[FaeLenx]

this somehow (next to being from the sun tribe) was my most antagonistic action, for some people i could get them to get angry, ignore me or claim I was doing something wrong for asking a simple question and wanting to write it down. while i do not actually mind for I had the mentality of jumping over hoops and walking around eggshells to be antagonist ( see the consent bandits ) it is just jarring to try and be that for people. they are able to deny you a scene, deny your validation as a character, ignore you, reject conflict, etc. the options are endless and when you try to give them a good, engaging scene that challenges with ideals, morals, etc. it is as if you stabbed them in the chest irl and watched them bleed.

A couple points here.

1: What sort of reaction are you looking for with the question you asked? Like, reasonably what is the fulfilling end to roleplay that you're looking for with that character angle and that take on being some sort of counter-force to other people? If you were to ask that to any random stranger in another setting, do you think that their reaction would be much different? What if you were asking in another community of some sort where sexual themes are generally taboo like here? It just sounds like you were asking a generally taboo question out of nowhere to people who had no reason to answer you and are acting in mock surprise when they are confused and angry about it.

2: And the consent bandits are generally a bad example of acting around rules. One of their founding members said they did it because they felt the rules were garbage. To sit around on a game you hate to try and make a statement about why you hate it seems weird to me. I thought it was a fun in joke that the community was all around and about since it is a real fun premise, but they corrected me on it in that thread.

Again, not saying everyone's done this, some people have posted their responses to the post in full, and laid them out well. Wish there was more of that, and less of. . .everything else.

No it's not. You can have a problem with one specific part of something, say nothing about the rest of it, and you are perfectly fine with having a problem with one specific part of something. Nobody is obligated to layer a statement with 5 broad 'okay but the thing you said here was good, and here was good...' before getting to the only relevant point you have to make. The weird chart someone threw out about constructive points in argument was hilariously enough defeated by its own use considering it was there to argue that the tone of comments made to criticize were wrong and therefore those comments were wrong for even existing without, as it stated as a golden rule, addressing the actual point of argument that was being proposed.

People can have opinions.

With the game and community the way it is, there's no real definitive way out of this catch-22. You attack active players, and many will consider your assaults frivolous, unwarranted, bullying- etc. You attack inactive players or NPCs, and people will deride your efforts for attention, and oft. ignore it is happening altogether. While assault isn't the only way to cause conflict- it's certainly the one the game's systems support the most. You cannot truly 'vandalize' places to any real IC affect without help from a GM/Eventmin, you cannot 'steal' from another player without their consent (or a fight!), and trying to be an antagonist simply by the way your character speaks or acts is a lovely way to get labeled as part of the 'peanut gallery', and, again, ignored.

The thing is, I just don't think you're right about the first part or that any of the last bit is any actual problem.

On attacking people: The only accusations I've seen about these sorts of conflicts being frivolous or bullying generally come when someone has interacted with more than one character from the same player who attack either the same character or more than one character from the same player. In these cases, it usually boils down to the problem of the relatively small community and the fact that people who play one character who is willing to fight someone are usually willing to play a second in reasonably quick succession and there being few spheres of players who are around reasonably often enough to attack. If those sorts of comments are levelled at someone, it's a sign to maybe take a break with that sort of problem causing or at least in that general geographic location. And attacking inactive people is generally worth getting ignored. Those people weren't around or doing anything to begin with. I only vaguely know of this happening but if your complaint is that nobody responded to it then I would ask who they were supposed to respond to.

On consent: Just ask. If the person wants to roleplay with you and you want to roleplay with the person then they will say yes. If they don't and you for some reason still want to roleplay with that person, reflect on why you feel you should be allowed to. Is it for them? I don't understand this odd sentiment everyone seems to have about conflict and consent. Anyone worth being around is usually open to having something happen to or against their character. If you feel like they don't like you in general then I would again ask why you feel you should be allowed to do anything to their character.

Protagonists who keep cutting certain things short are just supporting the "Recycling" process which makes it harder to get to know those villains and their motivations. But finding the balance between that is just veeeery difficult, cause at some point it just makes no sense for the "heroes" to just let them go either without making it feel unrewarding to even engage in this.

Well, the thing there is that there are rules for this that should be getting followed but maybe aren't? They're pretty damn good for cutting down on the amount of 'cutting down' happens. 

https://neus-projects.net/wiki/index.php...lict_Rules

Specifically about forced danger level.

How does this work if the 'roleplay doesn't make sense?' Well, you make it make sense. There's a prison escape through extreme luck or happenstance. The lack of complication and clutter in the roleplay environment doesn't mean that these things don't exist and aren't possible. Some guy broke out of some county jail by turning around when a guard walked by and legging it through the door. Nobody noticed until he was well out of the building. Add in other fantastical escapes and you might be onto something fun.

The 24 hour long capture timer shouldn't be 'You have to get someone out of jail in this time.' It should be 'how long does it take before I can escape?' I haven't seen a situation like this where people have asked about getting out of jail in that timeframe and been told no. Usually, they're over accommodating and generally want to recycle their character to the next one as soon as possible because getting caught once kinda ended however they felt about their character. That's happened no less than 3 times that I've seen from cases where I've been directly involved in.