Difference between revisions of "Talk:FurryMUCK"

Revision as of 14:39, 19 August 2007

Question: Why is the Wikifur rating for the MUCK 14, when there's a PG-13 rating in the park? That would mean it would at least be 13, if not younger, and I've seen younger.

Answer: We don't have a PG-13 censorship panda. And, realistically, things edge over PG-13 sometimes, so I think it's justified. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:26, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Assorted comments by anon user

These comments were made in the article by 72.65.7.56 (apparently Prima). I have moved them here. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

General

Arguably Furrymuck is the center of the Furry fandom as it exists in its modern form with conventions or "cons" being the other center of gravity to the subculture.

PG-13 is a, to be diplomatic, elastic term on Furrymuck going from Disney G to mid range R. If you start using heavy sexual language in a public place your probably going to get burned by a wiz, but don't be suprised at the yelling or sexually charged conversations in public places on Furrymuck.

The Park

Due to its very OOC (out of character) nature the park should not be misconstrued with the majority of Furrymuck despite its prominance. Do NOT show up in full "furry" expecting that wagging a tail or waving a paw will endear you to anyone. It can be a brutal place filled with arguments about politics and religious wars over computers and console games. Usually its got someone in it that is at least tolarent of the more overtly furry poses but don't be shocked if your yelled at or told to "get a room".

The Purple Nurple

This place is usually very quiet like a Taps room. Though it can, to its credit, become wildly fun with much commentary. Note that if you find males kissing offensive this is NOT the room for you. Despite its homosexual label there are rarely, if ever, lesbian or female characters at the Nurple.

Libertyville Nude Beach

This is true, you will be told, right off, if you show up with a clothed description. However, a good nude description can include the usual "pure fur" kind where fur covers the naughty bits but no actual clothes are worn.

Willing Victims Guild

Only if players wish it [Safeword roleplay?], usually its a free for all BDSM area, very quite, much like Taps with many whispers

The Emerald City Tavern

A nice place, less brutal then WCOTP but still with enough adult content to be interesting. A good place to relax but be mindful that adult means mature and acting goofy may get you snickers or worse.

Regular events

Both of these (Owlhaven Literary Lounge and Artist's Ambush) are HIGHLY recommended. Just shut up and listen your first time in, then, when you get the vibe of the place throw in your comments the next time around. You'll be pleasently suprised at the high quality that can show up on occasion in both venues.

Programming

Both of these (MUF and MPI) can be impossible for someone just on the muck for the furry fun. However they can be very rewarding if your willing to do the learning curve.

Organization

Another muck called SPR had major wizard wars that destroyed it. Furrymuck, to its great credit, has not had this. Wizards are selected carefully and are watchful and friendly as long as you don't act like an ass.

Mayors of FurryMUCK

It should be noted that Toast is considered to be the de facto Mayor and can be 'bribed' if you get the right script commands. Its fun and Toast is a good sort, a kind of Honorary Mayor For Life.

Splitting out places

I suggest splitting out at least some of the places into separate articles. We do have Category:FurryMUCK locations, after all. Thoughts? -- Sine 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Having seperate articles for those locations won't hurt. --Giza 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: What method is being used to determine what MUCK locations and destinations to list within the FurryMUCK main article, and which ones to move to the seperate page? It seems to me as though the sites that are being listed within the main article are being 'featured' in some way, or favored over the other sites, and that may not be fair or neutral. It occurs to me that sites listed in the main article are likely to gain more attention than those seperated off into the locations page.

Some sort of standard should be followed, perhaps age of the location in question or something, to determine which locations to list within the main article, or else ALL locations should be moved off to the locations page.

I have a couple thoughts on this:

We should move all MUCK locations off to the locations page, and then since the FurryMUCK article is a featured article, we should feature a "MUCK's most popular" location, perhaps updating monthly or so. The most popular location could be established through WhereAre logs, and should probably meet the following criteria:

Loiter time: People should stay in a popular location for more than a few minutes. That means it would be at or near the top of the WhereAre list for hours at a time.

Consistancy: It should be popular day after day. A sudden surge or spike of interest that soon dies does not make a popular site. However, one that is at the top of WhereAre again and again over the course of days or weeks is a clear contender to be featured as the MUCK's Most Popular location.

If it's decided to list certain sites other than the MUCK's Most Popular on the FurryMUCK main article page, then we need to follow some consistant standard, like simply listing them all alphabetically or listing them by creation dates with the oldest first. These would be verifiable non-flexible facts. Opinions, or even things like the most popular location, all change over time.

I'd suggest listing all the sites here with short summaries. If there is more about them, make a page on it, put it in the category, and link to it from this article. The objective of having them on separate pages is so that they don't make this article too long and are separately discoverable/linkable, not to feature them in nay particular way.

For an example of what I mean, see Wikipedia:Object Desktop. Another option if it gets too crowded might be the one-line style of Wikipedia:Stardock. --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does WikiFur have a "No Weasel Words" policy? Because this would qualify, I think: 'watered-down, politically correct euphemism "ageplay"'. Also, that bit reads like a lover scorned :P