This thread is permanently archived
(OOC) One Salvation Orphanage or How The Fuck to Learn Shit in /cyb/
| Of course, I'm slightly biased on this matter, as I'm an advocate of on-board interaction as opposed to off-board interaction. But I am the way I am exactly because of the issue I, and I'm sure at least some of you, are having right now. The issue is as follows:
If you are not in Discord contact with the OP and don't know who the OP is to begin with, the only way to learn anything about whatever is in OP post is to spam (...) in the thread. Immersion ruined (for me).
| It also takes a lot of space out of those 250 posts worth of 500 characters each. How was the issue dealt with before?
It wasn't. In fact, I, myself, also guilty of off-boarding a lot of internal stuff behind recent G.C.Airport attack — which led to inconvenience, when major Chanka player entered the scene, and participating players had no off-board contact with her, ruining all the rolls and initiative structure. See where I lead?
| Right before the Tungsten Rods Incident, when Merlin was "searching" for Dahk, I basically had to say "she is here" without Dahk's player ever telling me her actual location. That's a lot of heavy-handing regarding someone else's character, and I swore to avoid it to any extent in the future. Which led me to the issue, that now none of my characters can learn anything on the board without going into meta in the thread, or trying to find who OP is and contacting them on Discord.
| The easiest, and also the ugliest, solution to this would be to just spam (...) until the issue is resolved. Why I find this a bad solution? Because it disrupts the flow of the thread and makes it less of an experience from a literature stand point. Do tell me if you agree or disagree with me on this, I might just be a weirdo about this.
Regardless, no criticism would be constructive, if no way to improve the situation is highlighted. I welcome anyone's ideas on the problem.
| My own solution is as simple as having a pinned (OOC) thread where users can submit ways to contact them regarding their storylines, as well as /voluntarily/ putting who is the thread host in the title, when the thread has any story significance and not just ashitposting. Like this: "[Setting] G.C.Airport (UKT)" or "Holy shit my dishwasher machine just raped my toaster (UKT)". It gives people all the info need to meta while keeping the thread nice and clean. Or so I think, anyway.
| Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I completely insane? Am I gay? (oh yes i am)
Discussion open.
| I mean the whole charm of the rp here initially was that all the rp was in the form of secondhand, basically rumor about ongoing or past situations, leaving an air of "is this legit? Is this a troll bsing?" Kinda what makes it unique. A bunch of setting threads makes it just like any other rp forum in a va11 skin
| Really just ask yourself what makes this place unique and where you want to rp, because tbh you can rp a cyberpunk setting anywhere, and a good deal of the characters here are dime-a-dozen action heroes and antiheroes(and villains)
But the posts of people just trying to get by while the world goes to hell around them? That's what makes the place interesting. Imo.
##Janitor:Stormy##
| >>533450
^
This is how its intended to be. It seems like the crux of OP's complaint is that it's not aesthetically pleasing- which sucks, but its also a necessary evil, and frankly if a thread here is reaching the point where you feel you need to write a text wall of OOC just to explain it, its probably going to need to move to a Discord anyway.
| >>533457
I listed at least one example of a thread where a wall of OOC text was needed (namely GCAirport attack) due to the sheer scale of the event. It also definitely was not a private location at any means, since it is a open location and the event affected the city at large (to some extent), which meant it should be allowed as a setting even if it happened with the rules as they are now.
Would you still argue it would need to move to Discord?
—UKT
##Janitor:Stormy##
| >>533461
Considering what a mess that was, yes actually. That's part of the reason we don't even bother with large event settings any longer unless they're prepared well in advance or have very strict limits. Even then, new restrictions are also being considered for the creation of new corps/armies/groups/etc for the same reason- they don't work properly on the board.
| Write the airport attack as a "holy shit guys the airport just got attacked" thread with people weighing in on what happened(or what they think happened) and people deciding if they were there or not, the actual situation doesn't even necessarily have to be played out? I'm not sure why it would /have/ to be a setting. Or you could post something leading up to the situation as an ongoing thing and bookend it with a discord pink to get people involved
| For that matter though, big event like that should be limited in general. Too many events is sort of a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation. Imagine running a pen and paper game with 10+ GMs
##Janitor:Jexams##
| I think it might be a misunderstanding of the themes surrounding this board/RP setting.
This board is supposed to be much more freeform than other roleplays that you may be familiar with. You're not supposed to be able to stay on top of everything and have accurate information on the events happening because thematically, the idea is this board is a source of second hand information. Information from people who were there at the actual event, info from people who just saw it from their bedroom window, etc.
I understand that it can be frustrating and unsatisfying if you view it as "traditional" roleplay but the focus of threads is supposed to lean more towards reading second hand experiences, and adding to that impromptu story telling. It's supposed to give the feeling of a bunch of random people whispering in the dark about events that aren't being made entirely public.
At the very least, that's my take on it.
| My argument essentially is to ease direct interaction when it is necessary, while ensuring the GM of the thread has full control over details of their story, without handing creation of those details to players unless GM wants to. All while NOT spamming settings like crazy and keeping threads clean.
The way I understand it, you and Stormy argue against any direct interaction on the board whatsoever. To say I disagree is to say nothing.
| Let me give you an example, from the thread that sparked me to bring up the issue. In One Salvation Orphanage thread OP says that x children ran away and asks to bring them back. I stress it, OP /asks to bring them back/. Not "X children ran away from One Salvation Orphanage, whose owners are believed to be a cult, now to the next news" type of announcement that does not assume any interaction needed.
| Now what happens next, assuming the OP really expects interaction? Settings are discouraged and no contacts for the OP are given to bring all the "our brave heroes search GC top to bottom" into Discord. What other opportunities does player have? He can go full meta in the thread, asking how his character would— oh wait, extensive OOC is also discouraged? Ok, then player goes >my character does X and Y.
| But wait, the thread is setting now! Or a hybrid of such. If we are to shut down RP whatsoever, and turn /cyb/ into purely "much said nothing done" experience, this should be announced as such.
| Second hand experience sharing means first hand experience happens somewhere. But if we shut down any on-board first hand interaction, there will be no info moving from first hands to second hands. And whatever info will be moving from off-board to on-board will be completely detached from the board itself. I'm not even gonna mention time lag of events. It's already borderline impossible to navigate through off-board events that sorta affect YOU, but you don't know about.
| I perfectly understand the need for mystery. I also understand that settings don't work properly on the board. Which is why I try to find a work-around, to allow the clean, immersive experience where players can /roleplay/ without the need to spam setting threads for every little thing.
/Cyb/ is meant to be a very free roleplaying experience, with little to no rules. One problem that stems from it, is huge communication difficulty with no access to info for new players.
| Or after a thread gets to a point where it's feasible to actit out, op drops a link to a discord to play it out, once it's played out there cane be a follow-up thread for that secondhand info, keeping the thread mostly intact and in character until that one break? I agree it can be hard to get started, especially if you're new.
| Hey, The person who made the thread in the setting here.
Sorry for being so fucking vague and shit, but the entire thing isn't ready and i simply don't have all the biographies to uh, Talk about?
So sorry for not being able to give more information. ahah = w=
It is a bit of a predicament yes.
You are free to get involved! once i set things up a little i guess = w= heheh, i dunno. i'm not smart enough to understand things.
-Radishhat
| >>533489
It is all good, fam. I don't blame you, or anyone specifically, and am sorry if it seemed as such. The situation I am talking about has been on-going for a long time already and your thread just sparked me to finally spill my thoughts about the problem that is more global.
—UKT
| Before anyone asks, or in case anyone mistakes it as such, I AM NOT ARGUING TO ADD A NEW RULE(S) ITT. I am trying to discuss ways to make communication and flow of information on the board easier and more integral >to the board itself,
not the loose congregation of discords where private stuff happens.
What I say, is that things as simple as >a single pinned post and GM nickname in thread name
will alleviate /a lot of issues/ with minimum effort.
| From a personal standpoint, I also strongly disagree with moving actual raw roleplay and direct player interaction away from the board. It detaches said interaction from the board, makes events happen somewhere else, when they are supposed to happen in glitch city.
G.C.Airport attack was a setting thread because two different groups were contesting a public location in the city. I will stand my ground that places of such importance should only be affected through on-board threads.
| I'm curious, how does a name in the thread title alleviate any of the issue exactly? I'm not sure I follow.
| —UKT
| >>533497
You have a pinned post with information on how to contact GM and know who the GM of this [important thread] is since it's in the name. They ask you to bring some kids, you contact them, roll if you need or interact however you need, as if your character went through some first-hand experience. Then in the thread you write "I've got the kids" or whatever. First-hand experience is preserved or assumed, roleplay happens, thread stays clean.
| If you need to get kids from somewhere and other players are supposed to be able and willing to stop you, you do this in a setting, or /if you really have to/, just contact the gm and say I want in. Again, simple, quick, clean, new player-friendly.
| >>533501
Ok, I can kinda see this. Not perfect but I get the direction you're going. Only issue I'd see is that not all threads of the sort are by a regular gm, or people even actually trying to make an event out of it, more just throwing things into the void. Tho I guess they could just not put a name in that case
| Wanna be clear that I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I don't want cyb to lose what makes it so unique and charming. The overload of settings threads in the past definitely didn't help cyb stay cyb so I don't think that's a good option
Captcha mcgee macaw reels
| >>533505
Nice and easy. I can see the pinned GM thread potentially becoming a pinned players contacts thread as a whole and don't see that as a problem. Cyb doesn't have 250 unique posters, at least to my knowledge.
I, personally, want to preserve /cyb/'s integrity. I don't want it to become a loose association of discords that are only vaguely connected and barely affect each other. I'd like /cyb/izen interaction to at least *begin* in /cyb/, if it can't *continue* in /cyb/.
—UKT
| >>533531
I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, but at this point we're what, one year, two years late to the party?
This /cyb/ is on life support. Better to pull the plug and start afresh than try to right three years of toppled dominoes. -Archarin
| >>533551 funny because people have been saying it's dying as long as I've been here. Activity here comes in waves
| >>533552
Exactly my point. If the activity comes in "waves" it's not a good sign.
If you've been around for the past two years you'll notice that in comparison to 2017, 2018's summerfriends are all gone, with maybe one or two exceptions. When someone leaves the resultant vacuum isn't filled.
Mass amounts of people leaving isn't the only form a dying community can take. Trust me, I've been there. -Archarin
| >>533554
(Okay, I figure I should clarify the summer point: Activity here didn't last three weeks before dropping back to pre-summer levels as opposed to how we actually managed to hold the new kids in 2017. Like I said, not a good sign. -Archarin)
##Janitor:Stormy##
| >>533531
If you want to preserve /cyb/'s integrity, then I suggest you assent to the restrictions as they are now and simply invite people to a personal discord or offer your discord handle to continue "live" roleplays elsewhere.
I regret ever introducing setting threads to /cyb/ because, while it took some time, it eventually killed the board as fewer people were able to post anonymously, in universe, and were pressured into making avatars to participate with. When they could not, they left, leaving only users who had previous roleplay experience to rely on. The way you describe the discords is actually what the plethora of setting threads had become: little islands populated by two or three people at most, either explicitly "closed" to everyone else, or, difficult to join because outsiders were seen as "interrupting" their own personal story.
By severely restricting the setting threads, which had been considered even before they had become a mess, we had moved the problem off the board, eliminating the issue entirely. /cyb/ was unique only in the sense that most forums were all little islands to themselves, where you needed to be briefed to make any sense of what the hell was going on. In an in-universe messageboard structure, there is no need to know anything, and to know everything is foolhardy.
>>533551
You've been wanting to quit /cyb/ for two years now- no one is stopping you.
##Janitor:Stormy##
| >>533554 >>533555
Then let it?
Everything either dies or adapts. Do you really think you could have "preserved" the feeling that /cyb/ garnered even if you knew what it was?
| >>533556
I suggest you re-read my statements one more time, Stormy, for you seem to take my argumentation as argumentation for return of fuckload of setting threads for every single damn thing. It is not, and I have been stressing it throughout almost two dozen posts now.
There is an OBVIOUS need to know some amount of info to participate in anything. I'm suggesting ways to ease/eliminate communication issues and tie communication to the board.
| The way you just described, people should just leave. It is no solution and helps no one.
—UKT
##Janitor:Stormy##
| >>533558
And I just gave you a solution- give them a god damn discord link. If you can't even do that, I don't know what to tell you.
##Janitor:Stormy##
| Actually, better idea- I'm DM'ing you right now.
This thread is permanently archived
| Hello, UKT here, with the latest of meta issues we all face but no one talks about. Today I will whine and bitch about accessability of information and clogging of threads with meta-talking. Let's go.
With the sudden (and very weird to me) death of setting threads, and the Great Retreat to Discord of all stuff private to any extent, obtaining info and keeping tabs on what the bloody fuck is going on became absolutely fucking impossible.