Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Eucalyptus 1m
- notloose 1h
- Ralph 2m
- Ameliorative 3m
- QueenZombean 7s
- AdamBlue9000 4s Rolling 526d6 damage against both of us.
- BigLammo 3m https://youtu.be/fE53m3N1WSc
- SmokePotion 5s
a Mench 5h Doing a bit of everything.
- Komira 17s
And 23 more hiding and/or disguised
Sindomedome logo
a cyberpunk roleplaying game
banner art by amika
Connect to Sindome @ moo.sindome.org:5555 or just Play Now
  • BgBB
  • Ideas
  • @trust and @untrust to ping the player

@trust and @untrust to ping the player

Login to post. Membership required.
Jump To
Newest Post
Since those are OOC permissions, and often dictate how the RP follows (and often entice one or few OOC messages to confirm before posing), could we simply have @trust and @untrust commands to notify the person affected about the change?

Something as simple as: "XYZ just trusted you to operate on them, check help @trust for more details". And similar functionality for @untrust.

By Marleen at Sep 1, 2019 10:03 AM
I like.
By Evie at Sep 1, 2019 10:05 AM
I think this can be accomplished with a pose or emote, but I've created a poll in moo to see if people want this.
By Slither at Sep 1, 2019 10:28 AM
I was writing this post as it was being made, guess I lucked out! Massive +1 from me

By Dani at Sep 1, 2019 10:29 AM
I'm actually a hugely against this one and while I will vote, I wanted to explain my view on this here as well.

@trust can ICly be used to mess with people just like trust can be used to mess with people IRL. Maybe I want to @trust someone for a while so they feel confident that they can grapple me then I want to engineer a situation where they try to do so and they fail at it thus resulting in X happening.

I know that seems pretty far off but it has actually come up for me in game before just by happenstance which was what got me thinking about how getting people used to certain trust levels then changing that on them without them knowing could be a tool one can use to mess with others

Also, I don't want people to always be aware of what I currently trust them with or don't trust them with. That gives them levers and angles that they can use against me that they should have to find out about or develop ICly. I don't want them to magically know via OOC messaging.

I tend to give a nod if needed or ask if someone is ready or whatever in a IC way and it's worked fine for me so far. And if it's a character yours spends a lot of time with, it's not unusual for certain trusts to be set and left unless there is reason to change them which also alleviates the problem some.

By Grey0 at Sep 1, 2019 1:21 PM
@Grey0 that sounds extremely meta to me. You are relying on OOC permissions to screw with someone, rather than RP that leads to it. Everytime you want to use @trust for nefarious needs it should be earned through flow of the scene, and not rely on roll of a dice whether command will fail, or pass, due to OOC @trust setting.
By Marleen at Sep 1, 2019 2:28 PM
I would have voted for this for general convenience, but Grey0 successfully swung me there.

How do you know I'm going to let you do something just because I let you do it before?

I sort of see your point Marleen, but really the only meta thing is being told Person A trust's/doesn't trust you. Without the notification everything's FOIC.

FOIC ;)

By UchuUsagi at Sep 1, 2019 2:53 PM
What if there's a way to toggle it on or off? Basically, if I'm okay with people seeing when I trust/untrust them, I keep it on. If I don't see other people trusting me, it's because they toggled theirs off.
By Evie at Sep 1, 2019 2:55 PM
How about if we only enable them for @trust, but not @untrust? I am more than fine with that, as @trust helps drive rp situation, and @unturst is still there non-verbose to keep the mystery.
By Marleen at Sep 1, 2019 3:01 PM
Having just read what Grey0 posted after I already voted Yes, I wish that I could go back and vote No.

If you have the long term foresight to get me to @trust you only later to betray me, kudos to you. Play on playah as far as I'm concerned.

By Hek at Sep 1, 2019 5:21 PM
Trust is not an OOC thing in my opinion and I have no idea why it has the classic '@' ooc flag in front of it. A character choosing to allow someone to grapple them and not fend them of is a very IC thing. Same with healing, operating, frisking and all the others. But maybe my view is skewed. Why do you consider these IC things?
By Grey0 at Sep 2, 2019 12:41 AM
I consider them OOC for the very simple reason, while IRL I am okay with my friends randomly play-grapple me, and I won't resist, if one of them attempted to grapple me in a non-playful way, I would vault him over my head instead of playing along. It's all about the context. Similarily I may trust my wife to undress me, but if she tried to pants me in the middle of the mall, it just wouldn't happen as I would hold to my pants.

It's all in the context. As just like we do IRL, our trust is not binary but depends on the situation and people involved.

By Marleen at Sep 2, 2019 12:44 AM
I should expand I think. It's still possible for them to leverage the trust, in both nefarious situations, but this requires earning the trust to do so. Wife could become frisky and playful, starting to tug on my pants belt so I will trust her good intentions and then, whamo, pantsed in the mall. Similarily a friend could start grappling in a friendly way, just to then abuse that trust to put my neck in a vice and twist it. Both require prior interaction in that very scene (which may well be very short) to earn the trust this time, not just assume to have it.
By Marleen at Sep 2, 2019 12:54 AM
Exactly. You can decide on every case if you will let something happen or resist. But the other person never really knows in advance if you will trust them to do a thing aside from precedence. They get no message from 'the system of the universe' that you now trust them or don't. They have to try or talk or something to know. You get to make a call to just let them (trust them) or resist (not trust).

The command does nothing more than change my character's IC actions and reactions. Just like attack, pose, and others. I don't see @trusting someone to grapple to get them complacent then changing it on them is much different then not attacking them for a long time then suddenly attacking them.

By Grey0 at Sep 2, 2019 12:56 AM
For sure. It is very themely for a PC to do things to get me to trust them in various ways and take advantage of it. This ranges from getting me to let them grapple/heal/whatever me, to getting info from me to getting into my apartment and more. All of that feels IC to me.
By Grey0 at Sep 2, 2019 12:58 AM
And lack of that message from the system leads to awkarness most of the time and OOC messages to clarify "oh yeah, I just trusted you to do X". Like when you may have beaten someone, and occasionally the victim will toss you a trust to strip, to play along with the victim RP. This would then be indicated and you both can RP accordingly. Doing so in emotes is far from clear and in all instances I've seen required OOC clarification.

I still struggle to see where having that OOC clarification would be bad. If someone emoted that they put no resistance to undressing or whatever, then NOT having @trust to strip seems a bit meta to. Same with all the other actions. So... what's the problem? This only provides OOC clarity to IC actions.

By Marleen at Sep 2, 2019 1:00 AM
The only time I can see this to be an issue is when you ambush someone with use of the trust, without RP in that scene that leads to them trusting you to do such action. And that is the part that is just not realistic. You won't let a friend pant in you middle of the street, in ambush way. Why would your PC be any different?
By Marleen at Sep 2, 2019 1:01 AM
I voted yes on the moo poll but now I'm not so sure. Trust is one of those ooc/ic mechanics crossover grey areas.
By kroack at Sep 2, 2019 11:10 AM
The vast majority of people thought this deserved a notification and I agree. Grey0 raises a good point about this being one of those commands that is kinda IC and kinda OOC. It uses @, and thus, I've updated the messaging to be OOC messaging. If someone wants to make the case that this should be an IC command with visible IC messaging (some how, not sure how it would be worded), then please create a new BGBB topic about it.
By Slither at Sep 4, 2019 4:24 PM
It could be like..."You think %N trusts you enough that you could..."

but I like this a lot and don't think that's needed.

By Seir at Sep 4, 2019 4:25 PM
Jump To Oldest Post