Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: DeadRow on 09 Apr 2013, 10:34
-
Am I the only one who doesn't really see that much hugfesting going on? Perhaps it's because I don't pay attention that much.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't really see that much hugfesting going on? Perhaps it's because I don't pay attention that much.
It would depend where. The Summit is quite civilized and focus on non-conflictive discussion topics, so lots of happiness there. The IGS doesn't share that amount of happiness, on the other hand.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't really see that much hugfesting going on? Perhaps it's because I don't pay attention that much.
It would depend where. The Summit is quite civilized and focus on non-conflictive discussion topics, so lots of happiness there. The IGS doesn't share that amount of happiness, on the other hand.
I won't call being civil to an opposing faction being the same as jumping into bed with them.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't really see that much hugfesting going on? Perhaps it's because I don't pay attention that much.
No, you're not.
People being civil with each other in places like the Summit is not 'hugfesting'. It's people being civil and keeping business separate from play in a channel whose stated original purpose is as a diplomatic venue.
People very, very frequently go anti-hugfest in face-to-face venues, among friends.
As for complaints of people fraternizing... well. There are lots of anti-hugfest reasons to participate in such things. Not that any of the so-called hugfesters are even remotely capable of such things, no sir, not at all. :roll:
Edit - removed the puppetmaster stuff, reposting it in the original thread.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't really see that much hugfesting going on? Perhaps it's because I don't pay attention that much.
People being civil isn't hugfesting. Maybe it's just me v0v I just see things that don't make sense from what I know of said character(s) background and it just ruins my immersion sometimes. Perhaps the bitter is finally coming out in this vet.
-
Staunch loyalists or anyone just being civil at times and on the right venues are not really hugglefesting, they are just being polite/diplomatic.
Hugglefesting mostly comes from character specifically designed to get along with everyone and actively trying to do so (to the point of trying too hard), I think.
I also think that a lot of these use the Summit frequently. But I do not see anything especially wrong with that kind of characters. After all, that's a little like IRL, somehow...
One thing that I find extremely hugglefesting on a personal level though, even if not done intentionally, is people calling my character by her firstname. It does not happen only on Eve, but in most online roleplay venues I have been part of. I am not really sure why, maybe OOC bleedover - except for characters specifically designed to be dramatically friendly/buddy/familiar - but even strangers address to other characters by their firstnames. It tends to sound quite wrong to my ears. I just feel the need to ask if they know each other or who the hell do they think they are. Well, my character couldnt care less, but she still finds it a little confusing. Me on an OOC level, extremely confusing, and maybe wrongly, quite buddy-buddy.
-
Considering that the topic I'm about to speak about does not seem to be considered as off-topic by the mods, I'll get something of my chest.
I suppose Ché could be seen as a hugglefester. He does however have good reasons to have friendly relations with people some might expect he would avoid. I won't go into too much detail (unless asked) but among the reasons is that he believes friendly interaction can be more effective in reaching his goals than antagonism.
-
[mod]Split from the Driving characters thread. Please note that this whole topic should be approached with rules against YDIW in mind - and being that there has already been moderation related to YDIW attached to this very topic, that rule will be swiftly enforced indeed. [/mod]
-
Malcolm makes it a point to be civil where he can but I seriously doubt you could call any of his communications "hugglefest." There's a lot of examples of that and a lot of characters that do it well.
I've seen very, very few instances of what I would call "hugglefest," as that seems more like someone who screams "can't we all just get along?!" and avoids any and all forms of interfaction conflict.
-
Some people get a free pass for questionable behaviour, while others are pilloried for the most minor of things.
-
I often lurk in the Summit, watching all sorts of people I'd imagine would be extremely antagonistic being super BFFS.
I often have the OOC channel open, and it's hard to tell the channels apart.
While we can't have +10 grimdark 100% of the time, every once and a while it get's too.... happy fluffy sugar fun time between supposed enemies for my tastes.
And I do consider this with my RP; as far as I'm concerned IC if upstanding types want to be seen cavorting and socializing happily with killers and fiends they are the ones who are going to look silly. I go out of my way with my character to be nice and polite sometimes to people who should probably not even be speaking to her.
This is one of the areas I'm still proud of many Amarr RPers for; meaning some of them are staying true to character and avoiding channels, situations, conversations based on these issues.
-
Depends on what people mean by 'hugglefesting'.
I've seen it used to refer to general politeness on the Summit, willingness to negotiate for actual progress with a nominally hostile group or person, and personal willingness to go out and relax/interact on a socializing level with nominally hostile groups or people.
The last is something that I personally try to avoid, although in rare occasions Esna has formed personal bridges with people in supposedly hostile groups (and vice versa).
The former two, however, are heavily influenced by the characters involved. Esna, for instance, tends to get rather snippy with Silas on the Summit because he hates Blooders and anyone who comes close to them. Actually negotiating with Silas is completely off the table.
Many others, by contrast, he is perfectly willing to speak with so long as he actually thinks he can get some progress by doing so - and this isn't entirely flapping in the wind: Because of the interaction of storylines and game mechanics, Esna has had more success in achieving his goals by talking to people than by shooting their ships. In some ways, this has become his 'character hat'.
-
Synthia > Hello Captain Merdaneth.
Merdaneth > Heretic Synthia.
Synthia > Hello Cardinal Graelyn.
Graelyn > Oh. You. Hello.
Perfectly possible to be unfriendly without being impolite. Especially when it involves characters to whom behaviour is a big deal. E.g. it might be "unamarrian" to curse at someone in public. You know, slaves might hear, and other such concerns.
-
I personally consider negotiating / talking with an entirely different subject not a part of this thread. Enemies have to negotiate, and enemies can be civil in certain circumstances.
OMG I TOTES LOVE YOUR NEW DRESS LETS GO PAINT OUR NAILS. SURE YOU ARE A SLAVER AND BRUTALIZE MY PEOPLE AND SHOOT MY FRIENDS AND HATE EVERYTHING I DEEPLY BELIEVE IN.... LIKE, I TOTALLY DON'T MIND RIGHT NOW! LETS BE BESTIES FOREVER. OOH LETS GET SOME ICE CREAM AND GO SEE A MOVIE
-
If you don't like how they act, don't pay attention. It's not like it interferes with your story development or character development.
-
If you don't like how they act, don't pay attention. It's not like it interferes with your story development or character development.
Sure it does. All interaction taking place in a public venue we regularly frequent effects all of us, good or bad. It will drive away or beckon all sorts of things, make it easier or harder to interact, or help or hinder plot advancement.
Tone is important. If someone has 'seerious business' and hugglefest is the order of the day they aren't going to have much success. Likewise if it's 1000% grimdark someone might not feel it worthwhile for a more conversational tone.
-
From what I've seen, Summit isn't overly hugfest or what have you. Maybe other places or RP channels I don't know about, but I've never seen Summit go all super huggy. On the flip side, it's never been overly filled with animosity (thankfully because of the enforced rules).
It's a very balanced place for a reason. As one person told Anslo ICly, "Reputation is everything to a Capsuleer." With that in mind, why would someone proceed to act crass or passive aggressive because of faction affiliation in an area that is meant to be civil and diplomatic. The Summit DEFINITELY has its spats and moments, but I haven't seen an overabundance of hug whatever.
You may be observing it as having more comradeship or "hugfesting" because of the recent live event. Planetary tragedies tend to bring people together.
-
I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.
You have got to be joking?
-
I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.
You have got to be joking?
No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?
-
The channel seems to go between the two extremes. Sometimes it's heated factional arguments, and sometimes it's people talking about dessert. Personally I don't mind inter-faction rp, I actually prefer it. Some of it can be a bit too saccharine for my tastes though.
-
I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.
You have got to be joking?
No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?
I don't want to call out specific people for that kind of thing, you'll have to take my word for it. It is common. I feel a lot of people who have been lurking in there for years will agree, but maybe they won't.
-
It might just be perception. I've seen people, as you have, of very differing and opposing factions, offer a meeting over tea or coffee or something. So it's happened yes.
I do not see this as hugfest. Presidents and Tyrants have sat at the same table before over tea to discuss matters. Kings, Queens, War Lords, aristocrats, Prime Ministers, men, women, and more have all felt animosity towards one or the other at times but still they are willing to take time and sit down to discuss matters in a civil way.
While in the real world, the best way to know your enemy's weakness is to get to know him (keep your enemies closer), I feel that New Eden is a bit different. Each faction wishes to win the minds and hearts of the people.
The Amarr wish all to embrace the Truth.
The Gallente with all to embrace Democracy.
The Caldari wish all to respect the Way and what it means to be Caldari.
The Minmatar wish to establish and obtain the respect of a united Empire of the Tribes.
The Nation wishes all to embrace Unity via being networked.
The Blooders wish all to embrace the word of the Crimson God.
I could go on and on, but the point remains. Everyone has something they want to do. Everyone wishes to convince someone else. In Eve, where the act of death is an inconvenience to the Capsuleer, fighting and firing at each other does not convince anyone to join anyone else. Actions, logic, understanding, and facts presented in a meaningful way do.
So while you may see interfaction relations as a 'hugfest,' it is possibly the best course of action for some people to win others to their faction and establish their credibility and merit as a reputable representative of their chosen faction. To me, it is not a hug fest, but good rhetoric.
Besides, Anslo likes sharing Caldari tea that doesn't have kresh with people like Khross or Pieter or Oniseki or Esna or Tiberious ICly. Understanding of cultures and people can only help yourself.
-
The interactions you are describing is not what I'm referring to.
I'm referring to killers of men and women, people who regularly spill the guts of ships and send hundreds into the void, acting like emo japanese anime schoolgirls with general infantile behavior and disregard for who (in my opinion) they would reeeeeely realy hate and want to cut the throats of. Not be buddies.
-
But like I said all grimdark all the time a dull environment makes.
Just... every once and a while the saccharine is too much for me.
-
Eve mail me an example because now I am totally lost.
-
Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?
-
Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?
Synthia is, or seems to be, a Rogue-Drone derived AI, controlling a human-shaped robot. She is a Sani Sabik. She is also an absolute monarch. She is also a True Amarr.
These things should be offensive to every major culture in EVE. Absolute Monarchy should irritate Gallente freedom ideals. Sani Sabik irritates Amarr ideals. She is True Amarr, which irritates most Minmatar people. She is also an unholy soulless abomination whose very existance blasphemes against humanity. Which should irritate just about everyone.
And yet, people say "hi Synthia, how are you today?" and are generally friendly.
-
Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?
Synthia is, or seems to be, a Rogue-Drone derived AI, controlling a human-shaped robot. She is a Sani Sabik. She is also an absolute monarch. She is also a True Amarr.
These things should be offensive to every major culture in EVE. Absolute Monarchy should irritate Gallente freedom ideals. Sani Sabik irritates Amarr ideals. She is True Amarr, which irritates most Minmatar people. She is also an unholy soulless abomination whose very existance blasphemes against humanity. Which should irritate just about everyone.
And yet, people say "hi Synthia, how are you today?" and are generally friendly.
I totally get Silas's point. For example, Synthia, You may recall Luna was friendly until she got one of your pamplets and read it......it dawned on her what you were all about and she sent a cold but civil message back in response. I don't think Luna's said a friendly word since or if she did she does, it is *coldly* or *sullenly* but it is usually civil.
OOC - one thing I try to distinguish and I am not sure people get which is why the "hugfest" can happen, is rp'ers can be cool OOC wise even if IC they are adverse. Also you can be adverse but still civil. I actually enjoy some of the chararacters who Luna should be adverse too from a player perspective. It is hard at times to try to maintain IC boundaries....especially if when people take it the wrong way OOC wise. Which is why i sometimes turn off OOC backchannels to avoid confusion mentally.
-
Personally, the "hugfest" is one of my biggest complaints about the EVE community. It is not just people being civil with each other, there's nothing wrong with that (even Samira treats enemy war targets politely). It's people actively going to parties in enemy nations or having friends among the enemy. Now sure, that's okay for neutral individuals, who don't care about the war and make a point to make contacts among all the nations. But when I see two opposing war targets being best buddies and regularly going to outings with each other, or war targets wandering into enemy space for social outings like it's perfectly safe and expected, that's what bothers me. Conflict is the spice of RP, and when everyone is friends with each other it just gets dull.
Yes, I get it. Capsuleers can go wherever they want, no one will stop them, yadda yadda. I don't care if that's a reasonable explanation, it's boring. Where's the conflict? (of course, this is ignoring the fact that at least in the State and the Empire, capsuleers are closely monitored and enemy targets would probably not be allowed to walk around freely. The State even shoots non-State-aligned baselining capsuleers simply for outing themselves as capsuleers (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Baselining)).
One of the most standout incidents of this for me was when Avahr came into the channel, with hundreds of "skadis". Despite the fact that the Nation is an enemy of each of the empires, that they go around invading space, abducting people indiscriminately, and enslaving them in a way that even the Amarr despise, people were joking with Avahr like he was everyone's friend. Then Samira comments about how there was nothing "cute" about it and that the Nation was obviously breeding those cats to run experiments on, and people tell her off for being a funkiller. Hell, Samira gets told off all the time in general for her being reserved and hostile around enemies and refusing to travel to enemy territory. I've even gotten OOC flak for it. I just don't get it.
For me, the Summit is the problem. Maybe it's because I'm used to much more faction-heavy games, but in my opinion there should be no global "neutral" channel. I'd rather there be separate faction channels (or at least alliance channels, like Empire+State and Federation+Republic), in order to foster more factional pride and loyalty. Neutral people would then have to deliberately work on building relations between multiple faction communities, rather than having neutrality being the "default" state.
-
Although I've found myself raising to the occasional bit of bait, I find the usual staples of EVE RP - debate by attrition, rhetorical saber-rattling, and ritual flag-waving - to've become extremely tedious, and so I'm looking for depth in different seas. It might involve the occasional smile at people other people tell me I'm not supposed to smile at.
-
For me, the Summit is the big problem. Maybe it's because I'm used to much more faction-heavy games, but in my opinion there should be no global "neutral" channel. I'd rather there be separate faction channels (or at least alliance channels, like Empire+State and Federation+Republic), in order to foster more factional pride and loyalty. Neutral people would then have to deliberately work on building relations between multiple faction communities, rather than having neutrality being the "default" state.
Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.
Back on the topic:
I've kinda avoided this discussion because it pulls me in two different directions. Three, actually.
Direction one: Seeing people who should consider each other enemies being polite and even friendly and hanging out together doesn't make sense, breaks immersion, etc. For example, remember back to the old Mercy's Keep, where basically anyone who wasn't a blood raider was welcome to come and have a cup of tea. Or, perhaps less jarring, places like The Last Gate and The Skyhook where people would meet, but at least that was neutral ground.
Direction two: We're capusleers. Our experience of the galaxy, seeing the different parts of the cluster, etc, makes us more open minded. Our effective immortality makes us willing to sit down with our enemy, perhaps make the effort to convert them or at least understand them better, because we know it'd be silly to try to kill them. So why not have tea or raise a drink together?
Counterpoint to Direction two: This is not a friendly game of chess or a soccer match. These are your enemies. These are people who make a living killing your people. Unless you have no care for the lives of baseliners (always a possibility) then you should strongly dislike these people and not want to fraternize with them.
Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?
Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?
All of these have merit.
-
I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.
You have got to be joking?
No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?
I don't want to call out specific people for that kind of thing, you'll have to take my word for it. It is common. I feel a lot of people who have been lurking in there for years will agree, but maybe they won't.
I more than agree, but everyone knows how biased I can feel over the echo chambers sprouting in there anyway.
That's where the animosity comes from. The rules are here to prevent one kind of animosity, but not all kinds.
One of the most standout incidents of this for me was when Avahr came into the channel, with hundreds of "skadis". Despite the fact that the Nation is an enemy of each of the empires, that they go around invading space, abducting people indiscriminately, and enslaving them in a way that even the Amarr despise, people were joking with Avahr like he was everyone's friend. Then Samira comments about how there was nothing "cute" about it and that the Nation was obviously breeding those cats to run experiments on, and people tell her off for being a funkiller. Hell, Samira gets told off all the time in general for her being reserved and hostile around enemies and refusing to travel to enemy territory. I've even gotten OOC flak for it. I just don't get it.
That is exactly what happens constantly here. It's the very definition of echo chambers mixed up with geek social fallacies.
I don't mind however, since it's IC, and very realistic. So realistic that it matches perfectly well with the OOC sister channel.
For me, the Summit is the problem. Maybe it's because I'm used to much more faction-heavy games, but in my opinion there should be no global "neutral" channel. I'd rather there be separate faction channels (or at least alliance channels, like Empire+State and Federation+Republic), in order to foster more factional pride and loyalty. Neutral people would then have to deliberately work on building relations between multiple faction communities, rather than having neutrality being the "default" state.
I couldn't disagree more. The more walls you put between factions, the more stale and superficial RP becomes. It's actually good to have public venues that act as and end in themselves to what happens in more private, factionned channels. It allows character to discharge all of the RP grey matter they have developped in their more private/factionned channels. If they are not here, it just eventually vanishes in the air like a damp squib. And it evnetually fails to create new compost for new PR grey matter. It's like having a conversation alone. It dies quickly.
I speak from experience here.
-
Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.
That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.
Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?
Because when you're friendly with your enemy, it makes it harder to fight them. It makes you more willing to offer them mercy, allowing them to go on with fighting your faction, makes it easier to make deals with them, and it makes it more likely that you will share classified information with them. There's a reason most governments/militaries make it a point to strongly oppose any fraternization with the enemy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization#The_role_of_nations_and_governments) It makes it much more difficult for soldiers to do their job if they actually care about the people on the other side. Demonizing the enemy makes it much easier to make war on them.
In Samira's case, she's been raised to view the other nations through a very negative lens, which is why she's in favor of total war--she's convinced that it's absolutely necessary and that the Empire will win in any conflict. The more positive interaction with the enemy that she has, the less supportive she'll be of total war. By viewing others as "the enemy", she maintains the state of mind necessary to support more aggressive actions (of course, she's not consciously aware of this; it was hammered into her during her upbringing).
It's basic propaganda. Though I assume most people feel that capsuleers have enough education and freedom to be above being influenced by it.
Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?
Counterpoint: Immersion can equal fun. If I'm not being immersed, I'm not having fun, personally.
-
If someone does feel that being in the Summit breaks their immersion and that this is worse than the merits of being there, there's a simple rule to follow: Don't be in the Summit.
Capsuleers aren't governments, nor are they militiaries, nor part of any of the two (unless they found their own). So, whether or not there are rules against fraternization is entirely up to the corp one is in.
Also, there are many examples of military forces fraternizing the hell out with their 'enemies' and none the less killing one another cordially. In the middle ages that was quite common amongst nobles, who felt more close to other nobles anyway than the simple people in their respective countries. Meeting before the fight, having tea together, talking about the rules on the field, not agreeing or agreeing on rules, parting, killing each other, winner and looser are found out, fraternizing goes on: All by the code of chivalry.
This went on onto the arrival of modern warfare: And I think the habit of demonizing the enemy was mainly started because the common soldier was a simple guy, not someone who had learned from day one that he should be nice to the uncle from england, unless on the battlefield, where he should kill him, of course, for King and Country! In WWI the pilots were doing that as well, seeing themselves as the last knights, having no problem with 'fraternizing with and killing the enemy' virtually at the same time. The christmas truces were nothing anyone was shot for in WWI by their own military either.
I think even in WWII in northern africa english and german soldiers were meeting to play football against one another while at war, when opportunity was there. Only the US did push for a strict non-fraternization policy in WWII afaik.
Anti-fraternization policies are a modern phnomenon, mainly and even in modern times they weren't as tightly upheld as one might think. I see no reason why it should be upheld that stricly under those capsuleers that chose - for one reason or the other - not to be employed by their respective factions military forces.
Also, if someone plays EVE and doesn't find enough conflict, then, well, I think they are just searching for it with closed eyes. <,<
-
If someone does feel that being in the Summit breaks their immersion and that this is worse than the merits of being there, there's a simple rule to follow: Don't be in the Summit.
Capsuleers aren't governments, nor are they militiaries, nor part of any of the two (unless they found their own). So, whether or not there are rules against fraternization is entirely up to the corp one is in.
Also, there are many examples of military forces fraternizing the hell out with their 'enemies' and none the less killing one another cordially. In the middle ages that was quite common amongst nobles, who felt more close to other nobles anyway than the simple people in their respective countries. Meeting before the fight, having tea together, talking about the rules on the field, not agreeing or agreeing on rules, parting, killing each other, winner and looser are found out, fraternizing goes on: All by the code of chivalry.
This went on onto the arrival of modern warfare: And I think the habit of demonizing the enemy was mainly started because the common soldier was a simple guy, not someone who had learned from day one that he should be nice to the uncle from england, unless on the battlefield, where he should kill him, of course, for King and Country! In WWI the pilots were doing that as well, seeing themselves as the last knights, having no problem with 'fraternizing with and killing the enemy' virtually at the same time. The christmas truces were nothing anyone was shot for in WWI by their own military either.
I think even in WWII in northern africa english and german soldiers were meeting to play football against one another while at war, when opportunity was there. Only the US did push for a strict non-fraternization policy in WWII afaik.
Anti-fraternization policies are a modern phnomenon, mainly and even in modern times they weren't as tightly upheld as one might think. I see no reason why it should be upheld that stricly under those capsuleers that chose - for one reason or the other - not to be employed by their respective factions military forces.
Also, if someone plays EVE and doesn't find enough conflict, then, well, I think they are just searching for it with closed eyes. <,<
Another example would be the Christmas truce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce). But in the same time you have also the being of heavy propaganda apparatus; mainly the British. It was the birth of the germans as the huns; or kingkong which trys to rape the virgin "Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28mythology%29)".
But first (a small but): Funny thing is the noobish answer of the imperial german site, prussian site; as they just tried to counter with the true. Like long boring charts, how many wars england had pre-wwI and was the military spending of prussia and german vs the other countrys etc... just to show that the old saying "So schnell schießen die Preußen nicht (http://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen)"/"We, prussians, are not that quick on the trigger. (http://www.dict.cc/?s=So+schnell+schie%C3%9Fen+die+Preu%C3%9Fen+nicht)" was still true. FUNNY THING IS, all those number were true. The brits were actually more militaristic, had spend more money (a fleet cost a lot of cash :P) and had a ruthless body-count in the boer wars. Here comes the small but in: Nobody cares, about the true (even german soldiers hadnt read those long boring charts)* Those german poster were so prussians and full of numbers, that they havent show emotions. AND EMOTIONS WINS ALWAYS OVER REASON (Publius is to lazy to link to Mithtra own comment).
Examples:
http://i.imgur.com/ms0YC.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zGjzXD-87Hg/TqV7-BEm9cI/AAAAAAAAA-Q/qFN7aQyhxXc/s1600/us_army_wwi_propaganda_recruitment_poster_german_monster.jpg
Second bigger BUT. I dont think it is a historical thingy. I mean, that the middle ages were nice and the modern warfare is somehow worse. Actually you can see on the case of the old greeks (see melos; or a better example is Alexander f*** up of Theben), that the were really brutal. So I dont think, you cant to make a makro assumption... to be more precisely: Past better (more "code of chivalry") -> Present worse (less "code of chivalry"). I think, the code is more dependent on the actual situation:
Like fight to the dead(1) or a Kabinettskrieg(2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabinettskriege) or even less, a fight for a third or fourth ally, which dont touch your own sovereignty or survival(3).
So I would say, that the "code of chivalry" is more likely, or lets say more in use in situation which are more in realm of (2) or (3). As for the ww1 you have brought a great example about the pilots. I think, their behavior was carried by the idea of the noble war (as you rightful mention). Actually you can say, that in the being of war all parties (germany, england etc..) had the feeling of a (2) style of war (maybe one of the reason why so many left happy their homes. Even most intellectuals during that time supported the war. All in the believe it would be a short war. It would be a typ (2) war.). But I wouldnt say, it has change during the history; I would say the code is dependent on the type of war. But just my 50 cents.
Summary:
Point 1: Code can just survive in with reason. (Edit: Sorry wasnt my point. I have shot over the ball park :P). Emotions will kill the code of chivalry .
Point 2: More endanger of survival and/or more war of extermination you have -> less code you have.
_____________________________
As for the Summit and the EVE setting would speak; that the current wars are all limited wars. So more type (2) setting. So RP in a type of code would make sense and could work. A thing, which could stay in a way, would be the emotions. For example: Pro-Slavery/Anti-Slavery, in this type of dialogue; I could think, that a code would be have it hard to survive in "The Summit" and outside of it.
*This is one of the reasons why the german propaganda wend overboard on the ww2.
P.S. I know ...again a way to long post :lol:.
-
Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.
That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.
Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?
Because when you're friendly with your enemy, it makes it harder to fight them. It makes you more willing to offer them mercy, allowing them to go on with fighting your faction, makes it easier to make deals with them, and it makes it more likely that you will share classified information with them. There's a reason most governments/militaries make it a point to strongly oppose any fraternization with the enemy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization#The_role_of_nations_and_governments) It makes it much more difficult for soldiers to do their job if they actually care about the people on the other side. Demonizing the enemy makes it much easier to make war on them.
Counterception: We must go deeper!
Demonizing the enemy makes it easier to kill them. But is that necessary? If we're at war, and you're trying to kill me, the fact that you are trying to kill me/my friend/my people is all the motivation I need to kill you back. Demonizing and dehumanizing are only necessary if you want to make sure your soldiers are willing to kill when it isn't necessary.
Add in the fact that, as capsuleers, we are mass fucking murderers. We have killed by the untold thousands without batting an eye. We already consider life to be so cheap that I don't think we really need to demonize our enemy to begin with.
In Samira's case, she's been raised to view the other nations through a very negative lens, which is why she's in favor of total war--she's convinced that it's absolutely necessary and that the Empire will win in any conflict. The more positive interaction with the enemy that she has, the less supportive she'll be of total war. By viewing others as "the enemy", she maintains the state of mind necessary to support more aggressive actions (of course, she's not consciously aware of this; it was hammered into her during her upbringing).
It's basic propaganda. Though I assume most people feel that capsuleers have enough education and freedom to be above being influenced by it.
I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?
Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?
Counterpoint: Immersion can equal fun. If I'm not being immersed, I'm not having fun, personally.
Run out of Counter Puns: Immersion may be (often is) important for some people to have fun. For others, it may not be, or it may even be an impediment because of the screwed up and often contradictory world that EVE is. Or people may have basic understandings of the universe which differ, meaning that what's immersive for one group may break the immersion of another. I don't really know of a good way to reconcile this except to write off IC people breaking your immersion as psychotic/demented and avoid close RP with them. There are people whose RP style doesn't mesh with mine or rubs me the wrong way. As a result, I simply avoid RP with them.
-
Hostility is a social dysfuction, anyway. Those who won't fraternize peacefully with their fellow human beings must, for their own and everybody else's good, have their behavior adjusted through means of cybernetic upgrades until they will. :P
-
I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?
For me personally, it's about the amount. I don't mind some people fraternizing, that's expected. I just don't like when that's the majority. Makes it seem like there isn't actually a war going on at all.
-
Katla is Astropolitan, anyway. She'll fraternize with just about anyone except the Intaki-centric RP crowd like ILF. Or anyone who is overly romantic about planetside life, although I don't see that around all that often. Actually, she'd still probably talk to them, but in an icy way.
Ruby probably wouldn't talk to people she knew were Angel or Serpentis loyal, but that's really it.
-
[..]write off IC people breaking your immersion as psychotic/demented[..]
I'm surprised that a comment like this was not made earlier than page 3.
-
Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?
Synthia is, or seems to be, a Rogue-Drone derived AI, controlling a human-shaped robot. She is a Sani Sabik. She is also an absolute monarch. She is also a True Amarr.
These things should be offensive to every major culture in EVE. Absolute Monarchy should irritate Gallente freedom ideals. Sani Sabik irritates Amarr ideals. She is True Amarr, which irritates most Minmatar people. She is also an unholy soulless abomination whose very existance blasphemes against humanity. Which should irritate just about everyone.
And yet, people say "hi Synthia, how are you today?" and are generally friendly.
There are those of us who say, "Yep. Those things are bad, but until Synthia directly affects my personal interests, I'm not going to make a fuss." That mentality, of course, shouldn't be common to people who claim allegiance to just about anything; some of us simply don't claim such allegiances or take strong positions.
-
That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.
Just wanted to comment on this bit. I tried it once, it did not work well. Militant Amarrian does not mesh well with Caldari culture. I'm sure the opposite would be the case, but it seems Amarrians suddenly get less pushy about religion when the non-believer is an ally. In any case, props to the Caldari RPers for sticking to their guns with poor Jaiji me.
-
I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.
You have got to be joking?
No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?
I don't want to call out specific people for that kind of thing, you'll have to take my word for it. It is common. I feel a lot of people who have been lurking in there for years will agree, but maybe they won't.
I do.
-
I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?
For me personally, it's about the amount. I don't mind some people fraternizing, that's expected. I just don't like when that's the majority. Makes it seem like there isn't actually a war going on at all.
Honestly most factionned militants fighting in the war I know are not really doing that kind of thing. The people hugglefesting are not really aligned, most of the time. They speak and act like teenagers.
-
IMHO down with this blasphemy.
Go back to blowing each other ships in the name of Great Cthulhu!
-
Newsflash: The Emergency Militia War Powers Act was more or less an act of preventing war, rather than the start of a war. I know, there are people who'd like to see New Eden burn, but I think that won't happen ever. There will be limited zones of conflict 'proxy wars' between militias, but I honestly think there won't be more. EVE isn't really about war between factions, the conflict it's driven by is another one. One can dislike it, but I think it's pretty impossible to change that. If you want all out war, go to 0.0, join the Goons or whomever and enjoy the show.
As to what you said, Publius: I never said it was in any way 'better' or 'less brutal' in the middle ages, nor would I claim thus - it just worked differently. I hardly see how in the case of being able to gruesome things to your uncle and afterwards drinking tea with his wife on the one hand and simply dehumanizing other humans to shoot them without remorse on the other one is somehow 'better'. vOv I don't think it's a matter of reason vs emotion, it's a matter of cultural imprinting: The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so, but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real. It's a question of different emotional conditionings.
-
Newsflash: The Emergency Militia War Powers Act was more or less an act of preventing war, rather than the start of a war. I know, there are people who'd like to see New Eden burn, but I think that won't happen ever. There will be limited zones of conflict 'proxy wars' between militias, but I honestly think there won't be more. EVE isn't really about war between factions, the conflict it's driven by is another one. One can dislike it, but I think it's pretty impossible to change that. If you want all out war, go to 0.0, join the Goons or whomever and enjoy the show.
As to what you said, Publius: I never said it was in any way 'better' or 'less brutal' in the middle ages, nor would I claim thus - it just worked differently. I hardly see how in the case of being able to gruesome things to your uncle and afterwards drinking tea with his wife on the one hand and simply dehumanizing other humans to shoot them without remorse on the other one is somehow 'better'. vOv I don't think it's a matter of reason vs emotion, it's a matter of cultural imprinting: The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so, but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real. It's a question of different emotional conditionings.
And thats what I dont think. As can be seen in the chrismas truce. The "plebs" as you call it, had the same thinking and attitude as the officer-corps of the army (Yes, you read right army :lol:. All airforces were born out of the army. During the first world war no faction had his own independent air force as we know it today. There was just army and navy.). So the idea, that army officer in the air (pilot) can understand, he has more in commen with the guy on the other side and the army officer which is on the ground, or the so call "plebs" soldier, cant understand that he as more in commen with the guy on the other side is a little tasty.... Of not really arrgg bad.
You will always if you split people and their tools come very fast in a Tony Gish corner. What I mean with it?
See on the: "but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde(1)" If you say so you will always find yourself on the question end.... why can "they felt they had more in common with x", but not not other Individuals? It is a very bad explanation.... :( :cry:
The next thing is: "they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real"(2). Even if I say your point one would be true. Lets say: "Officer in the air" felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air, than the plebs or the political avantgarde. I dont understand how you come to your point two? "because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real" If I take one for true; I would come to many outcomes. So, you would have to explain to me: Why, when one is true, is leads to point two (and nothing else)?
As for the first part.... about the limited war.... That was also a point which I have try to say earlier :D. :cube:
Minior thingy.... I meant code of chivalry vs. emotion ...ehm not reason vs. emotion. Reason plays in another (more hardcore :P) ballpark. But I after rereading... I see how the mistake had crept in. So I have over read: "The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so," As this was never my point. My point was earlier, that in a emotion setting, or attitude if you like, the code of chivalry cant survive. So I would say... that in the officer corps and by the soldiers ("plebs") pre-ww1 and in the early stage of the war 14/15... was a code of chivalry possible.... in all parts (officers, soldiers, sergeants etc...).... see christmas truce. But in the moment emotions crepes in (hate to the enemy, propaganda)... (or the war becomes more a type (1) war); then you will find that code of chivalry isnt possible (as for the army officers in the air (pilots), does it means... that this hatred and emotions come maybe later or not at all. But jsut my 50 cents).
Edit: I change now... my point two in the summary... it was wrong: Point 1: Code can just survive in with reason. (Edit: Sorry wasnt my point. I have shot over the ball park :P). Emotions will kill the code of chivalry .
-
I think there is another side to it that has to be added: hypocrisy. Fraternizing with enemies can be done for many reasons, not only conflict. Old-Seph went to lots of Blood Raider parties, was a common patron in Le Maison and pirate channels and bars, etc. He even got named influential pod pilot on three occasions by his enemies (Revan and her yearly lists) and had friendly nicknames like "the old man" (which is a compliment in the Empire, and was Naphtalia's nickname for Seph). Etc. And he had perfect hypocritical reasons to be there: he was a spy, and by doing so he was collecting information on all those subjects and individuals (he warned CVA and PIE of a war Revan/Jade were going to start before they did, for example).
And there's also another side of the coin: people don't need to hate each other to kill each other. New-seph respects deeply every other human being (except Raiders and some specific persons), which even extends to the Nation to some degree (though he doesn't consider them trully human anymore). This doesn't mean he doesn't shoot them if they enter his space or are in the war theater, because that is duty. Thus, he doesn't kill out of hatred, but out of honor. And honor doesn't say you can't be polite to the enemy while outside the war field.
All that said, there is indeed a good amount of hugfest from time to time. Specially when people are RPing childlishly and/or speaking about their favorite meal or how nice their vacations were. Sometimes, the Summit just turns into "all friends gathered together for party", but I guess the best choice when that happens is either to try to change the mood (complicated) or just wait for it to finish.
-
Capsuleers constitute a social elite, and social elites tend to fraternize within themselves, even across fronts. It's been the case with nobility, it's been the case with career officers, it's been the case with celebrities, it's been the case with artists and performers, it's been the case with rich people in general, and there is no reason it should not be the case with capsuleers, too. Simply being capsuleers provides more than enough common ground to stand on, and any adherence to an idea of "gentleman's warfare" just builds on what is already there. It makes sense for individual capsuleers to feel bothered or self-conscious about being part of such an elite, or to resent those who take fraternization "too far" - but I, for one, don't find the phenomenon itself to be immersion breaking at all.
-
Capsuleers constitute a social elite, and social elites tend to fraternize within themselves, even across fronts. It's been the case with nobility, it's been the case with career officers, it's been the case with celebrities, it's been the case with artists and performers, it's been the case with rich people in general, and there is no reason it should not be the case with capsuleers, too. Simply being capsuleers provides more than enough common ground to stand on, and any adherence to an idea of "gentleman's warfare" just builds on what is already there. It makes sense for individual capsuleers to feel bothered or self-conscious about being part of such an elite, or to resent those who take fraternization "too far" - but I, for one, don't find the phenomenon itself to be immersion breaking at all.
Ehm I dont know :(.....
You can also add... drunk neck-bearded Irish and drunk neck-bearded Scots (Publius is to lazy to link Breaveheart scene were they meet in the center of the battle field).... You can also add to the "fraterniztion group" more (not just Capsuleers, nobility, career officers, celebrities, artists, performers and rich people) ...you can add drunk sailor x and drunk sailor y :P..... Or forget the sailor profession... drunk guy x with the profession (z) meets drunk guy y with the profession (z) (and both start how much they hate profession (z)... just as an example :lol: 8) :lol: Not to be take seriously :P). In the end, the list would go on and on.... and all would also have a reason to be a "gentleman" or not...
I think... it is time again for a Terry Pratchett book :D :P :bear: :D
-
I've been thinking about this some. And there's a couple of things:
- Steering a course between repetitive "Slavery Bad!" "You don't understand!" sniping and overly buddybuddy stuff is difficult.
- People who maintain a strong faction position, who maybe even are "villains", or at least anti-heroes, deserve lots of credit.
- Having said that, that's not the only option, and it should not be the case that strong faction position = good RPer, weak faction position = bad RPer.
- There's a worrying tendency to write off RPers whose characters do things that appear to be bad, rather than engage IC. I think that's a little understandable, but it is problematic. I'll give a fictional example:
{The Summit}
Anita T. Staunchfed: Freedom is our core value.
Basil T. Federationmember: Well, maybe the Minmatar don't deserve freedom.
{Immediately on OOC}
Anita T. Staunchfed eyerolls. The crazies are out in the summit today!
{Somewhere else}
Basil T. Federationmember player . o O ( What the hell do I have to do before someone confronts Basil? Start randomly uplifting people? ) - The "funkiller" thing is annoying. If it's an IC response, fine. If a player kvetches OOCly about it... I think it's a situation where there is a fundamental mismatch. But I don't think it's right to assume that you're going to get that OOC response until you do.
- It is reasonable for who (or what) someone is to get a weaker response than what they do.
Confession time, though: I had a moment in Summit RP recently when I messed this up - Laria was being all "I are tough insensitive pirate no really" and Pieter T metaphorically smacked her upside the head (yay!), and I had her shut up, which I think was the wrong decision. :( I find Summit RP difficult, but that's maybe a topic for a different thread.
-
And thats what I dont think. As can be seen in the chrismas truce. The "plebs" as you call it, had the same thinking and attitude as the officer-corps of the army (Yes, you read right army :lol:. All airforces were born out of the army. During the first world war no faction had his own independent air force as we know it today. There was just army and navy.). So the idea, that army officer in the air (pilot) can understand, he has more in commen with the guy on the other side and the army officer which is on the ground, or the so call "plebs" soldier, cant understand that he as more in commen with the guy on the other side is a little tasty.... Of not really arrgg bad.
Not what I said: I'm quite sure it wasn't a thing if reason for the common soldier either, but it was the holdiay spirit and the emotion transported by that that lead to the christmas truce. Point is: It's not about reason to begin with.
So, you would have to explain to me: Why, when one is true, is leads to point two (and nothing else)?,
<,< I didn't make an inference there, Publius. I didn't say, because they felt to have more in common with the other pilots they shot at them. I said they felt they had more in common with the opposing pilots and felt it was their duty to shoot them. So, I don't have to explain an inference I never talked about.
Minior thingy.... I meant code of chivalry vs. emotion ...ehm not reason vs. emotion. Reason plays in another (more hardcore :P) ballpark. But I after rereading... I see how the mistake had crept in. So I have over read: "The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so," As this was never my point. My point was earlier, that in a emotion setting, or attitude if you like, the code of chivalry cant survive. So I would say... that in the officer corps and by the soldiers ("plebs") pre-ww1 and in the early stage of the war 14/15... was a code of chivalry possible.... in all parts (officers, soldiers, sergeants etc...).... see christmas truce. But in the moment emotions crepes in (hate to the enemy, propaganda)... (or the war becomes more a type (1) war); then you will find that code of chivalry isnt possible (as for the army officers in the air (pilots), does it means... that this hatred and emotions come maybe later or not at all. But jsut my 50 cents).
In emotional settings codes of chivalry survived, because they are emotional. vOv You make up a false dichotomy between codes and chivalry and emotion.
-
I don't think inregard to fraternization vs not fraternizing with 'the enemy' there is no objective right and wrong in RP. Apparently a lot of capsuleers do fraternize with what one could see as their 'enemy'. Well, that's how it is and there is nothing wrong with it. Whether or not there are good reasons for capsuleers to fraternize with their 'enemies' (or what others perceive as who should be their enemy) doesn't really matter: It's a fact that capsuleers fraternize with these people a lot and, yes, they get away with it, mostly.
I think some people simply have to get over it. One won't change this reality by complaining about it.
-
Sepherim basically expanded on my (probably excessively) snarky point earlier in the thread.
One of the best reasons to "fraternize" with the "enemy" is intel-gathering, especially among capsuleers who like socializing.
Because it is astoundingly rare that one of them understands the concept of opsec. :lol:
-
Sepherim basically expanded on my (probably excessively) snarky point earlier in the thread.
One of the best reasons to "fraternize" with the "enemy" is intel-gathering, especially among capsuleers who like socializing.
Because it is astoundingly rare that one of them understands the concept of opsec. :lol:
True that. But it's even much more fun if you meet someone who does and fraternizes with other for the exact same reason! :)
-
bought apples off that cart before, haven't we ?
Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.
-
bought apples off that cart before, haven't we ?
Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.
Or one can sing and dance about things that are completely unrelated to moving a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere. :twisted:
-
It's less the fraternization and more my having a hard time loading enough handwavium ammunition to believe some of these people would have ever made it through capsuleer training, or ever be entrusted with more than a nerf bat as a weapon.
Sometimes the behavior makes me think some people wouldn't have clearance to park a short bus let alone some of the most dangerous equipment in the cluster.
-
Here's the thing.
Our characters can destroy each other's equipment and clones for years on end. None of that will change things. Maybe now and then an enemy will get tired and move away, but attitudes don't change.
The only sure way to victory is winning over opposed characters to your point of view. You don't win over people by insulting them or ranting at them. So there is a good reason for civil discussion with an enemy.
-
Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.
Actually not, spying is quite possible in EVE, even without the use of alts, forum infiltration/hacking or other venues of accessing privileged information outside the RP. It requires a massive amount of time, contacts, reputation, position, and analysis of all given data, but it is quite possible to do it. Actually, one of the reasons I didn't come back with old-seph is that I don't have the time now required for it, but it's inmensily fun and possible none the less.
-
Here's the thing.
Our characters can destroy each other's equipment and clones for years on end. None of that will change things. Maybe now and then an enemy will get tired and move away, but attitudes don't change.
The only sure way to victory is winning over opposed characters to your point of view. You don't win over people by insulting them or ranting at them. So there is a good reason for civil discussion with an enemy.
For emphasis: This this this this, so much. I'll repeat what I've said before:
Esna has had more success in stopping capsuleer activities against the Empire with talk than with shooting.
-
The only example I can give, is how it bothers the shit out of Cael how people are not only civil to members of Nation but are openly friendly and chatting away about the most trivial and sociable of day to day things.
It's like people forget or simply choose to throw the gravity of factionism out the window and "hug everyone who isn't a jerk to me in a personal only sense."
Then of course it bugs the shite out of me when people start rolling their eyes because Caellach has a natural inability to be friendly at all (I mean I love you guys OOCly but I'm not Cael) to them. He sits there thinking to himself "Has everyone gone through memory loss, or did I wake up in some alternative universe where Kuvakei uplifts hungry orphans and sick animals and nurses them them to health and prosperity out of the kindness of his own heart, WITHOUT the use of slaves and/or mindcontrol implants?"
There's various other scenarios that play out between characters that make little to no sense, which is why I'm glad people like Rodj (who gets a shit ton of unfair stick for being a grumpy old fart) who seems to have a sense of realism and situational awareness.
-
The only example I can give, is how it bothers the shit out of Cael how people are not only civil to members of Nation but are openly friendly and chatting away about the most trivial and sociable of day to day things.
I find Nation to be the only monolithic, irredeemable evil in the EVE storyline. The capsuleer class may claim to be following Sansha by choice, but it's reasonable to believe that even they have had their brains hijacked and zombified to some degree. As a neutral, superficial character, it's easy to see members of other factions as merely misguided folks that might actually change their ways with enough positive reinforcement of good behavior, but Nation is nothing more than a hive of scum and villainy.
-
I would like the moderate that view on Nation a bit. I play a character that does not mind them as long as they do not threaten the whole society currently in place. Before incursions happened, the only thing she used to do was to oppose most of their loyalists since she believes that their usual propaganda is utterly ridiculous. She continues to do it by the way, even more now due to incursions, they have turned into the biggest hypocrites in the universe to her eyes.
But overall, she can't help but being overtly drawn by a lot of things she has in common with them. She is far from considering their society as evil (ok, she doesn't believe in evil or good, but still).
-
I would like the moderate that view on Nation a bit. I play a character that does not mind them as long as they do not threaten the whole society currently in place. Before incursions happened, the only thing she used to do was to oppose most of their loyalists since she believes that their usual propaganda is utterly ridiculous. She continues to do it by the way, even more now due to incursions, they have turned into the biggest hypocrites in the universe to her eyes.
But overall, she can't help but being overtly drawn by a lot of things she has in common with them. She is far from considering their society as evil (ok, she doesn't believe in evil or good, but still).
Well, as a counterpoint to my earlier post.
Arnulf is fine with trying to influence Mary and Caldari bloc pilots in a calm and rational manner. But Nation, the Blooders and EoM inspire a mix of utter contempt and anger that make civil discourse difficult. Non covenant "moderate" Sani Sabik he just thinks of as pathetic.
-
There's a difference between hugfest and being civil to each other.
I can share the sentiments put forward by Silas, however, and often I consider the summit to be extremely superficial and absolutely un-serious. It is often difficult to notice whether you're following OOC or the summit, reinforced by the feeling I get that this 'hugfesting' comes from the fact that people seem to want to get on with everyone not just OOCly (which is fine) but also ICly (Which may not work with every alignment/type of character).
Now, a channel where everyone would constantly bitch at each other isn't the goal and with the Summit being the 'RP lobby' a certain amount of meaningless small talk should be what you'd expect.
Everyone has different styles and tastes, after all. Characters will be judged for what they do and how they behave - all IC - and that's about it for me.
-
It's less the fraternization and more my having a hard time loading enough handwavium ammunition to believe some of these people would have ever made it through capsuleer training, or ever be entrusted with more than a nerf bat as a weapon.
Sometimes the behavior makes me think some people wouldn't have clearance to park a short bus let alone some of the most dangerous equipment in the cluster.
Well, maybe that's why they turn us loose as unaligned, independent capsuleers and let CONCORD deal with us.
What I mean: Each of the factions keeps their own capsuleers. Presumably, these are taken from the military and the most loyal to their faction. They keep the best and the brightest for themselves. Then they take the rest of us and say "well, I'm sure we can pay them to do useful stuff for us."
Actually, following that logic, I could almost make a YDIW case for anyone highly devoted to their faction: [please note that I'm not saying this, it's just an interesting line of thought] [spoiler]If you're so devoted, why didn't they keep you? If you're so dedicated to your cause, how'd you end up an independent contractor like the rest of us? [/spoiler]
That could actually lead to some hilarity IC. Start musing on possible explanations ranging from incompentence to heresy.
Anyhow.
-
I'd assume that you'd have some more possibilities as an 'independent capsuleer.'.
Do the dirty work without as much repercussions. Caldari Navy couldn't lead 10 battleships into Luminaire without an incident, Joe Capsuleer can.
But yeah, it'd be one of these situations where you'd have to fire up the handwavium generators.
Generally it's easy to be a loyalist. Like with everything in RP you only need a few written words to aggrandize your role.
Judge people by what they do and you'll see those who have their characters stick to their ideals, despite setbacks ic/ooc.
-
Well, maybe that's why they turn us loose as unaligned, independent capsuleers and let CONCORD deal with us.
What I mean: Each of the factions keeps their own capsuleers. Presumably, these are taken from the military and the most loyal to their faction. They keep the best and the brightest for themselves. Then they take the rest of us and say "well, I'm sure we can pay them to do useful stuff for us."
Actually, following that logic, I could almost make a YDIW case for anyone highly devoted to their faction: [please note that I'm not saying this, it's just an interesting line of thought] [spoiler]If you're so devoted, why didn't they keep you? If you're so dedicated to your cause, how'd you end up an independent contractor like the rest of us? [/spoiler]
That could actually lead to some hilarity IC. Start musing on possible explanations ranging from incompentence to heresy.
Yup, I agree. Seph has his explanation for why they didn't keep him, and it's a core element in his personality even if he rarely shows it.
-
Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?
Not sure I can explain it any better than you Silas, but maybe what you're trying to describe is - at least in part - this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality :?:
-
Someday, Ava Starfire and I are going to join forces and bring about Interstellar Peace. 8)
-
It's less the fraternization and more my having a hard time loading enough handwavium ammunition to believe some of these people would have ever made it through capsuleer training, or ever be entrusted with more than a nerf bat as a weapon.
Sometimes the behavior makes me think some people wouldn't have clearance to park a short bus let alone some of the most dangerous equipment in the cluster.
Well, maybe that's why they turn us loose as unaligned, independent capsuleers and let CONCORD deal with us.
What I mean: Each of the factions keeps their own capsuleers. Presumably, these are taken from the military and the most loyal to their faction. They keep the best and the brightest for themselves. Then they take the rest of us and say "well, I'm sure we can pay them to do useful stuff for us."
Actually, following that logic, I could almost make a YDIW case for anyone highly devoted to their faction: [please note that I'm not saying this, it's just an interesting line of thought] [spoiler]If you're so devoted, why didn't they keep you? If you're so dedicated to your cause, how'd you end up an independent contractor like the rest of us? [/spoiler]
That could actually lead to some hilarity IC. Start musing on possible explanations ranging from incompentence to heresy.
Anyhow.
Worked that one out years ago, it's actually absurdly simple:
The choice was between service however the nation that spawned you dictated, or service or not, at your discretion.
A) Join the Navy, be an elite AF pilot, upgrade to HAC's in a bit, eventually ending up with, say, all T2/T1/T3 certificates available in a decade or two, still doing EXACTLY what the navy tells you, when they tell you, IF they need you. Could work.
B) Alternatively, as my toon chose, (snd presumably all other toons who are ever made by players chose) go "independent" and work on supporting the nation in question at your own pace, by your own means, all the while rolling eyes at the 'demigods' and 'uber-humans' roaming around with their heads full of self-inflicted lies and egos on their sleeves for all to see. You may not be "officially" aligned with the faction of your choice, but you do your part, in your ways. *IF* you really want to.
Or you try at least. One of the negatives of not being enrolled in the Navy for instance is, you have to fund your own gear...
So far it's worked great, even with a bit of IC thoughts along the lines of YDIW for all the ones who fail to keep up to your own lofty standard... but then again, that means you have the operative freedom to deal with them, no?
-
B) Alternatively, as my toon chose, (snd presumably all other toons who are ever made by players chose) go "independent" and work on supporting the nation in question at your own pace, by your own means, all the while rolling eyes at the 'demigods' and 'uber-humans' roaming around with their heads full of self-inflicted lies and egos on their sleeves for all to see. You may not be "officially" aligned with the faction of your choice, but you do your part, in your ways. *IF* you really want to.
Not all, some of us got expelled from the Navy. :P
-
Silas
(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/382248_474482722601335_197325899_n.jpg)
-
My own feeling has always been that to not engage is to cede one of the fronts in the fight. If you don't do something to counteract enemy propaganda, then they may convince people that they should be on their side. The best way to engage is to seem credible and articulate. Being polite is a good way to look credible. Being polite to your enemies is a good way to look reasonable - and it is a good way to make them look less credible and reasonable if they are not polite in return.
This is all, of course, a little bit of a different context than going and having drinks with your sworn enemies. I can see reasons for that, too, though.
-
A question for those who care: Do you find Makkal/I too 'huggly?'
I've gotten a few eve-mails suggesting as much and would like some input.
If you feel uncomfortable posting here, just message me.
-
Not at all...