Leave a comment

Comments 50

kynan_r2a April 24 2009, 12:58:54 UTC
It's probably worth noting that the command to see who from the Watch is currently online is "+rwho acw". To show who is regardless of online status, it is "+rwho/all acw". I would recommend that those on the org who haven't yet use their acw_status attribute to reflect their IC relationship to it, particularly if you are one who can negotiate for it at some level ( ... )

Reply

servalle_rta April 24 2009, 13:12:03 UTC
"Consent does not allow you to dictate everything that happens. You cannot say, "I don't want anyone to say anything mean to my character". You cannot say, "I don't want any fights to happen in my presence". You can certainly walk out of a room if someone is mean to you IC, or leave a fight that is occurring, but you do not have a right to tell other people what to do."

From http://wiki.roadtoamber.com/consent

Reply

kynan_r2a April 24 2009, 13:18:29 UTC
Yes, but I am not talking just about "acting mean". I am talking about ICly causing events to take place. I can refuse to have someone injure me physically. But what about socially/politically? Lying about my activities to the Crown can result in consequences too, just as dire.

Reply

servalle_rta April 24 2009, 13:23:31 UTC
No it can't. If the Crown decides to act on those lies, then there are mechanisms in place to determine whether or not the Crown gets to inflict any consequences on you. Up until that point, it's just playing 'why don't you and him fight'

Reply


deirdre_rta April 24 2009, 14:02:56 UTC
If you can state that the Watch never showed up, it only stands to reason that I can say in return that you were never attacked.

I honestly don't think it works that way. How many crimes happen every day that the police are not there for? I don't think anyone has the right to invalidate another person's RP on something as simple as that. The person wasn't breaking into the Watch headquarters without your OOC permission, after all.

then say that the Watch didn't save me, they must be undermanned and ill trained.

I agree with Kynan, here. This is getting into the 'thought police' department. People can ICly -say- whatever they want. This would be like me saying 'No one can say Deirdre is a bitch' or 'No one can say the Moon Court isn't active'. Now, if it's true or not? That's an entirely different matter. Thus is the nature of +gossip. Also, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Reply

faelin_rta April 24 2009, 14:44:44 UTC
I think the point is (or at least what strikes me about this conversation) that it's not really fair to set up a situation in RP, using a resource/prop/group/whatever that is not ENTIRELY in your control, simply to make that resource/prop/group/whatever look bad ( ... )

Reply

Nail on the head. navarre_rta April 24 2009, 14:48:44 UTC
I think the point is (or at least what strikes me about this conversation) that it's not really fair to set up a situation in RP, using a resource/prop/group/whatever that is not ENTIRELY in your control, simply to make that resource/prop/group/whatever look bad.

At least not without some attempt to try and make an effort to contact the person in charge of that resources/prop... you get the idea.

That is the point I was trying to make. Not looking for a job are you? Apparently the Watch could use a good PR spindoctor.

Reply

navarre_rta April 24 2009, 14:45:10 UTC
911 - Did the police not show up?

Attack on an Embassy - Did the Watch not show up? If the PropCo for that Embassy states they did not, and the PropCo for the Watch says, 'Actually we would have.'

Which actually happened?

If you honestly believe that the Watch would not show up, then you're mistaken. The Watch would show up and would respond.

The only reason they wouldn't, is if the PropCo for the Embassy neglected, either by accident or deliberate measure, to inform them that an attack occured and thus didn't give them an opportunity to respond.

I could make a blanket statement or gossip post staing that the Watch responds to EVERYTHING that happens. Wouldn't that be overkill?

Reply


With other emphasis llewella_r2a April 24 2009, 23:50:16 UTC
* The Gulls are the largest single force in Amber City, A FACT WHICH REQUIRES THEY BE VERY CAREFUL POLITICALLY.

The Watch, from my small experience, has been bucking against the current political situation. I'm not against this. It has created RP for me. I just found the way this read with other emphasis than that given to be interesting. Carry on.

Reply

Re: With other emphasis navarre_rta April 25 2009, 00:03:02 UTC
From my perspective the Watch has not been bucking against the current political situation at all.

A new Watch Captain was promoted and Mandrake troops expanded their patrols without the Mayor or House Mandrake notifying the Watch Captain in the Lower City of this or the reasons for this.

So that said Watch Captain sent mail to the Prince Regent and the Mayor asking for authorization regarding those troops. Why? Because that Watch Captain has no paperwork regarding the situation at all and there had been rumors that those Mandrake troops had been disbanded or sent elsewhere.

So in actuality, the Watch was acting in accordance with the Law which is posted at: http://wiki.roadtoamber.com/amber-specific-laws which states and I quote:

Troops Within City BoundsThere are numerous laws, precedents and exceptions to Amber law related to the presence of armed men in Amber City, but they boil down to two simple points ( ... )

Reply

How large is large? kynan_r2a April 25 2009, 00:34:14 UTC
The Gulls are the largest single force in Amber City

Come to think of it, I think this may be one of the facts that needs clarification. In the Palace, it would be easy to justify saying that a Hound walks through every hallway every 5-10 minutes or so (I don't know what is exactly the case, but the point is that the Palace is a high-security zone).

But the City? I just don't see the Watch being that large, though I may be mistaken. The police are the largest force in modern cities, but even with cars and modern communication equipment they manage to miss a lot of the crime when it happens ( ... )

Reply

Re: How large is large? navarre_rta April 25 2009, 00:41:19 UTC
I didn't construct the Prop, I didn't write it up and set it's limitations/strengths.

That is something you would need to discuss with Helix and Zakalwe as they were the ones to create it.

I think the point being is that when it comes to an armed contigent of men/women in the city, the Gulls outnumber all others. Therefore making them the largest single acceptable force in the city.

Acceptable in the sense that they are not an army under any one's control being used to invade Amber or stir trouble. They are there to keep the peace.

When all is said and done, The Watch serves the Crown and by extension the people of Amber. The Watch does not serve the Houses or any individual Prince/Princess or other individual of note. They are public servants.

Reply


Issuing a couple of rulings evilhat April 25 2009, 13:04:43 UTC
As a small reminder, our props are not AmberMUSH-style props. With the exception of personal resources (the level 1 personal businesses and whatnot bought with sheet points), props are actually held by the game, and delegated to players for administration. That means that "hard consent" generally does not exist for props ( ... )

Reply

Re: Issuing a couple of rulings potato_pope April 25 2009, 20:56:55 UTC
"Good-faith play in this particular case involves making reasonable decisions about what [Insert Your Prop Here] would do."

I just want to highlight this, because the line is extremely fine. You can say "My prop is fanatically loyal to me" or "I don't feel that a secret group inside my organization undermining it is in theme." On the spectrum of meaning, they are very close, but one falls on the reasonable side, and one on the unreasonable. Ditto for "I will use my prop to make your life a living hell if you do that" versus, "That will result in a negative reaction from the prop."

If you open up your prop negotiations on the unreasonable side, you're going to find that people aren't going to want to negotiate with you, and aren't going to trust you. People who are unreasonable often enough, or are perceived as being unreasonable, are going to gain a reputation for acting in bad faith. People who fall on the reasonable side of the line are going to have the opposite.

Reply

Potato_Pope? navarre_rta April 26 2009, 22:51:29 UTC
I also like to think playing in good faith reflects on those contacted by a PropCo in a fair and reasonable manner, that they should likewise respond in a fair and reasonable manner in an OOC fashion; IC is a whole other ball game ( ... )

Reply

Re: Potato_Pope? faelin_rta April 26 2009, 23:01:40 UTC
That's the problem though. I think any and all of us would say "If you are being unreasonable, people won't like you." It's common sense in a way.

Unfortunately differing people have differing ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. In your examples? I very likely didn't see the same strengths or weaknesses you did.

And - let's be honest. All of us are capable of misinterpreting tone in text when we are tired, pissed at work, or whatever. All of us are capable of being snippy or shorter in writing the text sometimes too. What sounds unreasonable may not be 'meant' to be unreasonable, if that makes sense.

Which brings us back to the onus of acting as adult as we can, not blowing the situation up and gossiping about it to others, and falling back on the mechanical resolutions or staff assistance as need be. There are some people we're never going to like or like playing with. That's life.

Reply


baksi_rta May 3 2009, 07:07:56 UTC
What I want to know is this ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up