Is the ship template an IC or OOC document?

[Kai]

Uso

Is the ship template an IC or OOC document?

Mainly I just want to have a post somewhere saying which is appropriate so we have some criteria for judging history writeups, or in other words:

Are these sections supposed to present a neutral view of the history of the submission or can they be about the history of the submission as the designer player character sees it?

Doshii Jun

When designing the Harpy and Daisy, I absolutely took a third-party view of historical events, though that doesn't mean there aren't IC "views" and what not in there.

This is only a problem now because Scribbles and Doc are battling with each other. We have never had this problem before because we do not have intrafaction fighting in tech submissions. We're basically seeing two GMs knock heads over views of an event.

I really think you could stick with "IC" histories and whatnot, and you'd be fine. Most histories don't include the kind of shrill, kill-and-effect scenarios Doc has with his Winter power armor. Besides, push comes to shove, cut off problems at the source -- talk to anyone you feel might be "insulted" by your written history.

Uso

Perhaps if histories are going to be IC it should be expected that they are in the form of quotes from a character?

Andrew

Alright I am going to step in here.

Histories on technology are written from the slant of faction/veiw of their designer. That means they can be bias towards whatever that faction believes is correct. It doesn't mean it is accurate.

History is based on the perspective of those who participated in it.--- For example the United States believes that it entered WWII (Europe) in a whirlwind of glory and ended a horrible bitter war. Others however see it as the United States entered after everyone else had been fighting for years, their advantage was fresh troops-not some grand contribution.

I am going to say again: The history being disputed here is not isolated to this technology submission. Doc and Vesper need to take the conversation elsewhere.

Derran Tyler

I always treat my submissions as if I was reading some sort of encyclopedia or publication of the details of the design. In that regard, the entry should be somewhat objective in tone.

Andrew

Thank you to whoever moved the thread.

Tech submissions btw are OOC documents that are sometimes written with an IC slant.

Reason for it, if lets say you're a freespacer player. If you read the document on the Chiharu, it doesn't mean your character knows its schematics-thats bad news.

Scribbles

My view has always been that the wiki was supposed to be as objective as possible, especially when concerning player factions.

I had taken my example from many of the older html pages mostly authored by Wes, but sometimes others, on things such as the Yui series of ships; which do in fact read much like an encyclopedia, and serve as an objective reference for a player trying to learn about a particular setting element.

In the topic that sparked this discussion, my particular problem isn't that I refuse to accept that the IC Lorath have any particular views about Occhestans, in fact wholly understand why the Lorath would have particular view's about Occhestans.

My particular problems are centered on a few related issues.

The first being that my view of the wiki has always been that it is, and should be, in majority an encyclopedic reference (primarily OOC) for use by players from any faction trying to learn more about the setting. And that the vast majority of IC should remain on the forum.

The second being that those players who might see the history section of that particular armour, or any other similar section in any wiki article, written with an IC bias, might well (and quite understandably) accept it as the absolute fact.

The third issue building on the second is that, Vesper and I, like many others on the site, are working very hard and trying our best to establish our faction as a viable place for role players, while trying to attract new players from outside the SARP as well. When new player reads sections like that, in what otherwise appears to be an encyclopedic reference, it seriously undermines the factions viability and it opportunities to attract and keep role players.

If every wiki article goes down this path of a vague mix of IC and OOC, what will the wiki be like?

For example:
What happens when a section is written from the point of view of a staunch Nepleslian nationalist and it starts talking about Nekos?
From that view it might not make Yamatai look all that great anymore to a new player who's looking around.

And what impression would someone get if they started reading a Yamatai patriots view of Elysian's and history involving them? (Think of the possible topics, the Wars, or even the plague?)
It's maybe not the best impression they would walk away with, and it would be the same if the situations were flipped around.

----

I have been thinking though, and I have a somewhat middle ground idea I would like to pitch.

I would like to propose that each faction at their own digression should (optionally, but strongly recommended) author a faction 'textbook' history which presents the common views of SARP history from their own point of view. This way history from the view of each faction is preserved; while both presenting it in a format that is both upfront about being prone to an IC bias, and also serves as a guide for new players about the common views in each faction. This can then also help them during the character creation process.

I recommend that this be included in a larger drive to create effective and usable player guides for each group and faction. Anyone remember the player guides from the SAoY 5th ex and the YSS Sakura on the old version of the site? Those were awesome and informative, they really drew you in and made you want to play in those groups. Well I'm hoping that with this maybe we can get stuff more like that.

(I consent that maybe I've gone on a slight tangent with he second half of the the post, but please forgive, I just want to help improve the site while resolving problems at the same time ^_^; )

Doshii Jun

If, in a submission's history, IC perspectives are present, guess what: You have yourself one single source of information. There are plenty more out there.

The purpose of the wiki is research and storage. In that context, I think a good player, a player we want, would do some research, just like all of us do. An IC perspective in the history of the tech submission should not turn a player around like that; it should foster questions that can be posed.

I also think you're taking it to an impractical extreme, Scribbles. Is a player who reads a wiki submission and suddenly steers away from your faction seriously worth recruiting in the first place?

Last, but not least -- the history part might be a good idea, but it will mostly be Wes and the real old-timers writing it, unless we get some permission to try and interpret the occasionally scant bits of history we have.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is all much ado about nothing. The player that reads Nepleslia's view on Nekos and is turned off to Yamatai? Sounds fine to me -- give me someone who will examine more than one perspective and really seek out what they enjoy in the first place.

Kim

Actually, in the article about Nepleslia's culture we do have what their negative views on nekos are. In certain parts of the wiki, a less objective view might be appropriate on something about a nation's culture and biases. Perhaps Doc's ooc/IC views on Occhestans would be appropriate if he wrote it from a biased point of view and marked it as such. We could always add an objective interpretation to those events or even with any of our wiki articles that aren't such.

With Sora's wiki I tried to write it objectively and then add IC quotes of events. BUT to give her background a more IC perspective, I wrote some events in a "journal" that was linked to her wiki article.

Zakalwe

I think the idea of clearly marking any IC perspectives or sections is a rather good idea. That would rather remove the issue, no?

Your long posts make me feel bad.

Andrew

Doshii and Kim have pretty much said what I was going to.

In comment however,

Quote:
I also think you're taking it to an impractical extreme, Scribbles. Is a player who reads a wiki submission and suddenly steers away from your faction seriously worth recruiting in the first place?

Scribbles/Vesper, I do have to agree with Jake on this-rather than contacting Doc about this you and Vesper immediately took to posting your complaints about it in a rather blunt and unsympathetic manner(selecting to be rather extreme)-following a growning, disappointing trend of people getting rather uppity over something very minor that could be discussed without highjacking a thread. (in this case to the point that it had to be split and moved.)

Try and approach things a little more calmly. We are a community of friends here. There is no need to inflate such simple topics to such an ordeal. Just because some factions don't get along ICly, doesn't mean the people have to be hostile OOCly.

Scribbles

I still stand by my post in that original thread (I cannot say anything of Vespers or Tomoes posts they're not mine); In it I never strayed from addressing the issue at hand, which was part of the submission.

I wasn't harassing, sarcastic, or overtly hostile in my posts; but yes neither did I sugar coat and play down the issues. I believe most people here are adults and can be talked to as such.

I might have tried taking it up in private, but to be honest the last time I tried such I was told quite plainly 'where to get off' so to speak. So I prefer to keep the majority of my communication on the public forum now.

I stand by my comments and ideas, not believing they're at all unreasonable.

But if you wish to dismiss them thats your prerogative. I've said my peace.

Andrew

Scibbles, I was not dismissing them, I was merely stating-my opinion- that they could of been presented in a little more of a friendly non-extreme manner. Yes-people on this forum are adults but they deserve respect as well.

I am asking everyone to be a little nicer these days.

Again, your opinions are valid as your own opinions. Just be considerate of the opinions of others as well . Was not trying to get down on you here.

And if you and Vesper require anything setting up your faction please contact me.

Doshii Jun

Scribbles, how about a compromise?

In the history section of a tech submission, and only in that section, a tag could be slipped in at the top that shows it's from an IC perspective, or something to that effect. That's pretty unobtrusive, and it'd get what you want. I think.
Sound plausible?

Scribbles

It would be acceptable to me.

(I hope everyone at least understands my desire not to lose any possible role players. I had trouble in the last plot I tried, players leaving because of issues that had very little to do with the actual plot and I would like to keep loses of players/possible players to a minimum)

Doshii Jun

I'll request Andrew make that a rule, then.

And the footnote helps clarify why you're rigid on your opinions. Thanks for that.

Lex

It sounds like an excellent solution.

 

[Wes]

I suppose technically, wiki articles in general are OOC documentation for players. Some of them may be usable as IC information as well but just because there's a wiki doesn't necessarily mean a particular player character or NPC is privy to the information.