sincere | Pet peeves?! God-mod is not a crime!

A little while ago there was a secret on

fandomsecrets. It stated that the anon secret-maker could never apply for a game where they used "god-modding" instead of the correct form, "god-moding".

Ever since I read that secret, it's been the same for me. It's always been a pet peeve of mine, but now it's actively more like a tic. I just can't play in your game if you don't know that it's god-mode, not god-mod. This is logically sound! God-mod does not make sense as a phrase! If the mod doesn't have godlike powers over the game, who does? Yes, an abusive mod can be a bad thing, but the phrase does not refer to abusive mods, does it? God mode, on the other hand, is a mode that overzealous players can slip into where they control other characters. Do you see how this concept works?

lern 2 english language

But it's such a stupid complaint that I'm sure I'd get laughed at if I said anything. I've had normal, intelligent people argue with me about whether or not it's god-mode or god-mod. I've seen people get really bitchy when even semantic portions of their RPs were criticized. And I'd feel bad pointing it out at every fucking RP I see, because they're all making this mistake sfdagsdf

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I HATE THAT TOO.

I figured "god-modding" was a way of saying "god-moding," not that they were saying god-mod. Then I realized and went "...that's possibly even dumber than phrases like ATM machine and PIN number."

So glad I'm not the only one who frowns at that. Maybe I'm just old, cause back in the day no one said "god-mod." And it's a sad world when 2002 is back in the day.

SOB. Part of the "lern 2 english language" is that, if you don't think it's god-mod, you just genuinely think god-modding is a conjugation of god-mode, you need to rethink conjugations. :\

Either way, zomg such pet peeve. I can't even tell you how many games I half-considered joining until I was reading their rules and I came across a "no god-modding >E" rule and I was like, "...guh words."

Nothing other than an incorrect conjugation of "god-mode" makes any sense! God-modding is such an utter nonsense phrase my brain refused to parse it. XD

I get that way about typos. The number of games with "it's" instead of "its" on their info pages-- repeatedly-- will make anyone flinch.

OMG, hahah, I'm glad you said something because I always feel irritated by it and then I feel a little retarded for being such a neurotic nitpick. :|

I am equally annoyed by people who do not realize that canon =/= cannon.

cannon: a type of artillery

canon: something that is officially a part of a fictional body of work/universe.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. DX;;

adgfhgadf omg canon/cannon is so aggravating!!1 I can't stand it. I don't even know how this got started. Did some asshat see intelligent people in conversation and go, "Heeeey, canon isn't a word. They must've misspelled cannon, which I know is a word! I don't know why they would call it a cannon, but whatever." thus perpetuating this ridiculous spelling mistake?

Anyway, yeah, I'm so incredibly nitpicky. :D You're not alone, la~

One of my friends has an LJ icon with some idiot fanquote on it that reads "Surprise! It's cannon!" And she was like, yes, it would be very surprising if this couple was a cannon. XD

Me neither. !_! But it's...disappointing. What's even sadder is that otherwise intelligent people sometimes even mix it up, wrryyyy. alskdjf;al

B-but seriously. If someone consistently uses the word "canon" instead of "cannon", shouldn't that be a sign that it might be a real word, and not a typo? And that you should look it up to make sure -- especially since calling it a type of weapon makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?!! LOGICS: DO YOU HAS DEM?

Hahah, that is an awesome icon.~ ♥

Back when I first learned to RP, in tabletop D&D, we used "god-modding" to describe a DM that was abusive. The way it was first explained to me was that the GM was *not* god, and it was up to them to guide the game rather than control every aspect of it. They were the game moderator, but our RP group didn't want the moderator acting as god over our characters.

Like I said, though, this was the case for the D&D groups I've played in. That's a bit different than the text based games that are played on the internet, where the mod should be more of a god-like figure to keep things more organized. Plus, that was 20 years ago, and as games have evolved the language surrounding them has evolved too.

Not to mention, we could have been wrong. We were more interested in playing the game than the little details that weren't essential to the actual play.

I'm not trying to be one of those "normal, intelligent people" arguing that one is right while the other is wrong, just saying how I was introduced to the term and why we used it the way we did. I'd use it, because I've never heard/read it the other way until now, so my game would be unplayable because I didn't know better.

ETA: In the end, I think I'm trying to point out that it might be for the best to point it out, at least in places where people would be receptive because no one learns anything by osmosis. At least, not anyone that I've ever run across.

That's actually a really good point -- I'd never heard of this usage before, but it's certainly legitimate: as I noted, if "god-modding" was a term people used to refer to mods, I wouldn't mind it so much. But when I see it used in LJ RPGs, it's always "Rules: You, the player, will be kicked out if you engage in god-modding, e.g. controlling other characters's actions etc," and that's not the same thing I would qualify as "god-modding".

Maybe I will contact that game's mods, I guess. XD It's possible that it's just a legitimate mistake, and besides, if the mods sneer at me for my attempt to be helpful, I'll know I didn't want to play in that game, right? XD

See, I think with explaining why it should be the other way, it would be constructive rather than coming off as just nitpicking. It could be that they've just never seen it that way, and have only heard the other way. My use comes from my parents and people their age, because that's where I learned to play the game. But, also, text wasn't as imporant an aspect to tabletop RP as it is to games based on the internet, and tabletop games are a limited group of people. So if it's wrong, we didn't really care, because we knew what we meant. I would ~~think~~ hope that a mod in an online game would worry about how they were presenting themselves to their players more than someone who's just playing a game with a group of friends.

And I think you're right. If they don't respond well to constructively offered help, they probably won't react well if there's ever a problem in the game, right? Who wants to deal with that?

I've seen people get reeeally defensive about semantic portions of their games -- like one which claimed to be a "multifandom" game, but in the rules specified that by multifandom they meant only Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy, and then further specified elsewhere that actually only FF7 and FF8 was allowed. And people pointed out that that's more bi-fandom, and furthermore, there are eight more Final Fantasy games that were not allowed, so isn't that description further inaccurate? And the mods were so bitchy to those people. Made me happy I was never interested in playing there. XD

...

There are no words to describe the level of "WTF??" I'm experiencing after reading that. When there's finally a day where no one boggles at the level of ridiculous on the internet, the world will come to an end. Just... bzuh?

Pet peeves?! God-mod is not a crime!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject