Not just here, but everywhere! Communication is a critically important thing in almost every facet of life.Communication is key here.
If you’re referring to my news article, @raz (I’m guessing it’s mine, as a search for ‘SAINT’ and a search for ‘Intelligence’ in the News Stories subforum returns a combined total of three relevant results that weren’t written by you: mine, one by Andrew, and one by HarperMadi), then I sincerely apologize, as my intent wasn’t to embarrass SAINT, portray it in a way that didn’t make sense, or paint it as being incompetent or anything like that - the onlu reason I didn’t bring it up with you is because I didn’t think its inclusion was very major or important (in my opinion, of course). I’ll happily remove its mention from the article if you want (please let me know in forum PMs), and I’ll be sure to check in with you before including SAINT in any other news articles (or the Panopteles plot, for that matter).Over the past year for instance, multiple people have referenced SAINT in news articles in ways that do not really make much sense and have done so without coordinating with the SAINT manager.
Wes asked us not to single any situation out explicitly
Yeah one day raz said to me, "Frost wrote for SAINT in his news post." I had read it and said, "Yeah but the laison could just be explaining SAINT is involved and maybe they are, maybe they handed some pertinent information on to those investigating. If he writes them doing anything more I'll bring it up." So it was pretty nothing burger. It's been worse before where I was like, "Why are they writing the intelligence branch like a fumbling idiot or doing things other facets of the Star Army would be doing?" And those things needed to be changed. You're good, Frost.If you’re referring to my news article, @raz (I’m guessing it’s mine, as a search for ‘SAINT’ and a search for ‘Intelligence’ in the News Stories subforum returns a combined total of three relevant results that weren’t written by you: mine, one by Andrew, and one by HarperMadi), then I sincerely apologize, as my intent wasn’t to embarrass SAINT, portray it in a way that didn’t make sense, or paint it as being incompetent or anything like that - the onlu reason I didn’t bring it up with you is because I didn’t think its inclusion was very major or important (in my opinion, of course). I’ll happily remove its mention from the article if you want (please let me know in forum PMs), and I’ll be sure to check in with you before including SAINT in any other news articles (or the Panopteles plot, for that matter).
Also note that this post is not meant to cause drama or anything - just to apologize for a failure of communication on my behalf. >v<
raz didn't, Frost did that. raz was speaking generally because, if you read what I said above, it's happened a few times.And yet that's exactly what you did? If we want to use it as an example, let's dig into it and discuss where we think boundaries lay. If not, we should probably edit these posts.
This is one of the places that is the softest on In Character Actions = In Character Consequences that I have ever participated in, and it's more of a bug than a feature (although SARP's longevity and resiliency may speak to the fact this is not necessarily a flaw of critical severity, and that longevity and resiliency always needs to be kept in mind when discussing what is "wrong" with SARP)Imagine you’re playing a game of D&D and your game master determines that your character needs to make a particular roll, or failed a roll, or in someway had a negative experience or failure. The player cannot simply tell the game master “no, I don’t accept that”.
Unfortunately, the balance of In-Character Action and In-Character Consequence is something that this community has struggled with for a long time. In the end, the policies in place were put there were done to try and ensure a safe and happy player base. I understand where you are coming from on this entirely. I've been frustrated many times when there have been situations where things have been done in character that in any other setting my character would have killed the other player character for it. Over the years I have concluded that sometimes concessions have to be made in the name of keeping people happy. They may not make sense to someone like me who has experience in other communities where action and consequence are less regulated.You know, I am really back-and-forth on this.
One of the Players Rights is that they can also be abused. Imagine you’re playing a game of D&D and your game master determines that your character needs to make a particular roll, or failed a roll, or in someway had a negative experience or failure. The player cannot simply tell the game master “no, I don’t accept that”. Or if PvP occurs the players cannot simply refuse incoming damage.
The reason I mention this is because some of Star Army’s rules create an environment where players can perform an action and generally not fear any consequences or ramifications. In some ways this can be used for good storytelling, but in other ways it can be exploited. Honestly, I am against expanding the Players Rights, but rather reducing them slightly. Players operating in good faith will occasionally make a mistake and it can be fixed cordially. If we make the rules more granular I foresee the potential for someone acting in bad faith to use “Rules as Written” arguments to avoid all consequences of failed actions or pushback on ideas that affect the story and other players.
Just IC vaguepost with detailed descriptions and don't name namesthere have been situations where things have been done in character that in any other setting my character would have killed the other player character for it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?