travels. If someone is smoking on the street, I'm going to have to what? Cross traffic and hope that I don't find another smoker on the other side? If someone is smoking at the entrance to my apartment building or office or lecture hall, I'm going to have to what? Go to the rear entrance? Plug my nose and run past them? No. I will not suffer because of your addiction and ignorance.
Suicide bombers do not care about getting killed. Suicidal teens who decide to blow up their school do not care about getting killed. And I don't give a rat's rear end if the guy who kills my loved ones ends up being killed himself - my loved ones are still dead, thank you very much.