Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
It is impossible to control the GM in this game format. Otherwise, it will no longer be a role-playing game, but something else, and it will be very monotonous and boring. After all, it will be necessary to reduce the content, role-playing opportunities, and build customization to a minimum. Because you simply won't be able to fit anything but the minimum into the game rules physically, especially if the GM is doing everything alone.
Added 5 minutes ago Happy Life
^ So, from this ignoring of my question, I kind of understood something. When - well, conditionally, just based on a large sample - the scoundrel and vile Donald Trump jokes on Twitter, and this upsets 20,000 people who leave a comment saying that he is a jerk, then out of the total number of people on Earth, this turns out to be... An online calculator says 0.00025%. Let's assume that a thousand times fewer people read this Twitter, i.e., the percentage is 0.25%.
But this person is still a scoundrel and vile, even if everyone else is annoyed and remains silent. Let's assume that 10 people read the expedition, and... well, let's say one of them is upset by such super-funny jokes, but he remains silent so as not to diminish either his own dignity or the dignity of the one who made the joke. This is 10% of those who did not unsubscribe. When recalculated to the number of people upset by Trump, this is 800,000 people.
So, let's say in your creative group, is something like this considered a "yikes" moment, even unintentionally? Or is it acceptable? And if it's more than 10%, how would you feel in the place of the joker? I'm just curious, just in terms of theory. To be honest, I haven't read ten pages of arguing, I just had a thought based on the last comment I read. If only what is said matters, and, for example, the outburst happened outside the text window of the message, then... well, maybe the one who got upset is unbalanced, and not the one who passively showed aggression? Otherwise, it's not bullying or aggression if the victim remained silent. I think many will agree with me.
It's all simple in the context of interpersonal relationships in small groups of people. If the joker continues to joke, seeing that the target of his joke is offended and doesn't respond, then he is unbalanced. If he doesn't see it, then he also has some problems with his head. It's generally unpleasant to deal with such people. In general, if there is no response to a joke, or if the person is sent away, then a normal person will not continue to joke.
Небо – мольбы не ждёт Небо – угроз не слышит Небо – ведёт особый счёт Небо – тебя найдёт
Небо
