Game Rules: OOC log snapshots / RP use

[Cogliostro]

THE PROBLEM: Players who paste event logs into notes and use this either as proof of "what really happened" or otherwise ruin everyone's RP experience with these.

Last time, we proposed to make this officially a CRB offense. That suggestion has been shot down: too hard to enforce, PD overworked as is, and some were of the opinion that it isn't that bad.

In the previous suggestion I was a bit overboard with my righteous hatred for this bad practice (everyone agrees it's bad, but to make it a CRB?) and demanded that pasting logs into any notes should be illegalized.

Now time has passed, I've mellowed out, but the problem is still there. Players are still suffering from it, RP situations are being RUINED just as before.

So I thought it was time for a new, updated suggestion on this subject:

Add a statement to the official rules that: COPY/PASTED EVENT LOGS OF ANY KIND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN RP SITUATIONS IN THE GAME.

PD will not need to enforce, if players know from the start that this is a bad thing, they will themselves correct players who do it. Currently, players are not aware of the problem, and wrongly consider it an acceptable part of the game.

This way, we will no longer have "here's the log as proof" notes or those atrocious event log pastes like "Project finished: 1000 stone ending up on the ground" that some people paste into "Talk to All" as some kind of official notification to the town leader that it's ok for them to pick up 1000 stone from the ground.

All in favour, say AYE!


Aye!

[*Wiro]

Aye...?

[Dudel]

Now I have to NOT ONLY state OOC that I, as a player, REFUSE to post OOC Event log and claim it poor RP but enforce it on others!? O.o

This ONLY works if current leaders/traders/etc who use the system STOP OUT RIGHT!

Now we've to contact everyone who uses this practice OOC via the game and... meh. X|

I 100% HATE the practice but the solution is too Anti-fied for my taste.

"Lets make the problem worse to make it better!"

NO THANKS!

I wish something would stop this, though.

[Cogliostro]

Dudel, just what do you mean by "antified"? I don't really get it.
It could be just a friendly onetime reminder-note sent by the PD to all players, saying "lookit, you shouldn't do this thing any more". That is all that would be needed, IMHO.

Obviously it would blow to have OOC debates about it in the game itself. That's the point of making it an official rule, and letting players know.

[Ryaga]

I agree with the OP.

[Elros]

How many duplicate threads of this topic are going to be started?

[joo]

Dudel, just what do you mean by "antified"? I don't really get it.

Antified adj.

1. [22:24:01] <+sammigurl> Why does anyone need voice access now?
   [22:24:07] <@Anti> To stop ban evaders
   [22:26:20] * Dudel (~IceChat@NewNet-3F8F8508.cfl.res.rr.com) has joined #cantr
   [22:26:25] * ceselb sets mode: +v Dudel
   [22:28:03] <+sammigurl> Ah.
   [22:28:13] <+Dudel> Ah, yes?
   [22:28:21] <+sammigurl> You guys have lots of banned people now?
   [22:28:22] <+sammigurl> Wow.
   [22:28:25] <+sammigurl> Things have changed.
   [22:28:52] <+Dudel> No just ONE person is "banned" on multiple ISPs
   [22:29:18] <+sammigurl> Whoa, what?
   [22:29:40] <@Anti> We can't block proxies, so instead of banning everyone, we use the voice thing

[Jos Elkink]

I like the idea of adding to the rules that this is frowned upon or not appreciated or some formulation like this - without PD enforcement.

[Surly]

I like the idea of adding to the rules that this is frowned upon or not appreciated or some formulation like this - without PD enforcement.

Problem is that it's already frowned upon, really, and that wouldn't change anything.

I think, sadly, that this is just a part of the game. Just like poor RP (and the two are closely linked), we have to live with it and it's just a dangerous precedent to set with getting involved.

[Jos Elkink]

Well, yeah, but we can add it to rules descriptions, etc., so people who complain about it have something to point to ...

[*Wiro]

It's better than going [OOC: Don't do ___], as that would only cause fights and eventually CRB-risky situation. So I don't see anything wrong with adding it to the rules as things that people would rather not see. There'd have to be a message sent out, though, to notify people of this addition.

[Surly]

Well, yeah, but we can add it to rules descriptions, etc., so people who complain about it have something to point to ...

I'm not sure I agree that it should be against the rules, informal or otherwise. My characters will tend to ignore logs as evidence due to the fact they can be so easily doctored: I think it's something that should be dealt with IC.

[*Wiro]

Well, yeah, but we can add it to rules descriptions, etc., so people who complain about it have something to point to ...

I'm not sure I agree that it should be against the rules, informal or otherwise. My characters will tend to ignore logs as evidence due to the fact they can be so easily doctored: I think it's something that should be dealt with IC.

It can't be. One character sees it, the player learns about how easy it is and applies it to all their characters. Nothing IC, plain CRB and annoying. >.>

[Surly]

How is it a CRB? I just don't see that it is, in any way. I understand it's annoying, but it is not even against the principle of the CR.

[SekoETC]

Parts of the interface are only visible to the player, not the character. The formatting of events is a part of the interface. It would be just as wrong as talking about clicking buttons. Also people should be encouraged to come up with in-worldly style explanations for project/sailing/traveling ticks etc. so that they don't have to mention the word tick. The characters should sense that time flows instead of advancing in ticks.