Security Camera alerts, IC or OOC information?

[Victor]

Huh?


Anyways...I appreciate the input. Really clears up the issue.

[Pi dArtois]

this been gone over a hundred times, if the camera and place it is are owned by the same player its IC end of story been ruled on over and over by the admins

eta if you wanna play a dead char, kill it and you wont have these problems

Mordechai is right, in that mods have ruled on this before. The mechanic of the camera 'seeing' the character is valid IC.

[Victor]

I wasn't aware. Only been playing the game for three months. *shrug* It's why I asked. Super stoked at not overreacting on something and actually being correct.

[Pi dArtois]

:) I think it's all good. No harm in asking and getting people to weigh in.

[Cassandra]

So, just to play Devil's Advocate here - let's say I'm playing a human and I bought a lair, made it public, and stuck a security camera on the front door. RP-wise, any vampire that walks in there is breaking the Masquerade? Or only if it's private?

I only ask because people seem to have skipped past the ID question, which I thought was put in place specifically for circumstances like this. I guess I wasn't around for the hundred times that was gone over - I didn't see any prior threads about it, and the wiki actually seems to say the ID matter makes a difference. If the camera was in a public place and the viewer didn't already have the ID, they wouldn't recognize the person on the video, if I'm reading it right.

Am I wrong regarding situations like that, does the wiki need to be updated? I know I was gone for a while, I'm not totally up to date, and I'm assuming the incident in question was different than the situation I'm describing.

[Pi dArtois]

It's come to our attention this is the question that seems most pertinent. So in the interest of fair play I'll defer any further comment.

Just a note that the mods are watching this thread very closely.

[Victor]

It wasn't so much as breaking the masquerade as the people who own the shop and security camera almost recognized the face but weren't sure, so they asked the people they knew would know.

Kind of like if you were to see Elvis walk into a room...the real Elvis...but you weren't positive. So you take a photo and show it to an Elvis expert who 'in shock' sputters out that's the real Slim Shady..two trailer park girls not included.

Some people are tight with their security...questioning and data gathering anyone that sets of alarms.

ETA:

The main issue of all this was 'After all that...is it crossing?' One person is being accused of crossing by sharing a character's ID when infact, it was all roleplayed the way it was described above. This person would not have shared an ID..they know the consequences of that. So would it be fair for them to be called a crosser?

[Velveteen]

No. It is not crossing.

[Cassandra]

It wasn't so much as breaking the masquerade as the people who own the shop and security camera almost recognized the face but weren't sure, so they asked the people they knew would know.
[...]
The main issue of all this was 'After all that...is it crossing?' One person is being accused of crossing by sharing a character's ID when infact, it was all roleplayed the way it was described above. This person would not have shared an ID..they know the consequences of that. So would it be fair for them to be called a crosser?

I'm going to assume from this that the person who saw the video didn't have the Paladin's ID after seeing the video, so the camera was probably in a public place. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I try not to make assumptions if I can avoid it.

What does known identities mean?

The list of known identities isn't a list of characters your character knows by name, but rather who they might recognise. While it may be true that you know the names of some of them, if you got their identity via a camera or stealing or perhaps by witnessing a fight, you would not realistically know the name of the person, you would simply recognise them if you saw them again.

So...the compliment of that seems to be that if Person A doesn't have an ID, and the video doesn't give them the ID, they don't recognize the person on the video. Taking that video and asking someone who DOES have the ID as a way to "connect the dots" seems like a way to do an end-run around the ID system, especially if it results in negative in-game consequences for the person on the video.

I guess in this situation, I totally agree with Azraeth's player - I'm all for creativity, but if the grid mechanics don't explicitly support what you're doing, just reach out to the other player and get them involved, rather than expecting them to reach out to you. Make it collaborative instead of competitive. And for the love of pizza, if someone's accusing you of crossing at any point, just don't write with the person again, nobody wants to have to deal with that more than once.

[Reanna]

It's not crossing.

Crossing in this situation would be if the characters involved didn't know who the paladin was, but the players did, but decided 'oh, hey. let's use it anyways.' From what I know of the situation, the Paladin went into a secured place and was caught on camera. With the example Victor's player used, if Elvis didn't want to be known as back from the dead, then why walk around and get caught?

The problem here is group A believes it to be crossing, while group B doesn't. Group A, in my belief, shouldn't have played the character on grid - especially taken the character to where he could have been caught - if he didn't want to be, just that, caught. Group B, from my knowledge, didn't just assume to know the character. As Cassandra said, it was like connect the dots. When a crime is committed and reported in real life, the police just don't automatically know who committed it, they have to dig a little, ask around. It just so happens the Camera Owner knew who MIGHT recognize the Paladin.