[Discussion] Darkspawn and Hagfish Term

[Reploid Productions]

I think that stating that Gameplay is In Character would be a solution. If Moderation's issue with GP is the fact that a random new nation may look in the forum and see people saying potentially nasty things without knowing the context, surely simply declaring GP IC would solve all of it. Despite what Moderation appears to think, for the most part, there is no OOC war going on. It is simply IC. If we weren't raiders and defenders, we wouldn't post things saying we are enemies. In the same way you're not clamping down on RP'ers for having their nations declare war with each other and bombing each other, you would only come down on GP when there has been an actual offence, which breaks the site-rules.

This would also allow people to differentiate between IC insults, like Hagfish and Darkspawn, which are perfectly fine, and OOC ones, like the ones Roavin was mentioning towards the end of his earlier post. If people can't handle Hagfish and Darkspawn, it's like RP'ers can't handle their nation getting bombed. It's IC, and it's all about what GP is about. A Conflict.

But it's an IC conflict, and so I feel that naming GP IC would solve any suspected issues arising from a new nation looking in to GP and seeing bad stuff.

I kinda think that opening GP up to including a proper IC/OOC (or onstage/offstage, or whatever y'wanna call it) division would probably go a long way toward making it easier to tell the actual banter from the actual nasty- the "darkspawn" in an IC raid report versus "<player> is a dirty couper of ill repute!" versus "<player> is <OOCly> a <insert vile insult here>." Some groups have their rivalries purely in an in-character context, but by the same token there are those who have purely OOC rivalries.

"Gameplay is strictly OOC" largely stems from historic behaviors, plus our more GP oriented mods have been from the OOC camp. It feels like there's a whole lot of hand-wringing we can fix by dropping that and everybody just getting in the habit of making it clear when they're talking in an in-character manner versus an out-of-character manner.

[Reventus Koth]

That would probably get old real fast. I'd probably just end up throwing some line in my signature stating that anything I post in Gameplay is in character unless stated otherwise. This system also leaves open the very easy ability to make thinly veiled OOC attacks under the explicit label of IC dialogue, so keep that in mind.

[Reploid Productions]

That would probably get old real fast I'd probably just up throwing some line in my signature stating that anything I post in Gameplay nis in character unless stated otherwise. This system also leaves open the very easy ability to it clearly make think veiled OOC attacks under the explicit label of IC dialogue, so keep that in mind.

True, but the same is true of the roleplay boards, and those using a thin veil of IC to mask OOC attacks there still get smacked. Might take a little time to get the paper trail to show it, but it still happens. I don't think extending similar tools to GP would really cause any more trouble than the current "try to use mods in the meta" already does, with the added advantage of helping make things much clearer all around for everybody involved from the outside observers to the participants to the mods trying to keep things in line. There might be instances where one group just stops mentioning another, or at least simply strips the IC flavor text to deliver the raid report in more OOC clinical phrasing, not unlike how RPers put one another on ignore and just avoid addressing eachother. For example, the "darkspawn" case since that one's been around awhile and heavily discussed: if we open GP up to a proper IC/OOC divide and tools, then maybe the Wardens can keep using the term just fine when referring to groups that are cool with it, while abstaining from it when referring to those groups who have made their displeasure with the term known. With more options available, people can still play the way they like without so many of the problems caused by the strict "Gameplay is OOC" currently.

[Unified Heartless States]

Either allow both terms to be used, or disallow both terms to be used.

HERE HERE

[The North Polish Union]

I posted this over in GP and then I saw this thread so I'm gonna leave it here too:

I'm just gonna add my perspective on this, as someone who until recently had taken a break from NS for a couple years and has only returned within the past couple weeks.

NSGP has not gotten more toxic recently, at least from what I've see. NSGP's level of toxicity has remained about even since I left. The major differences, from what I've seen, are that (1) the General forum moves much slower than it did before and (2) the overall toxicity of that forum is less than it was several years ago.

Now that General is (somewhat) better at self-moderating than before that leaves the mods with more time to address toxicity in other areas of the forums (and IMO the two most toxic areas besides General are NSGP and the GA). Now, given the more OOC nastiness that NSGP engages in (rather than the somewhat-IC GA) NSGP is probably easier to clean up.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with the Moderation team's rulings, but there does need to be a boundary where they clarify what is acceptable banter (whether IC or OOC) and what is flaming/baiting

BTW, as someone who isn't familiar with the video games TGW is based on I was surprised that 'darkspawn' was acceptable (particularly since I had no context for it) but like many others I felt that bringing in the mods would be too much of a hassle. I think NSGP has built of a culture of snarkiness and that culture includes an unwillingness to invite Mod intervention, even when intervention is probably necessary; and while that culture is fine so long as the snark stays within the rules, the suspicion of moderation means that even necessary moderator actions tend to get lots of backlash.

I personally feel the same way about 'hagfish' as I feel about 'darkspawn,' but I have no issue with 'fenda,' 'userite,' etc. Although I'm not sure if this is because 'darkspawn' and 'hagfish' conjure up negative mental images or if this could just be because I'm used to the NSGP subculture. However, I think that application of rulings on those terms needs to be more consistent rather than putting TGW/TBH in a position where they're unsure if they'll get smacked for using it in a report while using it 'lightheartedly' is legal.

In any case, I think that Milo's use of the tern 'jaywalkers' to refer to people he disagreed with is a beautiful thing and should never be banned.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

On the other hand, many people *do not* interact with Gameplay under the guise of a character or so forth. Many folks are just...themselves. Which I suppose is sort of the root of the problem - some people are operating on a "this is game politics level" and others an interacting on an "this is us talking as people" level, and folks often even change what level they're speaking on, and the distinction there isn't as clear as in an RP section where posters generally clearly note "Here I'm talking as my character to your character/an NPC" and "here I am talking to other posters." You can try to adapt that to GP, but the issue I see is how...hazy, foggy, middle-groundish things get. Not everything is as clear cut as, say, a report with a story on top incorporating gameplay elements, with an hr below it, and then a summary of the events and participants. Hell, I've known players who carried their "character" all the way to offsite chats, claiming every interaction they had with NS was part of an intentional persona, while others have never been anyone but themselves.

I think the suggestion hinges on the issue of what can be called in and out of character for gameplay, and I think views on that vary wildly.

[Guy]

On the other hand, many people *do not* interact with Gameplay under the guise of a character or so forth. Many folks are just...themselves. Which I suppose is sort of the root of the problem - some people are operating on a "this is game politics level" and others an interacting on an "this is us talking as people" level, and folks often even change what level they're speaking on, and the distinction there isn't as clear as in an RP section where posters generally clearly note "Here I'm talking as my character to your character/an NPC" and "here I am talking to other posters." You can try to adapt that to GP, but the issue I see is how...hazy, foggy, middle-groundish things get. Not everything is as clear cut as, say, a report with a story on top incorporating gameplay elements, with an hr below it, and then a summary of the events and participants. Hell, I've known players who carried their "character" all the way to offsite chats, claiming every interaction they had with NS was part of an intentional persona, while others have never been anyone but themselves.

I think the suggestion hinges on the issue of what can be called in and out of character for gameplay, and I think views on that vary wildly.

I actually agree with this a lot, as well as with Reppy labelling everything Gameplay relationships as 'not-exactly-IC/not-exactly-OOC'. Anyone who tries to claim it's wholly one or the other is merely creating a convenient fiction.

There is emotional attachment to the outcome. Things sometimes get out of hand. Even the adrenaline can run high in some situations. Some people are probably never going to like each other.

Yet we're also "just playing a game".

The role of moderation is to stop personal attacks against players, I get that. Yet I have to seriously question some of those recent judgment calls that have been made. Gameplayers are best suited for telling, contextually, when something is IC and when something is OOC. (I'm using the IC/OOC dichotomy because I think it's the best-understood terms for what I mean, yet as I'll expand on, I think it's far from an actual dichotomy.)

Whether or not I like the memefication of gameplay reports is one thing. But are they OOC snark/bait? No. Is calling all invaders 'darkspawn' a personal attack on any player, or on a group of players collectively? No. Similarly, in large part, being called 'fendas' might be a slur, but it's an IC one.

(One thing that I do agree on with moderation is that every post has to be viewed contextually. A 'whitelist' and 'blacklist' of words isn't the way forward. Everything has to be viewed given the sum of the surrounding circumstances, because the whole point is that the line is not always so clear, and it's not just about use of language.)

That some of those IC attacks will cause genuine upset to people is something that you won't be able to resolve. Natives losing their home region will always be upsetting to them. Being forced out of a region. Being beaten at an election. Having a campaign of misinformation directed at you to cause other players to mistrust you. None of these are 'fun' things, yet a regular feature of gameplay conflicts.

So you will never be able to truly separate things with an OOC and IC effect. Yet forum moderation, if done well, can certainly differentiate between attacks that are gratuitous and intended to hurt the player, and those that are merely playing the game. This recent turn, well-intentioned no doubt, has seen many of the latter swept up as the former. This is not a good direction for gameplay.

Are new players going to look at the Gameplay board and perhaps be utterly confused by the fact that people seem to be attacking each other in one thread, and having a lovefest in another? Maybe. But it's not like the standards, expectations and customs of every community on this forum are immediately obvious to a new player.

[Reploid Productions]

I will say, given the overall reactions I've been seeing, I think I will back off some on the Ominous Looming, but I will still be reading everything in Gameplay, and trying to comment and maintain a visible mod presence and get a better feel for WTF goes on in there. It's fairly clear that the original plan of attack and approach is probably less-than-ideal. Darkspawn in what is clearly IC raid reports, acceptable; darkspawn as OOC attacks on the opposition, not acceptable. The hagfish analogy; that came off clearly as an OOC attack under a thin veil of IC, especially given the complete lack of narrative sense it made. Like others have said, a raptor-themed IC report would more sensibly be comparing the opposition to prey animals rather than disgusting sea creatures that the hunters would never likely have come across.

On the flipside though, people need to keep moderation out of the Gameplay metagame. If you want to be able to dish snark, you had better be able to take snark. Running to us to try and bring the hammer down on your opponents when they dish it back doesn't help anybody, let's keep the moderation angle strictly to actual harassment/abuse/etc, rather than trying to find a way to weaponize us against the folks you don't like. I think rather than the Looming Ominously, the more even-handed approach is going to be much like how we cut down on ideologically-driven reporting in NSG- trawling more thoroughly around the reported post(s) to smack everybody that needs to be smacked. Alternatively, the "everyone can play well together or they can all hang together" strategy.

As noted in a couple other places, if you wanna recommend some new blood for GP-oriented mods, the nominations email is always open. (And with Sedge on hiatus, and CG and Mall both sidetracked by IRL obligations and interests, there's certainly a good argument to be made that we could use a couple new red jackets in that area of expertise.) Other possibilities, such as removing the "Gameplay is strictly OOC" in favor of granting some of the same narrative tools and such that the other RP boards get is certainly still up for discussion.

tl;dr version: Walking it back on the Ominous Redtext and snark crackdown, but Ceiling Reploid Is Watching You Post. Cautions may still get thrown out on especially egregious stuff, but clearly more on-the-ground research is needed before any sort of crackdown/community adjustment can commence.

[Roavin]

Thank you, Reppy. \o/

If you want to be able to dish snark, you had better be able to take snark.

[Tim-Opolis]

A great thing to hear. We appreciate it o>

If you want to be able to dish snark, you had better be able to take snark.

Preach.

[Cormactopia Prime]

<snip>

I would like to really, genuinely thank Guy for articulating how I feel about recent rulings in a coherent way. I don't mean to seem spammy by just highlighting that post and thanking him, but I felt it was important to say that this is basically how I feel as well but couldn't quite get it into words, and I hope Moderation will pay close attention to his post because I think it's how many gameplayers feel and why there has been so much frustration.

I also appreciate that this is going to be scaled back a bit for more research and for more gameplayers to potentially join Moderation.

[Deadeye Jack]

Thank you Reploid Productions for communicating and taking feedback from players in order to better come to an understanding on how to moderate the gameplay community. I think the position you've arrived at is a good way to try to approach moderating Gameplay and I hope it works out well.

[Zaolat]

As I mentioned on the Space Sector RPRA RMB, celiod reppy sounds terrifying, like Sadako level scary.

Thanks to you and Monitor for engaging with us unruly Gameplay folk in discussion.

[Intelligenerian Military 14]

Yeah, thanks for engaging in discussion with us, rather than merely going in one direction regardless of what we think. It's appreciated that the Mods choose to talk to us.

[Consular]

I too would thank Guy for his post. Perfectly sums up how I felt really.

On the flipside though, people need to keep moderation out of the Gameplay metagame. If you want to be able to dish snark, you had better be able to take snark. Running to us to try and bring the hammer down on your opponents when they dish it back doesn't help anybody, let's keep the moderation angle strictly to actual harassment/abuse/etc, rather than trying to find a way to weaponize us against the folks you don't like.

This attitude makes me very happy.