Makes sense. Prince Harry was just an example off the top of my head.
Thankfully, all of my historical characters for the Chaotic World of Orochi fall under the bar. It helps that most of the characters there have been dead for over 100 years, haha.
This was definitely an interesting insight to be sure.
Thankfully, all of my historical characters for the Chaotic World of Orochi fall under the bar. It helps that most of the characters there have been dead for over 100 years, haha.
This was definitely an interesting insight to be sure.
Same with Sengoku era characters. They been dead for a long time. Other media sources use them in games and fiction as well.
Sure. Historical characters being used with respect are really not our concern here. 
Well I want to put my two cents in on this. Probably being a roleplayer dating back to form rps before the major use of face claims and image uses I do have to agree with the system check that has been offered on the 10 point system. Back in the day before we had fancy ways of posting images for roleplay what the old guards use to do was get into a greater sense of describing a character.
Now yes I will admit I've gotten lazy and find using a face claim or character easier instead of going into great detail on how a character looks. But for some of us who use to roleplay this way it was a lot better and offered well a more attached character development. Granted I should do this a lot more often but as again its a way of getting lazy. I've always created OC characters due to the fact it was kind of disturbing to see people playing real life celebs and so on and so forth.
So I am for the purposed rule but also maybe we should look back to our roots as roleplayers and really let loose our creativity in character development as well ? Doesn't being a roleplayer mean you create characters that are based off your own imagination ? and share that character with a whole universe of others in a grand spectacle of creativity that you helped make ?
Now yes I will admit I've gotten lazy and find using a face claim or character easier instead of going into great detail on how a character looks. But for some of us who use to roleplay this way it was a lot better and offered well a more attached character development. Granted I should do this a lot more often but as again its a way of getting lazy. I've always created OC characters due to the fact it was kind of disturbing to see people playing real life celebs and so on and so forth.
So I am for the purposed rule but also maybe we should look back to our roots as roleplayers and really let loose our creativity in character development as well ? Doesn't being a roleplayer mean you create characters that are based off your own imagination ? and share that character with a whole universe of others in a grand spectacle of creativity that you helped make ?
Kim wrote:
Sure. Historical characters being used with respect are really not our concern here.
So things like Masamune Date would be allowed?
Personally, I don't think it should be allowed for someone to play a real, currently living person. I can get where you're coming from with wanting the Repository to be as open as possible and allow for almost anything, but I still think roleplaying as Markiplier or Tom Hiddleston is incredibly creepy. Like many have said before me, if I found out someone was roleplaying me, I know I'd be creeped out and would want them to stop.
Though I do think this system could work.
Though I do think this system could work.
Asroc wrote:
Kim wrote:
Sure. Historical characters being used with respect are really not our concern here.
So things like Masamune Date would be allowed?
If you're talking about this person, yes, respectful portrayals would be allowed under this system.
A preface to explain my position:
I have read this over several times, as well as all accompanying posts, and I've got to say, everything about this bothers me immensely.
On to the main explanation:
I realized that being immensely bothered by something isn't reason enough to object, but I didn't really know why it bothered me so much. Since then I've been mulling it over pretty hard and I think I've come up with some pretty good points.
Disclaimer: I completely understand the sentiment of this ruleset and have run into the very problem being addressed on several occasions, so don't take anything I say as though I am ignorant of how the problem manifests or the consequences therein.
My first problem is thus:
There is a certain tactic used in political/minority pushes that is very much rampant in the world of politics! The best name I've heard given to it is Identity Politics. Identity Politics works under the concept that your emotional state/outrage/level can translate directly into the correctness of your side of a discussion/your solution/plee...
That's where my first problem comes into effect. The idea of comparing apples to apples doesn't work on a subjective level because of the arbitrary nature of how individuals feel about everything. That is to say, there is no literary "value" to anything on this site. Does that mean it's all worthless? No. But literally speaking, unless we have people buying other people's posts, the literature on this site is either worthless or priceless. Whatever connotation you wish to hold about that is up to you, but it remains that there is no literal value. So that brings us to the question: How do we bring quantitative value to the very being of cooperative fiction? Well, truthfully we can't. Nor can we measure outrage. People will not all feel the same about a piece of fiction. I personally did not enjoy To Kill a Mockingbird. And not only that but even if you presented something that was generally accepted as being offensive, you wouldn't get even close to a unanimous response. Almost every single person is different in that respect.
This ruleset is being based off of a discomfort with a certain idea, but there are not numbers to plug in. You could always take a poll to gain some form of quantitative data, but even polls are not representative of emotion, as everyone feels different, literally. How people feel emotion is varying. This makes the point system sort of very faulty.
Problem 2:
A character, no matter how representative, is not accurately a person. If I put Markiplier in my character's list and wrote whole scripts for videos of him and even went as far as to have his actual biography written out, as well as stating "This is Markiplier." while using constantly updating pictures of him on social media for his equivalent profile on Repo, I am not playing as Markiplier. I am playing as a character who happens to be a character's equivalent to Markiplier. This is where it makes the leap into fiction. Let us say I wanted to write cooperative smut with my character Markiplier. It's still a character. Just by playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who has sexual interactions doesn't mean that I'm disrespecting the YouTube celebrity himself. Or let's take it a step further: Let us say I'm playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who I have decided to make incredibly ignorant in light of my (theoretical, Mark is too nice a dude to actually hate) hatred for Markiplier. My decisions therein still don't represent Markiplier himself because no matter how ignorant I portray the character, it doesn't make the man himself any less intelligent. The only way to disrespect the living gamer is to publicly call him dumb or tell him to his face that he is dumb. Characters are of a fictional nature and don't equate to real life in any case.
Problem 3:
Barring for illegality and posting in improper places, I don't see where there would be a problem with any of this. If the characters were still regarded as characters, then there wouldn't be a need to regulate what settings you could RP them in or how they were portrayed aside from the rules already in place. If you were going to regulate these characters by this set of rules, you'd need to give the same rules to every other type of character. Or in the very least characters that are copyrighted and used by official sources. But we regard these copyright characters whose portrayal literally belongs to an entity as normal OCs that you can portray in any way you wish. For example, any Sonic OC portrayed as coming from Mobius is within copyright grounds and would need to score on a modified version of this points system that accounts for copyright. But we don't, and copyright is a much more solid idealism.
Problem 4:
We already have the tools and strategies on hand to get rid of those characters we dislike... no we can't tell them to get rid of their Markiplier, but that's where something else comes into effect.
The Roleplay Repository is an intellectual free market with trends and an economic flow of its own. There is a reason that fantasy dominates the LFRP and AOLFRP forums. It's because our consumers enjoy it moreso than other types of RP.
To give a direct comparison, we, the users of Repo, are both the producers and consumers. RPs (themes, characters, types) are our products. In a free market, products that don't find a consumer following disappear because the producers aren't receiving currency (intellectual stimulation through whatever mean, such as forum replies, PMs, conversations about said topic.). To put this cap on the subject just expedites something that there is naturally a solution for that is already taking place at all times. People avoid each other constantly for a plethora of reasons.
We have a block button for a reason. An unfriend button. A report button.
The only reason I see moderation really needing to take place is during events in which it would need to take place anyway, such as underage players or characters being active on the AOLFRP, or people being unnecessarily rude through PM, etc.
Problem 5:
It's a questionable point system anyhow.
The starkest example is the example Kim gave in which playing as Mitt Romney during an apocalypse would score an eight on the scale, which is ridiculously close to being disallowed. Two things about that: If it's that close to the line, it probably shouldn't be allowed anyway because that's skirting really close to the line. In fact that less that 1/4 away from being against the rules. And then the second huge problem with that is that in order to get a significant distance away from the line, all the person has to do is type "Inspired by" into the profile and that drops them out of the radar. If all it takes is a small amount of effort to make it within rules when it would otherwise not be within rules, then it's likely it shouldn't be allowed anyway.
And this is just for Mitt Romney in the apocalypse.
That's it for my arguments. It wouldn't be a proper response unless i offered something to the table. This is my solution:
Don't moderate real life counterparts with a system. Unless the RP wouldn't be normally allowed anyhow, then it shouldn't be a problem regardless of how users feel about it.
The reason why it shouldn't matter how users feel about another person's character is because in the end, once enough people ignore or avoid what they deem distasteful, that distasteful character/topic/theme will disappear because it doesn't see enough traffic to survive in this market.
Again, I understand the sentiment, but I cannot say I agree with the proposal. Thank you for reading.
I have read this over several times, as well as all accompanying posts, and I've got to say, everything about this bothers me immensely.
On to the main explanation:
I realized that being immensely bothered by something isn't reason enough to object, but I didn't really know why it bothered me so much. Since then I've been mulling it over pretty hard and I think I've come up with some pretty good points.
Disclaimer: I completely understand the sentiment of this ruleset and have run into the very problem being addressed on several occasions, so don't take anything I say as though I am ignorant of how the problem manifests or the consequences therein.
My first problem is thus:
There is a certain tactic used in political/minority pushes that is very much rampant in the world of politics! The best name I've heard given to it is Identity Politics. Identity Politics works under the concept that your emotional state/outrage/level can translate directly into the correctness of your side of a discussion/your solution/plee...
That's where my first problem comes into effect. The idea of comparing apples to apples doesn't work on a subjective level because of the arbitrary nature of how individuals feel about everything. That is to say, there is no literary "value" to anything on this site. Does that mean it's all worthless? No. But literally speaking, unless we have people buying other people's posts, the literature on this site is either worthless or priceless. Whatever connotation you wish to hold about that is up to you, but it remains that there is no literal value. So that brings us to the question: How do we bring quantitative value to the very being of cooperative fiction? Well, truthfully we can't. Nor can we measure outrage. People will not all feel the same about a piece of fiction. I personally did not enjoy To Kill a Mockingbird. And not only that but even if you presented something that was generally accepted as being offensive, you wouldn't get even close to a unanimous response. Almost every single person is different in that respect.
This ruleset is being based off of a discomfort with a certain idea, but there are not numbers to plug in. You could always take a poll to gain some form of quantitative data, but even polls are not representative of emotion, as everyone feels different, literally. How people feel emotion is varying. This makes the point system sort of very faulty.
Problem 2:
A character, no matter how representative, is not accurately a person. If I put Markiplier in my character's list and wrote whole scripts for videos of him and even went as far as to have his actual biography written out, as well as stating "This is Markiplier." while using constantly updating pictures of him on social media for his equivalent profile on Repo, I am not playing as Markiplier. I am playing as a character who happens to be a character's equivalent to Markiplier. This is where it makes the leap into fiction. Let us say I wanted to write cooperative smut with my character Markiplier. It's still a character. Just by playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who has sexual interactions doesn't mean that I'm disrespecting the YouTube celebrity himself. Or let's take it a step further: Let us say I'm playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who I have decided to make incredibly ignorant in light of my (theoretical, Mark is too nice a dude to actually hate) hatred for Markiplier. My decisions therein still don't represent Markiplier himself because no matter how ignorant I portray the character, it doesn't make the man himself any less intelligent. The only way to disrespect the living gamer is to publicly call him dumb or tell him to his face that he is dumb. Characters are of a fictional nature and don't equate to real life in any case.
Problem 3:
Barring for illegality and posting in improper places, I don't see where there would be a problem with any of this. If the characters were still regarded as characters, then there wouldn't be a need to regulate what settings you could RP them in or how they were portrayed aside from the rules already in place. If you were going to regulate these characters by this set of rules, you'd need to give the same rules to every other type of character. Or in the very least characters that are copyrighted and used by official sources. But we regard these copyright characters whose portrayal literally belongs to an entity as normal OCs that you can portray in any way you wish. For example, any Sonic OC portrayed as coming from Mobius is within copyright grounds and would need to score on a modified version of this points system that accounts for copyright. But we don't, and copyright is a much more solid idealism.
Problem 4:
We already have the tools and strategies on hand to get rid of those characters we dislike... no we can't tell them to get rid of their Markiplier, but that's where something else comes into effect.
The Roleplay Repository is an intellectual free market with trends and an economic flow of its own. There is a reason that fantasy dominates the LFRP and AOLFRP forums. It's because our consumers enjoy it moreso than other types of RP.
To give a direct comparison, we, the users of Repo, are both the producers and consumers. RPs (themes, characters, types) are our products. In a free market, products that don't find a consumer following disappear because the producers aren't receiving currency (intellectual stimulation through whatever mean, such as forum replies, PMs, conversations about said topic.). To put this cap on the subject just expedites something that there is naturally a solution for that is already taking place at all times. People avoid each other constantly for a plethora of reasons.
We have a block button for a reason. An unfriend button. A report button.
The only reason I see moderation really needing to take place is during events in which it would need to take place anyway, such as underage players or characters being active on the AOLFRP, or people being unnecessarily rude through PM, etc.
Problem 5:
It's a questionable point system anyhow.
The starkest example is the example Kim gave in which playing as Mitt Romney during an apocalypse would score an eight on the scale, which is ridiculously close to being disallowed. Two things about that: If it's that close to the line, it probably shouldn't be allowed anyway because that's skirting really close to the line. In fact that less that 1/4 away from being against the rules. And then the second huge problem with that is that in order to get a significant distance away from the line, all the person has to do is type "Inspired by" into the profile and that drops them out of the radar. If all it takes is a small amount of effort to make it within rules when it would otherwise not be within rules, then it's likely it shouldn't be allowed anyway.
And this is just for Mitt Romney in the apocalypse.
That's it for my arguments. It wouldn't be a proper response unless i offered something to the table. This is my solution:
Don't moderate real life counterparts with a system. Unless the RP wouldn't be normally allowed anyhow, then it shouldn't be a problem regardless of how users feel about it.
The reason why it shouldn't matter how users feel about another person's character is because in the end, once enough people ignore or avoid what they deem distasteful, that distasteful character/topic/theme will disappear because it doesn't see enough traffic to survive in this market.
Again, I understand the sentiment, but I cannot say I agree with the proposal. Thank you for reading.
0V3RL0RD-P4RR0T wrote:
Personally, I don't think it should be allowed for someone to play a real, currently living person. I can get where you're coming from with wanting the Repository to be as open as possible and allow for almost anything, but I still think roleplaying as Markiplier or Tom Hiddleston is incredibly creepy. Like many have said before me, if I found out someone was roleplaying me, I know I'd be creeped out and would want them to stop.
Though I do think this system could work.
Though I do think this system could work.
I found it creepy when I saw someone RP Jew Wario long ago.
PerryInc wrote:
A community is not a market. It's built on a set of shared values. It's not hard to determine if something violates our values or is outside of the spirit that RPR was built to offer; this practice does that. If anything, if we must use the market view, allowing it when we know it's not what we want to offer as "consumable entertainment" damages our value for ideal customers.
PerryInc wrote:
Problem 2:
A character, no matter how representative, is not accurately a person. If I put Markiplier in my character's list and wrote whole scripts for videos of him and even went as far as to have his actual biography written out, as well as stating "This is Markiplier." while using constantly updating pictures of him on social media for his equivalent profile on Repo, I am not playing as Markiplier. I am playing as a character who happens to be a character's equivalent to Markiplier. This is where it makes the leap into fiction. Let us say I wanted to write cooperative smut with my character Markiplier. It's still a character. Just by playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who has sexual interactions doesn't mean that I'm disrespecting the YouTube celebrity himself. Or let's take it a step further: Let us say I'm playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who I have decided to make incredibly ignorant in light of my (theoretical, Mark is too nice a dude to actually hate) hatred for Markiplier. My decisions therein still don't represent Markiplier himself because no matter how ignorant I portray the character, it doesn't make the man himself any less intelligent. The only way to disrespect the living gamer is to publicly call him dumb or tell him to his face that he is dumb. Characters are of a fictional nature and don't equate to real life in any case.
A character, no matter how representative, is not accurately a person. If I put Markiplier in my character's list and wrote whole scripts for videos of him and even went as far as to have his actual biography written out, as well as stating "This is Markiplier." while using constantly updating pictures of him on social media for his equivalent profile on Repo, I am not playing as Markiplier. I am playing as a character who happens to be a character's equivalent to Markiplier. This is where it makes the leap into fiction. Let us say I wanted to write cooperative smut with my character Markiplier. It's still a character. Just by playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who has sexual interactions doesn't mean that I'm disrespecting the YouTube celebrity himself. Or let's take it a step further: Let us say I'm playing a character equivalent to Markiplier who I have decided to make incredibly ignorant in light of my (theoretical, Mark is too nice a dude to actually hate) hatred for Markiplier. My decisions therein still don't represent Markiplier himself because no matter how ignorant I portray the character, it doesn't make the man himself any less intelligent. The only way to disrespect the living gamer is to publicly call him dumb or tell him to his face that he is dumb. Characters are of a fictional nature and don't equate to real life in any case.
I want to use your example here to show why so many people have a problem with "real life characters". Though it is still a character, it is a character directly of Markiplier. Imagine Markiplier running into this scenario. Now, we all know he's a really fun guy, but what if he saw someone RPing smut with this character, or RPing some interaction with this character that was totally against who he is as a person (ie maybe he makes fun of disabled people or does some animal cruelty or something). Real-life Mark would be very upset about someone portraying him this way! And in the case of portraying him as ignorant, it does not make the real Mark any less intelligent, but people are humans; he could see that portrayal of him and think "wow, is that how people see me?" or "This person is portraying me like this...maybe I really am stupid". It could do tons of emotional damage. It may be "just a character", but people make associations no matter what. If I had someone RPing me as a character, and they did something completely against my character (let's say, since I'm a Christian, the person RPing me as a character had me turn atheist and burn a Bible). I would be pretty upset! That is a horrible representation of me, even though it's a fictional character and not me.
CelestinaGrey wrote:
I want to use your example here to show why so many people have a problem with "real life characters". Though it is still a character, it is a character directly of Markiplier. Imagine Markiplier running into this scenario. Now, we all know he's a really fun guy, but what if he saw someone RPing smut with this character, or RPing some interaction with this character that was totally against who he is as a person (ie maybe he makes fun of disabled people or does some animal cruelty or something). Real-life Mark would be very upset about someone portraying him this way! And in the case of portraying him as ignorant, it does not make the real Mark any less intelligent, but people are humans; he could see that portrayal of him and think "wow, is that how people see me?" or "This person is portraying me like this...maybe I really am stupid". It could do tons of emotional damage. It may be "just a character", but people make associations no matter what. If I had someone RPing me as a character, and they did something completely against my character (let's say, since I'm a Christian, the person RPing me as a character had me turn atheist and burn a Bible). I would be pretty upset! That is a horrible representation of me, even though it's a fictional character and not me.
Ah but I understand why people have a problem with it.
I personally go out of my way to avoid any instances of people using real life characters for both the reason of I know they cannot accurately represent said person in character and because it's unnerving. I completely agree with sentiment of it being sociably unacceptable, which is explained in my disclaimer at the top. What you quoted was my explaining why the emotional attachment to the subject was illogical.
What I disagree with is allowing the emotion to serve as an overhead purpose behind the proposal.
But since we're on it, I'd like to visit your example for a second, but apply it to myself. Let us say that someone is RPing as PerryInc as a slave, or particularly ugly, or dumb, or other attributes that would be considered negative, and I happened upon it.
Well I would be bothered of course because why would anyone do that? I would ask them to stop.
If they agreed to stop, then fair enough.
If not, I'm not going to take it any farther with them. Once I had discovered they were RPing as me in a derogatory manner, I would have already made plans to avoid them from then on anyhow, so all I intend to do if they tell me no, is block them. I mean. Oh well. I don't even think I'd care to take up moderation about that. While it would be creepy and odd, i don't think it would be much more than creepy and odd.
Although I shouldn't expect everyone to see the way I do, regardless of whose viewpoint is "correct" or not. I understand why people get upset.
PerryInc wrote:
What I disagree with is allowing the emotion to serve as an overhead purpose behind the proposal.
But since we're on it, I'd like to visit your example for a second, but apply it to myself. Let us say that someone is RPing as PerryInc as a slave, or particularly ugly, or dumb, or other attributes that would be considered negative, and I happened upon it.
Well I would be bothered of course because why would anyone do that? I would ask them to stop.
But since we're on it, I'd like to visit your example for a second, but apply it to myself. Let us say that someone is RPing as PerryInc as a slave, or particularly ugly, or dumb, or other attributes that would be considered negative, and I happened upon it.
Well I would be bothered of course because why would anyone do that? I would ask them to stop.
I think you may need to reread the rules.
Quote:
Be nice.
You may not harass other players, sexually or otherwise. Disagreements must be conducted in a civil fashion.
Harassment is not just about sending nasty messages directly to other users. For example, it can include using character or group profiles in order to publish defaming information, accusations or personal information you do not have permission to share, or encouraging other users to contact someone on your behalf after they have blocked you.
If someone is giving you trouble, please don't shout back, however tempting. Instead, contact a moderator. We're here to help!
You may not harass other players, sexually or otherwise. Disagreements must be conducted in a civil fashion.
Harassment is not just about sending nasty messages directly to other users. For example, it can include using character or group profiles in order to publish defaming information, accusations or personal information you do not have permission to share, or encouraging other users to contact someone on your behalf after they have blocked you.
If someone is giving you trouble, please don't shout back, however tempting. Instead, contact a moderator. We're here to help!
This rule is in our top 3, and what you are describing is obviously, on its face, not allowed if we are to be nice and considerate toward one another. In a lot of ways, we're just talking about a clarification on an already existing rule and a rubric for even-handed enforcement.
Kim wrote:
A community is not a market. It's built on a set of shared values. It's not hard to determine if something violates our values or is outside of the spirit that RPR was built to offer; this practice does that. If anything, if we must use the market view, allowing it when we know it's not what we want to offer as "consumable entertainment" damages our value for ideal customers.
Astute response. Truthfully I don't have much more to offer on the subject of calling the community a market, but rather I would like to add on to your comment on the damaging effect of allowing what isn't to our ideals:
I agree that Real People RPing isn't desirable within the community and can definitely become damaging. (Although I've only run into it on a fairly seldom basis. Not sure how that speaks in terms of the practice's prominence but it definitely does exist.)
I do not agree with the proposal of the system. That's my main issue here. What I mean to say by suggesting not using a system, despite what looked like me saying that Real People RPing should be absolutely allowed, is that I don't think the system should be applied.
I'd rather see Real People RPing entirely disallowed due to it being a damaging practice within our community, or entirely allowed, leaving community interaction, or lack thereof, to sort out who gets to RP as who.
Kim wrote:
This rule is in our top 3, and what you are describing is obviously, on its face, not allowed if we are to be nice and considerate toward one another. In a lot of ways, we're just talking about a clarification on an already existing rule and a rubric for even-handed enforcement.
Maybe I do need to reread!
I'm not seeing why a system aimed around providing a compromise that lies between both viewpoints would ever not be the most preferable approach to take. The choice being all or none is unnecessary. From what I've read this is not intended as a strict one size fits all in the first place but a tool to help keep consistency when evaluating case by case, so really it is just an expansion on the baselines I imagine the mod team was already using beforehand.
This loophole is actually no longer possible as it's been changed to have no effect on the point tally.
Quote:
all the person has to do is type "Inspired by" into the profile and that drops them out of the radar.
It also didn't really work that way to begin with 
You are on: Forums » Suggestions & Development Discussion » Rules regarding "real life people" characters
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Auberon, Claine, Ilmarinen, Ben, Darth_Angelus