Path of the Vampire forum

Rules as subjective now?

Okay then.....

So I guess, I'm just not going to care about this update ic, because IF 4 of my characters think that the admin account is (insert various negative words here, or various positive even), I am going to get a warning for them disagreeing or agreeing with anything that account says or has said.

I didn't say that, but that is a choice you can make if you want to be extra careful.

Pi dArtois wrote: Personally, I think you'll be fine, but we don't control how the player base chooses to report.

And really, it is depends on context, which can be very subjective.

This update shouldn't impact how your character has been played or will be played, as the same rules have and will apply as they have done previously.

Of course you can have both characters disagree, but if they do, then you should be mindful how they 'could be' construed if brought to moderator attention.

Subjective is applied to players, as they decide at reporting what 'they' believe is against the rules. Subjective is applied to mods as we as mods vote on a case to case basis.

Maybe context is a better word than subjective, but mer.

Okay, question.

Can anyone else take your handle? So, if I take Pi, can someone pretend to be Pi dArtois and post as Pi getting her in trouble?

Curious. OR, can someone pretend to be Velveteen, get her in trouble?

How many times can you change your handle?

SO! Pi has been talking on Crow, and quoting peoples and I think maybe we should do something about this? Is there a way for our 'handles' to show up when we quote and not the 'character'?

Deirdre wrote:

We could always just cull the morons.

Mm... culling.

O:
I like you.

I like the both of you. Very much.

OOC: Edited to cut the names from the quotation

Seems rather important.

They've already answered something similar to that, Pi.

Rain wrote:

Alexandrea wrote:I created a handle, & posted with a quote but removed the original poster's id. Should I have/could I have input the handle the player might have used in it's place?

I'm feeling quite trepadacious about this, I think we'll be seeing some confusion and conflict about this 'new' anonymity.

That's an excellent question. If we're supposed to be sporting these new handles, when we quote something it should have shown up as the handle, but I don't know how hard that would be to do.

PoeticPuppy wrote:

Alexandrea wrote:I created a handle, & posted with a quote but removed the original poster's id. Should I have/could I have input the handle the player might have used in it's place?

Up to you. You can put the person's handle instead, that's fine but this is something people will have to remember to do themselves when quoting.

Hrmmmm... I gave it a shot. It's a bit long winded but probably works better huh? See below? Does that make sense or is it, more confusing?

Pi dArtois wrote:

Aliyah - Anonymous wrote:
This is going to backfire, and everyone thanking this "Administrator" is just feeding into it. When lines are crossed, all of you will be up in arms. And those of us who think this is too good to be true will get to rise up with a big, fat "I told you."

Someone needs to make this suggestion:

Jonah wrote:I'm just surprised it still reads CrowNet and not AdminNet or whatever.

>.> Cause that could be fun RP.

Marjani wrote:Yeah, I do. But does it come to OOC or IC in the old instance?
>.>

S'what my thought was.

And then so I can't have, say...Prudence, Ric and idk whoever else post disagreeing with the Administrator?

I hate to be that person, but I'm sure I can't be the only person who has wondered this since the new annon thing cropped up. And I'd rather spare people warnings and such ahead of time.

:)

Your characters can all agree on something when it comes to a game-wide story or a chapter. There's only so many possible stances to have on each subject, after all.

Is there a way to actually anonymize this?

I'm super tired and just now had Nix reply to someone who should have been anonymous, but I forgot about the change and was just like 'yep, nix know this person'. Which she should absolutely not have know due to anonymity. Other character replied knowing it was Nix, though that also should have been anonymous. I poked the player and we got it sorted out, but this is literally going to be a headache, especially for people just wanting to derp around on the forum while mobile or wanting to have fun without a whole lot of mental investment.

So... can it be coded to be legitimately anonymous to protect against player screw ups?

and seems to be a huge invite for peep to scream "YOU DONT KNOW THAT WAS ME<> YOU ARE CROSSING! ! ! MODS! ! !