Aquinas wrote:Please ignore Siggon, terrojasangel. Don't take it personally - he is like this with everybody
.
He isn't supposed to take it personally, but it doesn't mean he needs to be ignorant.
There is a difference between ignoring something, and not taking it personally.
I didn't intend for the message to be taken personally, but it doesn't mean I intended for it to be ignored.
Aquinas wrote:For what it's worth, from my perspective it seems there have been lot of misunderstandings in Ikradon - much of it based around confusions over whether comments were in character (IC) or out of character (OOC). This is not an uncommon occurence in this game. Many of us have gotten into a dispute or a misunderstanding with another player at some point or other - myself included. The internet is not always the best medium for communication.
One thing I would suggest to the Ikradon players is that you consider more clearly designating each of your in-game comments as IC or OOC. You can do this either by prefixing them with "IC:" or "OOC:", or by giving each comment a speaker (eg. "President Rafael Duvalle" or whoever). I appreciate this may seem unnecessary hassle, but it does significantly reduce the risk of misunderstandings and, in my experience at least, it is definitely worth doing.
Does your "perspective" involve not checking his comments on bills? He does clearly differentiate IC from OOC posts.
When a player says "We" - it is obvious he is speaking as a character representing his party. If he says only "I" then it is questionable unless he signs the message with a character name.
He signs his comments with a character/speaker, and when he makes OOC comments, he designates them as OOC.
He isn't the only player that does this. Other players, even without signing a character's name to a message, use words like "we" to let you know they're speaking as the party, and not the player. They also tag messages as OOC when necessary.
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=381227http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=381152http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=381145http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=381119http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=381082http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380986http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380975http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380974http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380961http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380959http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=380931So yes, ignoring things doesn't always work out. You're telling him to ignore me; he should be ignoring you.
You don't even look at Ikradon's situation before you talk; you simply ignore it then make up some unrelated advice to the situation.
--
Anyways, as Jack and the moderators probably want... this is better left as a private issue, and not discussed here, which is why I said what I said...
Y'all can do your emotional stuff in private messages. It's not needed on a Moderation thread.