[OOC] Myriad Reality

[DarkwolfX37]

I find that the OOC posts have more volume than the IC ones xddd

@Bishop

Tends to be.

@Webmaster@DarkwolfX37

Can I have a little summary please? I think 100k posts is bad for your eyes to read xD

And is there a limit on non-human looking characters? Because it seems like all of them so far have been human looking.

@SgtEasy

There's not really a need to know what happened so far unless your character would know about them, but if you're curious we do have a bare-bones wiki we made a long time ago and sort of just let die.

Also you can mostly ignore the homosexual "ban" if you want so long as you're careful about it. As long as three of the players don't have to make their characters "approve" of it. But other than that, the first OOC post is pretty helpful.
In fact I need to remember to go to it and explain that one rule, since a mod already asked about it a while ago. I digress.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Bishop>

Tends to be.

<Snipped quote by SgtEasy>

There's not really a need to know what happened so far unless your character would know about them, but if you're curious we do have a bare-bones wiki we made a long time ago and sort of just let die.

Also you can mostly ignore the homosexual "ban" if you want so long as you're careful about it. As long as three of the players don't have to make their characters "approve" of it. But other than that, the first OOC post is pretty helpful.
In fact I need to remember to go to it and explain that one rule, since a mod already asked about it a while ago. I digress.

@DarkwolfX37

Untrue. You're not the authority on changing rules—they were decided democratically and haven't changed.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Untrue. You're not the authority on changing rules—they were decided democratically and haven't changed.

@Webmaster

Your exact complaint was: "I can't morally justify playing a character that approves of homosexuality, but I cannot think of a reason why they would be against it, therefor homosexuality should be banned."
Also democracy doesn't work, and that was the original rule. I made it very clear when it became a thing at all that there would not be a total ban on it and that at most you could get a "okay well all of it is off-screen and alluding to it will be limited." You don't get to recreate history to make it go the way you want. You can go back and fucking check if you want.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

Your exact complaint was: "I can't morally justify playing a character that approves of homosexuality, but I cannot think of a reason why they would be against it, therefor homosexuality should be banned."
Also democracy doesn't work, and that was the original rule. I made it very clear when it became a thing at all that there would not be a total ban on it and that at most you could get a "okay well all of it is off-screen and alluding to it will be limited." You don't get to recreate history to make it go the way you want. You can go back and fucking check if you want.

@DarkwolfX37

Literally was not. Also, incorrect therefore.
Also not true. The original rule when we made the rules was the ban. You go and check because it's there in writing with a date attached if you're so inclined. I also have the archive if you want that.

Plus, if you'd like to go far enough back, there was a soft ban (heavy discouragement) before you even showed up five years ago.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Literally was not. Also, incorrect therefore.
Also not true. The original rule when we made the rules was the ban. You go and check because it's there in writing with a date attached if you're so inclined. I also have the archive if you want that.

Plus, if you'd like to go far enough back, there was a soft ban (heavy discouragement) before you even showed up five years ago.

@Webmaster

It was exactly what your reasoning was.
No, it wasn't. It was specifically to not have PDA between characters of the same sex.

Like hell there was. For all two weeks when there was no OOC and you were RPing sex scenes with Pinkie? Fuck off. The soft ban, if you want to call it that, was only enacted right before I left for a year, and you trying to make it a total ban is part of why you had that breakdown. Just like I'm not going to let you try to mob-rule yourself into inserting christianity as canon I'm not going to let you try to mob-rule your way into banning potential characters because of your own lack of flexibility.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

It was exactly what your reasoning was.
No, it wasn't. It was specifically to not have PDA between characters of the same sex.

Like hell there was. For all two weeks when there was no OOC and you were RPing sex scenes with Pinkie? Fuck off. The soft ban, if you want to call it that, was only enacted right before I left for a year, and you trying to make it a total ban is part of why you had that breakdown. Just like I'm not going to let you try to mob-rule yourself into inserting christianity as canon I'm not going to let you try to mob-rule your way into banning potential characters because of your own lack of flexibility.

@DarkwolfX37

It really wasn't. You always go on about how bad your memory is.
That was absolutely never the agreement. Your memory is failing you.

No, there was a soft ban IC because it was established that there was literally no reason for anyone to be homosexual on an Existential scale. As for what you're going to "let me" do, you don't have the authority to do the exact thing you think you're trying to prevent me from doing. You've posted almost zero times in the past two to three years and you're trying to be the rule regulator, while I'm only enforcing the preexisting agreements that were already there.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

It really wasn't. You always go on about how bad your memory is.
That was absolutely never the agreement. Your memory is failing you.

No, there was a soft ban IC because it was established that there was literally no reason for anyone to be homosexual on an Existential scale. As for what you're going to "let me" do, you don't have the authority to do the exact thing you think you're trying to prevent me from doing. You've posted almost zero times in the past two to three years and you're trying to be the rule regulator, while I'm only enforcing the preexisting agreements that were already there.

@Webmaster

It absolutely was. You also claim to have a near-photographic memory but you've forgotten as much as I do.
It was. You can go fucking check.

There's literally no reason to be anything on an Existential scale. And it's not a matter of what authority I have, it's about your lack of it.
I'm also the only one who actually followed the original rules consistantly. You're the one who threw out the "no religion" rule as soon as you got someone to support it with Whiz. You're trying to enforce a rule that isn't how you claim it is, which is exactly why we only had three to begin with.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

It absolutely was. You also claim to have a near-photographic memory but you've forgotten as much as I do.
It was. You can go fucking check.

There's literally no reason to be anything on an Existential scale. And it's not a matter of what authority I have, it's about your lack of it.
I'm also the only one who actually followed the original rules consistantly. You're the one who threw out the "no religion" rule as soon as you got someone to support it with Whiz. You're trying to enforce a rule that isn't how you claim it is, which is exactly why we only had three to begin with.

@DarkwolfX37

No, you're trying to rewrite history based on your notion of how things happen, which you continuously demonstrate to be lacking. Your only "evidence" that demonstrates any sort of lack of remembrance on my part is your own memory, which we've already established as unreliable. You can't just say that things went exactly as you planned because we had the same arguments back then too. The only difference is that then, we fought about which to enact for the future rather than what is already the past and went until you would for whatever reason suddenly stop replying for like a week at a time, so we would go ahead and establish the rules based on the canon. The arguments are the exact same, but they were settled ages ago when we enacted this for the first time.

[Stabby]

Main question to this whole argument on both sides.

Why don't you just go look up the original conversation and posts? (unless of course you can't, in which case it becomes obvious.)

[DarkwolfX37]

Main question to this whole argument on both sides.

Why don't you just go look up the original conversation and posts? (unless of course you can't, in which case it becomes obvious.)

@Stabby

Too lazy, mostly.

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

Too lazy, mostly.

@DarkwolfX37

and yet you're taking hours to type up and argue over the hypothetical's of if or if not those words were what you thought they were?

...

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
went until you would for whatever reason suddenly stop replying for like a week at a time,

@Webmaster

Wow it's almost like two and a half of you are actively hostile to me whenever I try to keep you from overstepping your bounds and breaking the three fucking rules we established when we first talked OOC.

[Webmaster]

Main question to this whole argument on both sides.

Why don't you just go look up the original conversation and posts? (unless of course you can't, in which case it becomes obvious.)

@Stabby

To go all the way back would unfortunately be impossible. A lot of this was established on OldGuild or iFunny.

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

and yet you're taking hours to type up and argue over the hypothetical's of if or if not those words were what you thought they were?

...

@Stabby

...

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

To go all the way back would unfortunately be impossible. A lot of this was established on OldGuild or iFunny.

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

...

@Webmaster

At the minimum you can still go back and look at the last conversation on this subject instead of whining at each other like children.

also how about

because my apathetic mindset is active right now, and I am not your ally.

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

Wow it's almost like two and a half of you are actively hostile to me whenever I try to keep you from overstepping your bounds and breaking the three fucking rules we established when we first talked OOC.

@DarkwolfX37

-_- if you're referencing me, I'm not actually hostile to you, I just want to see this actually go somewhere instead of watching two people consistently argue over a point without any form of compromise and the issue left unresolved/made worse.

In fact, I'm just gonna look this up on multiple points just so that you two can at least get this done and over with sooner. Because honestly, I actually want to know if I can make a homosexual female character without breaking the rules.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

At the minimum you can still go back and look at the last conversation on this subject instead of whining at each other like children.

also how about

because my apathetic mindset is active right now, and I am not your ally.

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

-_- if you're referencing me, I'm not actually hostile to you, I just want to see this actually go somewhere instead of watching two people consistently argue over a point without any form of compromise and the issue left unresolved/made worse.

In fact, I'm just gonna look this up on multiple points just so that you two can at least get this done and over with sooner. Because honestly, I actually want to know if I can make a homosexual female character without breaking the rules.

@Stabby

You almost certainly won't find anything on NewGuild with the search system and/or Google.

The answer is no. Things have always been decided democratically, and this has been resolved on numerous occasions to negatory.

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

You almost certainly won't find anything on NewGuild with the search system and/or Google.

The answer is no. Things have always been decided democratically, and this has been resolved on numerous occasions to negatory.

@Webmaster

Find nothing you say? I can at least find an earlier conversation about this same subject from two years ago.
roleplayerguild.com/posts/3097258

And I can respect a democracy, but frankly if there is a possibility of seeing that changed in a minor way, then I will try.

[Webmaster]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

Find nothing you say? I can at least find an earlier conversation about this same subject from two years ago.
roleplayerguild.com/posts/3097258

And I can respect a democracy, but frankly if there is a possibility of seeing that changed in a minor way, then I will try.

@Stabby

I put probably there for a reason.

I understand that sentiment. I hope you understand mine.



As a side note, I would like to add that considering discourse childish is a bit unfair. It probably reads a lot angrier than it is.

[Stabby]

<Snipped quote by Stabby>

I put probably there for a reason.

I understand that sentiment. I hope you understand mine.



As a side note, I would like to add that considering discourse childish is a bit unfair. It probably reads a lot angrier than it is.

@Webmaster

ok.

I'll try, though I'm not exactly sure what yours is.

[Balance]

i say no because religious convictions; some of my characters don't really have a reason to oppose homosexuality and therefore it would be out of character and unnatural for me to write them doing so, but if I did not write them doing so then I would be writing the support of homosexuality and, um, religious convictions sooooo

[Stabby]

on the note of finding things, when was MR started on the old guild and was the title the same?