Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Mizhara on 24 May 2011, 10:09
-
So, there's been a few interesting opinions voiced in the I-RED thread, and even utterings of "Passing off infiltration as RP, wut?" and so on.
Isn't it RP? Let me construct a quick scenario here.
Miz wants... PIE dead. Or VI or whoever. Let's use PIE as an example since there's the obvious wardec going on. She wants to hurt them, but lacks intel. So, she contacts Alt #524, Katashi Rotsuda (as an example, but a bad one since everyone knows he's mine) and hires him to infiltrate PIE. Katashi goes through the motions, and after a long while he gets into PIE and starts to build trust and gain access to information which he then leaks to Miz.
From there, there's a plethora of options. Embarrassing information can be published in... well public. Military info can be used in space. Katashi could clean out the corp hangars and gtfo. All kinds of stuff.
... is this not RP?
I don't get that "Oh, it's an alt and thus it's not RP but some kind of affront and sin!" idea.
-
I'm not sure anyone would say it's NOT roleplay, but taking personal player information and using it as a tool for character assassination is a very unpleasant blend of the ic/ooc divide. I'm sure you could find a way to justify disrupting voice comms and 'hacking' forums in-character, but I'm guessing some people might not see it that way.
-
Like most things it can be done IC for IC reasons, not, or some combination thereof.
-
Well, as I've mellowed a bit over the years I tend to feel there can be barriers to considering stuff "rp" when it gets too painful and serious business. Trying to nuke somebody's corporation with alt infilitration and such will produce bad feelings and though in a perfect world you might say "hey dude its only RP right - and get a positive response" in reality its going to create pain and angst and suffering and they'll want to punch you not rp with you.
There is also the point that you can use "rp" as a convenient chest-high wall to hide behind and thats quite irritating too:
Remember when you outed SF for shooting Misan's alt during the corp-theft fiasco in Kamela? Problem there was we all knew as players that misan's treacherous director was being aided by his treacherous alt and it was an entirely justified killing by our rules of engagement. But you brought the whole business into an IC arena and claimed we were hypocrits to our rp because we couldn't make believe that misan's alt was not his alt and thus let him steal our tower equipment.
Ducking behind the "its all rp" chest high wall - when we pointed out your own role in the whole farrago which was annoying to our membership. "effectively being told .. SF = bad roleplayers because they can't make believe there was no connection and let themselves be robbed"
Thats a good example of where you can't really stretch the "everything's rp dude" to cover every example of interaction. Sometimes you need to realize that people are not perfect at characterization and ic/ooc divide and knowledge contaminates the roleplay (sometimes quite properly).
Infiltration, betrayal, theft and organization sabotage are big hits to people's ego and enjoyment of the game and in these circumstances its not unusual or strange to see a negative response to the suggestion that it should all just be "rp'ed out."
Thats my opinion anyway.
-
I'd say it depends on how it's done, and what is done with the results afterward, that determine how favorable a view people take on the matter. In this particular case, I think Milo and company probably could've done a better job filtering out all the OOC/RL stuff that wasn't necessary, and have ended up with a more positive reaction from the community as a result.
Also, as a side note, Katashi's a bad example not because it's well-known he's your alt, but because he's not of an Amarrian bloodline. He wouldn't even be able to get into PIE in the first place. :P
-
I don't get that "Oh, it's an alt and thus it's not RP but some kind of affront and sin!" idea.
From my point of view it's not the fact that the infiltration occured, it's the nature of the information that was published.
The OOC information should have been filtered out, and a release of the IC information should have been made rather than just dumping everything they had all over the place in a mess.
I have zero issue with the infiltration.
-
I think this debate usually muddles two different discussions together when it comes up. There's the question of what is and isn't RP in regards to infiltration, with the crucial questions hinging on how to handle meta-game information. Then there's question of is infiltration all kinds of wrong or just part of the game. They are distinct issues, but they are usually treated as a single problem.
My personal view of it is that whether it is or isn't RP depends on the execution, really. If it is well enough done, the necessary meta-gamey bits can be incorporated into the RP equation.
I have no solid opinion on whether infiltration is a bad practice in general, though. Obviously, I wouldn't want to suffer from it myself and would be a bit unlikely to do it myself simply because the tediousness of it isn't really to my liking as far as gameplay goes. Yet, I can appreciate a well done heist or spying effort. I guess I recognize it is part of the game and don't feel the need to pass moral judgment.
-
The guy who posted it doesn't seem to be doing any harm from what I see. Also I agree to the OOC, but really that's minor compared to the OP's IC nature. No harm done.
-
I think Jade sums up the issues decently, you can try to be as much of a purest as you want, but there are some times that the lines will get smeared, despite your best intentions, and that needs to be accounted for.
-
Just a quick note here, I'm not even touching upon the pure mechanics of infiltration and whether or not it's an acceptable thing to do. My own view on the matter is that fuck yes it's acceptable and part of the game, but that's not what this particular post is about.
Using Jade's scenario as an example, since it actually happened:
Misan used an alt to make off with... what was it, two towers? SF shot up the neutral alt and there was RP around it since it was a neutral hauler. Now, why couldn't all this be an IC infiltration and theft? Misan did what he did, stealing the towers and so on with the use of an alt. SF realized this and shot up the alt and got an IC reaction for shooting neutrals. A perfectly valid IC scenario is to just go "SF identified the neutral as a hostile agent, most likely in Misan Pal'taek's employ, and shot him.". There's questioning on the matter and there's questioning of RoE, and all kinds of fun things going on around it.
Just like if PIE realized Katashi was my alt and spotted him taking down towers or whatever, then shot him up and issued a statement about Katashi being a paid agent working for Mizhara. Then... well, again pulled out of my ass, Lyn Farrel of KotMC rolls up and goes "Hey, wait a minute. Katashi was not only neutral, he was part of your corporation and could have had a perfectly good reason for being there. Why did you guys shoot and kill an innocent? I demand proof!" and there's fun to be had around that stuff.
How is shooting down a tower and stealing shit from corp hangars that much different? Or any of the other nasty, painful and expensive acts of hostility we can do to each other in-space and in-game so much different, just because it's not a direct fight? Or for that matter, dissemination of classified intel and so on?
My point is... it's all still IC. It's all still RP. Hell yes it can be shady, and downright underhanded, but it's still RP and even RP that's perfectly suited for New Eden's insanely dark and twisted universe. I'll go ahead and say that sure, you can go to decent lengths to avoid OoC information being used and so on, but most of said information is In Character simply by dint of affecting other players in Eve.
Secondly, I really don't see why RPers should somehow be immune to what's done to non-RP entities in Eve all the time and for less reason than our IC hostilities and reasons.
-
Nobody is saying they are "immune."
Its just pointing out that there are circumstances where saying "its just RP" will meet a less than equitable reaction from the victims of infiltration/theft/sabotage etc.
You can't force somebody not to infiltrate and fuck you up in eve (if they really want too)
But equally you cannot force somebody to roleplay with you over the incident if they feel you have behaved badly.
-
So, she contacts Alt #524, Katashi Rotsuda (as an example, but a bad one since everyone knows he's mine) and hires him to infiltrate PIE. Katashi goes through the motions, and after a long while he gets into PIE and starts to build trust and gain access to information which he then leaks to Miz.
Which is obviously false intel and stuff we didn't want anyway... There's no listening devices or anything in there, Achura...
I'm still giggling over the Caldari walking around PIE headquarters. I know it was just an example, but still hilarious.
:D
-
My issue with infiltration RP in EVE is that the game is very poor in representing actual infiltration jobs.
1. Infiltrators tend to be more careful in normal cases because they can get killed. In EVE this (dire) consequence is removed.
2. Most cases of infiltration (and not disgruntled people abandoning their former friends) are executed by alts. Alts are immune to defection, one of the greatest danger of long infiltration operations.
3. Because of the stakes involved, and because allmost nobody RPs everything that consistently, infiltration usually involves large OOC elements. This tends to cause a mess because of the OOC/IC crossover with regards to trust and OOC info. Nearly every corp and alliance bases influence of characters on player trust, not on character trust, hence infiltration often amounts to an OOC trust breaking.
-
Oh, if people perform infiltration jobs without alts (by actually hiring another character) and that character succesfully leaks IC-tagged only, you'll have my worship.
-
I don't think anyone's saying that infiltration can't have some serious trust and feelings involved, and thus breaking of said trust and so on and so forth, but on the other hand I just can't see how it's not RP or poor RP. While of course there'll be negative consequences for everyone around, and there'll be hostilities between the players in question... it's still RP.
-
Why must it be an alt that does it? You could drum up a ton of RP by networking, bribery, seduction, extortion, dirty back room deals, and other things by getting a 'legitimate' character already in the corp or alliance to do it for you. On one level, all of that is missed out when you use an alt to do it; unless you RP those alts communicating together by yourself, there's none of the shady, dodgy games being played out with the risk of the consequences for getting caught during the conspiring (as opposed to caught in the act).
(Re-Aw has had a blanket no alt-spy rule since the beginning, and that's one reason for it.)
-
There's no reason not to do it that way, but nor are there any reasons to consider alt-spai any less RP than the alternative, is it?
-
OOHH i get to make an I-RED Official Statment... or maybe not
Anyways from my own personal perspective i dont see anything wrong with infiltration RP wise, i remember watching Jade talk about this at Fan Fest on the alliance pannel 3 years ago and i agreed with alot of what he said.
The problem lies here.
The leaks are of OOC resources and mails, they should not have been leaked as IC files.
But either way you all get to see our internal activity :lol:
I didnt spell or grammer check this, sorry for the errors
-
Oh, if people perform infiltration jobs without alts (by actually hiring another character) and that character succesfully leaks IC-tagged only, you'll have my worship.
Agreed. If you use your main and have to deal with the results, then I'm more ok with it. As there are currently no consequences for the betrayal by using alts, I find the whole concept stupid.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. When you look at whatever results you would achieve, and realize only a few people would enjoy anything to do with it, and the others would be quite unhappy, why should you go through with it? Aside from being an ass?
I could run around decking small 10-man RP corps to oblivion with the amount of bodies at my disposal, but how would that benefit anyone in the RP community?
You should all ask yourself ahead of these sorts of things if it benefits us as a group, or just benefits your own sense of importance.
-
There's no reason not to do it that way, but nor are there any reasons to consider alt-spai any less RP than the alternative, is it?
Personally, I think it's more what's fun for the players. We actually had this discussion about a month ago on the corp forums when a newer member was curious why we didn't.
Any spies we may have used have always been best described as informants. They have been characters who were already in the target corp that we have approached in an IC manner to get them to tell us things. Mostly, these are plans or current activities, never passwords (of the Vent or forum kind) and such except for imaginary RP ones for getting past a security robot or something like that which can be used in a RP scene.
It's basically the view of not breaking OOC trust to hurt OOC friends. I have a bigger reply there I can copy pasta here, if you want it, that talks about my personal experience with an alt of mine in a position to spy once.
-
and hires him to infiltrate
it is an odd kind of hiring someone, when there are no payments or communications ever made between them.
When the infiltrator character does not receive isk, ships or other material, not even for "expenses", and never sends any communications to the party that receives the information, then... why are they infiltrating ?
-
So glad this thread has stayed civil and on-topic.
Louella: not that I've ever infiltrated a corp, but I have a number of alts to whom I laundered ISK and items, either through middlemen that couldn't be traced to me or through meeting at a safespot and dropping stuff into a jetcan.
Also: not all gameplay has to be direct RP, even for a roleplayer. Whether this says something about the player in question is a legitimate subject for debate.
-
Who says they're not communicating? It's enormously easy to transfer ISK and communicate without leaving anything but logs and contract stuff that can't be seen without extended API and so on.
-
Oh god, I hope no-one infiltrates Mixed Metaphor. People might find out I watch My Little Pony and still play with Lego.
-
Oh, if people perform infiltration jobs without alts (by actually hiring another character) and that character succesfully leaks IC-tagged only, you'll have my worship.
Agreed. If you use your main and have to deal with the results, then I'm more ok with it. As there are currently no consequences for the betrayal by using alts, I find the whole concept stupid.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. When you look at whatever results you would achieve, and realize only a few people would enjoy anything to do with it, and the others would be quite unhappy, why should you go through with it? Aside from being an ass?
I could run around decking small 10-man RP corps to oblivion with the amount of bodies at my disposal, but how would that benefit anyone in the RP community?
You should all ask yourself ahead of these sorts of things if it benefits us as a group, or just benefits your own sense of importance.
I have more or less the same feeling. And also with Merdaneth.
Though in any case, even if it is perfectly RP in most of the regular and well done cases, it makes me uneasy.
Unless you infiltrate a RP corporation being in the "immersionist" category with 100% IC stuff and no OOC relationships at all between members, well... Lets take KotMC (because i know how it works internally). You will enter in the corp with a half IC/OCC introduction if you are a roleplayer, or with a totally OOC introduction if you are not. You can pretend both, even if you are playing an alt of an actual RPer. In any case afterwise, you will have to deal with a purely OOC corp channel (and its the only mandatory one, but it is there). You will have difficulties to avoid not talking on it because people will naturally start to talk to you or even ask you questions. Same thing on vent, we do not consider it IC, and the most part of our forums are OOC too (even when commenting about IC stuff). We are only heavily RPing IC on dedicated RP channels. My point is that you will have to cope with OOC stuff when infiltrating us. You will always speak OOC with us, and the whole infiltration thing will be totally blended between IC and OOC things. Even if you betray IC-ly by purely IC actions and stabs in the back, you will obviously stab in the back OOCly too. And because it will happen after a while, you will also probably not be able to remember what was IC knowledge to your character and what was not (especially about what was posted on a RP log on the forums, etc). Eventually, your betrayal is half IC at best, and half OOC (if not more), even if you try not to do so.
In any case im not fond of "unilateral RP", even if it is about things that really happened ingame. I tend to favor cooperation and coordination with the other parties involved. Less insane.
-
Who says they're not communicating?
Some do, some don't.
I just think it is a bit like the sub 900ksp alts in rookieships to see what is on the other side of a gate before jumping in the main.
what IC reason does that alt have to be there? How do they benefit from their actions? how/why is the information transmitted IC to the main?
-
Well said, Farel.
I'm recalling that Moira ooc infiltration on my guys a few years back with some unpleasantness.
-
The implication that there has to be an rp motivation for every solitary act is mildly absurd too. The player makes the final decision, and may be acting on intel the character may not otherwise have access to. Did your character have a pre-stated reasoning for training Mechanic 3 at 6:05am on June 23rd?
-
Did your character have a pre-stated reasoning for training Mechanic 3 at 6:05am on June 23rd?
Yes. It was so she can be a better pilot and better serve her corp.
-
I think we can distill this down into three seperate questions by now, which are best addressed and handled as seperate issues:
1, Is it acceptable to, as part of an IC intelligence release, include information that is specifically or most likely OOC information (i.e., the information refers to out-of-universe things, is written in an obviously OOC manner, etc)?
I think this is the easiest to address, so I'll hit it first: No. There's not reason to release information that you are certain or pretty certain is OOC information as part of an IC operation. By doing this, you are effectively dictating for another player or group of players how they play the game, which in my opinion displays a serious lack of respect for fellow players.
2, is it acceptable to infiltrate another corp and release information / assets / whatever as part of an IC operation, with all aspects of this being couched in IC terms?
I'm going to tentatively say yes on this. I'm not certain on it because inevitably someone will infiltrate with intent not to just kill a valuable ship or loot some assets but to crush an organization out of existance via a coordinated campaign of sowing distrust, embarrasment of members, etc, and while I'm not generally one for "space bushido" I like to think we have enough respect for each other to not be crushing our long-term projects just for the sake of crushing.
3, is it "cool" to use alts for an infiltration (note that this includes alts who do so under the IC reasoning of "I was payed" or "I do it for fun" as well as alts with a full backstory for reasoning)?
Well, here's the thing - generally, it's very very hard to turn a player from a corp they have worked in for some time. Barring storyline twists (which also happen to be rather rare) and particularly ruthless characters, you don't have a lot of options - doubly so because unless you want to include a "middleman" or "handler" alt, the person you are approaching is going to be met by someone who is obviously hostile towards the organization they're part of.
So, it may be more a case of "no other efficient way, so people are just going to use alts" than "cool/not cool".
-
Did your character have a pre-stated reasoning for training Mechanic 3 at 6:05am on June 23rd?
Yes. It was so she can be a better pilot and better serve her corp.
I want evidence! :lol:
-
in reality its going to create pain and angst and suffering and they'll want to punch you
Isn't that generally the point? I don't think we took a shit in Kimotoro's cereal bowl because we thought it'd make them happy, we did it because we wanted to grind their alliance to dust and we did just that. RP or not, it didn't make anyone on the receiving end of it very happy.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the OP's take on it, though I never expect anyone to be happy with it if/when my character is outed.
Incidentally Merdaneth, you may commence worship now. I joined PL with my main, gathered as much intel as I could on their modus operandi which was passed back to Rote Kapelle leadership, and built a relationship with Viper Shizzle that later netted me a fat payday. :)
and hires him to infiltrate
it is an odd kind of hiring someone, when there are no payments or communications ever made between them.
When the infiltrator character does not receive isk, ships or other material, not even for "expenses", and never sends any communications to the party that receives the information, then... why are they infiltrating ?
How do you know they don't? Every one of my past infiltration alts were given isk in some way or another. Moreover, what's to say they aren't clandestine lovers or some such? I don't think things of that nature need to be "RPed out" anymore than your character's background, family, what color socks they put on in the morning or where they eat their meals every day. Could it be? Sure. Does it need to be? No.
-
Just like if PIE realized Katashi was my alt and spotted him taking down towers or whatever, then shot him up and issued a statement about Katashi being a paid agent working for Mizhara. Then... well, again pulled out of my ass, Lyn Farrel of KotMC rolls up and goes "Hey, wait a minute. Katashi was not only neutral, he was part of your corporation and could have had a perfectly good reason for being there. Why did you guys shoot and kill an innocent? I demand proof!" and there's fun to be had around that stuff.
If this is ever true, Lyn, we need to talk about how this is 'not Ammatar'... :evil:
-
/me shifty eyes.
... it's all true.
-
Made a bit of a "who cares" post here but going to retract my comment since I started reading the threads rather than posting.
-
On a more serious note.
I view RP as guided by principles rather than rules.
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.
So in effect, I think that while infiltration is a valid tactic, to do it in a manner that is in keeping with proper respect for the IC/OOC divide, the infiltrator and those requesting the infiltration should NOT be the same people. You could perhaps 'hire' a character who rps, possibly create a venue for would-be spies and their ears etc etc, and this would leave choice in the hands of the infiltrator as to whether they wanted to do your work for you. It may even improve the quality of the infiltration.
-
So in effect, I think that while infiltration is a valid tactic, to do it in a manner that is in keeping with proper respect for the IC/OOC divide, the infiltrator and those requesting the infiltration should NOT be the same people. You could perhaps 'hire' a character who rps, possibly create a venue for would-be spies and their ears etc etc, and this would leave choice in the hands of the infiltrator as to whether they wanted to do your work for you. It may even improve the quality of the infiltration.
It will likely increases the difficulty and the cost of the infiltration, but it will likely improve the RP quality of the infiltration.
-
Well said, Farel.
I'm recalling that Moira ooc infiltration on my guys a few years back with some unpleasantness.
As I recall, the infiltration was done entirely in character. Althea Ekran, a very well known alt of mine, pretended to be leaving Moira due to hating Julianus Soter, and was tired of participating in the Federation's wars.
Althea Ekran then joined Vitalia's corporation, Khanid Provincial. Now, At this stage, Althea Ekran was operating as Julianus Soter's operative. The long standing, and long-RP'ed interaction between the two in various public and semi-public settings, was that Althea was Soter's right hand gal, with covert operations as her speciality. The intent was to destroy the Provincial's new Archon, dealing a blow against a Khanid Kingdom loyalist corporation and ally of the Caldari State.
Which part of that is out of character?
Addendum: Better part: Althea Ekran's character history is about how the Khanid Kingdom made an underhanded deal with a Caldari megacorporation, eventually throwing her to the wolves as the bodyguard of a noble family in the Kingdom. Hence, when the ruse was discovered by Vitalia's pilots, and the plot thwarted, she put in her bio "DEATH TO THE KINGDOM".
Well, should we now outlaw that kind of roleplay? Is that what we've come to? What game is it that we're playing, anyway?
-
So in effect, I think that while infiltration is a valid tactic, to do it in a manner that is in keeping with proper respect for the IC/OOC divide, the infiltrator and those requesting the infiltration should NOT be the same people. You could perhaps 'hire' a character who rps, possibly create a venue for would-be spies and their ears etc etc, and this would leave choice in the hands of the infiltrator as to whether they wanted to do your work for you. It may even improve the quality of the infiltration.
It will likely increases the difficulty and the cost of the infiltration, but it will likely improve the RP quality of the infiltration.
It will not improve RP. It will introduce RP into the process of infiltration, for there is no poetry in contemporary methods.
-
For me, there is also the issue of the absolutely OOC trust between a player and their alt. If someone from another corp passes me information about, say, and op, and I set up an ambush, it could be good information, or it could be a trap.
If it's my alt in the other corp, I know it's good information. For me, that's a lot less fun.
-
If it's my alt in the other corp, I know it's good information. For me, that's a lot less fun.
I dunno, your alts lie to you all the time. Mine just try to make a profit off me.
-
in reality its going to create pain and angst and suffering and they'll want to punch you
Isn't that generally the point? I don't think we took a shit in Kimotoro's cereal bowl because we thought it'd make them happy, we did it because we wanted to grind their alliance to dust and we did just that. RP or not, it didn't make anyone on the receiving end of it very happy.
Well to be fair, the reason I wanted to do it was because I wanted a good healthy high profile war to rebuild the alliance from a summer doldrums in Curse and the abortive insantity of the "Jericho Prime Movement" more than simply crushing Kimotoro. Of course once the fighting started and we had stuff like the Wassenar Manouver and great leader Nikolai Nuvolari doing a Ragnar from the deck of his Apocalypse it did take on a momentum all of its own.
Also (to be frank) I was much more of bastard back then. Working long hours as a city consultant, mixing with nasty people and generally drinking 15 cups of coffee a day. Its been a several years now and I've slowed my lifestyle down considerably and don't work nearly so hard and as a consequence don't feel the need to kick virtual puppies nearly so often.
-
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.
Let me counter. My first infiltration was Xaiah infiltrating Aegis Militia. Xaiah was originally created as a carebear alt. She was a Caldari created around the same time Bacch was in Star Fraction shooting the Caldari loyalists.
There was an opportunity to infiltrate Aegis Militia with her, so I did. I spent nearly 9 months in AM, and while she never had sympathies for their goals (ie, Amarr Victor [insert latin spam here]), she did get to know a lot of the pilots in AM. Xaiah flew in AT 4 for Aegis Militia (incidentally, about an hour before I flew with Bacch for SF--that was rather hectic) and did her best to perform as well as she could despite her true loyalties, and she did favors for members of the alliance not merely because it suited her purposes, but because she got to know and like many of the pilots. At the end of the day, however, her beliefs were stronger than any sense of loyalty or duty she felt towards the pilots in AM, and so when the time was right, she acted.
Had she truly been a slave, she would not have flown for AM in the tourney. It was a last minute favor begged for by some of the leadership because she was the only one online that could fly a particular ship, but she could have easily bowed out and no one would have held it against her since it was sprung on her at the last minute.
In any case, for all the "dat's not doin it right" comments about RP and infiltration, it will continue to happen. There are ways to prevent it from happening to you, though none are foolproof, but there are ways to protect yourself from serious damage being caused. You make choices when you run an organization. How paranoid do you want to be? How much do you really care about your forums being leaked? Do you want XYZ group to have intel on your upcoming operations? Maybe you want to spring a trap and you know you're infiltrated so you broadcast something to the entire alliance with plenty of advance notice to ensure your enemies know what's going to happen where and when, but keep the second part of the plan close to your chest so that when they think they're springing a trap they're simply playing into yours.
To me those are the fun parts of the espionage game. I don't care what they ate for breakfast, if someone has too much control over the color of their socks or whether their parents were murdered by terrible horrible [insert your choice of pirates, slavers, or other boogeymen here] or not.
Then again, my view of RP starts when I log into EVE. I'm not actually a pilot, nor am I a capsuleer, and nor are any of the other players in my alliance. But when I refer to them I tend to throw around the word "pilot", tend to refer to my ship as "my ship" rather than "my internet spacepixels," and everyone on my TS3 server refers to me as Bacchanalian rather than Rick.
-
I kinda view arguing that infiltration isn't in RP and shouldn't use it is rather like arguing that ECM isn't real pvp and shouldn't be used in combat. It's there, it's not going anywhere, and its going to be used regardless of what I or anyone else say might say.
EVE RP starts getting tiresome for me when we try to divorce it from the actual game, and like it or not infiltration has a long and distinguished history in EVE, even to the point of CCP using it in a marketing piece.
Moreover, it creates a sense of paranoia and distrust in RP corps, and frankly I find this is a good thing when you're trying to roleplay in a dark and gritty world. My take on trusting another pilot is a lot like undocking a ship in EVE, to be true to EVE's dark vision, there always has to be the chance of loss.
-
Had she truly been a slave, she would not have flown for AM in the tourney. It was a last minute favor begged for by some of the leadership because she was the only one online that could fly a particular ship, but she could have easily bowed out and no one would have held it against her since it was sprung on her at the last minute.
Bacch, the problem with (slave) infiltration alts is that they don't do anything you (as a player) are not behind 100%. You wanted her to fly in AT4 (for whatever reason). She hasn't made any decision you disagreed with and couldn't make any decision you disagreed with. Hence she is just an extension of the same player, posing as an entity independt of you.
Also /me bows to you for doing the other infiltration with your main, although using an indepedent intermediary (especially one you don't/didn't know IRL) would be the pinnacle of RP infiltration for me.
-
Being no fan of corporation infiltration and theft I might have a biased negative view on this, though I accept it as a game mechanic/element.
If I have to believe that a successful infiltration was done IC the entire thing has to be done IC. For one, that requires that the infiltrated corporation is IC all the time and no level of OOC friendship or interaction has been used to gain trust within the corporation. The IC/OOC fuzziness is exactly around the trust issue (in which domain does the trust exist?) which is essential for the infiltration to be a success.
This, along with the unrealistic devotion when using an alt for the infiltration, makes it very difficult for me to accept a corporation infiltration as IC. More often it just seems like a poor attempt at avoiding negative feedback from the community at large. And I, for one, will indeed think poorly of you from an OOC point of view.
-
It's EVE, everything goes.
Let me elaborate that.
When it goes to the bottom line, in EVE people will do whatever they want, if it feels good.
People play to enjoy the game, some people just enjoy different aspects of it.
Me?
For personal reasons I am against infiltration in any shape of form, but that's because I like to trust people, so breaking such a basic thing as trust, for me, is a big deal.
For the same reason I do not lie, and partially because my memory is not good enough to keep track of them.
Some people like chocolate, some people like marshmallows, some people like to smack on local and grief people, some people like carebear hugging asteroids in high-sec, it's pretty much all the same.
Of course I am vocal when someone chooses to do something that I would not enjoy or find threatening to me.
It's EVE, everything goes.
-
Using an alt to infiltrate someone is not only uncool, but too easy as well.
Now, convincing an enemy that you've turned over a new leaf and that in the future you'll be their best buddy before destroying them from within - that's slightly different.
-
Using an alt to infiltrate someone is not only uncool, but too easy as well.
Now, convincing an enemy that you've turned over a new leaf and that in the future you'll be their best buddy before destroying them from within - that's slightly different.
Thats a very good point, however i do stand by the concept that spying has become a valid tactic, the real art is how you use the information
-
Using an alt to infiltrate someone is not only uncool, but too easy as well.
Now, convincing an enemy that you've turned over a new leaf and that in the future you'll be their best buddy before destroying them from within - that's slightly different.
That almost happened to us last year you know.
-
Just like if PIE realized Katashi was my alt and spotted him taking down towers or whatever, then shot him up and issued a statement about Katashi being a paid agent working for Mizhara. Then... well, again pulled out of my ass, Lyn Farrel of KotMC rolls up and goes "Hey, wait a minute. Katashi was not only neutral, he was part of your corporation and could have had a perfectly good reason for being there. Why did you guys shoot and kill an innocent? I demand proof!" and there's fun to be had around that stuff.
If this is ever true, Lyn, we need to talk about how this is 'not Ammatar'... :evil:
Not sure to understand the whole thing, but no. :p
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.
Let me counter. My first infiltration was Xaiah infiltrating Aegis Militia. Xaiah was originally created as a carebear alt. She was a Caldari created around the same time Bacch was in Star Fraction shooting the Caldari loyalists.
There was an opportunity to infiltrate Aegis Militia with her, so I did. I spent nearly 9 months in AM, and while she never had sympathies for their goals (ie, Amarr Victor [insert latin spam here]), she did get to know a lot of the pilots in AM. Xaiah flew in AT 4 for Aegis Militia (incidentally, about an hour before I flew with Bacch for SF--that was rather hectic) and did her best to perform as well as she could despite her true loyalties, and she did favors for members of the alliance not merely because it suited her purposes, but because she got to know and like many of the pilots. At the end of the day, however, her beliefs were stronger than any sense of loyalty or duty she felt towards the pilots in AM, and so when the time was right, she acted.
Had she truly been a slave, she would not have flown for AM in the tourney. It was a last minute favor begged for by some of the leadership because she was the only one online that could fly a particular ship, but she could have easily bowed out and no one would have held it against her since it was sprung on her at the last minute.
In any case, for all the "dat's not doin it right" comments about RP and infiltration, it will continue to happen. There are ways to prevent it from happening to you, though none are foolproof, but there are ways to protect yourself from serious damage being caused. You make choices when you run an organization. How paranoid do you want to be? How much do you really care about your forums being leaked? Do you want XYZ group to have intel on your upcoming operations? Maybe you want to spring a trap and you know you're infiltrated so you broadcast something to the entire alliance with plenty of advance notice to ensure your enemies know what's going to happen where and when, but keep the second part of the plan close to your chest so that when they think they're springing a trap they're simply playing into yours.
To me those are the fun parts of the espionage game. I don't care what they ate for breakfast, if someone has too much control over the color of their socks or whether their parents were murdered by terrible horrible [insert your choice of pirates, slavers, or other boogeymen here] or not.
Then again, my view of RP starts when I log into EVE. I'm not actually a pilot, nor am I a capsuleer, and nor are any of the other players in my alliance. But when I refer to them I tend to throw around the word "pilot", tend to refer to my ship as "my ship" rather than "my internet spacepixels," and everyone on my TS3 server refers to me as Bacchanalian rather than Rick.
You did not even try to speak with the people of AM afterwise, did you ? Or you just did not care of their feelings ? Not to add the whole smacking and chestbeating we had to face after, and even if we may argue that this is RP, it is again the whole point of my "uneasyness" when we start to mix infiltration with RP. Reading a lot of people (that were not even the authors of the sabotage), it sounded more like a big OOC taunt and childish mockery glued into an IC coating.
I perfectly know what happened, I was there and this was just before I got co-executor of the whole alliance. AMC corp was so washed up and broken morally after all these repeated infiltrations that we had to take that and assume that poisoned gift for them (and because it would never have happened in our corp, it was run exclusively by 3 RL friends). It was the last of the blows and rotten stones that eventually leaded the whole leadership to collapse (hey, this sabotage was not even really hurting in terms of isk damage, it was pure moral and backstabbing damage). As you said yourself, they were a very genuine bunch of friends and I still recall how scary was the Conclave forums private parts where everything ended to revolve around witch hunts and unsane levels of paranoia.
For what we know of, this infiltration was not even totally RP. How could it be when Xaiah was speaking with us all OOC-ly on a regular basis ?
Note : I remember that myself had several good ooc(/ic) interactions with Xaiah and quite liked the player. I was a little surprised to hear what happened when Soratah announced the thing. He sounded very pissed.
Well said, Farel.
I'm recalling that Moira ooc infiltration on my guys a few years back with some unpleasantness.
As I recall, the infiltration was done entirely in character. Althea Ekran, a very well known alt of mine, pretended to be leaving Moira due to hating Julianus Soter, and was tired of participating in the Federation's wars.
Althea Ekran then joined Vitalia's corporation, Khanid Provincial. Now, At this stage, Althea Ekran was operating as Julianus Soter's operative. The long standing, and long-RP'ed interaction between the two in various public and semi-public settings, was that Althea was Soter's right hand gal, with covert operations as her speciality. The intent was to destroy the Provincial's new Archon, dealing a blow against a Khanid Kingdom loyalist corporation and ally of the Caldari State.
Which part of that is out of character?
Addendum: Better part: Althea Ekran's character history is about how the Khanid Kingdom made an underhanded deal with a Caldari megacorporation, eventually throwing her to the wolves as the bodyguard of a noble family in the Kingdom. Hence, when the ruse was discovered by Vitalia's pilots, and the plot thwarted, she put in her bio "DEATH TO THE KINGDOM".
Well, should we now outlaw that kind of roleplay? Is that what we've come to? What game is it that we're playing, anyway?
Was Khanid Provincial 100% IC on all of their comm channels, always ?
-
To deviate slightly from the OP: does everything one does IG have to come down to "good RP"?
-
I think it is next to impossible to do good infiltration jobs totally IC, since a lot of 'secure' communications find place on an OOC level and using out-of-game tools to.
If OOC communications are unusable for IC infiltration jobs, you'll find very few organizations worthy to infiltrate.
In my experience trust of a character is often based on trust in the player. If my character is perfectly obedient but I the player insult my CEO during OOC conversation, I'm not gonna get that director position. However, if I insult my CEO during IC conversation, but I'm good buddies (or RL friends) with my CEO, it is much more likely for me to get that director position.
Many people use OOC comms and OOC trust a shield against infiltration, which makes it quite hard for the IC infiltrator. When the going gets tough, people tend to fall OOC.
-
To deviate slightly from the OP: does everything one does IG have to come down to "good RP"?
Well, part of the goal of a game is to make it fun for as many other players as possible. Things that aren't fun upset people, and if enough of those things happen, people stop playing said game. There is a limited tolerance for fun-reducing players in any game (and any society), beyond which the game (or society) breaks down.
I see "good RP" as a alternative way of saying "productively and fun-generating play"
-
Alternately, I think of "good RP" as a subset of "fun gameplay". Other things in EVE (and other MMORPGs as well) can be lots of fun without necessarily being RP per se. Witness how much people loved the snowball launchers, for example. We can also appreciate certain gameplay elements without necessarily finding good IC explanations for them (e.g. customs offices in W-space).
Returning to the OP, then, infiltration occurs to the scale it does in EVE because, even though people don't like getting infiltrated, generally speaking we do like playing in this sort of environment where the metagame (in the game theoretical rather than roleplay sense) matters so much. Many players enjoy the spy game at different levels, whether as observers, spies, counter-intel, and similar roles. I don't think we can take as a given that infiltration's relation to "good RP" (a necessarily subjective term) automatically determines whether we can consider it "fun gameplay".
-
So, skimming through the thread I may have missed a point or three.
Long and short of it is: IC infiltration is very viable, and has been done on several occasions (including current situations). The character acts as they need to when interacting with their 'marked' corpmates. As your OOC choices (whether to shoot at a particular target, whether your logistics happen to hit the person that needs them when they should, etc...) are the exact same as your IC choices are, I don't see a problem on that end.
As for "OOC Comms" (forums, intel channels, voice comms, etc...) I see them as IC lite; No, they may not be intended to be IC communications, but if your CEO says "hey, we're going to be pulling an op at this time on this date." you can assume that your character (IC) would be privy to this information (IC it would read the exact same most likely).
That all said, maintaining a reasonable communications channel between the infiltrator and the person getting the information is the difficult part IC. Using alts is "easy" if the person has very few qualms with it, and there's the guarantee that the infiltrating character won't defect. However, it's much easier for an information broker to pay off someone else to do the grunt work (or pay someone already on the inside to defect), rather than try to run multiple infiltrating characters at the same time. Risk in that case is being played, the character/player being paid to be on the inside is feeding false information while taking your kredits. It's one of the reasons I like the intrigue of the intelligence/infiltration side of the game.
-
To Inara:
You do bring up valid points and i agree with most of what you say, the only thing that worries me is when people make minmatar slave jokes OOC like JR dose to me.
Would we consider that IC.
Im all for infiltration and in my eyes thats not the issue, for me its the blur between IC and OOC.
-
To Inara:
You do bring up valid points and i agree with most of what you say, the only thing that worries me is when people make minmatar slave jokes OOC like JR dose to me.
Would we consider that IC.
Im all for infiltration and in my eyes thats not the issue, for me its the blur between IC and OOC.
Not sure who JR is (at least by the initials), but likely if I was in that corp Inara would assume that JR has a bad sense of humor and Cheiftan puts up with it. At least, that's how I'd translate that OOC/IC; unless it's specifically OOC and it's just JR spouting nonsense on comms, in which case I'd ignore him. It honestly depends on the information and whether there's a reasonable connection.
If I know OOC that someone is going to be away from the game for a couple days, I'll just make an IC connection that the character is going to be out of comms for the next couple days for a sabbatical or something. But if they are going to be away because their dog died and they are grieving, there's no reason to make a dead dog reference IC if the character doesn't have a dog.
-
JR would be the alliance executor, John Revenant, Inara. :P
-
people make minmatar slave jokes OOC like JR dose to me.
Shhhh....
JR has a bad sense of humor
Check...
it's just JR spouting nonsense on comms, in which case I'd ignore him.
Check...
But yes if you look at the info dump you will see I am a immature guy hanging out with friends OOCly alot, it includes nonsense of comms, very very bad sense of humor, and being a general idiot. Making farting noises, picking my nose, informing of good (And very bad) toilet experiments... among other things.
Its defiantly not how John is...
-
You did not even try to speak with the people of AM afterwise, did you ? Or you just did not care of their feelings ? Not to add the whole smacking and chestbeating we had to face after, and even if we may argue that this is RP, it is again the whole point of my "uneasyness" when we start to mix infiltration with RP. Reading a lot of people (that were not even the authors of the sabotage), it sounded more like a big OOC taunt and childish mockery glued into an IC coating.
On the contrary, I spoke with Yoshito quite a bit, and Kra Ra a little. Most of my other favorite people refused to speak to me again afterwards, namely Smoke. Soratah threatened to come camp my front porch with a baseball bat, so I got him banned for a month from game for that comment. v0v
For what we know of, this infiltration was not even totally RP. How could it be when Xaiah was speaking with us all OOC-ly on a regular basis ?
AM was never an IC alliance. Had it been one, I would have.
Note : I remember that myself had several good ooc(/ic) interactions with Xaiah and quite liked the player. I was a little surprised to hear what happened when Soratah announced the thing. He sounded very pissed.
Pissed is an understatement--he threatened to come attack me in real life. Someone lost track of game vs life. v0v
-
I think its time I give my 2 cents!
I personally find the use of alts for such infiltration attemtps as a way to cheat the system because you cut out the slightles breadcrumb trail because you already are the one doing it yourself. I furthermore feel that RP infiltration needs to have that dirty gritty backroom deals to it. Which will hopefully become a possibility talking in stations on evevoice. Canceling logging of dealings!
I also find that if you hire someone it always has the chance of it blowing up in your face because the guy decides to change sides because the highest bidder changes if you use alts, there is no chance of something really going wrong cause come on its simply you doing it yourself.It just adds more of a level of Immersion into it. Deep cover agents can also simply start liking the guys he is spying and shift sides. It creates a lot more immersion because there are so many things that can go wrong with that and thusly I find it the better way of infiltration!
-
I think there might also be an argument that infilitration is simply unfun for the majority of pilots you know. I know I'll likely get responded to with some disparagement - but the reality is if you have infiltrated enemy corps, and they have infilitrated you etc - both sides get more risk-avoiding, more cynical and less inclined to just get out in space and fight. Having spies inside your alliance means you end up putting time to counter-espionage or otherwise limiting your exposure and using spies as a routine tactic in space combat leads to less actual fighting when such assets cannot be ensured.
I saw this a lot in the FW campaigns SF played an ancillary role in - both militias having complete spy coverage in the other fleets and generally getting paralyzed by the whole business - continually redocking the change loadouts to counter each other and putting more focus on what the enemy gang was doing internally than what they intended to do offensively.
My point is whether infilitration is "valid RP" or not it can be argued it emphasizes quite "unfun" aspects of the game and reduces the chance of actual in-space combat and genuine face to face roleplay confrontation.
Sure its super hardcore grimdark Eve in tooth and claw appropriate to the setting and all that....
But is it actually much cop as a gameplay mechanic if (as I strongly believe) its primary impact is to reduce the incidental chance of genuine "good fights".
I can say definitively here that infilitrating enemy organizations (and sure SF has done it for intel and combat intelligence purposes) has never really improved either the quality of the game or fun from space combat for us. The conflicts I've most enjoyed over the last few years have universally been those against entities we didn't have intel assets inside because frankly - its a joy to concentrate purely on fc'ing and shooting what you see and what your scouts report rather than having to force the mind through the wheels within wheels contortions of analysing your spy reports while presenting feints and evasions on your own voice coms!
Would Eve be a better (in terms of more pure fun) game without the spying and infilitration?
In terms of space combat and risk taking I say it would be.
And I suspect if you asked a whole bunch of 0.0 players whether they'd rather have fought to the last and seen their assets burning in desperate heroic rearguard space stalingrad struggles than seen their alliances disappear in a puff of poor gamplay mechanics - they'd probably agree with me.
I guess I can see a decent RP role for an IC infiltration that discovers the smokey deals and dodgy hypocrisy (or corporate secrets) of a target organization for propaganda and PR purposes. Discovering that a Nationalist leader was covertly betraying his nation in ic trade negotiations and war-profiteering with the enemy ? I can buy that, might even make some good threads.
But infilitrating to paralyze the enemy and stop them fighting in space at all? What good does that do anyone really?
-
This may be an oversimplification but...
If you can pull off an infiltration or assassination or whatever through IC methods only, kudoes to you. Once you start mixing in OOC info it's a kind of cheating.
Like, say your DM goes out and buys the newest D&D module. If you wait and enjoy the story as he unfolds it for you, you're a good player. If you go and buy a copy of it yourself and read it before the game, you're a cheat.
RP in EVE is totally unregulated in the IC sense. The only thing we have policing RP is ourselves. So if a player pulls a "cheat" like what we just saw with the IRED situation, we have a responsibility to ourselves to police it. We make sure the player's characters are ignored in further IC stuff. We protect ourselves from him infiltrating our friends and allies. With word being spread, the infiltraitor will find it difficult to find a new corp and will probably end up leaving the game. Maybe he'll end up in corps that don't RP, but at least he'll be out of our hair.
-
It might be "cheating" in a roleplay sense. It certainly isn't "cheating" in the EVE gameplay sense. That's the point I tried to make earlier, really. Not everything in EVE has to happen purely as RP.
Jade, I'd also note that, frequently, infiltration doesn't have intelligence gathering as its primary purpose. Or at least, not intelligence gathering in the sense of equipping one's fleet. It might have more to do with strategic intelligence, asset removal, or even sabotage, rather than trying to help one side "win good fights" in space.
-
Yeah certainly true Casiella, but I was more speaking from my recent experiences in the FW front. But even the removal of strategic assets stuff (ie offlining towers) can have the effect of being an easy workaround avoiding fights rather than having them. But I'll grant you - if infilitration discovers alt corps/alt production towers/vulnerability like that it *can* increase the incidence of conflict.
But my broad point was that I think current levels of infilitration spying have probably contributed to the general malaise in space combat in eve where its generally felt you are unprepared unless you have alt scouts/intel sources/spies/preparation everywhere before you even think about engaging in a shooting match in space.
-
Many players enjoy the spy game at different levels, whether as observers, spies, counter-intel, and similar roles.
Until we come to the ensuing drama when the infiltration results eventually occur, when the victim is usually not really enjoying that environnement. A lot of people litterally wank themselves over drama llamas threadwagons, but rarely the victim.
You did not even try to speak with the people of AM afterwise, did you ? Or you just did not care of their feelings ? Not to add the whole smacking and chestbeating we had to face after, and even if we may argue that this is RP, it is again the whole point of my "uneasyness" when we start to mix infiltration with RP. Reading a lot of people (that were not even the authors of the sabotage), it sounded more like a big OOC taunt and childish mockery glued into an IC coating.
On the contrary, I spoke with Yoshito quite a bit, and Kra Ra a little. Most of my other favorite people refused to speak to me again afterwards, namely Smoke. Soratah threatened to come camp my front porch with a baseball bat, so I got him banned for a month from game for that comment. v0v
For what we know of, this infiltration was not even totally RP. How could it be when Xaiah was speaking with us all OOC-ly on a regular basis ?
AM was never an IC alliance. Had it been one, I would have.
Note : I remember that myself had several good ooc(/ic) interactions with Xaiah and quite liked the player. I was a little surprised to hear what happened when Soratah announced the thing. He sounded very pissed.
Pissed is an understatement--he threatened to come attack me in real life. Someone lost track of game vs life. v0v
Yes I remember the banning.
AM was still IC on the alliance level. Not internally, yes, but on the policy and alliance level, definitly (and it was not only about RP declared wars here and there).
In any case, that does not change anything to my point, it even validates it. This is exactly the kind of gap that will often follow that kind of infiltration (be it IC or not, you will always have OOC mixed with it, period). And a gap between 2 RP entities means a gap in the community. A gap in the community leads to internal bullshit/drama/ignore/blacklist (yes im definitly not even going to try to speak to you ingame again, im not a fool, but thats sad).
You just have to look at the I-RED leak or other examples and you will see that this has always caused more or less grudges and feuds between entities, that can be more or less permanent, and hard to fix or patch up.
-
Many players enjoy the spy game at different levels, whether as observers, spies, counter-intel, and similar roles.
Until we come to the ensuing drama when the infiltration results eventually occur, when the victim is usually not really enjoying that environnement. A lot of people litterally wank themselves over drama llamas threadwagons, but rarely the victim.
As somebody who has had the corp I founded and led completely destroyed in this manner, I fully understand the frustration. But, you know, even then, I understood that it was part of the game -- kind of like losing a ship with billions of ISK in cargo to suicide gankers.
-
I understand it and as I said above, it can totally be considered as IC (much like a lot of ingame actions), even if the OOC side of buddying with the people you are infiltrating is tedious/clunky, at least.
Though the trust/moral damage is totally beyond what you can get out of a mere isk damage when both parties know that they are enemies beforehand.
-
Many players enjoy the spy game at different levels, whether as observers, spies, counter-intel, and similar roles.
Until we come to the ensuing drama when the infiltration results eventually occur, when the victim is usually not really enjoying that environnement. A lot of people litterally wank themselves over drama llamas threadwagons, but rarely the victim.
As somebody who has had the corp I founded and led completely destroyed in this manner, I fully understand the frustration. But, you know, even then, I understood that it was part of the game -- kind of like losing a ship with billions of ISK in cargo to suicide gankers.
Suicide gankers are not comparable. I've lost billions to them but I view their tactic as valid and one you can prepare against with the game mechanics. There are no realistic game mechanics that you can use to play eve to protect you from spies whilst preserving enjoyment of the game.
-
Let me counter..........Had she truly been a slave, she would not have flown for AM in the tourney.
It was a last minute favor begged for by some of the leadership because she was the only one online that could fly a particular ship, but she could have easily bowed out and no one would have held it against her since it was sprung on her at the last minute.
Thanks for your reply, but I think you know well that these kind of counter-arguments can insult even an average person's intelligence, Bacch.
Someone has already pointed out why they are gravely flawed. You can go on to tell me how you hated flying in the Alliance Tournament and how it really drained you in your efforts to stay under cover, and how serving in the alliance tournament was somehow a problem with your infiltrator status, and how you wouldn't have done it if you weren't trying to prove your 'loyalty'...
The rest of your post did not add any points to counter mine.
In essence the alt-rolling 'hi can I be your friend' infiltration methods are poor form in my view because they reduce the quality of the game and I think Jade is correct in his explanation of reducing conflict engagements.
The rubbishness of constant metagaming nonsense was a major contributor to my evolution into a trader - a far more efficient activity than half an hour of hunting for 5 minutes of conflict and 10 minutes of lag and jumping around to second guess the other poor sod you're trying to pulverise.
-
We had a pretty obvious spy in MSCS/U'K for a bit. We didn't boot him though cause he got a ton of kills. Eventually I guess he realized we knew and he left on his own, which I was actually kinda sad about since he helped make the killboard look good.
-
As somebody who has had the corp I founded and led completely destroyed in this manner, I fully understand the frustration. But, you know, even then, I understood that it was part of the game -- kind of like losing a ship with billions of ISK in cargo to suicide gankers.
The usual response to losing an expensive ship is "Don't undock what you're not prepared to lose".
One of my disappointments with the amount of damage a spy can do to an alliance is that if you take that concept and apply it, it comes out like "Don't invest more effort/work/personal trust into your corp/alliance (and personal relations with the members thereof) than you're prepared to have betrayed and destroyed by a spy"
And I think that leads to less rewarding experiences with corporations.
-
One would hope that your personal relations with other corp and alliance members would prove stronger than what game mechanics can handle. In your case, Ulphus, I have every confidence that that would prove true.
-
I find the spy concept a facisnating one for this game because of the sheer amount of effort, and the potential massive damage the moment of betrayal can do. The hard part is the OOC/IC seperation. You got two options as a spy, which is throw OOC out the window, and trust that the people you spy on won't abuse the knowledge that you are spying. This option is impossible, nobody with any sane investment in their corp can ignore this OOC knowledge or not. So the only way to effectively infiltrate is to lie on both fronts, both IC and OOC. Now your lying boldface to the people you are joining. So now it sucks for them when the truth comes out because on their end it won't be RP, it will be asshattery.
TLDR I don't think it's possible for everyone involved to disregard it as RP with the potential consequences of an infiltration. There will be butthurt and there will be drama. If ya don't give a crap about the fallout then go for it.
-
I find the spy concept a facisnating one for this game because of the sheer amount of effort, and the potential massive damage the moment of betrayal can do. The hard part is the OOC/IC seperation. You got two options as a spy, which is throw OOC out the window, and trust that the people you spy on won't abuse the knowledge that you are spying. This option is impossible, nobody with any sane investment in their corp can ignore this OOC knowledge or not. So the only way to effectively infiltrate is to lie on both fronts, both IC and OOC. Now your lying boldface to the people you are joining. So now it sucks for them when the truth comes out because on their end it won't be RP, it will be asshattery.
TLDR I don't think it's possible for everyone involved to disregard it as RP with the potential consequences of an infiltration. There will be butthurt and there will be drama. If ya don't give a crap about the fallout then go for it.
Basically this, in terms of "strict" or "full immersion" RP. If you want to play the role of "The Spy" in your corp, complete with high-collared duster and face-concealing hat, while the other people play the traditional roles, and you all RP together in a friendly manner, then no OOC is necessary. In fact, you wouldn't even need to really spy — the information you give to enemies could be pre-arranged OOC with your corp-mates as an acceptable leak, or an opportunity for in-game conflict. If you want to actually damage the corp, OOC is probably going to come into it.
Personally, I have a character whose entire RP is based on serial corp theft, and most everything the char does relates to getting past corp barriers and into those delicious hangers (and wallet/BPOs, if possible). Then again, I'm more "RP-Lite" then 'Immersion'*, and so my in-game actions are merely guided by the RP, rather that the two being enslaved to each other.
Is it bad Role Play? Not inherently. Some people play the game a certain way, and wear the appropriate Role Play as a coat for flavor and personal enjoyment. Others play roles and stick to them in their game-play come hell or high water. If you Role Play your way into the corp, rather than getting in by talking fully OOC to someone on IRC, then I'd say that it's a Role-Played Infiltration.
*Alternatively, it could be argued that it is pure immersion, as both the role play and the reality of the situation are identical.
-
Creep here is pretty much right. Of course, there will be drama and butthurt about it. That's a fact of all successful infiltration, heists and major losses that come about as results of said infiltration. That's not the point, really, at all. I'm not here to argue the morality of infiltration, on an IC or OoC level, but about it being an IC act to begin with.
Almost all RP does have a few OoC interactions. Hell, depending on who you RP with, there's a lot of them. (Oh, awesome. Thanks Backstage for letting me Ctrl-I italics into a post.) Does that mean that you not RPing hugglebuddies with them becomes less RPy? It's less IC? I talk to some of the slavers I've struck in my time in Eve, even gained some OoC trust and understanding, while still hitting them IC on Miz. Does this make said IC actions less IC? I think we can all agree... it doesn't.
Same with corp theft, infiltration and so on. If the character you use has an IC reason to infiltrate and gain the trust of the corporation, it's RP as far as I'm concerned. All the OoC implications are there, of course, but the actions performed in the game itself is still RP. Even on an alt that's paid to do it, or work for your main due to ideological or otherwise relations that makes them loyal.
Miz recently gained access to one Lutinari Syndicate corp hangar. Currently not exactly something major in it, but imagine if it was. If I now picked it all up, hauled it elsewhere while suddenly pointing all Lutinari Syndicate people in a fleet so the hostiles could drop in on us and destroy them all... is it less IC? No. I can't really think of a reason Miz would do it, so chances of something like that happening are zero, but if it did happen, it's still an in-game action and thus an IC event... and when motivated by an IC reason...
How can it be anything but RP?
-
I don't think anyone said that this was not to be considered as RP, at the contrary.
The issue at hand is more if I am correct : is IC/OOC infiltration harmfull for the community ? I say, yes, in any case.
Well if it is done purely OOCly by someone of our little RP community to someone else of the same community, it will cause feuds and dramas.
If it is done ICly, same thing., because as much as you can avoid feuds between 2 RP entities around wars, fights, and sensitive stuff like this (just look at the UK/VI war thread and it will be obvious that when people know that they are enemies ICly and what are their positions, they can mutually enjoy the thing), you can hardly avoid feuds between 2 RP entities when one is delusionned and betrayed by the other one.
Sidenote : take my example, I am not even trying to approach Bach ingame OOCly or ICly for what he has done to AM in the past. It is not grief or anything else related to vengeance, but pragmatism. It shatters the community.
-
I don't see how it's harmful to the community. Any more than it is harmful to the rest of Eve, that is. I really don't get this attitude that RPers should somehow be immune to the exact same tactics, strategies and weapons that everyone else in Eve face. Or better yet, should handicap and cripple ourselves compared to others in Eve. It's a non-consensual game. This applies to RP as well, especially actual in-space RP where you go out and shoot the crap out of your enemies. I think it's for the most part a case of HTFU and smell the ashes. If Bacch for some reason decided to infiltrate and cripple EM somehow... fuck yeah! If he had an IC reason... well, I'd still want to kick his ass for it, but I'd just have to take my hat off and give him a bow for a successful and well played infiltration.
He'd become an enemy and someone I wouldn't trust with 0.02 ISK, but I'd still have OoC respect for him as a good opponent and player.
Eve is a game where this stuff is freakin' encouraged by the Devs.
RPers should HTFU and accept that this game isn't about hugglefucks and consent.
-
some consider allowing things to get off the ground before shooting them down to be more sporting.
and as i recall, there was much angry words exchanged when that dude whatsisname effectively disbanded Ushra'khan, and other incidents in the past.
People were outraged that opponents were going to try to take advantage of an incident, or knew about it a day prior, and did nothing about it.
No "well played" and taking off hats there.
anyway, in the end, i think it is just another one of EVE's mechanics, that is very difficult to RP with, and only a handful of people have ever managed to RP it well, the other people trying to RP with it only managing to annoy and confuse others.
-
In my view, the proponents of infiltration in this thread are answering the questions they want to answer, while the questions that ought be asked and addressed in this discussion remain unanswered.
Questions that have been asked and incompletely answered
Q1- Can infiltration be considered as RP?
A: Yes, in principle. I believe that there are no people who have posted in this thread who would disagree with the principle that infiltration is a part of RP and inalienable with current EvE-playing practise.
However, this answer does not address the issue with alts, and the conflict that this has with RP (it can be stretched to a comparison to 'God-moding'). The proponents of infiltration are skirting round the issue or have so far been answering it with 'matter' that is not relevant.
If you have read the thread you will see where it was avoided. If you were instead just replying to the OP ('my 2 cents posting') or last post only ('single issue posting'/'snapshot posting'), you run the risk of missing it and not contributing to the full answering of the question, bringing the matter to a false closure.
-------
Q2 Is infiltration and betrayal detrimental towards the recipient player experience?
A: Mixed replies. The majority have stated that it reduces enjoyment of their game and in most cases leads to OOC conflict. There are unfinished core discussions on the principles of playing EvE (i.e. for mutual or solo enjoyment).
-------
-
.
Miz recently gained access to one Lutinari Syndicate corp hangar. Currently not exactly something major in it, but imagine if it was. If I now picked it all up, hauled it elsewhere while suddenly pointing all Lutinari Syndicate people in a fleet so the hostiles could drop in on us and destroy them all... is it less IC? No. I can't really think of a reason Miz would do it, so chances of something like that happening are zero, but if it did happen, it's still an in-game action and thus an IC event... and when motivated by an IC reason...
How can it be anything but RP?
I'm not sure I follow the connection between the initial assertions about using a specifically-rolled infiltration alt and the possibility of a character with a RP history ICly betraying a corp.
-
Different scenario intended to ask the question "If it's RP if I'm on Miz... how is it not RP if I'm on Katashi?"
Edit:
Most characters get specifically rolled for one purpose or another. Falcon alts. Hauling alts. Trader alts. R&D alts. Whatever. Alts are in most cases there to do something the main can't prioritize, for either IC or OoC reasons. Most people manage to incorporate that very easily into their RP. In my own case, I make it fairly public by having my three 'core' mains (Gherena, Derena and Miz) part of the same family. The rest of them are all tied to the main core of characters through either backstory or simply because they enjoy getting paid quite a bit while fearing retribution if they betray them.
If I use an alt for infiltrating and breaking a corp/alliance... is it any less RP? The characters are still distinct personalities and with different priorities in life, which means some alts I could never use for certain things, while others I can since it's well within their characterization.
I'm still not going to argue the morality of it, since I really don't feel crippling ourselves and going "I'm an RPer! Stop using the tools the game provides against me!" does anything but severely harm the RP community. HTFUing and accepting that we're all Eve Players whether we RP or not is more likely to provide a stronger and better RP community in general.
-
I don't see how it's harmful to the community. Any more than it is harmful to the rest of Eve, that is. I really don't get this attitude that RPers should somehow be immune to the exact same tactics, strategies and weapons that everyone else in Eve face. Or better yet, should handicap and cripple ourselves compared to others in Eve....It's a non-consensual game.
Your usage of the term 'community' has undermined your entire post. I suggest you refer to its definition.
There is a general abstract notion, which I'm sure you are well aware of and also believe in, that having amicable OOC relations within our community, with resolution of emergent and outstanding acrimonious issues, is a good thing.
I'm sure you're equally aware of the fact that malicious metagaming behaviour is viewed as poor form in many RP circles, not because it is a dark part of EvE, but that metagaming itself is in stark conflict with RPing within the traditional definition of the term. The issue is not with infiltration itself, which we have already mentioned several times, but abuse in the form of metagaming whilst trying to maintain a pretence that it occurs under the guise of RP. Using one character you control in infiltration against a target of another character you control is metagaming. Any analogy to what RP is in any non-EvE convention shows that it is at variance with the norms and principles.
Eve is a game where this stuff is freakin' encouraged by the Devs.
Thank you for suggesting that 'because of dev' it is a worthy argument to influence our views/choices. If this 'stuff' had caused significant losses to subscription earnings I would wager that they wouldn't be promoting it. It is what has made EvE notorious, but none of these points add any strength to the debate that we're having because they are entirely irrelevant.
RPers should HTFU and accept that this game isn't about hugglefucks and consent.
Thank you for trying to define the right way to play an MMORPG, which by definition is an open-ended poly-game to be engaged with according to user preference. On that basis a group of users with similar interests are within their rights to discuss what their views on good form are. A strong community rests on shared values, or if that is absent, active respect of value plurality.
-
I have no idea what you just said. Dumb it down for the derps among us?
-
I have no idea what you just said. Dumb it down for the derps among us?
I'm sorry if what I've written is unclear. Please could you point to the area of my post that you would like me to explain further, or ask specific questions, because my time is limited and I would rather not painstakingly explain everything from first principles.
-
If I use an alt for infiltrating and breaking a corp/alliance... is it any less RP? The characters are still distinct personalities and with different priorities in life, which means some alts I could never use for certain things, while others I can since it's well within their characterization.
I have given reasons for why using alts to infiltrate a target for your main is not good RP. I invite you to challenge them with a reasoned argument.
I'm still not going to argue the morality of it, since I really don't feel crippling ourselves and going "I'm an RPer! Stop using the tools the game provides against me!" does anything but severely harm the RP community. HTFUing and accepting that we're all Eve Players whether we RP or not is more likely to provide a stronger and better RP community in general.
The issue is not morality, so I don't see any obligation for you to explain it. If you want to use the HTFU and accept wholesale infiltration escape I suggest you look at the quality of relations in entities that do so (e.g. 0.0. alliances) and see how that helps build a good community. It's all evidenced, I'm sure you will agree, in their forum-posting behaviour to each other.
-
well, for example:
There are currently not many Blood Raider/Sani Sabik type characters around at the moment.
I believe this is detrimental to RP, as it means the factions that would be opposed to them, have no opponents to rp with.
A new BR organisation appears, and invites people to join. As it turns out, a lot of infiltrators do so, which would make a great deal of IC sense (Ministry of Internal Order agents, witchhunters etc.)
However, with the new BR corp full of infiltrators, it collapses in on itself, as the infiltrators work their schemes.
The anti-blood raider RP groups are now in a situation whereby they are back to square 1, in having no opposition to RP with.
So while infiltrating a new cult and destroying them makes sense IC, it can be detrimental to other RP groups OOC, by removing the effectiveness of an opponent.
"Death to Heretics!" when there are no heretics is a bit... odd.
-
That's actually not really a realistic problem, Louella, just like wardecs and other such things aren't problematic from a realistic standpoint quite simply because they're not worth the effort. Not until they have become an established entity which would make such efforts worthwhile. Besides, infiltration to the point of actually tearing down a corporation/alliance is fairly rare compared to just simple intel infiltration where you get memberlists and tactical information. Once they've reached a level of activity and membership where they can become a worthwhile target to spend time, ISK and effort on... they're no less valid a target (nor easier to infiltrate, harder in fact due to RP angles) than anyone else in Eve.
Scagga: The entire thing made no sense to me. Probably because I start losing sight of the red thread halfway into the post after I've had to reach for the dictionary the fifth time. As for your "alt's reduce the enjoyment of the game" argument, I see no need to challenge what is purely a personal opinion which isn't even remotely applicable to any overall community.
-
Long wall-of-text post, TL;DR at bottom.
some consider allowing things to get off the ground before shooting them down to be more sporting.
This has nothing to do with timing of the infiltration, however if it is done early it's a tactical decision to stop a problem before it starts. If Lou(character) knows she can hire someone to get inside a fresh BR coven, surely she's not going to wait till they are going full bore and taking lives left and right?
and as i recall, there was much angry words exchanged when that dude whatsisname effectively disbanded Ushra'khan, and other incidents in the past.
For very different reasons, and that's due to what most would call a faulty mechanic (the one where a single person has too much power to destroy an alliance without interference). Many
People were outraged that opponents were going to try to take advantage of an incident, or knew about it a day prior, and did nothing about it.
That was propaganda spin, nothing more nothing less.
anyway, in the end, i think it is just another one of EVE's mechanics, that is very difficult to RP with, and only a handful of people have ever managed to RP it well, the other people trying to RP with it only managing to annoy and confuse others.
What about people who infiltrate with their mains, with a clearly defined purpose for clearly IC motivations? Another thing to consider is that most infiltration work WILL be very confusing/annoying to those who don't have inside information as to the exact details of what happened, how they happened, and why they happened; even after the fact.
Q1- Can infiltration be considered as RP?
A: Yes, in principle. I believe that there are no people who have posted in this thread who would disagree with the principle that infiltration is a part of RP and inalienable with current EvE-playing practise.
\o/ Exactly my point, not only is it ingrained into EVE but it's also a part of RP. PF if packed full of intelligence games between the various powers, sometimes resulting in sabotage and sometimes not; I see no reason to exclude it from the RP element of the game (actually, I see more reason to include it).
However, this answer does not address the issue with alts, and the conflict that this has with RP (it can be stretched to a comparison to 'God-moding'). The proponents of infiltration are skirting round the issue or have so far been answering it with 'matter' that is not relevant.
Alts, Mains, roommates, friends, complete stranger you're paying ISK, etc... There is no issue with any of them. Sure, there's less of a risk factor of the Alt turncoating (I've seen an alt turncoat on someone due to IC reasons), but it's also easier to detect (especially if it's a direct enemy of your main that you're attempting an infiltration on). I honestly don't see anything 'wrong' here to address.
Q2 Is infiltration and betrayal detrimental towards the recipient player experience?
A: Mixed replies. The majority have stated that it reduces enjoyment of their game and in most cases leads to OOC conflict. There are unfinished core discussions on the principles of playing EvE (i.e. for mutual or solo enjoyment).
I play EVE to have fun, and to make it fun for the people I like if it's within my ability... Everyone else is an opponent in this game, someone that is in direct competition for resources or something for some reason. And I see this as being as much IC as it is OOC.
Ex: I like talking with Lou(player), but Lou(character) is a threat to Inara's(character) in some of her policies that she has. Inara(character) may at some point decide that Lou(character) is a high enough priority that she needs to be dealt with, but for the time being she has more pressing matters to attend to. If she didn't have stuff that was immediately pressing, Inara(character) would be doing what she could to remove Lou(character) as a threat (note: does not mean destruction of Lou's corp; there are various ways to accomplish this goal). If Inara(character) decided to do this, it would be very viable for her to hire someone to be on the inside for various reasons. NOTE: This is purely hypothetical, I have no immediate intentions of doing anything aggressive in any nature towards Lou or her corp.
I have given reasons for why using alts to infiltrate a target for your main is not good RP. I invite you to challenge them with a reasoned argument.
I'm going to take a stab at this one. I've yet to see a good reason against using alts aside from "ZOMG, THEY WON'T TURN ON YOU." and claims that it's god-modding.
Reasoned argument for it: If you're actually RPing the characters as separate characters instead of two extensions of the same character, they still retain their own 'identity' and the IC defection chance remains in place. You're also allowing for the chance that the infiltrating character can get 'caught'.
The issue is not morality, so I don't see any obligation for you to explain it. If you want to use the HTFU and accept wholesale infiltration escape I suggest you look at the quality of relations in entities that do so (e.g. 0.0. alliances) and see how that helps build a good community. It's all evidenced, I'm sure you will agree, in their forum-posting behaviour to each other.
Umm.... WHAT? I hope you're not implying that 0.0 entities are the only ones using infiltration. I can name a minimum of 5 currently active instances of infiltration in lowsec/hisec corps, 3 of which are heavy RP corps. And while it does make things rough for a patch of time, once most people get past the knee-jerk reaction they just shake their head and smile. Forums are part of the knee-jerk reaction, and some people get honestly butt-hurt over things like this, but the average intelligent person will go "well shit, they got me".
Do you get mad if someone out-wits you in chess, causing you to make a bad move and get yourself checked? This is the exact same situation.
There are currently not many Blood Raider/Sani Sabik type characters around at the moment.
I believe this is detrimental to RP, as it means the factions that would be opposed to them, have no opponents to rp with.
I agree with this, but also think that it has no bearing on IC decisions in regards to interactions with upcoming BR/SS corps/characters.
A new BR organisation appears, and invites people to join. As it turns out, a lot of infiltrators do so, which would make a great deal of IC sense (Ministry of Internal Order agents, witchhunters etc.)
Agreeing again. \o/ for agreeing.
However, with the new BR corp full of infiltrators, it collapses in on itself, as the infiltrators work their schemes.
Then someone did something right. The IC threat was neutralized before it became a larger threat to the Characters hiring the infiltrators/doing the infiltration, which was the goal of the situation... Unless I missed something?
I'm guessing that Lou(character) doesn't want Blooders running around willy nilly without someone trying to stop them. I also find it difficult to believe that Lou(character) would be upset about there not being any Blooders to rage about how red is 'so last years color' (being slightly facetious). Lou(player) may want an 'enemy', but we're discussing IC motivations and IC infiltration, and that means Lou(character) is likely doing what she can to counter the existence of Blooders (please, correct me if I'm wrong; I'm working on assumptions).
The anti-blood raider RP groups are now in a situation whereby they are back to square 1, in having no opposition to RP with.
Only one opponent? What EVE are you playing (honest question)? Every character I have is a part of a group of pilots, those pilots are temporary allies (temporary in terms of an immortal's perspective) while everyone else in the cluster is opposition. That nubbin that just graduated... he's either going to join one of the groups surrounding my characters, or he's going to be outside those groups and he's going to be competition for resources/space/market/etc... The way I play (which may be different than most) means that there are no "neutrals" in the grand scheme, only friendlies, hostiles, and future hostiles. Even my peace-loving characters are passive-aggressive against people that aren't in their 'circles'.
So while infiltrating a new cult and destroying them makes sense IC, it can be detrimental to other RP groups OOC, by removing the effectiveness of an opponent.
"Death to Heretics!" when there are no heretics is a bit... odd.
So... if there's no more BRs, you find the next most pressing group that's threatening your characters way of life. To limit yourself to only being opposed to just Blooders seems odd to me when a loyalist, highly religious, Amarrian woman has a wide variety of people that stand against what she's likely to believe.
TL;DR Infiltration doesn't seem to be bothering people, it's the fact alts are being used. I counter that good RP gives room for alts to be imperfect for their goal, or just hire someone to do it (it's actually not hard to find people willing to turncoat inside an organization). There's also OOC concerns about stopping an opponent that could be fun to RP with in the future when IC you'd do what you could while they were weak... This comes down to whether you make your infiltration decisions based on IC perspective or OOC perspective.
-
Scagga: The entire thing made no sense to me. Probably because I start losing sight of the red thread halfway into the post after I've had to reach for the dictionary the fifth time. As for your "alt's reduce the enjoyment of the game" argument, I see no need to challenge what is purely a personal opinion which isn't even remotely applicable to any overall community.
If what I wrote made no sense to you that's a failing on my part, I'll make a conscious effort to make my posts more comprehensible in the future.
As such, I completely excuse the accidental misrepresentation you made of one the points I was trying to make. It was "using alts to infiltrate a target for your main is not good RP", rather than "alts reduce enjoyment of the game".
Rather than labelling the argument as a personal opinion and not engaging it, why don't you provide an argument that suggests otherwise?
-
Reply to Inara (1/2)
Umm.... WHAT? I hope you're not implying that 0.0 entities are the only ones using infiltration. I can name a minimum of 5 currently active instances of infiltration in lowsec/hisec corps, 3 of which are heavy RP corps. And while it does make things rough for a patch of time, once most people get past the knee-jerk reaction they just shake their head and smile. Forums are part of the knee-jerk reaction, and some people get honestly butt-hurt over things like this, but the average intelligent person will go "well shit, they got me".
I'm not implying that which you have interpreted here from my post. I'm making a reference to the quality of community that one can see in entities that engage in no-holds-barred behaviour, in the context of Mizhara's invocation of the term 'community'.
Do you get mad if someone out-wits you in chess, causing you to make a bad move and get yourself checked? This is the exact same situation.
Of course not (and I do play in the chess league), because outwitting me is a learning experience - but it is a false comparison. I would get irritated if my opponent had a way of actually knowing what I'm thinking, because in such a case they aren't outwitting me, they are cheating.
Let me give you another example - you arrange a duel with someone, but they have an alt repping them or secretly giving them gang bonuses. Sure, it can be done, but is it good form?
If you need to resort to adding another character under your control to a storyline, you are extending your control beyond what is available to your character as ingame tools. Another example - What would your view be if someone logged an alt or two and tried to railroad the way a conversation with you was going to go, or engineered actions (diplomatic/conversation) with the alts to get what their main wanted? Again, it can be done, but is it good form?
-
Reply to Inara (2/2)
I'm going to take a stab at this one. I've yet to see a good reason against using alts aside from "ZOMG, THEY WON'T TURN ON YOU." and claims that it's god-modding.
Reasoned argument for it: If you're actually RPing the characters as separate characters instead of two extensions of the same character, they still retain their own 'identity' and the IC defection chance remains in place. You're also allowing for the chance that the infiltrating character can get 'caught'.
Inara. By definition, if you are using an alt to infiltrate a target for your main then the alt is acting an extension of the same character.
Are you trying to suggest that the de facto huge confluence of interests can be totally ignored, that people are able to 'by chance' or 'randomised' roleplay, somehow end up with a character doing the undeviating wish of another against the target of the main? That people who roll a character that serves the interests of their main is not the same as playing two extensions of the same character?
The purpose behind creating these extra characters is to take control of the game, not play it.
While I appreciate your view on the matter, I don't see how your argument is an effective counter to the assertion that using an alt to infiltrate for your main isn't bad form.
-
I still don't see how it's bad form. It's a separate character with it's own reasons, individuality and motivations. In that case, it's bad form to create an alt for industry because you want to try that out, but can't be arsed training it on the main. This is not really any different. The main has other priorities and the alt becomes a separate character, RP'd as a separate character and for RP reasons it's motivated IC to perform this task for the main for any of a plethora of reasons.
ISK, ideology, threats of violence, or whatever.
I see it as just fine RP, especially since you get to play someone else than your main. Diversity is good for everyone, heh.
-
Mizhara, I completely disagree. You are making a false comparison.
"It's a separate character with it's own reasons, individuality and motivations"
This is false, and I have explained why I believe it to be so in my replies to Inara. If you believe it is correct, please address the argument I laid down against it.
-------------------
The arguments you have made are false comparisons. I will explain:
You are saying that it is ok to create an alt to learn industry because you 'can't be arsed' to train so on your main. That is fair, but by saying this you are extending the argument to be about alts in general, and that is not its purpose. It is not a question of skill training, Mizhara, it is about using an alt as a tool for your main character to achieve IC objectives.
I am saying that if you use a character in such a way, and infiltrate another corporation for your main, then you are using the alt to achieve the objective of your main. The alt is therefore an extension of your main character as you are in full control of both of them. There are strong reasons to believe that one cannot separate the two, and strong reasons to believe that they are both serving the interests of one player.
Therefore the player is trying to have unfair control of a game he is playing against other people, rather than play a game. If one wanted to 'play' RP infiltration without 'controlling' the game, one could either infiltrate with their main or get someone else to do it for them ICly.
I am saying that when you are competing with another player, your usage of alt infiltration is metagaming and thus poor form in RP.
----------
I accept that it is fun and fine to RP with more than one character, but there is no strong argument for 'diversity' when we are talking about using both characters to achieve one character's goals against another player. That's like trying to control the prosecution and the defendant's lawyer in a court of law. Can that possibly be a fair trial if you want it to go a certain way?
-
Reply to Inara (1/2)
I'm not implying that which you have interpreted here from my post. I'm making a reference to the quality of community that one can see in entities that engage in no-holds-barred behaviour, in the context of Mizhara's invocation of the term 'community'.
I'm speaking from experience on this, I can't go into details because it would ruin several ongoing things so you can either accept it or say I'm full of malarkey; it's up to you. Long and short of it is, in some the cases of infiltration/information warfare/things of that nature the involved parties end up with a mutual respect for the other for being able to outsmart them/pull the wool over their eyes.
Of course not (and I do play in the chess league), because outwitting me is a learning experience - but it is a false comparison. I would get irritated if my opponent had a way of actually knowing what I'm thinking, because in such a case they aren't outwitting me, they are cheating.
They still can't read your mind, EVE is basically chess with thousands of players and millions more pieces to move around. Getting information is the same as finding records of past games that your opponent has played looking for patterns/habits.
Let me give you another example - you arrange a duel with someone, but they have an alt repping them or secretly giving them gang bonuses. Sure, it can be done, but is it good form?
I don't dual because of that very reason, EVE isn't a place to expect a level playing field. It's as much about the fight as it is about slanting the playing field giving you the higher ground. I'd be one of those people using gang-bonuses if they aren't smart enough to request a fleet with me to guarantee we're the only ones in fleet (for bonuses and warpins for backup fleets).
If you need to resort to adding another character under your control to a storyline, you are extending your control beyond what is available to your character as ingame tools. Another example - What would your view be if someone logged an alt or two and tried to railroad the way a conversation with you was going to go, or engineered actions (diplomatic/conversation) with the alts to get what their main wanted? Again, it can be done, but is it good form?
Been done to me before, Inara(character) reacts as if she's dealing with 2+ stubborn people. But it's still interaction between Inara(character) and those characters. It's sometimes frustrating to me(player), but I usually work something out with them OOC in that type of situation. Fortunately, most situations like that aren't high impact and I'm able to adjust my plans.
Reply to Inara (2/2)
Inara. By definition, if you are using an alt to infiltrate a target for your main then the alt is acting an extension of the same character.
Then when I pay people in a corp to give me information from the inside they are just extensions of my character... that is the exact same situation just different people behind the keyboard.
Are you trying to suggest that the de facto huge confluence of interests can be totally ignored, that people are able to 'by chance' or 'randomised' roleplay, somehow end up with a character doing the undeviating wish of another against the target of the main? That people who roll a character that serves the interests of their main is not the same as playing two extensions of the same character?
A Conflict of Interests can be ignored, I've done it in the past when a spy "went native". Two (or more) separate characters of the same player are not extensions of the same character. That's like saying Winston Smith and Julia are extensions of the same character because they were both written and controlled by Orwell.
The purpose behind creating these extra characters is to take control of the game, not play it.
Adding more pieces to the table is not control, it's influence. There's always counters to extra pieces.
While I appreciate your view on the matter, I don't see how your argument is an effective counter to the assertion that using an alt to infiltrate for your main isn't bad form.
Because using an alt is just as good/bad form (however you view it) as hiring someone else to do it, or paying someone already on the inside to turncoat information for you.
I still don't see how it's bad form. It's a separate character with it's own reasons, individuality and motivations. In that case, it's bad form to create an alt for industry because you want to try that out, but can't be arsed training it on the main. This is not really any different. The main has other priorities and the alt becomes a separate character, RP'd as a separate character and for RP reasons it's motivated IC to perform this task for the main for any of a plethora of reasons.
ISK, ideology, threats of violence, or whatever.
I see it as just fine RP, especially since you get to play someone else than your main. Diversity is good for everyone, heh.
\o/ This, so frickin' much THIS.
EDIT: TL;DR - Characters aside from your main are the same as other characters controlled by other people in terms of RP.
-
Mizhara, I completely disagree. You are making a false comparison.
"It's a separate character with it's own reasons, individuality and motivations"
This is false, and I have explained why I believe it to be so in my replies to Inara. If you believe it is correct, please address the argument I laid down against it.
-------------------
The arguments you have made are false comparisons. I will explain:
You are saying that it is ok to create an alt to learn industry because you 'can't be arsed' to train so on your main. That is fair, but by saying this you are extending the argument to be about alts in general, and that is not its purpose. It is not a question of skill training, Mizhara, it is about using an alt as a tool for your main character to achieve IC objectives.
I am saying that if you use a character in such a way, and infiltrate another corporation for your main, then you are using the alt to achieve the objective of your main. The alt is therefore an extension of your main character as you are in full control of both of them. There are strong reasons to believe that one cannot separate the two, and strong reasons to believe that they are both serving the interests of one player.
Therefore the player is trying to have unfair control of a game he is playing against other people, rather than play a game. If one wanted to 'play' RP infiltration without 'controlling' the game, one could either infiltrate with their main or get someone else to do it for them ICly.
I am saying that when you are competing with another player, your usage of alt infiltration is metagaming and thus poor form in RP.
----------
I accept that it is fun and fine to RP with more than one character, but there is no strong argument for 'diversity' when we are talking about using both characters to achieve one character's goals against another player. That's like trying to control the prosecution and the defendant's lawyer in a court of law. Can that possibly be a fair trial if you want it to go a certain way?
How is it unfair? Anyone can do it. It's a level playing field for everyone involved. Choosing not to do it is a self-imposed handicap, and no different from choosing not to use ECM or whatever else 'because it's cheap'. Eve-Bushido isn't something I find even remotely interesting. When I'm in a conflict, I'll play to win. That means using the tools available to me within the game. Alt infiltration is very much part of the game.
Secondly, Katashi for instance is far from an extension of Mizhara. I as a player have even tried to get him to dabble in Sani Sabik stuff which would make him KoS by Mizhara without even a hint of a question. He'll still work for Miz for the ISK and because he ideologically agrees with the overall non-slavery thing, and partially because he's afraid of her. I don't see why using an alt for infiltration makes the alt 'an extension' in any way. You're just RPing another character who has a similar ideology and likes the idea of hurting a certain entity.
There's nothing 'controlling' the game. The character is no less or no more of a threat against the corp/alliance in question just because it's an alt. Hell, alts are harder to get into a corp, and you're under far greater scrutiny and risk of being caught due to the interactions with the main and how the timezones, behaviour patterns and quirks of the player is the same as your main and so on. That the alt is achieving the main's objective is no different from hiring someone else to do it, but it allows you to have the challenge, the RP and so on.
I don't see it being bad form. I see it as playing the game.
-
I'm speaking from experience on this, I can't go into details because it would ruin several ongoing things so you can either accept it or say I'm full of malarkey; it's up to you. Long and short of it is, in some the cases of infiltration/information warfare/things of that nature the involved parties end up with a mutual respect for the other for being able to outsmart them/pull the wool over their eyes.
Yes, I'm sure that is the case, sometimes. The thing is, Inara, we both know that within a large population, people may have a variety of responses to the same situation. What proportion of these responses need to be negative before one may consider the activity, on the balance, to be poor form? This is a kind of reasoning that can be used for any type of action in a society.
It is important to look at the damage that an activity can do, rather than selectively citing positive outcomes in such a way that paints a journalistic-ally false picture of reality.
They still can't read your mind, EVE is basically chess with thousands of players and millions more pieces to move around. Getting information is the same as finding records of past games that your opponent has played looking for patterns/habits.
I don't agree. In the example we are discussing, one player has an advantage of realtime information, which is the equivalent of knowing the other player's thoughts. It is not a case of outwitting as you describe. I suggest a different example is necessary.
I don't dual because of that very reason, EVE isn't a place to expect a level playing field. It's as much about the fight as it is about slanting the playing field giving you the higher ground. I'd be one of those people using gang-bonuses if they aren't smart enough to request a fleet with me to guarantee we're the only ones in fleet (for bonuses and warpins for backup fleets).
You speak to me as if I'm naive. What's 'smart' to do isn't the focus of the debate. It's about what one regards/values as good/poor form in the context of RP.
Been done to me before, Inara(character) reacts as if she's dealing with 2+ stubborn people. But it's still interaction between Inara(character) and those characters. It's sometimes frustrating to me(player), but I usually work something out with them OOC in that type of situation. Fortunately, most situations like that aren't high impact and I'm able to adjust my plans.
It is fair to talk from your experience Inara, but what is your view on the matter?
Then when I pay people in a corp to give me information from the inside they are just extensions of my character... that is the exact same situation just different people behind the keyboard.
I disagree, I think that's an excellent, legitimate approach to IC infiltration. If your character bribes another character in a corporation to give you information, you are using an IC route bereft of metagaming and that is valid. Your 'agent' in the other corporation could give you false information, could be a double-agent, etc.
A Conflict of Interests can be ignored, I've done it in the past when a spy "went native". Two (or more) separate characters of the same player are not extensions of the same character. That's like saying Winston Smith and Julia are extensions of the same character because they were both written and controlled by Orwell.
Sorry, that's a false comparison.
1984 is a book written by George Orwell. The characters all belong to him. He is not roleplaying with another writer in his book, where each writer has a character and they are playing a competitive game against each other...
Please reflect and tell me what you really think about the confluence (not conflict) of interests, and inability to separate the fact that alts working for your main are stealth extensions of their character.
Adding more pieces to the table is not control, it's influence. There's always counters to extra pieces.
Please don't go into semantics - if you could kindly review the various definitions of influence and control you will find that control is a more applicable. (see the control of prosecution and defense analogy)
Because using an alt is just as good/bad form (however you view it) as hiring someone else to do it, or paying someone already on the inside to turncoat information for you.
I'm finding the trend is that I give an argument with reasons as to why it is so, and you just say, 'it is not so', without so much as a 'because'. I'm telling you that rather than creating someone yourself to infiltrate on behalf of your main, if you hire/bribe someone you are using your IC skills to find someone to infiltrate.
If you decide to metagame because you fail to find someone to hire/bribe, you are not accepting that perhaps you weren't able to infiltrate. As an OOC motivation, you want to infiltrate so badly that you will metagame to be able to do so.
-
Note: Accidental wall of text, tl;dr at the bottom.
Infiltration as RP - so long as it involves using your main or using another actual player, it doesn't seem like we've got many issues with it. Creating a turncoat from within a corp, or actually getting your main into it to bring it down - absolutely fine. The argument then is with alts.
Frankly, RP involving alts is metagaming, because one person controls both characters. While I have no problem with people RPing with alts ( I have between four and six RP characters depending on how you count them ), having alts RP together starts to stink of metagaming. If they happen to have similar views, work together for logical in character reasons, that's fine.
However, having an alt 'working for' the main for an infiltration really reeks. It's not at all the same as getting another player to do it for you, for one simple reason: Trust.
EVE runs on trust. The ability to mercilessly screw someone over means that we have to trust each other not to, and we have to accept that risk.
So here's the issue with the alt: It's not going to lie to you. Your alt is not going to betray you, misinform you, turn traitor, etc. Your alt is under the complete control of the same person playing your main. It's purpose is to work for and serve the main. You (the player) know things that you shouldn't - and it wasn't given to you by another player, who you have to risk trusting.
If you're getting another player to help you with your infiltration, there's always the risk of discovery. If you're using an alt, and you're being careful about it, there may be the risk of them being found out as an infiltrator, but no risk of it being linked back to your main. Even handing over a full API won't tell them that if you were really careful about how you moved assets and ships around.
tl;dr : Use of alts constitutes metagaming. Metagaming and EVE are practically synonymous. However, metagaming and good, enjoyable RP are incompatible.
-
Sidenote : I personnally find your posts understandable Scagga.
I play EVE to have fun, and to make it fun for the people I like if it's within my ability... Everyone else is an opponent in this game, someone that is in direct competition for resources or something for some reason. And I see this as being as much IC as it is OOC.
Well, if everyone here is an opponent to each other even OOCly, I am starting to wonder what I am doing here. :/
Are we seriously OOC opponents ? I am not sure if it is what you really meant though, but this is what I understoof of it.
The issue is not morality, so I don't see any obligation for you to explain it. If you want to use the HTFU and accept wholesale infiltration escape I suggest you look at the quality of relations in entities that do so (e.g. 0.0. alliances) and see how that helps build a good community. It's all evidenced, I'm sure you will agree, in their forum-posting behaviour to each other.
Umm.... WHAT? I hope you're not implying that 0.0 entities are the only ones using infiltration. I can name a minimum of 5 currently active instances of infiltration in lowsec/hisec corps, 3 of which are heavy RP corps. And while it does make things rough for a patch of time, once most people get past the knee-jerk reaction they just shake their head and smile. Forums are part of the knee-jerk reaction, and some people get honestly butt-hurt over things like this, but the average intelligent person will go "well shit, they got me".
Do you get mad if someone out-wits you in chess, causing you to make a bad move and get yourself checked? This is the exact same situation.
Not really the same situation to my opinion. O_o
Both players know against whom they are playing. In infiltration cases, only one knows.
but the average intelligent person will go "well shit, they got me".
If you imply that people like me are not intelligent, well, so be it. Maybe I missed something with the intelligent gene, but from my personnal experience these repeated infiltrations in AM were a total disaster, human wise (and hell, I was not even in the targeted corp, I lost nothing myself, just had to handle the internal consequences). You can shrug as much as you can, it still poses a threat to mutual trust, relationships, and when you also start to think that some spies also enjoy to actually break an entity by breaking its members to play them against each other...
No, you just don't shake you head and smile when this happens. Not really. But maybe I am not intelligent enough to play the game.
-
Out of curiosity Lyn, what character name would I know you by in-game? I have a sneaking suspicion I've put my foot in my mouth.
In any case, to address the points raised about not being able to prepare for/defend against infiltration, I call bullshit.
When I joined AM, I was given POS anchoring roles the first week. I much later used those roles to offline half a dozen AM towers and eject their contents into space for stealing/destruction (incidentally, we still have Yoshito's harbinger preserved in its original state with its original fitting in our corp hangar). Did I need POS roles? No. It was easier to give them to me than it would have been to set up a tower for me or simply tell me to get stuffed. That's an avoidable risk. In Rote Kapelle, exactly half a dozen members have access to those roles when it comes to our only in-space assets, and all every one of those are people who need the access (ie, they maintain the tower or own supercapitals that park at the tower).
Similarly, our corp hangars are strictly organized (AM's were as well, btw, the hangars I emptied were mostly full of useless odds and ends, most of which was melted down and liquidated for a paltry few billion). Trial members have no access at all. Rank and file members have access to a repository of ammo, nanite paste, drones, and various odds and ends that are mostly useless, some are simply cheap but commonly used modules (solace reps, y-t8 MWDs, etc). Were someone to empty that hangar, we'd be out a couple billion in junk. Probably wouldn't be worth the effort it would take to haul it all out. Capital hangar is restricted to full members who are confirmed capital pilots. Said hangar contains fuel and maybe a billion worth of capital mods. Again, more hassle to haul than its worth. We have a loaner ship hangar, which is mostly logistics and tacklers, and there might be 3b worth of ship in there at any given point in time (we minimize the number of ships in there and replenish it as needed--minor amount of effort, but better than opening ourselves to 10-20b worth of risk). Only a handful of people have access to this, generally FCs/recruiters/directors chosen based on their timezones and activity (idea is to have these ships available to fleets around the clock without exposing ourselves too much to the risk of theft). Finally, our POS maintenance and loot hangars--these are strictly director only. Some of our most valuable assets aren't even accessible by the directors. Our t2 BPO is in the hands of one pilot who has been in plenty of places where he could have screwed us over--he created the alliance. Besides which, the BPO technically belongs to his roommate who no longer plays, so it's more of a personal asset in any case.
Even our tourney wallet is locked down. I'm the tourney captain and I can't access more than a few billion at a time. Our alliance executor has the fund, and will transfer the requested amounts to a wallet division in the STIM corp wallet, and from there another director actually makes the purchases and delivers them.
In other words, we have everything pretty segregated. There is no one person that could clean out every asset we own, and there are only a couple that could do serious damage, all of whom have been in the corporation for several years, most of whom have been in the corporation since day 1. Maybe they're biding their time. Fair play to them if they are. I highly doubt it, however (okay, maybe Gorion, he's been plotting his revenge for Kimotoro for a long time, but we can't really take him too seriously).
Point is, none of that makes EVE less enjoyable to me. None of it causes me grief when I log in. If anything, it makes me less concerned about infiltration, because I know that even in my position I couldn't do enough to cripple the corporation, so I'm secure in the knowledge that no matter what happens, our assets will never be completely stolen. As for the personal relationships, I've met 2 of our directors, have my business' website and email hosted by another, and have the phone numbers of all the rest--addresses for some because we've shipped computer parts around when someone had a gfx card die or some such and one of us had a spare. And I trust all of them simply because they've been in a position to cripple us in the past and didn't do it.
Trusting our members? I trust them with my ships in space. I trust them with most intel. I don't trust them any more than that because I have no need to. Sensitive intel is closely guarded, and again, information is compartmentalized in a similar manner to our assets. It means more channels open than most, but ultimately works. If I get drunk and talk a little too much about something sensitive on TS? I get mails/convos/blinky channels from rank and file members with messages like "you sure you should be sharing that with us?"
In any case, the absolute worst case scenario if a non-director were to strike? Our forums leaked to Kugu--quality drama, lots of lolling, nothing of serious concern would get leaked--again, non-directors won't have access to the dangerous stuff. They clean out let's say 10b of stuff, make people mad for a bit, but we log in that same night and take a fleet out to shoot stuff, which is what we do and the only thing that really matters in the end. If we're in space making people's ships explode, the rest is just a bunch of complicated detail that the directors are saddled with handling.
Say a spy spends a couple of years being active and in space with us and we decide to make them a director and they steal from us? Their loss tbh. They'll be hard pressed to find another group that does what we do. We're out a few dozen billion. No more loaner logistics or dictors. Oh noes. Maybe our tower gets offlined and stolen. We all check it with an alt before logging a super on anyway. We have a couple backups for when that one dies (it will eventually get shot at by someone, surely). Our director forums get leaked to Kugu, more drama and butthurt happens, but outside half a dozen members that were probably already on the ropes in terms of their position in the alliance, no one ragequits, we move on and keep shooting people in space.
Morale hit? Meh, maybe a little. End of the day, everyone assumes we have spies in the alliance, and frankly it's a bit of a running joke. We have a couple of guys we recruited from alliances that are either shooting at us/we're shooting at on a regular basis, or are a team we faced in the last tourney. As a result, they're "Rooks and Kings spai" or "Genos spai" or whatever. I'm still a PL spai. Hell, we post shoutouts to PL/RnK/TEST/Goons in any of our capital CTAs or public tourney threads. It's only a matter of time before we derp 50b in capitals into a trap. v0v Undock, it's dead etc etc. Oh, and no one knows the tourney setup until an hour before the match besides myself and the guy who hauls it for me (the same one that hosts my business site). And even then the only people that find out before the ships hit the field are the ones sitting in them. Best a spy could do w/re the tourney is discover about 8 different setups that we've been testing and make a wild guess at which one I'll pick. And even then I tend to mix them up (different flavor of ewar, damage drones vs rep drones vs ECM drones, swapping the entire race of ships around, etc). Basics stay the same, pilots I choose are always pilots I know can fly the ship and I check their skill sheets to verify that they're the best I have available for said hulls, so there's no issue with pilots going into a fight clueless.
Anyway, I guess my long rambling point is you can insulate yourself from damage by simply being careful. Is it inconvenient sometimes? Sure. A lot of folks don't want to get up at 9 am on a Saturday to find out whether or not they might wind up flying in the tourney out of the 50 people who log on. But we all accept that espionage is a very real part of the tourney and we all want to do as well as we can, and as such we accept the methods we use as optimal. Similarly, it can be a pain when someone wants to buy some trimarks out of the corp hangar and no one is online to sell them. But all the things directors can do for members are luxuries. We don't need them. We existed just fine without them for a long time. People have their own logistics chains in place and are used to doing it themselves if they can't wait a day or a few hours. And again, everyone feels more comfortable the way it is--considering how many of our members spy (and how much hilarity comes out of it--live stream of our targets' TS as we titan-bridge them, for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oPC9bajZ8g ), we all know the risks and want to minimize our collective exposure to them.
I ultimately don't see the problem. You probably have half a dozen people you trust in the alliance. Let them have the keys. Tell everyone else that it's nothing personal (because it's not), but they'll have to ask for someone with the keys to help them with XYZ.
Also, your welcome for the free intel. :) The conclusion you're looking for is "not worth the bother".
Wow, wall of rambling text. I blame growing up in Star Fraction reading Jade posts as a young impressionable pilot. :D
-
I'm speaking from experience on this, I can't go into details because it would ruin several ongoing things so you can either accept it or say I'm full of malarkey; it's up to you. Long and short of it is, in some the cases of infiltration/information warfare/things of that nature the involved parties end up with a mutual respect for the other for being able to outsmart them/pull the wool over their eyes.
Yes, I'm sure that is the case, sometimes. The thing is, Inara, we both know that within a large population, people may have a variety of responses to the same situation. What proportion of these responses need to be negative before one may consider the activity, on the balance, to be poor form? This is a kind of reasoning that can be used for any type of action in a society.
It is important to look at the damage that an activity can do, rather than selectively citing positive outcomes in such a way that paints a journalistic-ally false picture of reality.
Then because another portion will react badly (rather than seeing it as a well played maneuvering), there should be a RP blanket protection from it? I'm honestly asking your opinion, because I fail to see how this would help the situation at all and could potentially make the RP community 'soft' to the point they'd be ineffective at playing the game alongside non-RPers because they expect some type of blanket protection from this type of activity.
They still can't read your mind, EVE is basically chess with thousands of players and millions more pieces to move around. Getting information is the same as finding records of past games that your opponent has played looking for patterns/habits.
I don't agree. In the example we are discussing, one player has an advantage of realtime information, which is the equivalent of knowing the other player's thoughts. It is not a case of outwitting as you describe. I suggest a different example is necessary.
Even with realtime information, you're not a mind-reader (and trust me, I wish I could have read the minds of some of the places I've been involved). But chess is probably a far too simple example... But I can't think of any other game examples :bash: The idea I'm trying to convey is that even with active incoming information, there are still far too many variables for an infiltrator to accurately assess, even an alt-spy. Unless the alt-spy is in a director/ceo position, at which point there's no need to destroy what you're in, merely reshape it to something useful (this is also much easier than destroying a corp/alliance).
I don't dual because of that very reason, EVE isn't a place to expect a level playing field. It's as much about the fight as it is about slanting the playing field giving you the higher ground. I'd be one of those people using gang-bonuses if they aren't smart enough to request a fleet with me to guarantee we're the only ones in fleet (for bonuses and warpins for backup fleets).
You speak to me as if I'm naive. What's 'smart' to do isn't the focus of the debate. It's about what one regards/values as good/poor form in the context of RP.
Morality in EVE has been shown by PF as... vastly different than what our modern perspective of morality is. Many would say lacking comparatively, I'll be politically correct and stick with different.
I don't see using secret gang-bonuses, or neutral repping, or cyno-fits, or <insert myriad of other topics of debate> of poor form in the EVE context. If it were in modern society, with modern determination of values of good/poor form... hell yes I'd be throwing a fit, but in the context of EVE and the environment laid out I see absolutely no poor form to it.
Been done to me before, Inara(character) reacts as if she's dealing with 2+ stubborn people. But it's still interaction between Inara(character) and those characters. It's sometimes frustrating to me(player), but I usually work something out with them OOC in that type of situation. Fortunately, most situations like that aren't high impact and I'm able to adjust my plans.
It is fair to talk from your experience Inara, but what is your view on the matter?
What do you mean? I dealt with it, or rather Inara(character) dealt with it. If people want to make use of tools at their disposal, I encourage them to do so. If they feel the situation requires two separate individuals to address the matter.... all the power to them.
I've used a second character a time or two in RP at the same scene, sometimes their goals are inline and they get along, occasionally agreeing and making points the other couldn't make due to perspective when discussing something with another character that's not mine. Other times, they disagree whole-heartedly, and I find my characters taking sides against each other with other people's characters. It's part of the game, and one I find both enjoyable and necessary at some level.
Then when I pay people in a corp to give me information from the inside they are just extensions of my character... that is the exact same situation just different people behind the keyboard.
I disagree, I think that's an excellent, legitimate approach to IC infiltration. If your character bribes another character in a corporation to give you information, you are using an IC route bereft of metagaming and that is valid. Your 'agent' in the other corporation could give you false information, could be a double-agent, etc.
If you're playing the second character as a separate character and not an extension of the first character, there's still the chance of false information/turncoating/double-agent shenanigans. Because some people are unwilling to allow that on an OOC level doesn't make the RP aspect of it any less valid.
If Inara joined EM (lolwat?) and spent a couple years working through the ranks, finally got in a position to do damage and pulled the trigger... you'd be okay with that? But, If it was my alt that was hired by Inara to do it, and spent a couple years working through the ranks, finally getting where they could do damage and did the same... it'd be wrong? And if I somehow convinced Elsebeth to turncoat (again, lolwat?), using her position as CEO of Gradient to pull the trigger, that would be okay as well?
By my count, all three scenarios are equal in terms of good/poor form.
A Conflict of Interests can be ignored, I've done it in the past when a spy "went native". Two (or more) separate characters of the same player are not extensions of the same character. That's like saying Winston Smith and Julia are extensions of the same character because they were both written and controlled by Orwell.
Sorry, that's a false comparison.
1984 is a book written by George Orwell. The characters all belong to him. He is not roleplaying with another writer in his book, where each writer has a character and they are playing a competitive game against each other...
Fair point :oops: , comparing book characters to RP characters is probably... weaksauce.
Please reflect and tell me what you really think about the confluence (not conflict) of interests, and inability to separate the fact that alts working for your main are stealth extensions of their character.
Going back to the random (and impossible), Inara(character) hires Elsebeth(character) to destroy EM: There's a very clear separate of who Inara(character) and Elsebeth(character) is, right? Now, let's look at it as Inara(character) hires Alt#42(character). Assuming the fact that Alt#42(character) isn't known to be played by me(player), people are going to react to Alt#42(character) as they would another character. Alt#42(character) also has the ability to decide that they like Elsebeth(character) enough that they couldn't wreck everything she's worked so hard to create in EM, at which point Alt#42(character) either misleads Inara(character) with bad information or informs Inara(character) of the cancellation of the contract... the exact same way another player would go about doing it.
Yes, this does get tedious in terms of separating IC and OOC information, and which characters are privy to what information. But it's a level of intrigue that many people enjoy, and I find that accusing the people who do enjoy that particular style of play as doing it wrong (in different words), insulting.
Adding more pieces to the table is not control, it's influence. There's always counters to extra pieces.
Please don't go into semantics - if you could kindly review the various definitions of influence and control you will find that control is a more applicable. (see the control of prosecution and defense analogy)
I'll agree to disagree with you here. I'll go back to the chess analogy: I can influence your next move by what my moves are, but I can't control you and force you to make a move (with the exception of certain check maneuvers :P ). Eve just has several factors more options of 'moves', but I still cannot force someone to make a particular choice. If I could, I would :twisted: .
While I appreciate your view on the matter, I don't see how your argument is an effective counter to the assertion that using an alt to infiltrate for your main isn't bad form.
Because using an alt is just as good/bad form (however you view it) as hiring someone else to do it, or paying someone already on the inside to turncoat information for you.
I'm finding the trend is that I give an argument with reasons as to why it is so, and you just say, 'it is not so', without so much as a 'because'. I'm telling you that rather than creating someone yourself to infiltrate on behalf of your main, if you hire/bribe someone you are using your IC skills to find someone to infiltrate.
I went back and pyramid quoted for a reason, the 'because' was in response to the unspoke question of how it is an effective counter to claiming that the use of an alt is bad form.
My point is, there is no difference in mechanical outcome, from a second character or a well paid spy/turncoat. I see no reason to demonize one play-style because someone sees it as 'bad form'.
If you decide to metagame because you fail to find someone to hire/bribe, you are not accepting that perhaps you weren't able to infiltrate. As an OOC motivation, you want to infiltrate so badly that you will metagame to be able to do so.
It depends on the situation, sometimes I prefer to get my own hands down in the meat and potatoes of the situation rather than hiring it out. Though, when running numerous situations at the same time, it's more productive to hire it out and analyze the information coming in for dissemination to the relevant parties.
If one method fails, it depends on the IC necessity of that particular situation succeeding as to whether Inara(character) will pursue further action. If it's important, of course she'll try to find another way to get what she wants.
My motivations for infiltration/information gathering/etc... are almost always IC. Only some of my old work, pre-BL3H, was OOC motivated; and that was for pure profit, not RP. Also, another point of note, Inara(character) rarely does information gathering for her own purposes, it's usually because someone is hiring her to acquire that information (there's usually 3-5 levels of information exchange between inside source and the entity that makes use of the information).
Well, if everyone here is an opponent to each other even OOCly, I am starting to wonder what I am doing here. :/
Of course we're opponents (mostly IC, moderately OOC), that doesn't mean we can't be cordial and friends at the same time. I'm good friends with some people IRL, but ingame, I'm going to do whatever I can to turn their spaceshippixels into spacedustpixels.
Are we seriously OOC opponents ? I am not sure if it is what you really meant though, but this is what I understoof of it.
OOC, we are both playing a game, and we both have the goal of 'winning' (whatever our personal definition of that may be). Chances are though, our goals mean we have a similar pool of resources, which makes us opponents on some level, yes. The same as any game puts people as opponents.
The issue is not morality, so I don't see any obligation for you to explain it. If you want to use the HTFU and accept wholesale infiltration escape I suggest you look at the quality of relations in entities that do so (e.g. 0.0. alliances) and see how that helps build a good community. It's all evidenced, I'm sure you will agree, in their forum-posting behaviour to each other.
Umm.... WHAT? I hope you're not implying that 0.0 entities are the only ones using infiltration. I can name a minimum of 5 currently active instances of infiltration in lowsec/hisec corps, 3 of which are heavy RP corps. And while it does make things rough for a patch of time, once most people get past the knee-jerk reaction they just shake their head and smile. Forums are part of the knee-jerk reaction, and some people get honestly butt-hurt over things like this, but the average intelligent person will go "well shit, they got me".
Do you get mad if someone out-wits you in chess, causing you to make a bad move and get yourself checked? This is the exact same situation.
Not really the same situation to my opinion. O_o
Both players know against whom they are playing. In infiltration cases, only one knows.
Eh, I think this comes down to perspective.
If you imply that people like me are not intelligent, well, so be it. Maybe I missed something with the intelligent gene, but from my personnal experience these repeated infiltrations in AM were a total disaster, human wise (and hell, I was not even in the targeted corp, I lost nothing myself, just had to handle the internal consequences). You can shrug as much as you can, it still poses a threat to mutual trust, relationships, and when you also start to think that some spies also enjoy to actually break an entity by breaking its members to play them against each other...
No, you just don't shake you head and smile when this happens. Not really. But maybe I am not intelligent enough to play the game.
I'm not implying that you're not intelligent, I said the average person. Not everyone will shrug it off, as this conversation would be unnecessary if they did. I play the game under the assumption that at least 2 of the people I fly with are providing intelligence to someone else, and that's even if I was in a corp full of me and my own alts. It doesn't change the fact that I trust the folks I fly with to do their jobs and I'll do mine.
Damn it, I'm posting Walls of Text too... I'm blaming Demetri.
TL;DR - Inara(character) is a separate entity from MyOtherCharacters(character), even though they are played by me(player). And in the grand scheme of things, MyOtherCharacters(character) are just as useful/not useful as a hired infiltrator(character) belonging to someone else(player); and just as morally right/wrong too ^_^.
-
TL;DR - Inara(character) is a separate entity from MyOtherCharacters(character), even though they are played by me(player). And in the grand scheme of things, MyOtherCharacters(character) are just as useful/not useful as a hired infiltrator(character) belonging to someone else(player); and just as morally right/wrong too ^_^.
This statement appears to be the crux of the whole argument. Everyone seems to pretty much agree with all other major aspects.
Maybe this is true for Inara, but I am not sure that it is true the the majority of other specific purpose RP infiltration alts.
-
Then because another portion will react badly (rather than seeing it as a well played maneuvering), there should be a RP blanket protection from it? I'm honestly asking your opinion, because I fail to see how this would help the situation at all and could potentially make the RP community 'soft' to the point they'd be ineffective at playing the game alongside non-RPers because they expect some type of blanket protection from this type of activity.
Inara I'm really not suggesting that there should be RP blanket protection, and I don't believe I've ever expressed the view that there should be enforced rules and norms for RP organisations. That, in my view, is jumping to conclusions. The whole purpose of this discussion is not to lay a precedent for a formal ruling that all should adopt.
The purpose is to explore and better understand the interface between RP and infiltration in EvE. At this juncture we are discussing whether a certain common EvE practise is good form in RP, from the point of discussion from principle. That is not to judge whether it is good/bad form in EvE.
Regarding the bit you were replying to, I think one risks oversimplifying the argument if one says 'well you shouldn't do that in EvE because it pisses lots of people off'. The point I was making was, when does a certain behaviour become viewed as 'bad form'. e.g. Forum asshattery (sp.?), scamming is widely viewed as a poor practise, but that doesn't make it invalid and divorced from playing EvE - otherwise there would be rules against it.
Even with realtime information, you're not a mind-reader (and trust me, I wish I could have read the minds of some of the places I've been involved). But chess is probably a far too simple example... But I can't think of any other game examples :bash: The idea I'm trying to convey is that even with active incoming information, there are still far too many variables for an infiltrator to accurately assess, even an alt-spy. Unless the alt-spy is in a director/ceo position, at which point there's no need to destroy what you're in, merely reshape it to something useful (this is also much easier than destroying a corp/alliance).
I agree we may need to let that example rest. Have you watched the movie "lock, stock and two smoking barrels"? I think the game of brag between Harry the hatchet and Eddy is a good example we can work with. Harry has his bodyguard using a camera to read the cards of his opponents, and is relaying information to him, which gives him an advantage that wins him the game.
If you haven't watched it, there is a 6 minute sequence here for your perusal and enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGWuWt8wfY
I think it is a good analogous illustration. It's also a great movie.
I don't see using secret gang-bonuses, or neutral repping, or cyno-fits, or <insert myriad of other topics of debate> of poor form in the EVE context. If it were in modern society, with modern determination of values of good/poor form... hell yes I'd be throwing a fit, but in the context of EVE and the environment laid out I see absolutely no poor form to it.
Ok, our views seem to differ on this matter. My own view is that giving yourself an undisclosed unfair advantage is not good form when arranging a duel. Sure, there are characters out there who lie and deceive, and that is part of EvE. I simply pass a personal judgement that I view such choices as poor form (not that I would never do them myself).
What do you mean? I dealt with it, or rather Inara(character) dealt with it. If people want to make use of tools at their disposal, I encourage them to do so. If they feel the situation requires two separate individuals to address the matter.... all the power to them.
I've used a second character a time or two in RP at the same scene, sometimes their goals are inline and they get along, occasionally agreeing and making points the other couldn't make due to perspective when discussing something with another character that's not mine. Other times, they disagree whole-heartedly, and I find my characters taking sides against each other with other people's characters. It's part of the game, and one I find both enjoyable and necessary at some level.
What I mean is, one is using an OOC tool (i.e. an extra account, and extra investment of a subscription) to advance an IC agenda, that is, according to my view on RP, best built using IC actions. For instance, constructing cardboard cut-outs of people, animating them and pretending they're your friends, rather than actually having friends, in a world where people cannot discern between the cardboard people and the real. That is what one is doing in EvE by metagaming with 'IC' alts.
It's like that rumour I heard about aluminium magnate who bankrolled his alliance with $50,000 worth of ETCs. Sure, it's allowed in EvE and there are no official censures against this, but is it good form? Please don't confuse poor form with 'against the rules', or 'inconvenience that I can cope with'.
If you're playing the second character as a separate character and not an extension of the first character, there's still the chance of false information/turncoating/double-agent shenanigans. Because some people are unwilling to allow that on an OOC level doesn't make the RP aspect of it any less valid.
It makes it less valid because in reality the option isn't an option. The reality is that people do not operate according to such utopian principles. Alts used to infiltrate against the targets of the main are used as extensions of the first character, and it is not plausible believe otherwise until there is evidence that they are not. All alt IC infiltrations I have come to learn of have supported my view, can you produce examples that do not?
If Inara joined EM (lolwat?) and spent a couple years working through the ranks, finally got in a position to do damage and pulled the trigger... you'd be okay with that? But, If it was my alt that was hired by Inara to do it, and spent a couple years working through the ranks, finally getting where they could do damage and did the same... it'd be wrong?
Exactly right Inara, because you are RP'ing your main with her motivations. If you are undertaking an OOC action, creating an alt to do Inara's will, rather than using an IC method to achieve an IC goal, you are metagaming and I view that as poor form. Don't confuse that with 'wrong', I re-emphasise. It isn't wrong in EvE terms, it is poor quality RP for the many reasons I have explained.
And if I somehow convinced Elsebeth to turncoat (again, lolwat?), using her position as CEO of Gradient to pull the trigger, that would be okay as well?
Yup, that would be fine, because you are using Inara's IC abilities to achieve an IC goal and Elsebeth is using her IC decisions to influence her IC path. Rather than you creating additional factors in a story that is essentially between two players.
If there is an infiltrator between the two of you it should be a third player that isn't party to 'unknowable' IC knowledge of either of you and is able to make independent IC choices. Otherwise one of the players is trying to rig the 'game'.
Going back to the random (and impossible), Inara(character) hires Elsebeth(character) to destroy EM: There's a very clear separate of who Inara(character) and Elsebeth(character) is, right? Now, let's look at it as Inara(character) hires Alt#42(character). Assuming the fact that Alt#42(character) isn't known to be played by me(player), people are going to react to Alt#42(character) as they would another character. Alt#42(character) also has the ability to decide that they like Elsebeth(character) enough that they couldn't wreck everything she's worked so hard to create in EM, at which point Alt#42(character) either misleads Inara(character) with bad information or informs Inara(character) of the cancellation of the contract... the exact same way another player would go about doing it.
I think that's a excellent illustration of good quality RP and good quality IC infiltration, and it is very pleasing to see such insight on your part. I'll go through this bit by bit. Yes, there is separation of who Inara and Elsebeth are. Let us, as per your example, assume that Alt#42 (nice number by the way), is hired by Inara to infiltrate against Elsebeth. The character playing Alt#42 is unknown to Inara. Therefore the Alt is independent of Inara and can be considered as a validly separate character. This is achievable in game, and requires laudable skill in my view.
Yes, this does get tedious in terms of separating IC and OOC information, and which characters are privy to what information. But it's a level of intrigue that many people enjoy, and I find that accusing the people who do enjoy that particular style of play as doing it wrong (in different words), insulting.
I am not accusing anyone of anything (no names anywhere, eh?).
I am not accusing anyone of doing anything 'wrong', which I have already stated clearly.
I am providing a reasoned argument for why certain practises are better/worse than others in the context of RP. Do not confuse that with right/wrong.
If there are valid reasons to support my positions then there is evidence that they are correct unless there is more convincing evidence against them.
People should not be offended by a well-evidenced, politely and respectfully written argument that suggests that their practises are poor form. That is a flaw on their part and they should aim to provide an argument that defends their position.
If they cannot because there is no convincing defence, then they should accept that they have no valid reasons to believe that anyone is wrong to say that they are engaged in practises that are of poor form.
With the subject matter in context, becoming offended would suggest that they are as 'fickle' as the way they describe their 'victims' who get angry with their behaviour (alt infiltration), and perhaps are not even of 'average intelligence', as someone in this thread suggested.
I'll agree to disagree with you here. I'll go back to the chess analogy: I can influence your next move by what my moves are, but I can't control you and force you to make a move (with the exception of certain check maneuvers :P ). Eve just has several factors more options of 'moves', but I still cannot force someone to make a particular choice. If I could, I would :twisted: .
Again, I suggest you refer to a dictionary and look up the various meanings of control. You are using a single definition. With the various definitions considered, control has closer meaning. I'll copy/paste the definitions if that is too much to ask.
My point is, there is no difference in mechanical outcome, from a second character or a well paid spy/turncoat. I see no reason to demonize one play-style because someone sees it as 'bad form'.
'Demonization' is an exaggeration. The results do not justify the means. If you are an adherent to the view that any means can be used to achieve a goal, let me know so I can produce my valid arguments against that.
Of course we're opponents (mostly IC, moderately OOC), that doesn't mean we can't be cordial and friends at the same time. I'm good friends with some people IRL, but ingame, I'm going to do whatever I can to turn their spaceshippixels into spacedustpixels.
My view is that if we are competing IC, we use IC methods to compete with each other. If we are competing OOC, we used OOC methods to compete with each other. If we are using both at the same time, we are effectively using OOC methods with IC input to maintain the pretence of an overall IC operation. You memefication of ingame assets as 'pixels' is a perfect illustration of that.
OOC, we are both playing a game, and we both have the goal of 'winning' (whatever our personal definition of that may be). Chances are though, our goals mean we have a similar pool of resources, which makes us opponents on some level, yes. The same as any game puts people as opponents.
OOC, of course we may want to win (whatever our personal objective are).
If one is a RPer - IC, one wants to RP and our characters want to 'win' (i.e. achieve their goals).
As RPers, one acts within the confines of what one thinks their characters would do as well as the confines of what one knows their characters can do.
An RP story is a collection of IC actions with IC reactions. Usage of OOC actions to achieve IC objectives is poor RP by simple definition if we agree with the previous sentence.
-
Out of curiosity Lyn, what character name would I know you by in-game? I have a sneaking suspicion I've put my foot in my mouth.
In any case, to address the points raised about not being able to prepare for/defend against infiltration, I call bullshit.
Oh I never said that. I even said that it would never have happened in my own corporation, every power was locked to 3 directors only (RL friends).
For the rest I was speaking about trust, but not the mere trust you grant someone by giving him some roles. I was refering to friendship and relationship. Your infiltration was a soft one. Some are a lot, lot worse. Especially when the spy starts to play people against each other over bullshit. This is totally destructive.
My ingame nickname is the same, Lyn Farel. I was part of the directorship of Ubiqtorat when it happened. We were living in 3D-CQU with our own POSes. We were granted the whole executorship of the alliance some time after, and it lasted several months before we had to leave the alliance half for its internal problems, and half for our own corp health memberbase wise (that was another issue).
Well, if everyone here is an opponent to each other even OOCly, I am starting to wonder what I am doing here. :/
Of course we're opponents (mostly IC, moderately OOC), that doesn't mean we can't be cordial and friends at the same time. I'm good friends with some people IRL, but ingame, I'm going to do whatever I can to turn their spaceshippixels into spacedustpixels.
Are we seriously OOC opponents ? I am not sure if it is what you really meant though, but this is what I understoof of it.
OOC, we are both playing a game, and we both have the goal of 'winning' (whatever our personal definition of that may be). Chances are though, our goals mean we have a similar pool of resources, which makes us opponents on some level, yes. The same as any game puts people as opponents.
Ok then I understood poorly. I understood opponents not as adversaries on a game, but opponents directly between each other. We are not, we are players. This is what makes a difference between playing a war and be part of a real war. So yes, I misunderstood the meaning.
In any case it does not change my point, again. Infiltration done between RP entities has a great potential of damage for the RP community. I am not saying that roleplayers should not play on the same level of the non-RPers and not infiltrate them.
I can assure you I will shrug off and say well played to some infiltrator that will only cause isk damage by being a RP turncoat, or kill an expensive ship of us by doing so, or whatever. I will certainly not be so patient with someone playing on people OOC friendship and/or playing them against each other in the sake of the total annihilation of the infiltrated entity. Actually I will probably put him directly in my blocked/black list with profound disgust. This is why it is destructive if it happens between our different RP entities.
EDIT : In any case, we can still argue that people reacting badly to infiltration is stupid, or a lack of intelligence, or maybe that they should just take a breath and chill out, or even that their views on matters of OOC ethics between players are wrong and thus they are doing it wrong by reacting like this, it will never change that a lot of people will react badly to it, and it is a constant threat to the RP community when it happens between our RP entities.
TL;DR - Inara(character) is a separate entity from MyOtherCharacters(character), even though they are played by me(player). And in the grand scheme of things, MyOtherCharacters(character) are just as useful/not useful as a hired infiltrator(character) belonging to someone else(player); and just as morally right/wrong too ^_^.
This statement appears to be the crux of the whole argument. Everyone seems to pretty much agree with all other major aspects.
Maybe this is true for Inara, but I am not sure that it is true the the majority of other specific purpose RP infiltration alts.
For me playing yourself as a character in roleplay is fundamentaly bad form. Playing a mirror of yourself that remains a totally different character, yes. Playing yourself, very bad form imo.
[/quote]
-
How is it unfair? Anyone can do it. It's a level playing field for everyone involved. Choosing not to do it is a self-imposed handicap, and no different from choosing not to use ECM or whatever else 'because it's cheap'.
I think you are missing the point, Mizhara.
We aren't talking about what people can do. If everything everyone could do was good form and fair we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't about Eve bushido or any other meme label you'd like to issue here. It is starting to question whether you understand the difference between IC and OOC actions and how to separate them. It's not a question of being 'cheap', it's about using OOC actions to achieve IC objectives.
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.
Furthermore, stating 'everyone does it/can do it' has no weight in an argument about principles.
You're just RPing another character who has a similar ideology and likes the idea of hurting a certain entity.
When infiltration or collusion between your characters is involved it becomes metagaming and poor form. Otherwise there is no issue.
There's nothing 'controlling' the game. The character is no less or no more of a threat against the corp/alliance in question just because it's an alt. Hell, alts are harder to get into a corp, and you're under far greater scrutiny and risk of being caught due to the interactions with the main and how the timezones, behaviour patterns and quirks of the player is the same as your main and so on. That the alt is achieving the main's objective is no different from hiring someone else to do it, but it allows you to have the challenge, the RP and so on.
All this is missing the point. You're talking OOC EvE game mechanics rather than RP.
I don't see it being bad form. I see it as playing the game.
Playing EvE, not RP.
-
I'm bowing out of this discussion as it's starting to get tiresome and even offensive to constantly get "but your definition is wrong" and "Your argument is invalid because I say so". I think I've stated my position quite clearly on the matter:
I see nothing 'bad form' about using alts to achieve goals desirable to the main, as long as the alt in question is a clearly separate character with it's own identity. It's as much RP as anything else in Eve, and just as good RP for that matter. I don't see any harm done to the community through infiltration either, as RPers really need to grasp that they're playing the exact same game as everyone else in Eve, and thus have to take the exact same precautions as anyone else against infiltration. If an RP entity dies as a result of infiltration, it's little more than survival of the fittest. The components of the entity, the players and characters, will have learned valuable lessons to bring with them to new and better entities.
It's not OoC as long as it's in-game, as far as I'm concerned. All actions performed by my characters are IC and based on IC motivations. There is no difference between in-game actions and RP as far as I'm concerned. If I hit undock, I'm RPing it. If I'm locking up and shooting a target, it's being done IC. If my character applies to a corporation after winking at my main and saying "Sure, I'll take them down for ya." it's an IC action for IC purposes, with IC ramifications and consequences. In fact, everything outside of specifically designated OoC channels is something I consider to be an IC action and I need an IC justification to do it.
When I play Eve... I am RPing. The entire game is IC and most of the out of game tools (Voice Comms, Killboards, Forums) are also things that can/will be used IC unless prefaced with "This is an OoC communication area!".
Now, I'll let Scagga get back to going 'urdoinitrong' and 'your RP is low quality' with fancier words.
-
I think that you are purposedly eluding the real points adressed in both of our arguments.
In my case it does harm the RP community (not the whole eve community) because of what I stated above. It is not about taking precautions over ingame petty mechanics, hell I am taking them, and hell my own corp has nothing of value to steal anyway. It is about relationships. It will happen in any infiltration with a OOC side (99,99....9999% of the cases, has any RPer already infiltrated a fully immersionnist 100% IC corp ?). In terms of the Eve community, I don't much care. In our RP community, more the OOC side is involved in the infiltration, more the ensuing OOC dramas will be heavy and damageful. Whatever we can think of it (bad form, good form, whatever), there will be harm done to the community if their members can't stand each other because of said infiltrations.
In Scagga's case, which I fully support, It is indeed not OOC as long as its in game. But using an alt controled by yourself, the same entity that controls another character, is bad form because it puts the same brain with the same OOC knowledge behind both characters. In some utopia, maybe someone can make both characters behave differently with their full independant personnalities, but firstly it is purely utopic for the simple reason that you always knows what both characters think and this is definitly not the same thing than playing with a character owned by someone else (leading you to unconsciously at best taking in account what both characters know), and secondly anyway, almost nobody even cares of trying to do so or will always try to find reasons for both characters to get along very well and fullfill the infiltration goal.
-
You gotta face the fact that 'poor form' or not, OOC drama or not, the fact it's allowed in game means you have to remedy the matter somehow in-character if you're maintaining the divide. Chastising an alt for being a 'bad roleplayer' might make you feel better, and you may not think it's right, but it HAPPENED and it has to be given a response. I'm not sure what kind of effect you're going for in declaring alt spying/thievery is metagaming either; you make the assumption that the alt doesn't have any motivations because you declared that alts made for 'ooc' reasons don't have any. I don't think it works that way. You don't get to decide which alts are roleplaying and which ones are NOT.
Just my two cents there. Also, I hate you for making me agree with Miz :P
-
So Scagga, sounds like your position on the OP is: "yes, but it's bad RP." Is that fair?
-
You gotta face the fact that 'poor form' or not, OOC drama or not, the fact it's allowed in game means you have to remedy the matter somehow in-character if you're maintaining the divide. Chastising an alt for being a 'bad roleplayer' might make you feel better, and you may not think it's right, but it HAPPENED and it has to be given a response. I'm not sure what kind of effect you're going for in declaring alt spying/thievery is metagaming either; you make the assumption that the alt doesn't have any motivations because you declared that alts made for 'ooc' reasons don't have any. I don't think it works that way. You don't get to decide which alts are roleplaying and which ones are NOT.
Just my two cents there. Also, I hate you for making me agree with Miz :P
Kayleigh, there are a few matters to raise here.
1. As you may have seen in my posts, Kayleigh, there is plenty of evidence that I 'face the fact' that the action in question is 'allowed'. I have also given examples of other activities that are allowed yet that one would by convention consider poor form.
2. What I find is that you are moving on the 'what should we do about it' part of a debate. I think it is premature for that, as we do not yet have full appreciation of the subject matter and there is ongoing hearty debate between those whose views are opposed on the matter.
3. I have put in bold the areas of your post where you are misrepresenting my views. I have not done any of those things and would challenge you to provide evidence (quotation and explanation if it is a matter or interpretation) if you believe it to be so.
-
So Scagga, sounds like your position on the OP is: "yes, but it's bad RP." Is that fair?
With respect (I think this expression has caught on to some ;)), I would rather put it in another way.
I think a brief way to put it is that IC infiltration is very much a legitimate option in good RP. OOC infiltration, where an alt is used to help achieve the goals of a main is metagaming and not compatible with good RP.
Further to Kayleigh's comments - the remedy in my view is not to have meaningful roleplaying relations with people who have incompatible ways of playing the game, if an acceptable compromise cannot be negotiated. Yes, yes, I know I said it was premature to talk about 'what to do about it'.
-
Kaleigh, there are a few matters to raise here.
1. As you may have seen in my posts, Kaleigh, there is plenty of evidence that I 'face the fact' that the action in question is 'allowed'. I have also given examples of other activities that are allowed yet that one would by convention consider poor form.
2. What I find is that you are moving on the 'what should we do about it' part of a debate. I think it is premature for that, as we do not yet have full appreciation of the subject matter and there is ongoing hearty debate between those whose views are opposed on the matter.
3. I have put in bold the areas of your post where you are misrepresenting my views. I have not done any of those things and would challenge you to provide evidence (quotation and explanation if it is a matter or interpretation) if you believe it to be so.
I highlighted the areas in bold the areas were you misspelled my name here, and for your assistance, I have corrected it for you.
Thank you for your reply scagga, and allow me to reply in kind by providing evidence (in quotation and explanation format) as the basis of my assertion:
Chastising an alt for being a 'bad roleplayer' might make you feel better, and you may not think it's right, but it HAPPENED and it has to be given a response.
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.
There are many other posts similar to this. To chastise, in the context to which I am using the word, is as a 'severe criticism'. You are dictating, through your opinion, that such methods are not within the boundaries of 'good form'. If this isn't a criticism, I don't know what is...
I'm not sure what kind of effect you're going for in declaring alt spying/thievery is metagaming either; you make the assumption that the alt doesn't have any motivations because you declared that alts made for 'ooc' reasons don't have any.
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.
When infiltration or collusion between your characters is involved it becomes metagaming and poor form. Otherwise there is no issue.
Again, the quotes above clearly indicate that any collusion between ones own characters, in your words, becomes metagaming and poor form. The other half of my statement was in response to those who feel alts are not, as you say, good form because they have no character motivation to infiltrate a corporation that your 'main' character may also want. I was merely stating that such assumptions are circumstantial at best since they are not aware of said alts' motivations.
I don't think it works that way. You don't get to decide which alts are roleplaying and which ones are NOT.
Again, this wasn't directed towards you, however, I would say that poor form is an implication, or discouragement of said behavior on the basis that it does not fit into your perspective of what proper roleplay is, and in meaning is almost synonymous.
------------------------
As for why I've moved on to the 'what we do about it' part of the debate, the reason is rather obvious to me but may not be to others. Stating whether an action is RP or not is irrelevant on the basis that (i even bolded this part) no one can declare an act or behavior an action roleplay or not except the individual making the action. Declaring an activity as roleplay/OOC does not negate the action occurred, and if the infiltrator decides to make it part of their roleplay, your options are limited to 'accepting the action happened in character' or simply ignoring/denying the event ever happened. This may become difficult when other individuals outside of those who accepted your interpretation (assuming you ignore it) approach you about the subject and you're forced to hand-wave it.
So unless the basis of your debate is academic in purpose, and not intended to reach a practical outcome, I fail to see what the purpose is in trying to reach a consensus on the subject.
-
An excellent post, kaleigh. I shall give it a worthy reply this evening.
Edit: I regret that by means of exhaustion I shall require to delay my reply
-
Kaleigh summed things up better than I apparently was. I'm going to continue to use alts/hire people/and pay people already inside, to do stuff like this because I see absolutely no 'bad form' to the RP from any perspective.
As has been said, if they are separate RP entities, it doesn't really matter whether they are separate players.
Following Miz's example... ta.
-
What a mess...
It depends of the case ofc, but I don't think I will change my mind enough either not to ignore/blacklist people doing so if I personally have to deal with it.
-
...and people think I'm crazy for never wanting any of my characters to have access to corporate assets. Wow.
-
I will, however, note that things like this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/23/eve_online_botnet_mayhem/) go pretty far past any reasonable line, well into Scagga's "bad form" territory.
-
*Cracks fingers* A fresh day, with a fresh mind to construct a worthy reply.
I highlighted the areas in bold the areas were you misspelled my name here, and for your assistance, I have corrected it for you.
An unintended oversight on my part, Kaleigh. My apologies.
There are many other posts similar to this. To chastise, in the context to which I am using the word, is as a 'severe criticism'. You are dictating, through your opinion, that such methods are not within the boundaries of 'good form'. If this isn't a criticism, I don't know what is...
're: Chastise and objective argumentation'
Kaleigh, with the definitions that are available, the usage of 'Chastise' is an inappropriate hyperbole.
Such a label, if accepted, is a broad-brush mis-painting of the tone of my posts. Mislabelling is a common forum tactic but I am not going to even suggest that you are consciously doing so. However, you know as well as I that if I do not correct this mislabel, it is a premise that can be used to further attack my positions.
Even 'criticism' is an inappropriate word, because of the way you are using it. There are many senses of the word 'criticism' and some would put my posts in a good light. The way you use it implies that you view my words as 'negative criticism'. (a relevant wiki link for your perusal and enjoyment). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism)
I am not negatively criticising people; telling them that they or their practises are faulty or that they are lesser people for engaging in them, or that others should not engage in them. I am not trying to spread disapproval of their views and I am not calling them invalid. In my view there is no 'wrong' or 'right' way to play EvE. If that was what I was saying I would be closer to accepting your words.
If you want to use the term 'criticism', in a debate of such import, it is important to use it in its correct meaning. The correct usage is to imply 'logical' criticism or 'constructive' criticism.
Through this discussion, using the conventions of what RP is, one can objectively assess methods of playing EvE and see how they correlate with what is good and bad RP form. It isn't my opinion, it is an objective assessment based on the definition of what things are. I don't care if someone thinks a square is a triangle. The fact is that a triangle is a triangle and your (generic 'you') opinion and hurt feelings by me politely pointing that out do not change that.
An analogy. It is like a discussion of ship fits, i.e. which are best for what purpose. It is fair to comment that a ship armed solely with mining lasers (tech II!) is probably not a good damage dealer to other ships. That isn't criticism, is it? It is a statement of fact. It would be criticism in the sense that you are using it if I said that the person who suggested such an idea was mentally deficient for coming up with it.
If we are to have a good quality debate it is important that we agree on the definitions of words, otherwise there lies the risk of people bandying them about with different understandings of their meaning, which is not conducive towards an outcome that is mutually understood.
Again, the quotes above clearly indicate that any collusion between ones own characters, in your words, becomes metagaming and poor form. The other half of my statement was in response to those who feel alts are not, as you say, good form because they have no character motivation to infiltrate a corporation that your 'main' character may also want. I was merely stating that such assumptions are circumstantial at best since they are not aware of said alts' motivations.
Your evidence is selective. I have substantiated the conclusions that I have produced in this thread, which you are quoting in isolation. I have given theoretical, logical and example-based evidence to support them. I have not seen my evidence refuted with any counter-evidence, including in your post here.
If you wish to suggest that my conclusions are 'assumptions' you need to address the evidence supporting them first, if we are having a debate rather than an argument.
The irony is that you have made an assumption in the same sentence that you stated that I was making assumptions, emboldened for your reference.
Again, this wasn't directed towards you, however, I would say that poor form is an implication, or discouragement of said behavior on the basis that it does not fit into your perspective of what proper roleplay is, and in meaning is almost synonymous.
On the concept of good and bad form in RP
If RP can be praised for its values it can be recognised for the absence of them. That is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact.
The problem I see is that the 'all-pleasers'/'conflict-avoiders' philosophy you and many others appear to espouse. The reason many hold this view is possibly a result of the apocalyptic forum wars of our predecessors. It suggests the view that RP can be looked at as art, like an art gallery owner who will accept someone's filthily unmade bed as art.
This is a hypocritical view, because we do, in our minds, have the ability to say 'well that was great RP'. Bullshit my friend. If you can say something is good/great, then there has to be bad, even relatively. That is logic. To oversimplify, there is bad art in the world and this is reflected in how much it can be sold for.
With the platform for the polite society as provided by Backstage, we can do away with this necessary evil and honestly discuss the issues related to RP without the artificial chains and fetters imposed upon debate on such topics because of the failings of other people.
Even if this debate doesn't change any minds, that is immaterial in my view. My aim in this thread is the search for truth. I have already learned a lot from this debate and the reason I bother to post is because I care about the subject matter and can see much more opportunity for broadening my perspective.
Furthermore there is the possibility that someone might refute my arguments, which will lead me to reconsider my position.
...no one can declare an act or behavior an action roleplay or not except the individual making the action.
Where does this assumption come from? In a roleplaying game if you break through the IC walls you can be considered ejected from the IC game and your actions can be negated. The fact that you 'can' do that immediately invalidates your statement. Please elucidate further if you meant something more abstract.
Declaring an activity as roleplay/OOC does not negate the action occurred, and if the infiltrator decides to make it part of their roleplay, your options are limited to 'accepting the action happened in character' or simply ignoring/denying the event ever happened. This may become difficult when other individuals outside of those who accepted your interpretation (assuming you ignore it) approach you about the subject and you're forced to hand-wave it.
There's nothing wrong with 'hand-waving' OOC actions. I view it as a necessary evil to preserve enjoyment of the IC game and integrity of the IC actions that have taken place. e.g. don't expect me to give you a meaningfully considered IC response if you approach me about people advertising isk for $$$ in Jita. It looks like your own 'judgements' on what good and bad form in RP is are coming out my dear, which is making this very amusing.
So unless the basis of your debate is academic in purpose, and not intended to reach a practical outcome, I fail to see what the purpose is in trying to reach a consensus on the subject.
The purpose of the debate in my view is the search for truth. I put my own views under the spotlight at least as much as my fellow debater. A consensus is not a necessary outcome, definitely not a necessary outcome if it requires us to disregard certain truths in order to achieve it. I don't care about what other people think if I know through thorough analysis of the facts that they are wrong.
-
Kaleigh summed things up better than I apparently was. I'm going to continue to use alts/hire people/and pay people already inside, to do stuff like this because I see absolutely no 'bad form' to the RP from any perspective.
As has been said, if they are separate RP entities, it doesn't really matter whether they are separate players.
Following Miz's example... ta.
A disappointing choice. I had provided you with a well-considered response. I'm not trying to bury you in words. By reading my posts you can see that I am making points and they are relevantly directed to you in this debate.
It is unfortunate that your reply is to simply restate your conclusions without addressing the arguments against them, then hand over the torch to Kaleigh.
-
A disappointing choice. I had provided you with a well-considered response. I'm not trying to bury you in words. By reading my posts you can see that I am making points and they are relevantly directed to you in this debate.
It is unfortunate that your reply is to simply restate your conclusions without addressing the arguments against them, then hand over the torch to Kaleigh.
Okay, so I'll explain my reasons for stepping out.
I view separate characters as separate entities within RP, even if their goals are sometimes inline with each other. And I will continue to do so whether the separate characters are controlled by separate players or not. Example of this is: Inara can't stand <redacted>(character) played by a person(player), however that same person(player) has another character that Inara does like, and will speak with.
You have stated that RP entities(characters) from the same player are just extensions if their goals are inline with each other (not sure your thoughts on unrelated, never met RP characters controlled by the same player; but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).
This leaves us at an impasse that is based on our fundamental approach to the character/player divide, and neither of us will convince the other to change their mind. Also note, neither of us is 'wrong', as there are examples of both within EVE-RP. So to prevent this becoming a thread of two stubborn people beating their skulls against each other (and likely slipping up with something that is impolite), I'm stepping away to let someone else try and get a perspective in.
Mostly unrelated tidbit: There are some people(players and characters) I personally can't stand OOC, but Inara likes them(characters) and goes out of her way to interact with them.
-
That is good for you if you can be so neutral that even your different chars can have disagreements and more, betray each other or each other's respective entities. Even if I doubt that it is totally the same because it is still you behind both, it is cool. I can do it too I think.
But I highly doubt that the majority of the spies are played in such a "consicous schyzophrenic way".
-
That is good for you if you can be so neutral that even your different chars can have disagreements and more, betray each other or each other's respective entities. Even if I doubt that it is totally the same because it is still you behind both, it is cool. I can do it too I think.
But I highly doubt that the majority of the spies are played in such a "consicous schyzophrenic way".
And that's the primary issue here, imho. Different characters who belong to the same player can RP different things and loyalties, if any (hell I do that daily) but the problem arrives when you use one to infiltrate a corp - any corp. It may be totally IC - your toon might not like it entierly - but if the toon DON'T opt out and say, inform her current emplyer/target that he/she was a spy for X or whoever, then you have basically infiltrated and ripped a corp as a player - the toon was sent to fake an ID and an entire personality for the purpose of robbing/betraying the target corp, and he/she did go through with it. Stating that it was RP is meaningless, because even if your NOT a RP'er but just a 'random guy playing EVE' then your still RP'ing this other noob who wants to help his new 'friends' and allies in this new corp.
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.
The difference is that if my amarrian toon ends up joining another corp, anyone with access here will know who I 'really' am even if I've not told them with said toon. So in a way this adds some drama as far as meta-gaming is concerned - they might know who this toon 'really' is or what other toons I've got, but frankly, while they know this and may even trust me, who can say that I won't REALLY one day just take what I can and bail. After all, I've other toons, right? The safety-buffer here is that I care for my reputation, and have allready made it known who this toon is. It will burn me anyway if i did. If I never told anyone and lied when the subject came up, then robbed people? No burn to my older toons. No-one will know that it was me, and they will definitly not care evne if I wrote it off as a 'secret blooder plan to fuck the Empire over' or whatever. I seriously don't think even half is Istvaan's victims know who really robbed them, unless he informed them ofc. And none of the toons he used to do so is important. Thus there is no consequence, and in this game, consequences for actions is seriously needed.
-
Let's dance.
There are many other posts similar to this. To chastise, in the context to which I am using the word, is as a 'severe criticism'. You are dictating, through your opinion, that such methods are not within the boundaries of 'good form'. If this isn't a criticism, I don't know what is...
're: Chastise and objective argumentation'
Kaleigh, with the definitions that are available, the usage of 'Chastise' is an inappropriate hyperbole.
Such a label, if accepted, is a broad-brush mis-painting of the tone of my posts. Mislabelling is a common forum tactic but I am not going to even suggest that you are consciously doing so. However, you know as well as I that if I do not correct this mislabel, it is a premise that can be used to further attack my positions.
Even 'criticism' is an inappropriate word, because of the way you are using it. There are many senses of the word 'criticism' and some would put my posts in a good light. The way you use it implies that you view my words as 'negative criticism'. (a relevant wiki link for your perusal and enjoyment). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism)
I am not negatively criticising people; telling them that they or their practises are faulty or that they are lesser people for engaging in them, or that others should not engage in them. I am not trying to spread disapproval of their views and I am not calling them invalid. In my view there is no 'wrong' or 'right' way to play EvE. If that was what I was saying I would be closer to accepting your words.
If you want to use the term 'criticism', in a debate of such import, it is important to use it in its correct meaning. The correct usage is to imply 'logical' criticism or 'constructive' criticism.
First and foremost, my usage of 'chastise' was not intended to give a positive or negative connotation; It is a severe criticism lacking in tone. It is a word in itself, and how people perceive it to be is up to the individual to decide. It is clear that you believe I was painting your position as a negative criticism when in truth I see it as a matter of personal judgement. It is your opinion and I respect it, but I haven't taken any personal offense to this. If you wish to call your opinion constructive criticism, I am willing to accept this. :yar:
If we are to have a good quality debate it is important that we agree on the definitions of words, otherwise there lies the risk of people bandying them about with different understandings of their meaning, which is not conducive towards an outcome that is mutually understood.
I would say this is one of the most significant problems humanity has to overcome between individuals and groups in general, so it's no surprise there will be misinterpretation over this medium. However, I believe that as long as we maintain a positive attitude and discuss areas of contention, then misunderstandings can be clarified.
Through this discussion, using the conventions of what RP is, one can objectively assess methods of playing EvE and see how they correlate with what is good and bad RP form. It isn't my opinion, it is an objective assessment based on the definition of what things are. I don't care if someone thinks a square is a triangle. The fact is that a triangle is a triangle and your (generic 'you') opinion and hurt feelings by me politely pointing that out do not change that.
An analogy. It is like a discussion of ship fits, i.e. which are best for what purpose. It is fair to comment that a ship armed solely with mining lasers (tech II!) is probably not a good damage dealer to other ships. That isn't criticism, is it? It is a statement of fact. It would be criticism in the sense that you are using it if I said that the person who suggested such an idea was mentally deficient for coming up with it.
I believe this touches the heart of the debate and where I diverge from your viewpoint. Acting is not a science and there is no truth; it is a matter of subjectivity and ones personal tastes that dictate preference. Marlon Brando may be a beloved hit actor with millions of fans, but that doesn't make it a fact that he is 'good'.
Your analogy of ship fits can be proven as an ineffective damage dealing vessel with tech 2 mining lasers through testing in the environment that will most likely yield unanimous results, whereas an infiltration alt's values are unknown variables with a proven impact in the game...your secrets are taken, your enemy has your assets, they know your plans, etc.. While the alt's attributes are unknowns, since we cannot establish their motivations (unless declared), what IS known is the consequences of said actions, which have a profound impact on the game world around you. In my opinion, casting 'constructive criticism' on alt infiltration of rp as poor form without knowing the motivations of the Alt or the effort that was placed into the character is an assumption of 'poor form', and an unfair one at that.
Again, the quotes above clearly indicate that any collusion between ones own characters, in your words, becomes metagaming and poor form. The other half of my statement was in response to those who feel alts are not, as you say, good form because they have no character motivation to infiltrate a corporation that your 'main' character may also want. I was merely stating that such assumptions are circumstantial at best since they are not aware of said alts' motivations.
Your evidence is selective. I have substantiated the conclusions that I have produced in this thread, which you are quoting in isolation. I have given theoretical, logical and example-based evidence to support them. I have not seen my evidence refuted with any counter-evidence, including in your post here.
... You are an odd character. You specifically requested I find quotes from you that supported my perspective, and I supplied it, and now you've twisted it to imply that I'm quoting you in isolation. I had no intention of quoting your entire posts at length simply to display your perspective in entirety.
SO, here we go:
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 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2304.msg30853#msg30853), 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.
Let me give you another example - you arrange a duel with someone, but they have an alt repping them or secretly giving them gang bonuses. Sure, it can be done, but is it good form?
If you need to resort to adding another character under your control to a storyline, you are extending your control beyond what is available to your character as ingame tools. Another example - What would your view be if someone logged an alt or two and tried to railroad the way a conversation with you was going to go, or engineered actions (diplomatic/conversation) with the alts to get what their main wanted? Again, it can be done, but is it good form?
Linked (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2304.msg31385#msg31385) for posterity.
So Multiplicity (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117108/) was a bad movie? *frownie face*
In all seriousness, as serious as I can be about this, relating social engineering a conversation through multiple personalities to remote repping/gang bonusing a duel may be a fair comparison, but RP isn't about fairness, and good form isn't fair rp.
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. For example, "I punch you in the face, and you cry like a bitch." In this example, I have no control over my character's behavior and I'm forced to either 'accept' his perspective on the matter or hand-wave/ignore it. The matter of contention that I see in this perspective, based on my interpretation of meta-gaming, is that even with an alt a player can only 'coerce' another player into action, not force it. An alt can't force a CEO to give them secrets or hangar access, only influence and gain trust of this corporation. The only action that an alt forces characters to do is accept the fact they were stolen from (in one form or another), and this isn't much different than forcing a character to acknowledge they were blown up in space by a gate camp or podded at an asteroid belt. These are realities of game play mechanics that have to be reckoned with by characters in-game.
If my perspective of your vision of meta-gaming diverges from how you view it, then I am confident you'll correct me.
If you wish to suggest that my conclusions are 'assumptions' you need to address the evidence supporting them first, if we are having a debate rather than an argument.
The irony is that you have made an assumption in the same sentence that you stated that I was making assumptions, emboldened for your reference.
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.
On the concept of good and bad form in RP
If RP can be praised for its values it can be recognised for the absence of them. That is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact.
The problem I see is that the 'all-pleasers'/'conflict-avoiders' philosophy you and many others appear to espouse. The reason many hold this view is possibly a result of the apocalyptic forum wars of our predecessors. It suggests the view that RP can be looked at as art, like an art gallery owner who will accept someone's filthily unmade bed as art.
This is a hypocritical view, because we do, in our minds, have the ability to say 'well that was great RP'. Bullshit my friend. If you can say something is good/great, then there has to be bad, even relatively. That is logic. To oversimplify, there is bad art in the world and this is reflected in how much it can be sold for.
With the platform for the polite society as provided by Backstage, we can do away with this necessary evil and honestly discuss the issues related to RP without the artificial chains and fetters imposed upon debate on such topics because of the failings of other people.
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.
Even meta-gaming in the manner that I discussed earlier ("I punch you in the face and you cry like a bitch"), a practice that I personally loathe, is a behavior that I let pass with roleplay partners that I trust and know will not take it to the extreme. ("Angie swings as hard as she can and connects with the right side of your jaw.") I accept it or react in a way that is appropriate for the situation, so I don't see practices in the roleplay environment to be constants. Some are acceptable in certain situations, not so much in others. But that's MY opinion.
So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm into conflict avoidance. Hand-waving OOC happenings in the game world kinda feels like conflict avoidance to me.
Even if this debate doesn't change any minds, that is immaterial in my view. My aim in this thread is the search for truth. I have already learned a lot from this debate and the reason I bother to post is because I care about the subject matter and can see much more opportunity for broadening my perspective.
Furthermore there is the possibility that someone might refute my arguments, which will lead me to reconsider my position.
I would hope so. Of course, it's not necessarily my goal to change your opinion. My purpose in this debate is to present my perspective, and perhaps in the process change some (not just yours) minds? If it happens, fantastic, otherwise, I don't expect a consensus on the matter.
...no one can declare an act or behavior an action roleplay or not except the individual making the action.
Where does this assumption come from? In a roleplaying game if you break through the IC walls you can be considered ejected from the IC game and your actions can be negated. The fact that you 'can' do that immediately invalidates your statement. Please elucidate further if you meant something more abstract.
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.
Declaring an activity as roleplay/OOC does not negate the action occurred, and if the infiltrator decides to make it part of their roleplay, your options are limited to 'accepting the action happened in character' or simply ignoring/denying the event ever happened. This may become difficult when other individuals outside of those who accepted your interpretation (assuming you ignore it) approach you about the subject and you're forced to hand-wave it.
There's nothing wrong with 'hand-waving' OOC actions. I view it as a necessary evil to preserve enjoyment of the IC game and integrity of the IC actions that have taken place. e.g. don't expect me to give you a meaningfully considered IC response if you approach me about people advertising isk for $$$ in Jita.
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. For instance, say alt 1 infiltrates your corporation and reveals that you are Sansha Sympathizers to the public. Corporations X & Y declare war on you and destroy your ships and force all but you to leave your corporation. When the public asks why this is done, they point to a document which was acquired by OOC means proving your sympathies with Nation. They demand that you acknowledge your Sansha ties to the public. Now, clearly your character is working for the Sansha, and everyone knows it through OOC means. Is it really possible to continue functioning as a character pretending none of this happened, simply because an OOC alt impacted you? Is that really RP in poor form?
Again, I encourage you to correct me on this because this may just be a matter of misunderstanding, but from what I gather this is a definite possibility.
It looks like your own 'judgements' on what good and bad form in RP is are coming out my dear, which is making this very amusing.
Oh absolutely. In my opinion, not based on fact or truth, I believe hand-waving or ignoring OOC activity is poor form. I think part of the challenge in roleplay in general is interacting in a world that is not entirely in-character, and trying to interpret it in a way that works for me. That's my opinion, and I have NO TROUBLE sharing my opinion. ;)
So unless the basis of your debate is academic in purpose, and not intended to reach a practical outcome, I fail to see what the purpose is in trying to reach a consensus on the subject.
The purpose of the debate in my view is the search for truth. I put my own views under the spotlight at least as much as my fellow debater. A consensus is not a necessary outcome, definitely not a necessary outcome if it requires us to disregard certain truths in order to achieve it. I don't care about what other people think if I know through thorough analysis of the facts that they are wrong.
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.
-
Another high quality post, kaleigh. Thank you. Same procedure as last time - but I'm getting the impression that a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points as it seems we're missing each other's meaning every now and again.
-
a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points
I personally find that verbs help to deliver the message more effectively than simple blobs of adjectives and nouns, personally.
(please don't ban me)
-
a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points
I personally find that verbs help to deliver the message more effectively than simple blobs of adjectives and nouns, personally.
(please don't ban me)
Like the perrigen falls region description
-
I view separate characters as separate entities within RP, even if their goals are sometimes inline with each other. And I will continue to do so whether the separate characters are controlled by separate players or not.
This statement is made as if it seems that I am trying to change your mind, rather than challenging the reasons for why you believe what you believe.
You have stated that RP entities(characters) from the same player are just extensions if their goals are inline with each other (not sure your thoughts on unrelated, never met RP characters controlled by the same player; but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).
This leaves us at an impasse.....
That's not true, there appears to be a variance with what I am saying and what has been imputed. An alt is an extension of the main character if its purpose is to serve the interests of the main. You have written 'goals are inline', which means something quite different, and I will illustrate this further.
It is quite possible to play two Amarr loyalists who both hate minmatar. However, if one is used by the other to infiltrate, there is no internal dialogue with varied information between the characters. Both characters are effectively making their choices with the pooled knowledge of one player. To suggest such saintly character in the player that they would reliably not use 'unknowable' information to assist the infiltrator is unrealistic in my view. The overwhelming majority of infiltrators are playing to win against their enemy, using the creation of another character as a tool to assist their main, not for an enhanced IC experience.
So to prevent this becoming a thread of two stubborn people beating their skulls against each other (and likely slipping up with something that is impolite), I'm stepping away to let someone else try and get a perspective in.
I strongly doubt we are stubborn people or just arguing nonsense. The problem I see that prolongs the debate is that the arguments that I am making are not being refuted, so I cannot be satisfied with your replies.
-
Your arguments amount to little more than personal opinion. They have been answered repeatedly with other viewpoints and opinions, quite satisfactory in fact. If this is not enough for you, then there's very little to discuss, is there? I'm afraid your opinions aren't necessarily facts nor 'truth'. They're your opinion... and not agreed with universally.
Is there really more to this?
-
Well then, why not answering to them by something else than "I still don't see what is the problem". I am honestly trying to find where are the counter arguments (especially on my stance to the destructive power on the RP community), but the only thing I can find is this.
Ah yes, the Darwinian argument. Sure, though it still does not change my point. It is destructive anyhow.
-
Your arguments amount to little more than personal opinion. They have been answered repeatedly with other viewpoints and opinions, quite satisfactory in fact. If this is not enough for you, then there's very little to discuss, is there? I'm afraid your opinions aren't necessarily facts nor 'truth'. They're your opinion... and not agreed with universally.
Is there really more to this?
My friend, you are mistaken, the arguments have not been addressed. By yourself in particular - none. Your posting record would suggest that you think that producing an opposite view is sufficient to refute an argument. That is not the case, you have to actually engage and undo the logic that upholds it in order to refute it.
-
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.
-
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.
Strangely enough I've been finding it an interesting discussion and for what its worth am happy to register my support to some of the positions that Scagga has been arguing. I don't think its accurate for you to characterize his statements as lacking all external agreement.
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.
In other forms of roleplay that are quite close to Eve Online in many ways (mass participation LARP for example) there is the convention that one doesn't have "alts" - the player has one character only at any one time and thus avoids all this nonsense. Corruption when it occurs (and believe me it does!) is when players also semi/npc and cross boundaries of influence-peddling and mutual support in the setting. But I think its fair to say if you came from that background the concept of multiple alts all supporting each other's schemes would look a little bit suss. Scagga's conviction that all alts are extensions of the main is a valid position to take whether you agree with it or not.
They're different opinions. You have nothing to support your own arguments, beyond opinion. The same applies to my own statements here.
Very true.
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.
Unfortunate but also true. I'd definitely prefer it if people could be decent to each other ooc at least - but differences in expectation and standards on a range of issues do tend to sabotage this hope.
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.
I tend to disagree actually. The infilitration ic/ooc alty mcaltyson (and his cat alt) stuff does create quite bad feelings when it happens and can lead to a lot of argument and complaints. I mean you and I had our run-ins over disagreements of alt use and ic separation back in the day and you weren't even the one doing the corp thefting!
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.
Well not really since its a single shard game and the people who don't like infilitration by alt are usually specifically-targetted by those that do simply because their tears are sweeter and howls of complaint more musical to the ears. Eve is a bit cruel like that.
-
This is going to be very long, so I've split my reply into parts.
(1/2)
I believe that as long as we maintain a positive attitude and discuss areas of contention, then misunderstandings can be clarified.
Splendid, I look forward to continued good quality debate.
I believe this touches the heart of the debate and where I diverge from your viewpoint. Acting is not a science and there is no truth; it is a matter of subjectivity and ones personal tastes that dictate preference. Marlon Brando may be a beloved hit actor with millions of fans, but that doesn't make it a fact that he is 'good'.
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.
Your analogy of ship fits can be proven as an ineffective damage dealing vessel with tech 2 mining lasers through testing in the environment that will most likely yield unanimous results, whereas an infiltration alt's values are unknown variables with a proven impact in the game...your secrets are taken, your enemy has your assets, they know your plans, etc.. While the alt's attributes are unknowns, since we cannot establish their motivations (unless declared), what IS known is the consequences of said actions, which have a profound impact on the game world around you. In my opinion, casting 'constructive criticism' on alt infiltration of rp as poor form without knowing the motivations of the Alt or the effort that was placed into the character is an assumption of 'poor form', and an unfair one at that.
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.
... You are an odd character. You specifically requested I find quotes from you that supported my perspective, and I supplied it, and now you've twisted it to imply that I'm quoting you in isolation. I had no intention of quoting your entire posts at length simply to display your perspective in entirety.
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 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 refute your refutation with a statement from reality - the track record of this infiltration style supports my arguments. EvE's design and establishment encourage unscrupulous behaviour, and it benefits them.
Using OOCly acquired information by infiltration with your alt to gain advantage in an IC conflict is something therefore that will be expected if it happens. 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.
It is a metagaming (OOC) tactic for reasons explained (not yet refuted) and therefore cannot be compatible with good form in RP.
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 :s
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.
So Multiplicity (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117108/) was a bad movie? *frownie face*
I haven't watched it, but checking the summary, I would think Being John Malkovich (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120601/) is more applicable.
In all seriousness, as serious as I can be about this, relating social engineering a conversation through multiple personalities to remote repping/gang bonusing a duel may be a fair comparison, but RP isn't about fairness, and good form isn't fair rp.
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.
Part 2 coming up...
-
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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Or we could take it to voice 8)
-
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.
-
(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/090706/most-interesting-man-240.jpg)
I don't always disagree with Scagga, but when I do - he explains to me why I'm wrong.
-
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.
-
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roleplay):
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.
:arrow: It is entirely possible for an alternate character to share the perspective of a main character.
:arrow: 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 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2304.msg31449#msg31449).
It's a bit hard not to cherry-pick when all you leave is cherries! :o
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 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2304.msg30853#msg30853), 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? :D
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.
-
As an aside from the.... :eek: ...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.
-
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]
-
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roleplay):
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.
-
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.
-
Miscellany.
:arrow: It is entirely possible for an alternate character to share the perspective of a main character.
:arrow: 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? :D
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.
-
Damn you Scagga :P 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? :D
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 :lol: )
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.
-
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.
-
As for the Istvaan approach, it is a more convincing reason than the 'alt X is working for me', since it more closely mirrors the actual control, but it still isn't good, since Istvaan's control mechanism is an out-of-game construct. It exists only in his imagination and is thus unassailable, uncounterable and undetectable. In effect, it is a RP paint job on the metagame reality that what appear to be multiple personalities are in fact bodily extensions of the same consciousness.
In fact, maybe we should get an RP reason why there are so many people that are linked to others in undetectable and near mystical ways....
-
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.
Maybe one could let the stats of the character to decide? If he is like alert, cautious, perhaps even paranoid, then he might be considering the risk of having a few spies around and have a low chance (like < 15%) of trusting the corp hangars, while if he is not a good property manager, doesn't believe in material wealth etc. he might have a higher likelihood of placing an expensive item down there (maybe > 80%). And if it's not obvious what he would do, maybe one could even roll dice to make the decision?
A faction BS can be lost in many ways, corp hangars is only one of the possibilities, and if one cannot afford to throw it away, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to have it around in the first place. Loosing it would only correct the original mistake.
Personally I'm more into playing alts as unrelated characters, but in the context of EVE, I can accept mind-control, identical twins, surgically modified clones, lovers etc., as plausible explanations for a mystical connection between someone's main and alts. To me the root of the problem seems to be that some players want to win the game in quantitative terms, although I'm not convinced that this is the case with regard to certain recent events.
-
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.
I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.
Agreeing that it can remain difficult not to slip up and allow OOC information affect IC decisions, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Point of Note: I don't see very much of what happens in EVE as being completely OOC without some 'translation' to IC. Even the crazies that troll CAOD are viewed IC, just from the portion of the capsuleer population that went nutters.
-
I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.
This is not about the example, its about the principle.
Agreeing that it can remain difficult not to slip up and allow OOC information affect IC decisions, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
In fact, I claim it is impossible to do so. You cannot remove the knowledge from you the player's mind, so you can't tell if and in what manner your character's decisions are influenced by the knowledge that you as a player have but they don't.
Would you have picked up the hints of betrayal if you hadn't know that character X was gonna betray corp Y? Should you actively try ignore some signs of betrayal because you think your character might have not picked them up, but you do now because you already knew of the impending betrayal OOC? There is simply no way to tell.
A less obtrusive example: you have characters A en B. They are playing in different parts of EVE and have no contact. Then the CEO of the corp from character A travels to the other part of EVE. You are online with character B and you look at local. You mind immediately registers a familiar name between the dozens of assorted characters: the CEO of the corp of your character A. Would you have seen the same person if he wasn't familiar to you as a player? Most likely not. Hence, you knowledge from character A is already influencing the way character B percieves the game world. They are not separate because you cannot separate your knowledge. You can merely pretend to separate it.
[
-
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.
Why would you be putting your expensive stuff in the corp hangar in the first place anyway? You have your own hangar, which is completely invulnerable to any and all kinds of theft unless someone that isn't you gets a hold of your account details. Why would you not be using this? I can think of no logical reason to put your things into the corp hangar that even one other person has access to for any length of time, aside from one: you're in a wormhole corp and have no choice but to share an SMA/CHA at a POS in w-space.
This line of thinking applies IC as well, given the fairly prevalent selfish and/or paranoid attitudes of capsuleers with regards to their assets. Why store my expensive ships, modules and assets in a place that isn't under my complete and full control? Why give access to those assets to people I don't have control over? That makes no sense. There's no reason to put something into a corp hangar unless the intent is to donate it, or otherwise expect not to get it back.
I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.
Cosmo doctrine (bolded for reference) ftw. Same boat as Inara here - Morwen(c) is a lot more paranoid about things than Morwen(p) is, and takes steps to assuage that paranoia when it gets triggered. Like not putting anything into a corp hangar that isn't intended as a donation or only accessible to a certain limited set of trusted parties. If you or your character are naïve enough to put a faction BS or other valuables into an easily-accessible corp hangar and stuff gets stolen, it is nobody's fault but yours and/or your character's.
This is not about the example, its about the principle.
I disagree that Inara is focusing on the example and not the principle in this case. Inara is stating that he and at least one of his characters (probably more) follow the principle that if it isn't intended for corp use, it doesn't belong anywhere near a corp hangar. That has nothing to do with knowing whether there's a spy in the corp or not, IC or OOC. It has everything to do with assuming that if it isn't explicitly under your full control, it isn't secure (and even then, it's probably not completely secure), which is something that Inara(p) and Inara(c) appear to consider common sense.
-
Oh Inara, why do you make me rub my temples so?
You're frequently arguing against points I never made...
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.
No, and it would have been a good idea to check on agreement on the definition before going ahead to use it :cry: The definition has to be unaltered (what exactly do you want to cut out?) because removal of clauses leaves loopholes for arguments to exploit.
Can you see how this debate technique can be interpreted as reconstructing my argument to something it is not, then arguing against that misconstruction? I can see that the lettering 'I.' referred to my definition of 'good form', while your comment was related to the definition of roleplay - could you clarify why that is?
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.
There are some problems:
A. Compared against a definition of RP that you bring in and assume is agreed upon, ignoring the problems raised by metagaming, ignoring the problems raised by poor form.
B. is a self-evident, irrelevant statement.
C. seems to be a space-filler for what could be a third point, but isn't.
Summary:
In your nicely organised A, B & C layout you've made one point, which is faulted on the following points:
1. It is using a hyper-limited unreferenced definition assumed to be acceptable and interchangeable with mine. The nature of the definition is incomplete, allowing too many incorrect behaviours to be accepted as within the bounds of roleplaying and thus is why I find the definition unacceptable.
2. It is ignoring the confounding factors of poor form and metagaming. Even if you make the points later on to address them, these points cannot be cogently made without addressal of those confounding factors.
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).
I'm not assuming that. The player knows all the information that the main and alt know, which is fact. When one is infiltrating for the other there is information that is unknowable in the mind of the player. The conflict of interests will influence the behaviour of the other player, which means the characters are going to behave on knowledge 'they do not know'. This is through usage of an OOC mechanic (having an alt).
See Merdaneth's point for better elucidation, I'm tired.
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...
It's not relevant to the infiltration scenario, much like Scagga never knew I had a pet turtle as a kid.
But if I was infiltrating for Scagga with an alt, the knowledge I gain from my alt as a player will inevitably influence how I play Scagga, without any IC mechanism happening between the two characters for this to be done, because the people controlling them knows more than what he can get through using solely IC methods.
When someone tells you that there is a surprise trap behind the next door you are about to walk through, you can pretend all you like, but your mind is going to expect it and you cannot reproduce the genuine behaviour you would have had without that knowledge.
No more assuming, let's get the evidence out that you can genuinely behave the same with metagame-accumulated knowledge with your characters as you would without that knowledge.
And before you say I'm making assumptions, here is a publication that supports my argument:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0wr5121p73p3136/
NO inhibition may also explain the ‘‘blocking’’
phenomenon in classical conditioning. It was shown
by Kamin (60) that, if learning has occurred to a
particular conditioned stimulus, learning to a second
conditioned stimulus, presented simultaneously, will
be very inefficient. The first conditioned stimulus is
said to ‘‘block’’ the second. A simple explanation for
this is that the nuclear response elicited by the first
conditioned stimulus causes an inhibition of the
olive that prevents any association between the
second conditioned stimulus and climbing fibre
input from the eye (10).
Essentially, learning will condition your responses to known stimuli, which is probably why you won't flinch as much after you know someone is pretending to hit you when they wave their hand in front of your face. It's a 'because of brain' reason. One will alter how one's character reacts due to foreknowledge - that was obtained by usage of metagaming means, which makes them OOC means overall.
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.
These are both different scenarios. The alt isn't being used to infiltrate for her, so there isn't the same conflict of interests. The stakes aren't there, you aren't using an alt for your main in a conflict against another player, you are citing scenarios of 'opportunity' (which are equally metagaming, but without as high temptation). Please argue a point for the scenario we are discussing.
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..
We are not just discussing infiltration = metagaming.
We are discussing that using an alt to infiltrate on behalf of your main is metagaming because of the use of OOC mechanisms (alt creation, knowledge you are playing a game, monitoring and manipulating OOC interactions) to defeat your opponent. It goes beyond IC mechanisms that are available.
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.
Please don't pretend I'm saying something, then argue against it and say it is going to weaken my points. That is dishonest. The fact that infiltration of an alt for a main is not a new set of skills in EvE has nothing to do with whether it is meta-gaming or not. I wasn't even making that point.
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.
I don't see how this statement is in any way relevant to our discussion, or even how it leads to its conclusion. Please can you show what it is following on from, as I do not see it as something we've been discussing, nor how it can lead to a conclusion that any previous argument is invalid.
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.
The player is using the additional characters to win the game, not play the game, which is acknowledgement of the 'game'.
The creation of additional characters requires investment in the game to gain an unassailable advantage. The relation between the characters supersedes what is possible within the game mechanics between people's characters, using OOC facility of being controlled by one player.
The reality is that alts are rolled for the purpose do not behave in the 'saintly' way you describe your own, which is sounding like the argument fallacy 'the exception that disproves the rule'. I accept to continue with my view because the evidence that the overwhelming majority of players' behaviour is consistent with it is strong, while your exception is rare.
Exception That Proves The Rule:
a specific example of Cliche Thinking. This is used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn't always work. The cliche rebuttal is that this is "the exception that proves the rule". Many people think that this cliche somehow allows you to ignore the exception, and continue using the rule.
In fact, the cliche originally did no such thing. There are two standard explanations for the original meaning.
The first is that the word "prove" meant test. That is why the military takes its equipment to a Proving Ground to test it. So, the cliche originally said that an exception tests a rule. That is, if you find an exception to a rule, the cliche is saying that the rule is being tested, and perhaps the rule will need to be discarded.
The second explanation is that the stating of an exception to a rule, proves that the rule exists. For example, suppose it was announced that "Over the holiday weekend, students do not need to be in the dorms by midnight". This announcement implies that normally students do have to be in by midnight. Here is a discussion of that explanation.
In either case, the cliche is not about waving away objections.
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.
I don't have experience of performing alt infiltration for my ex-main. I have operated alts and entered other corporations, but never for infiltration or into corporations that had anything to do with my main. I have experienced infiltration of my corporation (real and imagined), but not by IC characters.
I also have observed infiltration after infiltration of the major RP corporations and its deleterious effects through gutter-quality form. Aegis Militia, PIE, CVA, I've seen the effects of the infiltration, and not any RP. Look at Istvaan's 'ic' infiltration. Look at the recent I-Red infiltration. Factional warfare combat in fleets was nonsensified by the presence of infiltrators. That is the character of infiltration we are talking about, which is most frequently reported.
Once the infiltrator is in with the quaryr, their primary aim is to befriend and gain the trust of other players OOC, not IC, in order to achieve their goal.
You can trust someone IC, but realistically I do not know of players who grant access worth exploiting until they know that the player is 'sound' OOC. If you would like to disprove that belief please supply examples. I would be happy for this theory to be tested.
Infiltration alts exist to serve their main. When their function is complete, they commonly either continue to make money for their main, prepare for another mission or get sold/binned. They are 'burned', like cards.
. . . *got confused by relation to stranger and sex toys in the middle of the night* Moving on.
Don't move on - try to address the point I was making. You are in a situation where there is a very strong reason to believe that someone has malintent towards you. Would you assume that they are innocent until proven guilty and not allow that to influence your behaviour?
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.
Mischaracterisation of my point.
You are approached by someone openly carrying a knife. You alter your behaviour because you know that you are being threatened by that. Likewise you alter your behaviour in scenarios where you are aware that there are significant factors that would benefit you by making said alteration in behaviour.
It is reasonable and human behaviour, and I would conjecture that you would be fearless or stupid not to behave like that. I will not make a model that needs to account for fearless or stupid people.
Majority statistics do not carry weight (according to your words).
Incorrect.
I said that majority opinions do not carry weight. I did not say that probability that an action would take place based on longitudinal analysis (track record) did not carry weight.
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.
Produce your list. I listed off the top of my head some prominent examples of infiltrated corporations and alliances. Show me how significant these 'purely IC' infiltrations that occured on behalf of someone else's main were.
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 :lol: )
If you can counter the argument made from neuroscience/impossible to separate characters, temptation, conflict of interests, track record, usage of OOC knowledge (befriending OOC to gain IC trust), usage of OOC game mechanisms (creating a character , ooc action, to influence an IC story)...
-
Scagga, it's getting really tiresome to watch you argue the way people debate rather than the points themselves. Talking down to people like that is not going to get you anywhere, especially when it's all just "urdoinitrong" with different words.
-
Scagga, it's getting really tiresome to watch you argue the way people debate rather than the points themselves. Talking down to people like that is not going to get you anywhere, especially when it's all just "urdoinitrong" with different words.
But the problem is, he's right.
As an example, if he makes an argument, and someone alters it or cuts it down or otherwise does something that esentially creates another argument all-together or miss-interpits it, then their responce will not be against his argument and the discussion goes no-where; the answer to 'his argument' will be an answer to something he never said/meant.
I've not read much into this entire debate because I'm honestly not THAT interested nor do I have terrible ammounts of time to take part, but if people who do want to get their points across and answers to them, then mistakes like this have got to be avoided, otherwise we end up with a modded/locked flame-fest in no-time.
-
I disagree that Inara is focusing on the example and not the principle in this case. Inara is stating that he and at least one of his characters (probably more) follow the principle that if it isn't intended for corp use, it doesn't belong anywhere near a corp hangar. That has nothing to do with knowing whether there's a spy in the corp or not, IC or OOC. It has everything to do with assuming that if it isn't explicitly under your full control, it isn't secure (and even then, it's probably not completely secure), which is something that Inara(p) and Inara(c) appear to consider common sense.
This is precisely why I chose a bad example. It is not about the example. Saying you "wouldn't do it anyway" makes the example bad. It is about things you would do different when you know someone is a spy and when someone isn't. As for things you don't trust a spy with, you need to come up with good examples yourself.
My point remains: its impossible to act to not know something you know. You can merely imagine how you would have acted if you didn't know, but you never know if you would have made that choice if you hadn't known (tjeez, is that a complicated sentence or what?)
You can't laugh at a joke you've already been told like you did the first time. You can't act shocked at the terrible news if you've already heard it before. Scagga's suprise example is also good.
My claim goes further. If you learn through one of your characters that your other character's CEO is going to quite EVE soon, your other character won't be able to interact naturally with him anymore because of this knowledge. Your (the player's) knowledge will taint every word the CEO says, even if your other character isn't informed yet. That is how the human mind functions.
-
A lot of disagreeing with the way I stated my debate.
I'm not going to take time to discuss the way I state things, you can either accept the words as they are typed and intended, or you can handwavium and claim they hold no relevancy. The long and short of it is we hold very different opinions of how information can be transferred between characters (the players behind said characters is irrelevant the way I play the game).
Produce your list. I listed off the top of my head some prominent examples of infiltrated corporations and alliances. Show me how significant these 'purely IC' infiltrations that occured on behalf of someone else's main were.
I'll pm you a current/ongoing RP infiltration situation that does not belong in public discussion. Sorry, but the specific names will be redacted due to this being an ongoing RP infiltration.
My point remains: its impossible to act to not know something you know. You can merely imagine how you would have acted if you didn't know, but you never know if you would have made that choice if you hadn't known (tjeez, is that a complicated sentence or what?)
I disagree with this due to experience with being in that situation in the past myself. A good RP infiltration is dependant on being able to act as if you(c) don't know information that you(p) do know if you(c) doesn't know the information (yeah, these sentences are very complicated :bash: ).
You can't laugh at a joke you've already been told like you did the first time. You can't act shocked at the terrible news if you've already heard it before. Scagga's suprise example is also good.
Again, I disagree. This applies both IRL and in RP. I can provide the same reaction at any time after receiving information if given the same information at a later date from someone who doesn't know that I have the information, and regularly do (another convoluted sentence, but I hope it's understandable).
My claim goes further. If you learn through one of your characters that your other character's CEO is going to quite EVE soon, your other character won't be able to interact naturally with him anymore because of this knowledge. Your (the player's) knowledge will taint every word the CEO says, even if your other character isn't informed yet. That is how the human mind functions.
Let's say, hypothetically that someone told one of my alts(c) that Ethan Verone(c) was retiring and handing over the reigns to VETO to Kyoko(c), but this information wasn't available to Inara(c)... Inara's(c) interactions with Ethan Verone(c) would have absolutely no change, at all. Now, I(p) may pull him(p) aside on vent or private convo and ask what's up, but the IC interaction would be consistent until Inara(c) was made aware of it.
Most people have the ability to separate IC and OOC knowledge and act accordingly (from my experience with various RPers in various settings/games). Example: In tabletop, I was DMing a game and the lvl4 party ran into a rust monster (most overpowered 'low-level' encounter creature in DnD); the player knew that swinging his mace at the thing would be a bad idea... but no one in the party had Knowledge (dungeneering) so their character took the swing because they(c) had no information saying it was a bad idea. Or, when we're(p) sitting around drinking beer at the table, and we(p) figure out what the DM has planned for the overall story-arc... our characters don't change the way they(c) approach the situation, even if sometimes we(p) are cringing because we know that they(c) are falling right into the story-hook.
-
To 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.
The problem I have with this is that you've stated a couple times that there is 'no such thing as good or bad rp', and up to this point we've been discussing what 'good form' is in roleplay. From where I'm standing, good and bad are qualitative values used to describe an individual or behavior. Now you're suggesting we're at the stage where we're defining whether people are even role-playing at all?
For your convenience I have grabbed a definition of roleplay from dictionary.com, found
here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roleplay):
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.
I'm afraid I can't agree with the definition you've chosen either. Allow me to break down the definition you've highlighted and explain my reasoning.
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.
I've bolded the area in which I believe this sentence highlights the differences between a standard RPG and EVE: Online (an MMORPG). Players act out their roles in a game environment, not a narrative. A story is not being told, as we are instead making our own, and is not handled through a process of structured decision making or character development. The creators of EVE Online provide a very basic structure in the character creation process that ends the moment the player is immersed in the game world. There is no structure at this point, and the player is nearly free to choose their character's destiny within the limitations of the game. You have clearly stated several times that game constraints are not equivalent to roleplay structure, so one would have to assume there is no structure other than what we define for ourselves.
Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Clearly in EVE this is not the case. Actions are dependent either upon the limitations of the EVE game parameters, its rules, or by the consent of other players involved. There is no formal system of rules and guidelines dictating EVE's roleplay standards beyond the basic rules on chat restriction and harassment.
Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.
Which I believe is the quintessential point in the definition you've chosen, that EVE is a platform where role-playing activity is present, but is not the primary focus. This means that game mechanics are inescapably part of roleplay in EVE Online, and cannot be excluded.
This is exactly why I chose a general definition for roleplay, as the one you have described does not embody a majority of the attributes you've outlined.
And while this may be an entertaining diversion, the truth is, if we were to reach a consensus on this the end result would still be irrelevant as others may not agree with our notion of what RP is. Hence why I continue to suggest that subjective criteria cannot be a matter of objectivity.
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.
Except your logic is built on a foundation of quicksand. A definition of roleplay can be defined that dictates good and poor form, but the definition at its root is the root is the matter of contention for the reasons I stated above. If you, scagga, are allowed to define what roleplay is, then what is to stop another from declaring their own definition that may run counter to yours? How do you determine who is more correct? Again, my insistence that this is a matter of preference, not a basis of fact.
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.
I've bolded the important part of this. You are making an assumption based on, in a given scenario in EVE, people are likely to engage in OOC behavior derived from evidence that a majority of instances you have observed the player has done so with OOC knowledge. Of course, according to you, any player using an alt for infiltration is using OOC knowledge, which pretty much assures you a 100% success rate.
If you had stated that you assumed all infiltration alts are are acting on OOC behavior based on historical statistical probability then I'd agree with you 100%. However, because you've chosen to define this as truth, and truth implies an absolute, this is the matter of contention I have with your point.
In my opinion, I believe our matter of contention lies in our interpretation of meta-gaming in general, and the relationship a player has with its characters.
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? :D
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.
Which is rather amusing when you think it through. A character is unable to make any decision without player control. At what point does the character, alt or main, cease to be a character and simply an embodiment of the player? If the character's attributes depend on its owner, it never truly possesses any autonomy and is therefore inherently a victim of the meta-game curse.
Specifically, I object to your assertion that it is inherent that a player will act on their OOC knowledge to 'influence' a character that they own simply because they are the controller. I do so on the basis that you simply lack the evidence to prove an individual has committed the act without admission of 'guilt'. An assumption based on similar scenarios that leans toward a probable conclusion does not guarantee an accurate reality.
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.
As a player, accepting assumption of OOC intent as 'common sense' is a poor one at best. If there was ever an example of conflict avoidance, I'd say this one takes the cake.
Simply because my character is at odds with another character does not translate to assumption of OOC intent if they use an alt to infiltrate my corporation. I as both a player AND character, assume that my character's enemies will use any resources available to undermine my efforts, and that includes all of the implements available in the game world. I understand that my character and player are innately connected and the character cannot be separated from the player.
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?
No. I believe that a man covered in blood doesn't imply he is the killer despite what the 'expected outcome' might be in similar circumstances. Give me some hard evidence and I'll be the first to cook 'em like pig in the chair. :bear:
Call me a healthy skeptic of the 'obvious'. I believe that 'weight' of experience can lead to making smart decisions. You can call it common sense or reasonable certainty, but truth is certainly not a word I would use to describe a predictable situation. Perhaps it's simply a matter of semantics and our interpretation of the word, but I don't toss it around as freely as others.
-
What's kinda funny about this is I've been in a circumstance where vital information was made aware to me as the player and I've had two characters on opposing sides that could both stand to gain from this.
In the Sansha storyline arc, Kaleigh was gaining momentum in the anti-sansha coalition while her pesky sister Nola was using her anonymity and craftiness to spread disinformation in favor of Nation. Kaleigh's introduction to the Sansha campaign wasn't just a player decision to get involved either; it was only the encouragement of her friend Seriphyn Inhonores at the time that finally pushed her to jump in. Nola's involvement was natural, as both her and Lillith were already in a pro-Sansha corporation (NeuroGEN) and were at the time trying to build resources to help destabilize CONCORD and the Empires.
The Sansha crew trusted me implicitly and accepted that my character would act in a manner that would not compromise that divide, while elements of the anti-sansha coalition, not naming names (starts with an SO and ends with ER, and probably has a T in the middle), not only tried to imply that I wasn't trustworthy (trying to justify OOC suspicions by associating similar character 'mannerisms' - hello, sisters?), and later explicitly using the knowledge that I was the controller in the hope that I would deliver that information from one character to another. They not only assumed I was meta-gaming, but I was encouraged to do so!
The characters remained separate and never met during the course of the events until Kaleigh was banished from the coalition by leaders who were suspicious. She showed up to events where I knew there were traps and surprises that Nola would have been privy to, and Nola in pursuit of her sister used locator agents to find her even when I knew where she was. I didn't have to waste time and energy finding my own characters in New Eden, and I could have acted on the knowledge I had, but I didn't. To me, what's important is when you have information that could compromise your own characters but how you act on that information dictates virtue or as some might suggest... poor form.
It's also the reason I have respect for the Sansha crew, and less for others, but that's another subject entirely. I just thought I'd share. ;)
-
I'm going to need to summon more energy to continue. For unrelated reasons this week I've been quite tired, delaying consideration required to construct worthy responses.
-
Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) that wore everyone else out.
-
Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) that wore everyone else out.
I'm getting a pretty clear impression from posts that people think this debate is a hindrance to the discussion. My suggestion is either to split it from the discussion or I can edit /delete my posts.
-
in one of the threads on IGS at the moment, someone is offering to sell someone else the following:
standings lists, corporate forum posts, voice comms,
belonging to their opponent.
something about that, can't put finger on it, something doesn't feel right about it.
-
in one of the threads on IGS at the moment, someone is offering to sell someone else the following:
standings lists, corporate forum posts, voice comms,
belonging to their opponent.
something about that, can't put finger on it, something doesn't feel right about it.
Its right if they RPed it.
-
I'm getting a pretty clear impression from posts that people think this debate is a hindrance to the discussion. My suggestion is either to split it from the discussion or I can edit /delete my posts.
At this point, is the debate distinct from the discussion?
-
Yes. It's got big words n' sentences n' stuff.
-
I guess what I mean is that, from what I can tell, that's just the way folks are discussing the topic. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, just that the style of language leads some of the rest of us to move on. But I don't think it's separate from the discussion about infiltration, is it?
-
Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) that wore everyone else out.
I'm getting a pretty clear impression from posts that people think this debate is a hindrance to the discussion. My suggestion is either to split it from the discussion or I can edit /delete my posts.
Naw. Scagga is being ridiculously offensive with the "My definitions of RP makes your RP shit RP" crap, but the discussion is valid enough. I just can't be arsed being involved with it as long as it's only accessible to people willing to spend hours on quotefests.
-
Regardless, I think I'm done with this discussion. I think I made my point well enough and then some.
-
Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) that wore everyone else out.
I'm getting a pretty clear impression from posts that people think this debate is a hindrance to the discussion. My suggestion is either to split it from the discussion or I can edit /delete my posts.
Naw. Scagga is being ridiculously offensive with the "My definitions of RP makes your RP shit RP" crap, but the discussion is valid enough. I just can't be arsed being involved with it as long as it's only accessible to people willing to spend hours on quotefests.
A bit harsh but I respect your view. I do not think your views are shit, I think they are incorrect. Being incorrect isn't wrong, most people are and are quite fine being so.
I can see how my posts became convoluted, losing focus as I became increasing pedantic in addressing every aspect of a post, even if they were irrelevant to the discussion.