With the recent "crackdown" that's apparently been going on, I think it would serve the community for the moderators to better define what is meant by IC and OOC. Or even better, consult with the players what they would like the definition to be. It seems really simple, I know, but actually it's not.

I was warned last week by a moderator for making, in his words, a "clear" OOC reference by mentioning the Middle Ages. When I PM'd the mod in trying to understand what was exactly meant by OOC, stating that the Middle Ages or Medieval as an adjective could be seen as a generic term for feudal society and often is, I was told that "Planet Bob history began on the day Admin brought the game online and has moved forward since." (Assuming that there was no middle age as everything is modern) That's fair enough, but if you're going to crackdown on OOC posts in order to preserve the IC environment here, you are effectively killing most interesting, creative and detailed RP with this definition.

If the histories of our nations begin when Admin created the game (or when each individual created their nation) then you've created a world in which all the religions, ethnicities, forms of government and modern military technology just suddenly appeared without explanation. The history of my nation would be 6 months, not the decades and centuries that would actually make sense. It would take some odd and unrealistic creativity to work around this, though it could be done I suppose. The game is based around real world things, obviously, and in developing IC personas for ourselves and our alliances we import and draw upon other real world things.

Just running off the top of my head:
NoV draws on German nationalism
my alliance, Valhalla, on draws on Norse mythology
Sparta on Greek warrior culture
Bushido on Japanese warrior culture
Numerous alliances draw from feudal, chivalric culture
The Grämlins from a bad 1980s horror movie (when they say "don't need us after midnight" is that an OOC reference?)

The NPO draws their culture originally from another game, making references to Francos Spain. A former player from Nationstates that has never played this game, which itself is a reference to Francisco Franco the fascist dictator of Spain. The mod that warned me said this was "Francoism" something they made up. Fair enough with "Francoism", but Francos Spain himself and the August Revolution are indeed still mentioned, and is not something made up in this game.

Fark makes every reference possible to their feeder site Fark.com in their charter, announcements and culture. So where is the line drawn?

I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates here. If someone said "this is like Caesar crossing the Rubicon", I'm sure that's pushing it. But something like "yeah, just like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would say" is pushing it even more considering he is living and currently influential person. But something like "communist revolutions are inherently violent" or "the Ayatollah will export the revolution" is obviously not crossing the line.
So, if you are going to crackdown on these things shouldn't we clearly define them?


I've thought of a few examples to think about:

First, the game has a world map which is identical to Earth's and has place names and countries names on it. How did this happen? We'd have to ignore the country names to make sense of things, but continents, mountain ranges, rivers and cities can be incorporated. My nation is located in the Himalayan mountains. If I mention the real world name of that mountain range, am I making an OOC reference?

In a recent Valhalla announcement, chefjoe mentioned he was going to Las Vegas. Firstly, there's a nation called Las Vegas in game. But also, Las Vegas is on the world map. Obviously he was making reference to the real Las Vegas, but should we really be so strict? Two instances of Las Vegas exist in game. How can it really be an OOC reference with a slight bit of leniency?

My nation's capital is called Shangi-La. Now, Shangri-La is a fictitious paradise that (I think) was made up in a book written in the 19th century, and drawn from real world legends. If I made my capital have the same name and characteristics of the fictitious Shangri-La, is that OOC? There would be no point in calling it Shangri-La if I wasn't able to RP it as like the legend from the real world.

Also, I consider my nation to be owned by a multi-national pharmaceutical company, which keeps its people permanently controlled with mood altering drugs. They work hard and they are always happy. My nation's bio used to say it was run by the Pfizer corporation, but I realized that might be a copyright or something, though I never thought it would be OOC. Would it?

Similarly, I recently noticed a nation called Wal-Mart. Is that OOC? If I traded with Wal-Mart could I say I was getting cheap, low quality goods from Wal-Mart? Would that be crossing the line? And if I said I was getting cheap, low quality goods from just another random nation, would that be permissible? Considering here the reference couldn't be linked to any real world institution.

Someone I know in Grämlins named his ruler after the Chinese philosopher Han Fei Zi. He being a philosophy student himself, it wouldn't seem unusual for him to be philosophical, or to even emulate the person he's named for in his IC persona. If he supported the governance of an alliance in the way Han Fei Zi did of the state, would that be crossing the line? Getting too close to a real world example?

If this world begins the day Admin created the game, as I've said, it would make for some terribly boring and limited RP. Not to mention nonsensical. I hope this isn't the case. If it is, I would ask that the mods please change this, and I suspect, though I haven't read every nation RP ever made, that most people don't consider this. If it doesn't the history of Planet Bob should of course not mirror that of the real world. No World War I and II or anything like that. That would be worse. But how about things like the Middle Ages, Antiquity, the spread of Indo-European languages, humanity's origins in Africa, the life of Siddhartha Gautama (the founder of Buddhism)? Can we say "we have Buddhism in game, but don't mention its founder, that's OOC!" or "we have British, Japanese and Indian as ethnicities in game, but don't mention Britain, Japan or India, that's OOC!"?

Thoughts?

edit: I hope I put this in the right spot. I'm going off of this line in the sticky for this forum

QUOTE

The actual Moderation Forum in which this thread is placed is for player discussion with moderators regarding game policy only.

But I see other threads in here with "Approved by SoE". I didn't get approval and I don't know how. I hope I'm not breaking any more rules. Damnit, I've been warned enough

SoE Edit: Correct forum and approval granted, thanks!

There is also another issue I wish to raise, does mentioning forums/IRC count as OOC?

I don't think it should, as it could quite easily be that the world leaders use the Internet to communicate, in the same way that real life leaders use the phone to communicate.

Ditto. Unless there is some explaned IC method of communications, forums and IRC are IC. Same with logs, as long as they are IC in content.

As far as I understand it. The IC bounds are constrained by what a character existing on Planet Bob would know or how they'd see things. That is why references to "forums" or "IRC" are considered OOC. A resident of Planet Bob doesn't log on to a forum to talk to other people, they'd use something like "communication networks" or the like (which could be followed by "OOC: forums", that's what the OOC tags are for ). I think that anything that falls into how your nation's leader or your alliance RPs is IC and everything else would be considered OOC.

Okay, the way I see this is that in-character references should refer to events from the game, although real world things have been placed into the game in an in-character manner, sometimes in a creative way. My own way of handling out-of-character references, which are frequently the driving force of many events in this game, or even game mechanics themselves, is to translate them into something that does make sense from this perspective, and should be explained to everyone else if they aren't familiar with them.

For example, a reference to the "Middle Ages" means really nothing in the context of the game where the nations here are of all different backgrounds. That usually refers to Europe circa 900 AD - 1400 AD in reality, and makes no consideration of the state of Arabia, or China, or other countries, and we're all other countries. That's not in-character because it assumes a real world reference that most players would be familiar with assuming they studied history. But if you explained the "Middle Ages" in reference to YOUR nation's history, I would see that as being more acceptable, as long as it is clear.

Another example: nations are not "deleted". But you could say that their civilisation collapsed completely causing the nation to pass into history, or something of that nature.

Personally I dislike debating game events in the main OWF because they're often IC references, and I enjoy being mean to my enemies. I certainly don't want to insult or threaten the player behind Atrophis or Farung or whoever, but in-character, Katsumi thinks they're incompetent rulers of their nations and their agenda is opposed to what is right. That's difficult to deal with when someone thinks that IRC logs or forum hacking is an okay IC reference, and they are not, and the threads are subsequently moved to OWF, or sometimes even something that should have been in Global Politics is posted in OWF.

I'm sure it would be a lot easier to clarify OOC stuff if the RP mods actually role played instead of monitor to check if they stay in RP. Also... perhaps this is an extreme but.. have moderators all get nations. Once they are not moderators anymore they have to delete their nation. They all must also belong to the same Moderator/Admin AA. Attacking the moderator nation (angel nation) would be IC, but attacking the actual ruler would be OOC. (like say I have Moderator of Moderator Land < IC Nation for angels/mods and if some knew that Moderator of ModeratorLand and attackind Ivan the Infidel of the Forgotten, that would be an OOC nation attack... Hope it makes sense....

Some terms which I would use to translate OOC stuff to IC:


Alliance IRC channel Courtyard
Yeah...




Yeah I don't know how to role play.

Yeah well I think I just rambled and made no sense.

TL;DR:

Convert OOC to IC.

The thing is the vast majority of players don't want to. I don't want to make an announcement reading "A spy most foul was brought to our attention through blood and fingerprints shown to us in the (courtyard???) from a recent alien incursion and posted in the headquarters. We also have learned of a double identity this impostor uses and wish for a witch to banish him forthwith." I want to make it clear, most of us are not OBR and most us have no desire to be OBR. We don't want to RP everything to death which is evident because were that the case they would already be doing so. In the above context, a real announcement is going to read "An IP given to us over IRC revealed someone as a spy when they hacked the <Alliance> boards, evidence which was also posted on our forums. This IP matched that of another player and we have requested the mods delete the multi." This is acceptable to the vast, vast majority of players this is an acceptable compromise and has been for years at this point. As noted in your own post, many people lack a talent for making this transition well, and as such, you are more likely to lose them as players and contributors than you are to turn them into successful RPers by the lofty standards being set.

This sudden push towards ridiculous RP standards is not going to help CN. In fact, it is going to do much the opposite because it is going to make people inclined to make lengthy, detailed posts quit posting all together. I am not saying this to threaten or to blackmail, I am saying this because if I have to triple check every post I make to make sure I never accidentally mentioned CN, IRC, hacking, forums, admin (which is an entrenched part of CN culture to begin with) moderators, boards, etc. lest I get a warn, it is simply going to be too much trouble to post. Sure, I would like to comment on the latest GPA crisis, or the latest NPO pact, but if I slip up and mention IRC, where most of the negotiations between alliance leaders are taking place, I get 20% closer to being banned, therefore, I am not going to risk it.

Further, I will note this push towards RP is actually interference with RP. If I want to play a nation whose population calls the planet they live on CyberNations largely, that is primarily my business strictly under RP guidelines. My people should be able to call their planet whatever they want to call it whether it happens to correspond to the name of the game or not. And if we are going to keep the ban on CyberNations, let us ban Digiterra, as it is clearly a reference to the world being digital and it being Terra, a reference to OOC Earth. Then we can ban Planet Bob since that is a reference to the movie Titan AE and nobody would be calling it that were it not for that movie, a movie that does not exist in character. In the end, any name we come up with is going to be the culmination of the wisdom, the sensibilities, and the conventions of players and without exception, some of that is going to bleed in from outside.

If the people of Z'ha'dum want to believe in OOC historical figures as part of our creation myth, again, our business. Other players may choose not to recognize them, or challenge me on whether they are real or merely mythological figures, that is their right, and we are free to reassert them as fact just as many people do with their own beliefs. If my people want to believe in a philosopher named Karl Marx whose ideologies shaped our way of doing things, who are the RP enforcers to tell me what I am allowed to name my nation's philosophers? Maybe my lack of creativity on my part makes me a less than stellar RPer, but I didn't join this game for role play, I joined it for geopolitical simulation, the actual genre this game falls under.

This is the problem I see, that CN has gotten worse since this recent big push towards RP standards that don't even exist on paper, only in the heads of those handing out copious amounts of warnings. Nowhere is the proper in game name for CN codified, and no, it isn't Planet Bob, that is just a name ODN came up with a year and 2/3 ago which stuck better than most; no more or less valid than any other. Nowhere are there guidelines for naming characters and locations believed in by nations. Is referencing the works of Karl Marx over the line? What about the suspiciously similar Marl Karx? Carl Marks? Lrak Xram? I suppose if absolutely necessary my people can live in the land of SnoitaNrybeC and rue the tyrannical rule of Hadolf Itler over the land of Hermany, but really, what is the point? Unless you are going to force people in CN to all share a uniform set of beliefs about mythology, ancient history, and the like (in which case we are well past enforcing RP and well into forcing identical RP), all that gets done is handing out warnings because people don't RP the way you want them to RP it, accomplishing nothing.

Let people RP the way they want to, and if that includes peculiar dialects that refer to their headquarters as a "forum" or their planet as "CyberNations" or a mythology or even established fiction base that includes villains such as "George Bush" (much like real life Tantalus, minor villain of Greek mythology, or Darth V ader (Seriously, we can't even discuss bloody Star Wars on these forums anymore?) a fictional villain everyone recognizes), why not let them? Forcing people to RP a specific way is off putting and threatening them if they don't only serves to discourage them from playing. I really feel for the good of the game, people need to be allowed to roleplay as they want, not as they are told to.

The discussion is now over: not only is every single aspect of what Z'ha'dum writes here true, it is composed with superb literary skill!

Most distinctly the above parts. Seriously, if a player can get a warn for considering the middle ages IC for their RP, then to be consistent nearly every single alliance would have to change their entire theme and name! It is lunacy wholesale.

I got warned for mentioning Girls Gone Wild and in my Planet bob we have them, I mean cars aren't a part of the game but are cars OOC, are trees, birds, fish etc

I haven't appealed it because it was borderline and the mods have a tough enough job as it is and with the stupid stuff that goes on around here a "better safe than sorry" approach must be easier.

However I do agree a bit more of a clarification would be easier

This discussion may continue as long as the use of words such as "lunacy" and "ridiculous" to describe moderator actions stops now. I'm sure you're all capable of relating your opinions without attacking or otherwise insulting the staff/way the forum is run and further unnecessary rhetoric will result in warnings and the closing of this thread.

Please discuss the potential evolution of the policy only.

The Senior Staff has been discussing enforcement of the RP rules on our own and have points to consider on both sides of the debate. To clear something up--this is not a new policy. Many months ago "the vast majority of players" were complaining about the quality of RP suffering greatly due to the mixing of IC/OOC. Katsumi nailed the strongest argument back then on the head quite solidly. Some moderators have been actively enforcing the OOC/IC line as intended since the new OWF & subforum rules came into existence. It's the addition of several new moderators leading to a more noticeable application of the policy, and as with any change in organization this has lead to a need to more closely re-examine the spirit of the rule and how strictly it should be enforced to continue to ensure a quality RP environment--but a comfortable one as well.

Warning someone for referencing forums and logs is, if our lexicon is to be so limited, "misguided." They're obviously an integral part of this game utilized by every alliance leader. They aren't codified in the game page itself, but neither were alliances originally. Francoism is not codified in-game. How logs can be OOC when the content directly pertains to IC activities and situations within the game is beyond me. I am quite sure major alliance leaders, IC, are recording such conversations. If the difference is simply a matter of terminology, well, that's....I suppose also "misguided." "Logs" as a term for these recordings makes perfect sense IC. Obviously if the log itself is blatantly OOC, that's different, but most that are utilized in the IC sections are IC, and are therefore, surprisingly enough, not OOC and not warranting a warn for being OOC. Referencing them as logs is still IC because they can still be logs IC.

The same can be said of forums, by and large, and maybe by saying forums I refer to something similar to the OOC Roman Forums. Or maybe I refer to an actual digital forum system where the national leaders of my alliance communicate with each other. Either way, "forums" is not necessarily OOC.

By playing a game where we pretend to be nation/alliance leaders and developing intricate politics and everything else, we are inherently playing something In-Game. These new standards, or newly enforced standards, do not encourage RP, they only encourage a very narrow and fixed view of what "proper" "RP" is and means, a view that the vast majority of those on this forum do not share and will not share.

I would assume though that, given the demographics here, a lot of players consider their nations to be European, and I know that a lot of IC concepts used on these forums draw heavily on European concepts. Of course I can RP that MY nation had a middle ages (although with the definition of all history starting when Admin created the game, that's impossible), but looking at other nations and alliances, it doesn't seem that huge of a stretch to assume that others have similar traditions. And while the term is primarily used for Europe, and frowned upon by contemporary historians when referring to places outside of Europe, it can still be and has been used in the contexts of non-European countries that have similar societies and political organizations (i.e. feudal) as Europe had in the Middle Ages. So if I for example am commenting to you IC and, even though your nation isn't European and nor is mine, say "that's a regressive policy that will send your people back to the Middle Ages" (I honestly can't see when I'd ever say that... but anyway) and "Middle Ages" is a concept understood IC by my own and other nations, though not yours, the reference is still IC. Similarly, if you extolled the virtues of Francoism to me (an ideology created outside of the game but apparently acceptable), well my people have no idea what Francoism is, and I personally only know of it OOC. Nevertheless, it's still an IC reference.




I would personally like to see the RP rules along the lines that Z'ha'dum so eloquently put it. But that seems a bit too liberal for some people and the mods don't seem like they want to push it that far. I can understand to a point some restrictions on extremely specific things, such as very personal things, but the line is very muddy and that's why I made this thread.

@Sword of Estel, I'm not sure by your post whether you are saying that the noticeably stronger enforcement is because of the new mods or because the mod team has actually recently decided on stronger enforcement. My reference to a "crackdown" in the OP was taken from what you said in this thread (this warn appeal), which indicated to me that this is a recent and official.

Let's narrow the debate here. I'm 99% sure all of you are talking about the Alliance Politics forum and not the Global Politics or News etc forums. AP tends to be where most of the interesting things happen, yet it's supposed to be IC so it's hard to get certain points across sometimes and the OWF has an extremely wide range of topics there.

Here's a question for the masses: Should the AP forum be an IC forum or an OOC forum?

I, personally, think that it's fine the way it is and IC rules need to be clarified but not necessarily made more or less severe, but I wanna see what other people think on this issue.

The AP forum would be pointless without mentioning things like IRC, forums etc, as a lot of announcements, particularly DoWs require this. If an alliance has to DoW and uses an IRC log to justify it, they'd have to post in OWF, but declarations of support or DoWs based on treaties activated from this original DoW can be placed in AP. This will make this unnecessarily confusing. If anything, IRC logs and forums should be given some leniency I think in terms of being IC.

Since the warning in this thread was ignored (offending posts split) right away, as promised this discussion is now closed.

The Senior Staff will continue our deliberation on this issue and let you know when a decision has been made.