Since you cower behind no comments allowed.

I ask this without condemnation nor any dog in this fight...But Who exactly determined what shelving was...who defined it...and what if you disagree with that...suppose you simply have your own definition for how role play should be...does it come from the books or John Norman...because He under the rules we have imposed dualed..retired, shelved and many other things for the sake of good authorship...In any case...no one can impose on another any rule nor definition they do not wish to follow...

contd....Every home will determine for itself what they will or will not accept as rules of role play which has been abundantly clear by the majority of posters in the role play group...Just because we say something is so...does not make it so...Suppose my definition of shelving is the setting aside of a charactor in order to be someone else for awhile...say...a Warrior decides to enjoy being a Savage for awhile and sets aside...that is no longer role plays as that persona in favor of another

contd.....and that after a time returns to His original persona effectively setting aside that persona as in no longer role plays that person...so the shelving is seen as the setting aside not retiring no killing of said persona...while you may disagree...it is how Norman saw it...It is how He wrote Tarls character...so that definition of shelving is by the books not by someones ideology...perhaps something to consider

Hi Quin no dog fight. The rules are not new and have been the standard for a long time. You knew this when creating your existing character and entering rp as you have been around a long time. They were made by the majority of represented homes at the time. They are signed by Ludo, Judas, Rowan, Chevron and Midael.

The person in question repeated it at her former trial in understanding. Accounts of her trial are posted on gcn news board for all to see.

Yes your right you can choose to

Ignore the rules and do whatever you want ... but here is the issue, no accountability in rp leads to this very exact scenario. What’s the point of a game without rules ... a place without boundaries? Or is it more like people have already disregarded it and so now they don’t like it? When you say you are retiring a character ...because said rules have been around a long time ) it was with knowing it’s done. It’s not earth where you are retiring from a job. And no you can’t wallop back

Back and forth. You can be a new character create a new life... but you can’t go back and reassume the old one... what is the point of rping then? Honor and respect for the rules are important.

And no. Tarles character was still always Tarl. He didn’t die and get reincarnated as someone else. He tried different things under the same character. Which you can do ...

Sorry to clarify ... Tarl wore disguises . Tried different cases etc in the same lifetime. In rp when retiring a character it’s not like earth.. it is retired from rp. As in done. Kaput.

While I agree that retiring and or the death of a persona should and must follow that rule...shelving does not seem to imply death or retirement...it implies the setting aside which is what Tarl did...he was a completely different character for an entire book with the backstory that tarl was dead...he did on other occasions disguise Himself and act as another and this could be seen as the NPC activity we now employ...however in the other instance..he defiantly shelved Himself...

If bana May ask please Master? Shelving is a role-play term?

If a character has been killed or retired then it has been put on the shelf. That's it. Done. End of. If you don't like the use of the term, feel it could be presented better then honestly, crack on with it. You are a ertain character until you aren't and then it is done. Put on the shelf. Put out to pasture. Put in the trash. However you want to label it, it is still all the same thing. Done. Gone. Ended. Game Over. Do your time away. Come back. Carry on. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

Implies shelving? No it doesn’t. Tarl was presumed dead... that’s different then he was dead and resurrected. He was still always Tarl in it. (Again you could be a different caste of you rped how it would happen) The rules are clear.. when you retire and finish with a character you can not bring it back. It’s pretty simple. You need to have standards in roll play or else it’s a free for all.

Yes bana it is a roleplay term and does not reflect a book term...it is fact an onlinism and yes I understand the point you are making by the question posed ... Wamph I am not arguing nor trying to redefine a term...I am sincerely questioning its meaning by the actual definition of the term

Great, then I hope the meaning has been explained in sufficient detail to quench your thirst for knowledge.

bana asks Master because we all know that at times in the books things not only can seem contradictory, things often are left to interpretation. The common ideology though throughout the novels seem to be Gor is a Man’s World, Goreans are basically Honorable and Goreans require if not demand accountability.

Yes bana you are right on both counts...Gor is a Man's world run by Men who envision Honor and accountability...the problem evolves though when Men of Honor disagree on what is what and begin to disingenuate each other to make their point of view the only point of view...Now understand I say this not because I want my point of view to be the one but because accountability must be obeyed to those in our own home who have the authority...when you say to another...

contd...You are not honorable and your home is not honorable because you do not follow my view...then I believe you have crossed the line...we can continue the discussion as is only right and we can do so passionately...but we must be willing to acknowledge that there other points of view

Wamph...My problem is in the need for the term I mean why have it at all...if you have the terms death of a persona and or retirement why confuse the issue with a term that is very controversial and up to different points of view...the term and definition is clearly not what it is understood to be....to shelve means to setaside, to place on display publically or privately for the purpose of retrieving it at some point.

You can not arbitrarily change the definition in order to facilitate a point of view

It is a gorean rp rule not the Wikipedia definition. Isn’t that what your doing though? arbitrarily changing (a rp rule) in gor to facilitate your own opinion and to justify behaviours?

It’s more like... this a game. These are the rules. If you cheat you are dishonourable. It’s not... let’s make up our own rules now that I’ve already broken them and people have called me out for them.

No I am not changing a definition I am stating a definition...saying what something is and no I am not defending any point of view nor considering any persona nor situation...I am pointing out that we have terms that reflect the issue why add one that has to be forced to make it fit...to me it does not make sense

I’m not changing the definition of anything. I’m trying to explain to you, in the simplest terms possible, the definition in relation to a role play rule. If you don’t like how it was put together so many years ago or want to disagree with those who out together, debate their thought process or anything of the sort or want a different word put in its place then by all means crack on and make a suggestion.

grinz...I am not sure what crack on means...is it a derogatory salvo that belittles my attempt to explain to you that the term has a meaning and to apply a different meaning to a rule makes no sense when terms already exist that provide explanation of the rule. I am not disagreeing with the rule nor the intent of the rule, but with the term itself.. which by itself provides a defense.

BTW...since I hold 2 masters degrees and a post graduate degree..simple is not necessary... it implies a level of stupidity which needs a childlike explanation

Crack on ... go for it ... proceed. I don't need to talk in riddles to belittle anyone it’s far simpler just to call a dick a dick.

I see and is that what you are doing now...calling me a dick...I have been respectful in my posts and responses with no malice toward any point of view....I had hoped that an open and honest discussion was possible...perhaps i was wrong

In any case we have made our points and provided worthy discussion... I wish you well and bid you a good day

No. That isn’t what I’m doing. At no point did I say you are a dick. I said I don’t belittle people, it is simply easier just to call a dick a dick.

smiles....alrighty...understood