I have no problem with any choice of language being used Scarfo, go nuts and make it as colour-fucking-ful as you fancy. In terms of MR language you've been pretty fucking reserved if we're honest. I was referring to you, literally, insulting the intelligence of every other user than yourself. You can do it if you like, but it's not a smart way to go if you'd actually wish to achieve anything productive here.

As for the point that these discussions only portray real feelings and not a character? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure some of the guys that I spent the last couple of weeks ripping into ferociously in the streets and them returning the same in kind, all the time while exchanging mails along the lines of "Sorry, have to go grab the girlfriend from work. Be back in an hour to reply", would be very interested to know this. Yes, some users might get IC/OOC thoughts/feelings/emotions mixed up at times, but that doesn't mean all do or that it's acceptable to tar everyone with the same brush.

For anyone looking in from the outside it might appear as if someone is simply playing themselves and giving personal views, which they are also free to choose to do if they so wish, but nobody can or could ever tell this from the outside.

My last character was significantly more aggressive and obnoxious than any I have ever played previously. Some might suggest I'm getting old and cranky and that's simply nature, but in truth it was something that was decided upon as soon as I signed up because it was the best fit for a given situation where a friend needed a hard ass by her side far more than a soft touch. This current character I'm RPing will be very different than my own personal character too as it's in a very different scenario and will adapt to best fit that role. Many of the same qualities my bloodline has always held dear will remain, but how they are shaped and moulded into a character will differ. Most will never be aware of these things, or how I personally evolve my posts and actions as a character matures with steps such as earning their button... but I can't say that's ever worried me or occupied a moments thought for me. 

This isn't a humble brag, it's simply saying you're wrong if you think the debates and discussions aren't being RPed (yes, many do fail at it and make mistakes at it... that's why we try to teach them so the next effort is better and improves) simply because it uses a specific type of formatting, it doesn't conform to one narrow view of what RPing is or because you can't see the differences between my characters opinion and my opinion.

All that said, it leaves you with two options here. You can try and suggest productive changes that would improve things from your point of view (and hope that others, either those who make the decisions or enough of the masses to force the hand of the former, agree with you) or you can simply find faults. I really don't mind which direction anyone would swing on a choice like that, though I'd hope that more would side on addressing issues they see from a whole humanitarian save the world point of view. 

Nuada let's scale this down, shall we? I didn't insult the intelligence of every other user bar myself. It's specifically directed to those that continue to post OOC content in the IC forum that know better and continue to do it because others do. You want me to wrap this discussion up in a nice present for everybody?

Someone needs to say something, because admin aren't policing the issue. If you can't handle someone being direct with their views and ruffling some feathers, then that's your issue and whoever else's. I'll continue to add emotion to my OOC posts, as I'm not here to be friends with every man and his dog. I'm voicing a strong opinion, and some will naturally take offense to it as they will feel I am incorrect.

Those that actually role-play in the streets forum, and use it in a role-play context, wouldn't feel their intelligence is being questioned. Those that are new to the game and don't know any better, also have no reason to take offense. Those that know better, and respond with shit that has them implying they do and just post OOC because everyone else is, should be ruffled.

Back to the subject at hand. I can more than appreciate people being in character and posting from this perspective, yet role-playing on a forum is not simply posting a dialogue. When role-playing you don't add quote boxes to direct your 'dialogue' specifically to someone. This has to be the first site with users that consider this actually a form of role-play on a message board. Role-play consists of 'writing' a character into a collective thread, not just 'speaking' a dialogue back and forth and cutting through parts of it.

You pretty much nailed it on the head when you said people can't tell if you are in character or not. We aren't acting in a scene together, in person. If we were, dialogue wouldn't just be a focus either, as the body language, emotions, tonality, mannerisms all tell us what character is being played and acted out.

If you can't tell what character is being played, then you aren't role-playing. This is the problem with dialogue only posts. They don't contain any sense of what character you are portraying and this is what leads to IC and OOC blurring.

This is a forum where role-play has to consist of more than just dialogue. We have to write the character into the posts because all we have is text to go by, nothing else.

Most actually do role-play in this way, yet they tend to not role-play in posts when specific threads are starting with only dialogue expecting people to know what scene they are taking part in, or what character is being portrayed. These posts lead to OOC content, and quote boxes being used - hence the reason this topic is here.

I appreciate you changing up your characters, yet actually role-play it into your posts by using more than just 'speaking' posts as role-play is much more than a back and forth discussion. It's a tool writers use on forums to immerse themselves further and deeper into a game by actually writing content that conveys more than just text speak.

OOC forums are where you would find most sites having 'discussions' because they are in effect OOC in theme and content. Role-play is role-play wherever you go, and this just isn't role-play unless it's actually mother fuckin role-play.

This is a forum where role-play has to consist of more than just dialogue. We have to write the character into the posts because all we have is text to go by, nothing else.

Some people understand roleplay as writing extended descriptions in fancy italics. Some people understand role-play to be putting yourselves into the shoes of your character, of understanding the motivations and foibles of the person you're pretending to be. I prefer the latter definition, and a big part of that is looking at how my character responds to events in the world.

My characters opinions are often not my own opinions. I am playing a totally different character as the fiery, revolutionary that is Guevara than I would have done for the conservative and hapless Noah-Levenstein. Some of that difference can be achieved through descriptive writing, much more of it can only be achieved by interacting with the issues of the day through a debate in the streets. Why not a debate in OOC? Simple, my opinions in OOC are my opinions. The opinions put forward in The Streets are Guevara's opinions. This is not a minor thing, it is a major distinction in my opinion. I plan to post in the 'going out with a bang' thread soon in which I will slate Inertia's actions. If I still had my Cantona character, I would praise Inertia because my character was an egotistical frenchman with a streak of insanity. Seeing the game through the prism of my character is a big deal for me, and if I can't have those debates in the streets I can't have them anywhere.

Your point about quote boxes, by the way, is absolutely nonsensical. They are not OOC. They are not IC. They're nothing but formatting. 

The example you gave of a good roleplayed speech, by the way, is the kind of thing that makes me cringe massively. This is no personal attack to Melis/Katra because my problem with that kind of speech is a problem I have with the majority of speeches that contain a line like "XXXX was speaking to the masses" or "XXX jumped up on a soapbox". It's a really common convention and it drives me fucking insane, because look at this from an actual roleplay point of view. Your character is a criminal, do you genuinely think they're going to speak to a publicly assembled group of people about openly criminal activities? No, it's just a lazy shorthand that's because commonplace and a far more realistic opening would be something like "XXX muttered quietly to some trusted friends beneath a streetlamp on the corner of 5th and 47th" or something along those lines.

TL;DR, debating game events through the eyes of your character is RP just as much as writing a great story/bar thread/any other kind of descriptive writing. Both are great ways to really develop your character and put some meat on the bones of who they are, and just because you prefer one to the other doesn't mean the other isn't roleplay.

The one thing I will agree with you one is that it's supremely irritating when people consistently use OOC terms (it's really not hard to find an IC way to say 'the game', 'forums' 'irc 'personals etc) and people who consistently refer to previous characters 'me' (again, not hard).

This is a forum where role-play has to consist of more than just dialogue. We have to write the character into the posts because all we have is text to go by, nothing else.

It doesn't have to, actually. Depends how the dialogue is worded.

There was a thread that went up a year or so ago that vehemently argued the the exact opposite of what you are saying regarding RP in terms of all the backdrops, descriptions of the person's surroundings, the weather, etc. Basic jist of the thread was that it was all wrong and not proper role-playing much like you're doing here. He was as convinced he was right as you are. This thread also sparked a lot of debate. If I could remember what it was called or who wrote it I'd post the link here. Regardless, the guy who wrote that was probably just as right or wrong as you are right or wrong. Either way, I personally wouldn't alter my own style to fit the mold of either argument, and nor should anyone else if they are enjoying what they're doing.

People have different styles. Some people switch their styles up from character to character. Others just use this place as an outlet to write because they enjoy it and the Streets give people forum to do it. I've had characters on here that posted in the fashion you've deemed to be the only one acceptable... scene intros, backdrops, all that "fluff" for lack of a better term. Done role-plays with other players as well that were fun to do, even if no one else bothered to read them. This time I've been using dialogue only in all my posts. Deliberately too. If I'm responding to somebody who has already painted a scenario or description of whatever street corner their standing on, everyone can assume the street corner still looks exactly the same in my response. Whether or not I'm wearing a fedora hat or smoking a cigarette isn't relevant to my response.

Post-war speeches are often my favorite street threads to read when done well. Some of my favorites were done with dialogue only. Their characters were defined by their spoken words. And sometimes yeah, that character is merely an extension of the person behind the keyboard typing it. I don't see what the issue or problem is with that.

I do tend to agree with you that some of the street posts can get OOC occasionally, which is annoying. As far as I can see though the admins do a pretty good job of removing that content or moving it to the appropriate forum. Then again I think you and I have also determined we have differing views of what constitutes as OOC based on past private discussions. Either way, there's a "Report" tab you can use, and cite OOC as your reason for reporting it if you feel it's blatant OOC, as opposed to blaming admins for not policing the forums to your standards.

There's particular posters on here I will always make time to read their stuff because I personally enjoy reading what they write. Others I don't bother or just ignore completely because I know it's going to be something I won't be interested in. I recently responded to a poster who I generally don't bother reading, but the subject of the post intrigued me so I read and responded. My responses were strictly dialogue, with the second response including a blockquote. I imagine it didn't disrupt the flow of the conversation too much. I only mention the fact that it was in response to a poster I usually don't bother reading because it wasn't until well after the fact I noticed the original poster addressed me directly, and I replied once I noticed. It's a messageboard-style forum. Late responses are to be expected and the blockquote feature allows responders to revisit remarks made earlier in the conversation. You might call it lazy. I consider it as much effort as I was willing to put towards my response to the person I was replying to.

Since I started playing, the streets have encompassed speeches, role-play, announcements, stories, and discussions/debates. I don't see why this is a problem either, nor do I think it would be convenient for the players to have a separate forum for each of these elements.

So if the business districts are where you find the type of writing more conducive to your tastes, then yeah, the logical thing to do would be to spend your time posting there as to not have to irritate yourself by reading posts you've condemned as shit.

At this point, I think your interpretation of role-playing is borderline autistic in that you seem to believe that anything outside of your pre-defined parameters of what role-playing is must be out of character and this is somehow abhorrent to you. I don't really understand that mentality at all. As long as people are acting as their characters, rather than themselves, they are role-playing.

Guevara the example I gave was the first that came to mind and one that everyone that posted within kept in character, and described more than just posting dialogue. So even though the role-play itself could've been more creative, or the writing different, the example was more comparing complete dialogue to actual role-play.

A better example and my personal favourite regarding creativity, being in character and realism would be this one: http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/517635#75787814

It just so happens you're also the author of said thread.

I'm sure you can see the example of adding more meat to the post and thread than just dialogue.

The thing is, this is the only site I've come across where members consider just dialogue as a form of role-play in a message board/forum setting. If we were face to face, you would know my character based on the visuals and even then dialogue alone wouldn't completely convey character. If this game had visuals (like GTA, or WoW) then dialogue alone may be part of the role-play, yet it would still lack depth without the thoughts, feelings and actions written in to convey the story and personality.

Where quote boxes come into it, is when the post is completely dialogue based and the quote boxes are a crutch. Quote boxes could be used in a creative way, yet using them to directly use as a reference to then post straight dialogue back isn't role-play.

The only time people use the quote boxes is when said participants are just posting dialogue, and not adding anything more to the posts. If they added more actions, thoughts, feelings and also dialogue, they wouldn't need to use the quote box as their thoughts, feelings and actions would 'tell the story' about what they are then talking in regards to anyway.

I didn't make this shit up by the way, it's just stock standard role-playing in a forum based setting.

Quote boxes are used in role-play creatively and they do add to them. When it's used in the way they are intended in a normal forum, to quote direct parts of another persons post, then it throws the post itself into an OOC format.

I'm sure there would be creative ways to combine the formatting into a role-play post (thought bubble maybe, yet again this could be written in standard role-play form), but when it's just quote box with follow-up dialogue I'm sorry mate but I can't see how that can be considered role-playing in a forum.

Batiatus I understand you feel dialogue only is a form or style of role-play. It isn't. Find me a definition somewhere on google or wherever besides peoples responses here on MR. I can appreciate people like to just post dialogue and they still stay in character when doing so. This still, isn't considered role-play in a forum environment. It may still be in character, yet again the extra parts are what writers put into the posts to then be able to label those posts role-played.

Role-playing on a forum isn't just about knowing your in character, it's about adding your character to an environment with your writing skills so others can experiences your character, through your writing skills. Anyone can post thoughts and pretend they are in character, yet not everyone can actually write their character into a forum post. This is the key difference. Role-playing on a forum is a writing skill. Everyone that can type can write a dialogue, yet role-playing is an art form that has a learning curve.

I feel MR has coined it's own way of 'role-playing'. Even other casual forms of role-play still have more than just dialogue to them. I didn't make role-play up, I'm just someone who has a fair bit of experience in different forms and on different games, all forum based.

If people are happy to post in the streets in this manner then by all means go for it, no-one will stop you and no-one really cares. They are interesting to read, just let's not go calling this role-playing when it's an in character discussion. Role-play is done in a certain way, and sites the internet over have been doing it in the same way for decades. Different styles do exist, yet they all carry the same 'way' of role-playing which is always with more than just dialogue alone.

I would say that if you only use dialogue you ARE the character, instead of using 3rd person Role-playing, which makes it appear you are playing the character. I agree with Barry. As long as the people behind the keyboard are acting/speaking as their characters, it is good enough for the streets.

Barry it's not my predefined definition mate. Role-playing in a forum based environment has been going on for decades. You can't call singing the same thing as talking. Just as you wouldn't call swimming the same thing as running.

Role-playing in a forum based environment does involve being in character, but that's not all someone has to do to be role-playing. A role-played post has a certain way to it, and again, it's not my way mate, it's the way it's been for however long it's been about. Yes there are different styles, but text speak alone isn't one of them.

It started in pen and pad days, and it moved to the internet as a medium. The same writing of a character into a post has always been the same. It has always involved to some 'parts' to it. Thoughts, emotions, actions, dialogue.

Dialogue being a part of it, not the whole thing. On it's own, it can't be considered role-play.

Again, not my own made up shit here. Hopefully you can get some insight into what this autistic kid is preaching. I may sound like a broken record, yet fuck, you guys are telling me something that only exists on MR, and nowhere else.

Again, not my own made up shit here. Hopefully you can get some insight into what this autistic kid is preaching. I may sound like a broken record, yet fuck, you guys are telling me something that only exists on MR, and nowhere else.

And what game are we plaing? That's right, MR.

Sovereign Meaning you guys are making shit up and saying that it's what is actually considered role-play, which it doesn't beyond MR.

Meaning, role-playing in the way the rest of the fucking world does it involves more than just dialogue.

Again, post how you like, just don't go calling shit role-play when it isn't.

The fact that it exists on MR is because of the environment here on MR Scarfo. 

In the other places they might not have a gun to sort out a problem, they might not have a time sensitive issue to get discussed quickly before a first wave launches at a city of 150 odd people, they might not have multiple other game mechanics that could have a very dramatic impact on the discussion at hand and the lives of the characters involved in them. The context of where these discussions take place is incredibly important to this disucssion (both in terms of the game mechanics of MR that are involved and the fact that MR already sets the scene for many discussions by clearly placing us in a certain city, at a certain rank and possibly in a certain position), yet it has been ignored in favour of a specific narrow definition each time. 

Hopefully you can get some insight into a dictionary because "role-playing" is literally playing a role; nothing more and nothing less. All this other shit you're trying to shoehorn in is just your own interpretation of how that should be done, cobbled together with conventions from other games, which you perceive to be essential. These are your pre-defined parameters mentioned earlier, which you struggle to conceive an IC reality outside of. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, because it evidently does as everyone other than you is aware of it existing too, it is only you who can't appear to see it. Your opinion on "role-playing" isn't gospel just because you're preaching to us that it is, as you aren't the role-play Pope and you aren't infallible. 

Nuada yeah I can definitely see how the game impacts the posting here. I love the game mechanics, and without it I think I wouldn't be here. If it were strictly a forum board with only text, I don't think i'd enjoy it as much.

I think to bridge this discussion we should just coin a new style of role-play, and call it discussion based role-play. In that it lacks actions, thoughts, emotions and description of environment. It assumes what is being written is done in character, and nothing else is needed.

I don't see the lack of those things as bad either, just in the conventional sense of role-play it's just not considered to be role-playing if you only post dialogue.

MR seems to have spawned a new style, based on the environment we find ourselves in. It's still in character, yet it's very casual compared to other styles of role-play.

It would actually be a good style for beginners to use to get use to the Streets forums and become more acquainted with things, and potentially move onto more conventional forms of role-play (story/narrative, action, open, closed, collab, solo etc.) with guidance and practice.

In this way, quote boxes could be considered a form of discussion based role-play.

Just know though, we are making this all up. Beyond MR this doesn't exist as role-play and you wouldn't find a guide or any information anywhere on how to do this. Hence, MR coined.

It could be seen in the art of role-play as getting ones white belt in karate, or learning to crawl before walking.

Barry the definition of role-playing and how you actually do it are two different things. You're missing the whole point that there is actually a skillset that already exists and has existed for decades called the art of role-playing in a play-by-post environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-by-post_role-playing_game <---- this is what you do when you role-play in a forum setting such as the streets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game <---- this is what you do when you just click about and rank

You seem to think because a handful of you posting what you 'consider' to be forum based role-play actually holds more weight than what one person is posting, me. Yet what you fail to realize is there is a proper way to role-play on a forum and is considered role-playing, and ways that aren't. Not by just me mate, but by decades of others that have done it before me.

Do a google search for the ways to role-play in forums and not just what the dictionary says.

Some people have spend a great deal of time learning the art. Role-play the definition and role-playing in a forum aren't the same thing mate. If all you have to go by is your experience on MR, then seriously, just exit stage left.

I have no intention of searching for anything or going anywhere.

You're telling me that role-playing is: [insert a lot of things you believe role-play to be, based upon decades of things you and others have been involved with etc.]

I'm telling you that role-playing is playing a role, which it is. Irrefutably. 

Therefore, you can tell me I'm wrong if you want, you can tell me my experience as a player of MR is meaningless and you can even tell me you're the King of Spain if you want to. None of it matters to me, because you're still talking completely and utterly out of your arse, mate.

How we role-play is by playing our roles. If that offends you, take your own advice and exit stage left. Not only will you be much happier not having to see us desecrate your beloved art by actually playing roles, we'll also all be much happier not having to listen to you fucking whine about it.

Barry firstly you keep missing the fucking point. Role-playing on a forum is different than just being in character. It's a skillset.

If you don't want to check those wiki's, then fuck off mate. It's not me talking out of my arse, it's you being ignorant.

If you can't handle me expressing my opinion then fuck off out of the thread and stop posting.

There is definitely being in character, which is what I have said many fucking times you guys are doing, yet there is also a thing called 'role-playing in a forum environment'.

Get off your fucking high horse, and read some shit I posted. You have nothing but your own personal opinion to back you up, I'm referring to shit that actually exists beyond MR. Shit that has existed before MR came to call itself a role-play game. Shit that if you actually read it, and stopped distorting your definition of role-play and actually understand the art of role-playing, you might just learn a thing or two.

If you want to pretend to role-play with your discussion posts go ahead mate, but in the world beyond your ego and outside MR, it's not considered 'role-playing in a forum based environment'.

In the end Barry your attempting to shoot the messenger, yet the message would be the same at any other role-playing site you go to. MR has it's own discussion based style, fine, just don't expect a seasoned or serious role-player outside MR to consider it role-play.

You're telling me to get off my high horse? Scarfo, you've been practically vaulting into outer space on your tallest of tall stallions all afternoon, preaching about what role-play is and what it isn't and telling everyone that everything they're doing is complete shit, wrong or otherwise flawed. I treat people OOC as they treat me and if you decide to talk down to me, order me to do things or insist I leave discussions because you feel your opinion is superior to mine, then I'll respond in kind. If you don't like that, consider your own attitude because it absolutely stinks. 

Now, it isn't that I haven't understood your point, it is just that I don't accept it as being right. I feel like that because role-playing is literally playing a role. The "skillset" as you call it, are the accompanying conventions you expect to see adopted here as you have seen them adopted elsewhere. Just because those conventions don't apply here, as in, every post doesn't have accompanying explanation/description/scene-setting, doesn't change the fact that people are still playing their roles, because they are. This isn't my personal opinion, it is a fact based upon what role-playing is. If that doesn't conform to your definition (or even the definition if we aren't believing dictionaries now) of what role-playing is, then I'm still happy we are wrong because I'm not here to be the best forum-based-role-player.

This game and the posts in forums have lots of areas where they can be improved upon; there is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever and I am in total agreement about blockquotes as I said earlier. However, criticising the people who are posting as their characters, on the grounds that those posts are entirely dialogue and therefore doesn't meet the traditional role-playing-in-a-forum criterion or rules, is counterproductive to raising the standard and quality of posts.  

Is this a play-by-post game though? No, it isn't. The actual gameplay mechanics are not dictated by the forums in the way they are in a play-by-post game. Usually in a play-by-post you'll describe the action you want to do 'Scarfo shoots at Barry', or 'Scarfo tries to rob a guy' or 'Scarfo hops a flight to New York to see if he can pick up a stash of drugs' (described in as much intricate detail as you want) and the results of any and all actions within the game are governed by something as simple as a dice-roll to see whether they happen. After the diceroll, you continue with the story.

Moreover, play-by-post games are often governed by a strict set of explicit rules over 'consent' (the extent to which you can force an action on another player) and things like 'godmoding' and other such terminology. There may even be a pre-existing set of rules governing who 'wins' in a purely textual comat situation.

It is pretty blatant that none of these things are applicable on Mafiareturns, the forums are supported by game mechanics that are far too complex for this game to be considered a play-by-post game. In terms of our community; yes, we want our forums to be central to the game. In terms of gameplay mechanics and outcomes of actions; no, it is categorically not true that the forums are central to the game and it cannot be argued that they are.

This game just isn't what you want it to be. The way you want things to be are not supported in either the official site rules, or anywhere in any of the tutorials.

"Some online-text based role playing games are video games, but some are organized and played entirely by humans through text-based communication."

Quite clearly, mafiareturns is  not one of the text-based roleplaying games that is organised and played entirely by humans through text-based communication; so you're trying to apply a standard and a definition which:

1) Doesnt apply to this game

2) That you imply is dichotomous and absolute which, according to the links you've posted, isn't the case.

This site truly pushes for the role-play Scarfo is going a little bit crazy about, no offense my friend! I am not saying that the site means everyone on it, I mean that if you find an ad explaining anything about this place it advertises the idea of what Scarfo and, honestly, myself came here for. This site is a bit different from the normal role-playing site I've been on because like Guevara said there is far more here tied into the posting. We don't actually have to role-play out that we're flying somewhere or that we just did a petty, but we can!

Even on the very opening page they are role-playing out the intro to Mafia Returns. Your first few automated mails are role-played out also.

If you go to "Help" there are two links to Rules of Role Play Engagement and Posting Guidelines. Granted it is "Guidelines", but if this site is not considered a role-playing website that pushes for the person to actually play out what they are doing, wearing so the next poster can get an idea of who they are dealing with, something along the lines of describing their demeanor, or even perhaps there are a few new people walking by them on that corner they are standing on then what is it considered?

The only thing that is stopping this is the players. The site obviously was at one time pushing for what Scarfo, I, and a few others I've met so far enjoy. 

Everyone has their own style, but this honestly is the first site I've been to that calls its self a role-playing game, even role plays out it's own mails and opening hook to get people to register, but then much of its user base either doesn't post or doesn't post in character, role playing out your actions, before any of you jump to saying "My talking is me being in character.".

Is a miracle going to happen and change this? No. Yet, it would be nice to see someone put in the same effort I do in response to a post I make. I have already accepted that there are only a few people that will actually "role-play" with me, but like Scarfo said any "real" role-player would never consider most of the posts in the streets role-playing material.

Yet, maybe after this huge debate and colorful language a few more people might try. Which is all that counts in my opinion. 

I'm not going to keep posting and re-iterating the same facts, as Muriel pretty much put it across nice enough for you guys to understand and we'll otherwise continue going around in circles, so consider this a summary of my view and my last post on the topic.

MR users have adopted it's own method of what role-playing on a forum is, outside the conventional sense, specifically for The Streets forum so others can engage in discussions together in character.

Take this method/style of role-playing outside of MR and it wouldn't be found, as the environment itself wouldn't be found (with 15years of role-playing experience before coming to MR, I can attest to this, and others that learned the trade beyond this game will also) and seasoned role-players in written form wouldn't consider this proper role-playing.

I'm not trying to push 'my ideology' on anyone, just stating facts regarding dialogue only posts not being considered role-playing in a forum based environment (which, although the game itself is a MMORPG, the forums and games spurned role-play content has been setup to mirror that of a play-by-post situation).

A group of users huddling together to imply something is role-playing in written form, when it isn't considered so outside of MR, wont change that fact. Yes, the posts are in character, and you may be playing a role, yet that's a long way from the content itself being a complete role-played post.

The sites creators' loose interpretation and policing of role-play leaves the game open for users to role-play as they wish, which in the end, is quite cool. Cooler for the casual gamer, yet it also leaves the general quality of posts lacking for the more serious role-player.

Lastly it's evident MR is it's own kettle of fish when it comes to role-playing. Some here take on the more widely accepted and taught way of role-playing (outside MR), yet more it seems, don't. Or maybe that's just the handful of people that replied to this thread. Who knows.

All I know is, the topic imo has been exhausted and nothing new will come out of it.