05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 121st comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
In an RP situation, a character does have its own moral sense. Of course, the player is who controls what the character actually does, but the whole point of role-playing is to separate your character from your self. Obviously, one cannot judge this all in total isolation because it is precisely the player who controls all this – but that is the whole point…


We aren't talking about RP; this was established a while back. The majority of MUD players don't RP, and I'd wager some 99%+ of "griefers" don't either.

DavidHaley said:
I didn't say that people were sociopaths because they did things that I dislike. I said that people are sociopaths if they exhibit sociopathic behavior: see the definition of sociopath. Somebody who actively seeks and enjoys the misery and suffering of others is quite obviously a sociopath. I keep repeating myself on this point but you seem to keep ignoring the case I am talking of, and return to simple pkillers.


"Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."

If you're only implying this when you call them sociopaths, then yes, I agree that they could be coined as such; however, I have a feeling that that wasn't all you were implying (I may be wrong though), as you seemed to be using the term with an overly negative vibe.

DavidHaley said:
You are acting as if just because all of this happens in a game, all actions are completely devoid of any moral aspect, positive or negative.

I will ask you a very simple yes/no question, one that I asked earlier but it seems to have gotten lost in all of this.

Do you, or do you not, think that it is possible for some in-game behavior to be abusive of a player?


That would depend entirely on what you mean by "in-game behavior". If you mean "any behavior that happens while playing the game", then obviously my answer would be yes, it's quite possible. Otherwise, it would be a no.
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 122nd comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
We aren't talking about RP; this was established a while back. The majority of MUD players don't RP, and I'd wager some 99%+ of "griefers" don't either.

Yes, that was the whole point of what I just posted. The whole point is that we are looking at the morality of player actions, not character actions.

drrck said:
as you seemed to be using the term with an overly negative vibe.

Which term are you referring to? As far as I know, I've only used the term "sociopath" with respect to people who use game mechanisms to actively seek and enjoy the misery and suffering of others.

drrck said:
That would depend entirely on what you mean by "in-game behavior". If you mean "any behavior that happens while playing the game", then obviously my answer would be yes, it's quite possible. Otherwise, it would be a no.

I'm not sure what else I could be referring to. :smile:

So I'm very curious as to what you said "no" to. For actions in what kind of setting exactly is it impossible to ever be considered abusive?
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 123rd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Yes, that was the whole point of what I just posted. The whole point is that we are looking at the morality of player actions, not character actions.


And my point was that character actions and the subsequent morality of them are non-existent unless you factor in RP - which we aren't.

DavidHaley said:
Which term are you referring to? As far as I know, I've only used the term "sociopath" with respect to people who use game mechanisms to actively seek and enjoy the misery and suffering of others.


Why did you bring up the fact that those actions indicate sociopathic behavior if not to also imply the negative connotations that usually go along with it? It seems rather redundant to do so; I think it's universally accepted that the behavior is abnormal and self-centered.

DavidHaley said:
I'm not sure what else I could be referring to. :smile:

So I'm very curious as to what you said "no" to. For actions in what kind of setting exactly is it impossible to ever be considered abusive?


It is impossible to ever be considered abusive (in an OOC context) for any scenario in which all the actions are IC, regardless of motive.
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 124th comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
And my point was that character actions and the subsequent morality of them are non-existent unless you factor in RP - which we aren't.

Sure, I grant that, but I'm not sure why that point is relevant to whether or not actions towards players are abusive or not.

drrck said:
Why did you bring up the fact that those actions indicate sociopathic behavior if not to also imply the negative connotations that usually go along with it?

I don't understand your question. Obviously I seek to suggest that there are highly negative connotations for people exhibiting sociopathic behavior. I don't understand why this is even questioned since it seems definitional.

drrck said:
It is impossible to ever be considered abusive (in an OOC context) for any scenario in which all the actions are IC, regardless of motive.

You have said that we aren't talking about IC, since we aren't talking about any role-play and only about player-to-player action, therefore I don't understand why this is relevant to the current discussion.

If you use "IC" to mean not what it actually means but to mean "actions performed by an avatar", then I still don't understand how what you say can possibly be true. Yet again I refer you to the article I linked to (which you still have not commented on) that describes how game mechanisms were used to enact what can only be described as abusive behavior.

To clarify what I meant about "IC": it doesn't mean just actions performed by an avatar. It means actions performed by a character, acting in character. So far this is just expanding the acronym. A character is not just the player's avatar in the world: a character is an identity of its own right. A character has motives, feelings, desires, and so forth. Obviously it is the player who chooses what these are. But nonetheless they are separate from the player. A trivial example is a heterosexual male character playing a heterosexual female character. It is quite clear that while one desires female characters, the other will desire male characters. It is therefore out of character for the female character to make serious advances on another female character, unless you're actually enacting an identity crisis or change of sexual orientation for the character.

I have the impression that there are a lot of complicated issues that aren't clear here regarding what it means to be a player, what it means to be a character, and what the bridge is between the two of them.

You should decide once and for all if we are talking about RP (which you said we are not), and if there is any kind of IC vs. OOC distinction (you say there is). It doesn't make any sense to say that there is no RP and yet say that there exist characters, because the latter can only exist with the former. Without RP, "characters" are merely the virtual extensions of the player. It doesn't make any sense to talk about IC vs. OOC if there is no "C" to begin with.
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 125th comment:
Votes: 0
To me, IC behavior is in-game behavior that has nothing to do with outside (read: real world) situations/people/etc., whereas role-playing is carrying out actions based on some pre-determined/fabricated personality and/or story-line. Therefor, by my definitions, it is quite possible (and common) to exhibit IC behavior without role-playing.

I realize that I'm probably the source of a lot of the confusion simply because I'm deliberately and liberally misusing the terms IC/OOC. The reason I do so, though, is because I'm not aware of any more accurate terms that describe what I'm talking about and I'm too lazy to type it all out every time I'm talking about it.
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 126th comment:
Votes: 0
If that is really what you mean, you shouldn't use the terms IC and OOC. :sad: It's very confusing especially when the character/player distinction is so crucial in what we're talking about.

I propose that the distinction you are talking about can be termed game-local behavior. It is behavior of any sort and form by anybody at all, that takes place in the context of the game. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to distinguish something that happens in the game from something that happens over instant messages. You have been calling the former IC and the latter OOC. I propose that you term the former game-local and the latter game-external. I propose this terminology because the distinction has nothing to do with characters, but instead, everything to do with where the behavior takes place.

Does this terminology make sense, and more importantly, have I accurately described what you mean to distinguish? Hopefully this can put us on the same page… there is no sense in talking to each other if we use completely different definitions for the critical terms of the discussion. :wink:
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 127th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
If that is really what you mean, you shouldn't use the terms IC and OOC. :sad: It's very confusing especially when the character/player distinction is so crucial in what we're talking about.

I propose that the distinction you are talking about can be termed game-local behavior. It is behavior of any sort and form by anybody at all, that takes place in the context of the game. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to distinguish something that happens in the game from something that happens over instant messages. You have been calling the former IC and the latter OOC. I propose that you term the former game-local and the latter game-external. I propose this terminology because the distinction has nothing to do with characters, but instead, everything to do with where the behavior takes place.


No, that's not it at all. If I'm simply talking about where the behavior takes place, I use the terms "in-game" and "outside the game", as I have been throughout the thread. What I'm referring to is behavior that is consistent with the game (as an interactive story - not a program), rather than that of outside influences. For example, PKing is IC behavior to me, whereas spamming is OOC behavior (even though it's taking place within the game).
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 128th comment:
Votes: 0
OK. Please explain why it is that spamming an in-game command like "say" is "out of character" whereas normally using the in-game command "say" is "in character".

Clearly you are not referring to the fact that a sane character would not do such a thing as saying something over and over again, because you aren't talking about characters in the first place. You must be referring to something else…

EDIT: I also don't understand why talk of an interactive "story" is relevant, when there are no characters involved to begin with. What is a story without characters?
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 129th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
OK. Please explain why it is that spamming an in-game command like "say" is "out of character" whereas normally using the in-game command "say" is "in character".


Seriously?

DavidHaley said:
Clearly you are not referring to the fact that a sane character would not do such a thing as saying something over and over again, because you aren't talking about characters in the first place. You must be referring to something else…


Correct.

DavidHaley said:
EDIT: I also don't understand why talk of an interactive "story" is relevant, when there are no characters involved to begin with. What is a story without characters?


There are quite obviously characters. There just aren't roles.
05 Mar, 2008, shasarak wrote in the 130th comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
Perhaps we have differing definitions of in-/out-of-character. I define OOC behavior as anything not directly related to the game, and IC behavior as the opposite. Using this definition, it's quite possible to play a game and be IC the entire time without role-playing at all. Role-playing I define as what you're referring to in this post. It's a completely separate concept to me (and a lot of other people) than simply maintaining IC behavior.

Then your use of the terms "IC" and "OOC" is incorrect.

Obviously, it's a free Internet, and if you want to use the word "lettuce" to describe an object that anyone else would describe as a "horse-drawn carriage", then you are perfectly at liberty to do so; but deciding to do so will not help to clarify any discussion involving either carriages or lettuce. And if someone else wishes to have a conversation about salad you are not likely to get a positive response by blundering in and saying "no no no, when I use the word "lettuce", I'm talking about a wheeled vehicle that is pulled by horses; you have to use my definition if you want to talk about it."

(shrug)

Edit: all, right that's a slight exaggeration. :biggrin: But actually not as much of an exaggeration as you probably think it is. In some ways I suppose your definition of "OOC" encompasses a small subset of what it should describe. It's valid to talk about, say, a denial-of-service attack on a server as "OOC behaviour" but "in-game" and "in-character" are very far from being the same thing.
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 131st comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
DavidHaley said:
OK. Please explain why it is that spamming an in-game command like "say" is "out of character" whereas normally using the in-game command "say" is "in character".


Seriously?

Of course I'm being serious. I have no clue what your basis for distinction is. I don't want examples, I want an explanation of the criteria you are using.

drrck said:
There are quite obviously characters. There just aren't roles.

In the context of the normal usage of the terms IC vs. OOC, I do not think you are using the term "character" the normal way. A character is a role. A "character" with no role is just a player's extension in the virtual world…

shasarak said:
It's valid to talk about, say, a denial-of-service attack on a server as "OOC behaviour" but "in-game" and "in-character" are very far from being the same thing.

Agreed… And besides, drrck already said this: it's "IC" to use in-game commands, except when it isn't. What I want to know is what the criteria are for that "except" part…
05 Mar, 2008, shasarak wrote in the 132nd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
And besides, drrck already said this: it's "IC" to use in-game commands, except when it isn't.

My point was that, while behaviour does not involve in-game commands is most likely "OOC", this covers only a small subset of what the correct definition of OOC actually encompasses.

Or, to put it the other way round, drrck's definition of "IC" is ridiculously broad.

I would also be interested to know how, under drrck's implausible definition of the term "IC", the use of in-game commands to say something once is IC while the use of in-game commands to something more than once is not.
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 133rd comment:
Votes: 0
Using an in-game command is not inherently IC. As I already explained, IC behavior is that which pertains only to the game world with no outside influences.

Using the "say" command to talk to someone is IC behavior, as you could expect the conversation to be going on within the game world. Spamming someone is OOC behavior, because there is no concept of a computer screen to overwhelm within the game world, nor any concept of a MUD client, bandwidth, lag, etc.

Perhaps IGW (in-game-world) and OOGW (out-of-game-world) would be more accurate and to your liking.

As far as a character is concerned: no, there does not have to be a role for a character to exist and you know this. The vast majority of players play characters every day without playing some role created for that character. A character is not a role, by any definition - traditional or not.
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 134th comment:
Votes: 0
It seems that you are establishing your criterion based on the target of the action: are you targeting another entity in the world, or the player behind the entity? In that case, repeated killing is pretty clearly an "OOC" issue because there is no concept of a player to overwhelm within the game world, nor any concept of player feelings, state of mind, etc.

(Hey, isn't that interesting – the notion of motive comes back in full force, because you assume that the motive of the spammer is to overwhelm clients and bandwidth! Hey, figure that)

I don't see how you separate abuse of a character from abuse of a player, given that you are defining the two as being basically the same thing. Maybe when I'm spamming you, I'm really just spamming your character, not your player… hmm? I could just as easily be trying to overwhelm your character's ears and ability to follow other conversations, not your bandwidth…

drrck said:
The vast majority of players play characters every day without playing some role created for that character. A character is not a role, by any definition - traditional or not.

When talking about the IC vs. OOC distinction, the notion of character-as-role becomes critical… otherwise, there is no "C" to be in or out of!
05 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 135th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
It seems that you are establishing your criterion based on the target of the action: are you targeting another entity in the world, or the player behind the entity? In that case, repeated killing is pretty clearly an "OOC" issue because there is no concept of a player to overwhelm within the game world, nor any concept of player feelings, state of mind, etc.


It has nothing to do with the target, because there is no clear distinction between player and character unless you're role-playing.

DavidHaley said:
(Hey, isn't that interesting – the notion of motive comes back in full force, because you assume that the motive of the spammer is to overwhelm clients and bandwidth! Hey, figure that)


You're no longer talking about motive; you're talking about the consequences of the actions. Motive would entail why the spammer wants to overwhelm the client.

DavidHaley said:
I don't see how you separate abuse of a character from abuse of a player, given that you are defining the two as being basically the same thing. Maybe when I'm spamming you, I'm really just spamming your character, not your player… hmm? I could just as easily be trying to overwhelm your character's ears and ability to follow other conversations, not your bandwidth…


Spamming a character is not possible. Spamming is about consequences of the actions, not the actions themselves. A person in this fictional game world can repeat themselves over and over again without any consequence (other than being annoying), whereas the consequences outside of the game world are quite clear.

DavidHaley said:
When talking about the IC vs. OOC distinction, the notion of character-as-role becomes critical… otherwise, there is no "C" to be in or out of!


Just because the C in those acronyms stands for character doesn't mean character == role. If I don't role-play, does that mean everything I do while playing the game is OOC?
05 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 136th comment:
Votes: 0
You said that normal-say targets characters in conversation whereas spammy-say targets computer screens. OK, fine, it has nothing to do with the target. What does it have to do with?

drrck said:
You're no longer talking about motive; you're talking about the consequences of the actions. Motive would entail why the spammer wants to overwhelm the client.

So it's considered a bad OOC action for me to just talk at you really fast, not realizing that I am overwhelming you? That seems very broken.

drrck said:
A person in this fictional game world can repeat themselves over and over again without any consequence (other than being annoying), whereas the consequences outside of the game world are quite clear.

The outside world consequences seem to be just annoying as well. There is no risk of you destroying my bandwidth by using MUD commands. So again I'm not sure what criterion you are using.

drrck said:
If I don't role-play, does that mean everything I do while playing the game is OOC?

By definition, yes. The normal definition, that is, not yours. If there is no role-play, then there is absolutely no distinction between the player and the player's virtual avatar. There is no character to be "in" or "out" of. If there is role-play, then a character has its own knowledge, mental state, desires and so forth. Therefore it makes perfect sense for an action to be either consistent with the character's mental state (i.e., in character), or inconsistent with the character's mental state (i.e., out of character). If there is no role, then there is no character mental state.

Please remember that I am not using your definition of "IC" vs. "OOC", which I still don't even understand as the criteria you have provided are a little fuzzy.
06 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 137th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
You said that normal-say targets characters in conversation whereas spammy-say targets computer screens. OK, fine, it has nothing to do with the target. What does it have to do with?


No, I didn't say that.

DavidHaley said:
So it's considered a bad OOC action for me to just talk at you really fast, not realizing that I am overwhelming you? That seems very broken.


Simply talking at someone very fast is not going to overwhelm them; nor is it considered spamming by most standards.

DavidHaley said:
The outside world consequences seem to be just annoying as well. There is no risk of you destroying my bandwidth by using MUD commands. So again I'm not sure what criterion you are using.


The outside world consequences are lagging your client, filling your screen so that you can't function in the game properly, etc. I agree that this is also annoying, but it's on a whole other level than simply "talking too much".

DavidHaley said:
By definition, yes. The normal definition, that is, not yours. If there is no role-play, then there is absolutely no distinction between the player and the player's virtual avatar. There is no character to be "in" or "out" of. If there is role-play, then a character has its own knowledge, mental state, desires and so forth. Therefore it makes perfect sense for an action to be either consistent with the character's mental state (i.e., in character), or inconsistent with the character's mental state (i.e., out of character). If there is no role, then there is no character mental state.


So you honestly believe that there is no distinction between IC/OOC outside of RPing? I think that's quite a stretch.
06 Mar, 2008, shasarak wrote in the 138th comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
So you honestly believe that there is no distinction between IC/OOC outside of RPing? I think that's quite a stretch.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of definition: you can't be out of character if there is no character to be out of.
06 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 139th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of definition: you can't be out of character if there is no character to be out of.


When was the last time you played a non-RP MUD that had no characters?
06 Mar, 2008, shasarak wrote in the 140th comment:
Votes: 0
drrck said:
When was the last time you played a non-RP MUD that had no characters?

Ah, maybe that's where you're going wrong: do you think that the word "character" in the phrase "out of character" is being used in the same sense as it usually is in the phrase "player character"? Because it isn't. But I can see how you might find that confusing, given that they do derive from the same root.

To answer your question: if you define "character" in the sense of "PC" or "NPC" then all non-RP MUDs have characters; if you define "character" in the sense of "IC" or "OOC" then no non-RP MUD has characters.

Edit: actually that's not an awfully clear way of putting it. :biggrin:

"Character" in the PC sense uses the term in more or less its original sense, as in "a character in a story". There is no sense in which a story character can be "in character" or not (unless you use the phrase to mean "behaving as he typically does" which is separate concept). The phrase "in character" derives specifically from acting: an actor is "in character" if he is thinking, speaking and behaving like his character rather than speaking and behaving the way he does when he is being himself. An actor "steps out of character" if he addresses the audience as himself.

Thus, to be more precise, in a non-RP MUD, it is not possible to be "in character". "In character" means speaking and acting in a way that is consistent with the knowledge, personality and motivations of the role you are playing rather than with your own. If you're not playing a role then "in character" becomes a meaningless concept.
120.0/174