rpanons | (no subject)

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

if anything i bet you the wankers of cdc are the mods. their info pages are full of snide jabs at things people whined about the cdc mods.

they'll apply next round so it doesn't look suspicious, most likely.

it feels more like homework than cdc ever did.

and watch people line up to defend it

also like with cdc

except this time it's cdc-wankers defending their precious ripoff.

couldn't they at least take the good parts of cdc instead of the shitty ones?

If we suspect any infomodding, we will ask you to explain how your character came by that knowledge. If you're unable to show us the specific interaction where it was given to them, we will let the entire game know of your infraction

lol, literally, what the fuck? i get not liking infomodding but who honestly thought public shaming was a good idea on the team?

wow, what the fuck. all that's going to do is make the players scared of the mods

guys come on

this is wankers we're talking about

it's not that they hated how cdc was run. they just hated that it wasn't catering to their needs so they went and made a game they plan to run EXACTLY like CDC just so it can cater to them.

Re: EMPIRICA

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 06:22 (UTC) - Expand

Don't be naughty, it will get embarrassing for you.

There's something embarrassing here, alright.

is this game for real

is this game actually run by adults

i wish cdc had this rule because it would be so funny to see jackie get publicly shamed for her infomodding

that the cdc mods didn't already makes them better than this sorry excuse for a modteam

and this game hasn't even opened yet

All the info pages are snarky and PA as shit. Whoever was in charge of this did a really, really bad job of it.

What a cringefest. I'm enjoying laughing at it, though.

the writing in the tdm prompts is really stiff and awkward, too.

was interested until i saw that. now i have no confidence in the mod team.

this is a space game, right? not a reenactment of the scarlet letter?

I seriously don't get this trend of mods giving their playerbase zero trust from the get go. I understand if you need to treat a problem player more strictly but this is kind of poisoning the water supply at square one.

As far as players are concerned, trust shouldn't have to be earned. Mods should guide the players and label such things accordingly. You should only be punishing those who actually fuck up. Especially when it comes to infomodding: if you don't give people a chance, all that's going to happen is they'll end up being scared of you.

Empirica's sub-title should be "How Not To Mod 101".

But your response is a clearer reflection of you, the player, and we will take preemptive measures to steer clear of those who can't gracefully accept a rejection from some silly internet game.

look out we got a badass over here

i get the impression that whoever did these pages thought they were being legitimately cute/funny with this

the attempts to be tongue-in-cheek are seriously painful

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 09:13 (UTC) - Expand

I'm not interested in joining this game, but I was wondering if anyone approached the mods about how off-putting their phrasing is and if they literally mean to publicly put someone on blast? Do they give a player a warning before immediately shoving them onto the chopping block?

^this

cdc gave characters ic reason to band together even if the teams made it easy to form cliques. this game splits them up apart and encourages cliquishness even more. and public shaming? what is this the inquisition? you very rarely heard the mods singling players out unless the players themselves make noise about it.

i hate to say it but i miss the cdc mods. they weren't the nicest by a mile but they ran the game really well imo. and honestly the people who complained the most about the game were people the mods had warned or given strikes to for one reason or another (jackie for infomodding, bootsie and nat for getting grayed because of ic consequences, and these are just the ones i know). that says a lot.

you very rarely heard the mods singling players out unless the players themselves make noise about it.

I only ever saw the players that people deemed to be "wankers" complain about the mods and openly discuss their warnings and strikes as well. I don't think further proof is needed who the troublemakers were.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 07:38 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 07:43 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 07:48 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 07:51 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-08-15 07:47 (UTC) - Expand

I agree that cdc's ic mechanics worked better than this looks to, and that these ooc pages are a whole new bucker of worms. But you're seriously wearing rose coloured glasses if you think there were no issues with the cdc mods.

Still not going to join empirical after this though, holy fuck

(no subject)

Re: EMPIRICA

+1

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

+1

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

+1

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

Re: EMPIRICA

+1

no subject

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Re: +1