A while ago - approximately a month and a half or so - I was participating in a roleplay and happened to be witness to an intense disagreement between two posters concerning what one or the other was or was not permitted to do, and eventually required GM intervention in order to resolve the matter before it generated further problems. For the sake of keeping things civil, the RP in question, as well as the posters involved, will be kept anonymous. If you participated in that particular RP or know of the incident in question, your discretion is appreciated.

The basic problem boiled down to the fact that one poster (henceforth Poster A) did not want to interact with another poster IC. Seems straightforward enough. However, the second poster (Poster B) argued that Poster A's position in the RP was such that it made evading interaction IC highly improbable and implausible, and that they could not force their characters to not take specific actions in response to events or actions executed by the characters of Poster A. Poster B further argued that, by insisting they did not want to interact, Poster A was knowingly acting in a manner which invalidated the 'contextual reality' of the RP, and that their actions could be constituted as metagaming.

When asked specifically why they did not want to interact with Poster B, Poster A said that it was because interaction in that circumstance with Poster B would influence a particular plotline Poster A was running with their own characters in a way they did not want the plotline to progress. When asked if they would consider interaction with any other poster and characters that might possibly influence the aforementioned plotline, Poster A did not give a firm answer but implied they would prefer to not permit any other posters to influence that particular plot and had no desire to accommodate for any such potential influence.

When asked why they could not force their characters to act in such a way as to accommodate Poster A's preference, Poster B said that it as because the way Poster A's characters and the actions they were taking were, within the context of the RP, impossible (or at least highly improbably) for Poster B's characters to ignore, destroying the 'contextual reality' of the RP. They also indicated that they could not force their own characters' actions, but rather as a narrator merely 'reported' what actions their characters took, as though Poster B's characters were independent agents with free will. As such, Poster B argued that they had no ability to accommodate Poster A even had they not cared about the 'contextual reality' of the RP.

Eventually Poster B accused Poster A of 'metagaming', couching the term as the utilization of OOC knowledge and behavior in order to facilitate IC events and actions which would normally be considered unacceptable.

After that, the GM was called in to intervene. I will not describe their decision or how they reached it here, since it was a (semi) private affair, with only the other members including of the RP including myself serving as witnesses.

The basic argument between Poster A and Poster B sparked a brief discussion amongst the other posters present however, whereupon the following opinions were expressed. I would like to reiterate that these were observations made by the proverbial peanut gallery and are not being construed as fact.

- Poster A's desire to not permit any kind of outside influence or interference with their own personal plotline, in an inherently collaborative setting, was both disruptive and detrimental to the RP as a whole and the IC setting. Posters should enter into RPs expecting to have to play to others. If they were so caught up in their own personal plots, they could just write a book or short story on their own without having to interfere with the roleplay. By expressing a 'preference' to not have to interact with other posters based on possible interference with their own creative ideas, Poster A was being supremely selfish.

- Poster B was being incredibly silly by not respecting Poster A's explicit desire to not have to interact with Poster B. Arguing that the narrative consistency of a fictional setting was more important than a real, actual person's request to another poster was both rude and immature. Their insistence that Poster A be forced to interact with Poster B is a shameless instance of powergaming, and their accusation of Metagaming against Poster A was mere bullying and intimidation.

A number of participants in that particular conversation brought up specific instances where both observations were true. One poster indicated that, in Free and Casual NRPs (as an example) it had been extremely common at one point for people to power trip, joining roleplays simply to cruise around with random nonsensical death armies and auto-stomp the posters with the weakest militaries just because they could, and as such they were sympathetic to the request itself. They indicated that such a request, while potentially extremely inconvenient within the IC setting, was not unreasonable for a poster to make in instances where they felt they were being singled out as victims of blatant powergaming. Another poster indicated that the foremost concern of an Advanced writer was to create an interesting story and that concerns such as 'winning' were immature conditions best left to the Free and Casual subforums, and so all posters had an obligation to work with one another even in situations where their own personal plots and ideas might be influence by those of others.

Everybody in the end was able to agree that, all things being equal, no single event or action of significance IC occurring between two or more posters and their characters/concepts should occur without all parties involved being able to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Compromise proved to be impossible due to reasons which I cannot fully provide here without spoiling anonymity. Considerable efforts were made by a number of other posters and the GM to reason with both Posters A and B to see if there was some or any way in which to arrange the situation to their mutual satisfaction, or at least in a way in which they could both continue to participate in the RP. Both Posters were adamant in their stances however, both feeling that their positions were reasonable and that the others' position was unreasonable.

The conflict ended when one of the posters, feeling as though it were impossible for them to proceed any further within the RP itself, willingly withdrew from their RP of their own volition and without any prompting from the GM.