Anti-DRC Movement Contention

Kermit D · **Joined:** Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:22 am **Posts:** 19

A wise person once said, and I'll paraphrase, the cavern is big enough for all of us - role players, puzzlers, adventurers, partiers, etc.

So who ever says you can treat the DRC totally IC is correct from a role playing perspective.

But if you also wish to look at them as OOC-Cyan's avvies (because there is an IC-Cyan. Confused yet?), you'd also be correct. You just better not tell the role players.

Anyone who says there's no connection between OOC-Cyan and the DRC is just as wrong as someone who says the DRC is only OOC-Cyan talking in game. It's a matter of degrees. How much you look at their words and actions as either DRC, OOC-Cyan, or both is up to you.
This is where the room for interpretation comes in and threads like this get debated endlessly in forums simply because some people are confused and everyone has their own point-of-view.

But since when has an exchange of ideas ever hurt anybody?

BrettM · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:53 pm

JWPlatt makes an excellent point. I had not really forgotten that Cyan did once break the IC/OOC trust, as he put it, but I was relying on the fact that it was not really their intent to do so, by RAWA's apology as well as his statements in the discussions leading up to that apology. I guess I had hoped they'd be more careful about that in the future, though I can see how people might believe that the trust had been violated once again.

Nevertheless, I believe we must still try to trust that IC is IC and OOC is OOC. The only alternative is to continue as we have been, with dozens of oracles disemboweling every chat log and studying the steaming entrails to divine the "real" message so they can enlighten the rest of us. That is just insupportable in the long run. To claim that Cate's suspension of Nick IC means that Cyan had words with an actor OOC is simply unlikely, not to mention unprovable. It ruins the immersive effect, leaves us uncertain of the appropriate IC response, and simply does not help us play the game. We can't keep on trying to peek behind the curtain to see what levers the funny little man back there is pulling. It will only paralyze us.

Kermit D · **Joined:** Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:22 am **Posts:** 19

Quote:

with dozens of oracles disemboweling every chat log and studying the steaming entrails to divine the "real" message so they can enlighten the rest of us. That is just insupportable in the long run.

Hasn't stopped us so far. I enjoy looking at this story from both an IC and OOC perspective - it doesn't paralyse the experience for me, in fact I think it enriches it. And if people want to talk about it, cool. Like I said, exchanges of ideas don't hurt anyone.

People will play Uru the way they want, no matter how many times we write "IC is IC" or "OOC-Cyan is DRC". The problem comes when you step on someone's toes because you're interfering with their way of viewing the story. In which case you apologise and move on. It should certainly never be expected that people should change their POV just because others say so.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:10 pm

People need to know what to expect. Laws, rules, suggestions, whatever. There needs to be a framework of expectation so we don't have to guess what is proper or appropriate. Nothing IC here is ever going to stand up under close inspection because no one and nothing is perfect. A framework would provide us with a certain sense of control over the environment in which we are participating. With control comes the ability for people to understand and tolerate the kind of story Cyan was trying to incite. This is not about story-telling, but about basic psychology and issues of control and inclusion - or exclusion. A psychologist could speak to this better than I, but there are so many famous studies which predict the outcome we received here that I would recommend Cyan find an expert in this area before attempting anything like it again.

My proposal has always been that Cyan needs to communicate OCC about their IC plans instead of keeping them so secret that everything is left to absurd scrutiny and everyone is suspect. It should at least be formal, and could also be done through Marketing. Movies have credits, plays have programs, books have a chapter list, and Cyan needs to publish Statements of Story so we know how to play the game. This would include, in no small part, a complete cast list, including explorers, and intent or mission. The environment is highly dynamic, so we should understand that the Statement of Story is a living document which could change daily. We could then participate in a much more realistic manner where everyone understands their role in the game, knows what's expected of them, and is fully informed and included, thereby precluding any sense of manipulation or loss of control and, ultimately, rebellion against the host. The story then becomes ours to play.

This might not be perfect, but recent events demand a progressive solution. Send Cyan your Feature Requests. Quote me if you agree. Use your own words if you have a better idea.

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

Then perhaps we should lighten up and go with the flow.

Kermit D · **Joined:** Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:22 am **Posts:** 19

Quote:

perhaps we should lighten up and go with the flow.

I think people are asking what the flow is.

BrettM suggests if you're role playing, then you're role playing - if you're not, you're not.

JWPlatt suggests OOC-Cyan gives us some rules - Statements of Story.

All valid and reasonable opinions.

I suggest that no matter what rules or intentions Cyan or the players have for Uru, there will always be different ways to interpret them and people's toes will be stepped on from time to time. Have a little understanding for your fellow human, clear up any misunderstandings, say sorry if you like, and get on with the game. This is supposed to be fun, remember?

Now Tweek suggests lightening up. Possibly the best advice no matter what the circumstances.

BrettM · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:19 am

Kermit D wrote:

Hasn't stopped us so far. I enjoy looking at this story from both an IC and OOC perspective

So do I. Reading a novel is an IC experience if it is well written and immersive, and discussing it in your book club is OOC. Both are fine.

My problem is with people trying to divine deeper messages about what is going on in the halls of Cyan HQ. Cyan had to suspend the actor who plays Nick. Cyan doesn't like the way we're using their IC forums. Cyan wants ADM to back off. All of these things are way beyond discussing the story from an OOC perspective, and worrying about what "Cyan wants" causes paralysis. Everyone is afraid to do the "wrong" thing.

If someone is doing something really wrong, a Cyantist will take care of it, as a Cyantist, not as a character. As Maratanos pointed out, they've done it before, a number of times. Remember Chad Shaw? They didn't send Nick White in to talk to him. If something must be stopped cold, they know the message has to be clear and OOC. Not done through the mouth of a character that someone might dismiss as just being part of the play. (Not picking on you, Chad, if you're still out there!)

Otherwise, there IS no "wrong thing". WE choose, for good or ill, and the characters respond to that, and we respond to the responses. And we can have all sorts of lovely discussions OOC about how that's working as a story.

I'm not sure I like the idea that JWPlatt is proposing. Seems too much like giving things away in advance, ruining the suspense and surprise. While all the actors in a film know the story in advance, we are audience as well as actors. I think I see where you're coming from, JWP, but it seems like it would remove a lot of flexibility from the story. Could you give an example of what such a Statement of Story might look like?

Kolian · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:04 am **Posts:** 441

I would say that one good reason for involving explorers in the story is to negate the sort of 'untouchable' status people attribute to Cyan's NPCs. If they make some explorers 'official story people', that seems counter-productive. Then of course you have the jealousy issues...

Thanakar · **Joined:** Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:45 pm **Posts:** 620

Hindsight is 20/20 they say. There is a huge contrast right now in the way the members of the community were reacting to the ADM story before and after it came to light that they were just 'going with the flow'. I remember the ADM's first public meeting, most of the attendees, me inlcuded, couldn't believe a single thing they were spouting. To 'go with the flow' as you say will take some paradigm shifts on many people. The ADM had several major stumbling in thier story, contention (many do not want it), proof (again, many refused to even listen/believe because of both bad logical arguements and lack of proof), unbelievable characters. People find it difficult to 'go with the flow' when there are many glaring dams to black the flow. Very hard to immerse yourself into the flow when you don't believe it exists in the first place.

Guess we are back to the drawing board now on what is or isn't believable but I do know one thing, nothing really much is going to change in the attitudes of the explorers. Mainly many just want Cyan to keep pumping out the ages so they can continue EXPLORING because many are here just to do that, explore the ages and meet with friends, and politicis and contention are the last thing on thier mind.

Eleri · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:06 pm

I have some questions I'd like to see answered before I jump on the "Cyan Blew It And Sydney Is The Victim" bandwagon.

The group she describes to Jazz and Nick at the end of March (and also to others) is the Anti-Restoration Movement, with a focus of questioning the wisdom of restoring D'ni, based on Atrus' refusal of the task. This is the concept both Jazz and Nick encourage. She specifically says it is NOT the Anti-DRC:

Quote:

(03/27 17:59:01) Nick White: Especially someone who was associated with the anti-DRC movement...
(03/27 17:59:22) Sydney Austin: like i said you changed my mind
(03/27 17:59:29) Nick White: That was quick.
(03/27 17:59:49) Sydney Austin: The anti drc hasn't been up for a while
(03/27 17:59:54) Nick White: Alright.
(03/27 18:00:02) Sydney Austin: I dismantled it

Quote:

(03/28 16:54:46) Nick White: Anti-restoration?
(03/28 16:54:49) Sydney Austin: Yes
(03/28 16:54:54) Nick White: You do what you do.

Quote:

(03/29 14:00:49) To Nick White: why was Atrus agianst the Restoration?
(03/29 14:01:18) From Nick White in Nick White's Nexus: Not sure.
(03/29 14:01:38) From Nick White in Nick White's Nexus: What exactly do you mean?
(03/29 14:02:06) To Nick White: i have heard he didn't want the city restored
(03/29 14:02:21) To Nick White: and had strong reasons
(03/29 14:02:39) From Nick White in Nick White's Nexus: Not sure, to be honest.

Quote:

(03/29 15:05:00) Jazz: You want to start it up again?
(03/29 15:05:18) Sydney Austin: I have created a new movemnet called Anti Restoration Movement
(03/29 15:05:25) Sydney Austin: a.d.m.
(03/29 15:05:32) Sydney Austin: A.r.m. i mean
(03/29 15:05:39) Jazz: lol
(03/29 15:05:47) Sydney Austin: Have a few members already
(03/29 15:05:58) Jazz: Why don't you want to see the cavern restored?
(03/29 15:06:13) Sydney Austin: And i am looking for a celebrity like you to help
(03/29 15:06:19) Jazz: How?
(03/29 15:06:38) Sydney Austin: Atrus didn't believe in the idea for starters
(03/29 15:07:04) Sydney Austin: once we get a plan together i want to start recruiting
(03/29 15:07:21) Jazz: What would you expect me to do?
(03/29 15:07:47) Sydney Austin: go public with your support and help recruit
(03/29 15:08:02) Jazz: I would need more info before I could support it
(03/29 15:08:04) Sydney Austin: When the time is right
(03/29 15:08:18) Jazz: At the moment I quite like the idea of the Cavern being restored
(03/29 15:08:19) Sydney Austin: Not a problem more will be given later
(03/29 15:08:31) Jazz: OK. As I say, I am very open-minded at the moment
(03/29 15:08:35) Jazz: Need to hear all sides

Quote:

(03/29 15:19:23) Jazz: So this is Anti Restoration and not anti DRC this time
(03/29 15:19:31) Sydney Austin: Yes
(03/29 15:19:41) Sydney Austin: Not so much after the drc
(03/29 15:19:45) Jazz: Aren;t the two connected?
(03/29 15:19:50) Sydney Austin: Kinda
(03/29 15:19:57) Sydney Austin: just worded nicer
(03/29 15:20:07) Jazz: So it's the concept of the restoration you are anti
(03/29 15:20:17) Sydney Austin: I like the acroynm of A.R.M. lol

Quote:

(03/29 16:25:05) To Ethan Hunt: i can get a domanin from godaddy to point to anywhere
(03/29 16:25:29) From Ethan Hunt in Ethan Hunt's Teledahn: Sounds fine to me.
(03/29 16:25:41) To Ethan Hunt: antirestorationmovement.com
(03/29 16:25:46) To Ethan Hunt: hehe
(03/29 16:25:52) From Ethan Hunt in Ethan Hunt's Teledahn: or .org
(03/29 16:26:01) To Ethan Hunt: even better cheaper
(03/29 16:26:26) To Ethan Hunt: we need to have a A.R.M. logo

Why then did it change back to the Anti-DRC movement after those conversations? Did she deliberately misrepresent what she was doing? At what point did it change back to Anti-DRC?

Note that far from being in cahoots with Jazz, as has been suggested, Jazz says she'll need to know more. Her RR group arises after the Anti-DRC Movement goes public. A movement that is NOT the one Jazz was asked to support.

The next conversation she has with Nick is privately on 4/19, after the re-emergence of the ADM. There are several passages that raise questions:

Nick does not question the change from Anti-Restoration to Anti-DRC at all. Why not?

Quote:

(04/19 16:46:36) Nick White: I'd go at the DRC is never around - what kind of leadership doesn't know what it's people are doing
(04/19 16:47:01) Nick White: So what they release an Age - do we want that Age? IT's a dictatorshp and we want representation.

Why does Nick use 'we' when talking about the explorers? He uses it again in this passage:

Quote:

(04/19 16:59:27) Nick White: You really think that they send Sharper and Rils and Nick on these little expeditions to get everything they know?
(04/19 16:59:33) Nick White: c'mon - do they think we're stupid?

Why does he refer to himself in the third person? Also, compare that last line to this, from Cate's visit:

Quote:

(04/26 21:40:31) Sydney Austin: do you think we are stupid
(04/26 21:40:52) Sydney Austin: *now spill it

I'd also encourage people to compare Nicks speech patterns in early logs, compared to the private portion of the log on 4/19. Look at how 'in character' he is early on, and his very short phrases. He also uses, in most cases, appropriate spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Contrast that to the private portion of the 4/19 log.

Given these issues, if someone was to put Cyan on trial for enticing someone to riot, I would not be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

zander_nyrond · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:43 pm

I believe the state's contention is that in the quoted phrases where Nick uses "we" he was coaching Sydney on what to say. She certainly used those words, verbatim, at least once. The state could also point to other instances of words being reused wholesale between forum posts and Cavern speeches, rather than being rephrased, to indicate that most if not all of the thoughts Sydney was articulating were in fact fed to her by another party, possibly Nick.

I have no opinion either way.

Eleri · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:37 pm

very true. The defense could counter with the detail that since the evidence is presented by the accuser, and not an independant third party, we have only the accuser's account of the conversation. Given the similarities in phrasing, who's putting words in whom's mouth?

zander_nyrond · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:08 pm

*looks confused* I thought the state was the prosecution... :oops:

Eleri · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:40 pm

Y're quite right, I got it backwards! Reparo'ed

Kolian · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:04 am **Posts:** 441

So now do we get to spend time looking for a stance that condemns Sydney and NOT Cyan?

Anti-DRC Movement Contention

Who is online