how realistic should the cats be in a roleplay?

[wildsong]

so, we all know the books are far from realistic. i was roleplaying with a friend of mine- i was a medicine cat, and they joined later, asking to be my apprentice. i said yes, so they quickly made their character and sat by me.
now, their character was morningpaw. he couldn't be a warrior because he had seizures- which of course, the cats didn't know what was happening.
yes, i know seizures can kill cats- especially in the wild. but there's a lot that should kill cats in the series. like, why did a cat never catch rabies? how did briarlight survive? there's probably a lot more, but my mind is blank right now.
especially in this particular roleplay. a lot happens that shouldn't, but we roll with it. so an admin joined, and my friend was promptly kicked and banned. i confronted them, asking why, they had no reason to. i know a lot of the admins, and they're usually nice about it, especially to people who frequently come. i defended my friend, obviously, even bringing up the books in my arguments. i was kicked for arguing with the admin. i admit, i was a being a pain, but still- why?
away from my ranting, what do you think? do you think there's a line for realism? this particular forum is all about realism, but i still wanna hear opinions.

[Gingercloud]

so, we all know the books are far from realistic.

Yes, and that's really not to their benefit when it comes down to things. The world of the Warrior Cats is about as bare bones as it can get away with, and that lack of substance means that- while it's ultimately a fun world to play around in- it has little to no staying power once you grow up and realize just how shallow everything and everyone is. 

now, their character was morningpaw. he couldn't be a warrior because he had seizures- which of course, the cats didn't know what was happening.

The whole "This character is disabled and or "different" and therefore they can't be a Warrior, so the only job available to them within the Clan is the Medicine Cat position" trope isn't very popular or well-liked on this forum. I myself have a particularly deep loathing for it, but others are better at summing all of what's wrong with this trope then I am. 

yes, i know seizures can kill cats- especially in the wild.

This is honestly subjective at best, theirs a lot of factors that could influence how likely hazardous these seizures could be for Morningpaw. What type of seizures are they? How severe are they when they occur? Was Morningpaw born with this condition? Did he start having seizures after a severe illness? When did these seizures start in general? Does anything trigger them? If so what does? How often does Morningpaw have them? Are their any consistent syndromes that announce their arrival ahead of time? How supportive is the Clan when it comes to disabled Clanmates? And so on and so forth.

like, why did a cat never catch rabies?

Warriors was originally set in the UK, which is one of the few rabies free countries. Now while later arcs have introduced some quite blatantly North American settings and animals, the Clans pretty obviously didn't cross the Atlantic Ocean. As such, Warriors increasingly seems to take place in a fantasy world that suits Erin Hunters current plot purposes, since the plot hasn't yet called for rabies to strike the Clans (And may it never do so), then it simply doesn't exist in this "world". That's just the kind of writer Erin Hunter is. 

how did briarlight survive?

Author bias. The story goes that one of Vicky's friends was in a car wreck, and ultimately was left paralyzed below the waist as a result. Vicky was just starting work on the fourth arc at the time and decided to paralyze poor Briarpaw as a tribute to this friend, however she did intend to kill Briarlight off within the arc itself. However once she got to that point in the storyline, because of her close friendship with this paralyzed friend of hers, she found that she couldn't kill Briarlight off without feeling guilty. As such, Vicky decided then and there that Brairlight would survive as long as her friend did, and that her journey would "mirror" his in general. 

This is one of the stupidest writing decisions Vicky ever made in my opinion, and it makes for a really convincing argument as to why authors should not base characters off of their real life friends. Poor Briarlight is now stuck in this weird limbo (Where I should note that she survives a greencough outbreak that killed several healthy and young cats) when her fate should've been pretty cut and dry. 

especially in this particular roleplay. a lot happens that shouldn't, but we roll with it.

I find this sentence quite... curious. Was this scenario that you and your friend were playing with within the roleplay's rules? 

so an admin joined, and my friend was promptly kicked and banned.

I have personal experience being an admin elsewhere, so this raises my eyebrows quite a bit.  This admins behavior strikes me as being unusually aggressive... Unless of course, if your friend had been warned about breaking established rules before.

During my own time as an admin, I was considered fairly hard-line. However, I never kicked without at least one prior warning, and I didn't treat banning as any kind of lighthearted manner. I generally followed the three strike rule: Three warnings = A kick-off of chat. Three kick-offs = A short-term ban. Three short-term bans = A long-term ban. If a user returned from a long-term ban and continued to cause problems, then yes, their account was permanently banned at that point in time. 
 
Of course I should note that the three strike rule was official policy for admins/mods at the website that I admined on, do you happen to know if theirs any sort of policy regarding kicking and banning on this site that you and your friend were role-playing on? Some sites have a set policy that the admins have to follow when it comes to their work, others just leave it up to the individual. If it's the latter in your case, then I'm afraid theirs not much you can do, since the admin is always "right" on such sites. (Which I personally always avoided like the plague due to feeling like a lack of boundaries for those in power lead to abuse of power.)

i confronted them, asking why, they had no reason to.

Bad move, very bad move. Even if your friend wasn't breaking any rules when they were kicked and banned, and weren't known to be trouble-maker beforehand... It's extremely bad form to personally confront an admin about how they go about doing their job, especially with regards to how they treated another person. Oh you're certainly well within your rights to protest mistreatment, but always take the official route of doing so, never make it personal. This type of behavior actually makes you look bad and won't help your case at all, in fact, such behavior will usually result in whoever does have the job of smoothing over admin-user conflicts taking the admins side. 

 

 

[Gingercloud]

Lovely, it appears the forum ate part of my reply after I posted it last night. Well no matter, I'll just re-write the last third now then.

i know a lot of the admins, and they're usually nice about it, especially to people who frequently come.

If the admins are usually pretty laid-back and friendly, then that makes this particular admins behavior all the more confusing. Are they known for being especially strict? Had they been harsh on you or your friend before? Are they new to the site?

i defended my friend, obviously, even bringing up the books in my arguments. i was kicked for arguing with the admin. i admit, i was a being a pain, but still- why?

While it was very sweet of you to stand up for your friend, as I was going on about earlier, this was the worse thing you could've done. Third parties almost always complicate these types of situations, so what I would've recommended you do was this- Complain about this admins treatment of your friend to the person whose actually in charge of taking care of such matters (If such a person doesn't exist, then complaining to another admin that you had good experiences with would've been a doable alternative), explain the situation, provide evidence that it actually happened (Always screenshot disputes, I was always stressing that to people who had complaints.), and then leave the situation well alone. Don't get involved any further unless asked to do so. 

*Shrugs* You just admitted that you were kicked for good reason, arguing with an admin never ends well for users. You were being a pain and punished appropriately, I can personally recall kicking people for doing the exact same thing with me. 

away from my ranting, what do you think?

It's a very strange situation, and I don't have near enough information to come to any kind of conclusion regarding it. Ultimately it's not my place to tell you that you and your friend were in the right and that the admin was being a jerk, I don't know the admins side to this story after all. So if you can, go back to the site and resolve this situation there if you feel the burning need to do so, but it would probably be far more simpler to leave the site and to role-play elsewhere. 

do you think there's a line for realism?

Of course, but this "line" is up to the individual website to determine. Some sites will want more realism, others will want to follow what the books do to the letter and others still are ultimately about having mindless fun. Their should be set rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, and it's up to the userbase to respect and to follow these rules, just as it's up to the admins to enforce them fairly.

So if you don't personally care for the rules, or even just one specific rule, then it's best to leave that site altogether and find one whose rules you like and agree to. Trying to change the rules -or even worse ignoring them- leads to misery and strife for almost all parties, so it's just better to leave and to go elsewhere.