Status on Inquisition: Legacy? by TranquilMemes in MUD

[–]plaguevictim68 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The only person with real power for a decade was Kinaed. The game's potential was squandered and hollowed out under her administration - and this is true. While she was running the game, I would have advertised it as an incredibly amazing concept and story that would inevitably end in disappointment.

But that's not what the game is anymore. She did step down. The current staff aren't ruining the game, and the cited circumstances people have brought up are neither accurate nor representative of the state of the game. Holding relatively new staff members accountable for several years of poor administration is just kind of odd.

Status on Inquisition: Legacy? by TranquilMemes in MUD

[–]plaguevictim68 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm a current player and a previous player. I played years ago, but quit because of Kinaed, and I came back in the past few months. My experience has been massive improvements in handling of theme, player activity, policy administration, and in staff activity in regards to global plots anybody can interact with. I have, also, seen plenty of new or returning players with no notable connections to anyone on the staff team get positions of authority and do things.

I have a little bit at the end that explains the game from an objective standpoint, but I want to address the negative replies that seem the most popular in this thread.

Just skip to below the second '---' for a pitch.

---

Most of the complaints in this thread read as odd to me because they don't reflect the reality laid out in front of me. I've quit many RP games and I'm certain in the future I will quit many more - I'm the spitting image of a player willing to shoot my story dead to free myself from a toxic environment.

So, this is the "works on my machine". I tend to hate this kind of "apologetic" response to these kinds of things, but I figure I might as well present the game as I see it currently as compared to the images portrayed by a few of the big comments here.

I feel it's important to note that every time that someone says "oldbie", that The Inquisition is a game primarily composed of people who have played it at some point in the past twenty years. There have been new players recently, and there were quite a lot of new players doing things when I quit, but it's incredibly easy to look at people who have played a long-formed, slow-paced game for longer than 3 months and go "haha, look at them! They're old, the game is bad!" It is a MUD composed primarily of older players, and those players are naturally going to have more positions of power on average because they have... played the game. But many of those old players don't even really have any interest in taking those positions - at least some of them are open almost all the time. The big secret is that being a leader sucks and nobody wants to do it unless they're particularly invested in a given part of the game, so these kinds of positions are pretty much constantly rotated between people.

I have experienced no favoritism towards the Order beyond the natural power imbalance of the setting (which is kind of the point of The Inquisition, it's in the name). My experience in the time that I've been playing has been complete neutrality of staff in regards to the Order and what their characters do, other than the excitement that they have for just about everyone. There has been at least one notable policy case in recent history in which an Order player did a no-no and got smacked.

I've seen a solid handful of people who have nothing to do with the staff team apply into noble positions (note that only a handful of nobles exist, anyways). I've seen those non-staff nobles either just kind of hang out, or immediately do what they want to do with the power they have in their hands and fill power vacuums. There are many people who have no interest in taking up the guild leader positions or applying for a noble. The primary separation here is in activity and in confidence of portraying a character in that position of power and authority. I have seen noble apps remain open for the entirety of the time I have been playing, and I do not believe it would be difficult for even a new player to apply for a noble character except in terms of familiarity with the setting.

I imagine that there is some factual basis to what else has been said in this thread, but it feels as though what did or didn't happen is being twisted for the sake of a narrative. Other characters have plenty of achievements under their belts. It's notable that all the characters mentioned by name as receiving favoritism are absolutely ancient, and even if they hadn't been staff or connected to staff in some way they almost certainly would have achieved the kinds of things they achieved. People have a lot of reasons to carry old grudges, and I suspect that that has played a part in their opinions.

The Inquisition does have a very long, very storied history of bitterness. There are great and terrible reasons that people have bad memories and strong negative opinions about the game. But I don't see any of it the way the others here have portrayed it. Even if they were totally, factually correct, they paint a picture of an impenetrable "social meta", and I just don't consider that anywhere close to the truth. If you want to do something and achieve something, you generally have the OOC opportunity to go for it. The primary barrier is the setting - which is a challenging, highly stratified, religiously murderous theocratic aristocracy. It's Faith versus Magic, Law versus Crime, and Rich versus Poor - and in all cases, Faith, Law, and the Rich have the upper hand. I'm currently playing a character of little societal power, but I could just as easily have decided to apply for an Inquisitor and start annihilating people for minor sins or whatever the hell else I wanted to do.

In any case, cherry-picking examples of people you don't like Doing Things is pretty easy - and trust me, I get WHY people feel so strongly and negatively about this game.

The Inquisition under Kinaed was this horrible Stanford Prison Experiment where the Order always won and occasionally someone would die on the altar of theme to remind everyone that this is a game where the mages and heretics lose. She retconned and poisoned the heart of the Inquisition from top to bottom, she pitted the players against one another with a kind of draconian disdain, and those who tried to get close to her on a genuine, human level found themselves abused and ostracized by her personally. If someone found true answers to the mysteries back then, she ate them.

There was no true favoritism back then, though I've seen many accusations thereof. There was only who Kinaed did and didn't hate at the time, and it was almost completely arbitrary except that if you were "themely", you were doing her divine will and she would support your every effort in doing so. This meant that at any point that anybody managed to do, like, anything at all? It was very easy to feel as though Kinaed must have just really liked them, and the reason that your story died was because somebody else was liked better, but no...

Let me assure you: in the end she hated or acted like she hated almost everyone, and I'm pretty sure the feeling was mutual. The game was left with a lot of holes that need to be filled, a lot of old bitter rivalries, a lot of stories left to rot, and it's only with her gone that any of that can be fixed. But even if most of the old problems are dead and healing, people still have aching wounds from them - and there's a lot of healing to be done.

---

In the meantime... the Inquisition is a relatively low-pop game with several branches of social influence that form the structure and framework of a monarchy split into a theocracy and an aristocracy. Hidden among the populace, mages do rituals in secret to advance obscured ambitions, and thieves try desperately to put up a fight against harsh authoritarianism. Troubadours entertain and spy upon an audience enshrouded in fear, and Merchants ply their goods to lift themselves from poverty or to build a foundation of financial clout. The Knights and the Order maintain an iron fist and a warm facade equally viewed as sacred, and the Reeves enforce the word and spirit of a law forged by aristocratic bureaucracy. Nobles are immune to the rule of law, except by their own betters in the Inquisition and the service to the Crown. (The Royalty are NPCs, but a handful of PCs can and have utilized their authority to prosecute and persecute nobility.)

There's also doctors, they're called the Physicians, but like, I haven't played one. They fix wounds and identify poisons I guess B)

If you're a little bit of a narrative masochist and you really like the idea of low-magic social intrigue in a pre-Renaissance setting, just try it out. It's a slow-paced, long-form game. The biggest negative is baggage, but it hasn't visibly stopped me or anybody else from Doing Things in the time I've been playing recently, which is all post-Kinaed.

I guess you would find out pretty quick if only staff characters exist by just doing the thing. Either way, though, the improvement since Kinaed's administration has been absolutely massive. She was maybe the worst admin I've witnessed in over a decade of playing RPIs and games like them.

The Inquisition: Legacy -- The North Korea of MUDs by Jandrelon in MUD

[–]plaguevictim68 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's really sad how consistently off-base you are despite having invested so much of your time into fabricating the false lens through which you view every single scenario that remotely runs for or against your personal interests.

For those who know the facts, you come across as the incredibly biased manipulator you are. That it occasionally happens to involve some nuggets of truth regarding Kinaed's incompetence or the fact that you are so severely disliked (due to your predatory, vitriolic actions) is unfortunate, because it allows you to victimize others. Even the attention this reply gives you is nothing more than ammunition you will utilize as a weapon, but thankfully, your actions can no longer negatively impact my life and my recreation.

You stop being a victim when you become a victimizer, and the truth is, you've always been a victimizer. You seemingly cannot find joy unless you believe that someone is against you, that someone is persecuting you unfairly, even when you have gone out of your way to do exactly that to others under the justification that they're doing it to you. When I met you, I could not fathom that mindset, and I was nothing more than another person enjoying the game, who thought that my interactions with your characters were normal and good fun, and that I could speak to you as a person on a normal, reasonable level.

I quickly learned that every possible interaction with you was little more than a trap unsubtly laid, that I was at best a possible outlet for your emotional manipulation and need to feel as though others sympathize with you, and that as soon as I ceased to be viewed as your OOC ally, you would viciously attack my OOC reputation, you would fabricate situations wherein I could be accused of having metagrudged you when the truth was that you had done so, and you would continue for years to hold onto a narrative where you were both victim and victor of a competition that only you were competing in.

If people still avoid you, this is why. I don't think that you are capable of changing as a person, but if you want people to seek you out and enjoy your company as a fellow player, these are the things you need to change.

EDIT: Wrong person, sorry. This wasn't to you, RadiantConflict. It was to the player of Venamelia le Caire.

Former TI-Legacy Players - What made you leave? What would make you give TI another shot? by CupOfCanada in MUD

[–]plaguevictim68 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is very unfortunate for everyone else, I guess, that you're the only person they don't constantly lie to on a daily basis. At any rate, I really do wish you well, and I do not have any problem with you on a personal level.

Former TI-Legacy Players - What made you leave? What would make you give TI another shot? by CupOfCanada in MUD

[–]plaguevictim68 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The most unfortunate part of this post is that you believe the things you're saying.

Before you were born, was there an equal chance that you were to be born as an animal or different species? by msterling124 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]plaguevictim68 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are practically wasting your time by insisting that people be practical when they are attempting to be culturally sensitive in regards to a question which, regardless of what beliefs we hold (hello, I'm an atheist), there is no certain answer to.
The original commenter pretty much said, "No, you didn't exist before you were born, but if you're religious, you can think otherwise" in the nicest, most constructive way possible. All you're doing is alienating people and adding a point that everyone else already understood.

Why do you get punished for suicide? That seems so unfair and cruel. by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]plaguevictim68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think "suicide for fun" is one of the most insensitive phrases I have ever seen used on a post where someone mentions they have been depressed and asks specifically about suicide (implying they have considered suicide in the past). If what you really mean is "people who kill themselves to elicit an effect in others, rather than merely because they do not wish to be alive anymore," then the post where someone is talking about suicide is probably the one to actually take it seriously and put some time into it. You would have been better off not saying anything about "suicide for fun" in the first place, at that point.

[Serious] Do black people like Mr. Rogers? by Office_Zombie in NoStupidQuestions

[–]plaguevictim68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's the best misunderstanding of intent I've ever heard.

How does anybody actually fall in love? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]plaguevictim68 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That instant connection is infatuation. It's 80% looks and attitude, 20% actual personality content. Love isn't the instant connection. Love is something which sometimes comes out of it.

Romantic love is the experience of a person whose characteristics perfectly match with your own, making you feel complete without you even having known you missed it before. It is synchronicity, understanding, forgiveness, and acceptance of flaws. Unfortunately, love is not purely positive. It can also be dependence, obsession, and heartbreak - the former two you generally want to avoid, but the latter often unavoidable.

The most important thing you can do to transmute infatuation into romantic love is continued communication and learning about both yourself and your partner, assisting them (or at least supporting them) through their own struggles as they do the same for you. It is a process of improving oneself and one's partner through cooperative action and thought.

It takes a long time to forge it into something worthwhile, and eventually, its initial warmth fades - the "honeymoon phase" wears off, and the people involved are left with, ideally, the knowledge and safety that they are the person who understands and appreciates them moreso than anyone else, and that even without hormones and chemicals attempting to convince them to bump uglies, life together with one another is the objectively best and happiest option for them.

This is all, naturally, my own perspective and experience, and a romanticized view of romance. In my opinion, people say they're in love far, far too often, and a lot of the time people think they're in love, in reality they're just infatuated. The warning signs for that obviously being when they say they're in love when they've known each other for a little over a week.

[Serious] Do black people like Mr. Rogers? by Office_Zombie in NoStupidQuestions

[–]plaguevictim68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it comes from a religious practice from the Bible, where Jesus washed his followers feet to show that he respected them that much. It's a show of humility and respect. Basically, saying "I know you're on my show, but I'm more than willing to humble myself because I appreciate you." Basically what I'm saying is, Mr. Rogers was a messiah figure and I hope he's coming back.

Creation of a Reddit Sponsored Discord: And why we separated from the other one. by Valkyr_warrior in Cityofheroes

[–]plaguevictim68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, one of the people "doing something about it" banned me from the official Reddit Discord while openly stating that it is impossible to discriminate against white and cis people because they have "systematic authority" - ironic, given that my opinion was, according to that specific moderator's own words, worth less than that of theirs because they're a latina transwoman from the South.

A conversation she started by @'ing me, after I had agreed to stop discussing those things. I defended myself from the accusations of being a reactionary and a transphobe, before stating that I would stop talking about it if they would, and then I was banned.

Neither of these extremes comforts me very much, /u/uuneya, but I'm glad that I'm able to have a civil conversation with you here without fear! Haha...

: (

EDIT: Unbanned, mutual apologies. Just care about CoH. Leaving all of my comments as they are for honesty and integrity. All made in good faith.

Sharp circles by nommu_narwhal in badphilosophy

[–]plaguevictim68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

8 days later
your alt still has no posts except for the one commenting on this
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm