The other reason why you need to design plot dispersal around the possibility of things getting stuck is because sometimes players who are usually good about dispersing plot around will disappear, sometimes they’ll get RLed in various ways, sometimes they’ll just burn out or lose interest, etc. It’s not just an issue with insulated players.

And, like, if some players are clearly giving you indication that they’re not good plot vectors, you can stop giving them stuff that’s meant to be spread around. It’s okay to make judgments on which players are engaging with what you give them.

@SockMonkey I NEVER EVEN GOT TO BAN ANYONE

@Faraday said in RPing with Everybody (or not):

@MisterBoring said in RPing with Everybody (or not):

You must have stopped reading when I mentioned “often times become hostile when asked to join RP / plot”. I have politely approached a duo like this and asked them if they’d like to come join a plot, as they were nominally part of the same faction as myself, and received a rather angry response. I’ve seen staffers on other games politely send a duo like this an invitation to a plot event and get told very plainly to get bent for trying to force them to play the game the staff intended to run. I’ve also witnessed these people throw tantrums when they were suddenly touched by plot they refused to be a part of.

Then that goes back to the part where I said: “Unless they are engaging in other problematic behavior” (paraphrased). If someone’s being rude to staff or throwing a tantrum or whatever, then talk to them about their inappropriate behavior and/or show them the door. Otherwise, they’re not actually doing any harm sitting their in their private room playing with each other. It’s not like the game is charged for the bandwidth of their bits (at least on any normal modern server).

Yeah. The example here isn’t problematic because a couple players sit in a room and only RP about each other. They’re problematic because they act nasty to people for extending an offer of RP/plot and get mad about plot impacting the game’s setting.

Back in the day of three strike rules, I remember giving what felt like endless WARNINGS before even getting to the first strike.

It was a bad system.

whenever people complain that someone doesn’t RP with people they don’t like I’m like ??? that’s how hobbies work??? you do hobbies for fun???

@MisterBoring said in AI In Poses:

Question:

If you found out that a person was using ChatGPT to help write their poses in an effort to work past a physical limitation, what would your opinion be in that case?

what physical limitation would need chatGPT instead of actual tech accessibility tools??

A few more:

• Oh Brother Where Art Thou is The Odyssey
• Cruel Intentions is Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons)
• Roxanne is Cyrano de Bergerac
• O is Othello
• West Side Story is Romeo & Juliet
• Bridget Jones’s Diary is Pride & Prejudice
• RENT is La Boheme
• Apocalypse Now is Heart of Darkness
• Kurosawa’s Ran is King Lear

@Gashlycrumb Clueless is Emma! And there’s a fair number of modern twists on Shakespeare, like 10 Things I Hate About You and She’s the Man.

if someone can’t even be bothered to write their poses, why should i be bothered to read them

Graham Greene, Dances with Wolves actor, dies aged 73

@MisterBoring Absolutely don’t do a three strike system for blatant, overt, and purposeful flouting of rules like that. Like, at most give the player one single warning.

But the real answer is the first option: ban them. There’s absolutely no need to entertain that sort of OOC sneakery.

@Pavel skill issue, get specialer

if a player is being disruptive about their very special unique character, the issue is the disruption, not having a special unique character.

https://www.finalroundai.com/blog/what-ctos-think-about-vibe-coding

This is too sad to heal your soul but I want more people to watch The Summer Hikaru Died.

But actual more soul-healing answer would be SPYxFAMILY.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

Have a sketch you want to turn into a detailed digital drawing of a space ship on a strange alien planet? You can spend 6 hours doing that or you can have the A.I. do it in seconds.Want the ship to have rusted metal plating? You can spend an hour painting in tiny, detailed, rust patches or you can lightly sketch them in and have flux add more detail the rust. You can make art with coloured pencil which the A.I. will understand than translate over into any style of art you want.

do you understand that artists…like doing art?? like that’s the thing – when you use generative AI, you’re not making art; you’re generating images.

artists like making art. the point of technology, like @Evilgrayson said, was to be able to make mundane stuff in life easier so that they’d have more time to make art. what are we making more time for now, if technology is making the art?

you’re literally skipping over the good part. you’re skipping over the act of creation.

but, of course, you don’t care about that. you don’t care about art, and you don’t care about artists, despite the fact that your life is probably full of enrichment from artists of all different types. you don’t respect the work of the countless people who make life bearable and beautiful.

so yeah, i’m done.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

@Roz said in AI PBs:

The pencils are powered and designed specifically to use Mickey Mouse’s image.

The same thing can be said about any human as well. If you see the mouse and have the talent to draw it, does that make you an evil criminal who was trained to destroy the profit margins of Disney?

It can’t be a crime to see things and learn from them. That’s just how reality works. What an A.I. does is no different than what a human does. If anything, it should be less culpable for fraud because it can not choose create images. A human must ask it to do so.

Again, I would like to point out that in any other industry this would be thrown out of court. If you sue Honda for making a car that drives faster one year than the model from the year before because drunk drivers might use it to drive drunk they would throw you out of court.

If you sued a bow and arrow company for making a more accurate compound bow because someone might use it to rob your bank, you would be laughed out of court.

There is no other industry where a tool can be held liable for the actions of the person using the tool. It’s inconceivable except in this one case because in this one case it scares the ever living shit out of corporations. They see A.I. as a direct threat to their market dominance.

If every wanna-be writer/director can make his own full length films at home, that’s the end of their monopoly. If everyone can be an artist, that’s the end of the “fine art” monopoly. Lowering the skill floor and democratizing media means more competition for the established players and that has investors freaking out. That’s the only reason this is even being given the time of day.

You just have such a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how and why people make art. It’s just fucking depressing.

Art is already democratized. Anyone can learn it. Anyone can practice it. And the people who are going to be the most dramatically, negatively impacted aren’t the big established corporations you think are monopolizing these spaces: it’s the individual artists who are just trying to make a modest living.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

@Faraday said in AI PBs:
Think of it like this - your average home laser printer can render a passable copy the U.S. dollar. If you feed it the proper kind of cloth (not paper) you could manufacture counterfeit five dollar bills in the comfort of your own home. Does that make your printer illegal? Does that make your printer manufacturer, or adobe for creating photoshop software capable of making high quality print sheets a criminal?

Once again, this comparison is not equitable: in this case, the printer would have been programmed with the instructions for how to make five dollar bills. Like, not “you have to go find your money laundering tips elsewhere,” it’s specifically baked in.

It’s part of the design. It’s like you designed a product specifically to be able to do something, among other things, and then say, “Yeah but the user doesn’t have to do the thing we specifically trained our program to be able to do.”

@RedRocket Do you realize that there were a lot of hugely popular games back in this heyday of MUs you’re referencing that also didn’t have PVP back then? Like, PVE games have existed and thrived since the 90s alongside the WoD and CoD MUs. It’s not that PVP is somehow the origin source and things evolved into PVE from there.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

@Faraday

Okay, let me rephrase that so I am more clear. It is the person writing the prompt that is doing the fraud not the computer making the image.

It’s like suing a pencil manufacturer because someone used a pencil to draw Mickey Mouse. The people making the pencil didn’t do the crime. In the same way, the people making the A.I. shouldn’t be held responsible if someone else uses it for fraud and that is what these litigious companies are after.

They want to establish a precedent to make it so A.I. companies can held liable for damages if their code is used to do fraud.

The difference here is that the pencil manufacturer in this scenario is literally loading up their pencils with Mickey Mouse lead. The pencils are powered and designed specifically to use Mickey Mouse’s image.

The technology is specifically fed and powered by copyrighted work. It uses the work as fuel to make itself go. It’s stealing its own gas. It literally cannot perform to effective standards without being trained on the countless copyrighted materials it’s been given. There’s no viable, potentially profitable product without doing so.