Amata

There were a couple elements that factored in... no, one particular element alone would be sufficient to decide the matter - but taken all together, I just ended up with the feeling of "do this out of a sense of fair play and respect" So one element was a keen personal sense that sometimes "majority rules" is unfortunately equivalent to "mob wins" ... obviously this is something informed by the pattern of experiences in my life, so I was aware this is a kinda "true for me" situation. But, basically, I didn't want this topic to end up being Amata & her echo chamber posse give each other hearts and steamrolling over other points of view. The element that really gives that sentiment actual heft is that giving a post a heart is not a simple "hey I like or agree with this"... Giving a heart has an actual measurable impact in the form of community reputation. I dunno if anyone else even glances at the forum rep, or cares, or whatever - but I didn't want to have a discussion about some particularly divisive topics have any even remotely fallible aspect built into how I handled the posts, or my own actions, from the start. "Caesar's wife..." and all that. I arrived at a place where I recognized that (a) I want to give hearts to people articulating different aspects of my idea, (b) I want hearts for people who see things from my perspective, (c) I want hearts for people who don't agree with me but understand where I'm coming from, and (d) I want hearts for people who don't agree with me, and took the time to participate in this discussion. Aaaaand, the final element is that there is a limit to how many hearts a person can give in a day. I have/had no idea how hot this topic might get; and, facing the knowledge that hearts are finite plus the fact that I basically want to give everyone a heart, and the fact that hearts are a more meaningful metric than a simple "like" on the post, plus the desire to be both above reproof and also as impartial / open to a variety of ideas as possible..... that's when I arrived at the thought that the better part of valor might be to not be involved in using hearts in the first place for this particular topic. Hope that you can find your way through the convoluted mixture of personal feels and actual thoughts that masquerades as my decision making process. 😅💜

This, I think, is a fairly straight-forward summation of my general thoughts. Discourse in a chat channel is different than inundation by provocative statements. I have no intention of shutting down all political discourse in Wurm, everywhere - but venting, ranting, blowing off steam, and running commentary on a live streaming political event (speech or rally or debate or whatever) ... those already have an acceptable place in chat - private chat channels with your friends and/or players who attend voluntarily, knowing what they are getting into. At the end of the day, for me, I guess my bare minimum here would be a request to forum & chat moderators to please err on the side of "okay, let's change the topic" when anyone requests support for a public chat channel with a political topic going on. I think this is both reasonable and fair because it is not about supporting any particular "side" - I would get shut down (and have rightly been) when my political topic was not interested in discourse. Other players would get shut down in a similar manner. No matter who was espousing what. As much as I might believe that "my side" is "right" and about "basic human rights and civil freedoms" ... As an adult, I acknowledge that "the other side" is populated with individuals just like me, who genuinely believe that they are "right" and their politics is focused on "basic human rights and civil freedoms." There are very few people out there who are actually walking around saying, "I'm just in this to watch the world burn. I am going to back the worst, most destructive ideas and fight for personal privilege and systems of power, no matter who gets oppressed to make it happen." People generally are not villains with twirly mustaches. For all that, I just see no reason to not take political topics seriously IF it has already reached a level of complaint/escalation. It shouldn't matter if only 1 player out of 10 players active on chat has hit a limit or if 9 players out of 10 have taken exception to the topic - and here's a couple thoughts about why... I would hope that the other players involved would be empathetic enough to want to back off as soon as someone is hurt, without the need for a moderator telling them to do so in a public space, all players have a right to share the room - there should not be a minority that gets "outvoted" - it is incumbent on all the players to cede the space to the maximized "good," which means accepting a solution where all players involved feel their wellbeing has been considered if such a solution is possible. the option to "go to private chat" is not equivalent to the option to "leave public chat." That is, it is less obtrusive for players to add a private chat channel for a political topic, than it is for other players to close down public chat channels to avoid a political topic. The public chat channels are the primary, centralized, official form of player interaction in Wurm. Asking someone to change a topic, or take it to a private chat, is not the same as asking someone to stop participating in player interaction for an unspecified amount of time.

Everything about this is fantastic. The narrative, the sense of excitement, the way it came together at the end... and all the fabulous comments on this post. Congrats on the slaying! What a truly epic experience! Thank you so much for sharing the tale. 💜

I might be allowing too much space for the complex nature of freedom, speech, community, politics, and personal opinions. But you are not listening. I am not discussing the situation you describe above. That situation is not the basis for "the problem" I have brought up for discussion & suggestions. If you are responding to, or providing a solution for, a discussion in which an objection is raised based only because there is a difference of opinion - then you are not responding to this topic or this discussion. That is a different topic - I'm not even sure there's any discussion for that topic because I'm fairly certain that we would collectively agree that no matter how emotionally provocative a conversation is, simply having different opinions is not an appropriate basis for escalating a complaint. You say: "the problem is simple if we are discussing a topic..." Well, I'm sorry, but your If...and... hypothetical is not the premise underlying this post. Do let me know if you are simply being stubborn about what you think is being discussed, or If I was unclear in the Original post and need to go edit for clarity.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that many - if not most of us - can also say the same. This is not, however, about what a citizen is free to do in a country. This is about what patrons are permitted to do while "in" a privately owned business. In my country, businesses are not public / state own property. As such, the business owner and managers are empowered to set rules about clientele as well as behavior on premises. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, for example. No proselytizing or soliciting while in the office, for example. Or something like Management reserves the right to toss out unruly customers - or have you never heard of a nightclub bouncer? With the Rules, Wurm staff request that we (clients) follow a certain code of behavior, adhere to a certain set of ethics, and respectfully decline to discuss certain topics. The managers (moderators) reserve the right to toss out unruly customers. Your invocation of ensured civil rights and freedoms at the state-level as relevant to this discussion is disingenuous at best. You know better. Provide reasonable comments and constructive critique, or your further replies will be ignored.

Honestly... this seems like a no brainer to me. There is a difference between being the owner and the maker. By all means, add your very own signature as the owner of your items whenever possible. ... but if you want a thing marked that you made it, you should have to actually be the one to make it. Have you ever heard of an Amata Egg? No? okay, what about a Faberge Egg? Did Teeebomb make the finely crafted silver set & candlesticks your family has been handing down for generations... or was it Paul Revere? If Teeebomb had a tiny soup bowl called a porringer that had the Revere imprint on it, and it had worn down a bit with age, and so he etched Teeebomb over top of it - that porringer just went from being worth $40,000 to being worth exactly nil. (And Revere isn't exactly the world's most impressive smithing, just a decently recognizable name). Maker's marks matter. And they should last. Or at very least, as they age, they should be able to be restored either as an effect of a certain skill level in Repair, or a certain skill level in Improve. Or even Restoration. There are roughly a gillion contemporary portraits of wives and mistresses and washer women roughly equivalent to the Mona Lisa. (Don't look at me like that, there is honestly nothing in particular special about Mona Lisa. Even her "vague and mysterious smile" is just as quirky as some other girl's interesting earring or some guy's cocky grin and jaunty hat). The reason those other paintings hang in open air on accessible walls and Mona Lisa lives in climate controlled secure rooms behind 3 feet thick bullet proof transparent shielding, and people queue up for days to see her (and it might even be a duplicate while the real Mona Lisa is actually getting beautyrest deep inside a secure vault) - is because Mona Lisa was a product of a well known maker named Leonardo Da Vinci. *cough* anyway. If this is still a thing happening in game. Yeah, let's look into that, maybe please? ps. fun fact: Da Vinci never actually signed or dated Mona Lisa! and now you know.

Look out, here comes Amata, that hippy girl. For anyone who doesn't know, there is actually a IRL word for what we do when using botany & foraging skills to locate, prepare, and make use of flora growing in the wild. That word is wildcrafting. (both the noun for the activity, and the verb of doing it) I would love to see a book of lore for foraging/botany similar to the almanac! I would suggest calling it The Wildcrafting Guide, or somesuch. I honestly wouldn't even care if it had no practical in-game application, but simply recorded the names and description of herbs, spices, and any wild plants not already detailed in the almanac. But! If the Guide to Wildcrafting does have some practical application - I would like to suggest including medicinal information to entries. As it is very common IRL for wildcrafting to be specifically in service of natural remedies and medicinals. Something like a note for entries that can be used to create healing covers, maybe the note provides if the entry is a level 1 - 5 ingredient? This would make it possible to eventually stay in-game and be able to craft strength targeted healing covers without needing to memorize one pair of ingredients for each level and only use those. TY for bumping - I never woulda seen this otherwise 💜🌱

because, of course. It's only wogical to do it that way.

PS. I have come to realise that it honestly does not matter if player perceptions are based on evidence / data or not. To the players sharing the perception, the point of view is valid - and that is all that is required to continue to spread the idea. In light of this, I feel it is perhaps even more important to provide a list of cluster features / known characteristics, uninterested in proving or disproving any given perception.

So this thread has covered quite a lot of ground since the OP. We've discussed what perceptions already exist among players (new and old), and there has been much energy put into investigating the validity of those perceptions. I was honestly a bit surprised when I went back to refresh my memory of the OP - as I remembered it being a bit more layered and complex (as the discussion has become). What I realised was that the OP was actually very straightforward in point and scope. OP's anecdotal experience of some new players' perceptions turning out to actually be completely opposite. A look at settlement per server raw data, suggesting that there is (in fact) sufficient room to settle on all servers, both old and new. A suggestion that, going forward, somebody (players? Wurm official? Wurm marketing?) ought to consider stronger emphasis on enumerated pros / cons of the various server cluster options to assist new players in making categorial choices rather than perception-based choices. So say we yea or nay? And there it is. I say yes to OP point #4. I generally feel, for multiple reasons, that choices based on at least some element of objective information is preferable when reasonably possible to choices based on personal perception alone. I do believe that there has been enough time and data gathered during the course of game play to provide a reasonable list of pros & cons for the server clusters, at least in a general "overview" sense. More than enough to be worth writing down on a sign or village board in the tutorial somewhere before the portal(s). There might be some debate about what constitutes a "pro" or a "con" - so I might suggest an addendum - the server info should maybe be organized as parallel lists, rather than presented as pros/cons. I'm thinking something like - Freedom Kingdom Options Southern Islands Northern Islands Established infrastructure in populated areas Infrastructure still developing, even in populated areas Primary Canals and Tunnels exist Primary water and mountain passages still developing Known & Named landmarks, landmasses, points of interest Exploration needed to establish common landmarks, landmasses, and PoIs Dangerous enemies in known, predictable areas Dangerous enemies abound Reasonable network of Guard Towers established Expansion will require new Guard Towers to be built Extant economy with semi-stable price points Developing economy with variable trends, unpredictable price points Wilderness areas likely to contain at least one hidden holding or deed (hermit, wood dweller, other) Wilderness areas may be completely without any holding or deed for extended distances Player / Neighbor support and assistance possible if requested Player / Neighbor support and assistance may be unreachable, or entirely unavailable To some an item might be considered a "pro" - to others, a "con"... Give the players the raw info, and let them decide what suits their playstyle and expectations. I have no experience with PvP content; I anticipate PvP-related information will be added where appropriate I don't know why the formatting made everything on that table Bold. I had trouble trying to remove that formatting, but keeping the table; sorry about that!!

.... I was going to argue some point here... but it turned out easier to just accept this statement and move on.

I made a new character in the North during the opening week, just to have the "thrill" of exploring a Wurm landscape relatively untouched yet. Did that for enough to see the sights and imagine what everyone will eventually build!.... and now I'm back to work, lol, where I live. Didn't see a particularly compelling reason to move in such a dramatic way. If I really wanted to scrap my deed & move to "untouched wilderness" - there's plenty of that still on the Southern isles, without needing to also scrap my character too. And, for me, the biggest no-go was my name. In life sim games, I play more-or-less as me, Amata. I would have wanted to option for my new Northern character to take that name, but that's not a thing (yet?)... so, no name = no go.

Okay, serious thoughts now -- I have seen this handled by different games a couple different ways ... • towns spawn a new NPC for the duration of the holiday, a sort of holiday "host" (or hostess). To participate in holiday-related activities, quests, vanity items, and holiday-related costumes/character skins, a player had to go interact with the holiday npc. Players who aren't interested in the holiday stuff don't have to interact with the npc. • players all receive in their inventory a holiday object. it is an item with infinite "use" actions. upon "use" the player toggles the holiday skin(s) and/or holiday special effect. Players can control not just whether or not they participate - but also when during their gameplay they participate. • player character sheets contain a slot for vanity costume or skin. when holiday or other special events occur, players receive an item / piece of gear that can be equipped to the vanity slot to enable the special look (or players can purchase the item / gear with special in-game currency like festival flowers, easter eggs, or magic snowballs, for example).. • with the holiday patch, the game announces a slash command (frequently an emote) that can be used to toggle a special holiday-related appearance on and off. for example: typing /boo will make you look like a ghost for the halloween weekend! yay, exciting! Also, totally voluntary. I know absolutely nothing about coding, programming, game development, etc. I have no idea what each of those approaches would entail - which would be massive overhauls, which would be reasonably easy, which are do-able in the long run but not possible as a hotfix... etc. These are just things I've seen done in my years of gaming, and satisfy the basic premise: make holiday/special event effects optional to participate with.

"well that's just life, womp womp" Really? *sadness* definitely not a good look for Wurm

Oh yes! real-life-wemp is definitely one of my favorite multipurpose textiles. I had a cross-body satchel made from wemp that was so freakin' awesome I used it as my bookbag from high school thru college (when it eventually fell apart from constant use). You'll get no argument from me on the versatility and sustainability and historical super powers of wemp.

I appreciate the input. Personally, I have no problem with a system like this... I do wonder what kind of workload this would entail for our - largely volunteer - chat moderators. I've got errands that need doing, so I'm running out of time. But I wanted to make sure I read & responded to all the unique replies I could before leaving. I think, as a member of the community, you have as much a valid opinion as anyone else. I appreciate the suggestion of a way to make in-game chat channels more voluntary (like forums are). Game related topics in the default / public channels... Topical discussions in the subchannels & user-generated channels. perhaps without moderation & player accepts the risk? That way a player can avoid a topic, without having to also avoid the game's default communication system.

KharnovKrow, I hope you understand that I did enjoy and adore the reply this section came from. Because I'm about to ask a critical question about it, and I feel that you and I would probably arrive at the same answer to this question... but I still think it's worth consideration. Without an agreed upon, written ruleset... who decides what counts as "out of hand"? Where do you think "out of hand" begins - and what do you propose we do when one person has reached "out of hand" much sooner than another person? Is the line "as soon as one person is a sobbing mess" .... or "only when everyone on chat is screaming and yelling" ... or some indefinite spot somewhere in between? How, exactly, are moderators supposed to be instructed by way of how to make this decision & enforce this kind of rule?

hmmm. I'm going to spend this evening thinking this over. My "street corner" scenario was intended to say that (in game context) if the actions of a few causes some players to /ignore... that's not really too bad, not worth changing rules over. But what if the actions of a few cause more than some players to /ignore. What if it is an entire neighborhood /ignoring one of the Local chat? Is that reasonable? Should something else be considered? What if the actions of a few cause a certain percentage of the entire server population to /ignore those few. Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for 24% of the population to /ignore a troll? Is it reasonable for 49% to /ignore the troll? Is it reasonable for 51% to /ignore the troll? Does /ignore cease being the reasonable response if 66% or 75% of an entire server is resorting to that solution? At what point does the many's right to access a public chat channel without drama outweigh the right of a few to talk how they want about whatever topic they way? As I said, I'm honestly going to take some time with the "many vs few" concept. I'm working off a general sense based on community chat and general vibe and that sort of stuff - I don't have any actual numbers to know how wide-spread a problem might be. My sense is wider-spread than one or two people who ought to /ignore and move on... but if feedback so far is any indication - I am also getting a sense that there are other servers in Freedom where this is entirely unheard of in the public chat channels. And someone mentioned that GL-Freedom is likewise not really prone to a problem like this. In some ways, the suggestion of a rule change is also a many / few situation. Should a problem that is actually contained to one specific island be the catalyst for a change in the rules for all the islands? I think on that, I would agree that the correct answer ought to be "no." So all of this feedback and information has be very helpful so far. Much to consider!

I am honestly very happy with your willingness to engage with this post, btw. Before I start picking at your response - I just wanted to say thank you for this reply. And for your other replies. You are giving me good things to consider and to force myself to answer for. Okay, so, I want to have a better understanding of your meaning here. What do you mean by "more than talk" in the context of a public chat channel? In my mind, so far, I am imagining things like, repetition (not just talking, but repeating the same literally or figuratively over a single or multiple chat sessions) harassment (has an actual definition in the Rules; in my mind I'm thinking about knowing that a particular sensitive topic does particularly bother a specific neighbor, but doing it anyway, over multiple chat sessions) making it personal (I am guilty of this.*) Is this the sort of "more than talk" that you were considering when making your comment? Secondly, I'm reading the second sentence above, and want to make sure I understand your meaning there, too. IF sensitive topic in public chat is just talk, THEN /ignore individuals and move on IF sensitive topic in public chat is "more than talk", THEN there are reasonable grounds for further action. /ignore can help - but players could/should escalate as appropriate Is that roughly in line with what you are saying? * There was a political chat on my server the other night, and I ended up venting to an extreme. Fingers were pointed, bridges were burned, and it was not right of me; for the record, I was behaving poorly and was rightly chastised for it.

This is one of the reasons I put this up as a suggestion.... if there is something that we know will have a cumulative negative effect on the community... why exactly are we not taking a closer look at that situation? If not adding "politics" to the enumerated list... then, some other type of "allowed, but regulated" rule of some sort? I am in the suggestions forum, not just because I want to suggest a solution - but also because I am open to other suggestions, too. Here's something that we know is problematic - not just "could be" problematic, but actually is already causing problems - let's take a look and brainstorm how to sure up the pillars of goodwill and play nice, etc

This is a good articulation why this is a problem for the community, not just a situation where "your problem is not my problem."

Extra Note: when I am trying to be precise and specific, my language tends to get very formal. It isn't an attempt to be condescending, or to overpower a different point of view with My Astounding Intellect... I'm trying to correct a miscommunication by adjusting the original, casual, way I initially said a thing; I'm not intending to be rude to you - I am intending to fix whatever was broken in what I said before. I must not be clearly articulating the scenario properly, because this response rests on some assumptions that are somewhat incorrect or do not apply. My mistake; I will try to avoid any further miscommunications. Please let me try to clarify. I hear you saying something along the lines of Person A articulates a perspective on a serious topic. Person B does not agree with that perspective, and has negative feelings as a result. Person B cannot figure out how to engage with the topic, or challenge the perspective respectfully, and instead acts irrationally in response - up to, and including, attempting to shut the entire topic down. And I have read your conclusion along the lines of - if a person continually feels such overwhelmingly, uncontrollably negative reactions to another perspective on a topic, perhaps that person is sublimating and/or covering for the problems or weaknesses in their own view point by lashing out. Please let me know if that is a correct assessment of what you meant. The catalyst for this suggestion would be more accurately described as, maybe, this - Person A delivers a one-sentence shock-value remark on serious topic, for the lulz. Nobody responds. Person A delivers another purposefully shocking remark; same topic, different angle. Person B responds with a request to please stop using a public chat channel in this manner. Person A rejects the request and continues to make extremist remarks related to serious topic addressed to nobody in particular. Person B requests a chat mod to respond to the behavior. Mod sometimes agrees that Person A is being a ######. Mod sometimes disagrees because Person A is "basically harmless" and "just /ignore Person A" Regardless of specific outcome, Person A plans - and will - repeat this type of trolling behavior again in the future. The sense I am trying to convey is less about a person unable to control their feelings, and unable to engage in discussion with a variety of views. I mean to be discussing what should or could be an appropriate response to a person who is using a serious topic to troll a public chat channel in-game; however, because there is no specific rule against the particular topic, the person is making a calculated gamble that the particular mod that responds on any given day will not view the activity as meeting the definition of "trolling" (as stated in the rules), and therefore side with the person over the complainant. Attempts to rely on decency and good-will (ask player to switch topics or go to a private chat) have failed Attempts to /ignore temporarily have failed Attempts to /ignore permanently have led to an entire public chat channel ceded to the offending chatter by the majority of other players Attempts to address the offending chatter for trolling behavior solve the individual moments, but have no effect on the pattern of behavior Attempts to ask if offending player can be banned for repeat trolling behavior have failed, bc some of the mods conclude the player isn't exactly bad enough to be trolling I might be forgetting steps in between, but you can easily put me in place of "the complainant" - and I have arrived at an attempt to suggest a rule change that will lead to less variance in the response of the moderators when confronted with this situation. The difference I am trying to articulate is that the premise rests on curtailing behavior known to cause problems in the community, not on giving censorship powers to players who feel bad when people disagree.

Okay, so, I read Amadee's response a couple times in a row. And I dunno why, but this particular way of wording things gave me a thought that I didn't have before. What if "politics" is added again to the enumerated list of topics ... but only for Chat. That is, only for in-game channels. The enumerated list for Forum topics would stay the same. (1) politics frequently = complex & contextual topics ... not the sort of sentences that work well in a live chat box format (2) forums, unlike chat channels, are slightly more "optional" (3) chat channels are in-game; forum posts are on-demand, when you are ready to interact with them and can literally shut it down and walk away with little drama (4) forum posts can be edited, formatted for clarity and emphasis, and deleted ... in-game chat cannot (5) the forums have a structure for filtering content - including an entire subforum (Woodscraps) for topics that are known to be unrelated to Wurm. In-game chat is random and has no way of filtering for content, only for demographic (local, kingdom, global, players seeking help, etc).... Those are 5 points of interest off the top of my head. What do all y'all think about this idea?

Real Quick Note - Just wanted all y'all to know that after the first couple responses, I have stopped giving "hearts" to responses. I didn't think it was the right thing for me to be doing on this particular post. Posters who agree or modify/expand on my OP - I see you and I appreciate your input / support / whatever you specifically said. Thanks and here's your heart: 💜 Posters who disagree with my OP - I honestly need your posts as much, if not more, than the posters who agree for whatever reason. I don't want to come across as "not listening" when I make responses that poke at your perspective or make objections to what you say... I very much want you all to come back at my pokes and objections with facts, figures, logic, rationality, and some very brilliant ideas that I have not been able to think of myself. I am depending on y'all to help me see things from different angles & put my questions about those angles to rest. Thank you for jumping in here with me, and here's your heart: 🤎

This is very similar to a conversation I had elsewhere with a forum moderator recently. In my life I have, I honestly assure you entirely by accident, focused my academic life on topics that, upon actually paying attention to the real word, I realized that most people really, really do not want to talk or think about. At all. Ever. You wanna know about primal religions? About the actual elements that make something a sect or a denomination or a cult? I'm your gal. You need to know something about human sexuality? Or about the traditional medical system of a nearly-extinct tribe living deep in the Amazon? Step right this way. Curious about the body politic? What exactly is advanced feminist theory? How do I apply moral relativism to the topic of cultural appropriation? Oh yeah, baby, let's do this! I am absolute shite at cocktail parties. I've had to learn fast and furious that not all topics are appropriate at every time and every place, no matter how much they light your fire. No matter how enjoyable it might be to watch other people get uncomfortable or shocked. Forums are generally defined and topically focused. Even a subforum like "Woodscraps" has a general scope understood by the users. Is that censorship? ... I honestly can't tell anyone other than myself where to draw that line. I have been told, once upon a time, "... is that topic technically banned? No. Would I strongly dislike it if this topic were posted? Yes. Do I highly encourage you to not go there? Yes. Please. On behalf of all the moderators, please Amata, just don't go there." I am fully in favor of "the softer approach" I have posted this suggestion in the suggestions forum not because I want more rules & censorship - but because I have recently been seeing "the softer approach" utterly failing to prevent fights, injured feelings, mass /ignore actions, players spontaneously combusting, and a whole lotta bad juju taking over some public chat channels. To the point that, recently, I had multiple in-game friends tell me, "oh, kingdom chat? yeah, I just never turn that on at all. I hardly even look at local if possible. I let my active tab sit on a PM so I don't have to see that [bleep]" because of this, people have no idea that there are impalongs happening. people are missing out giving and receiving congratulations for their efforts and achievements. nobody is listening when someone tells an absolutely hilarious joke. Or just tamed an epic mob successfully. Are lingonberries in season up north yet? Nobody in Local knows - and it's not really the sort of question that's appropriate for CA Help - but everyone has evacuated kingdom chat except Ms Edgelord and her posse. And she will gladly let you know that lingonberries are ripe - up your butt. That's kinda what I meant when I mentioned "fracturing community" That is what results when the "softer approach" fails consistently for a server.