Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Ghost Hunter on 04 Jul 2013, 14:35
-
This topic is for the discussion on the roleplayer OOC/IC Divide, its relationship with Corporate Security and the Spy Metagame.
Please be mindful of your position taking on this subject, as it is volatile.
To serve as a discussion starter : define the OOC/IC border as you understand it, and then consider why someone who spies may be one IC, or why they might be OOC instead.
-
I'd like to repost from the deleted thread as I believe it works for this one:
My character is loyal, moral, and dependable. I'm capricious.
My character views stealing from her corp as actual theft. She sees her corp as serving a vital function in the area. I can't see stealing a Vindicator as equivalent to stealing person's car in real life, let alone a top-of-the-line military ship. I understand my corp is a group of people who want to have some fun playing a game - they are not actually supporting a company that employs billions or protecting the good people of Syndicate from pirates.
Wouldn't the emphasis on OOC/OOG elements be more harmful than helpful?
-
So. Imagine a situation with the following qualifiers:
- Esna has an IC enemy. IC, Esna wants to demolish them any way he can.
- A suitable candidate to be the spy can be found via IC means, either sponsorship through the capsuleer school, some debt owed to Esna's House, or plain old bribery with staggering volumes of ISK to a young pilot.
- The spy is inserted into a target corp and, after some time, is ordered by Esna to burn himself and extract a target of signifiant RP or raw ISK value.
- After this, the spy toon either goes on to function as some other purpose - RP alt, ISK-making alt, sold on the Character Bazaar, or simply allowed to lapse. The last may be problematic, as it may violate CCP's rules regarding disposable alts and "grief tactics".
From a purely IC perspective, this is a cut-and-dry situation: Esna has recruited an agent, sent him in, and achieved his goal without using metagamed aid.
Arguement against, #1:
- This represents a breach of the OOC etiquette of the community, as while we love making nasty face and being rude to each other IC, we ultimately play the game to be fun for ourselves and for our others. Actions such as this erode the foundations of an OOC-friendly community by breaching the assumed OOC trust one creates upon bringing someone into a corp.
Counterargument #1:
- IC confrontation between truly hostile, vicious enemies will naturally include some elements which the 'loosing player' feels were not fair, and they may become upset about OOC. Be they certain 'unbeatable' fittings or fleet setups, neutral scouts, blobbing, or other tactics, there will always be someone feeling that an attacker is out to destroy not just their IC operations, but their OOC fun. We do not generally exclude people from the community for any of the above. Should spycraft be regarded any differently?
Argument against, #2:
- Spycraft claims to be purely IC, but often includes several elements of OOC-leaked-IC metagame that cannot be avoided. For instance, the background checks performed on a new recruit - which in a real universe, might bring up something - will not bring up anything unless the applicant (the spy) says something. At the same time, because of this exact fact, no sane spy player will ever deliberately hand off information that could blow their op. Therefore, there is OOC leakage and the victims do not have a fair chance; see argument #1
Counterarguement #2:
- While the above is entirely true, it is also pervasive in hostile RP. Hostile organizations are not, for instance, in the habit of giving OOC hints as to where, when, and with what composition they are going to strike next. This might be revealed with in-universe means, but because the OOC nature of the game leaks through there is no chance for this to happen. Again, should spycraft be treated any differently?
Discuss.
-
All good points, Esna.
It's probably pretty obvious from my responses in the old thread that I make a big distinction between IC and OOC actions in this game, especially where alts are concerned. While I have alts, for instance, I take pains to make sure that they're not operating simply as alts for the benefit of Shin: Dakki is CEO of the corporation that manages Shin's money, which results in a steady flow of isk to Dakki - he's got the skill for it, so it provides a good passive income for him while also performing a service for Shin. Anu, my newest alt, has basically no interaction with Shin.
Spy alts are probably the area where the IC/OOC divide stands the starkest. Fully on the OOC side would be the true disposable spy alt: You create an alt specifically to infiltrate some organization. Once their job is done, you're done with the alt. If there's a corp theft involved, the spy alt typically gives all the loot back to your main (or some other character).
The fully IC equivalent of that would be a situation where the spy is played by someone else. You've taken pains to find another player and recruit them to operate as a spy. They do so because they're getting some advantage out of it, some payoff. If there's a corp theft involved, they keep some or all of the loot.
Your example sits somewhere in the middle, Esna. The spy is an alt, but you're trying to make sure that the spy has an IC reason to do what they're doing. I'd argue that you'd have to behave very carefully in order to avoid it turning into a pure OOC "spy alt" situation. For example, while it's certainly feasible that they're doing this service for Esna because of a debt owed, it's too easy to simply say "they're doing this service for Esna because of a debt owed - there! Justified! Now, onward, loyal spy alt!". There's less of a problem with situations like "Esna is paying the spy alt a metric shit-ton of isk to do this", so long as Esna is actually paying said isk to the alt.
The tricky bit is that the spy alt, ICly, is taking on a significant lifetime risk. People ICly hate spies, and corp thieves. If you want the spy alt to perpetrate a corp theft, it's going to become pretty obvious to the people in the corp that the perpetrator is the spy alt. This is something that ICly would follow that person around and limit the things that they can do in the future. They're a capsuleer. They have the potential to live a long time and become very powerful. They would need a powerful reason why they would risk some of that.
I'm not saying it's imposible to do a spy alt without metagaming, just that it's difficult. If you want to run spy alts without appearing to metagame, the onus would be entirely on you to make sure there's not a hint of anything that someone could point to.
Which, ultimately, is why Shin has relied on actual IC recruiting of actual other players to do the couple of cases of spying she's needed done.
Besides, it's a hell of a lot of fun to do that! :D
-
Makkal:
The emphasis on OOC/OOG isn't one that aims at security in regards of spying/corp theft etc., rather it is aiming at shaping the game environment. I'd understand it as getting together with people who're OOG deciding to play the game together and hammer out their niche in the sandbox that EVE is supposed to be.
That is an OOG decision, imho, and it usually includes that if one enters that contract, that one doesn't turn on it and does corp thievery.
-
I've been reading the thread while trying to figure out where my feelings fall on the matter.
From a purely OOC point-of-view: EVE, and and other mmos, all seem to have a blurry area between IC/OOC boundaries and for some people (and I include myself in this) trust can be a hard thing to separate. The collaborative style of storytelling that happens (at least what I have been involved with and have seen) requires players trusting players and sometimes that trust extends into the character; so when player A's character stabs player B's character in the back (strictly in game), player B may still feel betrayed OOC. There have been suggestions on how to work around that...the two players sitting down strictly OOC and discussing a story arc or even just a scene that might be neat. Unfortunately, with something that's supposed to be 'sneaky' like corp theft it becomes more difficult. Not impossible, but tricky to workout, mostly because a corp theft is not just stabbing player B in the back, but players C-Z as well.
From an IC point-of-view: Steff is naive and unless shown otherwise, tends to hope for the best when dealing with other characters (even if I the player have a 'this can't be good' feel about the situation, Steff wouldn't necessarily have the same reaction, unless she'd been exposed to it before). This has gotten her into a couple of bad situations already and taken advantage of once. IC, she will have nothing to do with those characters again unless it was at some formal gathering and then she would tolerate their presence. I, the player, have gotten upset with only myself for falling down those holes and have no real hard feelings towards the players of those characters. Heck, I would likely interact with those characters with another character that isn't Steff; but I cannot deny the fact that I am going to be more cautious due to the whole 'once-bite-twice-shy'.
In trying to setup a mainly RP-corp, I have been thinking about these things and how I would handle a situation if there was a corp heist. IC, I'd have nothing to do with the thief and might even go for retribution. OOC...I'm not sure. I would like to think that I could keep it separate, but due to my own personality, I would feel at the very least slightly betrayed and it might take some time before I could shrug it off, but I'm also one not to hold grudges for very long. I'd be mostly pissed at myself and then trying to figure out how to compensate corp members for any of their losses.
-
The problem with Corp Thievery is that it isn't a solely IC event - simply because Corpmates also have an OOC relationship. Most Corps conduct OOC interviews before letting a new member in. Pretty much ALL PvP corps conduct lots of business on their Teamspeak server in order to run Ops and so forth.
If Corp thefts were REALLY solely IC then those characters planning to do them should be able to mention that during the OOC portion of their interview, right? No. Thought not.
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
-
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
Not telling a player something none of their characters could know isn't "OOC." I'd go so far as to call it good mental hygiene. In fact, if you care a great deal about a strict IC/OOC divide, it's the almost guaranteed denial, kick, or restriction of roles if the player tells you that's a breach of it - altered behaviour as a result of information you don't have IC access to.
Please don't use "OOC" as a synonym for "bad."
-
I think ya'll are looking for a bit too much out of the IC/OOC divide. RP in EVE isnt (or at least, shouldnt) be divorced from the rest of the game. Corp theft is not only an everyday part of the game, part of the PF (from TBL), its literally an advertised feature of the game, complete with its own trailer. Its part of what EVE is.
Wanting OOC heads up for doing things...well...why? Corp theft is PVP, just like everything else. I certainly dont tell say the Amarrian bloc when and where we plan on taking a fleet into the FW warzone to blow up their pixels, why would I do such a thing if Im playing a thief or spy?
As for characters never being IC, Ive actually seen plenty of incidents where this isnt the case. When I was in EM, I can think of one example where we used a spy in an enemy alliance during a long running war (like 7 months or so), and that spy actually reported back IC, which was really freaking cool, tbh.
If there are hurt feelings involved, thats understandable. But there are hurt feelings in anything PVP related. In short, I want to RP in a brutal, competitive, ruthless universe where youre constantly on guard and only the strong survive. Its what EVE and the PF around it have always been about. I dont hold it against players who play corp thieves or spies, though I certainly wouldnt trust them with a director role either.
-
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
This kind of brings up something I discussed in my first post.
If I am planning to invade some RPer's territory, or gank their next supply convoy - is that something I'd mention OOC to them? "Hey FYI guys, just gonna have fun shooting you up in a couple minutes, even though you didn't know!" No, it really isn't. Are my actions now "OOC"? Even if performing those same actions makes absolute perfect sense in character?
[Some very good points.]
Ooooh. Okay, good points there, Shin. The depth to which an RP alt is fleshed out - both during and after the theft - would be something that could be considered very critical. I agree with you, the temptation to say "Oh, I'm paying him oodles of money, of course!" (and then of course give the character nothing in practice) is quite real. I admit that after thinking it over, I cannot say that I would know what to do with a character after a corp theft was done - I frankly don't have the time to operate an entire second "full-time" character - the temptation would be, short of dropping the character, to just stick him in training for a dreadnought or something 10 months down the line and otherwise not do anything...
I'd appreciate some others' thoughts on this: Would it change your opinion if the "spy/thief" was developed out into a full-scale, separate character after the theft or spying was done? What if you were the victim in the exchange? Would you ever be able to view the character as something else than "X's spy alt"?
-
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
I find out and know a whole pile of stuff that
Not telling a player something none of their characters could know isn't "OOC." I'd go so far as to call it good mental hygiene. In fact, if you care a great deal about a strict IC/OOC divide, it's the almost guaranteed denial, kick, or restriction of roles if the player tells you that's a breach of it - altered behaviour as a result of information you don't have IC access to.
Please don't use "OOC" as a synonym for "bad."
And the rest of the point? About the balance of IC/OOC relationships in most corporations - even RP ones? I'm not talking about not revealing IC information that doesn't concern someones character to them, I'm talking about taking IC actions that affect someone elses character without clearing it with them. Essentially it's Godmodding.
Unless, of course, it's just part of the game, in which case it's OOC and you're doing it to the player NOT their character.
-
*tries not to salivate*
-
I'm not talking about not revealing IC information that doesn't concern someones character to them, I'm talking about taking IC actions that affect someone elses character without clearing it with them. Essentially it's Godmodding.
I'm going to disagree. Keeping information from a player is not god-modding.
Say I go to have dinner with someone at their estate and they decide they're going to put the grounds on lock-down and have the guards attack me. They don't need to tell me beforehand that's what they plan to do.
Oh, it's nice, but it's not necessary.
-
And the rest of the point? About the balance of IC/OOC relationships in most corporations - even RP ones? I'm not talking about not revealing IC information that doesn't concern someones character to them, I'm talking about taking IC actions that affect someone elses character without clearing it with them. Essentially it's Godmodding.
Unless, of course, it's just part of the game, in which case it's OOC and you're doing it to the player NOT their character.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy; there are IC actions that aren't consensual, or always pleasing OOCly to the people involved. What makes them not entirely OOC or god-moding bullshit is that they're adjudicated by a mechanic of some sort that has IC repercussions. Ship combat comes to mind. The crappy hangar access system is less sophisticated, admittedly, but it's still hard to deny that characters have access to certain things, and might actually abscond with them.
Just because something makes you feel horribly betrayed OOC does not somehow automatically invalidate the action as not-RP.
-
There's a difference between hiding information and hiding actions - but I'm really not tied up in it being 'god modding'.
I still maintain that an action taken against the members of your own Corp is taken as much OOC as IC. But then I also see PvP as being essentially OOC too.
-
As it has been explain to me that "canon" includes IG mechanics (ex. Someone can not shoot at a station for RP reasons and hurt nonexietent baseliners and not cause present capsuleer ANY REAL OOC STRESS IN REGARDS TO CLONES WHATSOEVER) I'm confused. RP doesn't "hurt" anyone in the long run in regards to ISK, regardless of what mental havok you wreak on their toon.
So if there is going to be an IC/OOC divide in mechanically possible issues, but not in mechanical IMPOSSIBLE issues... it was explained to me (aka blatantly drilled into my head) game mechanics are essentially canon. it is mechanically possible to execute a corp theft.. I need a stronger explanation that "It's mean."
Call me Devil's Advocate today....
An edit and TL:DRness.... what si more important.. in IC action that could imalct/destroy a toon? Or a game mechanic/ISK thing hat would implact them"OOC" iskly?
-
P.S. Morwen is taking me to school OOCly in TS as to how it happened (as known)... stand by.. :D
EDIT: K, explained! But TL:DR question still applies :)
-
Corp theft is a perfectly valid part of the game, yeah. As for whether or not its IC or OOC...well, there's always some OOC component to anything done IC, right? We guide our characters in certain directions because it pleases us as players to do so, even if the way in which do so a hands-off "let the character develop naturally" approach; we engage in roleplay because it is something we enjoy.
So regardless of whether or not a thief/spy is remarkably well fleshed out we have to acknowledge at least some OOC component to any action taken. As for whether or not the player of a spy/thief character who engages in thievery within the EVE Online meta can be trusted in the future...well, it depends on the player! This is EVE, and people have been known to lay dormant for years in order to ruin a corp/alliance from the inside. I'd say unless I met the player in real life and discussed spaceships over a drink or two, I wouldn't be able to trust them in the future in regards to corp membership/asset access.
-
To explain what I said to Arista: as far as I know, the incident that spawned this discussion involved a player using a RL friendship with another player to gain access to a corporation, rather than getting in entirely or even primarily through IC connections.
Which, to me, means it doesn't matter how you try to paint it, the subsequent theft was entirely an OOC act.
-
Guys, uhh, shut up for your own good, and delete this thread completely. Advertising how badly you might be affected by a corp theft on an emotional level is the *worst thing* you could do right now. Worst worst worst. You're attracting attention you don't want. Please heed warning, I only issue one and will delete it shortly myself.
Delete the other tread too.
-
Guys, uhh, shut up for your own good, and delete this thread completely. Advertising how badly you might be affected by a corp theft on an emotional level is the *worst thing* you could do right now. Worst worst worst. You're attracting attention you don't want. Please heed warning, I only issue one and will delete it shortly myself.
Delete the other tread too.
lol.
-
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
I find out and know a whole pile of stuff that
Not telling a player something none of their characters could know isn't "OOC." I'd go so far as to call it good mental hygiene. In fact, if you care a great deal about a strict IC/OOC divide, it's the almost guaranteed denial, kick, or restriction of roles if the player tells you that's a breach of it - altered behaviour as a result of information you don't have IC access to.
Please don't use "OOC" as a synonym for "bad."
And the rest of the point? About the balance of IC/OOC relationships in most corporations - even RP ones? I'm not talking about not revealing IC information that doesn't concern someones character to them, I'm talking about taking IC actions that affect someone elses character without clearing it with them. Essentially it's Godmodding.
Unless, of course, it's just part of the game, in which case it's OOC and you're doing it to the player NOT their character.
I wouldn't consider it godmoding any more than any other sort of non-consensual PvP. Also, the coin has two sides. If you want to be an IC corp thief, but you know that if you mention it OOC you will be kicked/rejected, and you keep it from the recruiter - is that you crossing some line by not telling them, or them crossing a line by reacting in an OOC way? Should they be obliged to recruit you anyway as long as you don't say anything IC? Maybe in some pure RP utopia, but realistically it makes much more sense to simply not bring it up. That is why in many more traditional roleplay settings all players are not given all the information. You do not announce the betrayal your character is planning once you all reach the treasure to all the other players at the start of the dungeon, as it were. The DM has a screen. If we all knew the story everyone else was going to tell from the beginning, it wouldn't be much of a story.
You aren't forcing them to recruit you. You aren't forcing them to exercise better or worse security. You aren't forcing them to trust you. I don't see even a hint of godmoding.
Expecting there to not be OOC consequences for an 'IC' corp theft isn't realistic either. There will be an OOC component, and it might impact your future ability to get recruited, your reputation both for you as a player and for your character(s).
Anything sort of PvP has a natural blend of IC and OOC, because on some level you are pitting yourself as the player against other players, even while your characters are pitted against their characters. You can't be an IC combat ace without a little skill in in-space PvP. You can't be a craft manipulator of your enemies without some OOC ability to lie your ass off. :yar:
-
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/cbdvar2w_8310.png)
Istvaan... you're drooling a bit. Have you taken your CBD pills today?
-
If I remember correctly we have already had countless discussions around godmodding, and what people consider to be rude or bad form in the context of "/me beheads Aldrith with an axe" vs "/me tries to behead Aldrith with an axe", and how to talk OOCly while doing so with someone you are not used to RP on a regular basis.
In such a light, in the case of spying and corp infiltrations, why is it suddenly ok between RPers not to let the choice to the other party ? Because they will never agree ? But then, if they do not agree to be stolen incredible amounts of time and money, isn't it similar to when they do not agree that their characters to be biomassed/raped/whatever suits you ?
Following the same reasoning, isn't corp infiltration and betrayal like godmodding, since it forces your IC way upon others' ?
Not sure yet of the answer, but that's the questions i'm considering atm.
If there are hurt feelings involved, thats understandable. But there are hurt feelings in anything PVP related.
If one is hurt by pvp, then he can choose to do something else.
If one is hurt by OOC betrayals, he can choose to play the asocial and remain in his one man corp.
Not sure if both are comparable ?
If the thing you're planning to do is something you wouldn't mention to other characters, then it's IC. If the thing you're planning to do has to be kept secret from other players? It's OOC.
This kind of brings up something I discussed in my first post.
If I am planning to invade some RPer's territory, or gank their next supply convoy - is that something I'd mention OOC to them? "Hey FYI guys, just gonna have fun shooting you up in a couple minutes, even though you didn't know!" No, it really isn't. Are my actions now "OOC"? Even if performing those same actions makes absolute perfect sense in character?
Not comparable either I think. In your case you do not need to talk to your enemies OOCly. In the case of an infiltrated spy, he has to, unless it's full immersionist corp where OOC is strictly forbidden.
-
You push people's shit in. Don't expect a thank you card afterwards.
Now, destroying someones favorite toy is one thing and can possibly be rationalized easier as being a pure IC-act, but stealing that toy/livelihood?
Personal enrichment is always so very tempting, so naturally this'd be much harder to sell, no?
All in all I find the notion interesting - in a very morbid way - how you should say thank you after getting cockslapped by someone. I mean, more power to you, if you can steal from someone and still be their bestest buddy. In the same line, I almost certainly wouldn't give a player known for enjoying ye olde corp thievery thing high-level access in my enterprises, just as a security precaution. Doesn't matter if 'That heist' was IC or not. Want to know the circumstances where I'd do it?
If there would be enough OOC trust and friendship that I would feel secure enough to not get screwed over at the most convenient point in time. And lo, here we are, in a beautifully circular manner at the very point people are trying to make.
-
Following the same reasoning, isn't corp infiltration and betrayal like godmodding, since it forces your IC way upon others' ?
If it is allowable via game mechanics (and not declared an exploit by CCP) then it is not godmodding. Godmodding is the act of giving your character powers over other characters that they don't actually have. The power to blow you up and steal your shit is one I do have. Such is EVE.
If one is hurt by pvp, then he can choose to do something else.
No, he can't. if he undocks, I can kill him. I can lose sec and take gate guns in low, or get CONCORDed, but if you are undocked, you ARE risking PvP. Similarly, if you share a corp with other people, you are consenting to the fact that you may get stolen from.
So, to avoid PvP, never undock. To avoid theft, never join a corp.
They aren't comparable. It's much easier to avoid theft.
-
Guys, uhh, shut up for your own good, and delete this thread completely. Advertising how badly you might be affected by a corp theft on an emotional level is the *worst thing* you could do right now. Worst worst worst. You're attracting attention you don't want. Please heed warning, I only issue one and will delete it shortly myself.
Delete the other tread too.
This. Don't show your weak spot, ever.
As for the topic, my opinion is collaborate freely, trust rarely.
-
Following the same reasoning, isn't corp infiltration and betrayal like godmodding, since it forces your IC way upon others' ?
If it is allowable via game mechanics (and not declared an exploit by CCP) then it is not godmodding. Godmodding is the act of giving your character powers over other characters that they don't actually have. The power to blow you up and steal your shit is one I do have. Such is EVE.
So I assume you are also of the opinion that "/me beheads Aldrith" is the way to go, and no the other choice.
If one is hurt by pvp, then he can choose to do something else.
No, he can't. if he undocks, I can kill him. I can lose sec and take gate guns in low, or get CONCORDed, but if you are undocked, you ARE risking PvP. Similarly, if you share a corp with other people, you are consenting to the fact that you may get stolen from.
So, to avoid PvP, never undock. To avoid theft, never join a corp.
They aren't comparable. It's much easier to avoid theft.
[/quote]
That's true enough.
-
So I assume you are also of the opinion that "/me beheads Aldrith" is the way to go, and no the other choice.
Emotes have never killed anybody within the game.
Emotes are emotes, they only hold value that you give them.
I would not compare them to a game mechanic like locking someone and firing your guns, or someone emptying your corp hangars.
-
I didn't recruit someone that I had no IC reason not to, because I had found out OOC, some things about them.
vOv
-
So I assume you are also of the opinion that "/me beheads Aldrith" is the way to go, and no the other choice.
Emotes have never killed anybody within the game.
Emotes are emotes, they only hold value that you give them.
I would not compare them to a game mechanic like locking someone and firing your guns, or someone emptying your corp hangars.
The same way you choose to put a certain value on your stuff no ? It's all relative and subjective.
-
[admin]Tread lightly. Keep it constructive. This discussion almost never goes anywhere good, but I'm hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, this time can be a little bit different.[/admin]
-
No, he can't. if he undocks, I can kill him. I can lose sec and take gate guns in low, or get CONCORDed, but if you are undocked, you ARE risking PvP. Similarly, if you share a corp with other people, you are consenting to the fact that you may get stolen from.
Well, IRL if you live, you can be killed, if you possess something, your possessions can be stolen. By your reasoning, someone who has possessions is thus consenting to 'the fact that he may get stolen from' and as well to 'the fact that he may get killed'.
I don't think it works that way: One rarely does consent to facts. Facts are accepted. Acceptance and consent are two pairs of shoes, though. Furthermore that you accept the possibility that someone might steal from you doesn't imply in any way that you have to or do accept that someone steals from you, much less that you give your consent to this.
So, if one is in EVE in a corporation with people, one does accept the fact that one may get stolen from, but one doesn't (usually) consent to it. Usually corporations make clear that they don't want corp thieves in their corps and thus that they don't give consent to corp thievery. And it is exactly for the reason that the game allows for corp thievery that there is an implied out of game 'contract' in the corp that this including that those joining the corp don't do thievery. Because there are no instances which would be able to enforce this 'contract' it is based on trust, that is OOG trust, mostly.
I think that is true for most corporations. I also think that most corp thieves are aware of this and use this to their advantage in one way or another, simply because OOG interaction strikes closer to the players emotions and thus will be building trust much faster. Purely IG or IC interaction is more abstract and thus tends to need more time to build the trust levels required to get access to the juicy bits one wants to steal.
I don't think that corporations in EVE work on this implied 'contract' of cooperation because they intend to use it as a 'shield' against corp thievery, for the reason alone that a 'contract' merely founded on trust is the worst security measure one can possibly have. Rather it is a choice in building your game environment. Exactly because EVE is a sand box which allows for a wide range of activities, players choose certain elements of said sand box which will make up their game. Managing a corporation usually involves enough elements that they don't want to worry overly much with corp thievery shenanigans. Also, most people want a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in corp, that isn't dominated by suspicion and distrust.
Therefore most corporations entail a contract that does, on an out of game level, exclude those elements: They accept the possibility of corp theft, but do not consent to it.
If one goes out to steal from a corp one usually is going to commit an action that can't be described as purely in character or in game, but usually it entails out of game elements as well and thus will yield out of game consequences. If one can't accept those out of game consequences, but want to do the thievery thing in game, then one should go steal from a corp that doesn't have such a contract, that decided they want to engage in the spy/counterespionage/thievery/counter-thievery game. I hear the Goons have an entire devision for that.
If one is in there because one enjoys the emotional fallout that oftentimes commences out of game (and isn't even seeing it as 'backhanded compliment if it so happens) and is thus deliberately targeting corporations that have an OOG 'contract' of cooperation, then... well, I'd say people who are like that lack an appreciation for sportsmanship OOG.
-
Regarding what is (not) godmodding:
When you play a game, you agree to abide by a set of established rules. These rules are sometimes one-sided: In DnD, if the someone attacks you while you're asleep, they deliver a coup de grâce. You cannot defend against it. It's automatically a critical hit and if you lose half your health, you die.
There are many of stories of thieves waiting for the rest of the party to fall asleep, slitting everyone's throat, and taking all the goodies.
In a game with permadeath, this sucks badly. I have never had anyone say that it's godmodding though. Godmodding is what happens where there is no established framework for conflict resolution.
-
OOC considerations trump IC considerations.
If I insult people on this forum (OOC), those people will avoid interaction with my character, even though they have no IC reason to.
If some IC action is going to affect another player badly OOC, then don't expect him to play along IC.
That is why people don't advertise espionage and corp thefts OOC, because they know other players will not go along with it, even if there are no IC reasons to do so.
Because such action are (neccessarily) also OOC, that means that they also inflict hurt on people OOC.
As such, the Spy metagame (and most trust issues) are 95% OOC, and only 5% IC.
Combine this with the existence of alts, the virtual immortality of characters, the inability to identify the player controlling a character and the ability to sell characters, and you have a recipe for OOC trust disasters. If you do feel the need to play a spy or traitor, admit to it OOC, or give up the illusion of the IC/OOC divide. In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it too....
-
OOC considerations trump IC considerations.
I strongly disagree with this as an absolute statement. OOC will always influence IC to some degree or another and sometimes it's fine to let OOC stuff 'trump' IC stuff, but the majority of the time my RP is dictated by IC considerations and interactions.
If Karmila Strife had access to Silas corp hangers and stole a bunch of stuff, wouldn't anyone consider this a breach of some OOC/OOG contract? Or would people be saying 'that's what happens when you put any sort of trust in a blooder turncoat?'
How many corporations enjoy defining themselves as 'morally dubious?' If you're taking members IC and teaching them to torture, steal, blackmail, and assassinate, I don't give a damn about the 'OOG contract' when it comes to corp thievery. I see characters making an IC bed and then players complaining when they might have to sleep in it.
Edit: So it's clear, I am not suggesting that PIE does any of these things, and it doesn't seem to be what happened at AP either.
-
Regarding what is (not) godmodding:
When you play a game, you agree to abide by a set of established rules. These rules are sometimes one-sided: In DnD, if the someone attacks you while you're asleep, they deliver a coup de grâce. You cannot defend against it. It's automatically a critical hit and if you lose half your health, you die.
There are many of stories of thieves waiting for the rest of the party to fall asleep, slitting everyone's throat, and taking all the goodies.
In a game with permadeath, this sucks badly. I have never had anyone say that it's godmodding though. Godmodding is what happens where there is no established framework for conflict resolution.
Yes, yes. I think we already established that 'Godmodding' was a poor choice of words. I'm interested to see the idea of 'non-consensual RP' however, as I was always taught that there is no such thing. I've always seen IC actions carried out through game-mechanics as inherently being the underlying OOC game with an overlay of IC justification - for example, me using Black Rise as an IC justification for my PvP in the warzone. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.
Metagame, though. You're right if the party is asleep and the guy playing the thief decides to coup-de-grace everyone in their sleep and take all the treasure back to town according to the rules of the game, this is legitimate.
I quite agree that, IC, when the rest of the party roll up their new characters there is NO way that they can possibly know of the thieves actions. Of course, in real life, unless 'blue-on-blue' interactions are an accepted part of the OOC metagame understanding the thief's player will simply never be asked back to another session.
And so it goes with Corp theft.
-
Yes, yes. I think we already established that 'Godmodding' was a poor choice of words.
Unless I'm misunderstanding her, Lyn is still suggesting that corp theft may be a form of godmodding.
-
OOC considerations trump IC considerations.
I strongly disagree with this as an absolute statement. OOC will always influence IC to some degree or another and sometimes it's fine to let OOC stuff 'trump' IC stuff, but the majority of the time my RP is dictated by IC considerations and interactions.
Why is the majority of your time your RP 'dictated' by IC consideratons and interactions? I'd assume, because you OOCly choose so, not because you as a player aren't able to decide against what IC considerations and interactions 'dictate'.
Behind your IC actions, which are 'dictated' by IC factors stands the consideration that you want to have it this way and not have IC actions 'dictated' by OOC considerations, which in turn though is an OOC 'meta'-consideration. This meta-consideration will always trump all IC considerations, or I hope so, at least.
-
Yes, yes. I think we already established that 'Godmodding' was a poor choice of words.
Unless I'm misunderstanding her, Lyn is still suggesting that corp theft may be a form of godmodding.
That was a poor choice of word then. I used it in the sense of non consensual RP.
People frown upon non consensual RP most of the time, except by a few like Mr Smuggles above, and I think that is where the difference in appreciation comes from since I do not consider the slightest metagaming to be part of the OOC game rules at all. It may be encouraged by CCP or not, that's not the point, it's not part of the game rules and mechanisms, it's just what players do between themselves, the same way people can choose to behave in a certain way between themselves out of the RP contracts in an emote contest or whatever.
Unless I get a "theft mail" from a corp heist - which would imply actual theft mechanisms behind - I will never consider a corp heist/breach of security part of game mechanisms (versus part of the game/metagame, which is totally different).
-
I quite agree that, IC, when the rest of the party roll up their new characters there is NO way that they can possibly know of the thieves actions. Of course, in real life, unless 'blue-on-blue' interactions are an accepted part of the OOC metagame understanding the thief's player will simply never be asked back to another session.
And so it goes with Corp theft.
That much we can agree on! It's just that I'm trying to get across that I don't think that actions should be dismissed as out-of-character just because they have repercussions outside of the "magic circle" of the in-character world. Even if they're negative ones. All actions that are meaningful will have, whether it's a little frisson of delight or howling anger. In many ways, the game is a better one for the possibility of someone being an utter dick to people, IC and OOC.
-
Well, how much better the game is because you can be a dick to people OOC is debatable, although I take far too much pleasure from wolfpacking people in their shiny pirate faction frigates to be able to tell you it doesn't. :)
I don't know many people who could get corp-thefted by a player's alt and be happy having the main in their corporation, though.
-
fuck it.
-
Well.
This topic has certainly been enlightening.
-
When I run a corp I reserve the right to defend the corp from threats that I know about only due to OOC information. I'll respect that divide as long as I can, but the second it moves from "Oh, so and so is a secret heretic" to "so and so plans to start awoxing or corp thieving" then my character heard that the person was dangerous from a little bird. Its an IC action to kick, still. If it has an effect on the game world its IC, but the *Reasons* for the IC kick are going to require a little imagination since the evidence for the kick is OOC.
In a game like this ignoring OOC warning signs that you have a saboteur in corp is just silly.
-
People frown upon non consensual RP most of the time, except by a few like Mr Smuggles above, and I think that is where the difference in appreciation comes from since I do not consider the slightest metagaming to be part of the OOC game rules at all. It may be encouraged by CCP or not, that's not the point, it's not part of the game rules and mechanisms, it's just what players do between themselves, the same way people can choose to behave in a certain way between themselves out of the RP contracts in an emote contest or whatever.
Unless I get a "theft mail" from a corp heist - which would imply actual theft mechanisms behind - I will never consider a corp heist/breach of security part of game mechanisms (versus part of the game/metagame, which is totally different).
I think there is a huge difference between godmodding and non-consensual RP. First off, anything you do out of pod with /me's is by its nature entirely consensual. I can /me the gun and blewed up in Pieter's faec, all day long, and he can ignore me and continue as if my character isn't present. The only ways that text RP can be non-consensual is through the IC sharing of information, against the wishes of the other party. However, there are plenty of other ways to create non-consensual RP. If I find your spaceship, web, scram, and ECM it, and proceed to talk freespace ideology at you in local, that's pretty damn non-consensual. When I RP at non-RPers in local, that's non-consensual RP too. If I wardec a corp for RP reasons, or execute a theft for RP reasons, or take any action allowed by the game mechanics for any RP reasons that the other player doesn't want, its non-consensual RP. So in a sense, godmodding is recognizable in its futility. The other player can ignore it. I can't drop my character into 'god mode' in a chat channel and force someone to accept my /me's. But if I decloak on them in a Pilgrim, that's real. That's a concrete action. Until we have some mechanical way to translate those /me's into dice rolls though, chat RP will always be mostly consensual.
As for corp thefts not being part of the game's mechanisms I entirely disagree. I disagree because its very blatantly not against the game rules, when, in a lot of MMOs, stealing from the guild, or scamming in a trade centre, is likely to earn you a fairly rapid ban. The fact that this won't happen in EVE is in itself a form of the games mechanics. Petitions, GMs, and banning are part of the game mechanics at the end of the day; they're part of what defines the game universe and the rules within it. When I run a corp I reserve the right to defend the corp from threats that I know about only due to OOC information. I'll respect that divide as long as I can, but the second it moves from "Oh, so and so is a secret heretic" to "so and so plans to start awoxing or corp thieving" then my character heard that the person was dangerous from a little bird. Its an IC action to kick, still. If it has an effect on the game world its IC, but the *Reasons* for the IC kick are going to require a little imagination since the evidence for the kick is OOC.
In a game like this ignoring OOC warning signs that you have a saboteur in corp is just silly.
This basically.
-
I think there is a huge difference between godmodding and non-consensual RP. First off, anything you do out of pod with /me's is by its nature entirely consensual. I can /me the gun and blewed up in Pieter's faec, all day long, and he can ignore me and continue as if my character isn't present. The only ways that text RP can be non-consensual is through the IC sharing of information, against the wishes of the other party. However, there are plenty of other ways to create non-consensual RP. If I find your spaceship, web, scram, and ECM it, and proceed to talk freespace ideology at you in local, that's pretty damn non-consensual. When I RP at non-RPers in local, that's non-consensual RP too. If I wardec a corp for RP reasons, or execute a theft for RP reasons, or take any action allowed by the game mechanics for any RP reasons that the other player doesn't want, its non-consensual RP. So in a sense, godmodding is recognizable in its futility. The other player can ignore it. I can't drop my character into 'god mode' in a chat channel and force someone to accept my /me's. But if I decloak on them in a Pilgrim, that's real. That's a concrete action. Until we have some mechanical way to translate those /me's into dice rolls though, chat RP will always be mostly consensual.
I think it's mostly a matter of semantics. When I first started playing EVE, I was horrified whne someone mentioned non-consensual RP on the old Chatsubo. Pretty sure I compared it to harassment. As I've played though, I realized that between the game's approach to PvP and our tendency as a community to view ALL ingame actions as IC it was inevitable that something was going to happen to your character in space that you didn't want to happen, and it was IC. Thus, non-consensual RP. Like Saede said, anything happening in text pretty much has to be a co-operative effort by default.
On the topic itself....meh. Shit happens, and we all know this game is full of shit ;) To vandalize a Winston Churchill quote, "EVE is the worst MMO there is, except for all the other ones."
-
Ah yes, right, the sacro saint difference of "I stole your shit ingame and so, it's IC, no matter what is involved behind. I can agree behind the premise, but I can barely ignore that it remains a so called IC action out of metagaming.
I reiterate: metagaming =/= ingame mechanisms. The result is IC as you can't really handwave it of course, but using corp infiltration, or more generally metagaming since it does not limit itself to corp heists, but also to every kind of betrayal coming out of OOC metagame (including a few kinds of pvp in space), it is very, very bad form imo.
And kind of similar of godmodding: I would argue that you do not have a set framework to work on, except on the IC results after the act.
-
That's sort of the whole thing with Eve, though - the metagame. The entire thing is very metagame-y and social engineering is a very large part of that.
I've always agreed with SirMolle's famously attributed assertion that everyone who plays Eve is roleplaying in some way. OOC relationships made with ill-intent to begin with seem to me to fall right into that line of thought. Non-consensual RP, if you will - RPing with/at you while you are entirely out-of-character. I'm sure that concept holds very little water for people who've dealth with an OOC betrayal, particularly one with lasting IC consequences so that the OOC betrayal hangs over and taints their continued enjoyment of the game for however long it takes to get over it, but it comes back to what Che Biko and others have said: if you want your character to pull off a heist or some other back-stabby act in Eve, it's unavoidable that you're going to leave someone feeling betrayed OOCly because of the nature of Eve and online gaming in general (Voice comms, ooc chat channels, forums, etc. where OOC bonds between actual people are formed - all very metagame-y in themselves).
-
That's sort of the whole thing with Eve, though - the metagame. The entire thing is very metagame-y and social engineering is a very large part of that.
I've always agreed with SirMolle's famously attributed assertion that everyone who plays Eve is roleplaying in some way. OOC relationships made with ill-intent to begin with seem to me to fall right into that line of thought. Non-consensual RP, if you will - RPing with/at you while you are entirely out-of-character. I'm sure that concept holds very little water for people who've dealth with an OOC betrayal, particularly one with lasting IC consequences so that the OOC betrayal hangs over and taints their continued enjoyment of the game for however long it takes to get over it, but it comes back to what Che Biko and others have said: if you want your character to pull off a heist or some other back-stabby act in Eve, it's unavoidable that you're going to leave someone feeling betrayed OOCly because of the nature of Eve and online gaming in general (Voice comms, ooc chat channels, forums, etc. where OOC bonds between actual people are formed - all very metagame-y in themselves).
All of this really. I play EVE for the metagame. Its what keeps me coming back more then RP even does. Reading about the thefts of thousands of dollars IRL worth of assets is what initially got me interested. So poor form? I'd dispute that. I'd say its the perfect form for EVE.
-
Oh for Eve, sure. Nobody denies that.
-
All of this really. I play EVE for the metagame. Its what keeps me coming back more then RP even does. Reading about the thefts of thousands of dollars IRL worth of assets is what initially got me interested. So poor form? I'd dispute that. I'd say its the perfect form for EVE.
Part of the act of a Corp Theft is in deciding when the benefit of pulling the chain outweighs the consequences, of course.
One of those consequences IS the OOC relationship - unless you manage to obsfucate your OOC identity, of course. This can be difficult in a community as small as the RP community.
As much as I enjoy reading tales of epic Alliance/Coalition level schemes, I wouldn't want to share a corporation with one of the prime movers!
-
Another major issue with this whole thing..
If the player doing the "real" theft forewarned the victim OOC.. acting against is "metagaming".
People may notice I don't say much or show much OOC about my character IC that isn't obvious or easily knowable. This is because this is how I learned to RP in MMOs - I shoot from the hip and etc. There are records, yes, but they are all wholly in my hands and under my control and not sitting anywhere someone can find them. If people want to dig into my char's life they need to do so with me 'GM'ing it in a sense. If I am going to stab someone in the back or kiss them on the mouth they will not see it coming based on any info put up as 'you cant know this IC but I'm putting it up to show it', because it forces people to make decisions literally based on 'meta" information about me -- things they know OOC that could effect IC actions.
Best example LARPErs will get. Your LARP char cant see ghosts but they can hurt you. You see a ghost on the path (white headbanded or whatever system you use.) ... what are you going to do...? suiddenyl remember you have to pee... or walk right into a trap you can see with your OOC eyes?
Some of that info, people NEED to act on in EVE. A corp theft would def. be one of those things. There are plenty of pure RP ones as well. I'm sure not everyone here will handwave anything bad happening to them because :grimdark: for one, and for two if you just keep ignoring RP 'bad conseqequences' you don't like that aren't godmodding you're a bad RPer and should feel bad. ;) (ex. Arista said something to my char that sparked this horrible memory or made other people hate me.. you know what im going to pretend she didnt say that and make everyone else who witnessed it handwave it as well cause its 'nonconsensual'. Doesn't work. Ok I know using Arista as an example is bad as shes a frickin mushy carebear but still you get the point I hope. )
It boils down, honestly, to what weighs more. The RP /me aspect , or the ISK value, or if both are equal (which for most people,. this is likely the deal).. likely the reason a lot of us are shuffling our feet, at least a little, on the IC/OOC divide. Because in all respects, there IS a divide.
Trick me into 'consensually' drinking something IC thats poisoned or drugged and I'm drugged and that could lead to IC consequences that could effect my character for months. (this is like forum RP.. where phrasing and etc can make something that would seem 'nonconsensual" consensual because you just weren't paying enough attention, or couldn't think of a counter, or didn't have one in place, etc.) Blow up my ship and I lose isk that could also effect me for months. It's just a matter of how I value the effect of one versus the other. If I play primarily for RP, then the RP effect will "hurt me oocly" more. If I play primarily for game mechanics, then game mechanics will "hurt me more oocly". etc.
At the end of the day .. RP can screw you in EVE, players can screw you in EVE, cause EVE has that 'screw you' element. Whether it was "all OOC" or a mix is irrelevant. Someone got screwed. But that's EVE ... :/
-
At the end of the day .. RP can screw you in EVE, players can screw you in EVE, cause EVE has that 'screw you' element. Whether it was "all OOC" or a mix is irrelevant. Someone got screwed. But that's EVE ... :/
I wonder if the 'screw you' element of EVE is because there are no 'laws' within the game world. Having played EVE for only a couple of months now, the only apparent consequence for breaking laws (or what are commonly held to be laws in RL society) is turning off safety and firing on another ship in High-Sec space. There is no recourse for acts of theft other than to try and strike back at the thief and that might just lead to more wasted time and frustration on the part of the person who was wronged (stolen from).
I find EVE interesting and have been enjoying it, but one of the issues I have been seeing is on the immersion side of the game universe: you have these nations that supposedly have rule of law and yet the game is very law-less. The only real laws are what other players are willing or not willing to do to other players and given the fact that we are faceless individuals on the net hiding behind aliases, we are (for the most part) more willing to do things to each other than if we were sitting down face-to-face in the real world. Yes, there are consequences to our actions IC/OCC in EVE, but for some people not being able to interact with some people doesn't mean that much to them; me, I kind of like having friends and good relationships so I'm not going to abuse/betray another player's trust.
Many arguments have been made for one side or the other...I think if there means to address things like theft that didn't have to boil down to pvp and there was a better way to clearly divide IC and OOC, things like corp theft might be less 'harmful' to OOC relations.
-
Ultimately I don't believe that the rest of the cluster operates as lawlessly as we capsuleers do. I think that independent capsuleers operate in a legal area roughly comparable to minor governments, and that this was very intentionally set up by CONCORD and the major political players. There is a concern about the level of devastation that capsuleers can bring to a conflict, which seems to be the motivation behind the CONCORD laws regulating capsuleer violence. Other than that, though, the mechanisms that CONCORD provides for us to resolve disputes really are more in line with those that are available to governments rather than citizens.
-
Ultimately I don't believe that the rest of the cluster operates as lawlessly as we capsuleers do. I think that independent capsuleers operate in a legal area roughly comparable to minor governments, and that this was very intentionally set up by CONCORD and the major political players. There is a concern about the level of devastation that capsuleers can bring to a conflict, which seems to be the motivation behind the CONCORD laws regulating capsuleer violence. Other than that, though, the mechanisms that CONCORD provides for us to resolve disputes really are more in line with those that are available to governments rather than citizens.
We're kilometre long posthuman living starships, is that really that much of a surprise Shin?
-
Not in the least. I'd be more surprised if the various governments attempted to regulate us with the same laws that they apply to their own citizens.
-
This thread seems to have taught me that I've been doinitwrong with the spy/corp thief metagame these past two or so years.
I don't use alts for that part of the game, not because I think that's the wrong way of doing it or it's OOC or whatever. It's just I don't have the time, funds or inclination to sit on a second account, roleplaying not only as the alt but as a completely different player - ie, coming up with a character and a player backstory neither of which is my own. More power to the people who can do that effectively as it's a skill, but I just don't have the energy for it.
Also, I like my small network of handpicked infiltrators and corp thieves. Sure, there's an ongoing ISK cost and some risk involved (I've probably been screwed over more times by my own spies than anyone else's) and there's a lot of time spent sorting chaff (which is most of what I get) from wheat but for me it's more immersive. I like lurking in the recruitment channel, waiting for someone with potential to come along and then trying to manipulate them into becoming a first-class infiltrator. I'm still not much good at it, still have a truly abysmal rate for newbie->superspai conversions and my network's size/reach is laughable but I suppose it's fun for me in a similar way to how losing ~500 billion ISK in supercaps is fun for a few in PL while rage-inducing for most others. :P
To address the original point, are the motives behind spying/corp-theft OOC? Nothing's as absolute as that question implies. I don't care to speculate too much on what other people's motives are when I can see and talk with them face-to-face let alone in a fictional setting where the only 'contact' I have is through text. One thing RPing online from the mid-90s onwards taught me though is that almost any IC justification can be created for what appears - to some - to be an OOC action and in all but the most obvious cases trying to figure out where the line sits between IC and OOC is headache-inducing and ultimately futile in most cases.
Is the action itself OOC or 'meta'? Probably, at least partially. But 'meta' is not necessarily the same as breaching the rules, not in EVE anyway. The 'IC/OOC crossover rule' is the problem here - it's an unofficial guideline that we, the RP community, have sought to layer over the actual ruleset of the game with the expectation that others within the community will respect it as a priority. That's where any tension in these situations arises from. The game itself - both through mechanics, third-party apps/tools and dev complicity - allow for the metagame to take place and even encourage it. It makes no allowance for and does not officially support the desires of any community group within the game to over-ride that. We know this coming into the game just as we know that losing your ship and being scammed is a possibility.
And, as I just noticed, Arista said all of that better. :)
Edited: Too many smileys, not enough cowbell
-
:cowbell:
-
[mod]Flamebait removed. Please keep it constructive, folks. [/mod]
-
To me, the "default mode" of a breach of trust in-game is entirely OOC. My reaction to having that happen to me will depend on several factors, such as the seriousness of the offense, just how good a friend I thought you were (some people's betrayals hurt worse than others, and there are a few friends I've gained through EVE who I do trust deeply), how likable I find you in general, how impressed I am with what you did, whether or not I had a bad day IRL, and several other things. I will react in any way I choose to, IC or OOC, within the limits of the EULA in-game and the law OOG. This may include such things as never allowing you or any of your known alts into any corp of mine ever again, naming and shaming, warning other people about you and limiting my interactions between any or all of your characters and any or all of my characters in whatever ways I damn well please. I may react completely differently toward two different people over the exact same offense, without feeling any particular compulsion to explain or to justify that bias to anyone.
If you break the trust of other people I know, I will also react in whichever way I please, which may very well be biased by my like or dislike for the victim(s) of the offense.
In short, a metagame break of trust is a social action and will invoke a social response, which may vary widely according to context and whim.
-
To me, the "default mode" of a breach of trust in-game is entirely OOC. My reaction to having that happen to me will depend on several factors, such as the seriousness of the offense, just how good a friend I thought you were (some people's betrayals hurt worse than others, and there are a few friends I've gained through EVE who I do trust deeply), how likable I find you in general, how impressed I am with what you did, whether or not I had a bad day IRL, and several other things. I will react in any way I choose to, IC or OOC, within the limits of the EULA in-game and the law OOG. This may include such things as never allowing you or any of your known alts into any corp of mine ever again, naming and shaming, warning other people about you and limiting my interactions between any or all of your characters and any or all of my characters in whatever ways I damn well please. I may react completely differently toward two different people over the exact same offense, without feeling any particular compulsion to explain or to justify that bias to anyone.
If you break the trust of other people I know, I will also react in whichever way I please, which may very well be biased by my like or dislike for the victim(s) of the offense.
In short, a metagame break of trust is a social action and will invoke a social response, which may vary widely according to context and whim.
And here we have a response so perfectly simple, accurate and honest in comparison to my own views that I need not make mine known. "This_TBH.jpg"
I would also have to agree with other sentiment in here - it is absolutely foolish not to act on OOC gained information IC if the action blocks or hinders or somehow mitigates serious damage to self, corp or friends. If anyone tells you OOC they plan to rob your or a friend's corp, you would be quite... well, of questionable capacity if you did not act on it. If you plan to rob someone OOC, you keep you mouth shut about it until the deed is done and known. I see no reason why this is not the case IC - by all means rob the corp for IC reasons, you might even get IC responses, but they are likely to be just as aggressive as any OOC reactions would be, if not worse.
-
To me, the "default mode" of a breach of trust in-game is entirely OOC. My reaction to having that happen to me will depend on several factors, such as the seriousness of the offense, just how good a friend I thought you were (some people's betrayals hurt worse than others, and there are a few friends I've gained through EVE who I do trust deeply), how likable I find you in general, how impressed I am with what you did, whether or not I had a bad day IRL, and several other things. I will react in any way I choose to, IC or OOC, within the limits of the EULA in-game and the law OOG. This may include such things as never allowing you or any of your known alts into any corp of mine ever again, naming and shaming, warning other people about you and limiting my interactions between any or all of your characters and any or all of my characters in whatever ways I damn well please. I may react completely differently toward two different people over the exact same offense, without feeling any particular compulsion to explain or to justify that bias to anyone.
If you break the trust of other people I know, I will also react in whichever way I please, which may very well be biased by my like or dislike for the victim(s) of the offense.
In short, a metagame break of trust is a social action and will invoke a social response, which may vary widely according to context and whim.
And here we have a response so perfectly simple, accurate and honest in comparison to my own views that I need not make mine known. "This_TBH.jpg"
I would also have to agree with other sentiment in here - it is absolutely foolish not to act on OOC gained information IC if the action blocks or hinders or somehow mitigates serious damage to self, corp or friends. If anyone tells you OOC they plan to rob your or a friend's corp, you would be quite... well, of questionable capacity if you did not act on it. If you plan to rob someone OOC, you keep you mouth shut about it until the deed is done and known. I see no reason why this is not the case IC - by all means rob the corp for IC reasons, you might even get IC responses, but they are likely to be just as aggressive as any OOC reactions would be, if not worse.
I think its worth pointing out the only people who I can recall seeing insisting that someone should not act if they find out OOC that someone else intends to infiltrate and or rob their corp are the people who are planning exactly that action and got found out OOC.
Everyone else seems to be on the same page that of course you act to prevent things like corp theft.
-
This is actually one area where I have a bit of a problem with Eve as an RPG.
Ruthless rules set + high stakes + extensive metagame = busted immersion.
Left to my own devices, I would LIKE to believe I would be willing to let Awful Things happen to my character-- including getting my inventory looted, etc., if the character had not acted prudently in ways that would prevent the theft. Suffering makes a good story; endless series of "winwinwinwin" are not interesting and are not even very fun to play.
'Course, Eve tends to hand you misfortune even if it doesn't turn up like a metagame thief in the night.
I originally came to Eve because I was tired of playing in worlds where nothing we did mattered. Now I'm in one where everything matters unless it relates to permadeath or an NPC organization, and the very thing that drew me to Eve is also compromising my realism.
Irritating. Also one of those things that comes with the territory.
-
If a player was infiltrating my corp IC and told me about it OOC in order to avoid breaking OOC trust, I would wish he had not told me. The knowledge could influence my IC behaviour, and I don't like that.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
-
Frankly, I would immediately remove him, and be very glad that he told me.