Reference The RPF FAQ Discussion Thread

The RPF FAQ Discussion Thread

The RPF Mod Team is proud to present ... our all-new RPF FAQ!

For the last few months, we've been working on writing a comprehensive RPF FAQ to be our new one-stop shop for everything RPF. This FAQ brings together the rules from the RPF and NSWRPF as well as the countless rulings that have been made over the years, for easy reference by newbies and oldbies alike. No rules have been changed, nor will we be changing any at this time - this is a compilation rather than a revamp, and all the rules and policies listed out in the FAQ are already currently in effect in the RPF.

The FAQ thread itself has been stickied for easy reference. This thread is for any and all feedback you guys have on the FAQ.

So ... thoughts? Suggestions? Rotten fruit? Feel free to discuss it here.

NB: In RPGs, whore, bitch, and bastard are allowed as in-character insults between fictional characters. Aside from dictionary definitions, other uses will be edited. However, we encourage you to use in-fandom curses or create your own.


Merely an observation that, two out of three allowed insults are of female kind and, one of those two is of sexist kind. You could also argue that bitch is also of that nature. While bastard is more like 'you are a very bad person' (though the original term would lie closer to the offspring of a whore, I doubt anyone means that when they use it).

Now I'm not saying that they should be removed and / or replaced, more like.. make it more equal and add a male sexist insult, like 'dick' or something like that.

Why? Because it sets the tone of the fictional conversations if two out of three insults implies that you are a 'bad woman' and the last one only suggest you are a 'bad person'. Frankly, it makes it much easier to insult a female character based on her gender than a male character.

Except even that's not equivalent. You can call a man by a euphemism for his genitals in a friendly conversation and he'll likely be able to laugh it off. Do the same for a woman and the gloves are off. Gendered insults as a whole tend to generally fall much harder on females than males because for all of our claims at equality we've still got centuries of inequality we haven't excised from our culture.

(This is one of the things we cribbed from Fanfic, FYI.)

Allowing the use of additional swear words is generally more problematic than disallowing them. I'd have to check how the fanficcers decided on those three words and not others, or how they got allowed in the first place, but I'm hesitant to add to the list solely for the sake of gender balance.

Why you gotta hate? We don't need any of this elitism. GNS Theory is bogus. It's not like we banned the Lightsaber Combat Thread for having the depth of a puddle of stale rainwater or come down on newbie games where the characters and plots aren't particularly well-developed.

Also, there's no need to restrict it to just modules, or d20/d6, since there are many different systems out there and it's perfectly reasonable to run your own story idea (though I admit it's probably remarkably difficult to run a game of Dread in Play-by-Post).

Nothing in the FAQ says it has to be very good narrative content.

That's right, it's not restricted. The document is however a FAQ, and "can I run this d20/d6 module?" is a question that gets asked often whereas "can I run a game of Dread?" has never been, to my knowledge.

On review, possibly a slight rewording of just that line so it doesn't quite come across as "we hate dice, yo" so much:

Hm?

Perhaps you are right. I have never actually seen anyone using either of the three words so banning them all together might just do it.

Saint, that's a good idea. Done!

I'd appreciate that allot. As I said earlier, it set's the tone of.. angry conversations at how low you can sink based on what gender you have. Imo it's counter productive when it comes to innovative role playing.

I'm actually surprised that no one has noticed it before.

Cheers!

maybe this is my YJCC bias coming through... but that seems just a bit thin skinned to me. why are male gendered insults beyond bastard not listed? because generally speaking there aren't any equivalent to those listed for females that a guy can't or won't laugh off under the right circumstances. i would note that bitch, in some circles, is treated as a compliment, just as bastard is. so why change it? if you're going to equalize it, remove whore. it's the one that unbalances things, and bastard (which IS male oriented originally, a son who was born out of wedlock was what it was normally applied to, particularly with the nobility. see bastard sons of a king. i've never seen it applied to a woman. ever.) and bitch are both equitably seen as insults and compliments, depending on the group they're being used in.

so seriously, instead of tossing them all out, lose the one that is not of the same family and is more insulting someone for receiving payment for sex than someone who's just a royal pain in the keester.

just my two cents.

Well then, we'll certainly check with the other mods on this. As Peng said, we don't get to make changes to the allowable word list on a board-to-board basis... personally I am not convinced that it needs changing at all (and I am female, plz note the irony ), but we can find out why/how those particular three words were chosen and not others, and go from there.

I think this is a great idea!

However, I do have a suggestion/comment. Under VI. Borrowing Material, I do think the Plagiarism section needs to be expanded, both for board material use and external use (referencing websites, books, etc.). Below I explain:

1) Board material borrowing (from other Jcers at TFN):

I feel this section needs to be expanded into detail. For me, as an example, some ideas I picked up over the years from other role playing games here at TFN, if I used a idea similar to their's in Intervention, I made note of it in Intervention's Library Thread. How I made note was listing the game's name or the series of game (i.e. the Jedi Outcasts). Is this referencing good enough? Or does future references need to be expanded upon, and if so, does previous references need to be corrected for more detail?

It would be extremely hard to go back and pinpoint ideas from games that I was involved in back in 2003 and 2004. And equally so, being part of the Jedi Outcasts since 2004, it would be equally as hard to find references as such in so many games and so many pages and posts.

Now, where I agree whole-heartily where detailed references (i.e. dates and post pages of games) need to be made is where a player copies another player's idea or character so closely that no originality can be defined from one character to the next. As an example, once again, Intervention doesn't have any such referencing problems to my knowledge, but if any game did, then a detailed reference is a must.


2) Outside source references

I feel this section needs to be expanded upon to current university academic standards---such copying of material without proper references can land TFN, moderators, and users in a lot of trouble. As an example, when I use material from another site (i.e. Wookieepedia), I always list the link to the web site. If I use a Lucas Books book (i.e. Essential Guides), I list the book.

I can understand that as Star Wars fans, some of us have common knowledge about starfighters, starships, and character classes. That's all right----but if you're referencing a book or website for such information that you DON'T know as common knowledge, then a reference is needed. An example would be this:

1) Common knowledge (for me):

An Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer has 60 turbolasers, 60 ion cannons, 10 tractor beam projectors, 5 TIE Fighter squadrons, 1 TIE Bomber squadron (4 TIE Fighter squadrons, 1 TIE Interceptor squadron, 1 TIE Bomber squadron as of Battle of Endor).

Now, this is common knowledge to me after years and years of role playing. It may not be common knowledge to somebody else.


2) Not common knowledge (for me):

The detailed points (i.e 5D, etc.) for each starship. I can't bring up those role playing stats off the top of my head. Some people may, but I can't.



Now, this all comes to a critical question: What may be common knowledge to one person is not common knowledge to another.

So, I feel that we as players, moderators, and fellow Star Wars fans need to come up with what is acceptable common knowledge and doesn't need to be referenced from outside sources and what is not acceptable common knowledge and needs to be referenced from outside sources.

That is about the essence of it, yes, and that's all we're asking - that, and you ask the other player first, as the FAQ says. We're probably not going to expand the guidelines further, because plagiarism is a fairly rare occurrence and the guidelines adequately cover what to do if you see plagiarism happening.

I should also note that plagiarism is rarely accidental, if that's what you're worried about. When it happens, it's generally very obvious and very obviously deliberate.

No no no ... this will never work. Current university academic standards vary from university to university to begin with, and besides, you only have to be thirteen to RP here. Expecting a 13-year-old to be able to reference things according to some university standard is exceptionally unrealistic.

More to the point, academic standards can't be applied here because the purpose is different. The purpose of academia is to add to the sum total of human knowledge, and it's thus important to properly credit who came up with what idea so these things can be traced ... our purpose here is to write fiction and have fun.

Certainly it's always a good idea to provide proper reference material for your players (regardless of whether the reference material you're using is from published sources or stuff you've made up yourself) so they don't have to come running to you for information all the time, but that is a GMing thing and doesn't have anything to do with this.

But plagiarism doesn't have anything to do with common knowledge. There is a difference between fair use and plagiarism, yes - the former is allowed whereas the latter is not - but common knowledge doesn't factor into it at all.

Now I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that we're all on shaky ground here anyway, legally speaking. TFN exists because Lucas allows it, not because we have any legal right to exist - which is why a few years ago the owners were super conscientious about taking down leaked material when Lucasfilm told them to - and splitting hairs about referencing systems will not change that at all.

Thanks for the in-put. I knew somewhat that LucasFilm determined the fate of TFN, but now that a moderator explained it as fact, I understand it better.

Now with that said, I was just bringing up references purely for those very legal reasons that LucasFilm might have against us if something ever went south. But, I'm sure TFN owners and LucasFilm have probably already had a talk about their relationship as businesses and TFN's fate.

The main reason I brought this up is purely from a legal reason. Just from a academic point of view, plagiarism and referencing is force-fed to us and the university takes it very, very seriously. I've read the fair use laws for the United States and I understand outside of a for-profit gain, fair use is allowed in the United States. Just some times, those lines between fair use and plagiarism can get blurred---at least in my mind, where plagiarism is force-fed down our throats at college.

Thank you all, once again.

Well... universities take a hard line on plagiarism because academic honesty underpins everything they do. They have dedicated software churning through assignments to detect plagiarism, and procedures (and sometimes committees) to handle cases when they occur. It's a good idea for them, but not for us, and I say this as someone who's gone through the rigmarole of academia.

That's not to say I don't think plagiarism is a serious matter - I do. But I'd rather believe that the majority of people here are honest, and put up rules to protect us from the dishonest minority, than the other way around. Trust and respect goes a long way, you know?


Legally speaking: as I understand it, the unspoken agreement is that TFN complies with every 'request' Lucasfilm makes of us, and they ignore us otherwise. Thus far, they haven't requested that we cross-reference everything, so I see no reason for us to do it.

Just a quick update on this - the fanfic mods have no idea either, as the list has been in place for many years and all the mods from that era are long gone. Best guess is that they were allowed because they are generally considered to be socially acceptable words in professional prose and literature.

Considering we haven't had any complaints from female users about those words, and that the largely-female fanfic community has no problem with it either, I'm inclined to continue allowing those words. GMs who feel differently can ban them in their game rules, of course.

...........What is this nonsense?

Considering the normal content focus of my RPing, this doesn't affect me at all, but that's irrelevant. Explain. This arbitary dichotomy is ridiculously, blatantly offensive as written, not to mention the implications for species with only one sex. This religious double standard is all the more exacerbated when you have a specific clause under Allowable Content that rejects any statement which could be construed as insulting to religion.

If the bigotry of the forum admins is at fault rather than the RP mods, who do I need to...contact?

Actually that comes straight from the owner of the site and it has been discussed a lot elsewhere and with him. It isn't going to change right now. He pays the bills, we must obey.

Yeah, and every attempt to change his mind so far - up to and including a nice letter with the majority of the Mod Squad's names on it - has gotten shot down. Just have to live with it, unfortunately.

Does he read Star Wars EU at all? Even the fricking Verpine and Hutt are hermaphroditic species.

Also, "nice" letters don't work on people too deluded by illogical hatred to bother actually reading them.