ApocalypticaGM

Whovians only. We will destroy you in battle. Have a nice day :D

Hey Whovians, came across [ur=http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/video/2013/sep/27/doctor-who-companions-video-interviews]this[/url] while working on the next RPGN Comic and they covered a few areas we discussed too. Oh, by they, I mean something like 5-6 former companions ranging from the first Doctor's Companion to Karen Gillian. They discuss the show, portrayal of their characters and the evolution of the female assistant to companion, several other topics, but namely their perspective on a Female Doctor. If you dig the Whoverse you should give it a listen, I found it rather pleasant, and it's cool to see industry professionals share their opinions the same way we the fans do.

Favourite quote must've been the companion who stated they'd like to see a ginger, black, lesbian Doctor.

Answer violence with violence?

Brovo

As I said. The vast majority come out of it okay. Some don't. Some do get long lasting scars and that's unfortunate. Some do become bullies because of it and that's unfortunate. However, we cannot then even pretend that it's comparable to a parent abusing their child with physical means. It's not. One of these things is hugely more detrimental than the other. We're talking on the level of tuna fish versus blue whale in size difference here, if you get what I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying that verbal abuse is right, or that it's something we should totally ignore. It's something that needs to be addressed, but with an entirely different set of instruments than physical abuse towards a child. Because the latter pretty much guarantees physical and psychological scars that will last the rest of their lives and often does translate into further child abuse later on down the line. It's a vicious cycle that usually requires outside interference to resolve.

On the other hand, verbal abuse is something every child goes through at least once in their lives. Especially now that we all have the Internet at our disposal. Everyone gets hurt and it services an actual purpose: Burst the special snowflake self-image if the parents can't will themselves to do it. Believe it or not, verbal abuse can be used to help a child grow more confident in themselves, not less confident--"The bully has to make you feel bad to feel better about himself, that means you're stronger than him simply by knowing he isn't anything without you!" You use the experience in a constructive manner to help your child deal with the fact that, in the real world, there will be a lot of hateful, spiteful people, and they can let it get to them, eat them away every day, or they can move on and grow up, became responsible people with courageous hearts.

Will it stop them from getting hurt? No, but some amount of pain is good pain. It's life pain, growing pain. It helps transition children into becoming adults: That is, how they deal with their pain helps define who it is they will be when they are adults.

Now, constant verbal abuse that lasts for months? Shit needs to get done, and there are avenues one can take, methods one can use, all of which avoid physical contact. However, Gwazi (intentionally or not) drew the comparison line at physical abuse of a child and bullying. Thus bullying by association gained the physical abuse attribute. The only logical response to someone trying to beat you, possible to severe injury or death, is to fight back physically. Hit them back. If you don't, they will hurt you and possible kill you.

That's all I'm trying to get at here, is the comparison is rather ludicrous on the face of it because the two problems are inherently completely different. The only tangential link they share is causing pain to the victim.

The idea that one form of abuse is more detrimental or more serious than the other sounds more like personal belief than fact. So, yes, we can believe that both should be taken with an equal level of seriousness. And yes, we should engage with both physical and verbal abuse with the understanding that the two are all too often linked, and that how a parent treats their child with either will undoubtedly have significant effects in their lives. Whether every child who is told they are shit seeks confidence through bullying, or if they instead use more sinister means such as sexual assault or seeking higher offices to satisfy that hole, the problem is clear in our society. Punch me or call me a racial slur, either way, you're damaging a part of who I am. That damage will stay with me, whether the scar is visible or not.

Verbal abuse is not a tool. Brovo, can't you imagine better ways to teach your child that being a special snowflake is neither realistic nor ideal than to build that conception before breaking it down through any form of abusive tactic? Yes, we all will face verbal abuse in our lives. But if you're seeing it as a means to solve our entitlement problem, perhaps it'd be more effective to push education about power and oppression first. Hell, maybe we can ditch this idea that being super is more satisfying than being a part of a community you choose to nourish. Verbal abuse can cause some people to grow a thick skin and accept a reality that some people will always hate them. Sure, absolutely, that's something being a person of colour teaches you as you see those who face extreme racism and violence decide how to build their lives. But the simple fact is that just acknowledging that this suffering can make you strong isn't all that's necessary. This isn't some precious treasure you've revealed unto the world. Thriving from punishment requires more than an individual's will and perseverance, it requires support from outside too. You don't just get to move and grow up from being made to feel that you're less than everyone else. It's a form of socialization, and you should know already how painfully difficult it is to just change that veil you've been made to look through. Just recognizing it isn't enough. When verbal abuse is used, our perceptions are changed, and given time, they can be altered beyond our ability to just 'grow up'. So, no, I do not accept that one can just choose to be strong and buck up in the face of this sort of preventable abuse. It's an easy path to justify something so problematic as somehow useful, despite the irreparable damage it clearly leaves with so many.

Again, 'the only logical response to violence is to fight back' is an opinion and not a fact. Just because the easiest and most immediate response for you may be to respond with a show of force does not make it the exclusive OR most logical option. That's simply not how we all think, obviously. Take a step back on this issue though. You get that we're told the best way to engage with a bully is with equal or greater force, right? It's sort of the Western motto. The good guy is always good, even if they beat their nemesis to a pulp and kills hundreds of henchpeople on the way there. Johnny is getting picked on and beaten up, so Johnny's poppa is going to teach him how to deck the sucker. This right up there with Uncle Sam, American Pie, and the notion that we'll be give Hitler a solid right hook to the chin to turn him right around. Have you considered that it might be possible that while yes, you believe this, but perhaps the reason you come to this conclusion so passionately is because it's what we've all had depicted to us as we've grown up? It's harder to think of non-violent solutions. Those who do are usually assassinated and considered weak in the eyes of America. Ironically, even steadfast Judeo-Christian believers often seem to support giving a bully what's coming to them rather than turning the other cheek and responding with love. We pick and choose the easiest solution. It's satisfying to punch back, absolutely. But in my experience the way that temptation feels has rarely led me to good results. Besides, I'd be a monster to decide my life was more valuable than another's.

@Gwazi And I'm not going to bother responding to everything Gwazi spewed because he entirely missed the point of everything I was saying to respond to something that I didn't say at all. Example: Hitler was used as an example of all of human history, and that . Or until he went insane, as he did go insane when he was losing the defending war against the Allies and killed himself and his wife.However, you somehow misconstrued this to mean that Hitler would have totally run away if America got involved, but instead they didn't and fought to the end--once again making it an argument about third party interventionism--something I've already, repeatedly stated, doesn't work.The point of the example Gwazi is that malevolent predators--hunters--bullies, like Hitler, will continue to do what they do until someone stops them. Until someone hits them so fucking hard they give up. Hitler gave up in the end, he killed himself. A bully will give up in the end, either because you're too hard a mark to bully, or because they're sociopaths and you were forced to defend yourself until they were hospitalized. Pacifism doesn't work against a bully, it never has, it never will. You to fight when physical confrontation occurs. All of human history has shown this. Time, and time, and time again. To ignore it is to literally ignore the war songs of mankind for the past ten thousand years.

Wasn't Hitler a watercolour artist who fancied architectural and landscape paintings first? He was rejected from art school before falling into poverty until the Great War. Even before the unfair treaties following the war, racism was rampant around Germany. In the aftermath, when far more turned to racism in order to blame newcomers to their country for the suffering the German population endured-- pretty familiar to today -- Hitler found some truth in such blaming. He was one among a many desperate for some solace for the misfortune of their nation and the extreme poverty they faced. Many can feel turned against by the world, but the treaties which bankrupted Germany were literally signed by the world's largest powers. It should be no surprise that such collective force would inspire a deep pride in enduring such trauma, as well as the subsequent superiority complex after rising from the ashes.

The Hitler story continues, obviously, but my point is he doesn't do this alone. Using the Hitler example in any context requires us to consider the cultural context that fed into his perspective and the unfortunate truth that Hitler was not some lone madman. He is unlikely to have grown into what he was without the community of hatred to validate and perpetuate his hateful point of view. So as with any form of abuse, with Hitler too, after we settle the initial violence we need to focus on the systematic problems. There are clear issues leading to many of our bullies and killers, and chalking everything up to them 'just being sadistic' is ignoring the possibility that something else is going on. The longer we ignore that possibility, the longer allow others to be exposed to the problems and crack.

Alcohol (and other recreational drugs): Ever write on it?

Due to some monetary restrictions my drinking as of late pretty much stopped cold. Before that though, I regularly enjoyed a little wine while writing my posts, or while working on personal writings. One or two glasses put me in an enjoyable position where the basic restrictions of a world blurred with what I felt at the time mirrored some chaotic truth. I was willing to put my characters into more danger, to throw them into situations I could not see the solutions for, and to let the world live as freely as the characters. Normally I strive for these areas, but a little wine helped. For me, the line between useful and obstructive is a bit thin though. Sometimes the second glass put my head in a place where I'd miss a word here and there more often than I'd like. On the other hand, scotch did not give me any issues. While my body clearly feels the effects, my mind stays surprisingly clear when drinking scotch. If I had the money, I'd stick to the latter when writing.

I'll admit that a little alcohol really does help my creative process. It shouldn't be any surprise, but I'm a dreamer. My mind is constantly producing narratives, images, and all sorts of background stories no matter what I happen to be doing. This helps me to catch the nuances behind how a person is acting in-person and has helped me see issues between departments of work before they had a chance reach me too. With all these ideas, when I sit down to write or to draw I need exercises to put each one in check. I'll do several short free-writes to just put some ideas down and store them for later. I do the equivalent with thumbnails for my drawings, which usually turn into paintings of some level of completion. Now, linking back to this thread, I find a little wine or scotch really helps to boldly cut certain ideas into their own. I find myself liberated to create without mercy, doubt, or remorse. This is very true when I'm drawing or painting.

Other recreational drugs too, huh? Well, let's say that for about a year I shared a decent studio with about half a dozen other artists. We often slept there and spent our days covered in oil paint and charcoal. I avoid hard psychedelics like LSD or shrooms, because my way of thinking described above seems a little too close to something else. I always feared a drug like that could blur the line between constantly creating other realities and losing myself to other realities. So, no, I avoid those types of harder drugs. Pot and artwork actually works very well for me, usually opening me up to bigger, bolder decisions. It also helped me burn through some of my larger woodcuts and the fine details, which if you're familiar, requires the artist to personally cut every line into a block of wood in order to later create the image. Close friends of mine tried dropping acid and created some amazing photography as a result. Shrooms though, that pretty much put our studio on its ass for a night. Those who took them accomplished little more than sprawling out naked on the studio floor apologizing to the scrapped sculptures. Maybe one day I'll try LSD and if I do, I'll undoubtedly try painting and sketching before writing. I can't imagine trying to write with something so mind-bending, honestly.

Answer violence with violence?

mdk said
I think you misunderstand. I'm arguing that violence is the cornerstone of legitimate authority. When I said 'Prison is the humane alternative,' I meant it sardonically. As in, 'Look what being nice got you.' It's a hellish cess-pool where stronger, more violent men seize powers that we, in our civil discretion, refused to take.

It's also a for-profit system that puts notoriously little time, money, and attention to actually help prisoners build marketable skills. In our country we incarcerate minorities in droves, who already encounter unique obstacles in the job market, and are further screwed with an arrest under the belt to boot. So, should this really be called 'being nice'? Frankly, it's a cheap pseudo-attempt that's more about money and sweeping problems under the rug rather than helping to change them.

Violence is not the cornerstone of legitimate authority. One can lead and gain trust through an assortment of avenues using intellect, experience, perceived power (ex. Claiming position granted by a deity, or the classic American 'God Wills It'), and so on. Violence is totally one way to gain authority, sure, but it's also a lazy way that opens numerous other issues. Like children who hold their resentment and learn to hide their undesirable habits for when authority looks away, so to do the people. A violent leader may well have a population that looks true on the surface, but is in fact quite dishonest behind their backs.

Apocalyptica

Just jumping off Fallen, since the IC started three weeks since people like Abbie came in, that does give some time for your character to 'know' Abbie even just vaguely. If you want connections like this make sure to hit us up. Some of the characters only came in recently.

The Elder Scrolls: Vengeance of the Deep

Nyxella said
There are some things you uncover in ES wiki that should never be allowed to touch human eyes. *feelsviolated*Cairo', your taels give me supersanic lols. That was magnificent!! Some parts made me cry.Shon', if there is a person who should never complain about the pace of a roleplay, I am that person's mentor. Jolly good show you've given us in the IC! Almost hesitant to join in cos I wanna see you write the rest out, lol. But I will! *fears Dervs' lazorgleam*

I love the chaos other writers bring! Writing is something I do in my spare time, and I often say, if I wanted to write a story alone I wouldn't bring that here ;). Anyway, having some others for Shamoun to interact with during the fight will be wonderful.

Apocalyptica

Ink Blood said
Could someone catch me up?

The OP should cover everything that happened prior to Guild Fall, so check that out before reading this.
.
..
...
..
.

Done? Good. Since Evergreen fell, the Pirate Crew, distraught, sought refuge. When they thought they found it in a place called Fort Riley where they came upon a second group called the New Farmers. Before they could celebrate, one among the crew betrayed the rest (that's Joshua 'Gunner' Evans). The betrayal revealed Fort Riley and Mackinac to the 1007th, the latter the home-haven to one of our PCs, Cassie. This betrayal destroyed any hope for settling down at Riley, and worse, strained the ambitions of the group. Cassie felt obligated to warn Mackinac, Simon followed her, while the rest took another path. After some chaos, in which Remmy and the Sentinels are introduced, we arrived to Post- Guild Fall Apocalyptica. The bulk of our characters are now in Chico while Cassie made it to Mackinac along with, unexpectedly, the traitor, Gunner.

Chico is an expansive, successful, and guarded Haven. It's been a few weeks since the group split up now and it seems the 1007th have their eyes set on the California prize. Meanwhile, a child among the New Farmers is being held in a Chico hospital, thought to be infected or perhaps immune, while the others in Chico are still finding one another deciding what to do next about the 1007th threat -- not to mention their incarcerated friend. Riots are breaking out in Chico as tensions rise and the guards are acting increasingly militaristic. In the north, Mackinac has had its first 1007th sighting already, which produced Gunner to Cassie and the rest of the haven. Like in Chico, Mackinac doesn't personally know the Siege of Evergreen, and therefore don't take the threat as seriously as they should. Basically, things are getting serious and the Pirate Crew might be the only ones who know.

Answer violence with violence?

Wow, I feel really bad not giving this a longer/more detailed response considering how much time and effort seemed to come into this and how well thought out and explained the points are. But I simply can't find anything to pull out and disagree with or debate with. I'm almost 100% agreement with what you've said here. :)
I would ask about self defense though, if say you're being beat up like crazy is it appropriate to fight back enough to remove yourself from the situation? Or is there is still a better way to protect yourself?

I usually go by the idea that violence is the tool of a weak person. Some say the same with swearing, or sarcasm, or fallacies (though directed at arguments there), but yeah, I see this as all coming into the same realm. We act take violence as a primal drive and therefore inescapable -- almost inevitable to return, I suppose. However, it's really not. In a society where you're free to actually share your insights yet are taught approach situations empathetically (or at least sympathetically) there is simply no need for violence between members. We see violence when frustration cannot be expressed. When people are so oppressed that their voices are stifled. The more open venues for expression we have, the less likely people will fall into more basic responses. In terms of the criminally violent, they're obviously opting out and should be given that out. The mentally ill obviously need care and attention. My whole point here I guess is a bit of summary, violence is so often a symptom and we would better invest ourselves by exploring the contributing factors.

For right now since we have to deal with a system a lot less interested in caring about others, we do have to deal with how to respond personally. In my experiences being targeted by potentially violence behaviour I played the cards I had. First, I forced those targeting me to engage with me in a public place, or not at all. Second, I gave those who cared at some level a heads up of what was going on. Third, I grabbed a knife. Finally, I decided against that knife. My aggressively vigilant fans bided their time for a while, but ended up cornering me in our lunch hall, well, more off the side of our lunch hall for something feigning solitude. Public enough though, I responded their heads up by getting loud. No one wouldn't know what was going on. Those who did give a shit and I'd told would collect, perhaps not to stop the situation immediately, but at least to see that my head was not beaten in without some help. I left the knife behind, because I'm human. Principles have a way of tarnishing just as the first blow reminds you what pain feels like and the meekest can become the most sadistic. For me the situation concluded after a good share of people collected, having heard my narrative of what was happening as I shouted it, and this crowd collectively told them 'to leave me alone'. They didn't really step in, but they all spoke up, and that pretty much ended things for me. I think with some energy others can find their own non-violent solutions to respond to a threats too. Sometimes foresight isn't allotted of course, and in those times I would urge anyone to deeply consider their next step. We are who we are in our worst moments, those are no less true to our identity than who we are when others are watching. So if we gladly respond with violence and happily subscribe to this thought beforehand, say on this forum, I'd seriously question anyone who spends more breath supporting self-defence and violence as an unavoidable reality rather than trying to change how people think about bullying.

Why do people bully? I can say the fact that many still see such as 'kids just messing around' is in no way helping the matter. Yeah, some kid could just be trying to assert dominance. Probably not that different from those stroking their e--peen here in the OT, but you don't solve that by beating them down when they misstep. You don't use a bullies poor action as an acceptable invitation for your own violence. Whether you're being abused physically, mentally, or verbally, that shit stays with you and all are equally serious. Unfortunately, I like many of you have suffered from the many forms of abuse, all violent at the core, and if I had the chance to respond to my abusers I wouldn't do so using the same tactics they did. I'd straight up show them what they're doing to me, others, and themselves. Nothing is too good to be true -- just requires some work, that's all.

Brovo said
The topic is quite literally about physical abuse as said by you, why do you keep bringing up verbal abuse? Why would you even put this on the same plane of existence as parents beating the shit out of their children. One is temporary frustration that everyone goes through in life and the vast majority come out of A-okay. The other leaves psychological and physical scars that live with you for the rest of your fucking life.

I'm sorry, which is which? I don't mean to come out sarcastic, but honestly, bullying and using violence as a tool against children are very related. There's a reason why child psychologists steer parents away from using violence in their parenting tool kit, that behaviour doesn't just fall away. When we use violence against our children, those children learn that undesirable behaviour should be fixed with violence. Some become insecure, or get the foundation for this 'might is right' attitude, but hey, at least they get they learn violence is the answer, right? All sarcasm aside, this establishes pretty fertile soil to grow a bully. While there are most definitely other contributing factors that lead to youth feeling they must physically dominate others for power, we should begin with how we parent. While we see how we parent, we should also validate all forms of abuse and open those victims up to counselling. At this bottom of this post I've included a personal experience about the link between parental abuse and bullying. Not necessary to read, but there, at your pleasure.

[quote]This is like comparing killing a cow for food to murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses.

Verbal Abuse is like killing a cow for food, while a parent beating the shit out of their child is like murdering people and cannibalizing their corpses. Your words, is that right? I know you know that's an extreme example, but, isn't is also a pretty skewed one too? Verbal abuse is a great way to destroy a person's confidence, self-esteem, and perception of what's what in the world. Verbal abuse can transform a strong kid into a kid who needs to find strength where they can, whether it's beating another up or community service, we don't know. They're both abuse, they're both shitty practices as a human being. They aren't as different from slaughtering livestock to slaughtering humans.

PersonalEx

My paternal grandfather served in Viet Nam and came home intensified. In my family service goes with the name, my great-father having been a World World 2 paratrooper, my great uncle a colonel having seen several conflicts, and more recently, my cousin having held the rank of Sergeant Major of the Army (Tilley) -- basically, we know that war can change a person. But my grandfather wasn't just different, he was extremely precise in his expectations of his family. Meanwhile, his sons were not the most orderly boys, and where his response had once been to chastise and spank, his service had modified his responses. Grandpa Harris took more violent action. He placed endless blame on my grandfather for failing their family, beat his elder son my father with various objects, and put my uncle in the hospital when the youth answered violence 'with lip'. This went on a while until my grandfather abandoned his family. Subsequently my father, uncle, and grandmother all sought counselling over the coming years. My father suffered ticks for a long time, my grandmother has extremely self-esteem to this day, and my uncle started bullying kids early on. Oh, sorry, bullying is more appropriate. He sought kids out who hassled others, and filled up with righteous vengeance, he broke noses, collar bones, and one kids jaw. This happened over the years, of course. The latter, the jaw, became assault. Today everyone's more-or-less found themselves in a stable place. My father and uncle are in their forties, mostly past the worst of what the abuse put them through, but only after years of counselling.

Basically, yeah, there are ties between parental abuse and bullying. Bullying is fed by many issues, and we should find them all in order to engage with them, child abuse among them.

Answer violence with violence?

Early on in my college education I remember taking my first psychology course. The focus was on child development, something I looked into further with a family friend who specializes in that area. We spoke about violence as it relates to punishment, I guess really we were speaking about what to do when a child does something 'bad'. After you get past the existential definitions of violence, badness, and whatever else, you get to a strange place. See, as a group we had varying backgrounds and memories. We spoke about bullies, about how our parents enforced their teachings, and how these types of experiences shaped us. What marked me was how clearly our studies reflected reality. The texts did not blatantly disagree with some level of violence in parenting or in response to bullying, but it paid a lot of time on the repercussions. When we are taught with violence the difference from wrong and right we develop associations. We learn that if we're going to take a cookie without asking, we should sneak that, that doing wrong is deserving of physical pain, and of course my favourite, that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. The fact is that when you're raising a small child you probably aren't going to convince them why eating a dozen cookies every day is bad for them. You snap them and they stop -- great. But all too often we respond by sneaking around to achieve what we desire. Worse, the actual reasoning for what's right and wrong only comes after years upon years of conditioning. People will believe, but not really understand why. I see a few problems there.

Basically, I don't agree that violence is a great way to teach, because it develops too many ill-associations. The idea that power determines right and wrong and that those who defy this are reminded with physical pain seems very crude. As a young parent with experience with many other families, I really do believe that the best way to raise a child is with love -- that's it. Whether you spank or deny treats or favour a reward system, as long as your child knows they're safe and loved you'll probably do just fine. I choose to avoid violent behaviour, though, because it doesn't match who I am. Before my mother left our family, I remember being hit when I did wrong. I also remember my half-brother's father beating my mother before he was born when I'd come to visit. He beat her because she defied his idea of what she should and should do. The examples are very drastic, I admit, but the reasoning is too close in my mind.

So that was parents-to-child, what about child-to-child? That's really tough, isn't it? For a long time I was down with kids settling their scores personally. My buddies and I used to box from our pre-teens until the middle of our high school experience. We enjoyed the rush, feeling like you were in Fight Club didn't hurt either. But some guys came into it because they needed something. When they took a hit they'd walk away very deeply frustrated, probably more with themselves than us. I saw the same mentality with the bullies. We had a few fights outside of the boxing break out, which I saw in this tribal-justice sort of way, but that changed when knives came into play. Weapons are equalizers, and in this country, we all seem to feel like the underdog. We lived in a pretty standard, tamed, white suburban area, yet we had youths coming away with serious wounds that should be avoidable. We assume civility and communication, because. We don't really teach youth how to descalate or humanize themselves to the aggressor. As a visible member of our Queer community in high school I also received a lot of attention, good and bad. The 'fragile' among our ranks, chiefly the young, female minorities got the worst of the bullying. Our response came in a few ways. First, our group swelled to 75 members in a school of 2000. We were big enough to cause one to look over their shoulder, that's for certain. Second, we started trainings on how to handle perpetrators and invited figures with experience from local colleges to help give us these skills (Washington State University, Portland State University, for example). Finally, we approached our school's staff and did not just note the issue, but made it clear we would not stay quiet. For the most part, this worked for us.

My point here isn't to say that the threat of violence is a solution to bullying. We live in a time where the world may be large physically, but virtual mediums have made it a rather small thing. Relatively little effort is required to speak out for those being victimized. Even better, resources to help deal with these situations are at our fingertips. Now I agree that if someone seen as weak is being bullied for that reason, and in the fray they give the bully a hearty whack, I wouldn't see them as in the wrong. In the same way that someone might shoot a robber, crippling them for the rest of their life. The victim is still the victim, but it's really clear that there must be a better way. Just because the answer isn't easy, or isn't in our minds right now, that does not mean we should settle. The best way to end bullying is to find the roots of the problem and do what we can to create change. Answering with violence promises a pent up resentment and, in all likelihood, will reap violence in return. It isn't a wild thought today that whacking that bully could mean tomorrow the bully comes with a knife. There is no end to bullying if we answer the same way, because bullies are people and can arise in anyone, anywhere.

What's the deal with RP family's

Erklings25 said
Seriously. I do want one but why do they exist and do you get invited onto one or what. I do want to join one so please tell me how it works.

If you're aiming for a 'roleplay family' in the sense of a following or common group, I'd definitely just develop a back-and-forth with other players. You like how someone writes? Tell them that, let them know you hope y'all can continue to work together, and just have some conversation. If you have similar interests you'll probably meet up again, or can intentionally choose to follow one another to games you find particularly impressive. These groups can grow really beautifully. As someone who GMs now an then, having that 'family' is a nice promise of some support when you open something new. That said, it also can be intimidating or downright unwelcoming to new players.

I want to emphasize what I just said there. Personally, I feel very unwelcome some roleplays because of these 'roleplay families'. While they can be amazing for players in the fold, one disagreement can spread like ink in water. Opinions can bloat more than they ever would normally, and without direct interaction, you can find yourself generally disliked and treated roughly by people you never even knew existed. So, if you find one of these families or help make one, please remember to treat others kindly.