What is IC vs OOC?

[Raptress]

The problem with trying to back up an argument with those rules is that those rules call for everyone to be IC in public chats as much as possible. While they were brought up because they mention RL occurrences, they also say that lengthy discussions on game mechanics are expected to take themselves elsewhere, and this almost never happens either.

The fact of the matter is, Marketplace is considered by almost everyone I know to be a mostly OOC chat simply because it is used so often for talk about quests, or leveling, or game mechanics - things that are, to most, all completely OOC topics. Where that seems to clash with Awdz is that, to those I know, there really aren't any "levels" to OOC - once we're there, we're there. Talking about how my quest isn't working is exactly the same amount of OOC to me as talking about how my RL workday went.

Another issue is that Marketplace is the consistently most densely populated channel and thus draws the majority of new player questions, some of which are hard to answer without offending Awdz or any that may be like her. What is a new player to do with those questions? Simply not ask them? Are they expected to send a /tell at random to a high-level player?

And what about the rest of the OOC that goes on in Marketplace? Will those talking about game mechanics be asked to take it elsewhere too, or will you be satisfied, Awdz, with merely the lack of RL references and thus only half upholding the server rules that you quoted?

In my opinion, if you're going to bring up the rules, you have to take it all the way. You cannot just pick and choose what rules you will and will not abide by (and what rules you will not stand to see others break).

[awdz]

These rules are old and not all of them are really known or respected in the current time... These old rules are far stricter than the current ones.

If they are not currently in effect, why are they stickied in this forum with the title "Role Playing Policy" and no disclaimer pointing to newer rules? Where are the newer ones listed?

@ Raptress: I would be absolutely fine if folks actually stuck to your definition of IC in public chats. I know enough to /tell a new person with answers giving out-of-Istaria references and could easily adapt to doing all technical answers via /tell as well. Whether folks are lazy or simply unable to maintain that level of IC in public chats, I do not know; language barriers and simply not understanding the rules come into play. I do not expect newbs to get it right from the get-go, but I do expect experienced players to send tells when appropriate to help the newbs understand what discussion is publically acceptable.

In that Marketplace discussion that I interrupted with my request, it was after an established player started using RL references that I made my request - and repeated when other established players supported use of the RL references. IMO, it is inappropriate for a public chat on the roleplay shard to push free use of RL references.

I do know that I disagree with the extreme to which some apply the IC definition. For example, IMO asking for equipment, etc. and discussing what capabilities to put on it are generally IC but to others if you mention anything "tier" they would call it OOC. My feeling is that [just as we get 3rd person views of our characters to make up for the fact we cannot actually feel the ground vibrate as a huge nasty comes up behind us], the Istarian language incorporates technical game terms to make our communication of needs clearer. That is why, to me, technical discussions are perfectly acceptable and yet I get really annoyed about RL references.

[Akrion]

For example, IMO asking for equipment, etc. and discussing what capabilities to put on it are generally IC but to others if you mention anything "tier" they would call it OOC.

As I had already said in Marketplace, it is absolutely 100% possible to discuss anything game-mechanic related entirely IC, sometimes by simply giving it RP flare. Tier wouldn't be considered OOC, many IC would consider Mithril tier 5 metal simply because it's the 5th most difficult metal to work with. The problem is the discussions of broken quest counters or levels or experience point gains. These things could be absolutely be pushed into an IC context:

Broken quest counters - Could say that the person requesting the resources forgot/can't decide/etc. how many of the resources they actually want, as a quick example.

Levels - Some refer to these as seasons, others may refer them to as ranks of training in a school, either way this one doesn't have to travel far to go from being viewed as an OOC thing to viewed as an IC thing. Simply saying 'you're of the 63rd level of Dragon Training according to your Adventure Trainer' would be enough.

Experience points - Translate the numbers into something more organic.
From Experience Points to simply Experience, for example.

This is one of nice things about being in-character, instead of simple questions and answers regarding something game related and playing it no different than one would on Chaos, you're actually trying to experience what your character would if the situation were real. How -do- you describe to someone, IRL, what you need to do to achieve your next belt in martial arts? You can't use a concept like 'Experience Points', yet we get by just fine regardless.

However when it comes to technical help for something related to your game, that can't really be done entirely IC and since that's what usually happens in Marketplace, the channel won't be IC.

Thing is, Awdz, you've got multiple hard-core roleplayers who are people that typically ask others to bracket OOC conversations, who spark and play long and deep story driven RPs, and who (for Raptress and I at least) are usually making 1 to 2 text capped messages of RP detail for our posts on average, that are the ones having the problem with what happened in Marketplace saying that such conversations are fine. We typically don't even have a problem if those conversations happen in IC-only channels so long as the messages are bracketed and not making it difficult for the roleplayers to read the other RP posts. Then yet, one part of getting into serious roleplays is that one must also be (or should be) good at keeping IC and OOC separate so that could be a factor.

Ultimately Marketplace will probably never be considered as entirely IC because it's already largely treated OOC. Unless everybody in MP were willing to treat it along the lines of your definition of level 9/10 then it'll never happen (And if it does, the majority of the people there would likely frequent another channel and treat it just like Marketplace is treated now).

[LungTien Temeraire]

If they are not currently in effect, why are they stickied in this forum with the title "Role Playing Policy" and no disclaimer pointing to newer rules? Where are the newer ones listed?

I don't know the reply to these questions.

[awdz]

Unless everybody in MP were willing to treat it along the lines of your definition of level 9/10 then it'll never happen.

That is NOT MY DEFINITION of IC, it is YOURS. Will you please stop applying the wrong thing to me?? I have described at least a half dozen times between here and Marketplace that my version is four (4) and up on that scale. Every time, I hear you come back as though your definition were being used. No wonder there is no agreement between us.

[Akrion]

What you don't seem to be understanding, Awdz, is that this isn't just my definition. It's the definition the majority of RPers use. I'm most certainly not the only one in this thread saying that they consider 'IC' to be the way I've described it, so it's clearly not just my definition. This definition of 'IC' isn't just specific to me, or even Istaria. The rules you quoted even imply a level of IC that's similar to 'my definition' of IC. You don't have to follow this definition, but you're going to find that many roleplayers don't follow yours.

[awdz]

*rolls eyes* I get that many use the same definition you do. My point is I do NOT, and I am not the only one who thinks as I do. As with many things in life, there are varying degrees to which it is possible to define it. While the majority may follow one definition, there is a significant minority that does not. It's extremely frustrating to have to explain that over and over to someone who refuses to consider any other perspective the least bit valid other than the purported majority one.

"Please" look at what I actually said instead of applying [your definition of IC] to anything I speak about when talking about game communication. "OOC" does not work for me in describing Order's Marketplace chat because it implies freedom to use RL references freely. Can we agree to use a term like "in Istaria" for it, as middle ground?

What do you call speaking only about technical aspects of the game or from your character's viewpoint? II for "in Istaria"? IG for "in game"? Please, o gamer, tell me what the majority of people use to describe it so we can stop arguing nomenclature.

[LungTien Temeraire]

Indeed, while most of the players I know have a view of RP and IC like I have, there are some who have another idea of it. I respect their different view of the topic. The important things are to be open, to accept the fact that not everyone sees something in the same way, and to respect those who think differently.

[Raptress]

What do you call speaking only about technical aspects of the game or from your character's viewpoint? II for "in Istaria"? IG for "in game"? Please, o gamer, tell me what the majority of people use to describe it so we can stop arguing nomenclature.

That's the thing. We don't have a term for this. Because OOC is OOC to us. There aren't any degrees to it. Either you're talking out-of-character or you're not. That's it. If you want to invent a term for it, go ahead. But it'll still be OOC to me no matter what you call it.

[Akrion]

Awdz, this is essentially boiling down to: If other people are already discussing something that doesn't fit your definition of 'IC/OOC', they must take their discussion elsewhere. If they (and the majority of the channel) see no problem with the discussion taking place and the discussion refuses to move, you take issue with it. Can you not see something wrong with this?

As I already said, the discussion did not push its self into an RP you were having with other people. You were completely silent up until the point this discussion mentioned another game, and then you said something.

If you were in the middle of interacting with other people before said discussion started up, I would have been much more understanding of you requesting it to be moved elsewhere since it would be getting in the way of your RP, though the channel still is considered largely OOC. But this is not the case. You and you alone had a problem with the conversation that day, seemed to take some offense to the mention of another game, then asked the conversation to leave instead of you yourself leaving.

It's like walking up to a group of people talking, not liking the topic they're discussing, and then asking them to move to a different spot to talk because you don't want to hear it.

[awdz]

That's the thing. We don't have a term for this. Because OOC is OOC to us. There aren't any degrees to it. Either you're talking out-of-character or you're not. That's it. If you want to invent a term for it, go ahead. But it'll still be OOC to me no matter what you call it.

Thus the communication problem, a refusal to accept a point in between and come up with a term to use so that everyone understands what is meant. I'm willing to not say "IC", why can't you use something other than "OOC"?

Awdz, this is essentially boiling down to: If other people are already discussing something that doesn't fit your definition of 'IC/OOC', they must take their discussion elsewhere. If they (and the majority of the channel) see no problem with the discussion taking place and the discussion refuses to move, you take issue with it. Can you not see something wrong with this?

Can you not see that refusing to follow the shard rules can be offensive?

It's like walking up to a group of people talking, not liking the topic they're discussing, and then asking them to move to a different spot to talk because you don't want to hear it.

It's more like sitting in an open office area with coworkers talking nearby, when some of them start to use profanity. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask them not to use profanity.

[Raptress]

Thus the communication problem, a refusal to accept a point in between and come up with a term to use so that everyone understands what is meant. I'm willing to not say "IC", why can't you use something other than "OOC"?

I said right there in my last post that if you want a term for it, go ahead. But whatever you call it, it would be a subset of OOC to me. I don't understand what I'm refusing to do. There's nothing to compromise that I can see, unless you're asking me to completely change the way I define IC and OOC just to satisfy one person when I can instead just not go into Marketplace.

Can you not see that refusing to follow the shard rules can be offensive?

This is not about the rules. Marketplace does not follow server rules at least 90% of the time. That's the entire reason that almost everyone I know considers MP mostly if not completely an OOC channel.

If you want this to be about the rules, start telling people that talk at length about game mechanics and other such non-RP things to take it to tells too.

It's more like sitting in an open office area with coworkers talking nearby, when some of them start to use profanity. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask them not to use profanity.

I think you are in the minority about RL references being as bad as profanity, considering this was the first time in three and a half years that I've ever even heard of this being such a big problem.

And that's exactly why I have an issue. Like I said before, if I have an issue with something in a chat, but I know I'm probably the only one, I will leave the chat for a while. I will not follow the path of most resistance and tell the people talking to leave. I don't do that because when people do that, things like this thread happen. People get hurt and frustrated (and new players start talking about leaving). Nothing good is likely to come from it.

Aside from all of that, if anyone else is reading this anymore and needs a place where they don't have to be careful of if they're getting too close to RL or not, you can talk about whatever you want in Dragon chat currently. You don't even have to be a dragon. x3

[Akrion]

I would be completely fine if Marketplace was converted to follow the rules and be 100% In-Character, but that's not what you seem to want. You seem to want it to be in your definition of In-Character which entirely breaks the rules you keep quoting, and breaks the common definition of OOC. It's either completely OOC, or completely IC ((With bracketed OOC, as most of the roleplayers in Istaria aren't that strict)), there really is no middle ground to the majority of roleplayers. It's not much different than an actor playing a role. They're either playing the character or they're not. There is no case of Gandalf discussing what's happening in Middle Earth from the perspective of the reader/viewer just because it's related to the story.

And comparing someone using other games as a frame of reference to explain Istaria to a new player as being like walking up to a group of people cursing is absurd. And even if it was, you're still approaching a talking group and asking them to move, basically saying that wherever you go, they must leave. That's not right, and that's the entire reason why I spoke up to begin with.

[awdz]

What I hear from your posts is that you must have it either 9-10 on the scale I listed or 0-10; you cannot deal with anything in between.

Since the game rules for Order target the 9-10 range, I was trying to come up with some middle ground for the most populated chat that does not drive away new folks looking for assistance but stilll maintains at least some of the devs' intent for the shard. Apparently you'd rather have both shards be like Chaos and to heck with anyone trying to keep things "in Istaria".

Gee, thanks so much for your understanding and willingness to compromise for the betterment of the shard.

[Shian]

If this were any other channel Awdz, I'd agree with you, but marketplace is most definatly *not* the place to reinforce IC considering the game's lore. Every other place in the game, go for it, but not market. If you want an RP reinforced channel, then make one but don't try to make up some rule about how wrong someone is on a (scale no less) in supposedly the only place in the game where it is proper to do so.

IC is IC. OOC is OOC. There is no scale here other than what you feel you want to hear. Talking about RL issues is no different than talking about other MMOs.

edit: I'd be happy to give you transcript of everything that happened in market today. Not once was anyone IC. Which is fine. 90% of it was questions about where things were, how to get stuff and discussions of the new content.

[Raptress]

Apparently you'd rather have both shards be like Chaos and to heck with anyone trying to keep things "in Istaria".

Gee, thanks so much for your understanding and willingness to compromise for the betterment of the shard.

I don't have any idea how you get that I want Order to be like Chaos. I'm a pretty hardcore role-player if I were to label myself; why would I want the RP shard to become like the non-RP shard? I don't understand where you're getting this from.

As for my willingness to compromise, do you even understand what it is that you're asking me (and other role-players who think like I do about OOC/IC, i.e., the majority) to do? You're asking me to redefine what OOC and IC are, and that's simply not fair to expect from anyone. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, it's not something I'm willing to do, and I don't expect anyone else will either.

The definitions of OOC and IC are very clear-cut and obvious to me, and they always have been. If I'm talking about game mechanics, I am not in-character no matter which way you slice it. Being in-character means that you are in-character. You are playing your part in the world as if you lived in it, not as if you are playing a game. There is no UI, there are no floating names, there are no experience points. As you can see from the responses you've gotten in this thread, that's how pretty much everyone else sees it too.

I don't know how I can be any clearer about all this. IC and OOC are separate. By their very natures, there can't be a middle ground unless you expect everyone to muddle the two together, which I think would be more negative for the shard than just having OOC talk in Marketplace like there has been for as long as I can remember.

You think RL references break your immersion? Think how I and other role-players would feel if it became acceptable to talk about game mechanics in role-play. The entire experience would be cheapened, and that's the sort of thing I think would start turning Order into Chaos.

[awdz]

My apologies for overestimating your abilities to separate discussion of Istaria game mechanics from RL and other games.

[Raptress]

It's not an inability. It's a lack of desire to have to constantly watch what I say while I'm trying to talk to new players and help them understand what Istaria is and what it's like in order to satisfy one person. Thanks for being condescending, by the way.

[Frith-Rae]

ok first off, can we stop witih the accusations and throwing of insults and condesension - I still see a pointto this discussion but perhaps it should just be locked if it goes any further - cuz this will totally turn everyone off to Order and Marketplace (again..again again...). So can we stop now and keep it civil - if not hey leave the thread...

My apologies for overestimating your abilities to separate discussion of Istaria game mechanics from RL and other games.

Awdz I do get what you are saying here. You are saing that in theh OOC discussion you (and most of us do..) draw a line between being ok with ooc-mechanic-discussions and ooc-football discussions. You would like to see that line drawn more clearly in MP (anyway), and for everyone to try and NOT have ooc-rl-talk on the shard - and for everyoen to enforce that.

We all get that. Honestly. I think we do. I dont see anyone here saying, "oh yes please, lets all talk about work today and vent about our horrible boss!"

But what I also see here is you coming across as "ok everyone here is what I and some others want, you have to do what we want, so stop talking about that in front of me/others?" Perhaps that is not what you intend to come across as, and perhaps that is not where you started - but that is where we are now. You want everyone to see what you mean, agree, and then follow through.

Not even looking at your whole scale and you wanting to redefine something that is 9/10 IC as IC and not OOC. Whatever. Semantics. Your Id is in the minority - ok - whatever. You can argue that all you want but yea, you do have to use the term the way a majority uses it if you want us to understand and use the same terms! But we get your meaning, now try to get our points...

We are seeing what you mean. Many of us agree with you (to a point, I will explain below). But then asking us to tell others to leave/stop talking - for some of us that crosses a line *WE* dont feel anymore comfortable with than *YOU* do for listening to someone talk about WoW.

Just because we dont fully agree with you and your "terms" doesnt mean we dont understand where you are coming from.

And I think the "to a point" is that - yes - I agree - in an ideal world we would have so much IC talk going on, or even just in-game references OOC (your IC) discussion we would never have to see someone talk football, Rlwork, their momm, or the horrid politics (ugg seriously no! LOL).

But this isnt an ideal world. Its not an ideal situation. And wheras apparently you woulud prefer to sit in "silence" so to speak with noone talking in the channel rather than watch someone talk about the latest episode of FRINGE (random example!) - I think *many*of those respondingto you here are saying that no - in fact - they would rather read talk about Fringe than sit in silence in a chat room.

And there is where the big difference of opinion is coming from. thats it. Kinda sad I think people gettingso pissy because of THAT difference right there.

But the fact is - if you dont like something in front of you - you have the option of leaving the chat. Dont pretend to be a high-and-mighty-rule-rightenous-enforcer. According to those rules, I should be reporting every or LOL I see ON THE ENTIRE SERVER - no matter where it is - cuz zomg thats elitespeak..ohwait..zomg is elitespeak...Ahh /report! (whaaa? LOL they be busy then!!). If there are 20 people in the chatroom, and 5 are having a conversation, and only one person speaks up and says "guys stop I dont wantto read that" um..honestly the one person should be taking it upon themselves to leave and or file a ticket and report if you feel it is offensive enough to take action.

And even after you file a ticket - it is still on you to leave. Or at the very least the /ignore.

I realize you speak up when others dont. I do that too - but you cant use it as a justification for anything. If people arent willing to step up and speak for themselves then they cant be counted. Cuz any side in an argument can pull the "oh everyone else agrees with m e but they dont tell you" bit - and noone knows the facts there. If they want to be heard, they have to speak for themselves. As I tell my clients "if you arent speaking for yourself and standing up for yourself, I dont want to hear your complaints/whines". Yes that is therapeutic when I do it .

You talk of compromise - when all I see is you only wanting people to stick to your rules and your standards (as defined by your chart, and what bothers you) and even if their rules allow for it - too bad - somehow that isnt compromise to you.

Mostof the feedback here seems to be in the "hey if nothing else is going on what does it hurt to talk about school or football - even if yes, we agree, its not IC or game-related-OOC but its talking". And many people are even saying ok, lets use brackets in MP to help differentiate.

But no, I dont think you are going to get everyone to agree that across the shard noone is allowed to talk about ungame-related OOC and they will stop it anytiem they see it. That just isnt going to happen.

If you think that makes us Chaos. oh well - we are Chaos then. *shrugs*

You started this thread wanting to discuss defnitions - the title even implies that you are saying "what are the differences". Well we dicussed back (all of us) - and you apparently disagree. Perhaps this should be in rants, and not on the Shard Forum. Heck when I first started I thought it might even be a helpful guide to help teach others the differences!!

Butno - Its not a discussion - you didnt want anyone's alternate opinion or insight into the issue. You *come across now* as wanting us to read yours and agree that in MP we are all to abide by your definitions (even going so far as to say they are minority defintion we need to be using)...and that is not how a discussion works. That is how a rant works.

[Akrion]

Thank you Frith, that was very well said.