Backstage - OOC Forums
Archives => Katacombs => Topic started by: Arvo Katsuya on 01 Sep 2010, 12:03
-
Don't you all get it yet?
Oh, its just a grand scheme to get more of us to hate Jade, and to read the shenanigans they come up with. I believe this whole proxy thing was intentional, and everyone is eatting it up alive. Just so more of the word 'hypocrite' can be droned out. So as long as someone posts, its attention... even bad attention is still attention.
The problem is, we (as in the RP community as a whole) let it happen. We let there be seven threads involving Star Fraction and company dominate the front page of the IGS, and discourage the rest of the community who wants nothing to do with that part of the community, to look elsewhere for RP. The IGS - The InterGalactic Summit - is supposed to be a medium of diplomacy. For many of us, would we allow it realistically IC'ly to turn it into a playground for insults, accusations, and one-ups? And this will continue to happen on EVE until people simply stop caring about it.
Or else, we let the drama bleed into this very board, whose very existance was to create an enviroment to escape it and promote a more amicable one. And much like the very lesson that is to be learned from the current event is self-awareness of one's surroundings... this should also extend to how we present ourselves with this situation.
We move on.
(Note: I do understand the need for drama in roleplay. It's very necessary, as is conflict. However, there is a difference between the IC drama, and the raging OOC kind. Be mindful of differentiating the two.)
-
Ah.
Thank you, Jakiin, that seems straightforward. So it's not a principle, for Jakiin, that web addresses underlying images or links on IGS are considered IC.
Rather, the IC/OOC divide can be crossed at will depending on past IC actions of given characters and crucially Jakiin is the judge of that. In this case, Jakiin judges that it is acceptable based on what he has outlined.
At least this is what Jakiin seems to be saying. Perhaps I am wrong but if not Jakiin at least would probably give the player in my example an arbitrary get out based on his view of that player's characters. It's a point of view. An unusual one though. So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologise. I am not sure what else it means though.
Others seem to be saying that it is a principle that web addresses on IGS are considered to be IC (including those that appear in signatures).
Additionally, they are saying, it seems to me, that when web addresses on IGS connect two or more characters together it is an IC fact and can be used to draw IC conclusions.
Additionally, they appear to also be saying that comparison of materials held at web addresses on IGS that connect characters can be used to draw IC conclusions about those characters.
All this seems to follow from the view that the web addresses themselves are IC. My difficulty is that I don't understand why the web addresses are IC just because they underly images and links on IGS.
All that is required to make web links comprehensible IC is the IC recognition that a web link is a link. It is not necessary, IC, to understand the encoding of the link.
Many here seem to be claiming that they do understand, IC, the encoding of the link and that this encoding is legitimate IC knowledge.
That has consequences. And while Jakiin is entitled to what I take to be his view (subject to correction), I think that either this is legitimate IC knowledge in all cases (in which case the player in my example has no defence) or in none (in which case the player in my example can count on the support of other RPers to ignore the breach of the IC/OOC divide).
Otherwise, it's all arbitrary and we're left with precisely no IC/OOC divide in this area.
I have to say I am still amazed that I am apparently seeing this said.
Cosmo
PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.
[mod]Please construct your own points, and if you are unclear about someone else's point ask for clarification. Don't create posts that make assumptions about what other people think. Please review the FAQ.Covering by saying things like 'subject to correction' or 'I don't know what else to understand' doesn't excuse this kind of posting.[/mod]
-
PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.
You're misrepresenting my statements. My statements are that when the venue is dedicated IC, such as IGS, then it is not crossing the IC/OOC divide. It is using a strictly IC venue's content IC. Alternatively, it is not using it OOC. Jade's actions are no reason for someone to take offense at Jade in an OOC manner since his actions were entirely IC.
Hence why I approve of both behaviors.
The way to understand that statement is that, ICly, one should expect greater flak for ICly decrying a particular type of behavior and then taking part in it.
[mod]Referenced moderated post.[/mod]
-
Ah.
Thank you, Jakiin, that seems straightforward. So it's not a principle, for Jakiin, that web addresses underlying images or links on IGS are considered IC.
Rather, the IC/OOC divide can be crossed at will depending on past IC actions of given characters and crucially Jakiin is the judge of that. In this case, Jakiin judges that it is acceptable based on what he has outlined.
At least this is what Jakiin seems to be saying. Perhaps I am wrong but if not Jakiin at least would probably give the player in my example an arbitrary get out based on his view of that player's characters. It's a point of view. An unusual one though. So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologise. I am not sure what else it means though.
Another thing I might be saying with this is 'Don't try to sell it like Shaw was an independent character'. Of course that's only if someone interprets your post as attempting to do so, which is of course a matter of opinion.
But yes, in general I feel that if someone relies a lot on declaring some of their detractors spineless insect proxies as use in public relations they should be cautious when using proxies themselves. Or, optimally, not use them at all
Additionally, I have said previously in this thread that I do believe galnet would operate much like the internet. For instance, file hosting. An image, quite simply, must reside somewhere, whether that be on private or public servers.
Wherever possible, we've tried to mirror OOC necessities with IC explanations. I don't live in a seperate timezone, I set a different sleep cycle. I don't have a job, I have planetside affairs. I'm not logging off, I'm disconnecting/exiting my pod. We've even linked these to things that aren't necessary but exist nonetheless. Such as alts. False IDs, clonejacks, these things are common. We all acknowledge IC that these originally OOC things exist. JC is, certainly, no exception. So we accept there are false persons running around.
So why would an exception be made to file hosting? This is what you're apparently telling us: That we should ignore the fact the images are shared on the same private server, despite the fact that image hosting and private servers would bothmost certainly exist in the EVE IC universe. I'm sorry, but I don't actually see a reason for that.[/quote]
Many here seem to be claiming that they do understand, IC, the encoding of the link and that this encoding is legitimate IC knowledge.
Would that be the unstated IC and non-existent OOC encoding we're apparently supposed to assume exists unless told otherwise?
That has consequences. And while Jakiin is entitled to what I take to be his view (subject to correction), I think that either this is legitimate IC knowledge in all cases (in which case the player in my example has no defence) or in none (in which case the player in my example can count on the support of other RPers to ignore the breach of the IC/OOC divide).
Otherwise, it's all arbitrary and we're left with precisely no IC/OOC divide in this area.
I have to say I am still amazed that I am apparently seeing this said.
No defence aside from registering on a public image hosting server, no.
And really? How does this lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide amaze you in ways that JC's lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide do not?
[mod]References moderated material. Usually I would just snip, but I didn't feel comfortable trying to find a place to seperate. Please feel free to repost constructively. This goes for everyone else who was moderated as well.[/mod]
-
[admin]I don't generally like to use *snip* style moderation, and where possible I haven't. There were places where I have used it (the quotes in this post) because the rest of a given post was constructive and contributed to the discussion. If you prefer for your post in its entirety to be removed, let me know. Similarly, if your post was removed, but you feel there were constructive elements, please feel free to re-word it to be within the guidelines and re-post.[/admin]
...
Ironically because this is obviously an area where my take on the IC/OOC divide is more purist than members of Backstage.
...
Quite ironic that this is an area where SF has higher(different) standards than you guys.
[mod]Please avoid over-generalizations. Statements of superiority are inflammatory.[/mod]
...
It's about covering one's tracks, otherwise why not just use your primary?
You often rail on people about proxies and whatnot, how are your standards higher, exactly, that you will charge most any new player that dissents against the Fraction as being proxies with little evidence, but someone with actual evidence of a proxy for the faction is doing something wrong?
It strikes me that you're mostly upset that you got caught for being careless in covering your tracks effectively.
[mod]Avoid assigning motivations to other members.[/mod]
That's what you're all saying. I just want to be clear about it.
I kind of *shrug* to be perfectly honest but if that's how you all want it, I guess that's how you all want it.
As for the wider logical consequences of what is now being said: that details of webhosting, comparison of webhosted materials and webhosting addresses linked OOC to characters can be used to draw IC conclusions... well, I am amazed.
[mod]Please avoid over-generalization. Please also avoid straw men. Noone likes words being put in their mouths. [/mod]
-
Besides, some things are just too good to pass up. When someone rants against something and then does that same thing, bending the IC/OOC divide a little is acceptable I think.
[mod] Aspersion cast on another player, flame-bait and/or trolling. Just don't. [/mod]
-
Obviously the backstage people think what you did is okay.
[mod]Please avoid over-generalization, tarring-with-same-brush etc, as it's inflammatory and unhelpful.[/mod]
-
I been roleplaying on MMO's since 96 / Ultima online & even before that on table tops... & never once had someone do that...
[mod]Please read the FAQ [/mod]
-
It could be argued then that every Blog/Twitter/Facebook/what have you that I can trace through a poster on the IGS is fair game.
Myrhial for example has a blog. Lovely I can use that. I can also use all those succulent links to other blogs on the right hand side to form connections and use those posts IC should I want to.
It says private on something. Well it's right there in front of my face, that's not very private.
If it was private then it should've been hidden better.
I'm sure that by now you get my point.
[mod]Please avoid straw man arguments[/mod]
-
as wheter I'm allowed to use any and all resources presented to me in an IC format or if not, which are allowed and why.
[mod]This was not the topic under discussion, and is still a straw man[/mod]
-
but Constantine has for so long and so vehemently declared proxies the tools of cowards, maggots, etc. etc. etc., combined with JC's infamous willingness to blrr the IC/OOC divide, that it's damned hard to accept that we should let this propaganda-alt usage go past when the fact there's 'clonejacks' running around is a well accepted IC fact.
[mod]A character's actions are not a justification for OOC action; do not use inflammatory or insulting language towards other players. [/mod]
-
Someone has two different characters. They want to roleplay them as different and not connected to one another. Just that, nothing super-secret or involving any kind of subterfuge. They're just an EVE player who fancies dipping into two different aspect of RP.
The player makes some sigs for their two characters. Hosts them, naturally enough, at the same URL without really giving it much thought, and carries on RPing and enjoying themselves for a year or so, crafting through actual roleplay in channels, on IGS and in space separate identities with no connection.
And then, a clever-minded inquisitor comes along, decides to play trace the signature game on a variety of characters and finds out that these two characters must be played by the same person.
They then expose this in an 'IC' way on IGS and that player's characters have no recourse to a defence that this was OOC information?
They're linked, IC, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
How do you honestly feel about this Cosmo? What is your opinion? Do you feel this situation is different than when Jade accuses others of being posting proxys? Why or why not?
[mod]Provocative, flamebait, casting nasturtiums on other players etc etc. [/mod]
-
entirely IC and
kind of OOC-tainted
[mod]Opinion presented as fact. Please read the FAQ [/mod]
-
PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.
You're misrepresenting my statements.
I think it is better to say that I misinterpreted them and you have now explained them further, correcting my interpretation:
[mod]Referenced moderated material[/mod]
And really? How does this lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide amaze you in ways that JC's lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide do not?
Ironically its becoming rather apparent that I seem to have a greater respect for the IC/OOC divide in Eve Roleplay than many others (especially on the issue of ooc web host addresses).
[mod]References modded material. Claims of superiority inflammatory and non-constructive.[/mod]
-
[admin]Thread cleaned vigorously. Please review the Mission Statement, Rules and FAQ if you aren't clear on the posting behavior expected on Backstage.[/admin]
-
The thing is, it's either alway wrong, or always okay. The use of links and web traces or whatever does not enter into the equation. It's no different from other occasions of people (and not just Jade, mind) doing the same thing with others.
Well part of the reason I always use my own image hosting on my web server can be seen on IGS at the moment. I control where the links go. If I consider the RP is decent and fair then I'll keep them as they are. If I consider people are taking the piss then who knows what can happen.
-
Does not in any shape, way or form change the initial 'revelation'. If you can take the first links as IC proof of connection between Jade and that other character (which I'm convinced you can, as it's IC available on an IC forum, and supported by PF stating that the structure of Galnet is very similar to our current day internet), you can easily take the changed links and say "Ah, lookie here, damage control." Once the cat's out of the bag, it's not so easily stuffed back.
In short... changing the links viewed from an IC perspective is just that the characters are doing exactly that, In Character.
It's quite simply a difference in opinion, apparently. My opinion is that it's IC available information, used in an IC fashion to create IC connections between two characters. Supported quite a bit by the use of Rosalyn as an Amarr bashing Jade sycophant, having Revan cozy up to her just like she does with Jade (IC perspective). This has been remarked on, on the IGS, long before the picture links were discovered.
Now, I doubt there'll be any kind of agreement on this point, but here's a recommendation/advise nonetheless:
If you do have multiple IGS posting characters (I personally use just one, to avoid this kind of thing), use neutral/randomized image hosting services. Tinypic is one I am very fond of, as it's impossible to connect between characters. It avoids the entire problem, and allows you to keep denouncing IGS mouthpieces IC while avoiding the IC 'Ahah! But you do it yourself!' thing.
And while I'm stepping closer to the 'urdoinitrong' territory, I would like to make a final recommendation:
Turn Rosalyn Shaw slightly less... well, SF/Jade asskisser. I'm sorry, but that's the impression I get both IC and OoC. It makes her look like she was constructed purely for that kind of thing, supporting SF/Jade posting and denouncing Amarr/SF-detractor posting without having SF connections. That's the appearance I get from that character, and what I got long before these links were provided.
Make her more into a character of her own on IGS. Doing lowbrow humor isn't something that'll separate the character much from Jade, to be quite honest. Anyway, that's just a recommendation, and I'm not saying 'urdoinitrong'. It's just friendly advice in order to avoid these kinds of things in the future.
-
Does not in any shape, way or form change the initial 'revelation'. If you can take the first links as IC proof of connection between Jade and that other character (which I'm convinced you can, as it's IC available on an IC forum, and supported by PF stating that the structure of Galnet is very similar to our current day internet), you can easily take the changed links and say "Ah, lookie here, damage control." Once the cat's out of the bag, it's not so easily stuffed back.
In short... changing the links viewed from an IC perspective is just that the characters are doing exactly that, In Character.
It's quite simply a difference in opinion, apparently. My opinion is that it's IC available information, used in an IC fashion to create IC connections between two characters. Supported quite a bit by the use of Rosalyn as an Amarr bashing Jade sycophant, having Revan cozy up to her just like she does with Jade (IC perspective). This has been remarked on, on the IGS, long before the picture links were discovered.
I cannot express how much I agree with this, well said. (http://'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5DIuEm8BXw')
-
...form a community roleplay code of conduct that we could all strive to follow...
Has been tried before.
It would turn the handicap that is RP even more binding therefore people that shun handicaps would react to such initiative negatively.
-
So let's be clear about all this.
Someone has two different characters. They want to roleplay them as different and not connected to one another. Just that, nothing super-secret or involving any kind of subterfuge. They're just an EVE player who fancies dipping into two different aspect of RP.
The player makes some sigs for their two characters. Hosts them, naturally enough, at the same URL without really giving it much thought, and carries on RPing and enjoying themselves for a year or so, crafting through actual roleplay in channels, on IGS and in space separate identities with no connection.
And then, a clever-minded inquisitor comes along, decides to play trace the signature game on a variety of characters and finds out that these two characters must be played by the same person.
They then expose this in an 'IC' way on IGS and that player has no recourse to a defence that this was OOC information?
They're linked, IC, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
*snip*
Cosmo
Of course if someone wants to play two unconnected characters then they should be allowed to do so.
But it's slightly different when someone:
a) only uses that character to support their main from behind a neutral facade
b) simultaneously goes on at great length about how using posting proxies is a bad thing
-
Well the IGS forum mods seem to agree with me.
Which is interesting given the weight and proportion of votes expressed here.
Perhaps some food for thought. But I do really hope people now think about asking first before using somebody's personal OOC web server as "evidence" between IC roleplayed relations of separate characters.
I understand the Backstage community has expressed an intention to improve RP in Eve right? Well I think a productive first step would be to ensure you don't make the mistake of trying to "win" RP at all costs as (in this case) where the use of OOC web-server data on IGS has been ruled out of bounds by the CCP forum mods.
Maybe time for a little reflection.
-
But I do really hope people now think about asking first before using somebody's personal OOC web server as "evidence" between IC roleplayed relations of separate characters.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be any talk of "posting proxies" or "clone jacks" or whatever the term de jour is on the IGS full stop.
If it's wrong to make such an accusation with evidence, then it's certainly wrong to make one without evidence.
-
But I do really hope people now think about asking first before using somebody's personal OOC web server as "evidence" between IC roleplayed relations of separate characters.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be any talk of "posting proxies" or "clone jacks" on the IGS full stop.
One can play a part in approaching that ideal world by simply RP'ing with people rather than trying to win RP at all costs (especially when those costs involve corrupting the ic/ooc divide with reference to ooc material on IGS.) - and I hope the Backstage mods will allow this comment to stand now since I am not presenting opinion as fact - I am presenting CCP forum guidelines enforced by their forum mods - as fact.
Thank you.
-
But I do really hope people now think about asking first before using somebody's personal OOC web server as "evidence" between IC roleplayed relations of separate characters.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be any talk of "posting proxies" or "clone jacks" on the IGS full stop.
One can play a part in approaching that ideal world by simply RP'ing with people rather than trying to win RP at all costs (especially when those costs involve corrupting the ic/ooc divide with reference to ooc material on IGS.) - and I hope the Backstage mods will allow this comment to stand now since I am not presenting opinion as fact - I am presenting CCP forum guidelines enforced by their forum mods - as fact.
Thank you.
And your view on the second part of my post?
Will you stop throwing around unfounded accusations about posting proxies on the IGS?
-
Will you stop throwing around unfounded accusations about posting proxies on the IGS?
Since I have never done "unfounded accusations" - then it would be difficult/impossible to stop. I think you are using a straw man/leading argument/entrapment rhetorical tactic and its against the backstage rules, so please stop it in the interests of civil debate. I do not appreciate being accused of things I have not done.
-
Will you stop throwing around unfounded accusations about posting proxies on the IGS?
Since I have never done "unfounded accusations" - that it would be difficult to stop. I think you are using a straw man and its against the backstage rules, please stop it in the interests of civil debate.
Just a week or two back there were a whole bunch of comments from you and an associate of yours about me being indistinguishable from Sabbott. You've also in the past accused Jakiin of being a proxy.
And then there's the half-dozen or so examples I found in just a few minutes on Google that I posted here: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1376813/page/2#32 (http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1376813/page/2#32)
I'll make you an offer - I won't bring up the status of Rosalund again on IGS if I don't see any further comments like those.
-
But I do really hope people now think about asking first before using somebody's personal OOC web server as "evidence" between IC roleplayed relations of separate characters.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be any talk of "posting proxies" or "clone jacks" on the IGS full stop.
One can play a part in approaching that ideal world by simply RP'ing with people rather than trying to win RP at all costs
Thank you.
I see no evidence of anyone trying to "win" at RP, I see people presenting their arguments (or trying) only to be stonewalled by you calling them out as "boot licking imperialists, etc" I'd like to hope this is just IC Jade and has nothing to do with your actual mindset as a person but based on this discussion, I'm having that opinion become more and more shaded.
also, you're still presenting opinion as fact.
Since I have never done "unfounded accusations" - then it would be difficult/impossible to stop. I think you are using a straw man and its against the backstage rules, please stop it in the interests of civil debate. I do not appreciate being accused of things I have not done.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahem, what Rodj said:
Just a week or two back there were a whole bunch of comments from you and an associate of yours about me being indistinguishable from Sabbott. You've also in the past accused Jakiin of being a proxy.
And then there's the half-dozen or so examples I found in just a few minutes or Google that I posted here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1376813&page=1#30
Jade, you are the queen of unfounded accusations, you look for every possible excuse you can find to accuse someone of things. If they don't fit with your ideals THEY MUST BE SUPPORTING THE AMARRIANS RAEG RAEG RAEG.
No one's trying to put any words in your mouth but your own, perhaps look at your own posting habits before calling out others.
-
I think you are both unintentionally misunderstanding the meaning of the word "unfounded" - this typically means groundless ... I am not going to get in the business of refuting your individual examples because I do not believe that backstage is a place where a person may be aggressively challenged on their ic roleplay.
I will simply repeat that I as a player have never used my posting identity to make groundless accussations IC period, and I'm a little offended as a person you would say something like this in an OOC venue.
Nor of course am I presenting opinion as fact. I'm presenting fact as fact. The key fact here is that the answer to the op post has been ruled as "yes" by the CCP forum mods on the IGS while backstage respondants say "no". Perhaps the most fruitful ongoing debate would be how this discordance in opinion came to be?
-
I think you are both unintentionally misunderstanding the meaning of the word "unfounded" - this typically means groundless ... I am not going to get in the business of refuting your individual examples because I do not believe that backstage is a place where a person may be aggressively challenged on their ic roleplay.
I will simply repeat that I as a player have never used my posting identity to make groundless accussations IC period, and I'm a little offended as a person you would say something like this in an OOC venue.
OK then, how about substituting "groundless" with "without evidence?"
And I'll repeat my offer to you: I won't bring up the status of Rosalund again on IGS if I don't see any further comments like the ones mentioned earlier.
-
I think you are both unintentionally misunderstanding the meaning of the word "unfounded" - this typically means groundless ... I am not going to get in the business of refuting your individual examples because I do not believe that backstage is a place where a person may be aggressively challenged on their ic roleplay.
I will simply repeat that I as a player have never used my posting identity to make groundless accussations IC period, and I'm a little offended as a person you would say something like this in an OOC venue.
And this is the point wherein I will again withdraw from this debate since its becoming clear I will be unable to peacefully have this discussion when you outright refuse to admit something, even when evidence of it is presented.
>_>
I'm out.
-
I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.
I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.
-
Bah, doublepost
-
I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.
I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.
It's certainly not my intention to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if I've caused you any offense. I'm sure that everyone here is capable of making up their own minds about what's happened in the past without any further back and forth between the two of us.
So I'll ask you one final time: will you agree to avoid any future mentions of proxies, clone jacks etc on the IGS?
-
I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.
I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.
Okay fine, fine, not trying to attack you personally, fine then, if its just Jade Constantine, the character that's doing this, then you the player should have no issue admitting, OOCly, that Jade the character is making unfounded accusations. Because she is. If you do have problems with this, then I think we're seeing the tip of a much deeper buried problem.
I see it come back to this:
1. IC Jade makes accusations of people being proxies/alts/cousins/minions/whatever
2. IC Shaw is used to fap over Jade's awesome
3. OOCly, someone notices they are the same person and calls them out on it IC
4. OOCly, Jade claims this is an unfounded attack on his character
I think this is all going to come down to how people see the legitimacy of 3, a lot of people have already stated that they claim this is a fair tactic, I happen to be one of them, and if something similar happened with one of my characters, I'd throw my hands up and say, fine, you caught me. But it all comes down to three.
Note: I think this is also partly an issue with people's perceptions of Jade the character. Jade the character attacks people and claims they're nothing but posting proxies on a regular basis, then is called out on doing it herself. Regardless of the context it is brought up in, I still see this as a wee bit of an issue, and have a solution,
PlayerJade: Come out OOCly, and admit that IC Jade is a hypocrite. Currently it seems like you're attempting to defend your character, which is making you look like a hypocrite. Whereas if you came out and said "my character has some issues, I accept that" people would have a lot more respect for you, and 99% of these issues would vanish.
-
If I see a character on IGS behaving like a shill, proxy, hireling, agent etc of another than I will respond as I see fit and address the issue in a fully IC manner.
I will not be using OOC website address links (and lets agree its OOC now since IGS forum moderation has decided in my favour okay?) to make my points from some belief that "conviction" / "winning at all costs" is more important than simply roleplaying naturally without all the nonsense.
Ultimately this is a matter where players must look to their own conscience and decide their play styles in ways appropriate to their personal choice and gaming morality.
-
3. OOCly, someone notices they are the same person and calls them out on it IC
I think this is all going to come down to how people see the legitimacy of 3, a lot of people have already stated that they claim this is a fair tactic, I happen to be one of them...
Yes and you are in the 73.3% majority of Backstage responders who supported this tactic. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that it is against the rules of IC posting on IGS and all reference to those links has been removed so CCP would appear to disagree with Backstage on this issue.
But it all comes down to three. PlayerJade: Come out OOCly, and admit that IC Jade is a hypocrite.
Why would I when she clearly isn't.
But even more to the point, even if she was - why would I say that OOC when 73.3% of the respondants to this thread appear to believe in using OOC link data (as defined by CCP moderation tram on IGS) to win IC arguments against rivals? This is the problem with eroding the IC/OOC divide in the way the web hosting address stuff goes - it also erodes any faith that other roleplayers will "play fairly" and simply means we all have to play our cards much closer to our chests in future.
This is an OOC forum yes, but what if some decides to use something I say here to "convict" me IC on galnet because they feel justified? You see the problem of this line of discussion in this very thread?
-
Why would I when she clearly isn't.
σ_σ
-
The internet is the Galnet, ICwise. If you host an image somewhere on the 'internet' and use it on the IGS, the address of that becomes part of the Galnet, since it's visible on the IGS. Killboards are quite the same, they're public combat records on the Galnet for an organisation.
When you direct someone to the SF website (If you have one, I'm not sure really) Do you call it the SF Galnet portal/site?
If using the internet and how it works for RP is breaking the IC/OOC divide, then any alliance/corp website breaks the divide too.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm not going to get into the argument over who is and isn't a hypocrite, we'd be here all year with the back and forth that comes from it.
-
The internet is the Galnet, ICwise. If you host an image somewhere on the 'internet' and use it on the IGS, the address of that becomes part of the Galnet, since it's visible on the IGS. Killboards are quite the same, they're public combat records on the Galnet for an organisation.
Neither killboard links nor direct links to ooc information are permissable on the IGS and an the CCP forum mods have made a ruling. I'm not really sure why this is taking so long to sink in.
When you direct someone to the SF website (If you have one, I'm not sure really) Do you call it the SF Galnet portal/site?If using the internet and how it works is breaking the IC/OOC divide, then any alliance/corp website breaks the divide too.
It doesn't break the divide because we give our permission for the link to stand and be associated with us. And thats the key point here. Linking to an ooc resource requires the consensual agreement between the linker and the linked. If the latter disagrees he or she may petition and the connection is void for ic purposes. (though of course people will argue even so as is happening here).
For Example. I made an error of judgement a couple of weeks ago and linked to a character transfer sale on Eve-Online in an IC thread to highlight Jade's suspicion that a Matari character had been compromised. This was link to OOC data on Eve Online - but it was ruled to be breaking the IGS rules and the link was removed. Fair enough. I can respect the decision and won't be doing that again. But you see the point I hope. If a link to ooc data ON CCP forums is out of order - so potentially is any link to an external ooc resource outside CCP's purview. On that occasion I pushed IGS rules too far and have learned from it. I hope others will learn a similar lesson from this thread.
-
Neither killboard links nor direct links to ooc information are permissable on the IGS and an the CCP forum mods have made a ruling. I'm not really sure why this is taking so long to sink in.
---
It doesn't break the divide because we give our permission for the link to stand and be associated with us. And thats the key point here. Linking to an ooc resource requires the consensual agreement between the linker and the linked. If the latter disagrees he or she may petition and the connection is void for ic purposes. (though of course people will argue even so as is happening here).
I'm aware that killboard links and direct OOC links aren't allowed, but by that ruling by CCP mods, we can see that they believe Killboards to be OOC. So we can't reference people's combat records on the IGS, it's OOC info. Of, course, CCP don't remove it, but when someone talks about combat records, we know it means killboards.
Though if you post an image to the IGS, the link is there. By posting that image, you gave the 'connection' out, through using the same host/hosting account, whatever. All it took was for someone to find it.
As for arguments, I've had enough of those in the past couple of months, I'm not looking for another one. I'm giving my opinion. Feel free to disagree :)
-
I've never really looked at forum mods as the arbiters of good RP. And I certainly don't see IGS as a premier venue of any sort.
In any case, it seems like this thread has devolved into the exact sort of conversation that has driven so many people away from the IGS/Chatsubo crowd[1]. I'm not sure what purpose it serves at this point, where the conversation is "you do it too" "no I don't" "yes you do" "no I don't". Only with more words.
[1]: That's not a criticism of the Chatsubo admins any more than it is of CCP, but there's a particular group of players that comprise a large percentage of the users of both of those groups, and an even larger portion of the perception of those communities. It is to that sub-community I refer.
-
This thread is heavily steeped in the deepest of irony.
-
I've never really looked at forum mods as the arbiters of good RP. And I certainly don't see IGS as a premier venue of any sort.
In any case, it seems like this thread has devolved into the exact sort of conversation that has driven so many people away from the IGS/Chatsubo crowd[1]. I'm not sure what purpose it serves at this point, where the conversation is "you do it too" "no I don't" "yes you do" "no I don't". Only with more words.
[1]: That's not a criticism of the Chatsubo admins any more than it is of CCP, but there's a particular group of players that comprise a large percentage of the users of both of those groups, and an even larger portion of the perception of those communities. It is to that sub-community I refer.
The solution is simply to moderate by the guidelines here I think and have a zero tolerance approach for personal attacks so enabling plain facts and honest discussion to stand unblemished by the usual nonsense.
Regardless of your faith in IGS forum moderation a ruling has been reached - I'm happy to abide by that ruling - and since this thread was about IGS - I would think the ruling is of relevance to the people posting here.
I agree with you that silly accusations are without merit. People should simply discuss the issue at hand without trying to widen it to include past feuds/wrongs/justifications and all the other questionable detritus of our collective unwise childhood in Eve RP.
What I think would be useful now would be to discuss why people think the Backstage interpretation on valid IC roleplay on IGS is so different from the CCP IGS moderators on this issue?
1. Is it the person involved (me) ((ie varying standards based on personal preference))
2. Is there a principle of non-consensuality in referring to ooc material.
3. Is it something else?
I'm genuinely interested.
-
Though if you post an image to the IGS, the link is there. By posting that image, you gave the 'connection' out, through using the same host/hosting account, whatever. All it took was for someone to find it.
See its where we differ. By posting a picture with Rosamund I give permission for you to look at and interact with that image in the context of Rosamund owning it. I do not give you permission to connect that picture with anything else on my personal out of game webserver including any other eve material, rl work collatoral, other game images, cvs, larp stuff, other eve players sigs, etc etc etc.
I realize people WANT to join the dots and gain a conviction through "evidence" crowbarred into IC but they simply may not do it. In the first place I can simply change the image names/links to make the people doing it look ridiculous - or in the second place I can petition to have reference to these links removed since I have not given my permission for them to play a role in the IC consensus of the discussion.
Now anyone can go to CAOD of course and make their argument there and maybe use a 3rd party website dupe program to make a hue and cry that Jade and Rosamund are run by the same player - thats entirely within the eve rules of conduct.
What people cannot do is expect this stuff to stand on IGS which is held to higher standards of interaction to promote RP in Eve online.
Which is the point.
-
The deepest of irony.
-
The deepest of irony.
Go on, you've piqued my interest - what is the irony?
-
It's steeped in irony due to statements that are fairly ironic from both sides. Half of it you would agree with, I am certain, the other half you would claim are personal attacks, so rather than bring the moderators down on both of us, I opted to just mention I find the trajectory of this thread to be horribly ironic in the hopes that both sides would take a moment to laugh at some of the statements (each likely laughing at the statements of the other side, but one can hope that people would learn to laugh at themselves) and hopefully the moment of brevity would diffuse the rising tension.
As I maintain that you would claim the comments of yours I find ironic to be personal attacks, even though they are not, and adamantly refute them, I do not wish to get into it, as the point of the comment was entirely brevity, not continued argument.
-
[mod] :ugh:[/mod]
-
[mod]Some of the posts after the cut were fairly constructive, but it doesn't seem that a great deal was added to the discussion overall, so I went with the machete instead of the scalpel this time.
- OOC threats, including veiled threats, will earn you a perma-ban.
- Carrying on personal vendettas is against the rules
- Arguing with someone OOC about their RP style is against the rules - if you think someone should do something differently, explain your way rather than tearing theirs down. Please remember that the player is not the character.
- While it may simplify arguments, over-generalizations also tend to undermine them while being inflammatory. Don't do it.
- Try to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they make a statement, don't accuse them of lying. Present your viewpoint, don't dictate what theirs should be. Remember that in RP, oftentimes characters do or believe things that the player certainly doesn't do or believe
- If you report something, then responding to it is against the rules, at it would just be propagating what you have indicated (by reporting it) you see as a problem. If the moderators don't take action (indicating there isn't a breach of the guidelines), you can respond then. If you aren't sure whether the moderators have had time to address it or not, PM myself or another mod to find out.
[/mod]