Announcement

Collapse

ZEALOTRY Users: Critical Notice on Continued Use

Edit: Our new HTML5 client (Orchil) is now open for beta testing in The Eternal City and Grendel's Revenge. Feel free to try give it a whirl at http://test.skotos.net/orchil/

Edit: We have made great strides toward a new HTML5 client, which should offer a replacement to Zealotry. We're hoping to release that in the very near future, but in the meantime, using Pale Moon remains the best method for ensuring there is zero interruption to your game playing during the transition.

As of November 14, Mozilla will be auto-updating all copies of Mozilla Firefox to Mozilla 57, a new edition of their browser that will disable all legacy add-ons. This will probably include the majority of the plug-ins that you use on Mozilla, including the Skotos Zealotry plug-in.

This is a big problem for us because Zealotry is the most stable of our clients at this time, and the one that we believe is in the widest use. There's unfortunately no easy way to update it, because we'd have to rewrite it from practically scratch, using their new programming system.

There are tricks that you could use to to prevent Mozilla updates, but we don't particularly suggest them, as you want to have a clean, secure browser. Fortunately, there are two alternative browsers that will support Zealotry. Each of them branched off of an earlier version of Mozilla Firefox, and each of them continues to be updated for important security issues.

Pale Moon Browser

The Pale Moon browser is our suggested replacement. It is a totally separate browser that branched off of Firefox some years ago. It will continue to support the classic plug-ins.

To install it:
  • Install Pale Moon (Windows & UNIX only)
  • Install the Zealotry XPI on Pale Moon
  • Restart the Pale Moon Browser
  • Play on Pale Moon

The official version of Pale Moon only supports Windows and UNIX, but you can also get a slightly less official version of Pale Moon for the Mac. We've tested it out and it looks like it's clean and works correctly, but use your own level of caution in working with the Mac variant.

If You Have Errors

Some users are experiencing "Content Encoding Errors" when using Pale Moon and Zealotry. As best we can tell, this is due to an incompatibility between Windows 8.1, Pale Moon, and Plugins. If you have this problem (or any other), we suggest instead using Mozilla's extended-release version of Firefox, which branched at Firefox 52. It's expected to remain supported until at least June 28, 2018, by which time Mozilla is planning to jump their ESR to a post-plugin phase. This is therefore a short-term solution, but we expect to have full release of our New HTML5 client well before that.

To install it:
The Big Picture

Our larger-scale goal is to introduce a new client that will be usable on any browser and make our games generally more accessible. We've had a HTML5 client in process since last year, but are currently hitting roadblocks that make a deployment before November 14 problematic. We've also just started a second project, which would be more specifically focused as a Zealotry replacement, without worries about new bells or new whistles. Both of these possibilities are being done out-of-house, by Skotos players, but they're receiving our highest level of attention for whatever support they need, as this is all our top priority.

So, consider this a short-term fix, but in the meantime if you use Zealotry, please download one of the alternative browsers and test them out ASAP.
See more
See less

On Gender Conformity

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • On Gender Conformity

    Hi folks,

    Someone tried to slip in an OOC comment on the IC boards that I believe requires correction.

    "**This setting is not in 2017, more like the 1200-1400's. There was no public postings about such "back in the day." You'd get slaughtered for it. Keep your mindset right for the game, otherwise you'll ruin it for everyone! (ooc)"

    This comment is grossly misleading in many levels. First, the idea of strict gender conformity as we understand it came out of ONE historical culture: Victorian England-- during the colonial period.

    You might contend that it is Judeo-Christian, and indeed Judeo-Christian culture imposed similar codes, according to their surviving texts. However, This is not a Judeo-Christian game, nor is it a Victorian English game. The setting is medieval/renaissance-- it isn't even specifically European. All of Shakespeare's actors were male. They cross-dressed to play female parts. The same is true in Shogunate Japan. Hindu India before colonialism did not have strict gender roles. Read the original Kama Sutra. Native Americans too did not impose these restrictions before colonialism. "Watch the movie "Little Big Man". I personally do business with a native American "Two Spirit" in my home town who cross dresses regularly.

    In short, the original poster on the IC board is completely uninformed. She wants to take us out of the medieval/renaissance setting and impose some kind of 1950s American cultural norm on us-- one that originated in Victorian England.

  • #2
    You're talking about actors dressing a part, not people every day living as cross-dressers in this time period, walking around in public and claiming they were of a different gender. There may have been *some* cultures where people didn't fear persecution of that nature, but as far as I'm aware outside of acting and entertainment that was kept fairly private. I'm pretty sure this game isn't set in Japan, or India though, which you referenced above, and you're calling on RL experiences from this day and age to support your claims for cross dressing hundreds of years ago. I get that you think you're right because of OOC information and that IC you are impassioned to the cause, but there are IG rules set up by the clothing faction in the game to set the tone for the game world, and some of us are happy to be immersed in it. In the game world you can choose to rebel against it, speak against it as you are doing, find another way to get clothing that you want to wear and then endure whatever disfavor comes of it, or accept it and move on. I don't think anyone is trying to take us out of the medieval/renaissance setting of a Monarchy where the QUEEN makes the rules and society isn't as open and free as the ones you're referring to, except for maybe you. I feel like this is a little bit of a sensitive subject to claim that people are being bullied for gender identity based on OOC information you have that in some cultures they were allowed to do things and thus you feel the game, or the characters in it, should be accommodating to people who want to play that here. Nobody is wanting to persecute anyone on an OOC level or an IC level - the clothing and sumptuary laws have been similar to what they are now for at least a decade as far as I know.
    You need power only when you want to do something harmful, otherwise love is enough to get everything done. ~~Charlie Chaplin~~
    No matter how long the winter, spring is sure to follow. ~~Proverb~~

    Comment


    • #3
      "You're talking about actors dressing a part, not people every day living as cross-dressers in this time period, walking around in public and claiming they were of a different gender."

      First they didn't "claim" to be a different gender. They claimed to be THEIR gender. And this "walking around in public" happened all the time as well. The Victorians were so anal about that BECAUSE so many people were doing it, in their colonial possessions as well as at home.

      "I'm pretty sure this game isn't set in Japan, or India though..." And not in Europe either. There's a character named Tamiko-- Japan. There's a character named Vasant Prasad-- obviously East Indian. Those character names-- nor implications of their previous cultures-- have not been forbidden by staff.

      "I get that you think you're right because of OOC information and that IC you are impassioned to the cause," NO. Passion doesn't make me right. Facts make me right. And this Original Poster's facts were flat out WRONG.

      "IG rules set up by the clothing faction in the game to set the tone for the game world, and some of us are happy to be immersed in it." Fine. If you want the game to mirror 1950s America, just DON'T claim it is historically accurate for a medieval period. That's my complaint. Just be honest instead of ignoring or distorting historical fact to make a completely dubious claim so you can bully others ICly, or OOCly. Don't try to bully others, and then make dubious and deceitful claims that it isn't bullying at all (because frankly that's what bullies always do when challenged).

      " I don't think anyone is trying to take us out of the medieval/renaissance setting..." OBVIOUSLY the OP is trying to impose 1950s values on us, and lying about the facts to do so.

      "the QUEEN makes the rules and society isn't as open and free as the ones you're referring to, except for maybe you." Again. All I can say is "know your history before you make these claims!" Do you think Elizabeth I cared if a peasant woman was dressing as a man so (s)he could be a smith or even a soldier? You do realize that one of the early Spanish Conquistador officers was a woman dressed as a man? And when (s)he was discovered-- late in life-- the Spanish Inquisition merely asked that (s)he resign? Do you know your history before you speak?!

      "Nobody is wanting to persecute anyone on an OOC level or an IC level - the clothing and sumptuary laws have been similar to what they are now for at least a decade as far as I know." Bullshit. Look at that original poster. She can't even restrain herself from switching to OOC and talk about violence.

      Comment


      • #4
        First they didn't "claim" to be a different gender. They claimed to be THEIR gender. And this "walking around in public" happened all the time as well. The Victorians were so anal about that BECAUSE so many people were doing it, in their colonial possessions as well as at home.

        - I don't believe that's during this time frame (the Victorians). I'm also not sure where you're getting your information, but I'd be interested in reading it, for sure. I'm not trying to sound ignorant, just trying to explain another perspective.

        And not in Europe either. There's a character named Tamiko-- Japan. There's a character named Vasant Prasad-- obviously East Indian. Those character names-- nor implications of their previous cultures-- have not been forbidden by staff.

        - I always assumed this was set in Europe due to the Monarchy, or somewhere 'similar' since there's the reference to Avalon also. Implications of previous cultures aren't forbidden, no, and people do bring them IG which is always neat, but you still have to contend with the rules that have been created IC for everyone to follow. You can be a Japanese woman like Tamiko and throw in some titling or terminology for flavor, and do everything to get her as close to her old culture as is possible in the game, but you obviously won't be able to do everything because .. it's not a Japanese game and you aren't going to have access to all the things you would have in your past life. It's a meshing of all different cultures living in this one Castle, and so rules are set up to maintain the overall theme, I think, while still affording the opportunity for choice in every character. You're restricted, but at the same time, you have options.

        NO. Passion doesn't make me right. Facts make me right. And this Original Poster's facts were flat out WRONG.

        - Okay. It just seems like there's a nicer way to teach people rather than accusing them of being ignorant and imposing things on you and others. Even if not all of us are history buffs, it doesn't mean we wouldn't be willing to learn the material you're referencing, but even if we did, those clothing guidelines were put in place to reinforce a theme, so you might be better off discussing it with staff rather than ranting about it IC, especially if it's an OOC disconnect with real life history. I imagine they are much more knowledgeable in many regards than we.

        Fine. If you want the game to mirror 1950s America, just DON'T claim it is historically accurate for a medieval period. That's my complaint. Just be honest instead of ignoring or distorting historical fact to make a completely dubious claim so you can bully others ICly, or OOCly.

        - I stand by the game and am telling you it has been this way for as long as I've played it, regardless of who has come or gone in staff. You keep accusing people of bullying, but you are the one trying to use your knowledge to bully everyone into thinking your singular viewpoint is right and everyone else's is wrong. This is a fantasy renaissance game, and nothing like 1950s America. There is nothing 'modern' about it that I have ever experienced until your posting.

        Again. All I can say is "know your history before you make these claims!" Do you think Elizabeth I cared if a peasant woman was dressing as a man so (s)he could be a smith or even a soldier? You do realize that one of the early Spanish Conquistador officers was a woman dressed as a man? And when (s)he was discovered-- late in life-- the Spanish Inquisition merely asked that (s)he resign? Do you know your history before you speak?!

        - I wasn't alive when Elizabeth the I was, so I couldn't tell you what she concerned herself with or cared about and I wouldn't dare to assume either for fear that you might delve into everything she ever was and tell me how ignorant I am for not knowing better. You are citing very specific examples though and not an overall general theme. Elizabeth I was a RL monarch, Vivienne is the Monarch of a fictitious Castle in who-knows-where with the capacity to make her own rules and guidelines and empower others to do it on her behalf. This game is not a mirror of real life, though as I understand it is guided by a specific time frame.

        Bullshit. Look at that original poster. She can't even restrain herself from switching to OOC and talk about violence.

        - I mean ... you aren't doing the best job of conveying your feelings or facts without putting people down simultaneously, and you seem to be married to the idea that this game has to be based on all the historical facts ever. You seem to know history, congratulations to you, and feel that the game could be improved upon in some manner, but instead of suggesting it constructively you've resorted to name-calling IG and OOC telling people they're bullies and ignorant.
        You need power only when you want to do something harmful, otherwise love is enough to get everything done. ~~Charlie Chaplin~~
        No matter how long the winter, spring is sure to follow. ~~Proverb~~

        Comment


        • #5
          While I don't care to get drawn into a long debate about anthropology, the observations claimed in the original post are misguided.

          http://www.medievalists.net/2014/05/...dieval-london/
          http://www.medievalists.net/2013/09/...al-literature/
          http://www.medievalhistories.com/ear...ross-dressing/
          https://storify.com/SommerCarbuccia/...medieval-times

          Those are four published university thesis on the consequences of gender non-conformity in the medieval period, AKA: "how badly it went for those who decided to cross dress in medieval and renaissance europe". Or if you'd rather do your own research, just google "medieval cross dressing" and read any of the first 10 results to come up, they're all pretty consistent in the historical repercussions for violating gender conformity. The theory that gender conformity was exclusively a 1950s American invention is simply not substantiated by history.

          Male actors dressed as females were excused for the cross dressing, naturally, because it was for a play. In fact, males dressing up as females because actual women were prohibited from acting was an example of patriarchy, not gender equality, and therefore is actually evidence of the exact opposite of what your original post implies. This also includes the geisha of the Japanese shogunate (I assume that's what you're referring to) who were also actors. The geisha were, FYI, also replaced with females instead of males not long after their conception, so again, gender conformity existed here too (though in this case it was "only women can be X" instead of "only men can be X").

          That said, by skimming the IC thread, and I confess I only skimmed it, the greater issue seems not to be cross dressing, but rather the fact that a guest was assumed to be male or female, based on their outward appearance, without asking first what their 'preferred gender' is? The literal wording in the original post was that someone was "assigned a gender without first checking their genitals", which seems to imply the problem isn't cross dressing, but rather the concept that someone should be assumed to be X or Y gender without asking them their 'gender preference'. If so, that's arguably a separate debate from cross dressing altogether, and we should instead be discussing the origin of the "Sex vs Gender" philosophy (also decidedly non-medieval from what I can find). Please correct me if I've mistaken what's actually being argued here.

          In any case, while we're on the topic of what isn't the theme of Castle Marrach, I'll go on a brief tangent of my own on what is.

          Castle Marrach is based on arthurian lore. Vivienne was literally the Lady of the Lake from the tales of King Arthur, who in various stories was the fae Queen of Avalon who played a pivotal role in Arthur's life, involved in many tales including one in which She bestows Excalibur upon him. Sir Launfal, Sir Gawain (spelled Gawyn in Marrach), Maugis, Vortigen, Merlen, etc, are all VPs with names coming from Arthurian lore and that's not a coincidence. Even some PC names snuck through (Gareth and Ywain aka Uwaine were both Knights of the Round Table) though any PC names with arthurian references should've been caught by staff of that time as naming violations but were missed.

          This can be a bit confusing as King Arthur is said to have united the Bretons during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, as Rome's armies abandoned Britannia and left its subjects to the whims of the barbarians they had subjugated (chiefly Picts and Calendonians from the north, and Saxons sailing from Germany). It is thus confusing because this would've occurred circa 400ad if Arthur, or Artorian as he would've likely been called, was a real person. Despite this, artists who depicted Arthur and his stories in romanticized tales often portrayed him in clothes, armour or mannerisms common to the age of the artist, historical accuracy notwithstanding. The result is that King Arthur and his Knights are often portrayed as a high/late medieval era peoples circa 1200ad to 1400ad, wearing plate armour with the great longsword Excalibur when in reality King Arthur would've lived in the dark ages well before plate armour, longswords, or many of the clothes people from arthurian lore are depicted in existed.

          In Marrach we go with the romanticized version of Arthur, the lore not the reality, and so the theme is decidedly medieval, not Roman. And so yes, Marrach's theme *is* medieval european, specifically medieval england, contrary to the claim in the original post. And like medieval europe, there is some degree of gender casting in Marrach, though much, much looser than what was actually the case (you would've never had female soldiers, Knights, etc, in medieval europe).

          Despite that we have characters from all over the world in CM, and not necessarily from the same "time" either. I have characters with backgrounds hailing from medieval france, dark age scandinavia, and ancient rome myself. Some characters, actually I'd argue most characters aren't from "the real world" per se, most PC backgrounds I've heard make no mention of real world locations and are entirely fictional.

          That said, yes, we have people of all kinds of ethnicities, religions, cultures, regional locations and even time eras living together in CM. You're free to have your character to come from any of them, or even a fictional time/place/culture entirely of your own making, so long as their knowledge/technology/culture does not surpass roughly the 1300s or so (this is the point when gunpowder and cannon first started being seen in Europe, and we've concluded guns are decidedly non Arthurian). However, regardless of whatever background your character comes from, the themes put down and enforced in Castle Marrach are quite clear. Your character can oppose them ICly if you wish, but walking into someone else's kingdom and telling them their culture is "wrong" may not be received very kindly by the inhabitants of said kingdom.
          StoryHost Kurzon
          Castle Marrach Staff

          kurzon.marrach@outlook.com

          The destiny of the world is determined less by the battles that are lost and won than by the stories it loves and believes in.

          Comment


          • #6
            "The theory that gender conformity was exclusively a 1950s American invention is simply not substantiated by history."

            And such a claim was obviously not made! Judeo-Christian and Victorian Culture was clearly noted. My contention was the intent of the original (IC board) poster was to impose 1950s American values upon us, and I briefly explained the roots of that.

            These outside links Kuzon provides raises an important question (one I believe the authors of the articles wished to make clear, but Kuzon ignores): if we have records of punishment, we must then admit that the behavior was going on regularly. About what percentage of murder cases were investigated and punished by authorities of that time? About how many armed robberies in that time. Would you guess that there were many, many cross-dressers that were NEVER punished? Here's the first line of the abstract of one of the articles: "In the century after 1450, thirteen women incurred the ire of Londonís governors by cross-dressing as men. This is a small number of women, spread over many years, from a long time ago..." If the authors were to try, how many murder or armed robbery charges were there during that same time period? From the article itself "Many of the cases of cross-dressing women involve prostitutes". Oh, this wasn't even the primary charge they were facing?! How does that reflect on the possible prevalence more generally? Kuzon misses the point of those articles entirely. The point of the articles was that cross-dressing in those cultures was much more prevalent than previously supposed.

            That brings us to a confusion of IC/OOC limitations in Kuzon's post: why are CODED limitations put on what newbies can wear? This seems to me a violation of the game's consent philosophy. A coded, possibly unwelcome, imposition upon the new player. While I'm not allow to steal, attack, plant things on other players without their consent. The code is ultimately IMPOSING clothing of another's choice upon new characters without their consent, the only alternatives being to go around in the game naked or in the original wrappings. Why is coding (an OOC limitation) imposed on newbies' clothing choices for THEIR OWN CHARACTER? I get a whiff of bullying there.

            "You're free to have your character to come from any of them, or even a fictional time/place/culture entirely of your own making, so long as their knowledge/technology/culture does not surpass roughly the 1300s or so..."

            I charge Kuzon with total hypocrisy in that statement. In Arthurian times women would typically not be allowed to bear arms, or to engage in spars or combat training. Some did, of course. And it is allowed regularly in the game. But cross-dressing is not? The historical circumstances are almost identical. But Kuzon conveniently finds completely different answers-- in accordance with his modern values: modern women are paying customers for Skotos, so the rules are conveniently bent. And they should be bent. Because this is a game in modern times that is modified to accommodate our modern sensibilities and values. You can't argue it both ways, Kuzon. He wants to appeal (inadequately, in my opinion) to Arthurian standards when it suits him, and ignore them when it doesn't, based on HIS values-- which he is imposing on others-- bullying. It's not a valid argument. Women of today should have the chance to explore more masculine roles in your game. And all people of today should have a chance to explore other gender-bending roles. If Kuzon is using the code--and other means (see next paragraph)-- to compel or intimidate them to do otherwise, Kuzon is bullying them.

            "Your character can oppose them ICly if you wish, but walking into someone else's kingdom and telling them their culture is "wrong" may have IC repercussions too. " And when did I claim my character should not face IC repercussions? Why did I FIRST go to the IC boards with this? Additionally, we all know the Queen's every edict is controlled by Kuzon. Kuzon creates this game culture. Zuzon can have the queen make an edict today to change. Please don't try to tell me it's a cultural thing that's out of Kuzon's hands. If my character doesn't reappear in this game. It isn't because I'm afraid of his IC repercussions; it's because I find the culture Kuzon has created in it OOCly disgusting.

            Sure, Kuzon and staff own this game's server and can do whatever they want with it. But that doesn't stop it from being bullying. Any argument that would contend something along the lines of "players are free to leave this game if they don't like my gender rules" is also bullying.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              And such a claim was obviously not made! Judeo-Christian and Victorian Culture was clearly noted. My contention was the intent of the original (IC board) poster was to impose 1950s American values upon us, and I briefly explained the roots of that.
              And my correction was your claim that the values being imposed in Castle Marrach were 1950s American values, not 1300s medieval ones, and I briefly demonstrated why your assertion was incorrect.

              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              These outside links Kuzon provides raises an important question (one I believe the authors of the articles wished to make clear, but Kuzon ignores): if we have records of punishment, we must then admit that the behavior was going on regularly. About what percentage of murder cases were investigated and punished by authorities of that time? About how many armed robberies in that time. Would you guess that there were many, many cross-dressers that were NEVER punished? Here's the first line of the abstract of one of the articles: "In the century after 1450, thirteen women incurred the ire of Londonís governors by cross-dressing as men. This is a small number of women, spread over many years, from a long time ago..." If the authors were to try, how many murder or armed robbery charges were there during that same time period? From the article itself "Many of the cases of cross-dressing women involve prostitutes". Oh, this wasn't even the primary charge they were facing?! How does that reflect on the possible prevalence more generally? Kuzon misses the point of those articles entirely. The point of the articles was that cross-dressing in those cultures was much more prevalent than previously supposed.
              It doesn't raise that question. You've decided to interpret it that way. Is it not just as plausible to argue that there's a documented case of it, unlike so many other trials, because it stood out as being so abnormal?

              My point was that gender conformity existed in medieval europe well before colonial America, and that fact is supported by the articles I quoted. I don't think it's so much an issue of "me missing the point entirely" as you misinterpreting my point and twisting the article to suit yours.


              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              That brings us to a confusion of IC/OOC limitations in Kuzon's post: why are CODED limitations put on what newbies can wear? This seems to me a violation of the game's consent philosophy. A coded, possibly unwelcome, imposition upon the new player. While I'm not allow to steal, attack, plant things on other players without their consent. The code is ultimately IMPOSING clothing of another's choice upon new characters without their consent, the only alternatives being to go around in the game naked or in the original wrappings. Why is coding (an OOC limitation) imposed on newbies' clothing choices for THEIR OWN CHARACTER? I get a whiff of bullying there.
              I'm not sure what is being referenced here with "coded limitations". A male or female character can wear any garment as far as I'm aware? There is no coded limitation here, though it may be harder to access male specific clothing on a female character (it can still be done easily enough if you ask the right characters or fib).

              Can you elaborate on what you mean by coded limitation?


              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              I charge Kuzon with total hypocrisy in that statement. In Arthurian times women would typically not be allowed to bear arms, or to engage in spars or combat training. Some did, of course.
              Since I already pointed out what you state here in my original post, it's actually not hypocrisy. Rather it's part of my argument. I specifically pointed out female knights and soldiers as being contrary to actual medieval gender conformity.

              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              And it is allowed regularly in the game. But cross-dressing is not? The historical circumstances are almost identical. But Kuzon conveniently finds completely different answers-- in accordance with his modern values: modern women are paying customers for Skotos, so the rules are conveniently bent. And they should be bent. Because this is a game in modern times that is modified to accommodate our modern sensibilities and values. You can't argue it both way, Kuzon.
              Why can't I? Of course I can. That's the great thing of making a fantasy world, you decide what it is. As stated in my original post, Marrach is based on arthurian lore, it is not factually located anywhere in medieval europe or in the real world. Hence elves, dwaves, undead, etc.

              But to give a more clarifying response to what I think you're actually getting at: at some point it was determined by the game's founders that prohibiting female characters from doing things like sparring or becoming a Knight would drastically impede their player's enjoyment of the game. The same assessment was not made of being told gowns are proper on a woman. Is it arbitrary? Sure. A line between realism and fun had to be drawn somewhere, and that's where it was drawn. You can subjectively disagree with where they drew that line, but your opinion is as arbitrary as the people who drew that line.

              For the record, that individual was not me, but I agree with where my predecessors drew it and I support it as a theme of the game today.


              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              "Your character can oppose them ICly if you wish, but walking into someone else's kingdom and telling them their culture is "wrong" may have IC repercussions too. " And when did I claim my character should not face IC repercussions? Why did I FIRST go to the IC boards with this?
              When did I claim that you claimed your character shouldn't face IC repercussions?

              See what I did there?


              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              Additionally, we all know the Queen's every edict is controlled by Kuzon. Kuzon creates this game culture. Zuzon can have the queen make an edict today to change. Please don't try to tell me it's a cultural thing that's out of Kuzon's hands. If my character doesn't reappear in this game. It isn't because I'm afraid of his IC repercussions; it's because I find the culture Kuzon has created in it OOCly disgusting. Sure, Kuzon and staff own this game's server and can do whatever they want with it. But that doesn't stop it from being bullying. Any argument that would contend something along the lines of "players are free to leave this game if they don't like my rules" is also bullying.
              To be clear, I did not create Castle Marrach, nor do I own it. Not that it changes any of the above, but there seems to be some misconception that I've created the game's original edicts or culture, something I fear I cannot take credit for. I've been StoryHost for the last 2 years of the game's 18 year history.

              That said I do support the themes laid down my predecessors. And yes, I absolutely have the power to wave my hand and have the Queen change Her mind about what Marrachian society is on a whim for no IC reason whatsoever. But I'm not going to, because what you find "disgusting" is simultaneously what keeps everyone else here, and has been part of the core theme of the game since its conception. Despite your beliefs, gender conformity was factually part of medieval society, a fact more or less universally agreed on by historians, and people who come to play this game, come to partake in medieval culture.

              That said, can/will the IC culture of Marrach change? Maybe/possibly/hopefully.

              The Winter Court by theme and definition is cold and conservative, IC oppression is absolutely a theme of the Winter Court, enforced by the Winter Knight. Admittedly we we do a poor job at it, by medieval standards Marrach is still exceptionally liberal, mostly because if we enforced an actual medieval tyranny in-game a lot of players would find it not-so-fun.

              In the earliest years of CM, women were permitted to wear pants and dress generally the same as men, not so much in Court or when travelling to the Inner Bailey, but in the Outer Bailey it was 'normal' when I first started playing CM (which was about 4 or so years after the game went live). The IC crackdown on clothing, which included restricting women to wearing gowns, as well as banishing all clothing dyes and jewelry materials associated with "warmer seasons", was entirely IC and implemented as part of the game's story. It was done for IC reasons by those characters in the game's story who have made it their mission to enforce the cold, hard, conservative themes of the Winter Court.

              There have been, over the years, IC attempts by characters (such as Gareth, whom you've mentioned) to oppose the Winter Court and their values, and a good deal of IC story came out of it. Maybe some day such characters will even succeed, and the game will see the culture that is the Summer Court. But the theoretical existence of the Summer Court that may or may not have existed at one point and may or may not exist again is a very sensitive subject, deeply entwined in the game's secrets and lore, and it wouldn't be prompt to discuss it any further here in an OOC forum.

              In any case, characters like Gareth, Lucus, Priam or so many before you who decided to ICly "fight the system". Some fought using politics, others took up steel and rebelled. What they all share in common is that they pursued the "oppression of the Winter Court" as an IC problem, and a hook for their characters' stories, instead of becoming incensed OOCly, attacking players in the forums, threatening to quit, etc.


              Originally posted by Vasant View Post
              Sure, Kuzon and staff own this game's server and can do whatever they want with it. But that doesn't stop it from being bullying. Any argument that would contend something along the lines of "players are free to leave this game if they don't like my rules" is also bullying.
              I'm not going to get into whether it qualifies as bullying. You seem passionate about the topic, so for the sake of moving on, sure, we'll say it's bullying. It is, however, IC bullying, so again I ask why this is such an OOC issue for you? To my knowledge your character is male, the argument can't even be made that you're being stripped OOCly of the enjoyment of playing a female character wearing pants.

              And no, I don't agree with the philosophy of "if you don't like it, here's the door". These boards are for discussing the game and constructive criticism is more than welcome, key word being constructive. So it's my genuine hope that no, you don't quit, but that we can come to some understanding on what it is that has you so upset.
              No one has been rude or abrasive to you despite the clearly confrontational tone you've displayed to anyone who disagrees with your view.

              I'm sorry you find the game's in-character culture "disgusting" to the point you want to quit the game, but everyone else is generally in acceptance with it being part of the medieval theme. And you will find it common as part of the medieval fantasy genre no matter where you go, even Brienne in Game of Thrones got made fun of for bowing to Cersei (instead of curtsying) and countless examples can be taken from medieval literal elsewhere, both fiction and non-fiction. The concept of gender conformity in the medieval era isn't a Marrachian invention.


              So again I ask you, for my own clarity; what precisely is the problem? Females are told ICly that it's 'proper' to wear a gown? Why is this hindering your OOC enjoyment of the game?
              StoryHost Kurzon
              Castle Marrach Staff

              kurzon.marrach@outlook.com

              The destiny of the world is determined less by the battles that are lost and won than by the stories it loves and believes in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello,

                Firstly, calm down. No one has any desire to continue to discuss or debate things with an individual who keeps loosely tossing accusations and vague information about cultures, which is exactly what is happening. Your observations are either exceptionally specific or general blanket statements.

                Secondly, I've played this game longer than any person presently active in the game (including Kurzon) and I will tell you what I have seen insofar as gender conformity/gender roles since beginning to play this game.

                1. Characters who identified as a gender other than the one they choose in char gen have usually been given a hard time *IN CHARACTER*. I remember Sir Launfal, an extremely prominent VP, before Kurzon was even introduced to Castle Marrach, turning his nose up at a male character who was exceptionally feminine in behavior and appearance. This was the general atmosphere at the time, 15 years ago. It has gradually morphed and become more lenient due to OOC considerations, but also due to IC actions of characters.

                2. Characters who have identified as a gender other than the one they choose in char gen have cross-dressed IC (it's not hard coded), tried to mutilate their genitalia (which was very uncomfortable for many players to RP to), tried to force others to acknowledge them as the opposite gender from what they picked in char gen (which is a bit of a bother, because we have to type him/her/his/hers when interacting, so we automatically associate that gender to that character and yes, that is coded, but you also choose it when making the character. It's literally, your choice), and gone about ROLEPLAYING the gender their character identified with (male or female).

                We have gay men who suit straight women to hide their preferences.
                We have lesbians who suit straight men to conform to societal expectations,
                We have open lesbians; of prominent rank and status.
                We've had openly gay men; one of whom served the Crown Prince - and he knew - and didn't care.
                We have androgynous characters, who order whatever they want.
                We have characters who are straight and are fine with gender fluidity.
                We have characters who are straight and are homophobic.
                We have characters who think straight characters are wrong for their preferences.
                We have characters who are gay, lesbian, straight and bisexual and are gender fluid.
                We have completely asexual characters.

                The character base and player base of Castle Marrach is very diverse and from all I can see, between your posts and your IC behaviour and your OOC behaviour is that you enjoy stirring pots where there is literally no actual issue. Your tone and aggressiveness in your posting and your OOC commentary to others is the only one that comes across as bullying, insulting and trying for force your opinions on others, regardless of what people are telling you ABOUT the GAME, and I think you might need to take a step back and redefine the idea of it, since you seem to be the primary individual guilty of the bullying.

                Now, as I previously mentioned, the 'culture' of Marrach has been long established before Kurzon was even playing this game. The 'culture' of Marrach has also evolved due to the actions of characters, but was not always smooth sailing and is not always going to be. Yes, Kurzon does play Vivienne, and sure, she can come out, for no reason, and say everyone can be whatever they want to be forever, hooray! However, that's not an In Character thing for Vivienne to do, because the current backdrop of Castle Marrach is not open and freedom for all; that said, she also doesn't condemn it herself, for very particular IC reasons.

                It is a fantasy setting, heavily reliant on Arthurian legend, intermingled with faerie lore and a hodge podge of primarily Western European beliefs from the 1300s to 1500s. You cite all these historical situations where people cross dressed or were openly gender fluid, and you're even correct in some aspects, but many of the men and women who identified as the opposite gender (or even both) were exceptional people of the time frame. They weren't the 'norm'.

                The social 'norm' was all men ruled, all women knew their place, which was usually knocked up, on their back, in a kitchen or in a brothel, and the majority of situations they had on clothes that had been designated for their 'gender', by society; typically heavily influenced by the religion at the time. In the case of Western Europe at the time; Christianity which was exceptionally decided about the roles of men and women and what they should and shouldn't do.

                In Castle Marrach, as previously stated, it's a lot more slack and 'modernized' than it used to be even 15 years ago. I feel like you're making a situation out of one that doesn't exist and if it did, would be handled responsibly, maturely and In Character by the characters of the Society. I personally play a gay man, a lesbian, three bisexual characters and one generally asexual one. I've played a male who had a very intimate scene with a friend of his who was helping him explore his sexuality by getting him into female garb, I play women who wear pants, because they LIKE it and damn the men who say otherwise. Sure, sometimes they've gotten flak about it, but for the most part, no one cares over much and it's entirely In Character.

                If there is OOC contention about it, then that's 100% noteworthy and worth being assisted over. As far as I know, the staff of Castle Marrach aren't going to stand for any Out Of Character hatred and nastiness towards PLAYERS or even OOC towards CHARACTERS who choose to play gender fluid characters or are gender fluid, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc themselves.However, from the initial posting, this was an IC incident, based off the regulations put down by BOREAS (which 99% of people ignore IC), and not grounds for an OOC meltdown, when it's entirely something that can be handled In Game and without rancor.

                I also wanted to note, since Elizabeth I was brought up; her entire reign was one big middle finger to men. She was, by title Queen, but by being willfully unmarried, she was King of England. Much to the dismay of others. She fought her entire reign to keep her role and prominence from being taken away from her and while she was the reigning Monarch, she didn't make any proclamations for women's rights or gender rights. She made an example to others that they COULD rise and thrive in a role they weren't born into or for if they fought and persevered. It wasn't uncontested. She didn't get the crown and start making massive societal changes in that regard, so let's leave her be as an example.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adayne View Post

                  The character base and player base of Castle Marrach is very diverse and from all I can see, between your posts and your IC behaviour and your OOC behaviour is that you enjoy stirring pots where there is literally no actual issue. Your tone and aggressiveness in your posting and your OOC commentary to others is the only one that comes across as bullying, insulting and trying for force your opinions on others, regardless of what people are telling you ABOUT the GAME, and I think you might need to take a step back and redefine the idea of it, since you seem to be the primary individual guilty of the bullying.
                  You know how many times I've heard that? The black kids sit-in at a segregated diner in the 1950s "Oh, they are the real bullies! Those poor owners!" The transgender kid that just wants to use the restroom of their choice in North Carolina? "Oh, they are intimidating the other students!" It's just a poorly disguised ad hominem attack.

                  Consider this: someone proposes a new game for Skotos. It's a great game. You can choose a black character or a white character. But, your black character MUST have deep brown eyes and kinky black hair-- it's coded that way. You can get married in this great new game, you can have romances. However, VPs and staff controlled characters send out a clear message: black characters may not have relationships with white characters. Black and White characters cannot marry in the game. It's a cultural thing decided by the staff-controlled and approved characters. Characters can get away with it sometimes, but the staff controlled characters will always disfavor those found out.

                  What would you think of the designers of such a game? Should Skotos sponsor that game? Do you think maybe-- just maybe-- the designers of such a game have an OOC agenda? Do you think that whole effort might be a means to prop up a set of inappropriate values to denigrate certain people OOCly through an IC fantasy? Do you think it might just be a form of racial bullying?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kuzon writes "...so for the sake of moving on, sure, we'll say it's bullying. It is, however, IC bullying, so again I ask why this is such an OOC issue for you?"

                    Suddenly "The Queen" in CM (Kuzon-controlled) announces "Her Majesty will not have dark-skinned Courtiers in her presence! Only the most menial of her servants can be dark-skinned. In addition, I want my Realm to understand that I find dark-skinned people of my realm unworthy of certain tasks and honors." Also a few coded additions are made: no dark-skinned character can enter the Inner Bailey, say. Okay: all completely IC. If other characters bully the dark-skinned characters for-- let's say-- whistling at a white woman-- maybe even beat them to death, wrap them in barbed-wire, weigh down the body with a cotton gin and toss it in the Tallahatchie River, or something like that, hey, completely IC! That may even weakly conform to an "Arthurian" theme. Nevertheless that would be one hell of an OOC issue for me. Get it?!

                    Don't use your game to reinforce current cultural prejudices and bigotries. It's a form of bullying.

                    You want to bring your OOC values into the game. Fine. Your game. Just don't tell me it isn't OOC bullying as well as IC bullying.

                    Oh, am I too passionate? To "in your face" about being a bully. I don't know any other way to deter a bully than to get in their face.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Except none of this has been done. Not a single example in your last two posts applies at all to Castle Marrach. Nothing resembling those examples has ever or will ever happen in Castle Marrach. There is not a single law, edict or guideline that prevents a black character from excelling as much as a white one, or a woman as much as a man. To the contrary, women have a slight advantage - there are zero positions exclusive to men, but there are positions exclusive to women which males cannot hold.

                      I can't think of why you're bringing up these extreme racial examples other than to try to provoke a hostile response. Instead of doing so, perhaps you could've answered the actual questions being posed to you by people trying to help you.

                      And that's going to be the last gentle nudge on this topic. Everyone who has posted in this thread has tried to understand your problems and assist you, you've made it very clear you're not interested in presenting a rational answer to that question.

                      Your unprovoked racial attacks and accusations on members of the community are completely unfounded and inappropriate. The suggestion that the only possible reason for the very mild gender conformity we have in the game stems with OOC misogyny of the game's original creators is frankly repulsive, and undeserving of further response.

                      To every individual who has tried to aid you, you have responded with the same bullying and ad-hominen attacks you claim you are somehow victim to. You're not Rosa Parks, you're not being mistreated, you're not representing some minority or pursuing social justice or standing up to some moral crisis. You're the instigator here, not the victim, and it's evident you're just instigating on purpose with no interest in productive discussion, so this thread is done.
                      StoryHost Kurzon
                      Castle Marrach Staff

                      kurzon.marrach@outlook.com

                      The destiny of the world is determined less by the battles that are lost and won than by the stories it loves and believes in.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X