Is profanity allowed?

[the_antisocial_hermit]

lol, you're too nice to not kill them. My char with a cruel personality would've killed them after narrowing down who did it and getting more notes. Not for OOC reasons of not wanting to see them, but because my char would not tolerate such insolent notes.

Not sure anyone was thinking you were too out of line without knowing all the circumstances. I figured it was something similar. It should not be tolerated if it's essentially OOC and seems to be more of an insult resulting from an angry player to another player. Think people were just curious about whether it was allowed or not and of course such a subject would always become a debate as it's always treading a line.

I personally don't have a problem with it if it's IC and fits right. There are some words that bother me more than others, but I tend to ignore them.

[viktor]

Hagan, if somoene is being that much of an ass you shouldn't let the ooc 40 day punishment influence your char not to kill them, if they are that stupid they deserve the 40 day lockout they so desire and are working so hard to earn, profanity to that degree is beyond any rp standard but still if them being locked out for 40 days is your reason not to kill them, forget it and kill them with a clear concious. some of my chars regardless of targets age would and have killed for less

[N-Aldwitch]

See this is why making OOC punishments is f***ing stupid, as you get the OOCly nice players who don't want to make a newspawn suffer the 40 day rule.
Absoloutely Stupid, I was always against it as a large majority were too.
Sure it stopped the suicidal newspawn regime, but now as a result, newspawn counts are down to one a week in popular towns, never in smaller towns, once every two months in medium towns.

[SekoETC]

It's clear that the person wants to die, otherwise they wouldn't keep taunting you. They might not know of the 40 day rule, but if they do then they most likely consider it better than playing a slave. It's rather lame but you should just let them out of their misery. I doubt someone with that little imagination is going to contribute much to the game, so if they quit due to being locked out then it's not that big a loss.

[Chris Johnson]

Absoloutely Stupid, I was always against it as a large majority were too.
Sure it stopped the suicidal newspawn regime, but now as a result, newspawn counts are down to one a week in popular towns, never in smaller towns, once every two months in medium towns.

A large majority of regular forum posters were for the introduction of the rule such as this person.

As for the suggestion itself,

I agree.

Also rate of spawning in towns is not significantly down from before the introduction of the rule - It is slightly but that's more to do with a decline in number of players over that time - Oh and that's probably not due to the 40 day rule as the number of players which this impinges on is very small, in the same way that only a small handful of players use all their minutes in a day .

[the_antisocial_hermit]

Absoloutely Stupid, I was always against it as a large majority were too.
Sure it stopped the suicidal newspawn regime, but now as a result, newspawn counts are down to one a week in popular towns, never in smaller towns, once every two months in medium towns.

A large majority of regular forum posters were for the introduction of the rule such as this person.

I can think of a few... but I remember just as many being against it. If there was a poll, I don't remember what the results were. Most everyone I talked to were pretty much against it from what I remember (maybe I'm just remembering with rose-colored glasses as I was against it because I simply didn't see a need).

And yea, I haven't seen more or less of the newspawns it was supposed to reduce. I think I may have seen more since the rule was implemented than less, but mostly because my attention was drawn to the matter more.

[Phalynx]

I have see no change in the number of newspawns but I haven't seen a suicidal newspawn IG for at least 6 weeks!

[deadboy]

I would love for this rule to be gotten rid of because it would allow to play through newspawns to see which I liked. Right now I let 2/3rds of my newspawns die within the first two years because the personalities I give them I either dislike, don't work, or don't work where they spawn. However, this blocks the spot for weeks on end and makes it really difficult to sort through them so that I can make the best characters I can.

It would be ok if it was reduced to a 40 day slot ban for characters under the age of 21, but at the moment the rule is exessive

[Phalynx]

I rest my case!

[deadboy]

I rest my case!

Hehe, ok maybe that came out wrong, I still -do- this, it just takes longer

No I'm kidding, I'm not talking about having suicidal newspawns, I have perfectly normal newspawns who fall asleep and starve to death when I bore of them because they are not interesting characters, there is a difference

And yes, I do still do this, I wasn't kidding about that, it is great for making the best characters you can

[Phalynx]

So let me get this right...

You make a character... you, nobody else....

You play them for a bit but decide they are too boring and then let them die. You want the rule relaxed so you can do this easier and have the 15 characters you want (in the places you want with the sets of skills you want)..?

Carry on digging, because you keep helping the case for the prosecution!

Getting back the point... I would be in favour of some form of flag letting you know that the player of a character is under 18. Yes it's well OOC but at the same time.. it's safe!

[deadboy]

You play them for a bit but decide they are too boring and then let them die. You want the rule relaxed so you can do this easier and have the 15 characters you want (in the places you want with the sets of skills you want)..?

Where did you get that from? Skills and locations have nothing to do with it. What is important is the personality and that they are in a place that suits the personality if it is a good one

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I have see no change in the number of newspawns but I haven't seen a suicidal newspawn IG for at least 6 weeks!

Let me rephrase... I didn't see one suicidal newspawn but once every 3 or so months (maybe) before the rule. I wasn't talking about regular newspawns, hence the "newspawns that it was supposed to reduce." I've seen about the same amount of suicidal newspawns since the rule was implemented. It wasn't a problem as far as I'd seen (indeed, the thought never occurred to me that it was a problem, just something for my characters to deal with), and I think it should've been dealt with in game completely.

[Chris Johnson]

Getting back the point... I would be in favour of some form of flag letting you know that the player of a character is under 18. Yes it's well OOC but at the same time.. it's safe!

You can always contact the players department - thats one bit of information they will release - nothing else, just a yes or no if the player of the character you ask about is under age or not (going by their registered age of course)

[Phalynx]

Cheers for that... I don't do rude stuff IG anymore, it eats minutes for no appreciable gain, but back a few months ago it would have eased my troubled mind!