OOC vs IC

[Shizzle]

Sorry for asking another question in here, but we're in dubio.

This is what happened:
A character sent a letter, to which I had my character react, but in a Roleplay. (the issue doesn't really matter) However, next thing I see, is that the first character reacted on my roleplay, where he had not been involved at all in it.

I brought it OOC to ask how he could have known that (all in good understanding, let me add that), and then the other player said:

Actually, per Tom RPs are supposed to be general knowledge for anyone who reads them. There was a big discussion about this on the d-list. Toms says if you want something to be private, send it only to that person.

and in another message:

Nope. Truth is, even if you RP being in a room with no windows or doors, anybody could use that knowledge against you. Which is why it's strongly recommended not to RP planning a rebellion. Of course, if you RP being in a box with somebody, and another person uses that information IC, then it's certainly douch-bagey. But they can't get in trouble for it.

The Wiki, on the other hand, says (on http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Roleplaying ):

"unless your character is there, AND you are roleplaying that you are there and listening, OR you are told via another character who is, your character does NOT know about what they are saying. This is because what you the player knows (OOC) is different from what your character knows (IC)."


So what is it now? Are RP's only to be regarded as OOC knowledge for those not taking part of it, and IC (+OOC) for the participating characters?

[Shizzle]

Let me make a note on that:

when I reacted on that first letter, the roleplay I wrote was a narrative, not a letter

[Anaris]

The official stance as I understand it is this:

If you post something IG, no one can be punished by Tom or the Titans for using that information for whatever purposes they want.

Using information that your character would not reasonably have IC access to is rude and shows that you're more or less a jerk.

Doing so blatantly (as you described) shows you to also apparently not care that people know you're a jerk.

Neither of these things changes the fact that the person doing so cannot be punished officially for it.

Nor the fact that you're welcome to call them out on it IC and OOC and tell them that "legal" does not mean "good form."

[Shizzle]

Ok. Well, luckily the other person is not at all a jerk, so that's fine. We were just in doubt on the issue.

And the 'information' in the roleplay was not really worth anything. To give some more info: the primary letter contained Nobles' names without their titles. I didn't feel like an OOC or IC letter was appropriate for the very mild "mistake", so I simply 'roleplayed' my character being surprised by the lack of titulature. The other character reacted to that roleplay, more or less to offer an IC explanation for an OOC problem (he meant to send a private message to said noble, and because they're close, he didn't use a title)

Thanks for the reply!

[De-Legro]

The official stance as I understand it is this:

If you post something IG, no one can be punished by Tom or the Titans for using that information for whatever purposes they want.

Using information that your character would not reasonably have IC access to is rude and shows that you're more or less a jerk.

Doing so blatantly (as you described) shows you to also apparently not care that people know you're a jerk.

Neither of these things changes the fact that the person doing so cannot be punished officially for it.

Nor the fact that you're welcome to call them out on it IC and OOC and tell them that "legal" does not mean "good form."

Although Tom and the Titans won't act, I believe the realm can punish the noble if they wish. Toms statements never protected the right to information in this way, just stated that he isn't going to police it. I know the Judge of Arcaea has commented that she will investigate all cases of "witch craft"