Gamatron2

So you want servants?

Problem: Trainer is not online. Solution 1: Here is their telegram. (Add to discord, have a client base) Alternate solution 1: The people over in "X" have a trainer that could help you shod your horse. Alternate solution 2: Here is the telegram of "X" who works around these parts as a farrier. Not a solution: We have 3 trainers and 3 farriers from 1 whitelist on 1 ranch. Reason: It's not fair to the community at all, in any way and only self serving. As Ludos stated, self governance of your roleplay is your responsibility. If the trainers, trainees are going into New Austin breaking horses instead of working the ranch and shodding horses, that's not a script issue, that's a management issue. Make it real clear that this person is being trained for "X" duties. If a trainer wants to make a name for themselves as the farrier of Blackwater, there is nothing stopping them, which in turn gives the ranches an alternate person to go to. If the issue is there isn't enough whitelisted trainers, then make a ticket and maybe staff can look into whitelisting and who is inactive. If people want to reach out for ideas on how to make a communal system work, without altering scripts to serve themselves, feel free to open a ticket. There are plenty of ideas that will help people from inside and outside a ranch work cohesively without adding more pseudo-whitelist roles to be monitored. What I fail to see often, is people working between ranches, due to "Competition".

I can understand where the idea comes from, however there are two apprentices per horse trainer and having done this role i can say there is no need for further roles to be added as that is plenty and the horse trainer has the ability to hire/fire as is reasonable. Three people training horses is more than sufficient, including farrier work. The restriction is placed for a reason, to make sure those other people outside the ranch have purpose. Some ranches in the past have found a trainer to be hard to aquire and therefore employed the help of whitelisted trainers that are not specific to one ranch to shod horses.etc. This idea would inevitably take away that roleplay from these people, by creating an insulated addition to further remove roleplay, from those who have gone through the process to be whitelisted correctly.

There is no argument here. No debate. You don't have to have a mother Teresa moral compass, to realise "Rape bad". There is a reason why people play games with shooting, but once a game features sexual assault it very quickly gets dogpiled on in real life. (That thing where you go outside) It is because it is not common or normal to discuss in a social setting. There is absolutely no argument here other than "I want roleplay rape". Historical relevance isn't even shallow, its nonsensical. You should be honest with yourself as to what reason you'd ever want to roleplay or mention something that normal people with simple morals say no to. But hiding that behind "It's historical" is disingenuous and false. People do things that they want to do, no one is forced by historical relevancy. It isn't an undeniable force. You chose to do this with your own thoughts and decisions.

I like the above Idea better, paint areas.

Not in favour. It's regulation. I am not for regulating roleplay in the sense of condensing it, so far things have been fine. Places go up and down with activity. Use events to bring people in to main hubs, mark main hubs. Find other ways that don't cut out the map. All RP has this issue, but its better to give freedom and direct. No need to cut out areas, especially when it means less avenues to take with jobs and other things when you restrict areas.