This is something that's been bothering me lately. I see people often do the equivalent of this:

OOC and IC are to be completely separate, with OOC being used to enhance the IC. One example of such would be:

When people are talking in real life, you don't ranomnly start speaking in another universe and expect to get your point across, which is what the first example is doing. It's run rather rampant recently as a result of cracking down on OOC in IC; people can't say "You're running people out of this game" so they resort to the next best thing, "You're running people out of this [ooc]game.[/ooc]" Both seem equally invalid to me, so perhaps a policy change/clarification is in order?

I'd like to see the OOC rules loosened up a bit. To me, there's a difference between saying "sent a recruitment message in-game" and "so-and-so political event doesn't matter, CN is just a game, get over it," with the first example being what should be acceptable IC, and the second what should be unacceptable IC.

The thing is, you can say both statements IC by saying the following:


"sent a recruitment message via the telegram"

"This political event doesn't matter because our world isn't overly serious about these sorts of events"


Both can be translated into IC, some are just lazy in their forum posting and don't think about how they can make a post IC. Personally, the more people did that, the more Cybernations as a world can "exist" and the less it would be referred to as a game.



@Locke; I agree with you. People use OOC to make IC points, and that shouldn't happen (exception being the Fantasy RP area where OOC clarification is needed at times). I personally think that using OOC tags to circumvent the ruling of referring Planet Bob as a game is a loophole that should be removed.

It's fine the way it works right now. I constantly make OOC posts in said tags. It's a good idea and should be kept.

can go either way:

...because in this world (ooc: game) <---Seems acceptable to me. But then it's not different from...

...because in this (ooc:game) <---So we can pretend/assume the above statement as a replacement, or we can be annoyed that they refer to the game as a game when they are supposed to be nation leaders.

I get annoyed when people use the "game" justification for acts in the IC areas, whether the tags are as above or not. But I don't know if we need to necessarily crack down.

Well, in the same breath merely "world" is completely sufficient and conveys the point, no?

CN will always be treaty as a game whether it's IC or OOC. I know that some people really get into the IC, but not everyone wants to.

Of course it will be, but referring the CN world to as a game isn't allowed IC. This would be getting rid of an OOC loophole that allows people to refer to CN as a game while making IC statements.

ITT saying "sent a recruitment message in-game" is perfectly fine, as the mention of in-game mechanics is allowed.

More in general, I think that the usage of the ooc tags should be discouraged when a post in an ic area ends being almost entirely ooc. For the remaining the distinction between things like "[ooc]game[/ooc]" and "world [ooc](game)[/ooc]" is not so much relevant and shouldn't lead to controversies. If anything, using just "world" should be preferable as we're supposed to role play/"make believe"/...

A moderator once told me that two posts like this in an IC forum:





Are both warnable.

But this is safe:





If that helps anyone understand.

RE: Sal Paradise's examples

Whoever told you that was mistaken.

The first example is OOC.

The second and third examples are incorrect use of OOC tags.

The correct way to make that post would be something to the effect of:

"The Continuum has dominated since its inception." if saying "Planet Bob", "The Cyberverse", or "Digiterra" makes you feel silly.

The use of OOC tags is meant to be a vehicle to convey things that need to be said, yet don't fit in the premise of the game.

An example of good use of OOC tags:

"Leader X has been absent his post the last week (OOC: He went on vacation for Spring Break), but now that he's back we can announce..."

The reason why this is acceptable is that clarification is perfectly warranted, helps understand what the roleplay statement ("has been absent his post") means, and is not the entire content of the post.

Putting OOC tags around one word is merely attempting to circumvent the roleplay rules around certain words that fly in the face of what the roleplay section is about. Most notably: game. There are so many other ways to describe your in-game interactions, I like to think the IC sections of the forum give you a creative way to do so. I know many of you have helped craft legislation, make flags and forums, and run in-game alliances, so I would like to think you are at least somewhat creative.

In the same way, using OOC tags around an entire post is merely a blatant attempt to make an OOC post in an IC forum without getting caught. There's no reason for it. Using spam to circumvent this is stupid as well. For example:

"IC: o/

OOC: I really like this as it changes the game dynamics greatly"

You could easily say something like:

"This really changes up the political scene. I like it."

Which conveys the same message, but is entirely IC.

Did this help anyone?

I fully agree with Megabyte here. If you find what you're saying to be hard to decipher, say it anyway and put a little bit of OOC clarification at the end. Your IC view is clarified but still there, and nobody can make a mistake about your intentions or words.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm getting at; I haven't an once of quarrel with this and I hope the rest of the moderation staff can agree.

That Megabyte guy knows what he's talking about. Intent definitely matters.

Well, they didn't put it as simply as I did, but they said that it might be ambiguous enough to stay within the rules. Ask Severus Snape, who has already asked me to elaborate on this, what exactly the mod say if you want to know more.



That's what I said.



Well, I thought I was helping.

^^^ Was I wrong here then, MegaByte?

I honestly would find it difficult to mention the act of sending in-game PMs without actually saying the word "game"... Maybe something like "sent a recruitment message [ooc] in-game [/ooc]" would make a difference?

Jerdge, simpler way to do that man (and if the policy enforcement gets tighter, here's how you could say it).


"sent a recruitment message to your nation"


I personally hope to see the forum better in dialogue from such a simple policy change, if it was ever changed.

Let me quote the IC rules found here:



The bolded passage would suggest you can easily mention PMs. Like:

"I sent you a PM earlier" or "Could you tell me where I could find you on IRC?" Those are fine and perfectly in-character. These roleplay restrictions were relaxed to both make it more accessible to people uncomfortable with "high" roleplay, and to ensure clarity (because "global communications network" is an awkward term to use for IRC). I would merely suggest there is no reason to put "in-game" in OOC tags or anywhere in any post. There is simply no need when "PM" or a mention to their nation would suffice as a perfectly IC alternative. It's not asking too much for you to slightly alter sentence structure every once in a while to create a friendly roleplaying environment, is it?

It's not too much, and in fact I like the idea.
My question was about someone that wanted to make it clear that the PM had been sent in-game (i.e.: not on this board, on an alliance forum, etc); hence the usage of "in-game" with the [ooc] tags. "Dispatch" or anything like that could be awkward and a bit unclear, probably.

That's why you just say "...to your nation."

Megabyte just explained the policy for clarification (and extremely well I might add), it's already agreed upon. He's now in charge of the team and re-structuring is in order so the enforcement of said policies may well change, though. There's clearly been confusion and the rules have perhaps not been enforced strictly enough so this discussion is quite helpful.

In my ever-so-humble opinion, there hasn't been any real divide between in-character and out-of-character stuff on forums and in the game for awhile now. There's remarkably few players in this game that care enough to do more than the bare minimum so as to not get warned, and fewer still that would really make any such roleplay on the national level any sort of realistic or enjoyable for all parties involved. More pertinent and more easily enforceable would be an in-game and out-of-game divide, which is what you're really enforcing with the rules as I read them. Might as well throw the pretense at roleplay here out the door and recognize the reality.

With the exception of a notable few, there are no real characters on Planet Bob. The way the game is set up, the community itself, and its history just really aren't geared towards roleplaying national leaders in an entirely separate and fictional world. TPF hunting down supposed Nazi skinheads or whatever they called them based entirely on OOC information comes to mind as a signature example of the utter absence of a proper divide, both enforced by the moderation and the community. I'm sure I'll be argued against or ignored, but by this point, I just don't think it's really worth anyone's time to try and make that happen. *shrugs* Whatever.

Thank god this is being approached. I have found the recent rise in lazy usage of ooc tags in the middle of sentences to be extremely annoying. If you are putting something in the middle of a statement that is ooc information then you should be able to completely remove it from the sentence and the sentence should still make sense.

The statement "You are responsible for the decrease of nations in the (ooc)game(/ooc)." makes no sense if you remove the word game from the sentence due to its ooc nature. If one follows this basic simple rule of being able to remove the ooc portion and still having the sentence make sense then you have yourself a proper IC statement.

This has been discussed before and we've always reached the same conclusion in the end. It would be impossible for us to police all the war declarations and tell people what's an acceptable reason for war and what is not. But that is another discussion for another thread.

Everyone should read Megabyte's post and learn.

I agree there is a need to boost up the RP around here. There also has to be a clear statement that it all is RP and that people should not take IC statements in any context other than IC.

I think if players just remember RL stuff happens... if a leader is out of the loop for a week or two, there's no need to demand an explanation. IC, he had to suppress a domestic insurrection or deal with yet another pesky coup attempt. Those things happen all the time...

True IC work can do wonders for the spirit of the game. Blurring the IC/OOC line can lead to nightmares. The TPF/NoV war was discussed in another OOC thread a year and a half ago. What angered me was when I started it to address the OOC implications of what was going on, people brought IC stuff into the argument, and it simply had no place there. When people wanted to discuss the CB on an IC forum, OOC stuff was brought into the discussion. It was disgusting and disappointing. I would have loved to see mods step in to remind everyone of where the IC/OOC divide was at that time. [ooc]game[/ooc] is small potatoes compared to [ooc]you're a Nazi[/ooc].

As I recall, I personally moved all of their DoWs and threads containing OOC evidence and accusations to the OWF because they were just that, OOC. The moderation team can't decide which wars are valid and which wars are invalid, that's the players' job. If TPF's actions at that time abhorred you, you could have taken IC measures against them and persuaded others to do the same.

That said, this line of discussion has no bearing whatsoever on this thread. This thread is an attempt to clarify what roleplaying, as far as the AA forum goes, means and how to use OOC tags. This thread is not about IC or OOC actions of players.

In case anyone missed it
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=68466

What about a new free alliance announcements forum, where you can say "We're winning the game" without any OOC tags?

People who don't like people who don't like to RP in all their posts might as well have a totally OOC clear forum and others who don't care could just gather at the other one with no restrictions on the matter. Sure, we'll have two alliance announcement forums, but eventually each person will choose which one is better for them, we will be able to see what the majority wants, and either keep both forums or merge them both with rules that favor the majority's decision.

I have to admit, I can understand why somebody would feel upset about a post in all [ooc] tags, but it's just the way some people think is natural. Sometimes you simply don't have anything IC to say, and making something up just because it needs to be there because of the rules might cause lots of posts where people say
IC: This is an interesting turn of events.
and
OOC: [much more text]
and in the end, this will make the IC part dull. Forcing people to include something IC will be more harmful to RP in general than OOC tags issues are. I guess the game is real enough to cause people to talk about these things as if they were reality. It's a way of enhancing the immersion I guess.

Many will just go to their alliance forums to talk about a thread in a way they feel is more comfortable. This in turn will make the alliance announcements section a place where people just post o/ something without much content.

Actually I'm all for RP, I'd love to be able to live up to my nation name and tell people I hate them for no reason, but as this could be considered OOC or something I don't know if that would be wise, and as such, it would feel better to have a forum where there can be no misunderstandings about the intentions of a post.

In my opinion, less is more and lets keep it simple with relaxed rules, and with freedom there will be more creativity and activity, perhaps a healthy mix of OOC and IC in the same post. I'm confident that this will never happen though, just letting people know what I think would be right.

I re-read the rules a few times here and there before posting and I believe this is OK to post. I humbly submit this opinion in hopes that it is not taken as anything else than a honest opinion about the relevant matter, with hopes to help the community.

As long as forums and IRC are still considered IC mediums of communication, then I see no problem with cracking down on OOC content in IC forums.

Just to clarify, this is already against the Open World RP rules posted here.



Single word OOC tags seem to be a way around the above rule without actually encouraging the poster to add IC rather than OOC content to IC topics, which is one reason why this change is being discussed.

I think it is A Okay how it is. Not sure why a crackdown is even being discussed :3 I hate having to put [ooc] in posts but I know that if I don't I could get a warn for mentioning OOC things. And I just can't translate OOC to IC very well

Keep it the same. I don't see much of an issue.

Then why are you posting in an IC forum? There's already a placed for exclusively-OOC discussions on the game's political events. The only issue is that people never use them correctly and IC matters bleed onto the Open World forum. Case and point: this thread is almost entirely about IC politics but there's some random OOC parallels pulled out of nowhere and slapped on top. Since OOC x IC = OOC, it winds up in Open World where that kind of charged political statement really doesn't belong.

Anyway, I think the rule is fine how it is, it just needs to be clarified how it will be enforced. The way Megabyte described it sounds good to me.

I actually agree with this but there is one thing that I would like to see adressed.


Sometimes in the course of debate people have to leave for OOC reasons, school, dr, work, or for longer term things such as a vacation there should be a way for people to be alerted. Say for instance you are in a debate with person X over issue Y. Well your about to go on vacation for Z amount of days. Rather than looking like you ran away from the debate some people have used OOC tags to say something like "I want to keep debating but am going on vacation and wont have internet", or something like that. That probably could be converted into a IC context but it would come out looking the same IMO. "My ruler wants to keep debating but is going on a extended leave of absence to visit the family". Something like that.
There also are times when leaders of alliances have to take time away from CN to do something. Again, OOC reasons that, IMO, should be allowed to be explained.

Maybe I'm way off, or this isnt being cracked down on, on this issue but it involved OOC tags and the apparent crack down on them so I wanted to express my concern.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it was actually an example I used in the OP. OOC isn't inherently wrong, it just shouldn't be used instead of IC. When you can use IC, do so, but sometimes you need to say something OOC, like in this case.

Actions and words are tied together. You can't separate the two. You can't moderate one and expect the players to moderate the other because words leads to actions and actions lead to words. They describe each other, they influence each other, and so they're two sides of the same coin. If you're going to force a divide, you have enforce the divide in both words and actions. Half-assing it won't work. It's never worked in the past, it's not going to work now, and it's never going to work unless your intent is to have a half-assed "RP" environment just like we have now. In which case, continue on, but people are going to muddy the waters as they have done, are doing, and will keep doing. If you haven't realized this by now, I'm not sure what to say.

I don't roleplay in CyberNations. It's pointless because the game is a game, pure and simple. The community and moderation team have both treated it as such over the years, and by now, it's too very well ingrained for half-assed measures to have any effect. The misconception that a strict RP divide puts off people, but it's most inclusive and the most healthy for roleplaying in the game to survive for any length of time. As soon as OOC is brought into any IC situation and isn't immediately dealt with, people won't see the divide and they will take IC offenses in an OOC manner. If DragonsPhyre called your character a !@#$@#$ !@#$%^& that deserves to rot in the deepest circle of Hell, that doesn't mean that Corey (the player) think you (the player) is a !@#$@#$ !@#$%^& that deserves to rot in the deepest circle of Hell. If the divide is clear and enforced, the players will continue to respect each other and treat each other fairly. Unfortunately, the divide isn't there to begin with, so while people might respect each other, they take insults and offense at actions far beyond where they should be taken, both giving and receiving. Thus, the TPF-NoV debacle is very relevant to the discussion, and it will always be so, because you cannot separate actions and words. Moderate one, and you must moderate the other.

There is no middle ground.

This is an excellent idea.

Firstly, if you have a problem with the definition or enforcement of IC/OOC, please start your own thread. This thread is talking about the use of OOC tags, what you're getting into is a completely different ballgame.

Secondly, Namecalling is against the rules, period, IC or OOC. So calling someone something or death wishes/threats aren't allowed whether or not they're IC.

Thirdly, the TPF-NoV "debacle" still has no place here. People can sign or cancel treaties or declare war based on OOC content. If you don't like it, change it IC. I know for a fact things that are "just" and "unjust" IC change. If we were to moderate that, we would have to monitor the CB of every single war, which is utterly ridiculous from a moderator standpoint and from a player standpoint. The fact is players decide what is right and wrong IC, and that's the beauty of the game. The moderator's job is to make sure that business on the forums is conducted in a civil and IC manner by enforcing the rules codified in every forum and at the top left of the page.

I will say this one more time: Stay on topic in this thread. All further off-topic posters will be warned.

Using an "OOC tag" in the middle of sentence over a few words in an IC subforum always annoyed me. I always thought it was more appropriate to put OOC clarification at the end of sentence if it was something that would have otherwise been unclear. I'd suggest cracking down on it, but I'd say the overwhelming majority of players don't even try to post better.

The people who post "IC" in the Open World Forum (or whatever it's called now), sometimes with tags, sometimes stating that all their posts are in-character, are only compounding the issue, especially when those posts provoke responses, and they invariably do.

Part of the problem is that many members of the community, especially those who have been around for a longer time, were so used to posting a certain way that when faced with more obvious posting and enforcement of the rules (which were perceived as "changes"), they had to adapt, albeit in a "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law" manner. While I'm an advocate of better posting, I think this community is a hopeless cause when it comes to IC/OOC issues. There will almost certainly be a new popular way of circumventing the intent of the rules if it is explicitly clarified that use of "OOC tags" is not acceptable.

The thing is, it isn't removing OOC tags, it is only stopping a loophole that is currently allowed. It's not saying you can't say "OOC: I'll respond later when I get back from x/y/z".

If we could get +.01 tech for every good IC post and -20.00 tech for every [ooc] tag, the situation would right itself very quickly, with but few exceptions.

My take, sorry late to the party...

My philosophy has always been more or less try to keep it completely IC in the IC areas whenever possible. I've straying across the line now and again, but such is life.

Whenever I make an OOC remark in the IC area however, I think it best to make it clearly separate from the rest of the text and labeled. It's no different really than playing a D&D session and while speaking IC breaking character to ask the DM a question about what some bit of game mechanics or what might be going on in a room while my character is talking.

"I don't think that's a very wise idea. I have several warriors outside. In fact I suspect that the local dwarves have been alerted as well."

To the DM: "So do the Drow appear to be buying this?

DM: "Not one word, in fact one of them is reaching for a sword."

Back IC: "I wouldn't touch that if I were you!"

I think references to Earth history and current Earth pop culture are fine. Planet Bob is in reality a parallel Earth in any event and I seriously don't see making a case that the background provided for the game is rich enough that it covers any sort of IC reference you could make (though it is slowly getting there over time...). References to current Earth politics...a bit tricker--if for no other reason but that some Earth political issues tend to raise serious problems (abortion, gun control, etc.) with IC debates spinning wildly OOC and people getting offended OOC. That's a major reason why I and so many other people had such trouble with the "Abortion Disco" alliance. There is simply no reason in or out of character to go there. None. Especially not when absolute freedom of speech and role play are already not guaranteed (try starting a Nazi alliance with Nazi nations and references to Nazi practices and see what happens).

If I would ask anything of the Mods, it would be to not nitpick too far into the OOC tag issue. At least there is recognition by the player that what they are saying is OOC and all too frequently we see people who clearly don't know how to role play not so much crossing the OOC/IC line as haphazardly swerving back and forth oblivious to it.

I would agree with this for now. In the past, the IC nature of the old Open World Forum was compromised by entire posts being OOC, with entire threads turning into non-IC banters. That is definitely inappropriate.

While distracting, we will never be able to escape the fact that CN is a game and there are circumstances when it is appropriate. The one that comes to mind is when Emperor Moo came down with H1N1 (I believe?). While the post did make a point about why Mary had to take over his duties, which was very IC, having that OOC context was also important to us because in the IRC, in PMs, etc. we're all just regular human players with a genuine concern/camaraderie amongst us.

I can understand where the Moderation Team would come from if they decided to make the IC forums more strict about the tags... but I think such a limit would be overkill and might detract from the community-nature of the game that many of us old players stick around for.

I want to make it clear that we are not outlawing the use of OOC tags completely. In a situation like the one Thierra pointed out it would be very acceptable to post an OOC explanation about Moo having a RL illness preventing him from continuing his current roll along with the IC announcment so that it could be clarified and it would also be fine to paost an IC response and add an OOC: Get well Moo at the end.

What we do not want is people using OOC tags in the middle of a sentence in an attempt to circumvent rules or to make posts that are mostly OOC which will detract form the RP atmosphere.

We already have a forum that should be used for OOC discussion of IC events and if you really feel you need to make a OOC comment about an IC event that is where it should be done.

I agree; OOC tags are unsightly. I think we can better convey OOC content without them. Semantically, "you are ruining this game" need not have an OOC tag. "game" can refer to political strategy, i.e., a game that is played among political actors, not the literal gameplay of Cyber Nations.

I also think that using OOC or RL examples to illustrate a point should also be allowed as they would otherwise severely limit the rhetorical devices we as players could use.

I would argue that a player playing the game cannot reference the medium it is being played through (breaking the fourth wall) with all other topics open for discussion. In the same way a character from a modern television show or film can make cultural references to all other topics or cultural products except itself.

Yea, but in this "tv show", Earth doesn't exist and the references should be to events within Planet Bob. For the limiting of rhetoric devices, there is a large history of CN. Why not use that?

As for the "game", most people are not referring to political strategy when they say "OOC: this game /OOC"

I like to think that the players are a bit more creative. If you for example want to make a refrence to the "Cold War" period that existed in the real world an option could be to reference the period between GWII and GWIII with all it's tensions between the two blocks? As Voodoo Nova says we have a rich history in CN that we can use instead of having to use real life examples.

Part of the problem with this is that a lot of CN historical discussions involve discussing former players who are now banned, which is very difficult with the word filter removing their names.

Agreed; but like Haflinger has mentioned, this rich history is fragmentary at best for new players and requires an almost colossal amount of wiki readings to bring themselves up to speed, the content usually bordering on the unreliable. For a new player who wishes to have as many literary arrows in his argumentative quiver, there's little that can be drawn on in the face of players who have been in the thick of it from day one.

Gentle Persons

Digiterra is a place that welcomes all national rulers to discourse in a manner that does not discern levels of education or years of wisdom. While many of us feel that acting and posting within the context of proper Digiterran society is preferable to reliance on references to events that may have happened in a possible parallel world called Earth, there must be some accommodation for those rulers who have neither the years of education nor experience with a thorough review of Digiterran history.
Since some of these rulers find themselves disadvantaged in this fashion I find little issue with the occasional reference to the fictional accounts of this parallel world, having a greater accessibility than Digiterran history, which may provide a contextual insight into current Digiterran politics. Similarly the clarifying statements outlining malaises of the dream state of a ruler into this parallel universe are also of value.
Not all prefer the high language style of formal Digiterran society and thus we should be open to other forms of speech to honour the thoughts and ideas if not the form of its delivery. To that end I favour some discretion being given to those who monitor this open electronic information system for international communication.


Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

A fine point indeed Dame Hime Themis, I applaud your answer. Perhaps OOC tags could be replaced by literary devices such as "this reminds me of the Real World [as a noun] story of..." or "I once heard that..." etc. I think that could also be a happy medium.