|
Post by Nimras on Mar 23, 2012 16:25:49 GMT -5
Hi Tacoers,
First thing is first. No one is in trouble and this has not been triggered by anything recent. This has been a process the staff have been discussing and now is the time we post it. So please keep that in mind here.
Basically, the staff thought it was time to facilitate a forum discussion with and among the Tacoers (and other interested parties). We're hoping to try to work some things out with everyone and help make everyone happy. Obviously this is going to take mutual cooperation from everyone in Taco, both the super active and those who are becoming more active.
Simply put, we've observed over several months a large amount of passive-aggressive comments and conflicts among the regulars of the Taco thread. We've also received a fair number of complaints about these kind of matters from Tacoers and other members. We've tried to handle most of these situations as they arise and trusted things would be worked out. Unfortunately, this strategy hasn't worked into a permanent solution.
So we're coming to you. Maybe there's a way to get these frustrations out in the open, and get everyone on the same page so that we can move away from a tendency of passive aggressive fights toward an atmosphere where people can feel comfortable expressing their opinions and welcome in the community.
In the past, we have tried to let the members work it out mostly among themselves with mostly reactive mod work (as the circumstances called for intervention). The staff is now taking a proactive way and hoping this will provide a safe platform for people to discuss the issues that bug them and move towards a solution. This is obviously going to need honesty and compromise, and it's probably impossible to come up with something that gives everyone exactly what they want, but we should be able to create a Taco where everyone can participate, have fun, and not feel ostracized.
Let's please try to keep comments here civil. This isn't about pointing fingers at anyone nor blaming them for this or that. Nor is it about giving a soapbox for any particular view or philosophy about the Taco. It's about getting to the bottom of why we're having so many issues in the area and how to fix it. Yes, inevitably, names and situations will be cited. But let's keep it about the situations and specific behaviors that result in issues, not the people (for example, there is a huge difference between saying that lengthy involved discussions or role plays make you feel out of place, and saying that it's the fault of members X and Y because of what they do).
So, Taco, what is it that seems to be the root of these issues and what can be done so we can all work towards a better solution?
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Mar 23, 2012 19:37:52 GMT -5
I've tried to basically do this and not done very well. Maybe you guys will do better. I'm not entirely sure we'll be able to figure out the root of the problems right away, but we can definitely bring up problems to try to iron out. One bigger thing that you may have heard of - which even some Tacoers have referred to as the 'elephant in the room' - is the "truce." I use quotation marks because it really does not fit the definition of the word: ((From Dictionary.com)) IIRC, it started up because villain characters would basically be attacked on sight, and writers wanted to be able to bring them in fairly comfortably. The result was basically an unwritten (in anywhere easily reference-able) rule (not set by anyone official) that no party can attack another, whether they agreed to or not. There was a bit included where if someone started a fight, they opened themselves to attack. When I read this, I was under the impression that it was just going to be a 'the victim has a right to defend his/herself,' but then third-parties would jump in and use a lot of RP-force to try and stop someone for what would otherwise have been a short fight (maybe three posts per RPer), or may not have even ended up involving others if they'd just stayed out. This in an effort to enforce the "truce." When the meeting was adjourned for the night, it was said that we'd try to work out details, but there hasn't been much effort on that part. Not to mention that it doesn't even help what it was originally intended to do: People still generally don't like to bring up villains because of the tension that tends to come with them. Generally. Granted, the "truce" only applies to the main Taco thread, but still. It feels ridiculous to have to move something to another thread for only 6 posts. Last I checked, there's now one group that wants to be able to have the occasional fun fight scene out in the open without having to go somewhere else, and a group that doesn't want any sort of fighting in the open, period. From what I can see, both groups seem to tend to avoid each-other out of tension. I think maybe a lot of people don't like being around during a fight scene anymore (whether or not their own RP would be effected) because they don't want the tension that tends to come with intervening and such. The ironic thing is that the "truce" was supposed to prevent stressful fighting, but I think we've stressed and argued more about said "truce" than we have stressed over RP fighting. (I'm counting stressing over RP fighting because of the "truce" as the former category.) Personally, I really feel that it's backfired and resulted in more trouble than it's worth, in areas I don't think it was meant to address. It's in my opinion that it should be done away with, or at least made a LOT milder - and in a form that everyone can agree on - and given a different name. (In case you haven't guessed, in it's current form, I consider it to be an insult to the word 'truce.' I mean, if what's normally meant to be a positive word starts getting used with negative emotions [and quotation marks], there's a problem.) Maybe we could throw it out and start something different, rather than trying to reform the existing "truce"; start over, rather than trying to fix something in really bad shape. I wouldn't be surprised if people get way upset at me just for bringing it up in this way. It's that bad. I wouldn't be surprised if people want to avoid addressing it for how bad the tension is, but all things considered, it's probably what should be addressed first.I guess the main problem I have is that's it's been pretty much forced upon everyone, and not even debugged. One of the main points of a truce is that it's supposed to be something that the parties agreed upon and consented to. As an example, if England, France, and Spain were warring for some reason, and England and France decided on a truce, that truce would not automatically extend to Spain, or other countries for that matter. I could go on but I'm going to summarize it with that I'm pretty big on freedom, and force, in any form, is pretty much the opposite of freedom. Also, from my observations, force tends to bring about resentment in general. Actually, I'm kind of wondering if the Taco regulars and other things have shifted around enough that we don't even need the "truce" or anything like it, anyway. At any rate, I'd hate to push it (at least in it's current form) on newbies that are having enough trouble adjusting as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 20:03:28 GMT -5
Simply put, we've observed over several months a large amount of passive-aggressive comments and conflicts among the regulars of the Taco thread. We've also received a fair number of complaints about these kind of matters from Tacoers and other members. *Comes back from sabbatical to see this on the board* …Welp. I think part of "the problem" is that there isn't a single problem. Depending on who you ask, they'll cite different things they find to be "the problem". Since outright debating is usually avoided by most people (for whatever reason) and being completely open about frustrations isn't encouraged at the Forum, these things become subtle and passive. I'm only going to speak for myself for right now because that's what I can explain best. - I do not like seeing (or attempts to drag me into) extensive arguments/debates about semantics. That is a huge deterrent and often makes me cross.
- I feel that extensive, exclusive storylines should not take place on the main thread. It's not enough for it to be something "everyone can join". If only two or three people are interested in it and they are going into a full-on arc in the middle of the main page… that's going to deter everyone else. Doesn't matter what fandom this is; it's not exclusive to any particular one or combinations thereof. If no one else is interested, they'll likely complain and/or just stay away.
- There are some people that I just do not enjoy RPing with. This is not a function of "understanding another perspective", I just do not enjoy interacting with them. Sometimes people interpret that as passive-aggressiveness.
- I do not appreciate attempts to force an RPing philosophy on a majority that dislikes it. Especially when the party in question acts as if everyone agrees with them… when in fact they do not.
If I think of anything else later, I'll put up something new. But this whole debacle has disenchanted me to such an extent that I don't have fun here at the Forum anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 23, 2012 20:43:43 GMT -5
Omni, just want to make a comment towards the end. When the Truce was set up, I did try to make very plain that even if you all agreed to operate that way, it was not something that could be forced onto anyone (especially new members). That type of stuff is basically left to mod-enforced rules and cleaning.
Torkie, you bring up an excellent point on the involved RPs. That hearkens back to why the bloids and Taco ended up split off to begin with. And even prior to that, the bloids used to be heavy on "Lite RPing". It fell out of style over the years, but even at those times the really involved storylines (court trials, ninja and pirate wars, etc) were expected to be held or eventually moved to their own threads to not alienate anyone that didn't like participating there. It sounds like that might be a benefit to Taco.
If I could give a personal observation, about Taco in general? I think there's too much of a tendency to tighten down and heavily define what it is and isn't, what is and isn't allowed. I know a lot of Tacoers shudder at comparison to the bloids, but bloids have existed for like 8-9 years. Originally it was spreading fake gossip and scandals about people for fun. Then lite RPing ended up in there. Eventually it became a social hub for forum personae and all kinds of stuff. And then moved towards casual chat. Bloids were a lot like Taco at one point. Just taking it from someone who has been there, tread that path, etc. As a group, may just want to loosen up and let things... Evolve and change as they will instead of trying to put some tight reigns on the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Mar 23, 2012 21:54:27 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure we'll be able to figure out the root of the problems right away, but we can definitely bring up problems to try to iron out. One bigger thing that you may have heard of - which even some Tacoers have referred to as the 'elephant in the room' - is the "truce." I use quotation marks because it really does not fit the definition of the word: ((From Dictionary.com)) I'm going to be openly honest here and say that arguing over the very precise definition of this is what has hurt Tacoers the most. It's always "Should this be an exception to the rule?"; "Should it be wrong for [x] to happen if [y] because it isn't stated in the Truce?". And this usually happens at the precisely wrong location, hurting everyone that has to watch two upset people argue over something like this when they all showed up to roleplay and have fun. IIRC, it started up because villain characters would basically be attacked on sight, and writers wanted to be able to bring them in fairly comfortably. The result was basically an unwritten (in anywhere easily reference-able) rule (not set by anyone official) that no party can attack another, whether they agreed to or not. It also seemed to start up because it was awkward to have two average Joes trying to talk while a battle between the personified forces of good and evil are causing the ground below them to tear into dust is happening. It wasn't necessarily just "let's let da villainz come in", if I can recall. Say, hypothetically, you're talking to your friend, and there's a man standing nearby. Another man walks up and starts beating the first man to death with a chair out of nowhere. No sane person stands there and completely ignores it. People will get dragged, unwillingly, into the fight, somehow. And it will be uncomfortable for everybody. When the meeting was adjourned for the night, it was said that we'd try to work out details, but there hasn't been much effort on that part. Didn't you mention yourself that it's the "elephant in the room"? It's not an easy thing to talk about. And, if I'm to be frank, every time it is brought up, it's in a fairly hurtful way. I can't really drop a statement like that and run, but I really don't feel like going back to dig through old arguments now. Granted, the "truce" only applies to the main Taco thread, but still. It feels ridiculous to have to move something to another thread for only 6 posts. Last I checked, there's now one group that wants to be able to have the occasional fun fight scene out in the open without having to go somewhere else, and a group that doesn't want any sort of fighting in the open, period. Any single continuing thing I've seen on the Icy Taco recently has been longer than 6 posts, if I can say that without sounding incredibly accusatory. If it's not going to take more than that, then making a note to avoid some miscommunication is a wonderful idea. The ironic thing is that the "truce" was supposed to prevent stressful fighting, but I think we've stressed and argued more about said "truce" than we have stressed over RP fighting. I agree with you. Personally, I really feel that it's backfired and resulted in more trouble than it's worth, in areas I don't think it was meant to address. It's in my opinion that it should be done away with, or at least made a LOT milder - and in a form that everyone can agree on - and given a different name. (In case you haven't guessed, in it's current form, I consider it to be an insult to the word 'truce.' I mean, if what's normally meant to be a positive word starts getting used with negative emotions [and quotation marks], there's a problem.) Omni, you seem to argue this quite frequently. For all we care, we can call it a pink flying magic potato instead of a "truce" and it would serve the same purpose. Instead, it seems that every time the word "truce" accidentally is mentioned, it comes into a large argument of semantics. If we want to rename it, go ahead. But saying it's an insult on the word truce is incredibly harsh. The pink flying magic potato does not need a huge list, full of bullet points and colorful text screaming "Do this, don't do that". Because this brings me to what I really wanted to say here. And it's what I stressed earlier, in a different location. The Taco can have a thread of rules, and it will be similar to the new 'truce'. The rules can be very similar to the rules of the 'Bloids, with an added note about godmoding. But the Taco does not need very strict and harsh rules. You might say that the Truce is strict and harsh now, but it started as an open attempt to make the Taco better for everyone who participated, and didn't grow to be such a monster until the subject of semantics was dropped into it. So, yes, I'll agree with you that if we go to the trouble of finally reforming it, then we don't need to be super strict and rigid about it. The Taco, in its prime right after it started, was a fun place. It was the only time I've visited and felt like anything could honestly happen. And it was done with basically no rules at all. I kept a continuing thing going for days with my character, a doppelganger, and it wasn't an afternoon on the Taco if some abomination didn't attack and start the equivalent of a world war. What happened was that we got serious about our characters. As they became less of tools of writing and more of real people that we cared about, it stopped being funny when they got stabbed and died horribly on the sidewalk. It was tragic. So the Truce had to be invented to stop this. So were other ideas tossed out- Peaceful Day, for example, much earlier. What happened was that as people became serious about their characters, the Taco changed, and the RPs themselves changed now, too. Abolishing the Truce completely won't bring it back to what it was, because our attitudes have shifted, and even the random attacks and fights now aren't the fun ones they used to be. If the Truce is rewritten... It really should be something simple. Something that's just poking at common sense, here. If you were doing something in public, say, fighting, that made everyone else uncomfortable, would you stop or, at the very least, take your fighting somewhere else? If you know that your RP fight won't take long, then it should maybe be obvious that your RP fight won't take long. It's just not funny anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Mar 24, 2012 0:27:44 GMT -5
- I do not appreciate attempts to force an RPing philosophy on a majority that dislikes it.
Neither do I, but I don't like when someone tries to force a philosophy even on a minority that dislikes it, either. Not just about what satisfies the most people, it's about what's right for everyone. Right is right even if nobody's doing it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody's doing it. I don't just want most people to be satisfied. I also don't think it's right for one group to try and get another to do what they want just because there's more of them. I pretty much see it as a bunch of bullies picking on the little guy. This will sound corny to some people, but I want liberty and justice for all.Maybe I have the right idea about this particular issue, maybe I don't, maybe I'm somewhere in-between. But whatever the case I will not take a 'majority/minority' argument as a reason to do something to others. Granted, you may want to appeal to the larger denomination first, but if you can include the smaller denominations, more power to you. It's tricky at times, but it can be done. I stand by my belief that the "truce" isn't a truce at all. Admittedly, this is a tangent, but I don't like positive words gaining negative meanings. (Negative gaining positive I don't mind so much.) I know it's just one tree and not the whole forest, but it's still something that bothers me. Still, I feel if we're going to have a truce, it's got to be genuine. It also seemed to start up because it was awkward to have two average Joes trying to talk while a battle between the personified forces of good and evil are causing the ground below them to tear into dust is happening. It wasn't necessarily just "let's let da villainz come in", if I can recall. Say, hypothetically, you're talking to your friend, and there's a man standing nearby. Another man walks up and starts beating the first man to death with a chair out of nowhere. No sane person stands there and completely ignores it. People will get dragged, unwillingly, into the fight, somehow. And it will be uncomfortable for everybody. Kind of a tangent, but I think it's possible for a fight to break out and people to be chanting "Fight! Fight! =D" I basically just mean that it's possible for there to be a fight and people to not necessarily feel uncomfortable. We've done it before. I'd reference MASH, but the characters have claimed themselves to be crazy several times. Any single continuing thing I've seen on the Icy Taco recently has been longer than 6 posts, if I can say that without sounding incredibly accusatory. If it's not going to take more than that, then making a note to avoid some miscommunication is a wonderful idea. If you know that your RP fight won't take long, then it should maybe be obvious that your RP fight won't take long. But what about the ones that aren't continuing? Would an OOC comment be sufficient? ((Kind of a tangent, but an honest question.)) What happened was that we got serious about our characters. As they became less of tools of writing and more of real people that we cared about, it stopped being funny when they got stabbed and died horribly on the sidewalk. It was tragic. I seem to remember us being serious about the characters from the start. I'm not entirely sure what else changed, but I do agree that something did. If the Truce is rewritten... It really should be something simple. Something that's just poking at common sense, here. If you were doing something in public, say, fighting, that made everyone else uncomfortable, would you stop or, at the very least, take your fighting somewhere else? Not if it involved lives or liberties being at stake. (To quote you, "even the random attacks and fights now aren't the fun ones they used to be.") I might try to draw the other person away to try to keep others out of danger as much as possible, but it's not as simple as 'let's take this fight outside, okay?' (Maybe that's not what you meant by 'fighting,' but that seems to be the main focus of the pink flying magic potato battery that was made on Bring Your Daughter to Work Day is with the 'physical' brawls.) Didn't you mention yourself that it's the "elephant in the room"? It's not an easy thing to talk about. And, if I'm to be frank, every time it is brought up, it's in a fairly hurtful way. I can't really drop a statement like that and run, but I really don't feel like going back to dig through old arguments now. It's just not funny anymore. I know it's hard, but that's exactly why it needs to be addressed. We can't just have this elephant taking up space and causing problems; we need to get it out of here. It's like a kidney stone: It's really painful, and you know you need to get rid of it, but at the same time you don't, and RAAAAUGH! But once you get rid of it... You can breathe a deep sigh of relief and get onto other things. I'm also sick and tired off all the drama, but that's exactly why I'm doing this! We've had more 'debates' than I care to count, there have been tears over all the drama, and Torkie even said... ...This whole debacle has disenchanted me to such an extent that I don't have fun here at the Forum anymore. Even if we can't get to sunshine-and-rainbows emotionally, I'd at least like to get to a point where we can be more comfortable rather than stressed, and neutral rather than there being any bad feelings between anybody. People, just... just please, I don't want to be negative, but I want to have this done and over with. It might be hard to go back to what we had before, but at least we can improve. I'm going to admit that I would prefer if this were taken a bit on the slow side, and logically, though from past experience it's unlikely. Though if I may request... If people are going to bring emotions into debates, maybe you can try to focus on how you would like things to be, rather than things that other people say that you dislike? Instead of how people seem to be making things worse, try focusing on how we can make things better? I know that changing emotional focus is a difficult thing, but please, please, I'd appreciate it if you would just try. We've butted heads about this subject about this debate and ended up with little more than frustration and hurt feelings (I'm going to admit to feeling frustration while writing the earlier part of this post; I tried to cut some of it out, though I'm not sure what more I can do at this point). Right now, I really want things to be different. We can't just keep up the angry debates and expect something different to happen. Please... Let's at least try to take a different approach to things, slow down a little. Maybe, maybe we can get something done.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 24, 2012 0:35:13 GMT -5
Please... Let's at least try to take a different approach to things, slow down a little. Maybe, maybe we can get something done. I think I can speak for the entire staff in that we echo this statement. We want the Taco to succeed and continue to grow with a culture of its own. Which is why we took awhile to consider the best approach at trying to address these issues and facilitate discussion on them. While there are those who will not want to see this endlessly debated, the staff members are at least looking for honest discussions that aren't rushed for the sake of rushing. We would like to see all Tacoers working together here. So this cannot be emphasized enough. This thread is a time and place to be heard, no matter what, and safely, as Taco goes and what you are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 0:46:11 GMT -5
I have to say I agree with everything Drew has written. Especially the not caring about what the agreement is called.
Omni… You say you want to get it out of the way, but from this end it feels you are trying very hard to work against us. It's not conducive at all, honestly. And as I explained to someone else earlier and Drew pointed out above,
"[3/23/12 9:35:21 PM] Torkie: Even if it's formally changed somehow, it won't really change how most of us operate."
Get rid of it? Sure. Whatever. But we'll still be leaving if something starts up and we don't want to stick around.
I'm not aiming for that. But walking in to how things are now just makes me want to walk right back out. The reasons are listed above.
It feels like you're not listening to us, and honestly that's extremely aggravating. We don't like the argument over semantics. We don't like the fights (either physical OR characters arguing philosophy) that start up and carry on in the middle of the main thread when no one else wants it. That kind of stuff has got to stop if anything is going to change for the better.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 24, 2012 1:30:27 GMT -5
It feels like you're not listening to us, and honestly that's extremely aggravating. We don't like the argument over semantics. We don't like the fights (either physical OR characters arguing philosophy) that start up and carry on in the middle of the main thread when no one else wants it. That kind of stuff has got to stop if anything is going to change for the better. First of all, can you clarify who this "we" is? You and Drew? Or are there other (silent) people who you're talking to elsewhere who agree? Because I'd like to echo Stal and urge those people to voice their own opinions in this thread too. While they may agree with you on this matter, it'd be nice if we heard their standpoint on the whole topic, so we don't just have one person speaking for many. This will go a lot smoother, I think, if people speak for themselves only instead of making blanket statements that make things seem more of a majority. (And I'm not trying to imply that that's what you're doing here, Torkie, just that this tends to derail discussions a lot, so I wanted to head it off before we got too deep.) As for your last point about arguments interrupting the chat, it's something that came up recently in the main chat and which I had to mention again today. It seems appropriate to mention it again here in this chat which has a bit more permanence to it. Extended discussions or general chat, going on for more than just a few posts, do not belong on the Taco chat threads, just from a purely organizational standpoint. Again, this does not mean a few back-and-forth posts about how your day's gone, or some funny picture you found, etc. I am referring to long discussions about a specific subject, such as today's talk about copyrights and fair use. That is something that far better fits on Discussions & Debates, or PM. If it's more of a general chat topic that still is lasting longer than a few posts, then it probably belongs on the Bloids. I know there is this seeming divide between the Taco and the Bloids, but every Tacoer is welcome with open arms on the Bloids, regardless of what you may feel currently. This isn't really something that's up for debate, but a point of moderation that we've had to step in a couple of times to remind people of. It's a matter of keeping boards on the topic they're meant for, in other words. When you notice you're writing textwalls of debate for whatever reason, that's a signifier that it probably needs to be transferred to one of the other locations I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Mar 24, 2012 10:28:48 GMT -5
Dan, it's not just a few people who feel strongly about this topic, and sorry if it got confusing. I know that not every Tacoer has posted here yet simply because they have not seen it yet, they did not want to reply yet, or because they cannot reply yet. I also want to state that my intention isn't to sound angry or passive-aggressive in anything I'll say on this thread... Please excuse me if I do. - I do not appreciate attempts to force an RPing philosophy on a majority that dislikes it.
Maybe I have the right idea about this particular issue, maybe I don't, maybe I'm somewhere in-between. But whatever the case I will not take a 'majority/minority' argument as a reason to do something to others. And it sounds like you're painting every Tacoer who agreed to the Truce at first in a bad light again. I'd like to know how we could operate wonderfully under the Truce for some time, and I will cite examples if you will challenge me on that statement, but yet now it's such a monster. It's because we started arguing over what a 'Truce' means. Let's be honest here and state that there was not a single person who was hunched over their dictionary when they agreed to the Truce. Nobody was looking for a 'better' word because we thought there was no problem with the word it was called. Yet the 'Truce' started most arguments by simply being "What is a Truce?", and that's not the point of it. If we want to add something to it to make Tacoers happier, then that's fine. If we're going to argue about adding something to make it fit the textbook definition of 'Truce', that's not. If we have to go that far, we'll invent some brand new nonsense word/acronym (I'm liking PFMP myself) so that we can avoid arguing about the word and instead talk about the contents of the Truce, because- and I stress that I am saying this without accusing anyone that has ever set foot in the Taco- it's upsetting when someone does something that only "technically" goes against the Truce because it's not a literal Truce. The truth is that not every single Tacoer is going to be 100% happy with any agreement/ PFMP/whatever we sign because it's impossible to please everybody. If our repeated attempts to address the 'Truce' problem have shown anything, it's impossible to get everyone even "sort of" happy with how the Taco should be run. That doesn't mean only the 'majority' should be happy, but it's that it's such a sticky situation trying to get the 'everyone' to be happy. I feel like this argument is taking place when the Taco is at its weakest, anyway. January's thread ended with under 100 pages for many reasons, including school and, like I mentioned, some Tacoers are literally unable to post (lack of access to a computer). The 'bloids operated well enough under one golden rule- "Treat others as you want to be treated". You can have fun and joke around in the 'Bloids, but you don't start upsetting and insulting a 'Bloider for no reason because that's just common sense. Isn't that what the Truce is at heart, anyway...? If long, drawn-out fight scenes are making others uncomfortable, then they should be moved. It never was simply a means for villains to come in without being attacked. It was included, but it wasn't always just about that. And I also enjoy the fact that you brought up the chaos that happened from the Taco ages ago, in its prime, like I described. When I described that the random chaos and fights were more fun for people because it's my guess that we're all treating the characters and fights more seriously now. You know that not every character will be chanting for encouraging a fight, right? It's not even as easy as just forcing a character to enjoy it, because the more realistic they are, the more difficult that sounds. The thing is that the Taco can be a derpy place, but that doesn't mean seriousness is outlawed. Some characters that are treated seriously, almost real by their writers just to make them more defined and better-written, will not show up if there's monsters duking it out every day because they will not feel safe, and the Writer does not want them even around it (i.e. 6 year old girl has to witness two men murdering each other) or because it's impossible to be IC and not react to the fight in some way, now. And, to add your other point onto this... I believe that we did get more serious about our characters, or did start treating them more like real people, because there's a reason why I believe some may have agreed with the Truce, because then their characters will come out of the Taco with all their limbs. Are the characters fourth-wall aware enough to notice if their duel has moved to another thread? Sure, the villain tapping the hero on the shoulder and going "Let's fight somewhere else, please" is unrealistic, but it's not just doing that, if that's what you're saying. It's also not impossible for Taco City to be the setting of a RP outside of the Taco thread itself, it's happened before. The debates mostly happen right there in the Taco when someone does something that upsets some others and then it comes down to "the truce said i could/couldn't do this?". I feel that people haven't posted much about it in the City Hall because it is such a painful topic to talk about at times and it was brought up maybe in a way that hurt some (I have to be honest and say that you repeatedly cite Torkie's departure to support your argument, even before she said it was about such issues, and that felt unfair). I'm not saying everyone should feel so seriously about characters, and I'm also not saying that we should bend the rules of the Taco around them. That's not my point here, and I don't want misconceptions to emerge again. Rather, we don't need to keep adding more and more rules until everyone's happy, because that won't happen. This thread isn't here to make a Tacoer burst into tears and run away, and we're not all going to avoid this for that reason, but it's still a very difficult thing to talk about, and I get a bit upset when someone says it's not a big problem (not pointing fingers at anyone, you're taking it seriously and I'm glad for that). But it's still difficult to talk about, and it's natural if a post will sound even a little upset, like the beginning of yours seemed to. The last I have to say on the matter is that, going back to what I've mentioned off-topic a bit, is that the lack of Taco activity isn't simply people avoiding it, but because people can't always get on. I felt like Summer vacation would bring a lot more time for people that are bogged down by school-related matters. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 12:23:08 GMT -5
It feels like you're not listening to us, and honestly that's extremely aggravating. We don't like the argument over semantics. We don't like the fights (either physical OR characters arguing philosophy) that start up and carry on in the middle of the main thread when no one else wants it. That kind of stuff has got to stop if anything is going to change for the better. First of all, can you clarify who this "we" is? You and Drew? Or are there other (silent) people who you're talking to elsewhere who agree? Because I'd like to echo Stal and urge those people to voice their own opinions in this thread too. While they may agree with you on this matter, it'd be nice if we heard their standpoint on the whole topic, so we don't just have one person speaking for many. This will go a lot smoother, I think, if people speak for themselves only instead of making blanket statements that make things seem more of a majority. (And I'm not trying to imply that that's what you're doing here, Torkie, just that this tends to derail discussions a lot, so I wanted to head it off before we got too deep.) I'm just going to say that I agree with everything Drew and Torkie have said. I'd say more, but it would be redundant and I don't feel like debating right now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 13:41:01 GMT -5
I agree with Drew and Torkie, arguing semantics is unproductive and frustrating. And I don't think we should be making more rules, and getting into a situation where it's like "Well, according to Article A section 2 paragraph 7 sentence 4 of the Truce, you can't do such-and-such action", because it'll put these unnecessary restrictions on everyone. I do like the idea of just having really general rules, and people agreeing to play nice.
And honestly, I would feel a little nervous about RPing if the Taco was a war zone, because I don't want to somehow be dragged into a fight that I didn't agree to participating in. :/
i might expand on this a little more later, just wanted to get my two cents out there
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 24, 2012 13:43:34 GMT -5
Sounds to me like the truce itself isn't the real issue here, but rather the underlying thing that one agreement won't work for everyone and some feel stifled under it and others feel it's necessary for their enjoyment. Maybe instead of focusing on something like The Truce itself, it would be more beneficial to actively say "these are the things that get to me and seem to actually cause problems."
(and as said before, these agreements are -not- enforceable nor can be imposed on anyone that doesn't want it, even if someone had previously agreed to it. The only binding they have is what someone personally gives it or doesn't give it)
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Mar 25, 2012 0:21:14 GMT -5
Moreover, I've noticed that regardless of the actual issue, it's less about the issue itself and more about how it gets handled. There're always two ways of handling a problem, the calm and civilized way and the passive-aggressive rawr-jab-bite way. And on the Taco, the latter seems to happen a lot. So I'd quite like to see that aspect of the problem solved.
I'm not sure why the passive-aggressiveness seems to flare up this much - although I'm willing to guess that at least a part of it is everyone's strong emotional connection to the characters and the call of duty to defend them - but I'd like to hear people's opinions on that particular question all the same. Any chance of getting people to agree to come together for a common cause on the Taco despite not always seeing eye to eye on the fine semantics?
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Mar 25, 2012 2:13:54 GMT -5
Got to keep it short (relatively) and it will probably come out blunt, but I want to keep up and say something. Omni… You say you want to get it out of the way, but from this end it feels you are trying very hard to work against us. Things have felt the same from my end. Look over your and Drew's posts: This is rushed, and maybe unintentional, but on my end, it feels like I'm being attacked to some extent or another for trying to help. The truth is that not every single Tacoer is going to be 100% happy with any agreement/ PFMP/whatever we sign because it's impossible to please everybody. If our repeated attempts to address the 'Truce' problem have shown anything, it's impossible to get everyone even "sort of" happy with how the Taco should be run. That doesn't mean only the 'majority' should be happy, but it's that it's such a sticky situation trying to get the 'everyone' to be happy. I beg to differ. It's difficult, but it's entirely possible. The 'bloids operated well enough under one golden rule- "Treat others as you want to be treated". There's also a platinum rule: Treat others as they would prefer to be treated (short of mistreating others to do so, of course). If you like expensive fancy vases and someone else prefers action movies, don't give them a fancy vase and get upset when they don't like it and get excited over a movie that costs a lot less. Rather, we don't need to keep adding more and more rules until everyone's happy, because that won't happen. Agreed. We need to remove rules, or at least certain ones. (and as said before, these agreements are -not- enforceable nor can be imposed on anyone that doesn't want it, even if someone had previously agreed to it. The only binding they have is what someone personally gives it or doesn't give it) Thank you. </yes, been stressed> I think I'll note that there's probably no way we're going to be able to move away from fights unless we also stop taking things so seriously (with our characters or otherwise). And I doubt that's going to happen, at least on a fairly-large scale. And I agree with Hunty: It's probably about time to stop talking about what has happened or how things appear and to focus more on a common goal. Maybe it's time to drop (or at least reduce) the subject of each-other and focus more on, well, an agreement. In hopes of moving forward on an agreement (and moving away from the negative accusations and such), here's what I'd suggest for a start: One is not allowed to attack another unless they're doing something to justify and/or (maybe) provoke it. Attacking a bad guy for being a bad guy? No. Attacking a bad guy for saying he's going to do something horrible? Sure. Taunts I'm iffy on. Personally, I think I'd like the occasional bar-brawl or street-fight to be possible, at least when not entirely serious. We might be able to build, but I'd say that's probably the minimum. Poking at common sense, as Drew said. Also, a suggesting for breaking up fights: Instead of attacking one of the fighters, get in-between the fighters. From my observations, attacking an attacker seems to only provoke more attacking. Getting in-between does put you (or the character, as the case may be) in the line of fire, but that's more-or-less the point: If they don't want bad things, they may stop to keep more people from getting hurt. If they don't stop, you're probably not going to be able to stop them anyway. (And wow does this sound familiar now that I typed this out. o.o;) EDIT: Going to apologize real quick for stress and harshness. I'd look over for little things to edit out, but 1. That would take time and I need my sleep for tomorrow and 2. Even if I did take the time, I'm not sure I could even reasonably identify what to remove/change when I need to sleep. So... Yeah. Need my sleep. Until next time, then.
|
|