ISRP Rules and Rulings Reference (OOC)The place to check for rulings, setting and area updates, seminars, new information, and where to participate in discussions for ISRP rooms changes and improvements.
I wanted to make clear that descriptions violations cannot be gotten around by substituting a graphic for text. If the graphic violates the setting rules, it will be treated the same as if it had been a text description. So...do not provide a graphic that has forbidden items such as horns, tails, non-humanoid ears and so on. There are a lot of graphics out there, and a lot of artists, using a graphic that violates the setting rules is as much a warnable offense as a text description of the same. As the CoC states, use of perceived loopholes in the Code does not justify their use. The intent of the setting rules is rather clear on the whole.
Siani
__________________ "There is nothing we can't conquer. We'll have our feet on a ship's deck before the Brotherhood open their ports for the trading season. And then we'll show the world what plundering means!"
I don't use graphics in my descriptions, instead I try to get what is what in the words. But some things you find you just can't describe easily with words. So now to the question. What if the text doesn't include any restricted items, but the graphic, containing an item you couldn't quite get the description right on does include the restricted details. Is the graphic allowed as a suppliment to the actual description, or should it remain omitted because of restricted content?
__________________ Frag the weak, hurdle the dead.
Jesus saves, except you. Make a new character.
This is my BFG. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My BFG is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me, my BFG is useless. Without my BFG, I am useless. I must fire my BFG true, I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to frag me. I must frag him before he frags me. I will. I swear this creed: my BFG and myself are defenders of my team, we are the pwners of my enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until my enemy is blown to bits.
Since the graphic is what people will key off of predominantly, restricted features may not be part of it. As I say, there are a lot of graphics out there and a lot of artists. It's fairly easy to see, if unfortunate to have to illuminate....people key off pictures a great deal. Many won't even bother with any text or so little that the picture really is the only clue to what the character looks like.
On a case by case basis I may allow images that aren't entirely up to specs, but I can tell you now that they would be small images, mostly head and shoulder pics with a solid text description and a clear note the offending bit isn't actually part of the character. The offending bit would also not be a majorly obvious feature of the image...so animal ears the size of a person's palm or whatnot wouldn't fly. I'd have to see them though, certainly where the Tavern is concerned. Remember, I said case by case...that doesn't mean it's a blanket permission slip to go ahead and do so.
I like seeing the graphics for the characters....but it only takes a few folks who think the setting rules are for everyone else to shake things up for the rest of us.
The large majority of what I have seen lately has been quite cool.
Siani
__________________ "There is nothing we can't conquer. We'll have our feet on a ship's deck before the Brotherhood open their ports for the trading season. And then we'll show the world what plundering means!"
It seems like you just keep adding things as you go along..
I don't think it is fair to limit a picture in specific to none violating what evers when it was never clerified, or punish the player for the lazyness of others that do not take the time to read the full description.
Last edited by Meh; 26th May 2006 at 05:15 PM..
Reason: to short.
The Tavern Setting restrictions are as they are written. Descriptions of characters have to fit within those parameters. Doesn't matter if the description is done with text or pictures, it still has to fit within the Setting restrictions. Those have not changed since I wrote them.
If a player simply cannot do without forbidden features then there are two alternatives...The Rotunda of the Forgotten Realms, or the Grand Bazaar of Sigil.
If players want an Eberron or other setting rooms...then get enough people to warrant the extra work of keeping track of the logs and checking on activity that it requires. We have a lot of rooms and wouldn't mind adding more if need is demonstrated.
We even have two rooms for play with no structured settings at all...they are what the people playing in want them to be at the time. The Tavern restrictions will not be relaxed nor will the setting be changed to something else, so I recommend one of the above options.
So far, however, the settings other than Greyhawk don't get as much traffic....even FR characters insist on hanging out in the Tavern...and they must still abide by it's restrictions. Anyone in there must do so.
May your days be blessings and not burdens.
Siani
__________________ "There is nothing we can't conquer. We'll have our feet on a ship's deck before the Brotherhood open their ports for the trading season. And then we'll show the world what plundering means!"
It seems like you just keep adding things as you go along..
I don't think it is fair to limit a picture in specific to none violating what evers when it was never clerified, or punish the player for the lazyness of others that do not take the time to read the full description.
What about punishing the laziness of those who don't take the time to find a picture that doesn't violate the rules? We don't really want to do either.
The ability to add pictures is pretty new to ISRP. New things take a while to iron out and to figure what works and what doesn't.
One thing that might work is having two pictures, one for the restricted form and one for the unrestricted form, but that takes up a lot of load time for people with dialup connections and turns them into bootezu bait. You could post the links instead of the actual files and that would help.
There are a lot of people around who love manipulating graphics and might be able to take the offending portions out of your picture. But then again, there might be copyright issues with that. Claiming someone else's work looks like your char is mild (I think) compared to changing their work on them.
If you're not sure about your description, please, please send a version of it to Siani or any of the other Magi and see if it's okay as is, or what can be done about it if not. You can send them through PMs here on EN World.
personally i think the whole restriction thing is a little bit racist in its own off handed way....i mean seriously, this restriction thing is getting WAY, WAY, WAY, out of control...pretty soon we will only be allowed to play humans...diversity is what makes dungeons and dragons what it is..being able to tweek and manipulate little things here and there to make your character unique from everyone elses is what a lot of players enjoy doing when creating a character. thats my opinion and how i am feeling right now about the whole thing...friend of amber's
__________________ Those who cant see are not blind.... they see with their other senses
The tavern, in particular, is inside a human settlement. Meaning that races allied with humans make sense to be there with some regularity, and races obviously enemies of humans would be shunned and driven out... if applying suspension of disbelief.
You'll note that the other races are permitted as long as they are disguised to fit within boundaries of the common humanoid races (elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, etc.), or conceal themselves under sufficient cloaks to hide their more alien features.
What you call racism is a fallacy; what is actually being practised is a realistic exclusion system that wasn't possible before the ISRP became independantly operated. Simply put, a normal town in a medieval setting populated by individuals who aren't necessarily used to the supernatural being thrown in their faces on a constant basis (ie, Oerth, where the tavern is located, which is a low-magic setting to my knowledge), won't tolerate monstrous races flitting about without reproach.
Hence, the reason that Sigil was made into an all-allowed setting, as the natives of that setting are used to such creatures being present.
Trel---What about punishing the laziness of those who don't take the time to find a picture that doesn't violate the rules?---
When you are looking for a picture that suits your Idea of a character you can spend days looking, so do throw it off as lazyness, I am sure most of you have taken care to look a long while.. But to not read an already layed out description that is lazyness.
And about artist, most actually wont money, and really I don't need to be spending money on a character pic.
Then it looks like you simply won't have a picture for your character. ISRP doesn't require having a picture to RP.
And if you must have one - Conceal the picture under a direct link, but put a disclaimer that the character does not have all the elements that the picture shows.
personally i think the whole restriction thing is a little bit racist in its own off handed way....i mean seriously, this restriction thing is getting WAY, WAY, WAY, out of control...pretty soon we will only be allowed to play humans...diversity is what makes dungeons and dragons what it is..being able to tweek and manipulate little things here and there to make your character unique from everyone elses is what a lot of players enjoy doing when creating a character. thats my opinion and how i am feeling right now about the whole thing...friend of amber's
Racist? in all the time I've been playing D&D (and it's been a while!) I've never seen demons, weres, vampires, aliens, slimy green blobs, liches or dragons, strolling casually through greyhawk. there's a reason for this. A KILL ON SIGHT ORDER! Greyhawk IS racist against drow, dragons, demons, and other non-humanoid races. if you think you're surface loving drow can dance naked in the moonlight in greyhawk city, expect not to make it to the tavern alive in the first place. I DO belive Siani has more than once posted Greyhawk's fear of non-humanoids and their "kill-on-sight" practices. there HAVE been exceptions and she posted them in the tavern rules, cover yourself up, disguise yourself, or do SOMETHING. these rules were voted on long ago, they aren't going to change now.
Even the normaly goodly races are not allowed in the tavern that would be normally accpeted in the DMG, and the monster manuals, Centaurs are not evil, and are in greyhawk, as are many other creatures with claws and sharpend teeth.. etc etc..
And yes Lil I guess not. Like I said it sounds like you all are just making more rules up as you go along, or applying more to them.
Then it looks like you simply won't have a picture for your character. ISRP doesn't require having a picture to RP.
And if you must have one - Conceal the picture under a direct link, but put a disclaimer that the character does not have all the elements that the picture shows.
A word of warning here on external links inside descriptions:
If you post just the url as something to cut & paste, that's cool.
If you make it a clickable link, then it's hard to get back to the description settings. There's no "back" button showing and people may think they're stuck looking at your picture for the rest of their ISRP session. The hidden trick is to right-click within the picture you've been sent to, and then use the "back" option inside the right-click-menu.
Even the normaly goodly races are not allowed in the tavern that would be normally accpeted in the DMG, and the monster manuals, Centaurs are not evil, and are in greyhawk, as are many other creatures with claws and sharpend teeth.. etc etc..
And yes Lil I guess not. Like I said it sounds like you all are just making more rules up as you go along, or applying more to them.
No, no more rules have been made up as "they" have gone along. Magi Gabriel made a post several months ago stating the size limitation on pictures, but maybe you didn't read it.
I DO belive Siani has more than once posted Greyhawk's fear of non-humanoids and their "kill-on-sight" practices. there HAVE been exceptions and she posted them in the tavern rules, cover yourself up, disguise yourself, or do SOMETHING. these rules were voted on long ago, they aren't going to change now.
Again I find myself pointing out that this is not the case. They were *NOT* voted on. The idea that the restrictions was a community descision is a ridiculous claim. That said however, the rules have been here a while now, and it was pointed out some time ago that images did have size limits, and violating characters must be disguised.
Quote:
And if you must have one - Conceal the picture under a direct link, but put a disclaimer that the character does not have all the elements that the picture shows.
Just for clarification, might I ask the difference between having a link to an image with a disclaimer about offending ears/horns/tails not supposed to be there, and simply having an image in the description itself with a similar disclaimer? As was noted it is of course a case by case situation, but this seems to suggest having a link rather then the actual picture gets around the issue. I am of course assuming this is not the case, but thought I might double check.
Again I find myself pointing out that this is not the case. They were *NOT* voted on. The idea that the restrictions was a community descision is a ridiculous claim. That said however, the rules have been here a while now, and it was pointed out some time ago that images did have size limits, and violating characters must be disguised.
Just for clarification, might I ask the difference between having a link to an image with a disclaimer about offending ears/horns/tails not supposed to be there, and simply having an image in the description itself with a similar disclaimer? As was noted it is of course a case by case situation, but this seems to suggest having a link rather then the actual picture gets around the issue. I am of course assuming this is not the case, but thought I might double check.
That thread is a discussion thread. It is my understanding that the vote proposed in this thread in reguards to the setting restrictions was NEVER carried out, due to WotC throwing us out on the lawn (which is wizards loss) - instead when we found the new forums and chat site over at UH the 'setting restriction proposal' was already decided on by the powers that be, not by a community vote.
There WAS a vote on the setting to replace Juxta, but that (at the time) had nothing to do with setting restrictions. It was Faerun that won the vote, but again when the move to UH was made the powers that be decided to include Sigil as well, something i'm quite thankful for personally.
If my understanding in this is wrong (something that happens frequently )and we were given a vote on the setting restrictions, I would indeed LOVE to see where the vote and its results are hidden - i've been searching for such a thread for some time but have yet to find it.
One of course could argue that we were given a chance to object in the discussion thread, but theres a big difference between 'voting' on an issue and discussing it.
Well then, let me be the first to call on Siani to end this ridiculous raving and dissention (That really shouldn't exisist, considering that there *IS* an open setting) once and for all.
My dissension is not with the issue of setting restrictions, i've stated once before I'm all for them. My disagreement is about how they came to pass, and the use of the term 'voting', nothing more. Though I admit, that has nothing to do with this subject, and I fear whilst asking for clarification on links vs images my petty nature may have derailed the thread, for that I apologise.
)and we were given a vote on the setting restrictions, I would indeed LOVE to see where the vote and its results are hidden - i've been searching for such a thread for some time but have yet to find it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
