|
Post by Sage Harpuia on Apr 16, 2012 21:03:49 GMT -5
Just noting here that being serious about a character, how they are, their personality traits, how they respond, and how they interact doesn't mean that you have nitpick at details from a fight. That's only when you're being serious about the /fight/ in itself, not the characters. I do believe the Taco was meant for casual RP? =v=
I mean, sure, I roleplay my character to the T when it comes to personality, but on a casual RP, I'm not going to be too bothered by lack of detail, and if I have questions about how an action is performed, it'd be best to ask about it if the wording was misunderstood. Via PM to not involve everyone else in the discussion to clear up the confusion.
Just putting my two cents in before fleeing.
|
|
|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on Apr 16, 2012 22:53:28 GMT -5
Thank you for helping me with this post, Zylaa.
Omni, I consider you a friend, but I get very frustrated when I feel like I have to clarify every single detail in a roleplay. When RPing with you, we focus too much on the small things that I find insignificant, and I don't find fun at all. I often feel like these arguments start whenever something goes against your characters. Our many discussions over PM never seemed to have an effect, and the arguing is discouraging and disruptive to others. I once said I didn't think our problem could be resolved and that I wanted to stop rping with you all together. You asked me to keep trying. So I still am.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Apr 16, 2012 23:51:47 GMT -5
If it's not too much trouble, Omni, could you please respond to the rest of the posts by Drew, Torkie, Bettyming, and me? I think we made a lot of points that you're not addressing. [This post is stamped with the ZYLAA SEAL OF APPROVAL.] Unfortunately, at this time, it is too much trouble. There's something going on in real life that I feel I should give priority to (there's a deadline). Part of the reason why I only addressed what I did was because I was in a hurry (I was already late for something). Maybe in a couple days. But for now, I'm going to keep things brief. In the meantime, I wouldn't mind if you guys addressed my questions. The Scrac that Smiles Back, here's a possible course of action: I won't ask for details on moves if you won't. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on Apr 17, 2012 8:39:08 GMT -5
I'm putting this first part as a personal observation and based on what I understand. Not everything is meant to be read as definitively absolute. I think a lot of the conflict arises actually not from different personality traits, but similar ones. We seem to both want certain types of description, but have trouble giving a clear description. We tend to respond to things said to us (I know I often feel obligated), so if a topic starts it tends to continue on-and-on until it's wrapped up. We also have a tendency to hang onto certain details and keep focusing on them. I'd also like to note that I'm pretty sure she's brought up details several times. (Our last few posts should indicate it somewhat.) Also, on stopping RP to bring up details... well, let me just say that I've RP'd with her for awhile, and I'd rather stop and make sure we both something right than continue on a misunderstanding and have to redo things later. And yes, we've done the latter on multiple occasions. In fact, to echo Nat's post: any time there's an issue/debate/argument between two people, it's always been encouraged to take it to PMs, just so that anyone else who isn't involved in it won't have to feel all awkward. I actually suggested to bring the debate to PM and she basically said 'no, I'd rather not do the fight than fight over the fight.' I then responded to the things she had said and meant to continue RP while skipping over a lot of the spar, but had forgotten to post RP, time-skip or otherwise. So we ended up just discussing for a couple posts. Let me put it this way: I'm serious about even casual RP. I have trouble getting into it and enjoying it if I can't take it seriously. Random things like food fights I don't mind on occasion, but I can't stand constantly doing stuff that's absolutely not serious at all. I like getting into the characters' heads and thinking about how they'd respond, even in casual situations. I just don't like much mind-breaking and OOC except in small, occasional bits. (I think Scrac likes serious-even-in-casual as well, at least to an extent.) You like to PM me with textwall books you expect me to read, when I usually do not care about or for the argument. I enjoy plenty of nonsensical stuff, even though my characters have to be under some sort of effect to act OOC. Events that are a mix of serious and outrageous acts that would be OOC at any other time are the best. Like when Serif set the city blaze with Seraph Fire. I obtained permission from other Tacoers to do that, and its purpose was very simple: to eliminate the dark energy that might be tainting the city, so that no one would be forced to join the MoDEoN plot. Having permission and using a fire that destroys what does not belong and doing it at a time people okay'd because they would not be online did not take away from the fact that I got to set the city on fire. If it's not too much trouble, Omni, could you please respond to the rest of the posts by Drew, Torkie, Bettyming, and me? I think we made a lot of points that you're not addressing. [This post is stamped with the ZYLAA SEAL OF APPROVAL.] Unfortunately, at this time, it is too much trouble. There's something going on in real life that I feel I should give priority to (there's a deadline). Part of the reason why I only addressed what I did was because I was in a hurry (I was already late for something). Maybe in a couple days. But for now, I'm going to keep things brief. In the meantime, I wouldn't mind if you guys addressed my questions. The Scrac that Smiles Back, here's a possible course of action: I won't ask for details on moves if you won't. How does that sound? This brings up a reason why I don't like the fighting. I work a full day and cook and clean and would like to have fun when I get online. Not spend hours doing research so I can answer every little question you ask or typing things out again and again and again hoping to hit a format you understand. It is obvious other feel the same way, regardless of whether they are still in school or not. If you really want to know the answer to something, you can go try to figure it out yourself. I am not a teacher, and I am very adamant on this point because I have taught before and I hated it. To put it another way: You're ping flooding me. That didn't work out the last time we tried it, but perhaps we will do better this time.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Apr 17, 2012 12:51:32 GMT -5
I enjoy plenty of nonsensical stuff, even though my characters have to be under some sort of effect to act OOC. I was under the impression that you preferred to at least have mostly serious-casual, or that it's something that you do a lot, no matter how mixed. You like to PM me with textwall books you expect me to read, when I usually do not care about or for the argument. spend hours doing research so I can answer every little question you ask or typing things out again and again and again hoping to hit a format you understand. It is obvious other feel the same way, regardless of whether they are still in school or not. If you really want to know the answer to something, you can go try to figure it out yourself. I am not a teacher, and I am very adamant on this point because I have taught before and I hated it. You never told me that you disliked debating in of itself. I was under the impression that you enjoyed it, at least in the sense of 'I like it if I can get the other person to think the way I do.' The fact that you continued, and continued, and keep on continuing to do it convinced me of this. In fact, even now you seem to be trying to continue to do so, after you stated that you hate it. If there is a debate that you feel is pointless, and of which you are one of the only two members, and you want it to stop, then stop. I will not respond to something that is not there. If you would like me to do research (which I don't mind so much), let me know what to research, specifically. I obtained permission from other Tacoers to do that, and its purpose was very simple: to eliminate the dark energy that might be tainting the city, so that no one would be forced to join the MoDEoN plot. They would by no means have been forced to join in. I cannot reach through the computer and strangle them if they don't. I cannot teleport to their location and put a gun to their head. I cannot possess them and type out their posts for them. They still have the choice not to participate. I wanted more participants, yes, but I would not want people participating reluctantly. Even under the RP logic of 'circumstances require it,' there was no need. The presence of a sickness - while increasing the chances of someone getting sick - does not guarantee it. Same with the energy. I'm pretty sure I've stated that multiple times. They would choose whether or not the characters would be infected. If anything, removing any and all traces may force them to have to not allow their characters to be infected should they want their character to be infected but happen to be late (though they could still join in other ways). I'm not saying that there were, I'm just giving a possible scenario. But yes, there was no force involved. That didn't work out the last time we tried it, but perhaps we will do better this time. I don't remember such an agreement happening before... which if there was one, that might explain a few things. This time, however, I'm more likely to remember.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Apr 17, 2012 14:12:57 GMT -5
If it's not too much trouble, Omni, could you please respond to the rest of the posts by Drew, Torkie, Bettyming, and me? I think we made a lot of points that you're not addressing. [This post is stamped with the ZYLAA SEAL OF APPROVAL.] Unfortunately, at this time, it is too much trouble. There's something going on in real life that I feel I should give priority to (there's a deadline). Part of the reason why I only addressed what I did was because I was in a hurry (I was already late for something). Maybe in a couple days. But for now, I'm going to keep things brief. In the meantime, I wouldn't mind if you guys addressed my questions. Such an outlook which upset people in the first place. I understand that you have something going on in real life, but I feel like some important posts here are being looked over, even if it's unintentional on your part. Please respond to them when you get a free moment from whatever is busying you.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 18, 2012 11:28:19 GMT -5
So let's summarize. So far we have people that feel really bogged down by the questioning and nitpicking. Drew, for example, feels the details tend to come across as criticizing, whether intended or not.
Omni likes having a full picture and details of what's going on and sees no harm in the asking.
What we have here is a major difference in personalities and how to handle things. And really, Drew is correct. Both sides need to simmer down on how the situations are handled.
Omni, I've seen the level of detail you request and how you keep picking at it. You may not realize it, but that is going to get on many peoples nerves to have to deal with and decrease the amount of time they want to interact with you. There's a friend of mine that gets really dramatic about understanding rules and what is occurring, and will get upset if things aren't clarified to the level he wants. I refuse to play games with him anymore because it became too much of a hassle--they stopped being fun. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
That's not to say don't ask questions, but you may want to tone it down and maybe shrug it off if you don't fully understand something. Maybe figure out what to ask questions about and what not to. Scrac's posts are usually very clear that she does not enjoy the debating at all. Responding doesn't mean that she enjoys it. Asking the questions implies a response must be given, and it would be rude to ignore. And giving response upon response can sometimes just irritate people more so. Stating that it's as simple as not replying... Isn't very simple nor a great response. And is probably very frustrating to Scrac to be told that.
Now everyone else... Omni's questions aren't always nitpicking. Clarifying details shouldn't be a big issue. If she wants some details clarified or questions answered, that shouldn't result in bickering or snapping at her. If the questioning gets to be too much, there is never a problem with saying something like "Look, that's going a bit more into things than I really care to. Let's leave at what it is and continue."
The ultimate solution, as Scrac brought up, would be to not interact anymore. But that's not really an ideal solution.
Remember that interacting with people isn't simply about you and what you want/need. It's also not about bending over backwards to give the other person what they want/need. There is a balance to be struck...
And if there is one major thing that I think plagues the Taco and is the cause of most issues... It's that people have a hard time giving others the same consideration and understanding they would like. Respect towards others is... almost hard to come by. Not that you are all rude, but I do see a lot of times where a simple bit of respecting others and being understanding about how different people operate would change the situations immensely.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Apr 28, 2012 15:52:39 GMT -5
Okay... Let's see what I can find to reply to... Not to say that I'm trying to ignore much anything, if anything. It's more that some things are hard to reply to. Example: 'Sometimes one might go into detail a bit much, but people shouldn't blow up when someone asks for clarification, either.' Yeah, that's good. It's just... that's something I feel speaks for itself and doesn't really need adding to, nor arguing against, and agreeing with everything might get a bit silly. A lot of them aren't really written like they're looking for a reply, anyway. So if I don't reply to something, it's probably because of one of these things, or a combination thereof. If something's cut out, maybe I felt it wasn't really needed to be shown - even if I'm addressing it - because I felt it was already included in something else I quoted. Scrac's posts are usually very clear that she does not enjoy the debating at all. Responding doesn't mean that she enjoys it. Asking the questions implies a response must be given, and it would be rude to ignore. And giving response upon response can sometimes just irritate people more so. Stating that it's as simple as not replying... Isn't very simple nor a great response. And is probably very frustrating to Scrac to be told that. I was just under the impression that she didn't like heated debates, or something. Otherwise, that implies that she just keeps continuing in something she doesn't like, when it's not necessary to do so. I wasn't trying to say that she'd have to ignore a question as soon as it comes up for the first time, if that's what you mean. XD I meant if we start something and it starts to get out of hand and she feels the issue isn't that great anyway, she can just stop it. Granted, I can make an effort to do the same, but I don't have to be the only one doing it, either. Now everyone else... Omni's questions aren't always nitpicking. Clarifying details shouldn't be a big issue. If she wants some details clarified or questions answered, that shouldn't result in bickering or snapping at her. If the questioning gets to be too much, there is never a problem with saying something like "Look, that's going a bit more into things than I really care to. Let's leave at what it is and continue." ^ Yes, basically that. The ultimate solution, as Scrac brought up, would be to not interact anymore. But that's not really an ideal solution. From my view, that doesn't seem like a solution at all. It creates more problems than it solves. That's only when you're being serious about the /fight/ in itself, not the characters. I can be serious about both. I think this nitpicking has been taken to a more extreme level in the past and it did involve more than just two users. The issue of the Truce, for example, and if it was a literal truce or not. That was semantics, and tended to hurt everyone involved. Come to think, if you think that I was saying it wasn't a truce just to argue semantics, then you really were missing my point. However, I won't expound on my point because I was under the impression that we were trying to get past that issue and leave it behind. I'd like to try to move forward from it, and I'd ask if everyone else could, too. At the very least, I'd like it if we could set it aside for when things have calmed down. I often feel like these arguments start whenever something goes against your characters. First of all, they're not my characters. I RP them in the Taco, but they're not really mine. I can try my best to stick to character, but between different interpretations and my own skills/knowledge, I'm bound to slip on occasion , or at least be seen as 'inaccurate' based on someone else's view. Second, there maybe at times some conditions that I'm RPing that affect thing, but that other RPs aren't aware of. I may be keeping the details a secret on purpose for RP reasons. If I persistently seem to be doing a certain something that's widely out of character, this is probably the case. Third: If I missed anything, against them how?
Issue: I'm also afraid myself of getting into an argument over some minor detail. Reply: They would by no means have been forced to join in.
Aaaand the one that keeps popping up repeatedly... [It's] probably very frustrating to Scrac to be told that. I don't know why the nitpicking happens. But I don't like it. Omni, since you tend to debate tiny details of interactions, I don't enjoy roleplaying with you. The reason for the frustration is because the nitpicking makes stuff not fun anymore. I know people have repeatedly told you this, but you refuse to change and it comes across as you refusing to even recognize you are hurting people. As I have said previously in this thread, multiple times...this sort of nitpicking sets me off. ... It's very off-putting. I have to agree that nitpicking is extremely off-putting. I go to the Taco for fun, casual RP, and if I go to the Taco and see textwalls about whether or not a move was feasible, I'm not going to want to get involved because of the awkwardness of jumping in when there's an argument going on. I think there's a line between asking to have everything clear in one's head and causing another user to feel criticized and hurt unjustly. Etc. etc. ... In all seriousness, I'm not so sure the bit about thoroughly asking for details is the real issue. I mean, Scrac and I basically agreed to try to put a halt to it altogether... at least to give it a try. If talking about details was the whole issue, then in theory, this agreement should be plenty enough. And yet, here I'm asked to talk about points that theoretically should have been more than addressed. I really feel like not long after this is over, I'll get complaints about something else I do. I feel like I could try my absolute hardest to try to phrase something nicely (without imitating Fluttershy, which really doesn't feel right) and someone will still complain about how my phrasing comes across... possibly that it seems like I'm trying to sugar-coat things if I were to do it a certain way. Guys, I have no control over your emotions. It's possible for me to try to provoke things, but I still really can't control your reactions. Believe me, I've tried to be gentle and pleasant with my wording time and time again, and somehow failed not-so-spectacularly nearly all of the time. Or at least it seems that way to me. It seems like my best efforts somehow always fall short by a dozen yards or so. I could apologize for sounding deceptive-aggressive (new name for passive-aggressive)… but it almost seems dishonest to do so since it seems almost certain that it's going to happen again unintentionally, because I haven't really learned how to not make that mistake again. From what I understand, there's a fair chance that I literally do not have the skills to sound otherwise at this time. Even reading over my stuff I think I'm seeing a bit of what sounds like deceptive-aggressiveness, even though I'm really not trying to put any of it in here. I just don't know any other way to phrase it without being dishonest, at this time. I am actually going to take a class on workplace relations for my IT Technician classes at some point, which I think would help with this sort of thing - but it's probably going to be at least a week or two (plus a few days) before I start it. So when it comes to me learning from that class, I'll have to ask you to be patient in the meantime. However, one thing that I do understand is that tone-of-voice is a major component in this sort of thing, as is body language, and those things pretty well vanish in a text-based environment such as this. It's very easy to read anger in a post when there really isn't any anger there. This is something that those conversing have to be aware of. I am not going to try to be difficult. I am not going to try to be provocative. I am not going to 'make' you angry. At least for the meantime, all I can do is try my best to not sound like I'm trying to be offensive. The rest is up to you. To quote Stal... Remember that interacting with people isn't simply about you and what you want/need. It's also not about bending over backwards to give the other person what they want/need. There is a balance to be struck... And if there is one major thing that I think plagues the Taco and is the cause of most issues... It's that people have a hard time giving others the same consideration and understanding they would like. Respect towards others is... almost hard to come by. Not that you are all rude, but I do see a lot of times where a simple bit of respecting others and being understanding about how different people operate would change the situations immensely. You guys keep asking that I try to be considerate about others' preferences and not be difficult or condescending or anything like that. I ask that it not be a one-way deal.
|
|
|
Post by Zylaa on Apr 28, 2012 18:09:40 GMT -5
At least four people have told you that thoroughly asking for details is the issue. It is unfair to them and their concerns to brush it off and say that they are missing the point; it is unfair to them to say that details aren't the problem, it's a "phrasing" problem. You are right: it is easy to misinterpret phrasing over the internet. But people have not been taking issue with the nebulous concept of phrasing; people do not like questions into every detail of character interactions. They are going to continue to be annoyed by that no matter how you phrase it. Nobody thinks that you have been deliberately trying to frustrate anyone. But even with the best of intentions, frustrations happen. It's unfair to everyone who contributed their opinions to say that the problem is not your questions, it's their attitude. As Stal and others have said, to make progress, everyone needs to adjust their attitude, become more tolerant of others, and such. This will not be a one-way deal, it's a process of compromise all around. But that doesn't give you, or anyone, the right to dismiss others' requests. You say you've adjusted this in your roleplays with Scrac. Having not read the recent roleplays, I can hardly judge for myself, but if you are indeed responding to others' wishes and asking fewer detailed questions, thank you for that! ------ And now for something completely different!This post came around a couple pages back, talking about alienation from the Taco. This person, if I'm summarizing correctly, felt like the complex, ongoing stories alienated others who would like to join in with the casual roleplaying experience of the Taco. Please read the original post, don't just rely on me. XD But I think this is an issue that needs to be brought back onto the table. Active Tacoers, what are your thoughts about making the Taco more accessible to casual roleplayers? Original Anon, is there anything you'd like to add?
|
|
|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on Apr 28, 2012 18:35:43 GMT -5
Holy barnacles, there's a lot to respond to. You never told me that you disliked debating in of itself. I was under the impression that you enjoyed it, at least in the sense of 'I like it if I can get the other person to think the way I do.' The fact that you continued, and continued, and keep on continuing to do it convinced me of this. In fact, even now you seem to be trying to continue to do so, after you stated that you hate it. I'm okay with debates, because people who have open minds and are willing to accept that they may be wrong are supposed to be the ones engaged in them. What we have are fights. There are no arguments being started in that post. Perhaps you meant a different one? If there is a debate that you feel is pointless, and of which you are one of the only two members, and you want it to stop, then stop. I will not respond to something that is not there. Tried that, it only gave you the impression that I suddenly agreed with you. If you would like me to do research (which I don't mind so much), let me know what to research, specifically. Tried that, you forgot. So for future reference: If you have a question about how something techy works, answer the question yourself. I avoid concrete answers on how things work because that's the sort of thing that dates science fiction quickly. Anything I carefully research today will be changed in 5-10 years, and things we can only dream of today will exist and be commonplace 'tomorrow'. They would by no means have been forced to join in. I cannot reach through the computer and strangle them if they don't. I cannot teleport to their location and put a gun to their head. I cannot possess them and type out their posts for them. They still have the choice not to participate. I wanted more participants, yes, but I would not want people participating reluctantly. Even under the RP logic of 'circumstances require it,' there was no need. The presence of a sickness - while increasing the chances of someone getting sick - does not guarantee it. Same with the energy. I'm pretty sure I've stated that multiple times. They would choose whether or not the characters would be infected. If anything, removing any and all traces may force them to have to not allow their characters to be infected should they want their character to be infected but happen to be late (though they could still join in other ways). I'm not saying that there were, I'm just giving a possible scenario. But yes, there was no force involved. Considering I had complaints given at the city being infected and I was given permission to remove it, it seems pretty obvious that those who wanted to get involved did, and those who didn't were afraid they would be forced to. Which they would have been, because even though they didn't have to get infected themselves, random city citizens would have been and they would have had to deal with that. That didn't work out the last time we tried it, but perhaps we will do better this time. I don't remember such an agreement happening before... which if there was one, that might explain a few things. This time, however, I'm more likely to remember. We didn't agree to do it, we just did it. Does Protoman vs. Caracura ring a bell? Scrac's posts are usually very clear that she does not enjoy the debating at all. Responding doesn't mean that she enjoys it. Asking the questions implies a response must be given, and it would be rude to ignore. And giving response upon response can sometimes just irritate people more so. I was just under the impression that she didn't like heated debates, or something. Otherwise, that implies that she just keeps continuing in something she doesn't like, when it's not necessary to do so. I wasn't trying to say that she'd have to ignore a question as soon as it comes up for the first time, if that's what you mean. XD I meant if we start something and it starts to get out of hand and she feels the issue isn't that great anyway, she can just stop it. Granted, I can make an effort to do the same, but I don't have to be the only one doing it, either. Reasons mostly stated above and by Stalos. It feels rude to not answer questions directed at me. From my view, that doesn't seem like a solution at all. It creates more problems than it solves. It worked out for me that month I didn't show up at the Taco. I only came back because I got that message you sent me and then I lied to you because I didn't feel comfortable informing you that my absence had been because I was tired of dealing with you. First of all, they're not my characters. I RP them in the Taco, but they're not really mine. I can try my best to stick to character, but between different interpretations and my own skills/knowledge, I'm bound to slip on occasion , or at least be seen as 'inaccurate' based on someone else's view. Second, there maybe at times some conditions that I'm RPing that affect thing, but that other RPs aren't aware of. I may be keeping the details a secret on purpose for RP reasons. If I persistently seem to be doing a certain something that's widely out of character, this is probably the case. Third: If I missed anything, against them how? It's not general inaccuracies that get annoying, it's very specific ones when the characters you rp share your religious, political, and cultural beliefs. Like Dr. Light saying woman aren't as capable as men, Protoman saying the world is too big for humans to ever trash all of it and or use all the resources, or Hidden Phantom implying that parents don't love their children if they don't homeschool them. It is annoying when the characters you rp act just like you. Well, that was rude. To it I suppose all I have to say is 'ditto'. Longer version: In all seriousness, I'm not so sure the bit about thoroughly asking for details is the real issue. I mean, Scrac and I basically agreed to try to put a halt to it altogether... at least to give it a try. If talking about details was the whole issue, then in theory, this agreement should be plenty enough. And yet, here I'm asked to talk about points that theoretically should have been more than addressed. I really feel like not long after this is over, I'll get complaints about something else I do. I feel like I could try my absolute hardest to try to phrase something nicely (without imitating Fluttershy, which really doesn't feel right) and someone will still complain about how my phrasing comes across... possibly that it seems like I'm trying to sugar-coat things if I were to do it a certain way. There's a difference between not sugar coating and being a jerk. Guys, I have no control over your emotions. It's possible for me to try to provoke things, but I still really can't control your reactions. Sounds like an excuse to do whatever you want, pointing out that it's not your fault if other people don't like it. Believe me, I've tried to be gentle and pleasant with my wording time and time again, and somehow failed not-so-spectacularly nearly all of the time. Or at least it seems that way to me. Your attempts at being nice tend to come off fake, condescending, and even more insulting then your harshness. It seems like my best efforts somehow always fall short by a dozen yards or so. I could apologize for sounding deceptive-aggressive (new name for passive-aggressive)… but it almost seems dishonest to do so since it seems almost certain that it's going to happen again unintentionally, because I haven't really learned how to not make that mistake again. From what I understand, there's a fair chance that I literally do not have the skills to sound otherwise at this time. Even reading over my stuff I think I'm seeing a bit of what sounds like deceptive-aggressiveness, even though I'm really not trying to put any of it in here. I just don't know any other way to phrase it without being dishonest, at this time. You should consider how what you will say make others feel. Ask yourself if something really matters. If they didn't ask for a critique then you should probably keep your criticisms to yourself. Maybe compliment something you do approve of. I am actually going to take a class on workplace relations for my IT Technician classes at some point, which I think would help with this sort of thing - but it's probably going to be at least a week or two (plus a few days) before I start it. I was extremely excited when you started your first class, for many reasons plus I hoped it would help with your social skills. If it's had an effect it wasn't large enough to be noticeable. I'm still holding out for when you get your first job. So when it comes to me learning from that class, I'll have to ask you to be patient in the meantime. However, one thing that I do understand is that tone-of-voice is a major component in this sort of thing, as is body language, and those things pretty well vanish in a text-based environment such as this. It's very easy to read anger in a post when there really isn't any anger there. This is something that those conversing have to be aware of. I don't think learning in the class is really going to help you. I took so many psychology classes that if I had fit in one more I'd have a degree. There is a big gap between theory and practice. I am not going to try to be difficult. I am not going to try to be provocative. I am not going to 'make' you angry. At least for the meantime, all I can do is try my best to not sound like I'm trying to be offensive. The rest is up to you. You are being provocative. What do you call your short response? And turning passive-aggressive into deceptive-aggressive is an act of passive-aggressiveness itself. To quote Stal... Remember that interacting with people isn't simply about you and what you want/need. It's also not about bending over backwards to give the other person what they want/need. There is a balance to be struck... And if there is one major thing that I think plagues the Taco and is the cause of most issues... It's that people have a hard time giving others the same consideration and understanding they would like. Respect towards others is... almost hard to come by. Not that you are all rude, but I do see a lot of times where a simple bit of respecting others and being understanding about how different people operate would change the situations immensely. You guys keep asking that I try to be considerate about others' preferences and not be difficult or condescending or anything like that. I ask that it not be a one-way deal. It IS a one-way deal. That is what I am angry about. I name my character's attacks and color code them because you asked me to. I also color code my characters because you asked. I make reference sheets for you and take the time to make sure you see and understand what something does before you ever have to deal with it. And you don't even have the courtesy to acknowledge what has been shown to you, choosing to follow your own interpretation. You also don't have the courtesy to describe your own attacks. Instead you link to a stat sheet. How a fiction weapon affects a fictional metal does not help me decide how it affects my characters, especially back when I knew next to nothing about the Megaman franchise. It is also aggravating that you demand more detail out of me then you yourself can give, and you require me to explain everything my character does and have repeatedly diagnosed them with various mental illnesses. When called out on your behavior you resort to name calling and derogatory remarks, such as when I became irritated at you for surrounding my characters with enemies and not bothering to write it out. I continued to write as though they were not surrounded and was only clued in when discussing stuff with you on the side. And you called me a godmodder for wanting that sort of information. They weren't hidden or trying to be stealthy, there was no reason for my characters to not know they were there.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Apr 28, 2012 21:50:29 GMT -5
At least four people have told you that thoroughly asking for details is the issue. It is unfair to them and their concerns to brush it off and say that they are missing the point; it is unfair to them to say that details aren't the problem, it's a "phrasing" problem. You are right: it is easy to misinterpret phrasing over the internet. But people have not been taking issue with the nebulous concept of phrasing; people do not like questions into every detail of character interactions. They are going to continue to be annoyed by that no matter how you phrase it. Don't get me wrong. The details thing is an issue. It's still something to be addressed, but I don't think it's the big issue. And I'm pretty sure phrasing is at least part of it. I get a lot of accusations that I'm being _____ when I'm really not. It may just be one of those things that people don't consciously think about when looking for troubles. Nobody thinks that you have been deliberately trying to frustrate anyone. But even with the best of intentions, frustrations happen. Again, I cannot control their emotions. It's unfair to everyone who contributed their opinions to say that the problem is not your questions, it's their attitude. As Stal and others have said, to make progress, everyone needs to adjust their attitude, become more tolerant of others, and such. This will not be a one-way deal, it's a process of compromise all around. You gave my answer to your first sentence with your second one. I'm not saying that I don't need to improve - far from - but it feels like I'm the only one really getting scrutinized. For example: Rank aside, why is it that Stal can say something, but when I quote him on something, I get in trouble? Just... why? His quote said that everyone needs to improve. 'Everyone' is not specific to myself, but still includes myself. Would it have been better if I started with his quote? But that doesn't give you, or anyone, the right to dismiss others' requests. How did I do that? You say you've adjusted this in your roleplays with Scrac. Having not read the recent roleplays, I can hardly judge for myself, but if you are indeed responding to others' wishes and asking fewer detailed questions, thank you for that! The detailed questions thing only pops up once in awhile anyway, so it's hard to judge since I haven't had any reason to yet. ------ Active Tacoers, what are your thoughts about making the Taco more accessible to casual roleplayers? Technically, it's already very accessible. There's no password protection or anything. In all seriousness... Well, when it comes to knowing about the characters, someone (Scrac, I think) said awhile ago 'you don't need to know all the details of the characters before you interact with them any more than you need to know the history of every person you meet in real life.' I believe it was somewhere on the main Taco, but apparently I don't remember the phrasing well enough to find it with a thread search. When it comes to ongoing RPs... Well, at least in my case, I think it tends to happen because it seems like no one else is posting at times, so I feel I might as well continue what's already going on just for the sake of giving the Taco some activity. If people aren't giving activity because of continuing stuff... Well, I hope we're not in too big of a catch-22/impasse. This might just be my point of view, but it seems like a lot of the time people 'dominate' simply because no one else is stepping up. Scrac's post seems like it might not be finished, so I think I'll wait before replying to her post.
|
|
|
Post by An anon on Apr 29, 2012 23:22:02 GMT -5
I have nothing to add, Zylaa. I'm not saying that I don't need to improve - far from - but it feels like I'm the only one really getting scrutinized. Do you wonder why that may be?
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 29, 2012 23:30:28 GMT -5
Scrac, you went too far.
I know there are frustrations here, but there is no need to lash out and get antagonistic, insulting, or demeaning. This is not a way to unleash all your frustrations out on a person--it's to come to an understanding about what bugs each other and find a solution.
Calm down and don't continue in that vein of posting style.
I want to say that before I respond to anything else. Which will take time.
|
|
Someone who is Hurt
Guest
|
Post by Someone who is Hurt on Apr 30, 2012 3:14:22 GMT -5
I just want to say that I agree with all that Scrac said in her last post. I also commend her bravery in saying so.
|
|
|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on May 2, 2012 18:50:27 GMT -5
I do not know how to contribute to the discussion more than simply stating what irritates me when I visit the IC Chat. I will compare it to the non-separated 'Bloids years ago. There used to be very large alter ego interactions, ones that I took part in, and they stretched on for pages at a time. Yet even then, other people would be free to jump in randomly or just have a conversation on the side. I do understand that the IC Chat is different, now in that I feel/felt completely alienated when there was a large character interaction happening. At the 'Bloids, the most I needed to know is "This forumer is playing a ninja" or such. I have seen things like varying settings, detailed character lists, and so on that make it more difficult to jump in to begin with. Though the 'Bloids were more quickly moving, none of these large-scale alter ego interactions which I joined took more than a day. However, many of these interactions which at the least appear complex last for seemingly ages on the IC Chat. I understand that Tacoers agreed to move away plot-focused roleplays to a new The Taco Cart thread. However, a casual conversation which takes half a month is not much better. Should these interactions be between two people, which they typically appear to be, it seems only to be acting in common sense to move it to PM should the interaction take more than one day. Though the roleplayers may be using the thread as intended, it's how long they do this for which makes others feel excluded. I do not see why it can not be moved to one of the many specialized threads. While it might be argued that it they can continue on because nobody else is there, I know that I personally have witnessed people try to jump in during these interactions to be ignored or even chastised. If one is upset for trying to play with their alter egos on a forum, they will not do it again to prevent being hurt again. As such, these "personal issues" spring up as a few potential Taco-ers watch a few people take over. I am scared to make a statement like this, but I have felt like the same small groups of people have controlled the "Soft Taco" and "Hard Taco" threads since their creation. This could be on account of how there is not booming activity every single day due to any myriad of real life factors which drain time, however it still makes it difficult to want to jump in and contribute to activity when a long-stretched interaction is occurring. I have witnessed forumers attempt to visit either thread and get a response at best, but afterwards the groups continue on in their own interests. It is not a lack of some trying to get in, it is a case of needing to step away and let someone else take a turn if one has dominated a thread for several days. Any type of response is appreciated, because I would enjoy participating in the IC Chat more than the little I did, should most of the issues be cleared. It is no more required of you to know the character's story then it is required of you to know mine. Neither you nor I can help that you feel that way, however, as it is a normal way to feel when somewhere new. Extensive character interaction (to me that means "plot") mostly happens on side boards. If it is happening on the main board it means other are invited to join in. According to my own experiences, the part about new people being excluded is not true. New people have been so overwhelmed with everyone trying to talk to them that they end up ignoring some of the regulars speaking to them. The interaction stops when they stop replying. Even if they're aren't a lot of people online at the time, new people are still greeted and the latter statement remains true. The interaction stops when they stop replying.
|
|