They are not complaints, actually. They are meant as constructive criticism and highlight what is wrong and what is needed. Complaints are when you simply whine or express dissatisfaction. But this is not about me, it is about the best for everyone in this game and there are clues in there on what is wrong and what can be done better.Woah... Quite some hefty complaints there, Golub.
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. But then, maybe I just misunderstood you. So I'll tell you how I understood your note.
Glancing back quickly at what you have written so far, I disagree with mostly everything, so I suppose the feelings are somewhat mutual.
Yes, you are required to roleplay. Whether you bash orcs, participate in PVP, soap or love dramas, you must roleplay. It is in fact in the rules. It is not there expressed, but I kind of assume that. Additionally, if this is not obvious enough, it is on the front page and it is also advertised as roleplaying enforced. So yes, 100%. I'd like to hear the argument about GEAS isn't a roleplaying MUD though, so by all means, go ahead and make this case. But let us then please build that argument in a new "Geas is not a roleplaying game" thread, because it would be such a fundamental disagreement that it would quickly spawn many new threads, and has no relation to Glorfindels post. I would actually be interested to hear from an admin chipping in, if roleplaying has now become optional. The fact that the GEAS admin has more or less never enforced this is entirely a different matter and a huge problem. It leads to people believing that this is something which you can opt-out of. Not only does it directly hurt everyone else who trusts that you are roleplaying and build their assumptions on it, but also waters out the authority of the admin and the meaning of the game. This said, I think there are valid reasons for not roleplaying, such as being a newbie, but in your case, that is not true.Are you really meaning to say that anytime I am not up to 100% rp action I should be punished?
It is a bit worrysome that such an experienced player asks for the option to not roleplay. It is the purpose of the game. It makes me wonder why you do not want to do this and what you have been doing so far. It sounds more or less like you are actually confessing that you have not been roleplaying, and not only broken the rules but also most likely devastated many years of work that others have built up. Why choose to play a roleplaying game if you do not want to roleplay? I never heard about any football players asking to not kick a ball, because that is mostly what the game is about. Why ruin the fun for others just because you want to take berries out of the cake?
No. Like I already said, it is a matter of stating intentions and reverting some of the things that were already implied. I'm worried to why you jump to the conclusion that this is what I meant. It does not say that anywhere in the text, so I wonder why you assume it. You seem to project your own ideas on me, while in fact it is not what I mean. I suppose this means you already decided that you think the worst of me, or you would not jump to believe things that it does not actually say.And since you state that this is not about code, do you mean that Geas should have wizards policing around keeping an eye on each and every action of every player and like a referee either award that player or punish that player?
Your idea (not mine) of having policing wizards is in my opinion an option, but I think I would vote against such a thing, unless someone can convince me otherwise. I do not think it brings good things, and given the current set of wizards, I do not think they could do a better job than some of the players.
Obviously, yes. But that was besides the argument. As you'll notice some people posted reasons to why they were unable to do these things, and many times those were lack of power, gold and similiar. Someone actually even suggested that you may create alternative characters (pNPC) instead of using your actual character, which was a bit sad.There is lots of action that you can have and do without being powerful. And you can drive stories and storylines from there.
Here we go again. Nobody said anything about wizardly punishments and it does not say so anywhere in the text, yet you seem to assume that this is what I mean.But again, you want to punish people if they do something they want to do that has no direct or immideate impact on fellow players? Sorry, but this is sick.
It is true that roleplaying implies that you are driving stories together with others, for the mutual enjoyment of both. If you think that is sick, then I think you are strange to play this game.
First of all, you do choose what you do, yes. As long as it is within the rules and the obvious purpose, which is roleplaying. Which means that you are already quite "limited". This means that no, you do not choose for what reasons you may do something, you may obviously only do it as part of roleplaying. You are free to be of the opinion that you must not entertain others and that you foremost focus on yourself. It sounds like you intentionally want to roleplay like crap and parasite on others, but I suppose you are free to do that. I think that attitude is highly problematic. If you are playing this as a single-player game or just destroying what others are making, and also not willing to do anything yourself.When I decide to spend my free time at a GAME, it is _I_ that decides what I do and for what reasons. Wether or not you, as co-player, has any benefit from that should never have to be my main focus. I am not there to entertain you, I am there to entertain myself first and foremost. And if you enjoy yourself while interacting with me or with the storyline I create, thats fine. If you don't, sorry, no my problem.
You contradict yourself a little bit when you say that you are creating storylines for others, because that counts as entertaining others, but I suppose that is a minor detail. It does kind of point to something which was entirely in my point though, creating storylines which others enjoy and also yourself. So I am not sure why you critize it if you now already do this yourself.
Secondly, this was not meant about code or anything, but as a general principle. If people get fun just for being powerful, you'll end up with a game where people are trying to become powerful over roleplaying, which hurts the game. You are also left with the problem that Glorfindel initially described and the polarization of different player groups that came with it (soapers or grinders). I have a hard time understanding how you solve the problem. It is easy to dislike such principle that I suggested, but it is harder to solve the problem.
I would prefer if we could make more constructive posts that actually address either the thread-starters problem, or, if critizing one of the subsequent posts, actually propose an alternative along with the criticism instead of just ignoring the problem. Or tell Glorfindel that the problem he is experiencing is actually not a problem to begin with. That his motivation to play is not fading, or that it's his own fault. But perhaps you are not interested in solving such problems, given how you ask for permission not to roleplay.
I am fully aware that you can be a leading character without being strong. As the sentence I wrote clearly indicates, it was a reflection on the actual situation in relation to that which I stated earlier, not a reflection on how things may relate to eachother in general.
Apart from mages and sathos that require "matured" characters, I disagree with your classificationof "strong" there. You can be a "leading" character without being in a guild. With guild you have a securer standing, a place to retreat to, fellow players with similar goals for support and discussion. Guilds also define the "background noise" of how the world works. It gives a well structured base upon which every individual can build. How else would you expect new gamers to be able to integrate and find their place in the world? Without the guilds it would be utter chaos, everyone doing what they think is a great story, without harmory and without a basic set of rules.
I am also no opponent of having guilds, but I admire your spirit for arguing "against" removing them, even though I did not say so. Maybe you were referring to someone else's post here, but in that case you should not quote me.
I'll ignore the rest of that paragraph since it is more or less based on the same misconception.
I am not sure if this was supposed to be an argument against something I was saying, it sounds more like you are expressing that you are agreeing fully with me.
Wether or not a player is "hated" depends on how their actions are perceived, especially in view of interaction with other players and storylines. If a pot-stirrer messes up a well planed storyline that has been going on for weeks and months, sure, they get disliked for laying waste to such an amount of work. If they do so now and fine, that requires adjustment to the plans and storylines, keeps them alive, interesting and ever-changing. If a pot-stirrer does so just to thwart a plan or out of spite, without offering anything, then they just mess for the sake of messing with other peoples plans and getting hated for it is well deserved if you ask me.
A pot stirrer is not someone who, possibly effortlessly, messes up a storyline just because he can. That is just a destructive action and goes against the notion of roleplaying, which by definition is co-operative. So I completely agree with you. The thing that puzzles me is that you asked not to roleplay, which leads me to believe that it is exactly the sort of thing you would actually like to do.
The only "minor" thing I disagree with is that hate can be deserved. I do not think anyone should ever hate anyone. It is morally wrong and non-constructive. It is better to try to solve your problems instead of severing the relationship. As a secondary effect, it is also bad for the game in general if there is hate all around (even if it was "deserved", as you say - I assume you rather meant that the first player did something wrong - hate is the reaction to this event).
I am fully aware that you only have a limited view on the game, and this distant and unrelated point was already somehow part of my statement. I am not sure how that affects what I was saying though, so I assume that you once again read something different than what it actually says.
There is one big thing you seem to forget. The view on the game from the player perspective is largely and severely limited. A player can only see things , listen to things and participate in actions he witnesses. To oversimplify your view of the mud it would consist of a single chat room, so that everyone gets all the information, everyone entertains everyone else and the participants of that chatroom decide who gets awarded or punished for what they did or did not do. Sorry, but thats not a not, and definately not Geas.
Despite the fact that I can not understand this section even after staring at it for 5 minutes, or how it relates to anything I said so far, I just want to clarify then that I do not think a "single chat room" is a good thing. It seems to be something which would truly hamper roleplay. Maybe that helps your confusion and doubts.
I originally wrote a longer text here about my contributions to GEAS, but I'd actually rather not disclose them. So you'll have to trust me on that. I already know what Geas is. Aside from that, it is also a bit disrespectful to tell someone what GEAS is or isn't, when he already was apart of it for so many years.
--
It makes me a bit sad that you feel the need to point out to me what is GEAS or isn't when essentially it is your own misrepresentations of what I am saying that makes you believe so. Except for the "I want to have the option not to roleplay", I think your four points is based on essentially just faulty interpretations of what I was saying. But I am not really sure either if we even mean the same thing by roleplaying. To me it is not so well-defined, but there are some articles and other works out there, not to mention how GEAS was classified in the MUD community. But I am glad your started it with "maybe I just misunderstood you", because I feel that was exactly the case with everything you replied. Thank you for that. I think there are better ways to clear out misunderstandings though.
I personally think it is better to ask if you do not understand, instead of making worst possible assumption and arguing against that. I'm always available for a PM, which is perhaps easier for the understand-the-post part. I can explain more in detail there and hopefully we can have a post that actually stands in relation to my analysis of Glorfindels post. We will then also keep the main body of the thread free from noise and faulty arguments. So I suggest we go back to the initial post. And then read through my first and second post in the same thread. If there are things you do not understand, please ask me about them first, and perhaps I can clarify. Jumping at misrepresentations is very cumbersome and I'd like to avoid having to write this long reply just to reset the whole thing to zero by debunking each thing you said, because we made no progress. My post came, you made a lot of misunderstandings and critized me for those things I did not believe, I explained them and we are left back with my original note, Glorfindel's note, everything unanswered.