Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yay

6 (46.2%)

Nay

7 (53.8%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Chevaleresse]

you still can't go back and say "oh that wasn't evil because he was totally programmed to not actually be harmed by the experience, yeah, i definitely did that but just didn't say it"

[Rolepgeek]

Andres does put effort in. In the wrong parts. *shrug*

Also, great dismissal, there, Andres. Not obvious at all.

[Andres]

you still can't go back and say "oh that wasn't evil because he was totally programmed to not actually be harmed by the experience, yeah, i definitely did that but just didn't say it"

It is what I intended all along. I hadn't realised that there was an absolute need for me to spell it out when the matter is so inconsequential and the end result is the same. I obviously underestimated how important and crucial this is that some OOC pseudo-revisionism is absolutely unacceptable and will make sure to note the various alterations in the future.

Also, great dismissal, there, Andres. Not obvious at all.

Rolepgeek, please, stop provoking me.

[Stirk]

Relax, Stirk, you're getting far too invested in this. I will take what you said into consideration.

Stirk is getting annoyed, not invested.

The funny thing is, Andres does these experiments so he doesn't have to assume things, and thus make Stirk mad.

The experiments are fine, the Retcons are the problem.

[TheBiggerFish]

The Council deicides everything else

... KJP?

[Rolepgeek]

Andres, I am not attempting to provoke you. If you don't want to respond to the statement itself, that's fine, but you could at least acknowledge the fact that you looked like you were trying to dismiss Stirk there. Because you most definitely were. "I will take what you said into consideration" is, even if you didn't intend for it to be such in this context, code for 'I don't give a shit what you think, stop bothering me'. Particularly when you tell someone they're too invested in it directly previously.

Furthermore, if it's so inconsequential, then why are you making such a big deal about trying to go back and revise it? Just leave it as it is. You're a god. You're not required to be nice.

[Chevaleresse]

It is what I intended all along. I hadn't realised that there was an absolute need for me to spell it out when the matter is so inconsequential and the end result is the same. I obviously underestimated how important and crucial this is that some OOC pseudo-revisionism is absolutely unacceptable and will make sure to note the various alterations in the future.

the thing is that, well, yeah, ooc revisionism is NOT okay, there's a reason that edits IC are barely tolerated. What you say is how you are perceived because your statements literally define reality in this case. You gave no hints whatsoever IC that you'd made this a "special" human in some way. What you said is "I make a human at the bottom of the ocean." So you got a human at the bottom of the ocean. Humans have nerves, so he/she had nerves. You can't rely on the other players (or the GM, for that matter), to assume things that aren't reasonable to assume.

[Andres]

The experiments are fine, the Retcons are the problem.

I honestly thought the retcons wouldn't be a problem. It was such a minor thing, I thought people would let it slide. Apparently not, so I'll make sure to be more careful in the future.

Andres, I am not attempting to provoke you. If you don't want to respond to the statement itself, that's fine, but you could at least acknowledge the fact that you looked like you were trying to dismiss Stirk there. Because you most definitely were. "I will take what you said into consideration" is, even if you didn't intend for it to be such in this context, code for 'I don't give a shit what you think, stop bothering me'. Particularly when you tell someone they're too invested in it directly previously.

My response will be to explain what I was actually going for and the response to that will either be denial or an explanation that I was doing it wrong. I will not follow this line of discussion further.

Furthermore, if it's so inconsequential, then why are you making such a big deal about trying to go back and revise it? Just leave it as it is.

I'm making a big deal out of it because it's an integral part of Malakath's character: she does (or at least did) messed up things but did so in as positive a manner as possible. That's a big difference from simply "did messed up things". Everyone else is making a big deal out of it because "You can't do it because you can't do it and that's that!" as far as I can tell.

Subjectively it's consequential and that gives me reason to do it, but objectively it's inconsequential and that's why I didn't think people would have a problem with it.

You're a god. You're not required to be nice.

I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that just because my goddess isn't legally required to have a personality that she shouldn't? That goes the same for all gods.

the thing is that, well, yeah, ooc revisionism is NOT okay, there's a reason that edits IC are barely tolerated. What you say is how you are perceived because your statements literally define reality in this case. You gave no hints whatsoever IC that you'd made this a "special" human in some way. What you said is "I make a human at the bottom of the ocean." So you got a human at the bottom of the ocean. Humans have nerves, so he/she had nerves. You can't rely on the other players (or the GM, for that matter), to assume things that aren't reasonable to assume.

The plan was to bring it up when it came up then people would go "Oh ok" and then move on.

[Chevaleresse]

why not just say so initially and avoid all the fuss?

[Andres]

why not just say so initially and avoid all the fuss?

Tedium and didn't think it was necessary. If I knew at the time what it would've led to I would've just included it initially.

[Stirk]

I'm making a big deal out of it because it's an integral part of Malakath's character: she does (or at least did) messed up things but did so in as positive a manner as possible. That's a big difference from simply "did messed up things". Everyone else is making a big deal out of it because "You can't do it because you can't do it and that's that!" as far as I can tell.

Subjectively it's consequential and that gives me reason to do it, but objectively it's inconsequential and that's why I didn't think people would have a problem with it.

We are making a big deal about it because it is annoying, lazy, and generally poor writing. Its not "objectively inconsequential". What objectively happened is what was written in virtual ink. You can't just change the objective story that 21 people are writing together because you "didn't feel like writing down what *really* happened because its boring and tedious and this is totally what I meant to do".

I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that just because my goddess isn't legally required to have a personality that she shouldn't? That goes the same for all gods.

They are saying its OK for your God to have painfully killed someone (like they did) rather than making a person without the ability to feel the horrible things you did to them, so you don't really need to defend her actions.

[piratejoe]

You're a god. You're not required to be nice.

I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that just because my goddess isn't legally required to have a personality that she shouldn't? That goes the same for all gods.

I feel as if this is implying that gods don't have a personality if they are evil or neutral, even if i know it's probably not.

[Demonic Spoon]

Andres, I am not attempting to provoke you. If you don't want to respond to the statement itself, that's fine, but you could at least acknowledge the fact that you looked like you were trying to dismiss Stirk there. Because you most definitely were. "I will take what you said into consideration" is, even if you didn't intend for it to be such in this context, code for 'I don't give a shit what you think, stop bothering me'. Particularly when you tell someone they're too invested in it directly previously.

Rolepgeek, I think you might have some anti-Andres bias colouring your perception here. I'm pretty sure Andres was sincere, and I read it as being sincere.

Furthermore, if it's so inconsequential, then why are you making such a big deal about trying to go back and revise it? Just leave it as it is. You're a god. You're not required to be nice.

Because as has been said, this is a roleplaying game, and Andres wants to roleplay a nice, or at least not evil god. He may not be required to, but he wants to.

[Andres]

You can't just change the objective story that 21 people are writing together because you "didn't feel like writing down what *really* happened because its boring and tedious and this is totally what I meant to do".

I think of it more as 21 people writing their own stories that affect and are affected by others' stories. The idea was that so long as what I wrote didn't actually affect anything, I could have it be whatever I wanted. But if I have to change how I think of this game, so be it. I'll make sure not to make the mistake again.

I feel as if this is implying that gods don't have a personality if they are evil or neutral, even if i know it's probably not.

Wasn't implying that. I was just saying that players are allowed play gods that completely lack personality. No one actually does, but there's never been a rule against it.

I'm pretty sure Andres was sincere, and I read it as being sincere.

Confirming sincerity. Wanted to cool down the argument and since I was considering what he said, I mentioned what I was doing to help the former goal. Simple as that.

Because as has been said, this is a roleplaying game, and Andres wants to roleplay a nice, or at least not evil god. He may not be required to, but he wants to.

I won't confirm the specific morality of my god, but otherwise yeah.

[Kilojoule Proton]

Broadcast:
    Implicitry and such: If something was not explicitly written at the time of resolution and the GM does not know about it, it really did not happen. (Save entirely plot/crunch-irrelevant things like color, amount of hair, mud huts vs. straw huts vs. mud-with-straw huts, &c. outside a context where they are relevant. Concern/attention by others does increase relevance.)

Andres:
    Rolling update: Ideally, update after reaching several pages without waiting for the usual times if possible.

    Personality and stuff: I think what's provoking such a strong reaction is saying Malakath is nice while doing things perceived as incredibly not-nice. Apparent hypocrisy just seems to be one of those things that really, really tick people off...

TheBiggerFish: What of it?