OOC = Out of Charachter, While logged into Lusternia, this should not be done. While reading and writing on these forums it should be done. Out of Charachter means that the perceptions and knowledge base that your charachter has should bias your views of other parts of lusternia not connected to your charachter. If you have alts, being OOC is much easier. Any knowledge that you learn about Lusternia, but your charachter has not, is OOC. Fain supporting Isune on something she says regarding Celest in the forums is OOC behavior.

IC = In Charachter, This should be done at all times while logged into Lusternia. In Charachter means the Charachter that you control is speaking, its thier voice, thier POV (point of view) and thier biases being expressed.
Fain telling us he hates us all and we should all die is IC, even when on these forums... (I hope)

OOG = Out of Game. This goes beyond out of charachter and is mostly talked about in the real world section of the forum. Politics, religion, sociology, Jokes (not related to Lusternia) are all OOG. OOG things should not taint the way you see things IG. Fain talking about all the cool movies is OOG.

IG = In Game. This is anything that has to do with Lusternia and the Lusternia universe, theology, philosophy, sociaology etc. Talking about Magnagora, Serenwilde, Celest, or Astral planes while it may be OOC it is also IG. In the past, OOC and IG have been confused, especially in regards to clans and other such arguments. You should NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER be OOC and IG while logged in to the Lusternia MUD. Fain Creating all the cool signatures for people related to thier charachters is IG but OOC

That's so biased!

Just play yourself in the game, it's so much easier.

"Gavin says"....wait, no..."Laneth says..."

What exactly is the point of this thread, incidentally? I understand what it's about, but is it another nudge to the Seren that we're not wearing our country bumpkin hats the exact way you want us to, or am I just being paranoid and overreading because of the last couple of days and you have a legitimate reason for posting this?

I realized that in many arguments people say you have an OOC bias or a IC bias or this is an OOC this or IC that, when really sometimes they mean OOC and sometimes they mean OOG. Or sometimes when they say IC they mean IG etc.


ARGUMENTS: An argument is a back and forth of ideas that consist of different opinions. The author of said argument really doesn't matter. The Same author can one day argue that Peanuts are tastey, and the next day argue that peanuts are Nasty. The validity of the arguments is based on what is said and shared experiences, not on which author said it was nasty and which said it was tastey, or even if its the same author contradicting himself.

Not quite true . Contradiction, etc, goes to background knowledge and weakens the relative strength of an argument.

The particular author also has bearing. Eg. Is it more reasonable to believe a priest who tells you that the Australian black market in ping-pong balls is on steady decline, the police squad dedicated to stopping the market, or the traders in ping-pong balls? Now depending on the evidence they provide, any author can make a valid argument but it is reasonable to assume bias from certain parties aswell as to take their level of knowledge in the subject in consideration.

Yes, but on the internet you don't know the true source of an argument, and many supporting claims to an argument in the forums can be based on uncredited internet sources, as apposed to when your not on the internet and you know some context in which the person is truly comming from.

So I felt that for all intents and purposes, arguments on these forums should not really care about the author or views expressed in different arguments. (I.e other threads on different topics)

Wheather two different threads on the same topic can be used to learn about a authors position or knowledge on something is probabbly up for debate.

IC: what happens when your playing
OOC: What happens when your not playing
Voila.

Something I noticed pretty quickly was that my definition of IC and OOC is quite different from what I now gather to be the accepted norm on this board (due to a PnP roleplaying background).

I'd be interested to see others definitions of what is IC and OOC.

For the record, my definition of IC and OOC:

IC: Acting as the character - speaking, thinking, feeling as if you are the character.
OOC: Acting as the player playing the character.

e.g.
IC: Character thinks she would like some new clothes, decides to hunt some rats to make money.
OOC: I get tired of trying to bash as a serenguard so my character quits his guild and becomes an aquamancer.


Thus for anyone who is just playing themselves in a MUD, there is no difference between IC and OOC (by my definition), just a case of whether or not you are IG or OOG.

This is why I was always confused by the directive to be IC on channels.
Huh? That just doesn't make sense. Took me a while to figure what the 'MUD' definition of OOC is (channel/tells still switch me instantly OOC though).

Tsk, Fain!

When I said play yourself (I was joking, but I'll explain anyway) I meant, just put you and how you would react in that world into the game as if it were the real world, and play. I didn't mean make your character just be an extension of your thoughts.

Yes. Thats what I meant too.

If your personality and your characters personality are the same then there is no difference between IC and OOC actions until you start to bring in references from beyond the context of the game.

So while everything OOG is automatically OOC (as I would define it) not everything OOC is OOG. From what I observe here, there is a tendancy to say OOC = OOG only. Whereas I tend to think of OOC referring to character activity within game context that goes against the characters personality.

I'm used to thinking about this from a pen & paper roleplay perspective where such definitions matter. In the context of a MUD (especially one where roleplay is not enforced) I can understand that IC and OOC can mean something a little different.

Mmmm fair enough, I see where you are coming from now.

Yep, thats why I felt the need to make the lexicon.

OOC is not always OOG

This is hilarious.

Except when the author consistently presents his arguments in the same style and manner no matter the topic. As game related topics on these forums should always be discussed OOC they are no different then OOG topics unless you are playing devil's advocate. At least for the purpose of arguing.

IC and OOC viewpoints are not neccesarily, and for good reason, the same. Whether one is debating an IG or OOG topic is irrelevant. Especially when a particular author displays that he is using the same type of argument IG or OOG. In fact IG or OOG are both valid points of comparison to determine the manner in which the author chooses to present himself.

The one thing I will agree on is the use of the term argument.

Argument n. a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
b. A quarrel; a dispute.

Which is far more fitting concerning one particular author instead of the terms.

Debate v. To consider something; deliberate.

Discussion n. 1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

Anal adj a. As pertaining to the posterior sphincter of the human anatomy
b. This thread.

see also Cron, Daganev

I agree and I include myself in that statement.

fixed