Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Roleplaying and Storytelling
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2006, 02:11 PM   #121
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Then I hit the post about how the problem is fundamentalist Christians and possibly
NO! You were tearing up Brett and the main reason I posted is you were spewing some fallacious garbage about American Indian people. You just can’t stop doing it can you. You were and are WRONG and an authority nailed you. The thing to do at this point is to stop trying to squirm your way out of it and just take your lumps and move on.
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2006, 07:21 PM   #122
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
When it comes to how I roleplay sex and what I do in real life, the range of similarity and variance is huge - because each of my characters is different.

I've played asexual characters, rakes, prudes, psycho misogynists, pansexualists, etc. Some of these characters have never been in sex scenes and likely never will be because of their orientations. Some will be in them fairly often, as that has a lot to do with their RP and view of the universe.

For myself, I'm neither extreme. Just a sort of middle of the road type with an open mind, so roleplay remains just that to me; roleplay. A story. Characters with their own lives, own quirks, own problems.

That's what makes the story fun for me. If it was all about me and my preferences, I already know how life for such a person turns out as that's what I'm already doing day to day.

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2006, 09:03 PM   #123
Elora
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Currently Denmark
Posts: 20
Elora is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to Elora
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 15 2006,13<!--emo&[img
http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]The issue boils down to user submitted content. Which means any specific entry in Wikipedia will run hot or cold in relation to it’s accuracy and there is no way of telling what you are going to get, so random sampling will not give a valid assessment.
Does that mean you discount any type of qualitative research? That's one serious chunk of research you then throw out the window.

I understand the prejudice, but if the research doesn't back up the claim, I find it a dangerous claim to make. You seem to make it based solely on personal bias towards internet information, which isn't or shouldn't be good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
This is incorrect.
And I'm sure you corrected the mistake as soon as you found it, right? As I said in my previous post, one of the best features of Wikipedia is the discussion pages, and easy contest of content. Unlike other sources (among them, those treasured hardcopy books you hold in so high regard), the disputes are publicly available.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I could give you examples like this all day, both good and bad.
Please do. One example is hardly enough to disregard the world's largest encyclopaedia on, regardless of how much you distrust internet information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I do not have the time or the inclination to sit here and page through the countless user submitted entries that are factually incorrect.
Aha. You are willing to state the claim, but not willing to back it up. That seems rather onesided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Most authorities on any given subject don’t either.
Which "authorities" is this? Do you have any evidence to back that one up? Nature is a recognized scientific magazine. Their research doesn't support your claim. So what "authorities" do? If the easy dismissal of the source is true, then it should be easy enough to back up the claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
But if you really want to develop an opinion that is well researched, at some point you will have to get off of the web and into a library or spend some money on your own books.
This is the most curious statement of them all. What makes you think hardcopy books are automatically better and more reliable sources of information than electronic ones? Because it "seems" more real? Because books tend to be written by people with a specific interest in a topic? Interestingly, so do Wikipedia, and unlike books, Wikipedia publicly displays disputed facts through their discussion pages, allowing the reader to know both sides of a matter. The fact that this is not possible through hardcopy books does not make the library resource more accurate or factual.

It is true that Wikipedia have had some high profile scandals (well one, at least, that I can think of). Interestingly, most of the large "academically recognized" encyclopaedia have had similar scandals. - except they were not as public. I'm also sure I am not the only one that knows a score of examples of scientific swindle, manipulation and error in research either.

I am not married to Wikipedia, nor do I have any particular personal interest in the source. I just hate sources of information refuted on personal bias alone.  As I said earlier, I would be very interested to know if any of you know of serious scientific research that supprts the claim of Wikipedia as inaccurate and unreliable. If the claim is purely made to dismiss an argument that cannot be refuted in any other way it seems, honestly, a little cheap.

I'll stop hijacking the thread now. Ironically, I agree that historically there are scores of examples of different attitudes towards both nudity and sexuality than the one common to most western civilization.  

Then again, blaming Christianity alone is pretty unreasonable. There were several early Christian sects that practiced religious nudity as well. And it is not like Christianity is the only force throughout history that has tried to suppress open sexuality for various political reasons.
Elora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2006, 09:05 PM   #124
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 15 2006,14:11)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Then I hit the post about how the problem is fundamentalist Christians and possibly
NO! You were tearing up Brett and the main reason I posted is you were spewing some fallacious garbage about American Indian people. You just can’t stop doing it can you. You were and are WRONG and an authority nailed you. The thing to do at this point is to stop trying to squirm your way out of it and just take your lumps and move on.
The post I am referring to Tim is on the very first page, well before you decided to lay into the conversation.  Once again your willingness, indeed eagerness to pick fights drives you to tell bald faced lies.

You need to just shut up and leave me alone.  The very worst thing I might possibly have said about American Indians before you ticked me off is that they wore clothes and had sex in private.  That's an absurd thing to go on a rampage over.  You want to take a dump all over me, take it to PM's.

Incidentally, if you're some Thresh troll chasing me down here because you can't get your jollies there, please stop.  There's a reason I left the place.  This sort of weirdness is so typical there. Go back home. Shoo.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 12:20 AM   #125
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
I'm sorry Ellora, for a second I took your originaly question as a serious one. Nice bait job though you actually got me to respond, once.

--Tim
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 12:44 AM   #126
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Shane, you’re the kind of Christian that aught to have been feed to lions in the first century, that way some one could have turned you into a martyr without ever knowing what a special kind of messed up you are, and in that regard at least you would have done Christianity some good.

You did in fact say that Indians were clothed and had sex in private and you said it in support of you assertions that Indians had the same screwed up view on modesty that you have and when you got blown out of the water you freaked out and started reaching for what ever point your enfeebled mind could grasp to through up as a denial. Because in your mind, your base assumption, is your effete arrogant superior holier than though Christian self just can’t accept the fact that you are wrong. Which is why you are now trying to obscure the fact that your assertion was that Indian people MUST have had the same moral set on modesty that you have, that it is somehow an  ….here, let me look up YOUR words ….

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I speak of whatever seed started Christianity, I am not speaking here of the birth of Christ.  Rather, I am referring to whatever it is in the fabric of ongoing cultural developments that could be traced back past Christ, through Judaism, back to the religions of the region around Canaan and so forth and beyond even that to prehistory
So get off of the denial train, or don’t but come to grips with the fact that I know it for what it is. By the way, other people here read your tripe and know it for what it is also. Proff1515 and Brett are being nice to you but they must be sitting behind their PCs just shaking their heads every time you post. The difference, I suspect, between the two of them and myself is that I regard you as a danger. Some people will listen to your spetum and actually give some of it credence. So every time you spew some racist noxious bile I’m going to point out that that is what it is.

So much for how “your side” beat up all those dumb Injuns.

Notice how I didn’t say White there? That’s so decent human beings that just happen to have the same culture and religion as you can have a bit of distance from you.
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 12:47 AM   #127
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Go back home.  Shoo.
Do you want me to set my TeePee up in your back yard? Is this some kinda sick common? I would have thought people like you got your jollies satisfied during the boarding school era.
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 12:51 AM   #128
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (BrettH @ May 15 2006,19:21)
When it comes to how I roleplay sex and what I do in real life, the range of similarity and variance is huge - because each of my characters is different.

I've played asexual characters, rakes, prudes, psycho misogynists, pansexualists, etc. Some of these characters have never been in sex scenes and likely never will be because of their orientations. Some will be in them fairly often, as that has a lot to do with their RP and view of the universe.

For myself, I'm neither extreme. Just a sort of middle of the road type with an open mind, so roleplay remains just that to me; roleplay. A story. Characters with their own lives, own quirks, own problems.

That's what makes the story fun for me. If it was all about me and my preferences, I already know how life for such a person turns out as that's what I'm already doing day to day.

---Brett
I am completely in agreement with you here Brett. I find it really difficult (I almost said hard ;-) ) to find folks who can actually deal with RP in this fashion however. Maybe it is just the MUDs I frequent. What kind of issues have come up for you and do you have any "lessons learned"?
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 01:15 AM   #129
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
I think the #1 thing is to keep priorities in mind. If you really care about story, I've learned you have to keep an absolute distance between what's happening in the game and what's happening out of the game. I never get involved with the players of my characters' love interests.

If your priority is to relax with a game online, but ultimately to meet people and maybe have a relationship, the story certainly can take second seat to all that. But it can be very risky.

Can't tell you how many times a 'perfect IC/OOC couple' breaks up and all hell breaks loose. Storylines go wonky, characters start committing suicide at the drop of a hat, harrassments in IMs, any projects/games the players are managing utterly die, and related friendships fragment.

I always make it clear to people through OOC chat that my character and I do not think alike, act alike, or make the same choices. I don't lie to players about what my character is doing (or whom), otherwise it seems like I'm worried about some sort of OOC 'cheating' and again, things get wonky.

I do not encourage a sense of ownership of my online time with players of characters my character is sleeping with. My time is my own, and sometimes I'm in the mood to play something else.

If the players react badly to these things, getting hurt or bent out of shape, I end the RP of an intimate relationship immediately. It would only get worse if I coddled people's inappropriate OOC feelings about a story and fictional characters.

Another thing that can get me to end it is if the other player insists that I must RP sexual scenes with the character regularly, that only actions specifically acted out are actually occuring and there is no implied 'regular life' happening when we aren't at the keyboards, and therefore any gap in such scenes is equivalent to my character losing interest and actually withholding sex.

Way too much emotional neediness there, too close to trying to turn the story into some actual marital duties that I can do without.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Those are just things that came to mind.

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 03:00 AM   #130
GuruPlayer
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 73
GuruPlayer is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 15 2006,21<!--emo&[img
http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]
The post I am referring to Tim is on the very first page, well before you decided to lay into the conversation.  Once again your willingness, indeed eagerness to pick fights drives you to tell bald faced lies.

You need to just shut up and leave me alone.  The very worst thing I might possibly have said about American Indians before you ticked me off is that they wore clothes and had sex in private.  That's an absurd thing to go on a rampage over.  You want to take a dump all over me, take it to PM's.

Incidentally, if you're some Thresh troll chasing me down here because you can't get your jollies there, please stop.  There's a reason I left the place.  This sort of weirdness is so typical there.  Go back home.  Shoo.
For a person who's only been registered on this forum a month, you sure must really think you're something special, telling other posters what to do & to go away.  Who died and made you forum monitor??  You're one of that species of internet troll that loves to see their "wisdom" printed on the boards over & over, ad nauseum, as everyone can see by the number of posts you've generated in the very short time you've been registered.  Why don't you do everyone a favor & give it a rest...get a life...go out on a date or something....or to use your words...SHOO!!!
GuruPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 09:12 AM   #131
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 16 2006,00:44)
Shane, you’re the kind of Christian that aught to have been feed to lions in the first century, that way some one could have turned you into a martyr without ever knowing what a special kind of messed up you are, and in that regard at least you would have done Christianity some good.

You did in fact say that Indians were clothed and had sex in private and you said it in support of you assertions that Indians had the same screwed up view on modesty that you have and when you got blown out of the water you freaked out and started reaching for what ever point your enfeebled mind could grasp to through up as a denial. Because in your mind, your base assumption, is your effete arrogant superior holier than though Christian self just can’t accept the fact that you are wrong. Which is why you are now trying to obscure the fact that your assertion was that Indian people MUST have had the same moral set on modesty that you have, that it is somehow an  ….here, let me look up YOUR words ….

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I speak of whatever seed started Christianity, I am not speaking here of the birth of Christ.  Rather, I am referring to whatever it is in the fabric of ongoing cultural developments that could be traced back past Christ, through Judaism, back to the religions of the region around Canaan and so forth and beyond even that to prehistory
So get off of the denial train, or don’t but come to grips with the fact that I know it for what it is. By the way, other people here read your tripe and know it for what it is also. Proff1515 and Brett are being nice to you but they must be sitting behind their PCs just shaking their heads every time you post. The difference, I suspect, between the two of them and myself is that I regard you as a danger. Some people will listen to your spetum and actually give some of it credence. So every time you spew some racist noxious bile I’m going to point out that that is what it is.

So much for how “your side” beat up all those dumb Injuns.

Notice how I didn’t say White there? That’s so decent human beings that just happen to have the same culture and religion as you can have a bit of distance from you.

So you hardly ever wear clothes and never seek out any privacy when you want to have sex.  Fine. I don't believe that is a very common practice worldwide, but if you think it is, that's great.  Saying it over and over again however is not terribly convincing to me.  

If you don't like Wiki, at this point I would even accept citations from moocowsmakemilk.org.  Anything other than your interminable blithering.

Guru, sorry but no.  If anyone has made himself a mod here, it is your buddy telling me at the top of the page that it's my job to believe what he tells me and "take my lumps".

Oh... "Your messenger (0 new)" Apparently my plee to take this to PM's and my pages long response to all this drivel did not register on Tim, as he is apparently determined to have this out publicly and on this thread because he is, after all, an "authority".
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 09:37 AM   #132
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
[quote= (Shane @ May 16 2006,09:12)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim,May 16 2006,00:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I speak of whatever seed started Christianity, I am not speaking here of the birth of Christ.  Rather, I am referring to whatever it is in the fabric of ongoing cultural developments that could be traced back past Christ, through Judaism, back to the religions of the region around Canaan and so forth and beyond even that to prehistory
Tim, that quote is so far from some sort of assertion of universal Christian values it's pathetic.  That quote, were someone to read it and not know me, would sound like I didn't even believe in God, for crying out loud.  That quote was me saying that whatever dynamics were at the root of the formation of what is modern Christianity existed in humanity and would have found outlet in the culture in question whether or not specific historic events such as a man named "Jesus" being born in Judea coming along and exercising a little populist religious reform.

This is in response to a specific argument, Tim, that professor-whatevernumber made that there are NO OUTSIDE FORCES that shape human culture.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 12:50 PM   #133
Elora
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Currently Denmark
Posts: 20
Elora is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to Elora
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 16 2006,00:20)
I'm sorry Ellora, for a second I took your originaly question as a serious one. Nice bait job though you actually got me to respond, once.

--Tim
Eh. I assure you it was. However, I have come to realize that you apparently have no desire to respond with a serious answer. From what I have read from you so far, you seem curiously obsessed with insulting people or rejecting their arguments without backing up your claims.

You have not managed to respond to a single one of my questions. You have not been able to provide any sources for your claims, any of these supposed "authorities" that back up your dismissals. You seem completely cold to the very basic norms of good debate, and so I will leave you to your random hate and in future be sure to avoid you and your posts.
Elora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 04:02 PM   #134
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I do not encourage a sense of ownership of my online time with players of characters my character is sleeping with. My time is my own, and sometimes I'm in the mood to play something else.
I think this one is the most important. For me the fact that I am looking at a computer ultimately filters out allot. When someone starts trying to impact your daily life with demands of this kind I just stop as well.

It sounds like we have allot of the same (or similar) thoughts and experiences on the issue.

One thing that I always find as a challenge is ending a relationship in a way that doesn't cause a blow up. It seems like that sense of rejection can really hit some players a bit too hard. That’s probably another indication of their failure to maintain a distinct personality however.
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 04:06 PM   #135
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Quote (Shane @ May 16 2006,09:12)
[quote= (Tim @ May 16 2006,00:44)]

Quote  
I speak of whatever seed started Christianity, I am not speaking here of the birth of Christ.  Rather, I am referring to whatever it is in the fabric of ongoing cultural developments that could be traced back past Christ, through Judaism, back to the religions of the region around Canaan and so forth and beyond even that to prehistory


Tim, that quote is so far from some sort of assertion of universal Christian values it's pathetic.  I think I will just save this and every time you say ANYTHING I am just going to quote this back at you. Allthough the statement inspires me to ask .... is being this stupid like being realy stoned all the time?
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 07:39 PM   #136
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
One thing that I always find as a challenge is ending a relationship in a way that doesn't cause a blow up.
The only way I've found to do this is not to start RPing a relationship with someone who is giving off warning signs of instability, underage, inexperience, or obsession. However, it's still possible to be fooled and find out that someone who had seemed very stable is in fact completely losing it.

If I figure the situation is not a good one, it HAS to end regardless of the perceived rejection in the other player. It will just get worse and worse if someone's getting too emotionally bent out of shape over the storyline. So, the sooner the better.

I have had all sorts of different online presences in the many years I've been online (since the BBS days), and I also find that the less you make your offline life available to people online, the less they assume they are going to meet you and marry you. If they can't call you and can't find you, there is a wall there that they're aware of from day 1 that seems to make the 'game only' intent quite clear.

Again, it comes down to priorities. I get all I want in terms of human connections in my real life, so for me, roleplaying online is PURELY about story creation. Therefore, my entire online presence (or lack thereof - I've been accused of being an AI) is geared toward that end. There's no hinted rendezvous offline, no netsex in IMs, no suggestions that I might in any way be in love with or in lust with the other player nor will ever be. If there's any confusion in that regard, it was in no way instigated by me.

I know that takes the fun out of it for some folks, but once more, it's about what's important to your online fun. Know your priorities, put them unequivocably in action, and the odds are you will have less unintended distraction from your brand of entertainment. If your fun is to fall in love with people online (or have them fall in love with you) then your goals are different than mine and my methods are not going to apply.

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 09:10 PM   #137
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
I don't think it is possible at all to prevent blowups totally.  Often times people do not even know they are going to grow attached beforehand.  I think the real key is ongoing communication throughout the rp period over which the romantic/sexual rp is continuing, being sure people are on the same page.  That way things don't go too far in the wrong direction before you get an opportunity to redirect.

I find people who complain that they somehow continually hurt other people's feelings and never seem to get their own hurt, who then blame the other people for the situation without being able to see the pattern of how somehow, magically, they are the one that always ends up sqiggling off with the other person all upset and confused to be the least easy to have this sort of rp with.  Often their policy simply becomes one of, "thou shalt not expect anything of me."  

For myself, I have ended up just not rping anything terribly emotional with anyone who has that sort of thing in their +finger.

Heh, I was just remembering, one of the best ever rp's of this sort was with a happily married lady. She was up front about that from day 1, and also was up front that her husband knew she did that sort of thing, though I suppose you could imagine she was lying. But it turned out she was infinitely reliable in every other way from polite warnings before sudden disconnects to having the presence of mind to at least let me know if she was going to be gone at a time when we had agreed to rp. I have had I don't know how many partners who say, "see you tomorrow," then they never show up and when they come back it's like, "oh, I just meant goodbye." Well, say goodbye then, silly goose! You leave a person holding off other rp if they think you're going to show up.

And if there WAS no time agreed upon, and I did have something else going, she was never a pouter about it either.

All of this ease of play and all that was required was open communication.

I don't know. That's what works best for me.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 10:44 PM   #138
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I don't think it is possible at all to prevent blowups totally.
I don't think it's possible either. There are just things that can be done to lessen the likelihood. On the other side of things, I've seen people absolutely set themselves up for a nightmare by picking an unstable RP partner, then leading them on OOC and then wondering why it got out of control.

Communication IS good. I do recommend making it clear what you're doing whenever there's a question. If it seems like the person you're RPing with is not going to be able to withstand some clear discussion of the RP, that's a warning sign right there.

I've found since I've been very careful about presenting my goals clearly and choosing RP partners that seem stable and understood that they were there for a story, I've had very close to zero trouble. I've had lots of great relationship RP for years using that method. One of them is an IC marriage that's lasted for three years and counting.

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 11:00 PM   #139
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Another pitfall, more common on muds than MUSH's in my opinion, though I've seen some hints of it in MUSH'ing, is the person who purposely tries to sink their claws into you ooc in order to influence your ic actions.


There's really no prepping for that. There are some weird folkses out there.......
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014