Kestrel said
I've murdered several PC's without permission. Whenever a player drops there will be a gruesome death. I've also killed off characters who pretty much set their selves up for death, like running around town while suffering heavy bloodloss or directly charging towards city-sized monstrosities with nothing but a plain bastard sword. Would you have an issue with this?

Not at all, so long as you're a GM. I believe that, as lon gas the players are given warning, a GM can kill any character. For example, we'll go with any typical zombie RP, if you get bitten or you're losing blood or you simply just play a scene the wrong way and your character flubs up too much, then they will die. Simple as that, really. ^^ However, I would say in a PvP instance, killin a character isn't fair. I had an RP where a character was killed gruesomely... Except I loved it, because I volunteered his martyrdom, he jumped on a grenade.

As a non-bitch concerning GMs, I would have to say that Azseth is one of the best I've ever seen. XD I love joining his RPs, but sometimes they're a bit fast for me and he maintains a very high level of intricacy that sometimes I get too busy to spend time reading. XD

In that instant, I believe you're the GM, Kestral? I think GMs have some leniency with this, although I personally dislike doing it, when it comes to character deaths I refuse to kill another players' characters, because I'd hate having the same done to one of my own without permission. Even characters from players who've dropped don't get killed by me, I play them and their story out as if they were my character until I can put them on a bus. That way they can always come back later and be on some benefit as an NPC or otherwise completing a character arc.

But that said if such a player is stupid enough to set their character up in such a position where anything other then death is logically complete nonsensical bullshit to the context of the story, then... yeah. Can't fault that. But I think recalling Orpheus' story to me from before, this was between a player and another player. Not a GM.

#1. Is the death of this RPC justified in the plot?
#2. Would avoiding the death of this RPC hurt the plot?
#3. How much effort would go into avoiding this death?
#4. What are the OOC repercussions of killing this RPC?

Those are really the questioned asked when killing RPC's. I'm all for it; I greatly dislike plot armor. However, there are times when it can be avoided pretty easily and generally death is such a final option that it should be avoided. Of course, death is also wonderful for plot advancement, development, etc, so at times actually looking for someone to kill is viable, too. Knowing your character can die might also merit a change in roelplay behavior, which often is a good curb.

In terms of a roleplayer killing another roleplayer's character... I think the same questions should be asked. Even tho it shouldn't happen and most roleplayers have their own set morals against RPC-killing, I do believe that on some level they should actually have the choice. It would have to be a rare, rare occasion that I would somehow save a character from a death like this, and even though it is happened, I don't believe even GM interference is a necessity in such cases.

- Jesus Christ, your Lord and Sovereign Savior

Pachamac said
In that instant, I believe you're the GM, Kestral?

Yeah, I'm the GM in these cases.

You mention you write out characters without killing them. How much time does this take you and do you enjoy this method?

Scout said However, I would say in a PvP instance, killin a character isn't fair.

What if they are literally running into your sword and expect to live? How would you handle this as a player?

Kestrel said
What if they are literally running into your sword and expect to live? How would you handle this as a player?

That's a very good point. In this instance, I would say PM either the person and let them know that they would, in every sense of the phrase, be run through by aforementioned blade. Or, on the other hand, I would tell a GM, and to be honest... They're asking for it. I mean, if they go "Oh, I see what... Okay, then... let's take a step back, is that okay?" And then you compromise a fix. I believe everybody whose character is in danger of death in the moment should at least be notified and given a chance to respond before posting the death, simply because it might just be a mistake and it could very easily be a mistake the character himself/herself would not make in real life.

Good point, Kestrel.

I may be the only one here but I personally HATE custom stuff minus personal created characters for the roleplay. I mean like mobile suits from gundam, bending styles from Avatar, and or whatever the else be it. I like a precedent to point to and say, "this person did this and this therefore we can surmise that this is possible for a character at your level." custom stuff means there's no precedent and your depending on the person not to turn it into some OP ability or to use it to clear up a plot device or scenario that would have been hard to solve otherwise. Bash me all you'd like about snuffing out creativity. I like to point to things and say "This happened, This is the precedent in canon and what limits it imposes."

Kestrel said
You mention you write out characters without killing them. How much time does this take you and do you enjoy this method?

Depends on at what point the player dropped and how much longer there is until the end of the chapter - but the chapter ends tend to be a good break since these are also good time/scene move-on transitions. Currently we had a player leave about a month or so ago, I've been writing her three main characters with the same level of detail as I'd write my own characters until the chapter ends, at which point they'll depart.

And yeah, I actually enjoy it a lot. I find it an interesting challenge to see how well I can write another person's character once they've left, and see how accurate and close I can get it to the actual player's playing. I also do it because I'm pretty heavily anal about characters just departing in a story without rhyme or reason or any sense of narrative payoff or completed character arc, not just in an rp but any work of fiction. I hate becoming invested in a character just for them to be unceremoniously dumped.

I also like to bring these players' characters back later within the story, since I think they still have promise and potential to add. One character we had belonged to a player who just didn't quite understand the theme and tone of the rp, and their character had no real reason to be with the character party when he thought every single one of them was completely beneath him and not worth his time. I wrote him out based on that, but I also brought him back later for a chapter where at this point, he had decided he actually had a lot to grow as a person, away from his drinking, womanising ways and into the kind of dependable person someone his rank within the organisation should have been, and all of the dramas that came with it. Another character was one whom had an affinity with earth and nature - I brought him back in a chapter focused on nature. Never let good potential go to waste.

I'm planning on bringing back another player's two characters who departed a couple of months ago and instead of just keeping them for another chapter as guests like the above, will be writing them continuously. The player and her characters had been in the rp since the start and bore heavy character interaction and plot relevance and development, to the point that their absence feels like it detracts from the rp, and that something 'is missing'. It's a heck of a lot of extra work, but again it's really enjoyable, and will in the end be satisfying.

As much as I do like having set, definitive units for things and even do enjoy the idea of precedents, the basic concept has a similar issue to stat-based roleplay. You can put on formal limits all you want, but at the end of the day, the more you add, the more you cut out a bit of creativity. I created an Airbender in Avatar, for example, that used a technique I don't at all recall ever seeing that involved using air as a pressure cutter. It was his signature fighting style. Yet, even though it should be possible in the world of Avatar and wrote out well, there was no real precedent to compare it to. At that point, you just have to monitor progression and really consider the applications and uses of things.

There are also many more factors to abilities than just plain skill, and that's something to consider. I absolutely hate characters that are wrote out as dim-witted, dense or bull-headed immediately coming up with amazing battle plans, complex strategies or instantaneously performing the most intricate action that would perfectly save their ass in an engagement. That takes away so much from the characters that DO have those qualities. For instance, Naruto isn't bright, but he applies what he knows well. Shikamaru was ALWAYS the better strategist, and both Naruto and Shikamaru could probably come up a different method than someone like Sasuke that is considered a genius. Yet, one of them would have to, logically, have a better plan, and I would say it should be Shikamaru in most cases. That's using some examples I feel most people might know.

Addition

I hate the idiots that try to correct your correct grammar. Outside of IC, correcting grammar is normally rude (unless it's a long-term misuse), so correcting already-correct grammar is literally being a rude idiot.

Prince said #1: Your statement was true, but has no real parallel to mine. I pointed out a mechanic involved in a system of people, and a roleplay is in fact still a system of people. Stating a roleplay is not an empire is completely irrelevant to that. The entire point was that a republic would give up its authority to a single person in times of civil unrest, and that is an apparent issue here.

It is entirely relevant. These RP's don't start out as republics, they start out as empires, and if you don't like the empire you're in, you can leave and join another empire with precisely zero repercussions.

If you tried to take power in the Roman Empire, in a way that threatened the emperor, you kind of died. Horrible.

So, yes, it is entirely relevant to bring up that, as a comparison, it doesn't work on a base level, in that nobody had a choice in the Roman Empire but to be part of the Roman Empire. Attempting to leave or change it had very severe repercussions, that went all the way up to your potential demise. Whereas on Roleplayer Guild, if you don't like the Roman Empire authored by Julius Caesar, you can always leave and join the one authored by Commodes, or leave that one and go make your own Roman Empire--all with zero consequences to you, ultimately.

Prince said #2. Diluting the purpose of a system like mine because 'the worst case scenario isn't that bad' isn't making its use any less meaningful. If each GM knew that they couldn't just kick out players because they 'wanted to', they would be forced to go through a more significant screening process, roleplays would most likely be smaller, there would most likely exist a) more close-knit inner communities and b) higher level of social stratification. I do firmly believe that making GM's accountable would weed out weaker ones as well.

It would also be completely abhorrent and disrespectful towards the game masters. The worlds and plots they created are theirs. By law, save in the case of fan fiction. Telling me that I couldn't kick someone out of my group because they have rights in a role play is, sorry, frankly, ridiculous. The same kind of ridiculous as making that very same argument for game servers: "Oh you kicked me out of this Call of Duty server? You don't have the right to do that!" Well what if I wanted to invite my friend? No?

Games, role plays, etc--these are forms of entertainment. Making comparisons to states and giving rights to the players like they're somehow just as important as jobs or your rights as a human being is... Ahh... No. All you're going to do is clog the system, slow it down with needless rules. If you really don't like a GM, go find another one. If you really don't like a role play, go make your own. You are perfectly capable of doing this, don't punish everyone else with your system because there are some bad GM's.

Prince said #3. There is no real checks and balances if there is no way to usurp your decision. An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it?

The GM's? However, he can plainly explain to the player that set of traits wasn't intended to be allowed, and offer to help the player make something else. No system is perfect and sometimes unexpected results occur.

For example: I remember in Pathfinder, I made a fighter who, at level one, had +7 rolls to hit and +2 to damage. He was plain, outright one hit killing pretty much everything in his path, but if the DM made the rest of the monsters harder to compensate, my allies would have been useless, or worse still, slaughtered by SuperGoblins™. When the DM calmly explained that it was a flaw in the system that let me min-max that hard, I agreed to rework my character into something more reasonable so that everyone else could have fun and feel useful, and not useless.

All the while, the DM had absolute power, so if instead of doing that I decided to be a raging dipshit who refused to change anything about my precious character who is absolutely perfect in all things, the DM could simply remove my cancerous attitude before it spoiled the moods of everyone else.

Why? Because this is entertainment. If it's not, in some way, enjoyable, then it has lost its purpose.

Prince said If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character, who should have to give in here?

The player. A mistake in the system does not warrant then granting an exception only for that one player. It warrants an apology to that player and an explanation. Nothing more. Otherwise you set the precedent that every other player should get game breaking system exceptions. Then what's the point of having a system?

Prince said In most cases, I say the GM should simply allow said character in, as long as it doesn't otherwise hurt the plot, interactions with other characters and is a quality creation.

And the system. You forgot the system. Role plays are in the weird territory of being both writing and games. The system side of things is just as important and if it wasn't, then we wouldn't have a need for turn orders, author control rules, bits about godmoding and metagaming, etc.

Prince said Yet, if a GM retains the ability to reject a character that cannot be edited without diluting its core concept when it was their lack of communication and foresight that made way for the character, then it is still unfair in that sense.

Life isn't really fair. This is as good a time as any to learn it. Something the player could do is ask the GM if there's any way to obtain that core concept, or preserve it whilst not breaking the system. Otherwise, if there isn't, simply ask the GM "hey, I have a list of other things I'm interested in doing here, how many of these do you think would work?"

Remember. It's a collective interest RP, if the player puts his foot down and refuses to change when the GM notes it was a bug in the system that allowed the character to exist, then the player is being uncooperative, and not working with those around him. That's problematic.

Prince said It is a situation as simple as this that I do firmly believe a GM should be held accountable, or the countless similar scenarios when allowing one exception then enforcing the rules would be the 'fair' way to handle it. Yet, if that player is just jettisoned from the roleplay and it goes on, was there any real justice done there?

No justice needed. Player did not fit in, player refused to change, player was ejected. Now the player can go find a different RP that could actually tolerate his or her creation. This is actually the best possible way to do it. Forcing the GM to put up with this character they straight up don't like will only make everyone miserable. Including the person who made that character, because they will never feel welcome. Being kicked out, they can now try again in a new RP. Of which we have many to choose from. Or, if there are no RP's currently available that interest them, they can go make their own.

This is, by definition, an incredible healthy system at work. It ensures that everyone gets the choice to do as they wish over their "property". People who don't belong are kicked. Is that unfair? Yes. Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?

No.

Prince said The type of system I would like could only ever be implemented on a site-wide range, so it would never come to fruition unless there was another incentives system. If everyone was 'cool like the Fonz', then you'd never need any real system. But, we all know, that's not the case.

The system is idealistic but it wouldn't function site-wide. The moderating staff would be insanely overwhelmed with report requests to deal with one DM or another over some sleight about how Jimmy Junior isn't allowed to be a telepath and what not.

Besides, part of what makes this site fantastic is that you have the choice to employ any system you want. Do you want to be a tyrannical megalomaniac who wantonly punishes people? Go right ahead, you won't last long, but you can go right ahead. Do you want a democracy, where there is no "true" DM or GM and everyone votes measures into place, like whether a player can join or not? Well, you can do that too, absolutely nothing is stopping you.

Forcing everyone to subscribe to the same system because it might be fairer is, ironically, the most unfair thing you can do.

EDIT

Also, to handle player deaths, I simply put in a little bit at the end of every character sheet where you sign your username. In signing there, you've plainly signed away any right you had to claim your character's life is immortal, which is plainly explained to you: Sign this and I am allowed to kill you whenever, and however, I choose. The reason being is that death is a core theme of every role play I make. People die, all the time, I like to reflect this in my role plays. Especially since it raises the stakes: Oh no, Jimmy Junior died! It really gives a sense of urgency and concern, and helps players learn very quickly that rash actions will get you killed. Bumrushing the main villain will get you killed. Planning and teamwork, on the other hand, will more than likely, repeatedly, save your life.

On another topic, I was once on an RPG forum for a particular fanbase, wherein each of the canon characters was 'owned' by a different member, on a site-wide basis. If you wanted to use that character in your game, you had to ask its owner for permission. They could (and would) refuse, and the site entitled them to do so on whatever basis they pleased.

Suffice to say, my stay in that ego-serving, pointlessly bureaucratic system was a short and fruitless one.

Instead of hitting all of your points like I would normally, this time I'm going to retaliate with a whole new set of logic.

You just said that "The system is idealistic but it wouldn't function site-wide", which should moot every single point you made before hand. Using the system I have implemented that you just called idealistic on the beliefs I would have it implemented is a giant assertion that completely contradicts every point you just made.

The system I would have had implemented did not dictate everything by forcing it to use the 'same' system. Any 'system' could be used on it, the difference is that it would literally exclude tyrants. It would diminish abuse. It would let you create a republic or an empire without fear of true tyranny. Now, to jump back to a few cases now that I have asserted we are on a basis of logic that is not 'commonplace' such as it actually is on the Guild.

The GM's? However, he can plainly explain to the player that set of traits wasn't intended to be allowed, and offer to help the player make something else. No system is perfect and sometimes unexpected results occur.

For example: I remember in Pathfinder, I made a fighter who, at level one, had +7 rolls to hit and +2 to damage. He was plain, outright one hit killing pretty much everything in his path, but if the DM made the rest of the monsters harder to compensate, my allies would have been useless, or worse still, slaughtered by SuperGoblins™. When the DM calmly explained that it was a flaw in the system that let me min-max that hard, I agreed to rework my character into something more reasonable so that everyone else could have fun and feel useful, and not useless.

All the while, the DM had absolute power, so if instead of doing that I decided to be a raging dipshit who refused to change anything about my precious character who is absolutely perfect in all things, the DM could simply remove my cancerous attitude before it spoiled the moods of everyone else.

Why? Because this is entertainment. If it's not, in some way, enjoyable, then it has lost its purpose.

A character with that level one preset power is a gift from the roleplay Gods. In most circles I involve myself it, they would have totally wanted that character to be designed with a unique personality and character concept, possibly to create a plot-justified reasoning for the mechanic-granted stats. There is a solution that doesn't involve a GM power-slamming a roleplayer using underhanded tactics. The 'cancer' there never had to be cancer. I know people, on the other hand, request a re-roll because a strong character is NOT what they enjoy playing. That's just personal preference and if a game flaw allows it, so be it.

---

No justice needed. Player did not fit in, player refused to change, player was ejected. Now the player can go find a different RP that could actually tolerate his or her creation. This is actually the best possible way to do it. Forcing the GM to put up with this character they straight up don't like will only make everyone miserable. Including the person who made that character, because they will never feel welcome. Being kicked out, they can now try again in a new RP. Of which we have many to choose from. Or, if there are no RP's currently available that interest them, they can go make their own.

This is, by definition, an incredible healthy system at work. It ensures that everyone gets the choice to do as they wish over their "property". People who don't belong are kicked. Is that unfair? Yes. Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?

I vehemently disagree with this. You're using these strong, negatively strong words as if to describe something that is immediately toxic, and that's just plain not the case EVERY SINGLE TIME. You just made so many assumptions in this statement that I frankly don't even want to dissolve it. In fact, Brovo, I expected a lot more from you as our back and forths are slowly growing entertaining, but this was just pitiful.

In short, yes, a GM should have to be forced to deal with their mistakes, just as any person should. That's responsibility and accountability, plain and simple.

Life isn't really fair. This is as good a time as any to learn it.

Fuck right life isn't fair. I never said it was. Yet, we have systems for justice and fairness placed into life each and every day. Using the statement, "Life ain't fair" to ever shut down a system of governing is just... well, weak. I expect a lot more than these diluted responses. You were doing so much better, and I'm not even being a dick here. What the Hell happened?

The player. A mistake in the system does not warrant then granting an exception only for that one player. It warrants an apology to that player and an explanation. Nothing more. Otherwise you set the precedent that every other player should get game breaking system exceptions. Then what's the point of having a system?

You're just made this far too extreme for its context. I never referred to it as game-breaking or even detrimental. The rule could have been arbitrary. You just completely ignored that. What the fuck, man? The precedent should be set that a player that designs a well-crafted, applicable addition to a roleplay only to be told they 'just made a rule' denying such AFTER said creation should definitely be slipped in, and you just ignored that very basic precept.

I don't even know what you're doing anymore, Brovo. You just argued that the arbitrary was relevant and brought up a whole bunch of assumed traits and points to topics that never even had them. What the Hell?

Addition

Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?

An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it? If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character,

I just plain have to tack this on. Do you realize how FAR you warped that original statement? Do you realize you are implying that a 'grandfathered' aspect could ruin an entire game without knowing anything past the concept basis here? I even used words like "small dysfunction" and "slightly off-the-wall", and you go on acting like I'm throwing a rabid pit bull into field of kittens. You just did that to EVERYTHING I said. It's so extreme and radical. I couldn't take half of it serious. I won't take that serious because it is literally raping my words. You took valid arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Addition #2

I didn't ever even MENTION that neither party here refused to compromise or change. You added that on yourself. That is an assumption. You could have asked, 'well, did they try to compromise?' or 'Well, how important was this change?', but instead you immediately jumped to the defense of any GM and acted like it was a roleplayer with absolutely no desire to meet in a middle ground. That's how far you are twisting my words. I feel like you just raped my post.

On Jig's topic: I was in a similar community as well. It was on Gamefaqs instead of an RP-based site though, but I was always RPing with folks in the social boards lol. I didn't think sites actually dedicated to RPing would actually employ this. On the site you mention, what if the "owner" of a canon character leaves the site and never comes back? Was there a rule for how often you had to be active? What if the owner couldn't write that character well at all though? lol

On Topic: I hate it when a player has a Neo complex. They can't just be farmer joe's daughter set off to try and stop the problem at hand, no, they have to be the chosen one. They can't just want to help people out of an inherent sense of human empathy, no, they need to do it because destiny or their baller baller wallah wallah mentor told them to do it.

Also min-maxing, and people who set out to "win" a story. Those people confuse me.

Also, to quick-fire some stuff here, more in-depth other stuff.

Prince said It would diminish abuse. It would let you create a republic or an empire without fear of true tyranny

You already can.

Prince said I know people, on the other hand, request a re-roll because a strong character is NOT what they enjoy playing. That's just personal preference and if a game flaw allows it, so be it.

Addendum: The pathfinder sessions I join tend to use point buy, not random roll. It wasn't a gift from the RP Gods, it was me abusing the system to make a godmode character while everyone else made fun stuff. The DM caught on and pointed it out, I rerolled something else, because everyone else felt too weak to enjoy themselves when I resolved all their problems effortlessly.

Also, how your group feels does not then invalidate the fact that my group felt like crap in the same situation and didn't want to play. Universal standards like this don't work, ergo choice, which RPG gives you.

Prince said In fact, Brovo, I expected a lot more from you as our back and forths are slowly growing entertaining, but this was just pitiful.

Can you even logic, bro? In all seriousness though? Sorry you feel that way.

Also, please use logos and explain, if you can do so without calling me pitiful, what it is you are thinking. Why do you feel this way about the example? What do you think would be a superior or more logical example?

Prince said Fuck right life isn't fair. I never said it was. Yet, we have systems for justice and fairness placed into life each and every day. Using the statement, "Life ain't fair" to ever shut down a system of governing is just... well, weak. I expect a lot more than these diluted responses. You were doing so much better, and I'm not even being a dick here. What the Hell happened?

Because you don't need a system of governing for what is otherwise a very simple equation.

Player joins server/group. Player is not welcome. Player is ejected. Player goes and finds a new server/group. Entire process takes anywhere between five minutes to two days.

Versus a system where checks and balances are forced on everyone, causing people to become paranoid about accepting players they don't know. After all, what if someone trolls the system? There are lots of people who do that in real life, such as copywrite trolls. In fact, the system in real life takes ages to resolve cases in general. Now, it should, because cases can vary from anything between monetary fines to the electric chair, so you kind of need to be extremely certain of that. The system's complexity matches the consequences that the system can deal out. Tit for tat, it measures up.

A role play is not going to send you to the electric chair.

Prince said You're just made this far too extreme for its context. I never referred to it as game-breaking or even detrimental. The rule could have been arbitrary. You just completely ignored that. What the fuck, man?

You should probably calm down.

If the rule was arbitrary, the player can argue it. If the GM sees it their way, the GM changes the rules. If the GM does not see it that way, the player is removed. Pretty simple, not sure why you hate this so much.

Prince said I just plain have to tack this on. Do you realize how FAR you warped that original statement? Do you realize you are implying that a 'grandfathered' aspect could ruin an entire game without knowing anything past the concept basis here? I even used words like "small dysfunction" and "slightly off-the-wall", and you go on acting like I'm throwing a rabid pit bull into field of kittens. You just did that to EVERYTHING I said. It's so extreme and radical. I couldn't take half of it serious. I won't take that serious because it is literally raping my words. You took valid arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Addition #2

I didn't ever even MENTION that neither party here refused to compromise or change. You added that on yourself. That is an assumption. You could have asked, 'well, did they try to compromise?' or 'Well, how important was this change?', but instead you immediately jumped to the defense of any GM and acted like it was a roleplayer with absolutely no desire to meet in a middle ground. That's how far you are twisting my words. I feel like you just raped my post.

You realize that degrading the opposition's words without actually explaining what is wrong with them doesn't make a good argument, right?

Also, speaking of strong words: Literally raping my words, turning my arguments into propaganda. In fact, how can we have a discussion if you, quote, "can't take half of it serious". If you can't treat your ideological opposition with some manner of civility and seriousness, what kind of sincere argument are you supposed to present beyond "lol ur dumb". Seriously I'm not attacking you or trying to turn your words into propaganda or anything else. I used an example for why your idea wouldn't work: Players who refuse to change and thus abuse the system by swarming the moderation staff with countless facile reports. You replied by calling my arguments pitiful, extreme, radical, that you couldn't take it seriously, that I was literally raping your words, and that I took your arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Then I displayed that in the current system (GM's own their threads exclusively), you can make anything you want to. If you want your system, for instance, you can make it in your thread alone. Nobody is stopping you from enforcing your system in your threads. Nobody is stopping you from making a republic, a monarchy, an anarchy, a fascism, a communism--you are assumed to be perfectly capable enough of deciding for yourself what system it is you want to create and enforce on your own. It requires minimal moderator interference, even, which is great because the mods get tired enough dealing with spam's shenanigans as is. I'm sure they also get tired of me sometimes.

Really, that's all. It's an argument. I'm sorry you see it as some violent raping of your words into some horrible propaganda. I just saw it as a counter argument that used an example.

No man, I'm out. This isn't a debate or even intelligible. You literally just twisted and warped words instead of retorting. You didn't address my points; you made your own.

You want to continue this and get some logos, you apologize for your conduct. I've been to formal debate, scored high, and your actions here would have been reprimanded by point deduction solely because you continuously refused to address points. I cannot clarify any more that the actual value of my points was never addressed, you simply made them radical and address the most radical issues of my points which are nonexistent normally.

Well, I'm sorry life isn't like high school.

On-Topic: Has anyone else encountered someone proclaiming their version of magic is more realistic than someone else's version of magic? Because this bothers me to no end.

This has absolutely nothing to do with high school. Again, you neglect the actual point.

Are you two done? I think this has moved well beyond what the purpose of the thread. It would be a shame for another of these threads to be locked.

Brovo said
On-Topic: Has anyone else encountered someone proclaiming their version of magic is more realistic than someone else's version of magic?
Because this bothers me to no end.

Can you give a specific example, Brovo? This is a very complex concept, especially considering all of the different interpretations of magic out there.

Which kind of magic did this person claim was more realistic?