Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Ken on 25 Nov 2010, 14:39
-
The Gallente politician characters on IGS have inspired a rising threadnaught (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=1301.0) here on the Backstage. There are a lot of varied opinions in the community and we've actually managed to have a conversation about them without being modded to death yet.
In the (ironic) spirit of democracy, let's put it to a vote. What is your stance on the concept of using characters that are technically capsuleers to roleplay non-capsuleers like the "politicians" that have appeared on IGS? Poll results display only after you vote, and vote changing is enabled.
The relevant IGS threads (as many as I could find) are linked below, including the "Scope" article spin-offs:
Salutations from the Senate Bureau http://eve-search.com/thread/1408028
ILF condemns Nationalist Party; calls for secession http://eve-search.com/thread/1411140
[Scope] Placid colonists anxious about Intaki secessionism http://eve-search.com/thread/1412864
Ikosikai Roundtable Wrap-Up http://eve-search.com/thread/1413487
To the inhabitants of the planet Intaki Prime http://eve-search.com/thread/1416630
[Scope] Intaki Liberation Front propaganda holovid causes outrage http://eve-search.com/thread/1418776
[Scope] BREAKING: Ex-FDU pilot "declares war" against the Nationalists http://eve-search.com/thread/1419010
To be a pilot, alike a god http://eve-search.com/thread/1419367
-
I like it, but won't participate in it. I appreciate that there are levels of RP still being filled, and it makes for great forum RP.
-
Possible additional consideration is whether you think the concept COULD work if it were done better than it is being done by the "politicians" or if you think the concept would be invalid if it weren't done as well as the "politicians" are doing it. I think there is some room for a conditional approval/disapproval based on quality. Won't make additional poll responses for these, but if you fall into that category, feel free to post.
-
Are the politicians your doing, Ken? Otherwise, why have a poll to test public opinion on another player's work?
-
Because it seemed like a fair way to cut through the arguments and counterarguments to see where the forum stands overall. Do you question the validity of everything? :roll:
Not trying to amass x number of "pro" votes to rub in your face or anything.
Edit: Sorry, that was kind of bitchy. A better answer as to "why": We've debated the matter quite a bit. Votes/polls usually follow debates and can provide a certain degree of catharsis for the community.
-
Jules, I can state categorically I have no connection to the characters in question, and I'm interested in the poll here.
-
As with most matters on the IGS, I have no particular reason to participate or care about it, so I'm following along almost purely for entertainment purposes.
So far, the most entertaining part of the whole thing for me has been how bunched up Soter's panties are getting over this. :lol:
-
POLLS I LOVE POLLS polls are awesome (http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6172/1283147321887.png)
Also these guys are either taking a dive into risky water with what they're doing, or the most clever trolls I have seen all year. Good show either way.
-
People know my stance but I'm just posting 'cause I changed my avatar yo.
-
This sets a rather stupid precedent in my opinion. While I disagree with whowever formulated the idea, I wouldn't want there to be a damn poll about it on some third party forum.
Doesn't this have a chilling effect for roleplay across the IGS? The possibility of having the chattering classes take a 'vote' on whatever topic of the day seems to go against most principles of common decency.
Oh, look, that person made a character. Let's take a vote to see if we like the player's choices in fashion.
Votes inevitably devolve into popularity contests and have no place on a forum such as this.
-
most principles of common decency
There's the issue. It's not RL politics we're dealing with, it's a video game. Taking it to that level of seriousness? Something I wouldn't waste one's energy on.
I mean it's just make believe. Why's it matter so much?
-
The possibility of having the chattering classes take a 'vote' on whatever topic of the day seems to go against most principles of common decency.
Have you ever seen what passes for "news" in the real world?
This sets a rather stupid precedent in my opinion. While I disagree with whowever formulated the idea, I wouldn't want there to be a damn poll about it on some third party forum.
I think a poll is precisely what was taking place in the 100+ reply discussion thread, we simply used lots of words to clothe our naked opinions on the topic. So if your objection is based on the idea that passing judgment on a particular behavior or action in the game or EVE-O forums, you're as guilty as the rest of us of violating "most principles of common decency".
Also, I'm genuinely weary of your tireless polemic and somewhat regret having waded back into this discussion.
-
It's interesting to note that, instead of refuting any of the substantive points of the discussion we've thus far had, you felt it necessary to resort to a 'vote' on a out of character forum regarding what my character has been participating in on an In-character forum.
It rather surrenders the initiative, doesn't it? If I am wrong, I want to be proved wrong, rather than judged wrong by a consensus of folks that are already emotionally invested in the events on the IGS.
The purpose of a debate, on the internet or otherwise, isn't that we have a chance to voice our opinions of 'yes' 'no and 'maybe' on the crisis de jour. It's a matter of ascertaining the truth behind or justice regarding a particular topic. To those goals, fact, evidence, and reason should preside.
What is the purpose of such a vote? If enough stack up in one side of the spectrum, perhaps the moderators will start deleting posts of the dissenting opinion?
It seems to me that the purpose of this thread is to reassure the OP that he really is on the side of 'right' because enough people 'like' something, even though they don't RP the faction in question, or have any desire to participate in the situation at hand.
-
This poll does not regard only what you or your character have done. It attempts to encompass the entire issue and provides everyone a means of stating a clear qualitative opinion.
As for proving you wrong, myself and others have made several counterarguments. I believe that you do not read them, do not understand them, or choose to ignore them. I believe this because your replies usually fail to provide me the impression that you have absorbed and evaluated the opinions of others and very often attempt to deflect or redefine the argument rather than actually engaging in it.
I'm not going to pursue a debate ad infinitum. The poll is a means to quiet it and provide focus for any future debate. I understand why that may be undesirable to you.
-
It seems to me that you haven't read Elsebeth's points, Ken. Perhaps we should start copy-pasting them?
It appears that the only reason this thing has continued as long as it has was because there was an intense vacuum within the Gallente RP community. If any semblance of the old guard of the Gallente RP'ers were around, this wouldnt've have left page one on the original thread.
Into this vacuum, players with their own views on how things should be done have marched in and set out what they wanted things to be. Well, I won't lie down on the ground, and crawl towards them to beg for relevance in the world of roleplay. Sorry that this seems to cut against your plans, Ken.
-
If, as a self-appointed champion of sorts, your behavior is demonstrative of "the old guard of Gallente RP", I'm glad it's not around any more.
Also, what plans? I just think you're wrong. Which gets to this point: we aren't going to agree. You aren't going to agree with many people. They aren't going to agree with you. We've already said about all there is to say, so made the poll. If you think it's so wrong, report it to the mods.
-
Well, ask yourself Ken, why you can't bring yourself to admit that if this same thing was done in the Republic, it'd have encountered hell's fury in the form of Electus Matari.
Is Electus Matari also in the wrong? Are they not true roleplayers, because they'd want to 'ruin the fun' of other people that just want to do a teensy-weensy storyline? Would you also be glad if they vanished and went away, so folks can create more non-player characters within the IGS to spout off on various timely political issues, in other factions?
It is clear that some folks do agree with me, but don't want to participate in this debate. Whether or not that's due to the chilling effect the moderation policy of this forum or not, you can't simply begin dismissing debate out of hand.
Do you want a point-by-point response to your 'rebuttal'?
"I agree. Afaik, the internals of Federation party politics haven't been touched in detail by CCP since a couple chrons way back, and they don't have any real presence in the game world like Lai Dai certainly does. I think your analogy has some merit, orange, but doesn't quite cover the nuance of this situation."
If you didn't follow the situation with last year's political election, there was a large deal of detail outlining the internal affairs of the FIO, the Senate, and the nature of Federation executive authority. There is no vacuum that needs to be fleshed out by the player base. the player base merely needs to interact with what exists, as Capsuleers would react to the cosmopolitics of the region they inhabit. Would make sense, no?
"To be fair these politicians don't claim to be NPCs either. They're clearly player characters, just not capsuleers. The inability for paying customers of CCP to create non-capsuleer characters that can interact with the official channels and game world of EVE is the root of this entire argument."
This is remarkable. A player character can be a normal human? Why is it that when they log into the game for the first time, after creating the character, they're in a pod? The suspension of disbelief required to maintain that kind of ruse is a bit much. And the amount required to maintain it while they're mouthing off daily on the IGS on important political topics is intolerable. The simple solution, of course, is that we end up with people writing out-of-game fiction involving NPC's that don't even need to be named.
"A lot of us, myself included, are decrying the motivations behind the (otherwise valid) criticisms, but the politicians have defended their legitimacy in an IC way on IGS. It's not as if they've simply ignored Soter altogether."
This meshes nicely with your other comment: "If, as a self-appointed champion of sorts, your behavior is demonstrative of "the old guard of Gallente RP", I'm glad it's not around any more."
It's always easy to resort to the ad hominems, isn't it? What specifically about my motivations or my behavior has any standing in this current discussion? As far as I can tell, my behavior has been daring to disagree with people. Ohnoes.
Regarding the issues of defending their legitimacy on the IGS in an IC way: after my final point, there has been no response whatsoever from any of the "politician" characters. That post being:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1418776&page=1#24
Indeed, that's the core of the issue. If CCP wanted us the ability to fabricate in-game corporations full of non-capsuleers, they'd have provided that functionality. They have not. Our characters are capsuleers, graduates of capsuleer programs and regulated under CONCORD law. That is the basis of this entire MMORPG. I mean, even most dungeons and dragons adventures respect the laws of the setting and don't allow starting characters to walk out of the bar as the emperor of a kingdom. To do have that happen here is, in my view, detrimental to immersion and suspension of disbelief.
Having to explain this to younger RP'ers that don't quite understand the context of this situation would also be extremely difficult. It's creating barriers of entry to expanding the RP base.
-
I honestly appreciate the effort given in writing your last post, Jules, and I think it rather certainly solidifies the fact that we aren't going to agree on this. I'd also like to put aside the sour tone we're both taking and look at this a new way.
Is it possible to define two competing philosophies of RP from this? I know you'll be tempted to simply tell me mine is wrong, but consider for a moment that I'm not going to be swayed by your arguments just as you won't be swayed by mine. We're just chasing each others tails. But I don't think I consider your take on this matter objectively invalid, just undesirable to me. If you can say the same, perhaps we can move forward and try to articulate closed-sandbox and open-sandbox views of New Eden and RP (this hits on my earlier points about the Star Wars Expanded Universe) outside the specific context of the politicians.
-
As far as I can tell, the two competing philosophies of RP are what led to the formation of this forum, which is a splinter of another RP forum that contains about the same number of active participants.
-
The forum differences are much more about moderation policy and the appropriate tone to use during debate, rather than approaches to RP.
And we appreciate the efforts from all parties to maintain a civilized tone in these threads, by the by. :)
-
Well, ask yourself Ken, why you can't bring yourself to admit that if this same thing was done in the Republic, it'd have encountered hell's fury in the form of Electus Matari.
Is Electus Matari also in the wrong? Are they not true roleplayers, because they'd want to 'ruin the fun' of other people that just want to do a teensy-weensy storyline?
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in our mouths, thanks Mr Soter.
If someone did something similar with the Republic Parliament, I think there are enough different strands of RP inside EM that some people would be for it, and some against, depending on the style and content of the claims. We're not a collection of Rpers with identical views.
-
I recognize the differences in opinion Ulphus. But what is your personal opinion, if someone claimed to be some higher level functionary of the Brutor Tribe's parliamentary caucus? I'm honestly curious.
-
I have not read every detail of the IGS discussion.
Have the characters stated categorically they are not capsuleers? If so, my OOC question to the player is why did they choose to attempt to portray them as such?
Does having these characters not be capsuleers gain them anything?
Plenty of NPCs are capsuleers, 3 of the 4 empire's chief executive is a capsuleer, multiple NPC corporate CEOs are capsuleers, perhaps even the agents we interact with. Potentially they are merely infomorphs, but that is not far from being a capsuleer.
Down the road, can we expect DUST Commanders; non-capsuleers, but infomorphs; to interact on IGS?
another RP forum that contains about the same number of active participants.
Said forum's active participants is dramatically lower at present.
-
From Alain Octirant, "Chairman" of the Federal Nationalist Party:
"Our party is not a capsuleer "corporation", Mr Soter. Neither I nor any of us here in the office know how to fly a starship with our hands let alone our minds, and as far as I know, no capsuleer has yet come forward asking to be signed up as an official volunteer or party officer. We take the InterBus, and I have been assured by my general council that should your organization ever "declare war" and your forces board any civilian vessel transporting employees of the Federal Nationalist Party's organizing committee or land at any station or colony housing them in order to detain or inflict harm upon those persons, those forces will be considered in violation of several Federal laws."
-
Is the objection that these characters aren't capsuleers or that as portrayed, they're overly important? (Or something else entirely.)
-
I like it, that is all.. ;)
-
My personal contention with the use of these 'non-capsuleers' is that. . . it's impossible in-character to be the CEO of a corporation created under the Yulai Conventions, claiming to be the Chairman of a major political party in a faction representing hundreds of billions of people, and also not be a capsuleer. You can't be wardecced under the Yulai Conventions if you're not a capsuleer, but clearly that can happen with these people. Alain Octirant even claims that such an attempt to engage his corporation in a wardec would be against Federation Law, which is just false.
The inconsistencies and claims to legitimacy as representatives of billions of people in a multi-regional democracy just sticks something into me and twists hard. I dunno. Maybe I'm old fashioned.
-
My personal contention with the use of these 'non-capsuleers' is that. . . it's impossible in-character to be the CEO of a corporation created under the Yulai Conventions. claiming to be the Chairman of a major political party in a faction representing hundreds of billions of people, and also not be a capsuleer. You can't be wardecced under the Yulai Conventions if you're not a capsuleer, but clearly that can happen with these people. Alain Octirant even claims that such an attempt to engage his corporation in a wardec would be against Federation Law, which is just false.
Because ICly he's operating as if his corporation is not a capsuleer/Yulai corporation.
So once again, I challenge you to clarify for me if you apply the standards of absolute infallability of the system-determined attributes of your character or not equally.
Where were my characters educated?
The inconsistencies and claims to legitimacy as representatives of billions of people in a multi-regional democracy just sticks something into me and twists hard. I dunno. Maybe I'm old fashioned
You are choosing to draw incredible attention to some attribute lines that we are given next to no control over. Have you never experienced moments in RP when the game rules actually get in the way more than help?
They are not claiming to be representatives, so please stop presenting hyperbolic exaggerations of the actual situation. Their analogues in the real world are, in most cases, people who's names most people don't even know (party chairs/elders/political insiders and operatives).
Please prove to me that your view is "old fashioned" and why that makes it better (Appeal to Tradition). A lot of my background is freeform IRC RP, so from my perspective, making things out of whole cloth instead of with narrow constraints is "old fashioned".
-
This poll was a suprise. It strikes me as a "we have had a debate, now lets see who the crowd says has won" thread. Can the two threads be merged, as having two threads on the same topic is derailing the very good debate that was happening.
I also want to say that I am agreeing with Soter on may of his points, including his statement about respecting the game setting. The setting had been constructed to allow various things and disallow others. You cant make a non capsuleer charater, just like how you cant be a wearwolf (sp) in my vampire game because the setting does not allow it, or a clockwork robot in my DnD game if the setting does not allow it.
It doesnt mean that it is not good RP however. I havnt followed all the threads, but it appears to be some really good RP that is going on, but it seems like it is not fitting into the setting.
I know there are lots of thing that the mechanics of the game dont allow and that we have to RP, like leaving our ships or going to planet, but there is also some things that the game setting does not allow, irrespective of whether you can or cant use the mechanics to accomplish it.
Personally, if you appear in game, or have a profile if I do a charater search in game, you are a capsuleer. Thats why I havnt made profiles for my charaters family that has appeared in some of my fiction.
A while ago there was threads about godmodding and spheres of influence. Making a non-capsuleer charater is against the mechanics, perhaps we can roleplay that though. Making a non-capsuleer charater that appears in game, in space or in station and can interact on the IGS seems to go against the setting. Making a non-capuleer charater that does the aforesaid and has political influence that can affect my charater and my roleplay directly is boardering on godmodding if taken too far.
I would react the same as Soter if someone came along and said that he is True Slave 567, has tea with Sansha himself and is carrying out Sansha's direct orders.
-
I recognize the differences in opinion Ulphus. But what is your personal opinion, if someone claimed to be some higher level functionary of the Brutor Tribe's parliamentary caucus? I'm honestly curious.
I think it would rather depend on what they said. Frankly, Shakor can get stuffed if he thinks his flunkies can order us about. The Lord of my Lord is not my Lord and all that.
Hmm, I guess that means I'd react to them as if they were jumped up self-opinionated flunkies rather than people trying to usurp CCPs rightful place as provider of canon.
But then, I'm used to RPing with people who weren't "capsuleers", and just not noticing that they're actually appearing in local, or Rping with people in bars who are "interbussing" and don't actually appear in local. Or even having RP in a chat channel that claims to be on the surface of a planet, and indeed, RPing in an IRC channel to the same ends.
The game system is to me an imperfect reflection of the world. The RP is the thing. My SOD is good enough to not see the strings of all the puppets, or the ropes holding the scenery up, unless someone runs around pointing at them.
Of course, there are all sorts of provisos. I could see someone saying "I work for Shakor, and he says all join together and shoot Ushra'Khan now" as stretching my SOD to breaking point, and I can imagine other events that would likewise put me off.
Ulf
-
A while ago there was threads about godmodding and spheres of influence. Making a non-capsuleer charater is against the mechanics, perhaps we can roleplay that though. Making a non-capsuleer charater that appears in game, in space or in station and can interact on the IGS seems to go against the setting. Making a non-capuleer charater that does the aforesaid and has political influence that can affect my charater and my roleplay directly is boardering on godmodding if taken too far.
I think this comes close to my own understanding.
Personally, I do not really object to people making characters that are not capsuleers to appear on off-the-pod RP sometimes, but I'd prefer such characters not to undock, access the markets, post on IGS, etc, and definitely not unless there's some explanation IC for why and how they would (using their sister's accesses, with or without permission, say ;)). It does go a bit against the setting, but if you do it without bothering other people with it much, it's fine.
When it goes to making a non-capsuleer character that posts on IGS etc, and that character is something my character would strongly care about, it starts to feel like godmodding, indeed.
-
It seems to me that the purpose of this thread is to reassure the OP that he really is on the side of 'right' because enough people 'like' something, even though they don't RP the faction in question, or have any desire to participate in the situation at hand.
[mod]Personal attack[/mod]
Creating a poll to register people's opinion or perceptions is not about stating who is right or wrong.
-
This was on the IGS on September. (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1388126)
Nobody said anything about ten-year old Anette Inhonores being a capsuleer just because she has an in-game face to represent her.
And just because one has "never interacted with her" doesn't exclude her from the argument.
-
This was on the IGS on September. (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1388126)
Nobody said anything about ten-year old Anette Inhonores being a capsuleer just because she has an in-game face to represent her.
And just because one has "never interacted with her" doesn't exclude her from the argument.
I remeber that...
Politics can be interesting as RP, but also need be controled somehow beacause people could say tht they have a seat in he senate, or all Intaki don't want to be in the Federation.
-
This was on the IGS on September. (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1388126)
Nobody said anything about ten-year old Anette Inhonores being a capsuleer just because she has an in-game face to represent her.
And just because one has "never interacted with her" doesn't exclude her from the argument.
Here's my answer to that from above (sorry for the duplication, but you seem to have missed it (easy in a long and emotional thread, and I am too lazy to rephrase):
Personally, I do not really object to people making characters that are not capsuleers to appear on off-the-pod RP sometimes, but I'd prefer such characters not to undock, access the markets, post on IGS, etc, and definitely not unless there's some explanation IC for why and how they would (using their sister's accesses, with or without permission, say ;)). It does go a bit against the setting, but if you do it without bothering other people with it much, it's fine.
When it goes to making a non-capsuleer character that posts on IGS etc, and that character is something my character would strongly care about, it starts to feel like godmodding, indeed.
-
I am laughing so hard right now.
Why is everyone fighting over something that doesn't affect anyone here and doesn't force anything upon anyone? There is wayyyy too much time on your hands, people. Just vote. Also, imo I'm finding this a lot in general on this thread:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/24qmfc9.jpg)
-
I have no strong feelings one way or the other, and if anyone disagrees with me, you're a socialist. >:U
-
I'm continuously amazed at how long this discussion has gone on, yet not one single example of a negative consequence of the politician's postings has been put forward, only an endless parade of how bad it would be if they did something that absurdly violates lore. Non-capsuleers gaining access to IGS through a secure interface doesn't really directly contradict lore unless you have been imagining a world where there are no exceptions to any of the rules, a concept I find entirely unrealistic.
It is really inappropriate from an IC standpoint for Syyl'ara or Yaan'su to comment publicly on the Ishukone operations they are overseeing security for (PI and industry stuff that actually is taking place IG). I've heavily considered making a senior management character and public relations alt for looking a little more professional seeming operation. This would be a locally-owned partnership organization, not Ishukone itself, obviously. I never really considered that such figures would be capsuleers, but the advice of a few people I've bounced my ideas off of and the controversy this issue has created give me pause, now.
When I did Syyl and Yaan's backgrounds, their path to becoming capsuleers was through various programs the State put together to use the technology for administrative purposes. Perhaps expanding on this approach could be a way to reconcile this issue. Putting a plug in someone's head so they can navigate your corporate databases and facilitate tasks more efficiently might make business sense. Maybe each of the alts could simply change their title in the sig lines to "<political party> Press Secretary/Communications Director/etc.u
That at least aleviates the whole "these people potentially have too much power" issue. On the subject of whether every character made is a capsuleer or not (especially shell posting alts), I would personally find it more disruptive trying to shoehorn these alts into having become capsuleers when that adds almost nothing to their personas (if anything, excessive rules-hounding interrupts continuity).
I'm really curious, however, why none of the opponents have answered my questions about where my characters were educated (sadly, the opposition position requires them to either apply a double-standard or attempt to determine for me what my character's backgrounds are, i.e. god-moding) or what has materially changed in their gameplay as a result of this (rather than repeatedly insisting the mere possibility is grounds for invalidating it).
I'd also remind you that using OOC knowledge ("the game mechanics/rules say x, y, and z") to direct IC actions ("therefore I am wardeccing you") is meta-gaming.
-
why none of the opponents have answered my questions about where my characters were educated or what has materially changed in their gameplay as a result of this (rather than repeatedly insisting the mere possibility is grounds for invalidating it).
As to the location of your characters' education - the School/System that the game mechanics placed your character in at the beginning can still be the license issuing organization/location.
That your education took place somewhere else would not change the concept that all independent (ie player) capsuleers are issued licenses from the following schools at the following locations and that these locations must be their first point of departure when entering the Eve Universe as an independent capsuleer.
what has materially changed in their gameplay as a result of this (rather than repeatedly insisting the mere possibility is grounds for invalidating it).
Little if anything in their gameplay.
Now their roleplay clearly there are impacts. The ILF, in response to one of these characters, is championing for secession. Soter wants to prevent that and pursue the ideal Federation; faux*-nationalist are a threat to that.
One of the characters have stated that Soter lacks knowledge of the Federation's system; so apparently the character you consider baseline is more informed about the Federation's system than a prominent Federal capsuleer/infomoprh!
Who decides how to fill in these holes that exist in PF? The shell-alt whose history is unknown? Or a group of long standing characters (players) with a record of supporting the entity in question?
*What he considers these characters.
While we may each have corners of the sandbox, there exist communities within the Sandbox. Stepping in with any characters with the purpose of speaking for NPC organizations impacts these communities.
-
The ILF, in response to one of these characters, is championing for secession.
As a point of clarification: The ILF has ALWAYS championed for secession. We just are more vocal when the opportunity arises. This was such an opportunity.
-
As to the location of your characters' education - the School/System that the game mechanics placed your character in at the beginning can still be the license issuing organization/location.
Except it isn't, and you can't force me to operate otherwise.
See this is the inherent hypocrisy in your position. You demand that I not infringe upon you and expect that such a demand justifies you dictating my character's attributes because they could potentially impact you in any way at any point in the future.
That your education took place somewhere else would not change the concept that all independent (ie player) capsuleers are issued licenses from the following schools at the following locations and that these locations must be their first point of departure when entering the Eve Universe as an independent capsuleer.
What would your IC response be to a claim otherwise? That your capsuleer has personal knowledge of how ever other capsuleer came to be? That they have personally verified the accuracy of every CONCORD entry? You'd be meta-gaming if you did that. It is again, a subjective preference issue in that I am higly irritated by pre-determined, cookie-cutter backgrounds. Same basic disagreement took place when writing up a bio for an SWTOR character (I have since lost interest in the game), with people insisting I must portray a Jedi who is part of the order because that is what my BW-written background and IG activities will limit me to.
Little if anything in their gameplay.
Now their roleplay clearly there are impacts. The ILF, in response to one of these characters, is championing for secession.
Hate to break it to you...that isn't a change. Maybe inform yourself on the existing landscape before attempting to sound like an authority on the subject.
Soter wants to prevent that and pursue the ideal Federation; faux*-nationalist are a threat to that.
Soter is no more or less capable of assuring or preventing seccesion than anyone else, neither are these political operatives. They claim to have IC power, that doesn't mean they actually do (this has got to be one of the worst cases of not being able to distinguish IC portrayals from RL).
They are not a "threat" to Soter IC or OOC, but even if they were, is EVE a game where one can be assured that no threat can ever harm you?
One of the characters have stated that Soter lacks knowledge of the Federation's system; so apparently the character you consider baseline is more informed about the Federation's system than a prominent Federal capsuleer/infomoprh!
Uh, it is rhetoric and bloviating, just because a political operative says "I am more <intangible subjective> than you" doesn't mean it is true. People hurl stuff like that at each other day in and day out, why is his different?
Who decides how to fill in these holes that exist in PF? The shell-alt whose history is unknown? Or a group of long standing characters (players) with a record of supporting the entity in question?
Appeal to Authority/popularity contests are the worst way of settling these disputes, imo.
This comes dangerously close to just being a big ego fight, now. "I am more important/approved of/well liked/have had a subcription longer, therefore my word stands for more."
Again, this has nothing to do with the actual issue, and just becomes an argument about who is "more qualfified"
My short answer is: the person who got off their OOC soapbox, dangled something out there that takes work to pull off well and opened themself up to criticism rather than the bitter old farts who demand everyone conform to their vision "because they were here first" (Appeal to Authority/Tradition). I don't actually think of people that way, just demonstrating that anyone can use divisive imagery and negative sounding adjectives to the other side.
While we may each have corners of the sandbox, there exist communities within the Sandbox. Stepping in with any characters with the purpose of speaking for NPC organizations impacts these communities.
Except nobody can demonstrate any impacts, only contriving one theoretical scenario after another or, at best, examples of behavior that take place day in and day out already.
Again, if this is where you set the bar (they might do such-and-such), then explain to me why I can't demand for you to refrain from RP for the exact same reason?
It is truly disheartening to see people vilifying and demonizing people with different preferences while simultaneously proclaiming they are victims (or rather, that they might be victims...someday) over a computer game.
I repeat my initial call: If this isn't your thing, stay the hell out of it. Filing your disapproval and desire not to engage, then being intentionally disruptive to those who are I find the least defensible of all positions (not saying you have).
Question: are Soter and Seri's "General" ranks officially supported or ICly claimed? I honestly don't know anything about FW :9. If Soter gets to claim some powerful person in the military gave him a commission, then I am truly done with this farce of manufactured outrage. I don't care if you were in the FDU and participated in the war, that doesn't mean you were made a General if the mechanics don't allow for such (if we're applying the standard equally, that is).
Ultimately, this whole "cannon nazi vs. lore trampler" debate pops up on every RP community I've been in. Comparisons to absurd and obviously out-of-world elements always get made for even the tiniest movement outside of the rigid walls.
The only solution that ever works is for people with such inflexibly differing views to insulate from each other, because the alternative is IC bickering that is little more than thinly veiled attempts to continue the same OOC argument. It literally just devolves into "yuh-huh" and "nuh-uh".
-
So, in facwar, there are ranks and medals that are handed out for accomplishing missions and conquering strategic complexes. These grant standing with the militia corporation. Every integer value of standing grants a new rank. More details on this game mechanic are available here:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ranks
My character, Julianus Soter, has achieved militia standings greater than 9.0 before modifying skills, earning the rank of Luminaire General. Because he's not in the militia, he's inactive and the medal doesn't show. The standings are visible in-game, however. Same goes for Seriphyn.
Why I would need to go over this on the forums to defend myself from personal attacks is beyond me, of course.
-
RP is serous bizniz....
Have fun people. heh... maybe?
-
Huh.
Not one person's ever given me crap about my starting school, or whether or not that starting school was accurate. Weird.
-
Huh.
Not one person's ever given me crap about my starting school, or whether or not that starting school was accurate. Weird.
You have my attention and curiosity :9.
-
Huh.
Not one person's ever given me crap about my starting school, or whether or not that starting school was accurate. Weird.
You have my attention and curiosity :9.
Eh? I wasn't aware that not getting grief about one's IG academic background was anything unusual.
-
As to the location of your characters' education - the School/System that the game mechanics placed your character in at the beginning can still be the license issuing organization/location.
Except it isn't, and you can't force me to operate otherwise.
See this is the inherent hypocrisy in your position. You demand that I not infringe upon you and expect that such a demand justifies you dictating my character's attributes because they could potentially impact you in any way at any point in the future.
I am not forcing you to do anything. I attempted to reconcile the in-game fact that your character started there with your desire to have different schooling.
It is clear that there is not a common basis for RP. It appears that in-game action and fact are not as important story for some. For others in-game action (and information) are of more importance.
Guess we just can't play together unless we are shooting at each other.
-
I am not forcing you to do anything. I attempted to reconcile the in-game fact that your character started there with your desire to have different schooling.
For the love of god, stop reading extra meaning into my words, people.
I did not say you are forcing me, all I said was that you can't (as in IF you were to attempt to do so).
Syyl'ara is a descendant of Syndicate exiles and was trained for and made a capsuleer in the State. She has never set foot on that station ICly, did not recieve a license from it, and has never at any point in her entire life been a Federation citizen to begin with.
Have you seriously never once in any RP you've ever engaged in considered some of your actions in PvE or other static/scripted content to be discontiguous with your IC persona? How do you ICly explain killing the same named enemy NPC pilots in some of the missions over and over again? Do you not ever bend a pointless triviality for the sake of suspending your disbelief (that wasn't someone named "Kruul", just another random violent guy with a ship)? What impacting difference upon your RP or gameplay experience could my graduating from place x or being trained as part of program y possibly have on you?
If I put an IC post up describing some experiences as a part of that program, should I expect to have people showing up in it going on and on about "the CONCORD database says bla-bla-bla"?
Because CCP does not allow a person to roll an Intaki character and have them graduate from a Caldari institution, I should not be allowed to portray such a character?
I didn't facilitate her father being set up as a patsey by Serpentis or her managing to get her substance-abusing mother from Syndicate to relatives in the State through in-game actions, so are those invalidated, too?
It is clear that there is not a common basis for RP. It appears that in-game action and fact are not as important story for some. For others in-game action (and information) are of more importance.
They are both important, without either the quality would diminish. There is plenty of common basis for RP, you simply choose to highlight, expand, and exaggerate the disagreements while ignoring that any two average people probably agree on 98%+ of the lore and setting.
But I'm not surprised to see the debate framed as a question of which is "more" important. Because we all know, the most important damned thing about playing a game for fun and enjoying roleplay is that everyone acknowledges your superior viewpoints. We certainly shouldn't ever judge something on its own merits with an eye towards whether it is a net positive or not, no no no, we have to establish a rank/pecking order/comparative value system and jockey for position.
Guess we just can't play together unless we are shooting at each other.
Because we disagree on where she was educated?
Wow.
-
Eh? I wasn't aware that not getting grief about one's IG academic background was anything unusual.
I meant as in I'd like to know more details if you're willing to share them :9.
-
I can respect an honest attempt at trying something new and interesting from a fresh perspective, but I'm not particularly fond of the idea of non-capsule player characters grandstanding on Galnet. The credibility of a character is put at greater risk when their influence impacts a larger audience.
As players (and roleplayers) there is a level of acceptance when it comes to the creativity of our peers insofar as they do not contradict our own fantasy world. When a player makes a character that impacts themselves, ala relative or minor plot device for interaction, people are generally accepting of this because it will most likely have little to no impact on their own roleplay. When another player creates an elected official or some sort of authority figure, making opinions and generally impacting the game sphere beyond their own world, you have conflict situations where people question the credibility of the character.
Granted, there's nothing much any of us can do when this happens. Generally, when some nutcase makes absurd claims the community reacts largely negatively. A player can make all sorts of claims on behalf of their characters, but its ultimately the opinion of the people that choose to interact with them that dictate how credible they are.
I've had my share of interaction with players and characters that I didn't necessarily agree with on their vision, but I always felt I was able provide consistency in my own character's responses to them rather than simply inflecting my OWN negative viewpoint through the character. I think that's a subtle but important distinction.
-
We get to pick and choose what actions are IC and what aren't? Does the CN, LDPS, or LDC standing my character built up killing "Kruul"s matter IC? Or can it be ignored as unimportant if I or you choose? At what point are in-game actions IC and when are they not?
If a character is running missions for the CN because they built a huge standing with them and claims to be a Guristas supporter, is it IC or are should it just be ignored as OOC?
Can I claim a character to be in one part of the cluster when finder agents and the active clone are in another?
As for missions where the "villians" repeat, "Dread Pirate Roberts"? or capsuleer targets? escape pods?
Because we disagree on where she was educated?
Wow.
Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC. This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.
It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.
We certainly shouldn't ever judge something on its own merits with an eye towards whether it is a net positive or not
Is having what appears to be a single player, playing multiple heads of NPC political parties a net positive or not?
I think it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimatizing such characters provides avenues for abuse I would rather not see.
I think it would be more interesting if it was a group of players, playing characters claiming to support a particular platform/party and not claiming to be leaders of NPC entities, represented those positions.
-
Here's the thing.
As far as I can tell these people are not supposed to be politicians per-se. They are high ranking flunkies in the respective parties. Spin doctors in modern parlance. If they express opinions that are later shown to be non-canon for their organisations then they can be fired and replaced. This has, in fact, happened many times in reality to real spin doctors. So what is the problem?
As to why they are showing as capsuleers? They have filed the relevant paperwork with CONCORD to have access to the IGS, but the only way CONCORD has to hold that information in it's records is to show them as pilots and their organisations as corporations. Yes, this is a rationalisation of observed fact but given the nature of large bureaucracies does this seem unreasonable?
So how does any of this break immersion?
Whoever is doing this is trying to reflect the multi-faceted and fractious nature of Gallente political life and seems to be doing so quite well. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be encouraged.
Now my alliance-mate Elsebeth thinks otherwise but I'm inclined to disagree.
-
Whoever is doing this is trying to reflect the multi-faceted and fractious nature of Gallente political life and seems to be doing so quite well. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be encouraged.
Regardless if the culprit behind the non-podder politician affair is doing the right thing or not according to "our" vision of whats the right way to RP, the above deserves to be emphasized.
No one has before attempted to spark discussion from the different points of view each political party within the Federation, that in itself is an accomplishment.
-
We get to pick and choose what actions are IC and what aren't? Does the CN, LDPS, or LDC standing my character built up killing "Kruul"s matter IC? Or can it be ignored as unimportant if I or you choose? At what point are in-game actions IC and when are they not?
Sometimes the player wants to just play a damn game for a little bit, I can't fathom reading this thread what would make a person want to take a break from RP and all the constraints and limitations that come with it (in the form of other people pressuring you to behave as they expect).
If a character is running missions for the CN because they built a huge standing with them and claims to be a Guristas supporter, is it IC or are should it just be ignored as OOC?
Can I claim a character to be in one part of the cluster when finder agents and the active clone are in another?
Can I simultaneously run missions while also RPing in one of the social channels "in the flesh"?
These questions are up to each individual person to answer for themselves. You keep missing the fundamental point that just because you operate a certain way that does not make it the "proper" way. Like in an interpersonal relationship, if the two people's boundaries of comfort are different, it may not work out romantically. However, they can still remain friends and interact with each other and neither person's ideal relationship image is the objectively "correct" one.
As for missions where the "villians" repeat, "Dread Pirate Roberts"? or capsuleer targets? escape pods?
Do you have any official word from CCP on if these are the case or would this be you filling in the blanks with whatever disbelief-suspension mechanism works best for you (while simultaneously denouncing others doing so)?
Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC. This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.
Who gets to determine where that line is?
So claiming IC authority or influence is bad, but claiming OOC authority or influence over what other people do with their leisure time is perfectly valid?
It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.
I specifically remarked about PvE and static/repeated content not always being taken as having strict continuity with your character, not activities that were a result of two RPers engaging in spontaneous interaction.
I'm not sure how you explain a criminal organization dutifully reporting to the most powerful law-enforcement institution in the cluster its instantaneously updated ranking of your status with them.
There's also plenty of legitimate angles like a Gurista infiltrator/double-agent to the State or even just an elusive outspoken dissident (clearly, more appropriate to some of the factions than others).
I shot anything that wasn't the big 4 before I got into the lore and developed a character and am still patching up Mordu's despite being aligned with them ICly. Should I have sat spinning in the station until I had my concept finalized and read every scrap of lore? Should I have capitulated to the unyielding and almighty standings chart once I had discovered a character bio I latched onto (or, as we all know in RP, latched onto me :9) and made a humble sacrifice upon the altar of the RP gods to abandon that idea? Do you think I'm the only one who has stumbled across this dilemma?
For these and a myriad of other reasons, I consider standings as not always having continuity with IC portrayal and to some degree, even question the validity of seeing them as IC knowledge (but I don't assert it as a superior imperative that others must adopt).
My solution that allows everyone to go forward on that issue: I don't call others out on standings and when called out on it, simply reply something like "I'm amused you place such faith in CONCORD intelligence" and its likely it would only be brought up as one form of red herring fallacy or another which would also get pointed out with a nudge to return to the substance of the topic :9.
Is having what appears to be a single player, playing multiple heads of NPC political parties a net positive or not?
I've had a lot of interesting interaction, it has added to my enjoyment. For the most part, I don't think anyone has really changed their political orientation as a result of this nor felt any mechanical impact from it whatsoever.
So yes, hugely positive.
Here's the kicker, if it isn't positive for you, stop participating. We don't need weeks on end of post after post making up doomsday scenarios that "might happen" and vilifying each other with negative adjectives.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimatizing such characters provides avenues for abuse I would rather not see.
"He who trades a little freedom for a little security loses both and deserves neither".
If you are so gripped with fear of a negative RP experience resulting from getting involved that you'd demand others conform their behavior to alleviate those fears, then I'd suggest the better solution is, again: don't participate.
Lets look at the alternative. If we really apply your standard equally across all situations, then your proposed "if it can potentially go wrong, it should be unacceptable" means literally just everyone cancel your accounts right now because you can't do anything but spin in station and chat in OOC channels.
I'm not paying $15/mo for a prettier version of YIM and I'm not paying $15/mo for people who have said we appear to be so irreconcilably far from each other in philosophy that they can't see any interaction between us other than conflict to direct how I should conduct myself in a leisure activity.
I think it would be more interesting if it was a group of players, playing characters claiming to support a particular platform/party and not claiming to be leaders of NPC entities, represented those positions.
Key words: "I think". Beyond that, the "more interesting" one will be entirely case-by-case and depend on how well it is pulled off. It would be a false dichotomy to suggest that all <your example> are in all cases better than all <what we're arguing about> just on principle.
So you're suggesting there exists an absolutely objective superiority of one method over the other -regardless of all other variables- on an issue of subjective preference?
So go organize that, build something of your own instead of knocking down what others have made.
If you really think your idea is the "more interesting" way, then run with it and show us...put your money where your mouth is.
Just be prepared for some gadfly to come along and make a post about how your method could potentially turn out badly and unravel the entire RP fabric of the setting and impact their gameplay experience and that such a possibility compels you to cease/modify said activity so that it conforms to their preferences. Hey, fair is fair, right? Never mind the fact they won't show or demonstrate one actual example of such actually having happened, the mere reference to the possibility is justification for launching a campaign against the idea as seen here.
Now that's a dangerous precedent to set. It is literally the same (fallacious) logic-construct/rationale used for "preemptive war". No real evidence needed, a lot of amplified fear-mongering and labeling sadly seems to remove the need for it.
Finally, just for the record, I'd likely join in on your Fed RP ideas once I saw them in action so I'm open to RP with you other than conflict despite our differences of opinion on this issue :9.
-
I've had my share of interaction with players and characters that I didn't necessarily agree with on their vision, but I always felt I was able provide consistency in my own character's responses to them rather than simply inflecting my OWN negative viewpoint through the character. I think that's a subtle but important distinction.
Your words, I want them :9.
By far, the bigger concern for me with this discussion has been the lack of IC/OOC separation I've witnessed than some theoretical "maybe something bad will happen and boy you'll be sorry then" scenario.
-
1) I have not been participating in the IC conversations, aside for one comment early on. I have read them, but I have not responded to them in anyway.
2) I have built discussions of State politics between established characters in public channels. See the Heiian Society and some of its events. Very public disagreement about a year ago between John Revenant (Liberal) and Dex Nederland (Patriot) as to where State supporters should put their efforts. I think I have put my money where my mouth is, but you may believe otherwise.
3) As for IC/OOC separation, IC Dex Nederland greatly enjoys discredit being brought upon Jules Soter. Dex consider Jules to be an enemy of Lai Dai and the State. If Jules is marginalized by whatever means, Dex would either not care or celebrate it. OOC I have stated my position.
Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC. This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.
Who gets to determine where that line is?
So claiming IC authority or influence is bad, but claiming OOC authority or influence over what other people do with their leisure time is perfectly valid?
It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.
It is really cute of you to conflate issues to discredit me.
I specifically asked about PvE and static/repeated content, not activities that were a result of two RPers engaging in spontaneous interaction. But please, go on distorting my position and trying to paint me as a god-moder.
No one, but individual players must recognize when our perspectives do not match and therefore choose minimize play with each other.
I do not think I argued for any OOC authority or influence. I stated that we as a community continual struggle with coming to a common definition of the line between IC/OCC. It repeatedly comes up as a root issue in discussions, be it connecting two unrelated characters to the same player via shared storage or the IC/OOC nature of mission running.
Please stop reading extra meaning into my words.
If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC? Is that up to Bill's player?
-
1) I have not been participating in the IC conversations, aside for one comment early on. I have read them, but I have not responded to them in anyway.
2) I have built discussions of State politics between established characters in public channels. See the Heiian Society and some of its events. Very public disagreement about a year ago between John Revenant (Liberal) and Dex Nederland (Patriot) as to where State supporters should put their efforts. I think I have put my money where my mouth is, but you may believe otherwise.
3) As for IC/OOC separation, IC Dex Nederland greatly enjoys discredit being brought upon Jules Soter. Dex consider Jules to be an enemy of Lai Dai and the State. If Jules is marginalized by whatever means, Dex would either not care or celebrate it. OOC I have stated my position.
I appreciate the clarifications, I'm not above admitting ignorance on IC history :9. My rhetoric meant to simply suggest that you find a more positive direction to channel all of this energy into than tearing something someone else is building down.
No one, but individual players must recognize when our perspectives do not match and therefore choose minimize play with each other.
The biggest mismatch I can't seem to understand...is why you think our distance is like a mile-wide chasm when it feels to me more like a trickle of a creek. We probably agree on 99.9999% of things as far as the lore and what would feel respectfully appropriate to the setting.
I do not think I argued for any OOC authority or influence. I stated that we as a community continual struggle with coming to a common definition of the line between IC/OCC. It repeatedly comes up as a root issue in discussions, be it connecting two unrelated characters to the same player via shared storage or the IC/OOC nature of mission running.
After ~20 years of online RP, I can't state it any more clearly than this: There will never be a "common definition of the line between IC/OOC".
The root issue of the discussion is not where the line is, the root issue of the discussion is "do we assert a superior prerogative upon everyone or do we accept different people have different preferences and work towards finding ways to interact with mutual benefit".
If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC? Is that up to Bill's player?
It took me about 16 milliseconds to come up with "one of them happened while Bill's player was asleep or at work because chances are the exact time of day it occurred at is never going to make one ounce of difference to anyone's RP".
Now, since you avoided my question by repeating it back to me, would you like to try answering it this time?
(I did some de-clawing on my prev post, btw :9)
-
If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC? Is that up to Bill's player?
It took me about 16 milliseconds to come up with "one of them happened while Bill's player was asleep or at work because chances are the exact time of day it occurred at is never going to make one ounce of difference to anyone's RP".
Now, since you avoided my question by repeating it back to me, would you like to try answering it this time?
My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh.
It is clear your answer differs.
*Mobile devices today allow users to attend an event and send communications, make purchase orders, and check on your sales orders without leaving the event.
-
Alternate explanation that some players use: holoprojectors. Personally, I only RPed that way once and didn't like it. If I want to go someplace I'll fly there, but YMMV. :)
-
My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh.
Even though what time it happened at really has absolutely no impact upon you whatsoever, you would advocate that another player place this restriction upon themselves (because I'm desperately hoping you don't also advocate an enforcement mechanism)?
Alternate explanation that some players use: holoprojectors. Personally, I only RPed that way once and didn't like it. If I want to go someplace I'll fly there, but YMMV. :)
We were on specifically in-the-flesh, but you're one step ahead of me, in a way :9.
for the person uncomfortable with being two places at once, holos. For the player who has no problem with it, I don't see any way for it to impact anyone else. For this reason, I've been sitting here shaking my head wondering, "why would someone even have an opinion on what decisions another person should make to begin with". Then I remember I'm absolutely surrounded every day by examples of this in areas of life which carry much greater significance.
-
Yeah, the YMMV was there on purpose. I tend to side with orange (and, frankly, Soter) in my own approach: I know how I prefer to approach immersion, but alternate approaches by others don't really get me worked up. And sometimes I go with commonly-accepted exceptions (e.g. bloodlines not currently allowable for players, like Thukker).
That's pretty much my approach here. For the poll purposes, I chose "like but won't participate". I'm glad to see people having fun without resorting to the extreme god-moding Mary Sue-ism that drives nearly all of us crazy, but I'd personally avoid it myself.
TL;DR: "YMMV" works for most things in RP. <3
-
TL;DR: "YMMV" works for most things in RP. <3
:twisted:
-
My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh.
Even though what time it happened at really has absolutely no impact upon you whatsoever, you would advocate that another player place this restriction upon themselves (because I'm desperately hoping you don't also advocate an enforcement mechanism)?
I would advocate players have their characters be in a single place (x,y,z) at any specific time (t).
If it becomes pertinent, I may point out what I view as an inconsistency between what the character is saying and what the character is/has done.
If the other player does not view it as an inconsistency then they have decided as such and it is for those watching to decide what position they favor.
-
My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh.
Even though what time it happened at really has absolutely no impact upon you whatsoever, you would advocate that another player place this restriction upon themselves (because I'm desperately hoping you don't also advocate an enforcement mechanism)?
I would advocate players have their characters be in a single place (x,y,z) at any specific time (t).
If it becomes pertinent, I may point out what I view as an inconsistency between what the character is saying and what the character is/has done.
If the other player does not view it as an inconsistency then they have decided as such and it is for those watching to decide what position they favor.
[mod]Personal attack[/mod].
Whether or not that pilot was at the event in question is not something the RP community gets to take a poll on. That's the "Sekrit RP counsil" kind of RP community and that's been 100x more poisonous to communities in my experience than people minding their own business. Since most things involving a large group of people inevitably end up being a popularity contest and not a rational look at the issue, letting the community decide what is or isn't true about my character is not something I'm remotely comfortable with.
[mod]Personal attack[/mod]
Edit: my final thoughts for fear of doing that endless repetition of the same points thing (probably way too late for that :9). I just feel that as long as it remains something that if you just don't click on it then it isn't going to affect you, let it go. Everyone reading it knows they are shells that can't do anything but bloviate, they are foils for people to springboard off of. Since there's a field of them, there's hooks all around for people to agree with or pick a fight with. The door has been wide open for folks RPing hard-liners to chew on the sociocrats and progs, Syyl has agreed with, disagreed with, and found some new common ground on issues with the Unionist, etc.
The forces that shape the ever-changing landscape of strategic-political affiliations are not going to be appreciably dictated by props that everyone knows are props, they will change because resources and facilities change. They change as a result of the imposed scarcities and need for survival, not because of chest-thumping on forums. There is no more threat to your day-to-day experience from these characters potentially stepping out of line than Crazed Pilot's outbursts.
However, in the spirit of trying to continue in a positive direction, I've heard the Heiian channel mentioned a few times and hope they don't mind an Intaki citizen of the State poking in for a lurk now and then :9.
I'm going to take my own advice now, put my own "money where my mouth is" and finish some stuff that goes in the content parts of the forum and let go of the rabble-rabbling.
-
Someone above asked about what are the negative consequences of someone playing a non-capsuleer politician on IGS.
This is a bit of a difficult matter to explain, but I think it is in the core of how to make massively multiplayer games work for players together, so I'd like to try and answer that.
When you make RP about something that is local to your character (my clan has this custom that we X; the town I grew up in used to have a mayor who thought Y, etc), you do not restrict other people's world or the way they RP, because they can actually interact with you by saying "Really? That's interesting. Where *I* grew up, I do not think *anyone* did X/Y", and you can go on to discuss that and invent more things without having to establish what is "true" in the universe in general.
But when a player invents something that is true in the world in general - a high-up in a political party that everyone of a particular faction knows, or invents a custom that all people of a particular tribe are supposed to know of, or tries to pose themselves as a CONCORD official, or any such thing - and another RPer wants the facts to be different, they can no longer improvise together. The one who did not start it can no longer claim that their interpretation of facts (Sebiestor customs, or Gallente political parties, or whatever) is equally valid, but they are left with 1) accepting to play a minority, 2) contradicting and questioning the first player's words IC, 3) ignoring the whole thing OOC, or 4) contesting it OOC.
So the negative consequence is that it limits the way others can play, without their consent. You try to establish truth about the world as what you think the world is like, and everyone is forced to either ignore your RP or to play it your way.
I am not saying you cannot do that. But myself, I strongly prefer it when player-invented stuff is such that it is completely believable that my character has never heard of it, so that I can decide which way I want to take it without creating "splinters" of the world, where in one splinter one thing is true (e.g. "it is the custom of all Sebiestor to X") and in another something else is true. This, because in the long run it allows me to interact smoothly with a lot of people.
-
The thing is Elsebeth. These characters are essentially advisors and publicists. Not politicians themselves.
Such people have made remarks in reality that have afterward gotten them fired when their party discovers what they have said and/or political opponents use their words to embarass their employers.
So if an "official" of this sort mis-speaks the easy IC thing is to challenge that view as being a proper representation of their party's doctrine. If you are convincing enough maybe you get a bit of roleplay about them resigning in disgrace.
-
People seem to be interpreting me as saying that since these people are politicians, no one can disagree with them IC. That is not what I am saying; of course you can. You can also ICly disagree with someone who says that all Sebiestors share a particular custom ("WTF are you talking about? I haven't ever heard of such a thing, and neither has anyone I've spoken to?" - easy, done).
The problem is not that you cannot disagree, but that when you do, if the player who originally played the politician (or the Seb custom) intended it to be "true" in the world, you not only end up ICly disagreeing, you end up also saying "your RP is wrong" by the disagreement. Not everyone wants this - e.g. there has been OOC disagreements about whether it is ok for Julianus Soter to ICly question the legitimacy of these characters when he thinks the facts might not check.
If you instead limit "world facts" you invent in your IC disagreements to smaller scale (customs of your clan instead of the tribe, say), you do not need to go into that, but both interpretations can co-exist.