Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scagga]

(2/2)

You have asserted that ALT infiltration is a meta-gaming tactic several times throughout this thread. Meta-gaming, to me, is when another player attempts to take an action on behalf of your character without your consent.

If my perspective of your vision of meta-gaming diverges from how you view it, then I am confident you'll correct me.

Your definition is incorrect (no disrespect intended).

What you have described is God-moding.  A link to definition is here for your reference: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=god%20modding . If it is unacceptable, please produce a definition that supports yours.

Dealing with this delectable prefix, 'meta', prompts me to quote a scene from an episode of yes minister:

"

Concerned woman: Listen, I've heard that this factory will be making the chemical that poisoned Seveso.
Jim Hacker: Now that's not true. The chemical in Seveso was dioxin. This is metadioxin.
Woman: Well that must be virtually the same thing.
Hacker: No, it's just a similar name.
Woman: It's the same name, only with 'meta' stuck on the front.
Hacker: And that makes all the difference.
Woman: Why, what does 'meta' mean?
Hacker: (baffled) What does 'meta' mean, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: It's quite simple. It means 'with' or 'after', sometimes 'beyond'. It's from the Greek. In other words, with or after dioxin, sometimes beyond dioxin. It depends whether it's the accusative or the genitive. With the accusative it's beyond or after, with the genitive it's with. As in Latin, of course, as you no doubt obviously recall, where the ablative is used for words needing a sense of 'with' to preceed them.
Bernard: But of course there isn't an ablative in Greek, is there Sir Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Well done, Bernard, well done.
Hacker: You see?
Woman: Not really, no.

"

Here is a definition of metagaming (quoted from wiki):
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of. (Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.)

Examples of metagaming include:

- Adjusting a character's actions based on foreknowledge of the long-term intentions of the gamemaster.
- Gaining knowledge from Out-Of Character.
- All your knowledge from your past life is gone upon death
- Using certain types of attack or defense based on the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent that the player's character is unaware of.
- Acting on any knowledge that the character is not aware of (such as creating gunpowder in a Dark Ages or Middle Ages setting).
- Adjusting a character's behavior towards other player characters based on real-life relationships with other players.
- Using knowledge of the game's mechanics to gain an advantage in the game by having the character do something incompatible with that character's personality.
- Assuming that something that appears to be wrong or unlikely in the game world is a mistake of the gamemaster rather than something that could be investigated. (This does not apply to situations where the mistake appears in the gamemaster's depiction of the world rather than in the world itself, which can cause a player to become aware of something which their character is not aware of.)
- Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave.
- Any action that is based upon the knowledge that one is playing a game.
- Another form of metagaming occurs as a form of powergaming during character creation, when a player takes flaws or liabilities that they know the gamemaster is unlikely to fully exploit, thereby acquiring extra creation options without paying a corresponding penalty.
- In split-screen games, using another player's viewpoint to gather information that one's own character doesn't have access to.
- Assuming that if an item (often a chest, desk or book-case) is mentioned by the gamemaster during the initial description of an area, it must have some relevance to the storyline, and immediately searching or examining it. (while ignoring other furnishings or objects that are most likely there as well).

I find the definition of metagaming consistent with my usage of the term.  I suggest you reconsider your argument on that point.

Unless you have acquired intimate knowledge from the player with proof that they have performed an act of infiltration with an ALT with OOC motivations, then it's simply conjecture.

There is a strong prima facie.  As I mentioned previously, the track record supports my viewpoint that the likelihood is high enough to reckon it is the rule rather than the exception.  The onus would be rather on the perpetrator of the action to prove that there wasn't an OOC motivation.

I'll tell you what my philosophy is: Opinions are assholes and everyone's got one.An artist can receive numerous accolades from their peers and earn millions of dollars for the work they do, but in the end whether I like them or not is a matter of taste. In my years interacting with characters throughout EVE, I have encountered many individuals that LOTS of people enjoyed spending time with that I had no interest in, and visa versa. Mensas can be diagnosed through testing to be smart people but they still make dumb mistakes like the rest of us. A degree does not make you smart. Labels and perspectives of truth do not MAKE TRUTH. So While I applaud your endeavor to pursue such a lofty goal, you will never find me willing to accept your brand of opinion as truth, no matter how you diagnose it, unless it is convincing and changes my perspective or already falls in line with it.

Please, let us stay above quoting popular catchphrases and platitudes.

These are crowd-pleasing statements that endear someone to their reader for reasons other than the facts that they are putting into the debate.  The paragraph does not contribute usefully to the debate, except subtlely ridiculing intellect and using layman logic to debunk science (relevant areas emboldened for your reference).  It is not off my radar to consider that some people may be grumbling about possible 'over intellectualisation' of this debate and that is a little wink to them from the ring.

Well obviously in the practical sense you certainly can brand an action OOC if your heart desires, but the declaration in itself is not guaranteed to convince a public that sees the matter as an IC situation.

I don't care what the public thinks when I am looking for truth, and what the public thinks does not change what truth is (except in practise).  It should not influence what IC and OOC are, because we are judging against our plumbline; what roleplay is.

You are certainly capable of hand-waving/ignoring any mention of said act indefinitely from multiple sources, or reacting to it without compromising your own position on the matter.

I agree, and have tried both methods in the past.

Is it really possible to continue functioning as a character pretending none of this happened, simply because an OOC alt impacted you?

Of course one can pretend none of it happened, just like one can pretend that no OOC hate happened when they return to interacting IC.  We don't have to force ourselves to drink from the pool someone proverbially pissed in with their OOC antics, we can ignore them and move to a place clean of them with a clear conscience.

I think there is merit in attempting to uncover strategies for role-players to engage one another, but I think it's important not to mislabel it as 'the truth' as opposed to scaggan brand of roleplay.

There is no Scaggan truth in this debate, that leads to labelling truths I state into 'my' truths.

In a debate where the speakers are detached from their views and ready to accept other views based on the evidence supporting them, we can say that there are statements with evidence and there are statements without evidence.  If a statement has strong enough evidence it is truth.  If statement has weak evidence is it not believed.

I am ready to change my views if the evidence supporting another view is stronger.

[BloodBird]

Ask Istvaan, (sp?) for instance. He could claim a hundred times with a hundred different toons that he was (insert toon name) and that he was a noob. He might even be really, really good at faking naivety and non-knowledge about the game - in reality it was the same experienced infiltrator behind all these heists and all of them were gone through with. That person, that toon, the victims trusted was indeed their fellow pilot and comrade - up until the point he/she robbed them and/or murdered a member and left, then got biomassed.

I actually respect Istvaans take on this stuff quite a lot and it ticks the boxes for me ic and ooc. As far as I recall his rationale was that all his characters were clonejacks (literally mind-controlled) by the central intelligence of his main. Its an approach to the roleplay that doesn't pretend these are different personalities and allows enemies to assess a spiderweb network of agents leading back to the core that is quite imaginative and *ahem* realistic in the setting.

I find that rationale far easier to deal with than listening to a player telling me they can be trusted to play two (or more) entirely different personalities with no loyalties or interests in common because they (the player) is such a great roleplayer and expert with the ic/ooc divide.

From a RP pow, Istvaan's method of 'mind-controlled agents' is a pretty good take on explaining his control over his ALTS. It really is, however these toons are still his alts, no matter how good his IC description of them is, and a mind-controlled person is definitly not going to defect from his service anyway, thus making the point rather moot.

Fact of the matter is, if these toons join a corp under the pretence of being genuine players/people, and work in it long enough to gain a position where ripping them and leaving with all their stuff can happen, and does happen, then the ones ripped off won't care one iota that it was a 'mind-controlled agent for Istvaan' or 'just an alt'. From the pow of RP reffering to them as Istvaan's agents is good sense - it explains the entire alt situation, in a belivable manner.

But that belivable scenario still happened, and the victims are not likely to be impressed with Istvaan's clever wits, thus 'it was good RP' is rather irrelevant because even without the 'agents of my main' RP cover, he still jacked their stuff and he still used an alt to do it, the RP had little to do with it, other than being good 'roleplaying a character totally different from Istvaan for the duration of the character's life'.

Secondly, for the part about the 'multiple toons RP'ing different factions'.

I mentioned this as an example how alts themselves are not a bad thing, in any universal sense. Some think alternative/multiple characters to be a bad thing, for different reasons. I do not agree but we are not arguing that here, now.

I mentioned this to illustrate one of the possible differences in what you are using your multiple characters to do;

I have 3 toons that people know about if they ask me - Bloodbird, my oldest and first character. Arivana, a character 6 months younger than BB, originally made to the the indy-specialized toon because BB at the time flipped from indy to pvp - this separation no longer exist, but the toons endure, though with relatively little use. Jesmine Kyriel, originally concieved as a missioner-only toon, grew into a fully fledged Imperialist RP toon before she was even made because that's an avenue I wanted to explore but could not without screwing my older toons over.

If Jesmine joins a corp and gains rights and stealable assets, the CEO of that corp is no more safe from theft than if it was his/her own family playing with that toon - evne if that CEO knows who my 'mains' are (Arivana and Jesmine are both technically alts by the definition of 'alternative character', because BB was the first toon I made and the oldest still in use.) it still won't physically stop me from taking it all and leaving, it only means that he will know what other toons to blame and possibly burn in public. In my point of view, it's better to be honest with who you are as a player, even in RP, and That is exactly what I am doing.

I've never claimed to be an expert in the IC/OOC divide or any kind of brilliant roleplayer, but I have several things I'd love to RP as/with and unless I want to screw my older toons I'll need other toons, due to money availability I can support more than 2. The problem with this is that others use toons beyond their mains to infiltrate other corps in order to steal from/spy on/otherwise mess with, them. This meta-gaming reality, that each player can have several accounts/toons, means I will allways be under suspicion simply because I've got multiple toons - those I play with know who my other toons are simply as a matter of honesty. If they chose not to hire me, that is their choice.

As far as this entire tread is concerned I tried to make my views clear in the previous post - I've no problems with alts or multiple alts in RP, but when you use the trust you have in a corp/alliance/group to steal or spy or whatever you do that betrays that group, you have made a hit against players of toons regardless of if you used alternative toons or you main or you were RP'ing or not. I do believe that using alts to do this to other RP'ers can damage the 'community' - such as it is. Jesmine is an Imperial Amarr. BloodBird is a Federalist Intaki - If Jesmine robs a corp, those corp-members who trusted me will be betrayed and no ammount of RP cover will help. A player will have robbed other players.

With this in mind, in order to maintain open options in RP, 'betrayal' stories can be executed between parties in one out of two ways; If a toon in one camp wants to, say, defect to another, and take some stuff with her, the ONLY way to do this in a way that don't trully betray her co-players on an OOC level is to work the event out OOC and IC, pre-planned. Obviously, if this happens actually taking stuff with you when you leave is out the window, unless an OOC deal is made. The alternative is to have the toon defect suddenly and with a hefty robbery while said toon's at it. This option WILL hurt the toon's (former)co-players regardless of RP justification.

I'm not sure how this issue can or should be adressed, but I think that corp-theft of this nature is impossible to entierly cover in RP ways; someone allways takes the burn, and just as players ripping other players creates rifts between them, so to does it do for RP entities; the excuse is irrelevant to the reality of the act, and there will be damages to one's relations, IC and OOC.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Thanks, scagga. I had god-moding and metagaming mixed up. I won't be able to respond for a bit, but if it's not too much of a bother if you could condense your position into a concise manner we can address them directly rather than swimming through 10 pages and peppering the field with quotes. Or if you prefer I can give my points and you can counter mine. I feel like the heart of the topic is getting lost in other areas.

[scagga]

Or we could take it to voice 

[scagga]

Thanks, scagga. I had god-moding and metagaming mixed up. I won't be able to respond for a bit, but if it's not too much of a bother if you could condense your position into a concise manner we can address them directly rather than swimming through 10 pages and peppering the field with quotes. Or if you prefer I can give my points and you can counter mine. I feel like the heart of the topic is getting lost in other areas.

To address your post:

I do not believe there is a necessity to make my posts more concise.  We are digging into the matter of this debate and it is necessary to raise and address points that are brought up.  It is dishonest and inconsiderate debating style to dodge points made by your opponent because you want to have a 'concise' post. 

We are in a situation where we are both raising many points in our posts.  We are also maintaining, in my view, a good quality of debate.  When quality is high, high quantity is a good thing.

Furthermore, it is important that we are thorough, or efforts are wasted.

If we have an incomplete in our debate, there will be confounding factors that will weaken what conclusions we can draw from the debate.   There will be reason to repeat the debate, and when it is repeated people will quote this debate out of context. 

If we complete this debate, we will be able to then summarise the points raised by each side with their counters, and then any further attempt at debating this topic will have to raise something new.  This preempts and prevents the 'history repeating itself' with the 'hot topic' that repeats itself every few months.

[Hamish Grayson]

I don't always disagree with Scagga, but when I do - he explains to me why I'm wrong.

[Creep]

This is now a discussion on whether using Alts as an extension of your Main (in terms of goals, actions, etc) in RP is 'Ethical/Not-OOC' RPing, c/d?

Because I was hoping for some "betraying my trust!" ragereasonable posts.

And hot damn but you lot can churn out some walls of text.

On the subject of infiltration as RP, I don't use my access to corp hangars/forums/coms for the benefit of my alts, as my infiltrator is primarily in highsec, while my main is a poor lowsec pirate who don't take nobody's charity anyhow.
If my infiltrator had a corp to spy for, there'd probably be spying done for them, just as the profits of my heists would probably be shared amongst them. I've thought about selling info to enemies but I always feel that that would threaten my position in the target corp.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Alright, let's do this.

Roleplaying in EvE is acting within the bounds of certain rules.  If an activity is subject to rules and it can be objectively perceived as to whether those rules are being followed it can be analysed in a scientific manner.  Therefore it can be objectively stated as to whether a form of acting is within the bounds of what roleplaying is.

If we still disagree at this point I suggest we agree on a definition of what roleplaying is before we proceed.

I agree with the Marlon Brando analogy, but I do not see how proving that argument you introduce here links in / adds strength to the point we were discussing.

My point is that quality of acting is not dependent on pre-set rules, but personal taste in the method of an actor, hence why Marlon Brando is loved by many and a big fat slob to others.

In order to achieve a rule-set by which to grade the performance of an actor, one would have to not only define what roleplay is, but what characteristics are defined as good form. For your convenience I have grabbed a definition of roleplay from dictionary.com, found here:

role-play [rohl-pley] –verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

I am not opposed to this idea and its application to EVE's roleplay environment, and might even be lax on the 'in an effort to understand a differing point of view' part, because this is also a game and not purely a story-driven landscape with such a lofty goal. But nevertheless, if you find a more appropriate definition for this feel free to contribute, but for the duration of this post I'll go on the above definition as my compass.

Where I find the matter of contention is in the manner to which we define what characteristics define good form in roleplay. Who decides these characteristics, how are they decided, and how are they regarded as absolute (see 'the truth')? A statement made by you later in this discussion suggests that you prefer a statistical majority as a basis for what is good or bad: "It may not happen every time, but the reality is that it will happen in the overwhelming majority of cases - in fact the only cases I have heard that it hasn't happened in have been raised in this thread."

If your basis for determining good form roleplay in EVE is NOT based on statistical majority, I would be curious to hear it, but my own position would not change regardless. I don't believe anyone, majority or minority has the authority to dictate good or poor form in roleplay, therefore, I could not accept any rule-set dictated by anyone as a basis for determining the quality of one's roleplay without accepting this as personal taste and opinion.

I disagree with your analytical approach on alts.  It goes down the route of justifying means through ends and ends through means.  They are irrelevant if we are looking at comparing an activity against what RP is defined as.

Looking at your example - the true motivations of the alt are known to the player playing the alt and the player playing the main, the person 'hiring' him.  This is a constant in all scenarios of alt infiltration on behalf of a main, and it is this constant that issue has been taken with.

It is entirely possible for an alternate character to share the perspective of a main character.
It is possible for a main character to influence an alternate character.

If you disagree with the two arrowed points I made above, then I can see how you would perceive an unavoidable meta-game scenario. I, however, believe that the two points above can exist on the basis that the player can design a scenario whereby both characters can have a relationship and coordinate in a manner that coincidentally works in the main player's favor. Where I find the ambiguity is in determining whether this is the result of a conscious decision on the part of the player or just a happy coincidence, and ultimately cannot be determined without the acknowledgement of the player to admit to meta-gaming, which refers back to my original point on this.

I have not twisted your words.  You can see for yourself that you only quoted the concluding / summary remarks in my posts that did not provide a rationale or context for the viewpoints you wished to show.  For the reader, such (effective) cherry-picking does not demonstrate what your reply is trying to refute, and can make my own arguments look artificially weak as they are incompletely represented.

I cherry-picked your sentences because you didn't support your viewpoints with any evidence. In my original response about this, i used two quotes:

When infiltration or collusion between your characters is involved it becomes metagaming and poor form.  Otherwise there is no issue.

Creating an alt and using him/her to infiltrate to achieve the objectives of your main is metagaming (usage of OOC knowledge) and is not an ingame tool for RP.  It is part of EvE, not RP.  If you want to RP, metagaming is poor form because it is not part of RP.

Both of which are located in your post located here.

It's a bit hard not to cherry-pick when all you leave is cherries!

I believe the error in your assertion that roleplay with player involvement is at 'variance with good form in RP' is inherently flawed in that the player has a key influence on the character involved.

I don't understand what you mean when you say, 'roleplay with player involvement'.  It doesn't seem to follow, as if I was making an argument for roleplay without player involvement

Talk about cherry-picking, sir! What I said was:

Infiltration is a plausible activity, but the flaw here lies with alts.  While it is fine to have alts and go IC with each of them, I think that it is poor form to use more than one character as major players in the same storyline i.e., you gain an unfair amount of control over factors in the story.

So in that sense, let me give an example I am familiar with... no let's just say corporation x and corporation y.  If someone in corporation x wants to infiltrate corporation y, he rolls up a character, bob, with the express raison d'etre of infiltrating corporation y.  Once the role of bob is complete, bob might be reprocessed, or just relegated to OOC activities.   I view this as at variance with good form in RP.

Realistically, there is never the option that bob will become a double-agent or gain sympathy for his target.  Bob is just skin baggaged over a different IC character, who controls all of his decisions to be unwaveringly in his/her interests.  Bob has nothing to gain from this job, he's a true slave.  I view this as at variance with good form in RP.

Linked, for your satisfaction, and bolded to display your assertions, and underlined to show your example.

I will refute this point by stating simply that you are not capable of predicting Bob's player. Bob's player may gain sympathy for this corporation and in turn allow his alt to become a double agent or gain sympathy for the corporation he is trying to infiltrate. I believe the error in your assertion that roleplay with player involvement is at 'variance with good form in RP' is inherently flawed in that the player has a key influence on the character involved.

My 'evidence' is that I had several such individuals in past corporations admit they joined my corporation to rob me, only later reveal they did not want to because they liked what I had to offer.

In context with what was quoted around the remainder of the text, I was suggesting that the notion that two characters operated by the same player is inherently meta-gaming is an error based on assumption...namely yours of players. You have made the assumption that the player will inevitably use information obtained from one character to an alternate unscrupulously for their own benefit. I would contend that because this there isn't absolute certainty of this that your position lacks reinforcement. Unless of course, you are applying statistical majority ruling? 

My 'evidence' is that I had several such individuals in past corporations admit they joined my corporation to rob me, only later reveal they did not want to because they liked what I had to offer.

Anecdotal evidence.  Do you think that your experiences would happen to the majority of people?  Strong evidence is reproduceable.

I didn't realize that my refutation required weight in number of incidents to validate my point. As far as I'm concerned, evidence contrary to your point is sufficient in disproving it alone. Because you cannot guarantee that such an event happens unanimously, a reliable assumption otherwise cannot be made.

I haven't watched it, but checking the summary, I would think Being John Malkovich is more applicable.

I haven't seen it, but I want to!

This isn't about fairness.  The rules of RP as I interpret them (we are quite surely going to have to define RP) do not imply fairness.  I am categorically stating that the behaviour is poor form because it is at variance with the norms of what RP is.  If I were making an argument for fairness I'd be extending this argument so far we'd never get anywhere.

And obviously we are at yet another crossroads here because while I might be interested in what people consider normal in EVE's roleplay conduit, I would never apply those perspectives as a means to dictate poor or good form. I'm interested in scaggian roleplay, not because it provides me an opportunity to judge your performance but to share perspectives on a hobby we both might share an interest in.

Unless you have acquired intimate knowledge from the player with proof that they have performed an act of infiltration with an ALT with OOC motivations, then it's simply conjecture.

There is a strong prima facie.  As I mentioned previously, the track record supports my viewpoint that the likelihood is high enough to reckon it is the rule rather than the exception.  The onus would be rather on the perpetrator of the action to prove that there wasn't an OOC motivation.

I dunno. Where I'm from, a prosecutor is required to provide evidence of wrong-doing, as opposed to the defendant providing evidence of innocence. A 'perpetrator' of such activity could conceptually design any story desired to manifest a 'plausible' outcome.

Please, let us stay above quoting popular catchphrases and platitudes.

These are crowd-pleasing statements that endear someone to their reader for reasons other than the facts that they are putting into the debate.  The paragraph does not contribute usefully to the debate, except subtlely ridiculing intellect and using layman logic to debunk science (relevant areas emboldened for your reference).  It is not off my radar to consider that some people may be grumbling about possible 'over intellectualisation' of this debate and that is a little wink to them from the ring.

Well, I am sorry you feel this way as it was not intended in the manner that you conjured. Considering the disparity in understanding between us in prior posts, the opportunity to present my perspective through various analogies was an honest attempt to bridge that gap. I apologize if you felt ridiculed by my use of layman's logic, as it was not an attempt at insulting your intelligence. I can tell you're a smart guy. 

I don't care what the public thinks when I am looking for truth, and what the public thinks does not change what truth is (except in practise).  It should not influence what IC and OOC are, because we are judging against our plumbline; what roleplay is.

That was kinda my point- if the public perceives OOC wrongdoing as IC fodder in practice then you're up shit-creek.

Of course one can pretend none of it happened, just like one can pretend that no OOC hate happened when they return to interacting IC.  We don't have to force ourselves to drink from the pool someone proverbially pissed in with their OOC antics, we can ignore them and move to a place clean of them with a clear conscience

Fair enough.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

As an aside from the....  ...with Scagga, one of my first experiences in EVE roleplay involved an alt infiltrator. As a fledgling CEO of the Glamour Bunnies, I was running lots of basic events on the Summit ranging from the GLB Beauty Test to a program to helping the homeless, just fluff stuff mostly. At the time I was trying to build awareness for the corporation and grow our member base, and things were trucking along rather splendid. I was discussing one project in particular in corp chat with the entire gang (OOCly of course), and the next thing I discover my chat-log being posted on the forums for all to see that would have significantly impacted my character's reputation. In fact, I think Tomahawk Bliss and others were threatening to declare war on us over it.

As a player, I was pissed off. The character, while overplayed and a bit too obvious in retrospect, was a trusted member of the family so to speak, and it stung a bit that someone could do that. I think I even posted stuff in ((OOC)) on the IGS (naughty me!) in response, stating that it broke that IC/OOC barrier. But realizing that regardless of how it was divulged, the information was out now and there wasn't much I could do but damage control, so I altered the logs to work in my favor and posted them as if to discredit the thief. It then became a question of he said/she said, as no one from my own corp was going to lift a finger to support the betrayer's position. Toma wanted blood, but Jericho Fraction stepped in and dissuaded him from pursuing the matter. That was how I met the Jericho Fraction people and from there all sorts of other craziness happened.

It may not have been 'good rp' but the result made some memorable situations.

[Lyn Farel]

Yeah yeah, sure. My deepest and most sincere apologies for not bothering to quotefest for five pages just to refute plain statements that never had any support underneath them except your own opinions. You keep saying "Alts are mere extensions of the main." You don't back that up, you don't support it, you just state it and expect it to be taken as some sort of godgiven truth. I am of a different opinion, since... well, you know, I'm a roleplayer and thus capable of playing a role.

They're different opinions. You have nothing to support your own arguments, beyond opinion. The same applies to my own statements here.

Lyn: Harmful to the community requires a definition of 'community' I don't adhere to. We're not one singular community that would live happily ever after, dancing in a field of green and singing Viva la Vida Loca if it hadn't been for those pesky people daring to play the game. There's at least a hundred different camps within the 'community' and they're at each other's throats at all times. That some people will get pissed at each other and start using the block button or whatever is a given, no matter what. In fact, I've witnessed dozens of such events, if not more, in the time I've played Eve and they never had to be infiltration related.

You want to know how many infiltration related 'bad blood' scenarios there are out there? I don't know, to be quite honest, because they're few and far between. Infiltration isn't some sort of massive 'scourge on the RP community' nor does it do anywhere near as much damage as a single RPer going "lol" in OoC at someone else. I don't consider a few OoC bad feelings between a few individuals to be harmful to the community at all... because we've never been capable of peaceful coexistence to begin with.

If people find themselves at odds because of infiltration, then it's a damn nice boon for the 'community' because that means incompatible people are distancing themselves from each other and get to (in time) live happily ever after with people they just might be compatible with.

I was speaking of the RP community. I suggest you to review my posts. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of reading or due to language limitations.

Unless, of course, you were really refering to the RP community too, instead of the whole eve community (again as I said, I don't give a crap about). If we are not a happy RP community living together, well, thank you for clarifying that then. This is unfortunate, but I do not RP with players that are OOC enemies. Characters can be, but as a player I do not want to play this game to bicker with other players, my toons are here for that, and it is much more fun.

In any case, infiltrations usually cause bad blood, we all can agree on that. Bad blood between several people of the same community tends to destroy the community. I did not imply anything more. [edit : in the case of a happy all lovey RP community, the eve community in general is ofc not that]

[scagga]

As we move towards more structured debate, I will need to divide my posts to help the reader follow their content more easily.

On defining Roleplaying

My point is that quality of acting is not dependent on pre-set rules, but personal taste in the method of an actor, hence why Marlon Brando is loved by many and a big fat slob to others.

In order to achieve a rule-set by which to grade the performance of an actor, one would have to not only define what roleplay is, but what characteristics are defined as good form.

I think and agree that this point can best be resolved after acquisition of mutually agreed definitions of roleplay and good form, for my argument did not focus on assessing the 'quality' of the acting, but whether the acting could 'qualify' as RP.  Certain behaviours purported to be RP cannot be considered RP if the definition is to be respected.

So, moving swiftly on, I shall comment on your definition.

For your convenience I have grabbed a definition of roleplay from dictionary.com, found
here:
role-play [rohl-pley] –verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

This definition of roleplaying is a general definition, such as the type one experiences when partaking of a simulated communications skill scenario.  It is not directed towards roleplaying games.  I would therefore suggest that it is not an appropriate definition.

But nevertheless, if you find a more appropriate definition for this feel free to contribute, but for the duration of this post I'll go on the above definition as my compass.

This is a definition that I feel is appropriate, because it frames roleplaying as a game rather than a general activity.  I have emboldened the most relevant paragraph.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2]

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the pen-and-paper RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters' actions.[3] In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used and acts as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.[4]

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, including multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and whose capabilities advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with pen-and-paper RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling.[5][6]

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games and wargames that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.[7] The term is also sometimes used to describe roleplay simulation games and exercises used in teaching, training, and academic research.

I shall await your comment on this definition before using it meaningfully for the next logical steps to take with it.

[scagga]

Where I find the matter of contention is in the manner to which we define what characteristics define good form in roleplay. Who decides these characteristics, how are they decided, and how are they regarded as absolute (see 'the truth')?

On defining good form

Good form
Generally speaking, the basis that is used to define 'good form' is how closely a behaviour is in keeping with the definition and guidelines of what roleplaying is.  If a behaviour is in keeping with what roleplaying is, based on its definition, it can qualify as roleplaying.  If it [behaviour] adheres to the guidelines of roleplaying behaviour, it is good form. 

Poor form
Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliance with the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this deviant behaviour is in poor form. 
Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliant with what the definition of roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying'.
Where behaviour is not compatible with either the definition or the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying',  as well as in poor form if it is intended that the behaviour be seen as roleplaying.

These are standpoints based on logic i.e.
If something does not qualify according to a definition, if can be considered as not-that-definition.
If something tries to be something that can be defined by criteria and falls short of them, it is a poor qualifier.
And a point of view that disagrees does not change that unless it can refute the logic.

A statement made by you later in this discussion suggests that you prefer a statistical majority as a basis for what is good or bad: "It may not happen every time, but the reality is that it will happen in the overwhelming majority of cases - in fact the only cases I have heard that it hasn't happened in have been raised in this thread."

If your basis for determining good form roleplay in EVE is NOT based on statistical majority, I would be curious to hear it, but my own position would not change regardless. I don't believe anyone, majority or minority has the authority to dictate good or poor form in roleplay, therefore, I could not accept any rule-set dictated by anyone as a basis for determining the quality of one's roleplay without accepting this as personal taste and opinion.

I did not use a statistical argument as the basis to develop my views, I used them as additional evidence that my views are true.   

My views are not based in statistics.  In the context of my statement, I referenced the fact that, while there is a wide variance in playstyles, the facts on the ground support my views and they do not support your views.  That is to say, in a given scenario in EvE, people are so likely to engage in OOC behaviour that the onus is on them prove that they aren't.

I of course agree, and I believe I have already made it explicit, that no majority or minority is granted the right to be the sole arbiter of what good or bad form is.  Anyone is free to look at the facts and assess them. 

However, there are going to be many answers people come up with, and as fair-minded people we must, putting aside our own baggage, assess each for the weight of evidence behind them.  Afterwards we then move to accept the answer that is most likely to be true.  Alternatively, answers can be spliced to absorb their various truths, becoming a hybrid answer of most evidential worth.

Personal taste and opinion has nothing to do with being correct.  Personal taste and opinion has a function to placate the ego; it does not add significant weight to what is correct and what is incorrect in a debate based on facts and definitions.  It only gives an excuse for why people prefer to do things in a suboptimal manner.

[scagga]

Miscellany.

It is entirely possible for an alternate character to share the perspective of a main character.
It is possible for a main character to influence an alternate character.

If you disagree with the two arrowed points I made above, then I can see how you would perceive an unavoidable meta-game scenario. I, however, believe that the two points above can exist on the basis that the player can design a scenario whereby both characters can have a relationship and coordinate in a manner that coincidentally works in the main player's favor.

Both of the arrowed points are correct in terms of logic, however they are not relevant points, and cannot form the basis of a counterargument because they do not address the issues that  I have raised with alt infiltration.

I have already outlined that coincidence is a naive suggestion, and that as it is a conscious decision (alt infiltration) made by the player, that coincidence is not a viable suggestion (see below).

Where I find the ambiguity is in determining whether this is the result of a conscious decision on the part of the player or just a happy coincidence, and ultimately cannot be determined without the acknowledgement of the player to admit to meta-gaming, which refers back to my original point on this.

In a competitive game, where a player is playing to 'win', I don't see much mileage in an argument that someone can consciously accidentally (coincidentally) put themselves in a position of uncontestable advantage, knowing well that the result of their action will most likely be much to the distate of their opponent, unless that is an eventuality that they have no issue with, as well as entering the metagame.

I was suggesting that the notion that two characters operated by the same player is inherently meta-gaming is an error based on assumption...namely yours of players. You have made the assumption that the player will inevitably use information obtained from one character to an alternate unscrupulously for their own benefit. I would contend that because this there isn't absolute certainty of this that your position lacks reinforcement. Unless of course, you are applying statistical majority ruling? 

There is a degree of common sense that I'm asking for here.  As I have mentioned, we know quite well that EvE is a competitive game.  A player is aware of and controls every decision that their characters make.   A player has his or her objectives in EvE, and will gravitate towards an activity that they enjoy.   If the objectives of the various characters that a players plays are the same, then they are effectively the objectives of the same player.  If the alt is infiltrating for the main, the alt is achieving the objectives of the main, which are both the objective of the player.  The player is aware of and is using information within the story that they exclusively know through OOC means, i.e. usage of   This is metagaming, by definition. 

It explicitly meets the definition of metagaming through these criteria that I previously quoted in the definition of metagaming:

- Gaining knowledge from Out-Of Character.
....
- Acting on any knowledge that the character is not aware of (such as creating gunpowder in a Dark Ages or Middle Ages setting).
.....
- Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave.
- Any action that is based upon the knowledge that one is playing a game.

More common sense - in reply to your assertion that I 'assume' that people who infiltrate their alts for their mains are playing extensions of their mains.

When you discover that someone has entered your residence without your permission late at night, wearing a disguise and carrying a sex implement, maintaining a menacing posture towards you, do you gain the impression that this person has good intentions towards you?  There is the remote possibility the person has them, but it would be considered inhumanly stupid to consider that option when the evidence to the contrary is so pressing.  Likewise, you say I assume, but I have laid out that the evidence supporting my views is strong enough to discount the exceptions.  Knocking my argument on the basis of 'assumption' is not undoing the reasons I have described that make it convincing.

My 'evidence' is that I had several such individuals in past corporations admit they joined my corporation to rob me, only later reveal they did not want to because they liked what I had to offer.

Anecdotal evidence.  Do you think that your experiences would happen to the majority of people?  Strong evidence is reproduceable.

I didn't realize that my refutation required weight in number of incidents to validate my point. As far as I'm concerned, evidence contrary to your point is sufficient in disproving it alone. Because you cannot guarantee that such an event happens unanimously, a reliable assumption otherwise cannot be made.

I am shocked and disappointed by your statement.  It is so out of keeping with your other points.

Weight is an ubiquitous factor to consider when presented with evidence.  Would you really want me to believe that you do not weigh up the strength of evidence in your everyday life?  Do you really believe that one scenario where there was variation from the expected outcome means that the rule is wrong?  Do you for instance believe that one person wrongly convicted means that an entire judicial system is flawed?

Reference for common fallacies in arguments:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
For a longer read on evidence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK33881/

And obviously we are at yet another crossroads here because while I might be interested in what people consider normal in EVE's roleplay conduit, I would never apply those perspectives as a means to dictate poor or good form. I'm interested in scaggian roleplay, not because it provides me an opportunity to judge your performance but to share perspectives on a hobby we both might share an interest in.

We can achieve that through an agreed definition on what roleplaying is.

I dunno. Where I'm from, a prosecutor is required to provide evidence of wrong-doing, as opposed to the defendant providing evidence of innocence. A 'perpetrator' of such activity could conceptually design any story desired to manifest a 'plausible' outcome.

There is no innocence in being found in certain situations.  You don't have to commit a crime to be guilty of something.  That is why there are certain broader rules, for instance, not loitering in certain places, going to terrorist camps, etc.

[Inara Subaka]

Damn you Scagga  Now you're putting together posts that I can reasonably reply to again rather than reiteration of the same opinions.

Lettering mine:

On defining good form

Good form
I. Generally speaking, the basis that is used to define 'good form' is how closely a behaviour is in keeping with the definition and guidelines of what roleplaying is.  If a behaviour is in keeping with what roleplaying is, based on its definition, it can qualify as roleplaying.  If it [behaviour] adheres to the guidelines of roleplaying behaviour, it is good form. 

Poor form
A. Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliance with the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this deviant behaviour is in poor form. 
B. Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliant with what the definition of roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying'.
C. Where behaviour is not compatible with either the definition or the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying',  as well as in poor form if it is intended that the behaviour be seen as roleplaying.

I. Player(s) controlling character(s) for the purposes of creating stories via interaction of the character(s). Is this a viable "shortened" version of the long definition of Roleplay for you? I'm going to be using this as the basis for the rest of my points, so I hope so.

Comparing 'Infiltration RP' to the list of poor form listings:
A. All characters are controlled by players for the purposes of creating a storyline, in a free-form RP environment (no dice or GM system), influenced by all sides... No Problem.
B. As all characters are playing their 'part' in the storyline that is being created, all characters provide a unique 'element' to the equation of the story and are being roleplayed. No Problem.
C. Reiteration and compilation of points A and B in fancy words. No Problem.

I was suggesting that the notion that two characters operated by the same player is inherently meta-gaming is an error based on assumption...namely yours of players. You have made the assumption that the player will inevitably use information obtained from one character to an alternate unscrupulously for their own benefit. I would contend that because this there isn't absolute certainty of this that your position lacks reinforcement. Unless of course, you are applying statistical majority ruling? 

There is a degree of common sense that I'm asking for here.  As I have mentioned, we know quite well that EvE is a competitive game.  A player is aware of and controls every decision that their characters make.   A player has his or her objectives in EvE, and will gravitate towards an activity that they enjoy.   If the objectives of the various characters that a players plays are the same, then they are effectively the objectives of the same player.  If the alt is infiltrating for the main, the alt is achieving the objectives of the main, which are both the objective of the player.  The player is aware of and is using information within the story that they exclusively know through OOC means, i.e. usage of   This is metagaming, by definition. 

You're making the assumption that all information that I(player) knows is known by Inara(character) and MiscellaneousOther(character) that are controlled by me(player). Example of this being incorrect: I(player) know that the EVE Gate is a wormhole to Earth(and it's civilization in the local 'cluster') that collapsed stranding people in New Eden several thousands of years ago... None of my ingame personalities(characters) know this information, and will likely never know this information. I also have a character in <redacted>, this character has information that would be really nice for Inara to have... but the two characters have never met, and have no reason to ever interact for that information to be transferred; because of this, Inara will (likely) never be in a situation to act on said information. I know of <person> doing business with <enemy of their declared allegiance> due to OOC information, but again have very few channels in which Inara would be able to acquire that information.

This is the exact opposite of metagaming, by definition.

Again lettering mine:

It explicitly meets the definition of metagaming through these criteria that I previously quoted in the definition of metagaming:

A. - Gaining knowledge from Out-Of Character.
....
B. - Acting on any knowledge that the character is not aware of (such as creating gunpowder in a Dark Ages or Middle Ages setting).
.....
C. - Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave.
D. - Any action that is based upon the knowledge that one is playing a game.

E. More common sense - in reply to your assertion that I 'assume' that people who infiltrate their alts for their mains are playing extensions of their mains.

A. Gaining knowledge from Out-of Character information is very much metagaming... gaining knowledge from one character giving the knowledge to another character is not. Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming.
B. Infiltration is not a new set of skills in the EVE universe setting (infact it is likely comparable to throwing rocks from a castle wall in a dark/middle ages setting). Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming.
C. Definitely Meta-gaming if the character is not RolePlayed as making those decisions, however irrelevant if the character is doing as they would actually behave. I(player) don't fire on people near gates in lowsec while flying a frigate because game mechanics would cause me to (likely) lose that frigate... but that doesn't make it meta-gaming simply because of that, because Inara(character) would not make the choice to attack someone near a lowsec gate while flying a frigate because of IC knowledge and choices. Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming, however I will concede that making decisions that do not fit the character's personality for the betterment of the situation based on OOC information would be Meta-Gaming.
D. IC there's no acknowledgement that New Eden is a game, Inara(character) and MiscellaneousAlts(characters) do not view these situations as a game but as their existance (this is part of what roleplaying is). Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming.
E. You are making an assumption based on your experience you have had and stories you have heard, when I've given facts and situations (with some details left out to preserve some information from leaking) in which your claim that all infiltration alts are extensions of the main character.

When you discover that someone has entered your residence without your permission late at night, wearing a disguise and carrying a sex implement, maintaining a menacing posture towards you, do you gain the impression that this person has good intentions towards you?  There is the remote possibility the person has them, but it would be considered inhumanly stupid to consider that option when the evidence to the contrary is so pressing.

. . . *got confused by relation to stranger and sex toys in the middle of the night* Moving on.

Likewise, you say I assume, but I have laid out that the evidence supporting my views is strong enough to discount the exceptions.  Knocking my argument on the basis of 'assumption' is not undoing the reasons I have described that make it convincing.

You have laid out evidence supporting your views that is strong enough to have an opinion, but nothing that is strong enough to maintain that all Infiltration RP with a second(or third, or fourth) character is poor form in all cases. You have very good reason to hold the opinion you do if the only experience you've had with Infiltration RP from non-primary characters has been nothing more than extensions of the primary character.

I'm going to put this in an extreme hyperbole: I get stabbed by someone at a bar. My opinion is that all people who carry knives at bars are going to stab someone.

Obviously, this is an opinion. One that most (sane) people would disagree with, but it would be my opinion based on my experience nonetheless.

Anecdotal evidence.  Do you think that your experiences would happen to the majority of people?  Strong evidence is reproduceable.

Majority statistics do not carry weight (according to your words). However, how many reproduced situations would you require to accept that it is more than anecdotal evidence? I have a sizable list to go through that shows that there's a rather large pool of Infiltration RP done with non-primary characters that is not extensions of the primary character.

I'm going to claim that all cases of alts being used as extensions of a main for the purposes of gaining intelligence without RPing the situation are Anecdotal Evidence, because in my experience that is the minority situation. I demand reproducible evidence that a majority of alt-infiltration is done on an RP level as nothing more than an extension of the main. (this paragraph is intentionally stated in the way it is for the purposes of showing how the opposite statement sounds... rather silly )


TL;DR - Scagga, your opinion is a valid one. There are a number of situations where people infiltrate on an RP level (or without RP at all) as nothing more than an extension of their main. But, this does not make it a rule that all infiltrations must follow, especially in an RP environment.

[Merdaneth]

You're making the assumption that all information that I(player) knows is known by Inara(character) and MiscellaneousOther(character) that are controlled by me(player). Example of this being incorrect: I(player) know that the EVE Gate is a wormhole to Earth(and it's civilization in the local 'cluster') that collapsed stranding people in New Eden several thousands of years ago... None of my ingame personalities(characters) know this information, and will likely never know this information.

Ah, but Inara, the trick here is, your try to have your characters pretend to know they don't know some information, but if the information is already there in your head, I think it is extremely hard to do so. And once the stakes get higher, it becomes harder.

If you know OOC there is a spy in your corp, but not IC, it will be extremely hard to make security decisions. Will I put my faction BS in the corp hangar where the spy has access to or not? The human brain is fairly associative in nature, your ability to make character decision is hampered by knowledge that your character doesn't have.