ti-legacy.com

wix wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:35 am

ok, so the channel is strictly for requesting roleplay and not for OOC banter which should go to the OOC channel... easy enough. but players are actually using it for exactly that, asking for roleplay, with periodic reminders, and being told they are nagging, or asking too frequently.

No.

If they were only asking for RP, and respectfully, there would be no complaints.

I've already given the examples of the problems - and none of them were simple requests for RP. If it was, "Hey, I'm available for RP in here." No one would mind. Not a single person. It's the other things that are a problem.

It all has to do with the way RP is being requested. Being OOCly respectful to the people involved on the other side of receiving the message.

Kitty wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:40 am

wix wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:35 am

ok, so the channel is strictly for requesting roleplay and not for OOC banter which should go to the OOC channel... easy enough. but players are actually using it for exactly that, asking for roleplay, with periodic reminders, and being told they are nagging, or asking too frequently.

No.

If they were only asking for RP, and respectfully, there would be no complaints.

I've already given the examples of the problems - and none of them were simple requests for RP. If it was, "Hey, I'm available for RP in here." No one would mind. Not a single person. It's the other things that are a problem.

It all has to do with the way RP is being requested. Being OOCly respectful to the people involved on the other side of receiving the message.

Ok, so the comments about the bumps being annoying isnt meant to shut down the channel as much as enforce the use of OOC when the jail channel isnt being used for jail channel purposes
makes sense, i agree with this. ive never used the jail channel myself (yet) and seem to have misread the thread, so thanks for clarifying

edit: just realized I only read the first page of this thread before i posted... oops! there was a very nice breakdown on the second page that I missed

I think that was me, @Kitty. The 'days not hours' thing. I wasn't bringing up RP avoidance like it did happen, I brought it up because a friend told me it seemed like there was RP avoidance and I wanted to ask what exactly RP avoidance would mean. It became a much bigger deal than it should have been after that, and people took loads more offense than they should have, it was not to point anyone out at all - but a mere inquiry to understand the policy surrounding the situation. I feel a bit like you're releasing frustration about it on me, and possibly the other person who is currently jailed.

EvieKray wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:59 am

I think that was me, @Kitty. The 'days not hours' thing. I wasn't bringing up RP avoidance like it did happen, I brought it up because a friend told me it seemed like there was RP avoidance and I wanted to ask what exactly RP avoidance would mean. It became a much bigger deal than it should have been after that, and people took loads more offense than they should have, it was not to point anyone out at all - but a mere inquiry to understand the policy surrounding the situation. I feel a bit like you're releasing frustration about it on me, and possibly the other person who is currently jailed.

If that was the only example I showed, I'd be 100% open to considering that I am harping about one specific incident. But, it's not. And, you and the other person currently jailed are not the only ones these types of things have happened with.

Again, I think staff might want to write a policy about what is appropriate for the jail channel, and this would alleviate the issues of, "But I think it should be this way." "No, it should be this way."

Kitty wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:06 pm

EvieKray wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:59 am

I think that was me, @Kitty. The 'days not hours' thing. I wasn't bringing up RP avoidance like it did happen, I brought it up because a friend told me it seemed like there was RP avoidance and I wanted to ask what exactly RP avoidance would mean. It became a much bigger deal than it should have been after that, and people took loads more offense than they should have, it was not to point anyone out at all - but a mere inquiry to understand the policy surrounding the situation. I feel a bit like you're releasing frustration about it on me, and possibly the other person who is currently jailed.

If that was the only example I showed, I'd be 100% open to considering that I am harping about one specific incident. But, it's not. And, you and the other person currently jailed are not the only ones these types of things have happened with.

Again, I think staff might want to write a policy about what is appropriate for the jail channel, and this would alleviate the issues of, "But I think it should be this way." "No, it should be this way."

I have to say whenever I saw those passive-aggressive OOC titles about jail I winced. Jailing people sits on your brain, when you go and do something else, in or out TI, it sits in back of your brain that this person needs processing and a resolution.

But also, lets not get ongoing RP and who plays who into it, alright?

plague wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:21 am

"Aside from people related to my case" seems to exclude quite a lot of the RP one would expect in jail. It comes across as disingenuous, because from reading this post, it is implied that you received little RP at all - two scenes, one week? Wow! But in reality, the people most obligated, and the people who will be most likely to visit you, are in fact the ones related to your case, and those people will be the majority of RP any prisoner is most likely to receive.

It paints an unhappy picture... by cropping out most of what actually happened.

(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

Also @Philly, (Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

I also feel like a lot of people here ASSUME passive aggression when they really should assume good intent. Sometimes, I get people being angry at me for supposed passive aggression, but text isn't always that easy to read emotions out of. So please, try to assume good intent.

EDIT:
(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

EvieKray wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:18 pm

Also @Philly,(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

I apologize if you feel personally attacked. Forgive me, but I do have a problem with you attacking Philly with, "You have clearly decided to ignore them.". She doesn't talk OOCly very much, from what I've been able to tell. She's my GL, and I don't know who she is OOCly (though, legit, I don't talk with many people OOC, either, so it may be my own separation). And, she's not obligated to respond to you OOCly. If you behaved in a certain way, and want to apologize for it, she has zero obligation to respond to you to make you feel better. Because you know what? Sometimes, an apology doesn't do it. Sometimes, things just aren't ok. (Not saying this is the case for you, I don't fully know your situation, I'm just saying in general.) But, no one is obligated to participate in OOC communication, and someone shouldn't be basically called a horrible person because they chose not to.

EvieKray wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:18 pm

I also feel like a lot of people here ASSUME passive aggression when they really should assume good intent. Sometimes, I get people being angry at me for supposed passive aggression, but text isn't always that easy to read emotions out of. So please, try to assume good intent.

(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

How about following your own advice? Try to assume good intent. Try to assume that people have valid complaints/concerns that have probably been built up over time, and aren't just passive-aggressively trying to attack you, alone, on a public forum.

Let's please do try to look at this as the general on both sides and try to avoid any attacks or feeling targeted. Avoiding specific examples of people may be best with emotions running high, and hopefully everyone can take a step back and look at the opposing views for the truth in them. Just a calm reminder to try and keep the discussion calm.

EvieKray wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:18 pm

Also @Philly, (Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

I also feel like a lot of people here ASSUME passive aggression when they really should assume good intent. Sometimes, I get people being angry at me for supposed passive aggression, but text isn't always that easy to read emotions out of. So please, try to assume good intent.

EDIT:
(Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

@EvieKay (Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

My original statement was speaking to a pattern of behavior over half a year and a dozen reviews. (Portion removed by Staff for forum policy violation)

With Temi's polite request I was hoping we might trend back towards general discussion than personal back and forths. But for now, to let emotion settle, I'm locking this until she can peek at it further.