joo wrote:returner wrote:Besides, it says it at the top of the page. edit: Just saw Surly's response, which is half of what I say.. you can't go down that path of saying it's OOC, because you could argue that most role-play is OOC (such as when someone RPs taking a sip of alcohol and RPs being drunk.. there is no mechanism in place for drunkedness... and when someone RPs sitting on a fallen tree, is that OOC too? They don't exist in game..)
It's easy to make arguments like that, but in doing so you are oversimplifying the matter and making it monochromatic and one-dimensional. Of course it's okay to RP being drunk because there is alcohol in the game and the game is designed to simulate real life, where people get drunk by drinking alcohol. With a bit of judgement one can see that while there are no absolute criteria for what is valid and invalid RP, some things are pretty much obviously valid, some are obviously invalid (like mentioning the address bar in your browser in game, because "it's right there, above the word Cantr, on my screen, therefore I can use it in game."). Evidently there's a region somewhere in between those two extremes where people's opinions differ, and the matter of mentioning "Jos," or "Cantr," lies there. I disapprove of that, but I don't really care enough to complain consistently... or maybe I do *shrugs*.
I find what you said to be an expansion of what Bowser and I agree upon.. and I agree with your clarification/expansion. It is true; it is a good thing to discuss and figure out the grey areas. Certainly, terms like Jos and Cantr are terms conceived outside of the game, but so is sitting on a log (drunkedness not so much as it is a term that can be found somewhere in the game, ie bars, so a character can feel that they have the capacity to be drunk).
Perhaps I'd be a little bias in this discussion because I do have characters who use it AND the maker of Cantr accepts it, which should end discussions there really. But, I think this converstion could move from specifically these terms to a discussion of clarifying the 'region between the two extremes' as joo aptly put it.
In order to provide an opinion rather than a summary, I think the means for testing whether or not a term or element of role-play is acceptable should be through one of two means.
First, is it mentioned in the game and/or closely, intimately, first-handedly related to the thing in question, even if not mentioned? For example, if there is a town full of people, it should be okay to class yourself as a ruler of some descripant (ie, tyrant, king) based on how you rule.. or, for example, it should be okay to seek rehabilitation for alcohol - that's not mentioned in game, but not many would disagree that it is acceptable.
Second, Does it cause unfair harm to the game or 'pure roleplay'? For example, calling the world Cantr does not do this to either requirement. Roleplaying that Cantr is just a game developed by some gods, or, saying Cantr is actually a game programmed by gods and we are just AI is most likely wrong (definitely wrong if no mention of hte AI is made).
Finally, notsure, there is a solid and important discussion going on here. Cantr staff seem quick to shut these down, which not only hurt Cantr's interconnectedness, but hamper social relationships between players and also reduce page views which directly results in lower ad views and thus decreased income; which, in turn, weakens Cantr's ability to stay alive and free. So please, either don't say anything at all or split this topic yourself / start a new one for us, but do so at the risk of having Cantr's blood on your hands.

(and I'm not being melodramatic)