Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Warren]

And being that nazi about it all would be exactly how to piss off and exclude everyone except a select few people, lol.

[Genesis]

Perhaps letting them see what they can make with my tips first would be prudent, if they choose to follow either of them, before just lynching them outright.

lol, thanks for defending us Warren but we were prepared for this. This thread was sorta made for the sole purpose for gauging interest as well as seeing what kinda responses we would get. We're gonna let the responses flood in, no matter what it is, before we decide our course of action. But thanks for being a bro like always.

[Eric]

And being that nazi about it all would be exactly how to piss off and exclude everyone except a select few people, lol.

People are going to be pissed no matter how far you pull down your own pants. So what's your point there?

There is no point if this is just another attempt to corral a bunch of people who do not respect each other and each other's RP into one state of being. Because we have seen how well that works out.

[Bocchiere]

And being that nazi about it all would be exactly how to piss off and exclude everyone except a select few people, lol.

People are going to be pissed no matter how far you pull down your own pants. So what's your point there?

There is no point if this is just another attempt to corral a bunch of people who do not respect each other and each other's RP into one state of being. Because we have seen how well that works out.

Ladies, please, you're both pretty.

I don't know what happened but you guys need to chill out. Any interactions between you two, in any topic, (Eric and Warren, if that wasn't clear) starts off at not good and gets worse from there.

Stop muscling in on my turf and behave like the respectable people you both are.

[Warren]

I'm being civil, especially because there is a point to my words, and Eric basically just proved it for me.

The problem is thinking the only possible way to establish any kind of order is for everyone to abide by the exact same rules no matter what, and that everything else is wrong and everyone who does those things should be ignored or forced to leave.

You aren't going to get anywhere at all and will just end up alone, unless you trash that line of thought and start instead thinking of how to get along with people, how to fit multiple things together without breaking them.

[Eric]

I am being civil, at least from my perspective. Maybe your idea of being civil is a little different than mine.

... The problem is thinking the only possible way to establish any kind of order is for everyone to abide by the exact same rules no matter what, and that everything else is wrong and everyone who does those things should be ignored or forced to leave...

The concept of "rules" and "laws", if they were to be implemented fairly, implies that everyone has to follow the same exact rules no matter what. If you make exceptions for reasons beyond the given scope of the rules, then people are going to rightly point out that there is a double-standard that makes the rules unfair.

I am clearly missing the whole point of this proposal. If everyone is on a different page, then nothing can be resolved because everyone is reading something different. If everyone is on the same page, even one written slightly different for each reader, it is better, but there are still discrepancies to be argued by the powers that be.

If everyone is on the same page with the same words and the same content, etc., then when deciding if a rule is broken, there is no "up for interpretation". Either you broke the rule or not. You cannot enforce anything fairly if you cannot even determine what is a violation clearly enough to enforce in good conscious.

Joe breaks a fundamental rule. He cannot stay just because he's a good RPer, because he broke the rule. If he were to stay and Johnny were to be kicked because he's a bad RPer, subjective to the whims of the judges, then the group is perceived, rightfully as elitist, and I stand on the aisle of Kayenta that that is only going to loop us back to psuedo-SLS territory and then back to where we are now.

[UettoSenju]

Why don't we all just work on this one new rule I am making at SL.

Rule #1: Compromise.


It would literally fix all the problems. You don't need any other rules. Just tat simple one.

Oh but wait no one will follow it will they??? I would bet you all would vote for such a rule but would fall short on upholding it once it didn't favor your liking. Why? Because non-staff rules don't work.

[Warren]

...well you saved me the trouble of needing to say stuff for the second time already. Yes, you are indeed clearly missing the point. I could even say making things as black and white as you want them to be, would be pointless, harhar.

Without trying to sound overly dramatic, what you're basically saying is if someone does a "bad", you're not going to ask why they did it, much less if it really was like is being claimed. You won't even try, you will just go 'you did a bad, so gtfo, close the door on your way out'.

Where's the justice in that exactly? There is none.

Its basically the same as condemning someone for crossing a lawn where walking is forbidden, even if they had seen someone bleeding out on the other side and rushed over to help >_> the sign may even have been changed from 'no walking' to 'no littering'.

But you wouldn't care. They did a bad so now they pay.

@kirk
How come you're a drunk who normally gives no fucks, yet you immediately see what I'm trying to say? Yes, compromises, getting along with people. Good.

[Keito Uzumaki]

[Eric]

Why don't we all just work on this one new rule I am making at SL.

Rule #1: Compromise...

Or... What? You going to throw out dissenters?

... Without trying to sound overly dramatic, what you're basically saying is if someone does a "bad", you're not going to ask why they did it, much less if it really was like is being claimed. You won't even try, you will just go 'you did a bad, so gtfo, close the door on your way out'.

Where's the justice in that exactly? There is none...

A rule that does not have a provision for emergency situations is a rule that would be doomed to fail to begin with (hence why we had grace periods and other such stuff for the biju rules).

That aside though, it's the Les Miserables problem. If you steal, you steal, you broke the law. Your punishment may vary depending on what you stole and all that such nonsense, but there is no question that you broke the law. Here on SL, that has been the hardest part to get past: is it a violation of the rules or not? Is it metagaming or deceptive RP?

There is no justice in a rule/law that can be broken by a chosen few and not broken by others if the reason for the exception is not given in the rule/law. There is no justice in the rich getting away with highway robbery and the poor spending their life in chains for the same offense, no matter whether it was more noble or not.

There is a reason that there is a judicial distinction (in many places) between degrees of murder and manslaughter. Heck, you can get off scot free in some places if it was self-defense. These are put into the rules for a reason; because if all murderers were hurled in jail, then a man defending his home from a burglar is considered just as wrong as a man killing his wife for ownership of the home. And for the society that put the rules in place, that is not justifiable by their idea of morality.

Your idea of justice seems different than mine. In an ideal system, everyone should be equal under the law, regardless of fame, fortune, experience, or friends in low and high places. That's my idea of justice. That you can't get away with cold-blooded murder (again, defined by the society) just because you have enough money to throw at the courts. That you can't get away with breaking and bending the rules just because you're considered "good".

I don't want to derail into philosophy here. If the purpose of this is just to try to shoehorn a bunch of people who will still be bound by their own individual rules and not by some common law of the land (figuratively speaking), then by all means, go on ahead, you might as well stick with the system we have already in that case.

[Suishou Koji]

I have zero issue with the system SL has now for rp.

[Warren]

I can't even follow what your "justice" really is, because now you've gone from black and white to contradicting yourself. First you say if a rule is broken then its broken and you're screwed, there is no interpretation of it. Then you say if a rule has no room for interpretation then it shouldn't have been made from the get go. Then you go back into black and white.

I'ma just leave it there and go sleep, I'm getting a headache.

@koji
I don't either. All I did was recommend doing it like I already do things myself, lol, I just never wrote it down anywhere. That is if they of course do end up doing anything with this in the end.

[Eric]

I can't even follow what your "justice" really is, because now you've gone from black and white to contradicting yourself. First you say if a rule is broken then its broken and you're screwed, there is no interpretation of it. Then you say if a rule has no room for interpretation then it shouldn't have been made from the get go...

That is not what I said at all. Maybe if I give you an example you will better comprehend:

ºGrace Periodº
After any challenge (& loss) from a challenger, a week must be given to the host before challenging them to a rematch (the one week grace period is in subject to a single challenger & as such does not signify a host can ignore challenges from all others during the time period). In cases such as obtaining a Biju for oneself, a 2-week grace period is granted In order to “commune” with one’s Biju. If a host shows inactivity for long periods of time (two weeks or more) without prior notice, you can report their missing & conference of a suitable host will take place when possible.

In this particular rule, it is stated that the offending host will be stripped, and a suitable one will be found, eventually, IF there is no prior notice. That is the only case of exception that has explicitly and clearly been given.

If a host is gone for 12 months without prior notice, they broke the rule and, regardless of status in RP or in real life (they could be laying in a ditch for all we know, or contracted the flu), should be stripped so that a new host may be selected. Callous when put that way, perhaps, but a dead guy is not going to come back and tell us what happened to him, so practical.

In this rule from the biju rules, no explicit direction for the "exception" is given because of the wide range of possibilities. However, a general rule of thumb was to find a new host (especially for a time as long as 12 months) to fill the role.

 You either broke the rule or you didn't. What happens as a result is dependent not on the status of the RPer IC or IRL, but on the provisions in the rule itself. In this particular case, there really are not any (if you did not break the rule what happens is up for community debate, which usually led to the beast being passed on to the village head or something to that flavor) if you did not break the rule.

[Becquerel]

I follow the compromise rule as far as RPing goes. If I feel something is wrong with what someone is doing, I'll PM them.

[Genesis]

I agree compromise is an amazing , but it only works on a small scale. But I've been here for awhile, I know that word doesn't exist for key issues. Hence, why I'm doing this