That's not...actually what I said. What I actually did was rather strongly imply that you were pontificating in your megapost. The one you ended with the giant links to the posting guidelines and whatnot (very impressive touch, by the way). I'm sorry about the confusion.

I'm not sure if you're insulting me or showing a surprising degree of self-awareness. Look, I've made my stance clear. I'll leave this alone.

This is actually a good point. The arguments have been made. It's not necessary to keep on objecting. It only leads to pointless bickering.

Really, this has gone on too long.

Funny you should say that.

This is something that interests me greatly. My main character (Imperial Agent, Lord Adraas) acts undercover as an information broker. It was originally a throwaway line to fill a larger conversation, but the idea sort of stuck and grew into his primary motivation. As to this, one thing I've found in playing my information broker character is that people like to create reasons to care about and use his services. I remember at one stage bringing him into the Nar Shaddaa cantina to meet with a friend's character for a prearranged negotiation. The conversation caught the attention of some other people in the cantina and after my friend left my character ended up negotiating and accepting two additional contacts from players I'd never met before, one of which has resulted in an ongoing professional relationship. It seems to me that there's definitely space for an idea like this to take root, and I'd be very interested in seeing where it goes.

I consider myself a "heavy" roleplayer. I've been RPing in one form or another pretty much since I could walk. This does not mean that I'm in-character 24/7. In fact I'm probably OOC more often than I'm not. Am I a bad roleplayer, then, because sometimes I just want to grind out some levelling with my friends in teamspeak? Is being IC constantly what defines a roleplayer now? I thought it had more to do with the quality of their characters and the story itself. I understand that this post came about after some kind of frustration on your end, but this kind of sentiment is exactly the sort of thing I hate. It boils down to "If you aren't doing it the way I want you to then you should just leave" and I don't think that kind of elitism has any place in a good community.

Potentially off topic, but in addition to this are people who stand directly in front of you and then proceed to emote to themselves in a way that makes it difficult for someone else to interact with them. If you're engrossed in something on your datapad, taking a holocall or staring intently into your drink, my character isn't likely to want to intrude. I see a lot of people come into the cantina, /emote doing something with their datapad and then leave a minute later. EIther they really wanted to show everyone their character's datapad skills, or they were expecting a stranger to jump out of nowhere and engage them immediately. That said (and getting on-topic again) Lord Adraas does have a fairly large and well-active RP community. Even with the frequency of the above occurrences, there are usually enough folk active and about in the social hubs to get some kind of interaction rolling.

There is no hypocrisy in SelinaH's post. I assume the comment you're referring to is 'It is not your place to tell people that they are "not RPing"'. This means that you don't get to decide if someone else is or is not RPing. There are no RP police, unless I'm very much mistaken. It doesn't mean "You're not entitled to tell people how they RP", but even if it did, that would not be hypocritical either. This thread, as I've gathered from the OP, is about advice and suggestion to help RPers work through IC combat situations. It's not about telling people how they must proceed otherwise they're not RPing. "Telling me that I can't tell other people what to do is hypocritical because you're telling me what to do" is a line I keep seeing crop up in these sorts of discussions and I do not understand what makes people think it's a logical argument. There is a huge difference between telling someone to respect other people's right to an opinion and actively trying to force your opinion onto someone else. I don't really understand this. What's so offensive about explaining why she disagrees with your argument?

Sure, why not? If your Sith wants to learn the Jedi Code, or vice versa, then I don't see why he/she shouldn't be able to. The resources are out there, it wouldn't be impossible to do so. Works for me.

Where in the Jedi code does it say "There is no red, there is blue. Or green."? I sincerely doubt that there's a rule about saber colour in the Jedi handbook. I expect they have more important things to teach you than how to accessorise your weaponry. The "Red is for baddies everything else is for goodies" system is an association based on the prevalence of red lightsabers among the Sith. It's not a rule. Which brings me to the Sith themselves, actually. If you tried to tell a Sith Lord that his green lightsaber was inappropriate and shattered your immersions, he'd just laugh and use it to remove your face. "Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

I understand your point, but this is an incredible oversimplification. If I'm playing an operative and for the sake of my friends or my guild I have to spec heals, I shouldn't be penalised if I want to roleplay an assassin. Nor should I have to compromise my character's skill if I'm personally not very good or not very interested in PvP. The narrative draw of RP is very different to the skill-centric draw of PvP and disparaging someone for not wanting to get involved in both seems like too much. Godmoding or people getting into *****fests about who killed who because of what unblockable attack is a problem, but I don't think the solution is "Duel or Piss off".

Today (last night for me), my Imperial Agent - under cover as a freelance slicer/information broker - and his Bounty Hunter partner had an impromptu business meeting with a Sith Lord in the Nar Shaddaa cantina about a potential contract. This was an arranged meeting between our circle of friends, but midway through the discussion we attracted the attention of a couple of Jedi nearby, who would glance in our direction every now and then until we concluded our meeting. After the Sith left my Agent and his partner went over to chat with the Jedi, who eventually turned out to be in the market for some information on a Sith themselves. Then, while my Agent left with one of the Jedi to discuss their job, his partner struck up a conversation with someone at the bar, who eventually turned out to be looking to hire somebody for a slicing contract. We went to the cantina expecting to do a little story RP with a friend and ended up leaving with three broker contracts from three completely different people. Weird, but fun.

Sendra's post basically highlights why I personally oppose stricter naming rules. It doesn't seem fair at all to me to introduce a rule that could potentially stifle even one player's creativity, when just a little bit of tolerance makes the rule completely unnecessary.

Yeah, I know I'm new here and all but I am in this, all the way. I can't even comment on the direction this thread has gone in. The sheer ridiculousness of it really kinda speaks for itself.