RP Etiquette or How to Play Well with Others

[Darth_Slaine]

RP Etiquette or How to Play Well with Others

 

Unlike fiction writing, most RP is a collaborative effort. RPers need to be able to deal respectfully and effectively with their peers. Stable RP communities are built on the Three Cs of Roleplay: courtesy, communication and compromise.

 

Courtesy

 

Always treat other RPers the way you would like them to treat you. Remember when your mother told you that if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all -- that is true in RP too. If you see something going on IC that bugs you go somewhere else. There is enough RP out there that you don't need to take part in every scene you pass.

 

Never assume someone does not know canon or is a new or "bad" RPer because you disagree with something they are doing. Next time you want to step into a situation and "set them right" consider that you might be the one who is wrong. People having their own fun does not impact on your life in any way (except on PVP servers). You do not need to protect the setting or the game... I assure you, when next you log in TOR will still be Star Wars.

 

If a new player asks you for help then provide it. If someone tries to strike up some RP with your character acknowledge it -- even if it is only with an OOC note that you can't play right now.

 

Don't try to take over someone else's scene or thrust yourself to the center of attention. Don't try to drown out someone else's chat and always communicate with other players before you do something that may disrupt a scene or before you try to exert authority/power/violence upon another player's character.

 

Be polite. Be helpful. If you see something you really can't stand then don't participate. There is never a justification to harass, belittle, publicly shame or otherwise show disrespect to another player.

 

Communication

 

Before you do anything that might take control of another person's character you need to communicate with them. This means if you want to attack them, RP as their superior, use Force powers on them or disrupt an ongoing storyline you must get the permission of the other players involved. It is not enough to send a whisper saying "I'm gonna mind control your character" -- you need to receive some notice of consent.

 

There are very few instances of RP drama that could not have been fixed with some communication by the participants. When a scene goes south always assume the fault is with you... that will save you getting trounced when you make a snide forum thread about it later.

 

When joining in a public RP scene if you would like your character to take a decisive role in things make sure that you ask for permission from the participants. If you just want to sit and chat on the sidelines then you are probably safe without making contact first.

 

If you don't understand why someone is doing something, or if you have a question about their RP ask the player about it in a nonaggressive way. If you disagree with the player's view you do not need to "correct" them.

 

Compromise

 

Live and let live. Every player has the same right to play what they want without harassment on our servers. There is enough room for everyone. No player -- even if he has collected all the Phantom Menace holographic cups from Burger King -- has more right to dictate what RP may or may not take place on a server (with the obvious exception of something that violates the ToS).

 

When involved in a scene with other players make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the spotlight... and don't dodge every punch. The spirit of compromise is necessary to make sure that everyone can enjoy an RP experience. The world may be a stage, and we merely the players -- but that doesn't make you the star.

 

Never, under any circumstances, engage in OOC canon debate disguised as an IC interaction. No one ever wins these debates and the IC dialogue is quickly punctuated with OOC source citations. You are not here to be right.

 

Understanding that you are one roleplayer among many and keeping in mind that things need not always suit your taste will give you the perspective necessary to stay off most people's /ignore lists.

 

 

Now...

Get out there! Be good to each other and have fun.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[Lolita]

This should be stickied!

[Darka]

One thing I must state is RP means Role Playing, not role policing.

RPers can be a strange bunch we work apart rather then together some times

 

Nice guide

[Rojahar]

Never, under any circumstances, engage in OOC canon debate disguised as an IC interaction. No one ever wins these debates and the IC dialogue is quickly punctuated with OOC source citations. You are not here to be right.

 

Something really annoying is when someone starts throwing a fit OOC, citing sources, concerning how their character is right about something - as if it matters. Maybe the other person is roleplaying someone ignorant of those facts, or just RPing a jerk. There are people who believe or deny all sorts of things IRL, and the galaxy of SW is no different. Han didn't believe in the Force, afterall, and Luke didn't throw a hissy fit and put him on ignore.

 

I wish the RP community didn't have to be so fractured, cliquish, and burdened with arguments over rules and such. A little bit of tolerance, an open mind, and an ability to compromise (from all sides) can go a LONG way. I agree a lot with the sentiment of communication and choosing to simply ignore something instead of starting what's REALLY just an OOC fight, fought IC.

 

I lament the loss of some great opportunities for IC clash of personalities though. I've seen from pretty entertaining RPs result from some RPers who were willing to indulge non-RPers trying to troll - and it actually turned into some great RP. I think some people are missing out.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Rojahar

[JDTC]

this is the only rule that ever matters:

 

IC stays IC and OOC stays OOC.

[Sivri]

You could add Consequence to that one. People always gets surprised over blatantly obvious consequences from things such as a bar-fight. Before anyone engages in anything combat-like, they need to understand that if **** goes wrong, their character could end up dead. The amount of times I've seen people end up in situations where the chance of escape is close to impossible and then they go "By the way, you can't kill my character cause I won't let you oocly", throwing an immunity card. Of course character killing is very severe in most kinds of roleplay and I'm not saying people shouldn't ask for consent about such, but people should at least be a bit "realistic" so to say.

Beyond that there's often many ways where one can roleplay ones way out of a near death fight without even mentioning oocly that you don't want your character to die.

But that's just one example, perhaps a bit of a drastic one - the point of it all is that people need to embrace all of the consequences that comes with every action. If you disobey the words of a Darth, there'll be hell - on the other side, if you do everything they say, you might just get rewarded (thus a positive consequence, but people somehow have very few issues with accepting the good stuff)

Ignoring consequence will ultimately end up with drama and angry people, and it can severely hurt the immersion.

 

Otherwise, nice guide ^^ Easy to read and understand.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Sivri

[Helig]

Walsh vs Slaine - who will win?

 

*grabs popcorn*

 

Oh, and I like verisimilitude. It rolls of the tongue well, now that I've practised with that word.

[Darth_Slaine]

You could add Consequence to that one. People always gets surprised over blatantly obvious consequences from things such as a bar-fight. Before anyone engages in anything combat-like, they need to understand that if **** goes wrong, their character could end up dead. The amount of times I've seen people end up in situations where the chance of escape is close to impossible and then they go "By the way, you can't kill my character cause I won't let you oocly", throwing an immunity card. Of course character killing is very severe in most kinds of roleplay and I'm not saying people shouldn't ask for consent about such, but people should at least be a bit "realistic" so to say.

Beyond that there's often many ways where one can roleplay ones way out of a near death fight without even mentioning oocly that you don't want your character to die.

But that's just one example, perhaps a bit of a drastic one - the point of it all is that people need to embrace all of the consequences that comes with every action. If you disobey the words of a Darth, there'll be hell - on the other side, if you do everything they say, you might just get rewarded (thus a positive consequence, but people somehow have very few issues with accepting the good stuff)

Ignoring consequence will ultimately end up with drama and angry people, and it can severely hurt the immersion.

 

Otherwise, nice guide ^^ Easy to read and understand.

 

I would see this as a communication issue mostly. Before engaging in combat with another player --or anything that might have drastic or character-changing consequences-- it is probably easiest to quickly establish player-limits OOC.

 

For instance, I might say: "Hi, it looks like we are going to fight. Feel free to beat up my character but I would prefer no lasting damage." You would then say, "Okay" in the spirit of compromise and courtesy and just toss me through a window.

 

You're right that it is no fun to get to the end of the scene and suddenly have to start letting a situation become unrealistic when a bit of OOC discussion at the start could have saved this trouble.

 

If however, you reach an impasse, it is usually better to let the other player escape -- who will be harmed more, your character when your prey escapes or his character when he has his arms and head lopped off?

 

Unlike PVE, PVP or even table-top RPing, what we do is not about "winning" or "beating" other players. While there is conflict in RP it should be to serve a story and not just to show the dominance of one player over another. If we look at the goal of RP as getting the most people to have the most fun it might happen that winning or losing in individual combats would not seem important.

 

Again, though, I'd say communicate limits at the beginning. Not everything that would have dire consequences IRL will have them in Star Wars so we have a lot of leeway for avoiding permanently damaging other characters.

[Sendra]

I would see this as a communication issue mostly. Before engaging in combat with another player --or anything that might have drastic or character-changing consequences-- it is probably easiest to quickly establish player-limits OOC.

 

But consequences aren't restricted to combat. It's a much more general concept that is necessary for dynamic RP. One thing leads to another, one IC word or action leads to a consequence, and so on in a chain - or web - of IC cause and effect.

 

If your character lies or betrays someone, and is found out, there may be no violence, but there are social consequences, changes in reputation. I've seen RPers (usually inexperienced) trying to have it both ways: lies, cheating on lovers, insults, insubordination, betrayals etc. in RP. But when the social consequences, change in reputation, go counter to their static character concept as "good guy", they try to back out and ignore those events in an OOC way.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Sendra

[Darth_Slaine]

But consequences aren't restricted to combat. It's a much more general concept that is necessary for dynamic RP. One thing leads to another, one IC word or action leads to a consequence, and so on in a chain - or web - of IC cause and effect.

 

If your character lies or betrays someone, and is found out, there may be no violence, but there are social consequences, changes in reputation. I've seen RPers (usually inexperienced) trying to have it both ways: lies, cheating on lovers, insults, insubordination, betrayals etc. in RP. But when the social consequences, change in reputation, go counter to their static character concept as "good guy", they try to back out and ignore those events in an OOC way.

 

If someone's character mistreats or lies to your character, it is only natural that your character might develop a negative view of the offender. The offender cannot insist that your character view them only in the way that he or she prefers. If someone did say that, then you could express your decision to play your character as you believe is best. If they disagree with this, then you have the right to stop RPing with that person.

 

It is fairly simple. No one can tell you how to RP your character. If you think the reputation of another character would be low in your character's eyes then it is right that you play it that way. No one can tell you how your character should feel about anything.

 

The reason I tend to distrust arguments of consequences or realism is that, in my experience, they are not usually employed to protect the sanctity of one's own character but to censure another player. Clearly that is not the case here, and it would be the courteous thing for the other party to acknowledge your right to react to their character in what you feel is a believable way.

 

Again, if the other player does not respect that right then you do not need to RP with them.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[tehjai]

The reason I tend to distrust arguments of consequences or realism is that, in my experience, they are not usually employed to protect the sanctity of one's own character but to censure another player. Clearly that is not the case here, and it would be the courteous thing for the other party to acknowledge your right to react to their character in what you feel is a believable way.

 

Again, if the other player does not respect that right then you do not need to RP with them.

 

People who line out reactions to things for characters who aren't theirs are bad RPers. However, that doesn't invalidate the importance of consequences and realism. When I advocate for these things, it's because I like character interactions to mean something, to result in something, and possibly change my character for good or ill in the end.

 

A character can be unwilling to be realistic or give no screws about consequences, but a player should always be aware that consequences do exist and may often be played out.

 

Here's an example. Jane (played by me) and Sally (played by someone else) are two good friends who are ostensibly Good Guys in the scenario. One day, Sally tells Jane something that, later on, Jane discovers is a bold-faced lie. Because of that, three things could happen:

 

1. Jane's trust in Sally has now been broken.

2. Jane may no longer be chummy with Sally and may snub her ICly.

3. Jane might be so mad so as to call Sally names in public.

 

The last two sentences? Realism and Consequence. Sally doesn't have to be played any differently; but Sally's player should accept that Sally has now done Jane wrong and the IC friendship is now broken. Sally can try to make amends, but her player shouldn't become uncomfortable on an OOC level if Jane doesn't want to be friends again.

 

If Sally's player wants Sally to be a Good Guy and have all sorts of friends, they need to understand Realism and Consequences and understand that Sally can't go lying to everyone she knows; it will destroy her IC friendships. Or that Sally needs to work on her lying. Or that she needs new friends.

 

As Jane's player, I know that Jane can't forgive Sally for lying to her. Therefore she won't. Realism and Consequence are therefore protecting the sanctity of my character. The only measure of censorship and control that I am giving to Sally's player is saying, "Nope, my character's not going to be friends with Sally anymore, she can't get over the lie."

 

I am not demanding that Sally react to this news in a certain way; I'm not even saying that Sally has to be okay with what happened. The only thing I'm imposing on Sally's player -- and if such an imposition is problematic, I have to ask how on earth you RP -- is how Jane reacted to what she did. Sally can do what she wants. But I am not playing Jane against her principles (and I am certainly not going to retcon the whole scene!) simply because Sally's player doesn't want to deal with the consequences of lying to Jane.

 

 

Now, you argue that realism and consequences are usually done to censure other players. I don't see that to be the case; where I've played, people who want realism and consequences (in my experience) usually just want to be able to have Jane give Sally the brush-off and not be called a meanieface for it. This doesn't mean you're wrong in your assessment, Slaine, but I'm just going to give the other side of the viewpoint you have.

 

In my experience, ignoring realism as consequences is usually done so that people can have characters that never get in trouble, who always get what they want, and who always come out on top. These players usually never want to explore the consequences of their actions because they believe that their characters shouldn't have to "go through" something like a friend-vorce or a breakup, despite the fact that they put their character in a situation that could lead to that. When I've seen someone voice that opinion, this is because they often can't or won't delineate IC conflict from OOC conflict. Jane doesn't like Sally anymore. That doesn't mean that I and Sally's player have to stop talking; it doesn't mean that I don't like Sally's player, and if you're avoiding consequences of IC conflict because you're afraid those statements are true -- It's poor form.

 

If you play your characters as simultaneously Bad and Good and show no interest or concern for what happens to other characters who come up against yours, maybe you should write fanfic instead, where you can control all of the characters. If you want to RP, you need to understand that actions have repercussions.

 

In the end, the only character you can control is yours, and therefore you need to be okay on an OOC level with how other characters react to what yours are doing, even if it's not sunshine and rainbows.

 

I'm sorry that this got long-winded, but I feel the need to be so when I see RPers dismissing standards or the principle of ICA = ICC because they feel it's 'controlling'. People might take it too far, but the standard in and of itself isn't controlling at all.

[Kharnis]

Now, I want you to flip that scenario around. This time, you are playing Sally, and your friend is playing Jane. Jane's player discover's Sally's lie.

 

Only Jane player decides that Jane will forgive Sally. Perhaps not immediately, but she won't cut Sally out of her life. Now what? Are you going to demand that Jane's player must have Jane mistrust Sally forever? Are you going to say that Jane must cut Sally out of her life, because that is the only way this scenario can play out? And are you going to label Jane's player as a bad RPer if Jane isn't played out this way?

 

Or will you roll with the RP, and see where this will take you?

[tehjai]

Now, I want you to flip that scenario around. This time, you are playing Sally, and your friend is playing Jane. Jane's player discover's Sally's lie.

 

Only Jane player decides that Jane will forgive Sally. Perhaps not immediately, but she won't cut Sally out of her life. Now what? Are you going to demand that Jane's player must have Jane mistrust Sally forever? Are you going to say that Jane must cut Sally out of her life, because that is the only way this scenario can play out? And are you going to label Jane's player as a bad RPer if Jane isn't played out this way?

 

Or will you roll with the RP, and see where this will take you?

 

No to all of your questions in the first paragraph, and yes to the last. I just want to make sure that you understand that "consequence" doesn't always mean "punshiment"! I'm not sure how the scenario I mentioned even comes close to inferring what you're detailing above.

 

I'm not playing Jane; therefore I can't make Jane do squat. I'm playing Sally, she lied, she and I have to deal with the consequences both ICly and OOCly, be that losing a friend or having a friend forgive you.

 

But what Jane does, if I'm not playing Jane, is out of my hands. But that deals with another round of possible outcomes/consequences (and perhaps 'outcome' is a word we should be using in lieu of 'consequences', I think too many people are interpreting that word negatively): Fine. Jane forgives Sally. However, Jane's player shouldn't be surprised if Sally continues to lie because I'm playing Sally as a lying schmuck; conversely, Jane's player isn't steadfastly committed to continuing to forgive Sally all of her transgressions.

 

Having Jane forgive Sally is just another possible outcome; in the end, Sally's player should acknowledge this possible outcome and the friendship can continue to wherever it goes.

 

The idea of accepting and playing through consequences/outcomes isn't mutually exclusive, Kharnis, it works both ways. Both avoiding an outcome because you don't want bad things happening to your character and dictating an outcome because you're too much of a stick in the mud to play flexibly are hallmarks of bad RP.

Edited February 19, 2012 by tehjai

[Sendra]

Now, I want you to flip that scenario around. This time, you are playing Sally, and your friend is playing Jane. Jane's player discover's Sally's lie.

 

Only Jane player decides that Jane will forgive Sally. Perhaps not immediately, but she won't cut Sally out of her life. Now what? Are you going to demand that Jane's player must have Jane mistrust Sally forever? Are you going to say that Jane must cut Sally out of her life, because that is the only way this scenario can play out? And are you going to label Jane's player as a bad RPer if Jane isn't played out this way?

 

Or will you roll with the RP, and see where this will take you?

 

That isn't flipping the scenario around at all. And at no point is saying "Sally needs to accept that Jane may respond in a negative way" the same as "Jane has to respond in a specific way".

 

Jane, and only Jane, is responsible for Jane's response to Sally's lie. Jane may decide to get angry, may decide to openly denounce Sally as a lying-poopy-head (all IC of course), may decide to forgive Sally, may pretend to forgive Sally for now, but hold onto this simmering grudge in case it ever becomes useful. Jane has many possible responses available to her, and it is up to the player of Jane to decide which make sense for the character of Jane and where the player wants to take the situation. Player of Jane might even decide that Sally isn't a strong enough RPer to accept the situation, or that the surrounding RP peanut gallery will make a huge OOC drama-fest out of the situation, and work it into Jane's RP to forgive Sally because player-of-Jane wants to avoid OOC problems with player-of-Sally or the community.

 

That is my point, and that was the point being made in the post you responded to.

 

Jane - and only Jane - is responsible for Jane's response. But Sally's action, Jane's response, and everything else that happens is part of a shared reality we are all co-creating. We just roll with is as it unfolds.

[Darth_Slaine]

People who line out reactions to things for characters who aren't theirs are bad RPers. However, that doesn't invalidate the importance of consequences and realism. When I advocate for these things, it's because I like character interactions to mean something, to result in something, and possibly change my character for good or ill in the end.

 

A character can be unwilling to be realistic or give no screws about consequences, but a player should always be aware that consequences do exist and may often be played out.

 

Again, this would fall under the guidelines that I suggested to the last poster -- play your character as you wish and communicate with other players.

 

The scenario you presented is not very different from that which was already discussed:

 

Another character offends your character. Your character snubs the offender. You worry that the offender's player my interpret this as OOC dislike.

 

The thing to do is communicate with the other player. Say, "that was fun RP but my character is probably going to be wary of yours or less respectful of them from now on." If the other player says, "You can't do that" then you can choose to reexplain your position or move on.

 

It is impractical to say that there needs to be a rule of "realism" that must swing down from the ceiling and hit the other player. Consequences are determined through player communication and compromise. Some players won't care about consequences or realism while some players will constantly be thinking about such things. Consequences and realism do not exist outside the sphere of interaction between the players in an RP.

 

To quote the old adage: Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

 

If you like RP with realism and consequences then find like-minded RPers and communicate with them about your preferences. If you feel something is stretching into territory that is unrealistic for your character, communicate that to your partner and say you are uncomfortable.

 

If the other player is unwilling to listen to your feelings and will not compromise, you may walk away.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[tehjai]

 

<Good Discussion goes Here>

 

 

Yeah, Sendra's right -- the situation Kharnis presented to me wasn't a flip. Saying that a player ought to accept or be willing to work with any and all results from an action is not, no matter how you slice it, saying that a player only has One True Way to respond.

 

The only thing you have direct control over is your character. Period. People who may encounter your character are allowed to react with enthusiasm, mistrust, derision, fear, or a myriad of other things.

 

All players have to be intimately aware that they cannot control others and that it's bad form to try and backpedal your way out of something that makes your character "look bad". If you don't want your character looking bad, don't do things that'd evoke that response!

 

If you're going to do it anyway, you sure as heck better be willing to accept (OOCly) whatever other players toss your way. And you can react to that however you want!

 

 

If the other player is unwilling to listen to your feelings and will not compromise, you may walk away.

 

Yes, and I (in this hypothetical scenario) have the right to do that politely for any reason, and, if asked why, I will not couch my words.

Edited February 19, 2012 by tehjai

[Darth_Slaine]

Yes, and I (in this hypothetical scenario) have the right to do that politely for any reason, and, if asked why, I will not couch my words.

 

I don't believe that I ever indicated that you didn't have the right to not RP with someone. In fact, I think in the OP I suggest that if you don't like something you should not participate in it.

 

And, though I applaud your decision to refrain from couching your words, I would remind you to always be courteous when dealing with other players even if you disagree with them...

 

Perhaps especially if you disagree with them.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[Kharnis]

No to all of your questions in the first paragraph, and yes to the last. I just want to make sure that you understand that "consequence" doesn't always mean "punshiment"! I'm not sure how the scenario I mentioned even comes close to inferring what you're detailing above.

 

I'm not playing Jane; therefore I can't make Jane do squat. I'm playing Sally, she lied, she and I have to deal with the consequences both ICly and OOCly, be that losing a friend or having a friend forgive you.

 

But what Jane does, if I'm not playing Jane, is out of my hands. But that deals with another round of possible outcomes/consequences (and perhaps 'outcome' is a word we should be using in lieu of 'consequences', I think too many people are interpreting that word negatively): Fine. Jane forgives Sally. However, Jane's player shouldn't be surprised if Sally continues to lie because I'm playing Sally as a lying schmuck; conversely, Jane's player isn't steadfastly committed to continuing to forgive Sally all of her transgressions.

 

Having Jane forgive Sally is just another possible outcome; in the end, Sally's player should acknowledge this possible outcome and the friendship can continue to wherever it goes.

 

The idea of accepting and playing through consequences/outcomes isn't mutually exclusive, Kharnis, it works both ways. Both avoiding an outcome because you don't want bad things happening to your character and dictating an outcome because you're too much of a stick in the mud to play flexibly are hallmarks of bad RP.

 

The bolded parts are what I was hoping to point out at some point, but then you went ahead and pre-empted me. The usage of the word "consequences" has a much different connotation than "outcome." As you said, "consequences" has a negative interpretation, and with good reason. "Outcome," on the other hand, is a much more accurate word to use when talking about RP interactions.

[Sendra]

The bolded parts are what I was hoping to point out at some point, but then you went ahead and pre-empted me. The usage of the word "consequences" has a much different connotation than "outcome." As you said, "consequences" has a negative interpretation, and with good reason. "Outcome," on the other hand, is a much more accurate word to use when talking about RP interactions.

 

That is a fair and reasonable assessment.

 

But many role players are aware of the expression "in-character actions lead to in-character consequences", so it's just continuing use of the same known word in the same context.

 

Changing words is one way to temporarily evade the misunderstanding and misuse of the word "consequence". But wouldn't clarification be a better solution? Do we really need to find a new word every time the misuse of a word is perpetuated?

[tehjai]

But many role players are aware of the expression "in-character actions lead to in-character consequences", so it's just continuing use of the same known word in the same context.

 

And it's that very expression -- considered by myself and a lot of the RPers I've played with in various media over the past twelve years to be Rule One of RP (right behind Rule Zero of Don't Be A Jerk) -- that led me to use the term consequence.

 

But, at the risk of this turning into a semantics argument, when discussing things that happen to RPers as a result of their interaction, when I write the word "consequence" one can consider it to be the same as "outcome" or "result", simply because of its relation to the adage that Sendra cited above.

 

 

I don't believe that I ever indicated that you didn't have the right to not RP with someone. In fact, I think in the OP I suggest that if you don't like something you should not participate in it.

 

And, though I applaud your decision to refrain from couching your words, I would remind you to always be courteous when dealing with other players even if you disagree with them...

 

Perhaps especially if you disagree with them.

 

I would remind you to refrain from taking a policing tone with your requests, since that is the very thing you're decrying in this thread.

 

I understand you're trying to drive home the points of courtesy and respect, but: when I say I'm going to do something "politely", that's exactly what I mean. There's no hidden message there. I will be frank, but frankness doesn't preclude politeness or courtesy. And judging solely on the reactions some of my posts have garnered, I think that's something the community could take home, too.

Edited February 19, 2012 by tehjai

[Darth_Slaine]

I would remind you to refrain from taking a policing tone with your requests, since that is the very thing you're decrying in this thread.

 

I understand you're trying to drive home the points of courtesy and respect, but: when I say I'm going to do something "politely", that's exactly what I mean. There's no hidden message there. I will be frank, but frankness doesn't preclude politeness or courtesy. And judging solely on the reactions some of my posts have garnered, I think that's something the community could take home, too.

 

There is always the possibility that what you believe is coming off as polite and courteous is not. If your posts have been garnering reactions that you don't think accurately reflect their intended tone then you might want to examine the issue from all sides.

[tehjai]

There is always the possibility that what you believe is coming off as polite and courteous is not. If your posts have been garnering reactions that you don't think accurately reflect their intended tone then you might want to examine the issue from all sides.

 

Actually, for the most part, they have been received as intended. What I've been seeing is one or two people who seem to always have to default to making character judgements on people who might have something to say that they don't agree with.

 

If someone is coming across as overbearing, the respectful and courteous thing to do is to say "Hey, you're being a little aggressive/jerkish/whatever when you say this" as opposed to making sly judgement calls on the content of my character.

 

I'm brash. I'm outspoken. I know these things don't always mesh well, but I'd much rather be called out and told my words are boorish or mean-sounding than to have it implied that my opinion makes me a terrible person.

 

But then that brings up another point: what constitutes courtesy and respect in practise is, just as what constitutes good or exceptional RP, varies from person to person. I may think I'm being honest, polite, and maybe helpful. The person I'm speaking to may think that I'm being a complete meanie, simply because our views of what respect and courtesy are can differ.

 

Now, I'm going to ask a couple of questions. These are questions that I'm asking simply for the sake of asking them, not because I inherently have an issue with this thread, but here it is:

 

Given that courtesy and respect in practise differs from person to person, why is it so important to dictate to others what courtesy and respect entails? How is this any different from demanding an RP standard?

[AlyxDinas]

Given that courtesy and respect in practise differs from person to person, why is it so important to dictate to others what courtesy and respect entails?

 

To steal from John Stuart Mill: "Among the works of man... the first importance surely is man himself."

 

We ought to always place the greatest burden of responsibility, in any and all of our interactions, on ourselves.

[Ellakkrin]

I wish more people followed this...

[Grihm]

Anyone that has been hosting or participating in any form of bigger LARP events have seen these "win win" players IRL and also had a chance to talk to them face to face. An etiquette for them is not to interesting and neither is consequences. To just ignore them feels like a lazy-mans option.

 

Now and then you hear about the kill on sight list for pvp. I would like to see an option like that for roleplayers to use on players you want to flag. When your guild encounter these players they have a different color on their names or a symbol beside the name.

 

When inspecting that player, you could have the person that flagged him/her add information as to why this player was flagged to begin with.