Whoinvis Discussion General /WDG/

[Andruid]

As far as I understand, OOC invisibility gives the player all freedom on where, when, and with who, he roleplays: no messengers, no tells, not even people waiting in front of his home, nor, I believe, magery (It may be possible to cast, but I believe it's painful to cast a spell on someone who might not be online).

I agree that whoinvis shouldn't confer OOC protection against spells. I had a post arguing this point a few years ago, but I think it may have been eaten when the forums were consolidated. If someone is willing to go through with a cast, it shouldn't backfire painfully simply because the player isn't online. I was under the impression that this had changed. If not, I hope it does.

[Andruid]

Actually, I don't think whoinvis should block tells, either. We have a specific command for that -- it's called DEAF. It should probably give the same output whether someone is offline or online, e.g. "That player is either offline or not accepting tells right now."

[Niamh]

Messengers can be sent to and received by whoinvis players.

[Rabek]

I don't think it is helpful to the conversation to just accuse people that are in support of a certain policy as meta gamers.

It's not an accusation. It's a statement of fact. Using OOC information (in the form of the WHO list this time) to affect your RP in any way is the definition of metagaming, even if it's just "do I sent a messenger or not?"

The who list is culturally acceptable metagaming on TI (to an extent) due to certain code limitations, but it's still metagaming, and some players would like to opt out of that. They should be allowed to without penalty.

[Niamh]

Actually, I don't think whoinvis should block tells, either. We have a specific command for that -- it's called DEAF. It should probably give the same output whether someone is offline or online, e.g. "That player is either offline or not accepting tells right now."

Added to Staff Talking Points!

[Starstarfish]

Messengers can be sent to and received by whoinvis players.

There are rooms on grid that one cannot send messengers to when people are in - and some of them are rooms where important folks like GLs are likely to be. This should likely be peeked at. That being said ... being able to set up messenger profiles like mail profiles would be keen. "Tell them to look for X" and you can use all the swanky fake names you want.

[Andruid]

I don't think it is helpful to the conversation to just accuse people that are in support of a certain policy as meta gamers.

It's not an accusation. It's a statement of fact. Using OOC information (in the form of the WHO list this time) to affect your RP in any way is the definition of metagaming, even if it's just "do I sent a messenger or not?"

The who list is culturally acceptable metagaming on TI (to an extent) due to certain code limitations, but it's still metagaming, and some players would like to opt out of that. They should be allowed to without penalty.

I have made a similar point elsewhere: for better or worse, any use of OOC knowledge is metagaming, and it's really about where we choose, in a collaborative (yet nonconsensual) storytelling environment, to draw the line between what we see as harmful to our gameplay versus helpful. Clearly, as players we don't all agree on where that line should be drawn. :) Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and opinion (I prefer an "opt-out" system), and what's being communicated here by the "we liked it how it was" camp is that these changes are going to limit people's ability to freely exercise their choice due to cost -- with potentially detrimental effects on certain kinds of RP and gameplay. Staff are willing to risk a decline in covert activity, so I guess we'll see where things go.

I'll admit, the current opt-out system does feel a bit like wanting to have the cake and eat it, too. I like the convenience of the wholist, but I also see the need for whoinvis protections. An interesting thought experiment: how would it affect people's gameplay if, when they toggled whoinvis, they lost access to the wholist for that duration? In other words, if people protecting themselves with whoinvis lost access to the benefit of getting to see the non-whoinvis types?

[Andruid]

Messengers can be sent to and received by whoinvis players.

... being able to set up messenger profiles like mail profiles would be keen. "Tell them to look for X" and you can use all the swanky fake names you want.

Totally agree and had this same thought earlier. We really need messenger aliases, too. Or to extend mail aliases to messengers.

[Kinaed]

Staff have discussed player comments on this thread and have altered the planned whoinvis spec as a result. I'll post it when I have a chance, probably over lunch time today.

[wimple]

I'll admit, the current opt-out system does feel a bit like wanting to have the cake and eat it, too. I like the convenience of the wholist, but I also see the need for whoinvis protections. An interesting thought experiment: how would it affect people's gameplay if, when they toggled whoinvis, they lost access to the wholist for that duration? In other words, if people protecting themselves with whoinvis lost access to the benefit of getting to see the non-whoinvis types?

Per a previous point, covert concern over meta gaming issues (like some that you have brought up), have been historically normally. However, the sort of rumors that Kin has had to post about lately or that have repeatedly been brought up in meetings was not the norm that I remember. Frankly, the entire thing has made me roll back my commitment to the game considerably in the last few weeks.

Your idea here is an interesting one. Whoinvis do 'opt out' of appearing on who, but then still get to use the function of who. That's definitely an imbalance.

Rabek, thank you for the response, but I will not be responding any further with you in the thread.