Is profanity allowed?

[N-Aldwitch]

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)

You can't base it on age. Isn't one of the GAB members like 16?

[Phalynx]

Dude... the law is based on age and so actually you have to!

[15454]

people swear at me when I hit them with my crossbow and sabres .. but I am used to it now.

[viktor]

i think that in regards to age, everyone who plays this game has been to school and therefore exposed to massive amounts of profanity already, if they are so young that that is not the case, they are most likely not able to play this game, or not allowed by their parents to begin with.

(hey deadboy if ur char becomes that boring they could always move, might even be quicker than 40 days)

[Marian]

I'm seeing a lot less suicidal newspawns now. It seriously used to be like once a week, at least. I love the 40 day rule...I hope people aren't turning against it now just because the guy who suggested it turned out to be a crazy racist.

And deadboy, besides stopping obviously suicidal ones it was just supposed to make people care more about their chars in general. So hey, your posts sound like a perfect example of why I support it.

(In fact I'd almost rather see a newspawn that goes crazy right away than someone who acts normal just long enough for you to take them seriously and start to rely on them and maybe give them some good gear, and then dies...that sounds too much like one of Phalynx's chars.)

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I'm seeing a lot less suicidal newspawns now. It seriously used to be like once a week, at least. I love the 40 day rule...I hope people aren't turning against it now just because the guy who suggested it turned out to be a crazy racist.

Ehmm, there were people against it from the start. I don't really see any people starting to be against it because of whathisface. Besides, after actual implementation, lots more reasons to be against it would become apparent to people that may have supported it before and changed their minds. I was against it because I didn't/don't see suicidal newspawns very often, and think it should be handled in game. As far as seeing fewer than before, that could be seeing what one wants to believe as a result of a rule when it could be the lower number of players playing or many other reasons. There's no real concrete way to trace any difference to that rule. It was an OOC solution to an (easily taken care of) IG problem and that's what I'm sticking to in my thoughts on that matter (not to mention the loss of chars and slots to unfortunate events that you have no control over, i.e. animals). I don't even have any chars young enough to fall into the ruling.

[Phalynx]

I was against it because I didn't/don't see suicidal newspawns very often, and think it should be handled in game.

See I know you are an intelligent lady so I fail to understand why you have said that twice now.
Suicidal newspawns want to die and this was, and continues to be, dealt with in game by killing them. There are locations that will imrpison them and try and rehabillitate them which is cool but misses the point. These people, like N-Aldwich use this method to kill their characters for entirely OOC reasons and so an OOC mechanism was introduced to remove that OOC motivation. You can firefight the problem in game by keep killing people or starving them in prison but that is not dealing with the situation of characters deciding as soon as they have read the rules, or spotted a location that they know OOCly is not 'fun' or discovered they are an awkward fighter disrupting everything with no IG reason...

[SekoETC]

You can get around the 40-day-rule by creating 15 characters, then killing your WHOLE damn account... No 40-day wait, just beg the PD and you'll be back in in less than a week.

[N-Aldwitch]

These people, like N-Aldwich use this method to kill their characters for entirely OOC reasons

OI! Just giving the players an introduction to the dangers of the game, kay?

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I was against it because I didn't/don't see suicidal newspawns very often, and think it should be handled in game.

See I know you are an intelligent lady so I fail to understand why you have said that twice now.

It's called re-emphasizing. Maybe you don't see a need, but in my response to her post, I did. It's not really your place to say whether it's necessary or not just because you don't see the need. Not like you haven't repeated yourself multiple times in some threads.

Suicidal newspawns want to die and this was, and continues to be, dealt with in game by killing them. There are locations that will imrpison them and try and rehabillitate them which is cool but misses the point. These people, like N-Aldwich use this method to kill their characters for entirely OOC reasons and so an OOC mechanism was introduced to remove that OOC motivation. You can firefight the problem in game by keep killing people or starving them in prison but that is not dealing with the situation of characters deciding as soon as they have read the rules, or spotted a location that they know OOCly is not 'fun' or discovered they are an awkward fighter disrupting everything with no IG reason...

Yes, it's dealt with IG still. It's their damn character, though. If they want to kill them, it's their choice (there was something called reporting the crazy ones). They'll do it either way. Why should someone be punished for that, if they're not being disruptive about it? Not everyone that wants to kill off a character wants to do so in order to get better places or skills. Yes there are the few that would, and I think that's sad, but not everyone. Beyond that, I just think it's wrong to do to those people that do try to keep to their chars and get spawned someplace harsh that is near impossible to survive in, anyway, and die.

[Phalynx]

It's their damn character, though. If they want to kill them, it's their choice (there was something called reporting the crazy ones). They'll do it either way. Why should someone be punished for that, if they're not being disruptive about it? Not everyone that wants to kill off a character wants to do so in order to get better places or skills. Yes there are the few that would, and I think that's sad, but not everyone. Beyond that, I just think it's wrong to do to those people that do try to keep to their chars and get spawned someplace harsh that is near impossible to survive in, anyway, and die.

I disagree. I disagre so strongly I almost can't understand how you could hold that view. Your characters are little cyber people. Those little cyber people want to live, they want to succeed, to acheive whatever goals, big or small, they set for themselves but beyond that they want to survive. For them to suddenly stop caring and give up for no IG reason is simply totally OOC. You are one for posting about respecting other players and roleplay and yet what you are talking about goes completely against that.

I speak as someone who has had to cull characters for different reasons and had a hard time for it. Now that I am a more 'mature' (in terms of the game ) player I recognise how frustrating that is. I think its ten times worse if you kill characters just because you don't have the creativity or patience to make something of a character in adverse situations.

So yeah you can take the easy way out but it's going to cost you. And that's right. Particularly so if stops obnoxious wankers seeking to work through a list of characters in order to acheive the perfect warrior. You don't win in Cantr by being the strongest and most violent you win by making something interesting from a character. In my opinion.

On the side issue of spawing somewhere *that* hostile a character will do anything to survive, either copeerating in a building or moving on - remember they don't know that's futile! If they don't make it, that's harsh but nobody ever promised life was fair....

For the record I just lost a 21 year old character because he panicked at sea and near caused the crew he was part of to get lost. I was playing my character as I saw him. I expected him to get forgiven and to play on, but the crew thought differently so that's one slot down for a time. I was a bit gutted for a minute be realised I enjoyed the game. Am I crying about losing a slot... no!

[the_antisocial_hermit]

You are one for posting about respecting other players and roleplay and yet what you are talking about goes completely against that.

I don't follow your logic. How is it against it?

I simply think that people should have the right. They might be little cyber people you believe should try to survive, but they were created at the choice of the player. They are the player's creation. Maybe the player should have responsibilty for trying with the character, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have a choice (God, I feel like I'm talking about abortion ).

Would I choose this route? No, I personally can't stop playing a character, no matter how much I grow to hating them. I try to find ways to change it. If I let them go, I don't intend to start another in their place. I still think a player shouldn't be penalized for a choice like letting a char die. But I'm more against players being penalized for not having a choice in a character dying.

Your expample of getting lost at sea and dying, at least the character had a chance, and made choices; a chance to be played as they should, even if they suffered a consequence about it. A character that spawns in a place with 5,000 vicious animals and maybe one other person around, doesn't have a chance if there's no building.

No, I have not had a character in this postion. I've never been affected by the 40 day rule, and if I kill a character right now, I won't be. It doesn't change the fact that there are those that do.

Yes, I realize, life isn't fair, and Cantr isn't fair, and it's something that will just be dealt with by people that fall into those categories. The rule is in place, and so be it. No, I don't like it. I never liked it. I won't like it, but I'll deal with it. I have my reasons for disliking it, and you have your reasons for liking it. There's no need to debate it, and I wasn't trying to in this thread, because there is no need for useless debate (though many seem fond of it). I simply was stating that just as many were against it as for it, and those that may have changed their minds didn't do it because of who requested it. Hell, I didn't even remember who requested it to begin with, because that's not what ever mattered. You may not understand how I can hold my view, but I do hold it and it is my prerogative to hold it. It doesn't matter if you understand it or not, because people see things differently. That doesn't make them wrong or right. I do understand some of your reasons, but there aren't enough to change my mind on the matter. I am not going to waste my time with more debates over something that really can't be debated because, just like voting, it won't change anything.

This thread is about profanity anyway.

[Missy]

Lets get one thing straight. It wasn't to stop "suicidal newspawns," entirely. We can deduce if it weren't for them, there wouldn't be crime at all in a lot of towns. And noone here is saying that you shouldn't create a sucidal newspawn, but if you're going to do it, maybe you'll put a little more effort intio it knowing that it takes 40 days to make a new character. Knowing that if it does get killed, you're less a character to play for forty days.

This rule became what it is for people that have lists as long as I believe N-aldwich has. Yes hermit, there is a problem with people who do nothing but create chars that pick up a note and run as soon as they spawn.


Just one case I can think of that I handled a long long time ago a particular player did nothing but that. Every single character of his ended up in jail somehow. The sad part is we'd find he had 3 dead bodies of his own chars in the Drojf Jail, the Siom jail, the Blojt jail. 3 in each one and all at the same time. This is how fast the person went through chars. In one case the person had two of his chars in the same jail and he had one rape the other. The other sent out notes complaining about how he was raped and the others in the same prison vouched that the guy was raping them. So his one was let out to save him from being raped. He gets out and the proccess starts all over again. But the list of his would show 14-15 had died in in drojf, 14-15 died in blojt etc. So just imagine how much trouble he has created for this town alone, simply because he as a player didn't like the place which is indeed OOC. Further, this rule was not created to solve an IC problem. It was created to solve an OOC problem. Obviously by the way things sound, some people still don't get the point, but because some of you don't, doesn't mean the rules going to change or that they're going to stop cracking down on people for actions like that. For some people it's not truly about playing the game for what it is and it's about running around having a good time because they're pissing people off and causing trouble. Then when these chars get locked up they throw fits, note bombing, cursing profusely, doing sick things like raping fellow prisoners/corpses just to get a rise out of other players. And we could certainly see it as okay if it wasn't every other character that the person gets locked up, that does those sorts of things. Problem is, maybe this player does actually have a couple good characters. They cause a lot of havvoc, (truly it's because they managed to get lucky unlike the rest of their chars,) and we recognize that.

We used to put holds on peoples accounts when they were like that. Tell them they couldn't create any more characters. Especially those that clustered their chars in a single location and had a list of 120 where 105 them were already dead and 15 survivng, seven of them were sitting in Brunoi while the other 8 were trying to get killed. We'd note how they picked up notes and ran off to get a character killed or stood in town begging people to kill him off--That way the person could spawn another and pray it landed in the same place as his others. So t hen we just started telling people they weren't allowed to create any more characters and if they did their account would be locked. Couldn't create new chars til their playing style improved.


The truth Hermit is, that most people don't do it creatively. What is so creative about seeing a person pick up a note and yell, "You suckers!" then run down a path?

Further, you have fifteen characters. All of you are only allowed fifteen characters. You can't be in every location there is on cantr and thus the newspawn note thieves you think you're lacking are very much still likely around. I grant that when this rule was implemented there weren't very many either, but it goes through spurts and it becomes very hard to keep with.


I would also like to add, that while you're saying that a lot of people were against this, you're forgetting the trillion and one posts made by people asking for something to be done.


Edit
What happened to having the character travel away if you didn't like the town it was spawned in? People grow lazy and so they try to get them killed off rather than have the char travel off into the unknown/unexpected etc. It's just easier to spawn a new one and hope it gets spawned somewhere you like. Why should it be easy for people t o play badly?

[Joshuamonkey]

I don't care what age, swearing is bad, bad, bad, and more bad. I never swear in real life and never in Cantr, and never had to. Isn't Cantr supposed to be for people that are educated enough not to use swear words?

The 40 day thing is a good idea and I don't even get why you're arguing about it (Well,yeah I do, you like to argue)

Okay, I guess that was going a little far, so I'll add something to it
In real life, most people have the will to live, and so should characters in Cantr. I've heard a lot of copmlaints about the game not being any fun, and suicidals might be one reason. I know that there are suicides in real life, but going by percentage, there are a lot more people in real life and then in Cantr, and anyway, suicide is a bad thing!

[Marian]

I don't care what age, swearing is bad, bad, bad, and more bad. I never swear in real life and never in Cantr, and never had to. Isn't Cantr supposed to be for people that are educated enough not to use swear words?

I don't usually swear in real life either, and I don't like being around people that do it too much...but as for Cantr, I can only dream that it was for people educated enough to spell their own names right and not say 'lol'. Players that don't swear is pretty low on the wishlist.

(Also, educated, polite players doesn't equal educated, polite characters. In fact it's probably just the opposite, since intelligent people are more likely to take roleplaying seriously and be able to come up with characters with personalities a lot different then their own)