It is what I see as the absence of this - what I see as a lack of consideration of IC (or worse, OOC) consequences, lack of thinking about the IC (or worse, OOC) implications of what is being said or done - that I find removes my fun. Actions are taken that shouldn't be gotten away with (legally/morally/guild-based restrictionally), but are because 'they're characters' or 'it's IC', or 'it's a laugh' or 'oh, it's not important, stop worrying' or 'dubious yet sufficiently murky justification no. 312', and it irritates me, as they should be pulled up for it but no GM is going to, because that's not fun for the players in question (and may indeed be fun for other GMs - I don't know). A case in point would be the Pirate Island 24hr, in which 'light-hearted' was used as justification to ignore a laundry list of deadly serious IC risks to the wider populace (I don't think the GMs effectively considered the implications of their plot in this regard) and to each other, and what I perceived as the lack of consideration of these by pretty much everyone else present (or considering them and subsequently going 'meh, I'm having a laugh instead') consequently represented the least fun I have ever had at a LARP.
They'll go on getting away with it, because this represents the majority view. There are more of them than there are of me, so cramping their fun so I can have mine is unfair on the majority. As mentioned, I am acutely aware that the person who has to deal with this, and possibly change to accommodate it, is me, and my opinions, rather than anyone else and theirs.
Part 2
Date: 2015-07-29 12:09 pm (UTC)They'll go on getting away with it, because this represents the majority view. There are more of them than there are of me, so cramping their fun so I can have mine is unfair on the majority. As mentioned, I am acutely aware that the person who has to deal with this, and possibly change to accommodate it, is me, and my opinions, rather than anyone else and theirs.