Uru Live IC/OOC Standards Article

semplerfi · **Posted:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:45 pm

Rusty_Russell wrote:

It's a question of interpretation, isn't it, semp? "Can" wasn't intended as "are allowed to" but "may / might". Perhaps "could" would be better?

Yes Rusty, adding the communities’ global semantics to the equation; interpretation can/may/might be difficult.

Tokai · **Posted:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:54 am

I’m perplexed at the furore. Tweek’s post to me was a good interpretation / generalisation of how Uru and the ‘players’ have evolved/ behaved. I see no ‘hard and fast’ rules or explanations of IC or OOC or any other abbreviations mentioned for that matter in Uru. What we have is how the ‘players’ have conducted themselves from day one. And if this is a new genre – so be it – I see nothing wrong in his appraisal.

Me? I’m a expletive, and always will be.

BrettM · **Posted:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:49 am

Tokai wrote:

I’m a expletive, and always will be.

How do you get along with the Yeesunnis? :twisted:

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

Oh..oh dear..that was just terrible.

Erik · **Posted:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:55 pm

Thumbs up for the liaisons.

Very clear and informative for old en new explorers/gamers.

I don't think there will be many issues... I see that many people are a bit worried, but Live hasn't launched yet, so you don't know how people will act in the cavern. Just wait and see...

crrash · **Posted:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:11 pm

i wonder... we are always having these fights over IC and OoC, right?
what about making two different channels each with its own color. you could choose into which one you would post (IC or OoC) and which ones you want to "listen" to.
that way IC purists could either ignore the text that appears in the OoC color or even shut the OoC channel completely off.
dunno, just some crazy idea

Owehn · **Posted:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:31 pm

I think that the reason we're shying away from "separate the ooc and the ic people" suggestions is twofold:

1. Not everyone is strictly IC or strictly OOC. A lot of mostly-IC people can answer questions about tech support, for example, and a lot of mostly-OOC people refer to their avatars as themselves.

2. We're trying to integrate the community, not divide it. Apparently, in other places where segregation has been impelemented, the two (or more) sides have ended up bitterly despising each other - a "feature" we'd like to avoid.

So the trouble remaining is how do deal with IC people if you're mostly OOC, and vice versa. The problem is that "In Cavern" people are generally ok with respecting OOC people, and "In Character" (as in, Role-Playing) people sometimes feel like they're allowed to harass people because they're just playing a character.

Edit: Ccrash, I was reading "channel" as "server" in your post. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

I think that's a great solution ccrash - you should submit it!

I think that an in-game solution to the issue of different playing modes - it's a great idea.

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

crrash wrote:

i wonder... we are always having these fights over IC and OoC, right?
what about making two different channels each with its own color. you could choose into which one you would post (IC or OoC) and which ones you want to "listen" to.
that way IC purists could either ignore the text that appears in the OoC color or even shut the OoC channel completely off.
dunno, just some crazy idea

Yeah this community is fragmented enough, this wouldn't help matters. Personally I think that people should learn to deal with it, stop imposing their mode of play on others, its just selfish.

But yeah if its something you feel strongly about submit it as a feature request.

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

On the comment that people playing on different WoW servers despised each other - the question is whether it's the different servers causing the problem. WoW attracts such a huge number of players. Perhaps more people are mean. It may not have anything to do with the different servers.

Anyway - I realize that there won't be different servers in Uru Live - we will all be together. I also realize that Uru Live is a different game, and the atmosphere will be different, friendlier, more cooperative. That's how I see it.

For all that, I think that an in-game way of identifying different game play styles is a great idea - my personal opinion only! I think that the issue applies most specifically to strict roleplayers. The surprisingly complicated way non roleplay works seems to be easy for most people to understand. Remember that most people who don't do roleplay still act like the game is "real", to some extent.

It won't be a problem in the private or semi-private areas, but I think that there may be some confusion in the public areas. Personally, I think that it's a lot to ask players to somehow "know" that the person you just talked isn't acting "weird" because they are weird - they are roleplaying. It might also be difficult for roleplayers to find each other - though maybe we'll have more roleplayers, (even strick roleplayers) than I think!

I can't wait for December, to see how it's all going to work out!

Majerelee · **Posted:** Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:58 am

On the topic of seperating people from each other or bringing them together...

Quote:

BrettM

Quote:

Tokai wrote:
I’m a expletive, and always will be.

How do you get along with the Yeesunnis?

Oddly enough this seems to be a not bad analogy (though any other schism or even just good heated debate would likely serve in its place) for what I've been encountering lately. People are seeming to polarise into three camps based upon followings of DRC policy, Yeesha's extreme proponents and a midground view. Though it is mostly a phenominon within IC or even RP explorers I've seen several OOC explorers get caught up in the debates on different discussion boards as well. And there were propenents of each stance within the groups of each type of explorer. Perhaps other aspects of Uru will in creating divisions between people (based on opinion, philosophy or politics) truly trivialise the divisive factor of how one wishes to view Uru and comport themselves with other explorers.

LostOwl · **Posted:** Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:53 pm

I suppose I am one of those people who don't fit into any category exactly. I see it as a game and recognize OOC and IC, but at the same time, I emerse myself as "myself" in the game. Like most players I've come across in this game and forum, I value the community and have no problem with people who take it more/less seriously as OOC or IC. I enjoy interacting with both and I respect both positions. Personally, given the excellent maturity and intellegence level of the people I've recognized here, I don't think that will be a problem. It is a good idea, however, to set up some guidelines to recognize a person's position and leave it there.

Thanks for the ideas on this and look forward to seeing you all next month!

Eleri · **Posted:** Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:46 pm

When we sat down to write this (and Tweek did most of the work), it was because there was a whole heek of confusion as to what people meant when they said In Cavern or In Character or what. Huge amounts of the debate and conflict revolved around people meaning different things for the same term.

So, the document was intended to get us all on the same page, by clearly defining the most common terms used, in the ways they seemed to be most commonly used.

From there, it's much easier to discuss things like the DRC Forum being all "In Cavern", or talk about events in Live in an In Cavern way, if everyone knows what that means.

It also gives a framework for the influx of new gamers we're going to have, who may have very different ideas about what IC/OOC means, based on the enviroments they've been playing in.

mcbride3 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:20 pm

For me, the most interesting thing in this thread is that so many have found so much to say about it. Im inclined to think: You either are, or you are not; either way, you cannot be 100% -- even though some aspire to 100% (one way or the other).

But then, my casualness over this matter was prepared long ago by a delightful cultural commentary (a novel) by Nigel Dennis. It was called, "Cards of Identity". In it a dedicated group of role players rented a large country house in the South of England for a convention, palming themselves off as wealthy new owners. Role players gathered there from all over the Country. Under-class types played lords. Upper class types played out the roles of cooks and tradesmen -- `as each preferred. They had such a powerful presence upon the little town near the rented country house that before the week was over, many folk had become servants to the "new owners", and even the town doctor had left his practice to become gardener for the estate. Of course, the simple towns people who had been hoodwinked by the dedicated role players were left high and dry when, after the rp convention ended, they all quietly pulled out, leaving the police to wonder what had really taken place.

The secret of the novel lies in the clever writing of Nigel Dennis; but we cannot deny that the premise is very strong and cutting in its exposure of our psychological new age foibles. If little else, it opens up for us stodgy types how wonderful a catharsis is even simple role playing.

Cheery bye, says Major Pappou

Encyclopedia of Britannica:
Nigel Dennis
born Jan. 16, 1912, Bletchingley, Surrey, Eng.
died July 19, 1989, Hertsfordshire
English writer and critic who used absurd plots and witty repartee to satirize psychiatry, religion, and social behaviour, most notably in his novel Cards of Identity (1955).

Ed Oscuro · **Posted:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:31 am

Weirga wrote:

The article doesn't seem to be a directive or a set of rules. It seems to be a set of classifications. It's there to help people understand what people mean when they talk about IC/OOC/RP, based on how our discourse community uses those terms.

T'would be great if they actually wrote IN/OOC in long form (In/Out of Character) at the beginning, then. To the gaming novice IN/OOC looks like gibberish. I've never seen it abbreviated before myself.

So...is it pretty much safe to ignore this? :lol:

Edit: I'm going to ignore whoever says it isn't.

Uru Live IC/OOC Standards Article

Who is online