Ignore function: If you can't hear them, then they can't hear you.

[Rongar Elani]

I would go further and suggest that putting someone on ignore affects all the characters on that account because after all you are ignoring the player if the behavior that prompts the ignore is OOC.

This would actually displease those people, who are sharing accounts, me including. If you want to ignore someone, put him on the list manually, after you figured out it's the same person.

Crap, I just reread that and realized what it actually said.  I thought he was saying that the name should be added to the ignore list on all the characters on your account.  I didn't realize he was saying that all the characters on their account would be ignored.

This is a really dangerous idea.  It could be exploited to find someone's alts.  In fact, that's all it's good for since to avoid it you could put each of your characters on a seperate account.

This is true, indeed. But your scenario would displease people who share accounts aswell. If Player A puts someone on his ignorelist, Player B on the same account, who is probably a different person, shouldn't be effected by it. If player B is good friends with the ignored player, he would need to scratch him from the list in order to keep the relationship, which would force Player A to tolerate him, or to put him up again.

[bilbous]

If all your alts are on other accounts it would not find them either. At worst it would ignore 4 characters. It just seems that if you want to punish someone for bad behavior it does no good ignoring the character that may be deleted at the end of the session. Of course that does nothing to prevent a determined griefer who can create endless accounts but it does save time as you would not need to ignore 4/account.

OT: I am not sure why you would want to share accounts when accounts are freely available, anyone can get a webmail (yahoo, hotmail, australia.edu, etc) account to use to sign up for a PS account. All it seems to do is limit the number of characters you can have from 4 to 2 or less. I suppose you must have your reasons though. Perhaps it is to supervise a minor child which would be understandable.

[Rongar Elani]

Brothers and sisters share accounts, aswell as husbands and wifes, or boyfriends and girlfiriends. Since there are 4 character slots available per account, why not sharing the account that is already signed up? The only advantage of seperate accounts, is when you have two computers and want to play with your partner at the same time.

PS: what means 'OT' ?

[bilbous]

OT=

another advantage of separate accounts is more baggage handling space if you are the pack rat type.

[zanzibar]

If all your alts are on other accounts it would not find them either. At worst it would ignore 4 characters. It just seems that if you want to punish someone for bad behavior it does no good ignoring the character that may be deleted at the end of the session. Of course that does nothing to prevent a determined griefer who can create endless accounts but it does save time as you would not need to ignore 4/account.

OT: I am not sure why you would want to share accounts when accounts are freely available, anyone can get a webmail (yahoo, hotmail, australia.edu, etc) account to use to sign up for a PS account. All it seems to do is limit the number of characters you can have from 4 to 2 or less. I suppose you must have your reasons though. Perhaps it is to supervise a minor child which would be understandable.

Are you purposely trying to miss the point?  You share accounts to share characters.  "At worst it would ignore 4 characters" is a laughable statement.  Your statement "It just seems that if you want to punish someone" shows that you're still ignoring (or simply not getting) the reason why the ignore function exists.  And every single post you make moves to derail the thread, and you're a smart enough guy to know better.

[bilbous]

I suppose it is just a difference in viewpoint. If you ignore someone it is to avoid having to hear from them. It could be seen as a punishment similar to makinga child sit in a corner. Now you want to avoid even seeing them. That could be seen as a harsher punishment such as sending them to their room. To me /ignore is a punishment where you withhold your character from another or blot them out of existence.

Sharing characters is bad role play as inevitably you will do something the other person would not and vice versa. It is like those novels where two or three authors try to write alternating chapters in such a way as to stick it to the others. It may be entertaining but it is not good literature.

Just because we do not share the same basic view of the nature or reason for the /ignore command does not mean I am trying to derail the thread although if you have a narrow view about thread ownership it could seem that way. I am merely trying to share my views about your idea such as they occur to me. I try not to belittle other peoples ideas and if I do not agree wholeheartedly I try to present my alternative views.

To sum up:

If you add someone to your ignore list, in addition to not hearing them, they won't be able to hear you either.

It is not enough that I no longer have to listen to X's blather he should not be allowed to enjoy mine.

If you're invisible to one another, not only can they not do this, but they can't follow you around period.

If you cannot see them what possible harm can you suffer from them seeing you? I suppose they can bad-mouth you to whoever you talk to but that would just get more people to ignore them.

All-in-all if what I have said means nothing to you then I guess I just don't understand the need for this idea.

[zanzibar]

I suppose it is just a difference in viewpoint.

You're smart enough to know what people intend to communicate, even if you disagree with their point of view.

If you ignore someone it is to avoid having to hear from them. It could be seen as a punishment similar to makinga child sit in a corner. Now you want to avoid even seeing them. That could be seen as a harsher punishment such as sending them to their room. To me /ignore is a punishment where you withhold your character from another or blot them out of existence.

The /ignore function exists to protect people from harassment.  It can be used to punish people, but that isn't its purpose and I find it to be a rather childish application that we shouldn't care too much about or spend time discussing.

Sharing characters is bad role play as inevitably you will do something the other person would not and vice versa. It is like those novels where two or three authors try to write alternating chapters in such a way as to stick it to the others. It may be entertaining but it is not good literature.

I disagree with you, but it's offtopic so I'm going to ignore* it.

Just because we do not share the same basic view of the nature or reason for the /ignore command does not mean I am trying to derail the thread although if you have a narrow view about thread ownership it could seem that way. I am merely trying to share my views about your idea such as they occur to me. I try not to belittle other peoples ideas and if I do not agree wholeheartedly I try to present my alternative views.

You are replying to posts as if the posters said something they didn't intend to.  It gives the appearance that you merely misread or misunderstood the posts, but I think you're both smarter than that and capable of doing better.

To sum up:

If you add someone to your ignore list, in addition to not hearing them, they won't be able to hear you either.

It is not enough that I no longer have to listen to X's blather he should not be allowed to enjoy mine.

If you're invisible to one another, not only can they not do this, but they can't follow you around period.

If you cannot see them what possible harm can you suffer from them seeing you? I suppose they can bad-mouth you to whoever you talk to but that would just get more people to ignore them.

All-in-all if what I have said means nothing to you then I guess I just don't understand the need for this idea.

Again, you're replying to what was written as if something else was said.  There is nothing in my post that remotely implies that what you write means nothing to me.  Are you trying to flame-bait me?  And why are you asking me to repeat myself?



*Roleplaying is not a form of literature.  It's an activity.

[Rongar Elani]

How about this:

If you wish to fully ignore a person, have an additional command for that, like /ignore_totally [name]. Then you won't ever hear nor see this person anymore, because like Zanzibar said, if they can still see you, they can bug you by running through your character or jumping on you.

So, you are both entirely invisible to eachother. But since this is some sort of a drastical measure, both players should know about the action and be alright with it. So if you really never want to be bugged by this person again, you need his approval. If he agrees, and he never wants to hear from you either, fine. But if he declines, there are two possibilities on why he did so. Either he wants to continue being an annoyance, or he doesn't know what he did wrong, he thinks he will get ignored for no reason. Either way, if he declines, there will automatically be a petition sent, or let's call it a request of accommodating the quarrel by a GM. He could function as the neutral thrid party trying to settle the differences, and to decide, whether or not a full ignore is in order.

In case there is no GM online or the GM decides against a full ignore, the normal ignore will have to do.

[zanzibar]

So, you are both entirely invisible to eachother. But since this is some sort of a drastical measure, both players should know about the action and be alright with it. So if you really never want to be bugged by this person again, you need his approval. If he agrees, and he never wants to hear from you either, fine. But if he declines, there are two possibilities on why he did so. Either he wants to continue being an annoyance, or he doesn't know what he did wrong, he thinks he will get ignored for no reason. Either way, if he declines, there will automatically be a petition sent, or let's call it a request of accommodating the quarrel by a GM. He could function as the neutral thrid party trying to settle the differences, and to decide, whether or not a full ignore is in order.

This defeats the purpose.

[Rongar Elani]

But there can't be a full ignore without restrictions. And a full ignore is what you advocated.

Good idea. Be great if you didn't have to SEE them, or them see you, as well.

I like this.  After ignoring someone, they can still harass you by walking through your character or jumping on you.  If you're invisible to one another, not only can they not do this, but they can't follow you around period.

Imagine you are in duel with someone and this someone hits his shortcut:

/ignore_totally >target<.

Poof.

You can exchange this obvious scenario with any other where you want to get hold of a person and he simply ignores you. Thievery for example.

[zanzibar]

But there can't be a full ignore without restrictions.

Why not?

Imagine you are in duel with someone and this someone hits his shortcut:

/ignore_totally >target<.

Poof.

So what?  People would know not to duel with that person anymore.

You can exchange this obvious scenario with any other where you want to get hold of a person and he simply ignores you. Thievery for example.

If someone's going to ignore you OOCly, they're going to ignore you OOCly one way or another.

[Rongar Elani]

But there can't be a full ignore without restrictions.

Why not?

Because it's too much power to be handed to non GMs and can be abused the way I just described. You can ignore a person, for all it's worth, but you cannot force a person to ignore you too. This is just too much control you are going to unleash on that player, no matter what your reasons may be. If he doesn't want to ignore you aswell, the final decision needs to be made by a GM.

Imagine you are in duel with someone and this someone hits his shortcut:

/ignore_totally >target<.

Poof.

So what?  People would know not to duel with that person anymore.

That's not the point. The point is that this player has too much power over you. He can ignore you, just because he feels like doing so, and to get an advantage over you.

You can exchange this obvious scenario with any other where you want to get hold of a person and he simply ignores you. Thievery for example.

If someone's going to ignore you OOCly, they're going to ignore you OOCly one way or another.

Absolutely. But if someone decides to ignore you, should he also be allowed to determine if you are to ignore him aswell? Further, the power of turning invisible for eachother can easily be taken IC.

I'd like to quote Nikodemus from another thread. I hope he won't mind.

I can almost hear "Thief thief, get him! he entered the travern, he ran upstairs! After him!, where did he go? He disappeared... weird... "

A very poor RP use of the feature, no doubt, especially since it is not meant to be taken IC. But still, some people will do it, if the possibility is there, without having to deal with restrictions. Of course you can choose never to RP with these persons again, but this wouldn't prevent them from using it, whenever they wish and therewith ruining other people's RPs.

And to avoid that, the power to totally ignore eachother should not lay in the hands of the players, at least not in the hands of only one. I'm most sure it would do far more harm than it would actually be of use, if available for just anyone.

PS: A statement from the officials would surely help to clarify the usefulness versus the likelihood of malpractice of this feature. Anyone?

[zanzibar]

The "officials" like to stay out of discussions the first time they happen.  That way, they avoid saying anything they might later regret.  It's actually quite wise depending on what your priorities are.

To be honest, the reason why I think it should be two-ways is in part to protect against abuse of the /ignore function.  It would make people take the ignore function more seriously and it would prevent the equivalent of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" which I see in open chat far too often.  It would help make the game more peaceful because in most conflicts both individuals are partly responsible so it's helpful to seperate them as much as possible for the public good.

[Rongar Elani]

I see nothing wrong with seperating individuals. But if someone decides to ignore you and forces you to ignore him too (since you can't do anything about it), it means a cut of your own free will. It's not up to him to make decisions for you. And actually, what sounds so awful about a GM intervening the situation? That's one of their jobs, after all.

What can a GM do for me?
# Assist in keeping the player free from unwanted harassment.

I'll try to give a practical example on how it could be handled.

Player XYZ annoys you with following you where ever you go, yelling at you and running through your character. In other words, he is really dotty about you. You try to get rid of him. At first, calmly. You tell him to stop that. He continues. You tell him to move along, or else you will call higher authorities. He continues, because he will just be going to behave properly for if you really do. At this point, some people are so annoyed, that they choose to challenge him. He declines, then continues. Final solution, you are going to ignore him, totally, because his harrassment is not restricted to only his voice. You type in: /ignore_totally XYZ. A confirmation box pops up for XYZ. He quickly reads it, then laughs and clicks on 'No'. He continues.

What he doesn't know: By clicking on 'No', a GM will be sent the chatlogs of the last 5 minutes and the next 5 minutes, just like with /report (in case there is no GM on, it could be read up later, and then dealt with the situtation). But if a GM is on, he will now contact you. You tell him that you are being harrassed. He asks for your location and you answer him. Being invisible he comes to your position and witnesses the delinquency. With this proof, he can put you two on eachothers ignore list. Problem solved. And with a GM being the one who had the final word on it, this feature will not going to be abused in any possible way.

It would be something different, if both players agreed to the full ignore, but both at least need to have a chance to defend themselves from this feature, and their possible abuses.

As for the 'LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU', such beings are best dealt with by /report, as such a sentence is clearly OOC and disturbing not only you, but also the people around you.

[zanzibar]

I see nothing wrong with seperating individuals. But if someone decides to ignore you and forces you to ignore him too (since you can't do anything about it), it means a cut of your own free will. It's not up to him to make decisions for you.

Our "free will" is cut quartered and compromised every which way and often.  I don't see this as a problem.

And actually, what sounds so awful about a GM intervening the situation? That's one of their jobs, after all.

It can take a GM 20 minutes to respond to a petition, and once they arive it's usually too late to catch the offender in the act.

As for the 'LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU', such beings are best dealt with by /report, as such a sentence is clearly OOC and disturbing not only you, but also the people around you.

You would think that.