Print

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

[Merdaneth]

To Ashar:

The amount of concerned replies here (in comparison to other issues) indicates that holding the conference in the summit channel was *not* a good idea.

This is independent of any arguments *why* it would be a bad idea (or good idea). A number of people are agitated. I don't believe that was not your intention, but it happened anyway.

People being agitated is independent of all the people that *did* enjoy the conference being in the summit channel.

People being agitated is independent of the appreciation people have for you organizing such a thing or running the channel.

Would these troubles have been avoided when the conference was held in another channel? Yes, I would think so.

Would there have been a big loss in accessibility of the conference when it was held in a separate channel? No, I don't think so.

Hence my suggestion for next time would be: use a separate channel.

Again, I consider the summit RP light, and hence good for people getting their feet wet in RP. I don't think seeing people getting muted and banned for IC reasons is good RP-PR (excuse my tiny pun) however reasonable and well-founded the ban.

[Merdaneth]

Ashar,

I think it would be more useful in this particular case to stop analysing this thing, just try it in a separate channel next time, then evaluate both ways and come to a conclusion.

I believe we are running the risk in arguing for arguments sake, and while I love to do that IC, I believe it would be counterproductive here.

I see the number of replies as a hint. You are free to determine why or what kind of hint it would be.

[Louella Dougans]

[mod]Had some reports about people's choice of words and things in this thread.There are some that are very problematic. Please do not make things worse.[/mod]

[The Cosmopolite]

I am simply going to continue discussing the issue of this thread trusting the moderators to deal with concerns I will quite happily admit I have raised and I will be abiding by their rulings without demur, I might add.

So, to continue dealing with the topic.

As an IC channel it is entirely fine to mute Sansha supporters for an IC reason (even if that had IC consequences for the IC status of the channel). Doing so because they were Sansha supporters would have been legitimate in that sense.

If they were muted for OOC reasons to do with organisational convenience, desire to keep certain classes of players in the channel who would leave if certain RP was allowed, etc., then that's a whole other discussion, isn't it? I rather assumed these or similar OOC reasons were not what was being discussed. I still do assume such OOC reasons are not under discussion because I still believe that what is under discussion is a posited trend highlighted by what several people appear to believe happened with regards to a particular IC channel.

The trend Lillith seems to have identified and wished to discuss was one of a neutral RP venue losing its neutrality and if this is desirable. Or as Havohej put it: "Lillith made a thread about whether people think it's good for the RP community as a whole to ban someone from certain types of IC channel, especially general community channels like the Summit, based on their chosen RP faction."

As I earlier said, it's ultimately an IC question as to whether a channel can be regarded as neutral IC.

The whole point of calling that channel 'The Summit' and to have it originally run by a 'CRC Auxiliary' was to ape, in the best sense, IGS and its inherent neutrality. This was done so that people could more readily transfer their IC acceptance (practically unspoken because it to many it is so obviously the fact) that IGS is neutral to The Summit channel. This was the way to deal with the problem many have raised of the extent that one could believe such a channel was neutral.

Obviously, some characters don't believe a channel can be neutral and it's rather moot for them. This is especially so if they are characters that don't see IGS as neutral (a perfectly reasonable IC position).

But other characters do think you can have a neutral venue where capsuleers of every stripe and hue can talk without fear of being censored because of who they are and what they reasonably say. The Summit answered this need. It is now debateable, witness this very thread, as to whether it still does.

The pertinent question for me is whether such a need still exists. Which is another way at looking at whether or not the trend under discussion is desirable or not.

There was another element to what Lillith wanted to discuss as well which has been a trifle sidelined: the fracturing or isolating effect that this trend could have on RP in general. I rather agree that lack of a 'common ground RP venue' could have a fracturing or isolating effect.

If this is not desirable as a trend, if the need that The Summit originally answered still exists, and people feel a need to address the danger of isolation then it is probably up to people to do something about it.

In that regard, the discussion could, if people are so inclined, take a positive and constructive turn and focus on practical solutions rather than another half-dozen pages of analysis. I would certainly welcome that and be happy to make no further comment on what may or may not have happened.

Cosmo

[Louella Dougans]

[mod]I moved some problematic posts.I don't want to have to do this again.[/mod]

[Lillith Blackheart]

In that regard, the discussion could, if people are so inclined, take a positive and constructive turn and focus on practical solutions rather than another half-dozen pages of analysis.

This please.

[Casiella]

To clarify, I left the thread (and will do so again momentarily) because I don't believe that the responses given are conducive to a polite, civil, respectful debate, and thus see no point in continuing to discuss them here.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

To clarify, I left the thread (and will do so again momentarily) because I don't believe that the responses given are conducive to a polite, civil, respectful debate, and thus see no point in continuing to discuss them here.

I dunno, I talked to some pretty sensitive folks about your responses and I'm beginning to believe it's wholly personal.

We could try to resolve it privately, if you like.

As an IC channel it is entirely fine to mute Sansha supporters for an IC reason (even if that had IC consequences for the IC status of the channel). Doing so because they were Sansha supporters would have been legitimate in that sense.

Didn't happen.

-Someone muted someone for spreading false intelligence, and that was overturned, and
-Someone muted someone for going on about their shit, and that was overturned.

If they were muted for OOC reasons to do with organisational convenience, desire to keep certain classes of players in the channel who would leave if certain RP was allowed, etc., then that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

I think it's actually a whole 'nother non-discussion.

I rather assumed these or similar OOC reasons were not what was being discussed. I still do assume such OOC reasons are not under discussion because I still believe that what is under discussion is a posited trend highlighted by what several people appear to believe happened with regards to a particular IC channel.

 [ 2010.05.19 01:46:34 ] Lillith Blackheart > I'm actually less concerned about me being muted for a month than I am about the precedent that that can set, you know?
 [ 2010.05.19 01:46:48 ] Lillith Blackheart > You know how I get about precedents. ;)
 [ 2010.05.19 01:46:50 ] Ashar KorAzor > There's no precedent for that, now or ever, and as such cease worrying about it :P

I think Lillith might just have failed to properly sanitize his initial post of specific references, and the remaining ones torpedoed the discussion into specifics with some illusion sitting on everyone's chests regarding what we were actually doing.

I think it disingenuous to continue to rub it in people's faces.

The whole point of calling that channel 'The Summit' and to have it originally run by a 'CRC Auxiliary' was to ape, in the best sense, IGS and its inherent neutrality. This was done so that people could more readily transfer their IC acceptance (practically unspoken because it to many it is so obviously the fact) that IGS is neutral to The Summit channel. This was the way to deal with the problem many have raised of the extent that one could believe such a channel was neutral.

IGS isn't inherently neutral or general.

The in-character implications of speaking on it are that you're always, always undertaking a form of extremely public address that's checked by persons all over the New Eden cluster by the thousands, who are all capsuleers and may want to come and kill you.

There's reasons IGS generally turns into chest-beating, posturing, and the place where some diplomatic iceberg's visible tip floats out on top of the currents of machinations and PR. It is not a 'general roleplay' setting to any real extent, and as such not comparable to these examples people keep framing.

There was another element to what Lillith wanted to discuss as well which has been a trifle sidelined: the fracturing or isolating effect that this trend could have on RP in general. I rather agree that lack of a 'common ground RP venue' could have a fracturing or isolating effect.

Yeah, the reasons for the fractures in roleplay don't break down to 'some people might be muted in general channels.'

Primarily because they haven't been by the party responsible for setting policy and maintaining standards in said channel.

Secondarily because the last time I asked key parties about it, I was told that it was an intentional response to bad blood and the interest in keeping things small and easily controllable, which meant there was extreme simplicity in applying a break to new shit the old guard didn't like as well as to troubling out of character sentiments.

And finally, speaking as someone who used to and will again be going out to trawl for recruits and newcomers and silent actors, there is also a much, MUCH greater impact on fracturing and a lack of useful incorporation or institutionalization because:
-The community is inaccessible.
-The setting's fiction is inaccessible.

Fixing that will do a lot more for the perceived fractures than altering or maintaining the function of any one channel.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Talked to Havvo. Am told I can repost my post sans about twelve words.

The amount of concerned replies here (in comparison to other issues) indicates that holding the conference in the summit channel was *not* a good idea.

This seems to be the crux of your point.

The trouble is, this doesn't do a terribly good job of reflecting things factually. There's seventy six replies including yours above, but what they maintain isn't based on their number; it's based on their content.

I've read them and spoken to the posters elsewhere in some cases. I'm going to break it down for you, here, because it seems you're reading a starkly different thread than I am.

People don't really like it when I do things like this, for some reason. It strikes them as unfair, as if I am cheating in presenting an argument by the numbers.

Here's a list of all the posters in the thread, broken into groups by opinions and positions they've espoused and arranged in their individual groups by order of appearance:

These are the people who, in the context of this thread alone, either supported the idea from the start or had their concerns addressed directly in a way they found satisfactory as far as I could surmise from their posts here and from ingame conversations:

1. Lillith
2. Izzy
3. Kaldor
4. Kaleigh
5. Saxon
6. lallara
7. Havvo
8. Ze'ev
9. Jules
10. Lou
11. Vieve
12. Tomahawk Bliss (whom I hesitate to mention as I expect that in doing so, I will have it turned against me by same.)
13. Hamish

These are people who are either on the fence about it/in a position of compromise or in disagreement with something other than anything I have presented, or fact, or haven't spoken up again in the course of the thread:

1. Arvo Katsuya (who was last heard seeking compromise)
2. Seriphyn (who specified nothing until I asked ingame, and I remember the answer was pretty middling in its relevance)
3. Svetlana Scarlet (who has a different conception of the channel and conference than I do, and this matters because my conception of the conference shapes the conference more directly than anyone else's)

These are people that are or were in firm disagreement at the time of their last post:

1. Casi (A self-admitted non-user of the channel in question)
2. Merdaneth (who is raising a point about the number of responses in the thread as his main argument, and not about sentiments expressed)
3. The Cosmopolite (someone I certainly haven't seen using the channel heavily, for at least two years)
4 Silver

You want me to not do something because a few people, so far, have come to me to express some irritation, which in many cases was their first response and not their last?

Really?

I don't buy that irritating a couple of people for ten minutes by having someone else fuck something up or misrepresent me is a sinker for this train of thought.

I also don't buy that three to six people's objections over something should stop me pleasing a group ten to twenty times their size - ten beforehand, I might add - for the sake of not mildly irritating three to six people, for the same reason I don't buy not telling you out of character that your playstyle needs to go or your roleplay is wrong - or listen to people that tell ME that.

'Cause what it's all coming across as, chiefly, is 'your perception of the purpose and function of this chunk of the setting we share is wrong! And you need positively everyone's permission to impact it to any extent.'

To which I can only say, really? Why? Why isn't it enough to let dozens of people have a party in the community pool on tuesdays if you get it back to normal the day after? The hard rules of the community let them do it - is it really their responsibility to go knocking on every door and gaining permission?

I don't really think it is.

And yet, we did manage to come to an interesting point.

I think it would be more useful in this particular case to stop analysing this thing, just try it in a separate channel next time, then evaluate both ways and come to a conclusion.

See, this says something about the chain of events people are forseeing.

People seem to see it like this.

Use of the summit for events -> permanent impact on the function of the channel when not in use for events -> erosion of communal assurances of certain channel functions being available -> less use of channel for certain setting-relevant conditions dependent, in their view, on prior functions -> death of channel from mismanagement.

I take issue with several portions of thought structure.

Use of the summit for events -> permanent impact on the function of the channel when not in use for events - if we were to have events in the summit every day of the year, robbing it of it's dependable default function as, essentially, a communications node, that'd be one thing. However, I'm responding to a very specific developer event - one that unifies the entire capsuleer community against another type of transhuman character archetype.

Permanent impact on the function of the channel when not in use for events -> erosion of communal assurances of certain channel functions being available - This is to say, if I EVER have one event in the Summit that involves strong sentiment against a specific faction, it is permanently marred by that.

Which is to say that something can never be recognized as distinct from its history; what the summit is after these events will somehow not impact its image or use at that time more than its having hosted this conference, or at least not sufficiently to maintain its capacity to fill its niche of neutrality. In light of the enemy faction's pilots being able to say 'we were able to speak unimpeded there - unless we were disruptive - while in the MIDDLE of an enemy conference set against us' affects that. And if they won't say it, we'll all say it for us - all two hundred of us.

Erosion of communal assurances of certain channel functions being available -> less use of channel for certain setting-relevant conditions dependent, in their view, on prior functions -> death of channel from mismanagement - Basically, this suggests that nobody will change strategy if things actually worsen over time, and that things will worsen over time because of a perceived alteration.

I find that the sort of character who would fail to reassess current events constantly and change their behavior as such a reassessment prompted laughably unsuitable for a 'general roleplay' setting. So when we switch back to good ol' business as usual mode and are plainly still neutral to everyone, as we largely have been throughout the conference, yeah, no.


MY line of thinking, on the other hand, is:

Use of summit for events -> leveraging of holistic resources (event draw of roleplayers, news article) to bring more people into the channel that are interested in roleplay -> having exposure for the summit as a general roleplay channel drastically increase because so many more people have it in their channels lists or have heard of it as a roleplay channel of some sort -> later use of channel by more players -> promotion of channel, growth of community.

[Mazca]

So the sansha conference can be held in the summit aswell then?

[Silver Night]

I feel my name on that list is mis-representative. I still strongly disagree, which didn't change during our discussion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that I was simply not clear enough about that. I just decided there there would be no gain in trying to argue with you about it further. I hadn't planned on coming back to this thread, but I felt that required clarification.

Edit: I would suggest that if you are going to make lists of people, you are extraordinarily careful that they don't feel that such lists misrepresent their position.

[The Cosmopolite]

Well, I must say that I'm content to see certain things said and remain in full view of all, so I welcome their return in a modified form.

Leaving aside ingredients lists, quasi-roborative nostrums and exhortations to have ten ears of corn rise where before one struggled to grow (allegedly), I believe the discussion still needs to turn to practical solutions to the real issue.

The issue, really, is one of perception because neutrality is a matter of perception, largely, and if an RP channel that existed to provide a neutral, common ground is seen to lose its neutrality then, in effect, it actually has.

The solutions really boil down to:
1) Fix perceived problems with an existing resource.
2) Start again somewhere else.

I don't see much fixing going on. I see a lot of editorializing about people raising concerns. But I don't see their concerns being addressed.

So it is starting to look like solution No. 2 may be needed.

In fact, my recent experience tells me that solution No. 2 may be the healthy option given the life-enhancing properties of good old competition.*

Cosmo

* Yes, really, I am starting to come round to that point of view.

[Casiella]

I could support that, assuming that it has something different to offer besides a different mod list.

[Saxon Hawke]

1. Lillith
2. Izzy
3. Kaldor
4. Kaleigh
5. Saxon
6. lallara
7. Havvo
8. Ze'ev
9. Saxon
10. Jules
11. Lou
12. Vieve
13. Tomahawk Bliss (whom I hesitate to mention as I expect that in doing so, I will have it turned against me by same.)
14. Hamish

Saxon Hawke, the man so nice you list him twice!

[Vieve]

A more succinct take on my position.

"The horse is already splattered across the Interstate.  Could we please move on from how and why the freaking barn doors got opened?"

An addendum to that take:

"My opinion on this also doesn't mean a damn."