Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Drama? What Drama?

I came back from a week of R&R, totally disconnected from the Aetherweb - okay, full disclosure time, I did have a Crackberry, and I did check e-mail once a day, but that's all, I swear! - only to return to a full-blown war over politeness, civility, and tolerance in Caledon. By the time I started reading various Aetheric Journals, I got the impression that at least some of the debate was impolite, uncivil, and intolerant.

Fortunately, much of the debate has been quite civil, and quite informative. Without trying to rehash the whole thing, I will note that Baron Wulfenbach has links to two of the longest posts and comments, on His Grace Argylle's Journal and on Miss Emilly Orr's journal, and many others have weighed in as well.

The clearest thing to come out of the discussion is that there are competing visions for what Caledon should be. That's completely expected in such a large group. Lord Argylle may be representative of the "always in character" position (if I am not doing him a disservice), while Miss Orr may be representative of the "let it fly" position (which I am sure is at least a small disservice to her, but time is short for me tonight - read the originals). It seems to me that both arguments have merit, but they are different visions. Mr. Pearse is standing guard against the barbarians at the gate, a battle he knows he will eventually lose, given the large population Caledon now has, but, like a good soldier, he fights it anyway. Miss Orr is happy with a looser intepretation of "light roleplay," but where the two agree - where everyone is in agreement, it seems - is that politeness, civility, and tolerance are essential ingredients for our society, even if not everyone agrees on the exact bounds.

Mr. Dagger baited our poor, overworked Guvnah into a very un-Guv-like response which I, for one, liked immensely because it showed the human side of our leader. But I also agree with Guvnah Shang's view that he cannot impose his version of politeness onto ISC chat - suffice it to say that tyranny is never a good option.

In the end, those who enjoy the world we have will stay, and those who do not will move on. That much is a truism. What will that world be? I expect it to be more-or-less true to the Guv's original vision: polite Victorian and steampunk light roleplay. And I hope to be there with all of you.


Edward Pearse, Duke of Argylle said...

Maybe I'll have to reread my post. From where I stood both myself and Miss Orr were suggesting that we should be at least trying to maintain the veneer of politeness in the face of the knowledge that we are modern people. Edward is (nearly) always in theme but I wouldn't say he's in character as for the most part he's the same as the typist, just with more proper behaviour.

I think Miss Orr's reference to an example of chat where someone poured alcohol over their naked body and invited people to lick it off might be the more extreme end of the scale but it's the sort of thing I don't want to see either in chat or in general public, Victorian theme or not. What people do inside the privacy of their own homes or skyboxes is none of my business, but posting just to try and be controversial is something to be discouraged I think.

Of course those who claim this is all a recent occurrence based on the OS sim fallout need to get out more.

Rhianon Jameson said...

Indeed, sir, the fault is likely mine, either through misreading your words or remembering them imperfectly - the latter an increasing difficulty with age.

I thought everyone, or everyone willing to post on the subject, agrees on the desirability of politeness (or the veneer of it, a phrase that brought a smile to my face), but perhaps drew different lines as to what constituted polite or acceptable behavior.

Certainly the connection between the Openspace sim debacle and the current contremps seems terribly tenuous. I can only conclude that the two happened reasonably closely in time, and several long-time Caledonians no longer own properties in Caledon. I am with you in making no inferences that the two events are related.