Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE Character Development => Topic started by: Vikarion on 21 Jun 2010, 00:09
-
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
Though I understand the reasons for it, trying to maintain such a divide, when another may violate it at will, will prove detrimental to my corporation, to my character, and to the faction I RP as a member of. Ultimately, it proves a fatal weakness in the attempt to accumulate power, and I value being able to exercise power in Eve over literary perfection.
Therefore, if there is information in the public domain, I will consider it possible knowledge for my character. If I feel that my character should know something, I will make an effort to contact involved parties, but, in any case, I will not be limited to those "things that my character could reasonably know" if my character not possessing knowledge I possess OOC could lead to his faction/corporation/himself being harmed.
I'd like to apologize to Jade for being so hard on him about this - I didn't really understand where he was coming from in regards to this matter until a month or two ago, and recent events have further informed this decision.
If you feel that you cannot RP with a person who has such a stance, I understand completely. This is a choice I am making that is designed to bring me closer to certain goals, and disagreements are valid. After all, I had much the same policy when I held to a distinct line.
-
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
"They can't behave so I won't" is a bit of a cop-out.
-
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
"They can't behave so I won't" is a bit of a cop-out.
that doesn't sound entirely accurate, its like, there will reach a point where you have people that depend on you, and if your enemies aren't playing by your rules, it will but your people in harms way. If they don't play by the rules, and you really care about protecting the people you fly with, then its almost your responsibility to not play by the rules either. Its a strange stance to think about, but it makes more sense then it doesn't.
-
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
"They can't behave so I won't" is a bit of a cop-out.
Fair enough, I'm copping out. I think this concludes our useful conversation from here on out.
In a more general sense, I don't see how it's fair to LDIS, to myself, or others I fly with if those who want to use methods unacceptable to the IC/OOC divide are allowed a permanent advantage.
FAKE EDIT: Nikita has the long and short of it, I think.
-
that doesn't sound entirely accurate, its like, there will reach a point where you have people that depend on you, and if your enemies aren't playing by your rules, it will but your people in harms way.
In what harm's way? Hurt feelings? IC/OOC divide has shit all to do with pvp, so you can't be talking about that... If you get your feelings hurt when you RP with someone, stop RPing with them. Pew pew or ignore them altogether.
If they don't play by the rules, and you really care about protecting the people you fly with, then its almost your responsibility to not play by the rules either. Its a strange stance to think about, but it makes more sense then it doesn't.
I disagree for the reason detailed above. I don't see the relevance of not 'playing by the rules' in terms of a division of IC and OOC persona with regard to "protecting" the people you RP with. You can only hold someone's hand but so much, you can't protect them from the consequences of social interactions or other peoples' actions. In this instance, Vikarion deciding to not 'play by the rules' does not protect the people he flies with from other people not 'playing by the rules.' Now he's just one more guy not 'playing by the rules'.
Fair enough, I'm copping out. I think this concludes our useful conversation from here on out.
In a more general sense, I don't see how it's fair to LDIS, to myself, or others I fly with if those who want to use methods unacceptable to the IC/OOC divide are allowed a permanent advantage.
What advantage? Outline for me the advantage one gains by being regarded as undesirable to interact with by the greater part of the RP community that would put you and LDIS on the back foot if you didn't make yourself just as undesirable. ISK? PvP Prowess? Social standing? Reputation IC? Reputation OOC? I don't see it...
-
If you feel that you need to metagame in order to protect your character, corp, faction etc from whatever threats you percieve then that's fair enough. Don't be surprised or start to complain when people refuse to interact with you because of it however, because you'll have only yourself to blame.
Of course the other way to look at it is that if you are getting your character into a position where OOC knowledge of his IC actions could damage his or his corp's integrity then you (and by extention, Vik) are Doing It Wrong and you need to seriously look at the kind of RP you are getting involved with and adjust things accordingly. Just a thought.
-
Given some of Vik's past experiences that lead up to the (subsequently moderated) post/thread that he made, I cannot particularly blame him for the actions has taken to stay one step ahead in the Cover Your Ass game.
I think people are overlooking Vik's record here -- yes, he'll wardec you for shits and giggles just because he can, yes, he can act quite the twat at times (so can the rest of us), but FFS, he has a pretty decent helping of this thing called common sense. You know, the stuff that would make him think under a fair majority of circumstances, "right, I can see how Vik might know about these things from these posts," and then go get off his ass and actually ask the author to check if that'd make sense, unlike a number of other parties who have a long and messy history of being complete assholes in this respect.
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
"They can't behave so I won't" is a bit of a cop-out.
It's not so much of a cop-out as it is an escalation of force. If someone started pulling crap with me like what they're pulling with Vik, I'd probably do the same thing too. The opposing party in this instance does have a history of being easily offended and over-sensitive (OOC, even) about things that should only garner the sort of response they do IC, and of doing the sort of thing that Vik made a CYA thread about.
That all said, I'm not sure the paradigm shift is entirely necessary - this only seems to be a particular problem when it comes to one or two people for you, Vik, why not just employ this tactic with them and "business as usual" with others who you know are more or less trustworthy in this regard? You and I haven't always gotten along, but I'd be hesitant to say we didn't at least see the other person as reasonable. :P
To everyone in general: is there some good reason that everyone needs to act like a bag of dicks to each other with this sort of thing? One person pulls out the metagaming tactic, and it snowballs from there. It's like a bunch of children who can't figure out the concept of cause and effect, and how actions have conseque--oh, right. :lolrpers:
-
So making sure there's a 'no lurking' rule in effect on any character of Vik's... check.
Making sure there's no posts/conversation made anywhere Vik might OoC find out... check.
... now to figure out how to block specific people from blogs.
On a more serious note... meh. Just meh.
There's never a good reason for this kind of escalation.
-
Given some of Vik's past experiences that lead up to the (subsequently moderated) post/thread that he made, I cannot particularly blame him for the actions has taken to stay one step ahead in the Cover Your Ass game.
I think people are overlooking Vik's record here -- yes, he'll wardec you for shits and giggles just because he can, yes, he can act quite the twat at times (so can the rest of us), but FFS, he has a pretty decent helping of this thing called common sense. You know, the stuff that would make him think under a fair majority of circumstances, "right, I can see how Vik might know about these things from these posts," and then go get off his ass and actually ask the author to check if that'd make sense, unlike a number of other parties who have a long and messy history of being complete assholes in this respect.
Due to a recent event which I shan't talk about (it was modded when I did) I've decided that my previous adherence to a hard IC/OOC divide is largely impossible to maintain in a "lowest common denominator environment" such as Eve.
"They can't behave so I won't" is a bit of a cop-out.
It's not so much of a cop-out as it is an escalation of force. If someone started pulling crap with me like what they're pulling with Vik, I'd probably do the same thing too. The opposing party in this instance does have a history of being easily offended and over-sensitive (OOC, even) about things that should only garner the sort of response they do IC, and of doing the sort of thing that Vik made a CYA thread about.
That all said, I'm not sure the paradigm shift is entirely necessary - this only seems to be a particular problem when it comes to one or two people for you, Vik, why not just employ this tactic with them and "business as usual" with others who you know are more or less trustworthy in this regard? You and I haven't always gotten along, but I'd be hesitant to say we didn't at least see the other person as reasonable. :P
To everyone in general: is there some good reason that everyone needs to act like a bag of dicks to each other with this sort of thing? One person pulls out the metagaming tactic, and it snowballs from there. It's like a bunch of children who can't figure out the concept of cause and effect, and how actions have conseque--oh, right. :lolrpers:
Morwen, I do appreciate this, and no, I don't intend to run out and start meta-gaming everyone. My intention is exactly as you describe: persons who start it...well, I'll finish it. I'm certainly not going to beginning a campaign of checking every blog to see what I can use this week, or having my character know every nasty thing said about him.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and I'm simply tired of putting myself in a position to get bitch-slapped IC with weapons obtained OOC.
I understand that this means that some people will not RP with me. I'm ok with that, and I understand why. I don't, and won't, hold hard feelings about it. Do what you have to do. And I'll try to make an effort to contact people who I do decide to use information from, and I will be reasonable about it, unless the situation is unreasonable to begin with.
-
My intention is exactly as you describe: persons who start it...well, I'll finish it.
Right, see that's not really the message I got from your post. What I got from the post was akin to "If I can use it, I will", as opposed to "If you use it, so will I". The second I can agree with, but the first is more of "Since there's a few douches out there, I should also be a douche."
Secondly, I'm going to posit the same question Havo has: What particular advantage are you talking about? Are we talking 'Ha, now I know that X is dating Y when he's married to Z! Time to cause some drama!' or 'Now I know that X's corporation is actually a bunch of blooders, and are preparing to attack my allies! Time to mobilize a pre-emptive!'
Cause the second is the only one I can think of with a pragmatic advantage. It's also kind of natural selection: If the Vanguard were planning to attack LDIS because they, I don't know, sell minmatar ships or something, I sure as hell wouldn't say anything OOC.
-
To a certain degree, metagaming is just "part of Eve." That's particularly true if power is what you're aiming for. Take, for example, security checks using screenshots of people's logins-- standard operating procedure, yes?
Metagaming.
Eve's central theme is power, so I can understand and sympathize with those who have a particular desire to collect it.
So, from that angle, there's not much help for it: most everybody does it at least a little. That doesn't make it good; from where I stand, it's irritating at best whenever anybody does it.
What Vik is stating seems to be nothing extreme or even very unusual. That doesn't prevent it from being disappointing, and yes, I'm disappointed.
In the past, I've been burned by those on the other side of this particular divide, willing to write their own stories to get access to words "unfairly" expressed where they couldn't be answered-- that is, in an OOC setting. I still bear a pretty intense grudge over it, and I can't say I consider that grudge ill-founded.
That won't prevent me from roleplaying with such people, but it certainly has made me a more cautious player when it comes to such matters. Providing OOC information is a matter of trust; now, I will generally not reveal what I'm not prepared to see brought IC.
... Not unless it's loaded with a heavy-duty disclaimer I can use as a bludgeon to get offending posts removed from IGS and their authors disciplined, that is. And I don't much like having to do that; it makes me reluctant to, say, make journal posts.
Do I have a point to all this? ... Not really, I guess, aside from vague and generalized unhappiness. This sort of thing diminishes my faith in the entire roleplaying community. I was thinking of using my [Character] posting for Aria as a means to allow (exceptionally difficult) IC access to the contents of her private journal.
Now I'm thinkin', maybe not.
-
I don't - and can't, with the limitations of this board - get too specific as to exactly with whom and for what I'd go traipsing over the "line".
Will I, for personal advantage, go rip your blog off and post it on IGS?
Yes, if you post on your blog "Well, self, I shall now post my doctored photographs of Vikarion kissing Sansha Kuvakei on IGS."
Probably, if you are using it as a forum for capsuleers to conspire against me. In that case, it stands to reason that someone could get access to it.
No, if you post "I plan to ambush Vikarion in Jita on Sunday", I probably wouldn't see that as something to cross the line on. But I won't be in Jita on Sunday, or if I am, it will be with friends.
No, if you post "I hate Vikarion, I hate him so much, I intend to humiliate him on IGS."
The difference here is when someone is injecting something I can't fairly respond to without going to OOC sources - in other words, I intend to be mostly reactive, rather than pro-active.
Now, if someone, say, gets legitimate evemails from me about how I plan to destroy the Amarr empire (which won't happen, the character is not genocidal), you have every right to post those - that's IC and in-game. I won't go to OOC sources to try to refute it, since it did happen. Make up those evemails with photoshop, however, and all bets are off.
Ultimately, this is a defensive position for me.
-
Vik, my advice is virtually always, "roll with it." I'd personally take doctored photos as high praise. Flattery. I'd be kinda annoyed if they remained exclusively in an OOC area, but then, I'd expect somebody to bring them to my IC attention sooner or later.
And then, oooo, what fun.
If you can't, well, that's your way. In either case, I'm not sure that this is something so grandiose that it requires a "statement of intent."
-
It does because I've been an outspoken opponent of what I'm now accepting, and if I'm going to change that, it is only right that I tell people so, and why.
If I'm wrong about something, the correct thing to do is to be as public about my mistake as I was when making it.
And, as I've said, some people won't agree with this. You are apparently one of them, and I expected that - but ultimately, if I have to choose between perfect RP, and having fun, I'll choose the latter. I pay for Eve, and it's one of very few sources of leisure or entertainment I allow myself, and I do find that I don't have as much fun if I'm completely constrained by the OOC/IC wall.
-
Vik...
I understand in the whole entirity of EVE, the mechanics are designed for non-consensual gameplay on some scale. Inter-alliance politics, PvP, the market, espionage, and so on... everything is built and even encouraged by the devs for us to do at the peril of the hapless (or not so hapless) target. This much I believe everyone can agree with.
However, this conflicts with the very nature of roleplay, on any medium. It *is* consensual. While the factor of dynamic roleplaying can put some wrenches into peoples' plans, there will always be some element of the scripted at play, because when you play an action onto someone... you cannot immediately assume its effective. This becomes godmoding.
The same can be said of learning of information. Yes, when someone openly broadcasts a raid on a corp, it'll be hardpressed to NOT do anything in return... however, to add onto what Aria has mentioned of 'rolling with it' is simply this. You roleplay to have fun, not to win.
Everyone doesn't like losing, but when a person cheats in ensuring victory with placing the very fiber of roleplaying morals at stake, it becomes less fun for everyone. It leads to more bitter experiances, more paranoia, and less material offered for readers to understand of their characters to take in.
-
You roleplay to have fun, not to win.
Everyone doesn't like losing, but when a person cheats in ensuring victory with placing the very fiber of roleplaying morals at stake, it becomes less fun for everyone. It leads to more bitter experiances, more paranoia, and less material offered for readers to understand of their characters to take in.
Ah, well said. It reminds me of the single simplest, yet best, summation of what constitutes a "power gamer," "twink," or "munchkin" I've heard: someone who has fallen for the fallacy that it's possible to "win" at an RPG.
Hence, you have your drama twinks ("My character's the most dramatic, so I win!"), your combat twinks ("My character's the strongest, so I win!"), your main-character twinks ("I've made this story all about my character, so I win!"), and on and on and on.
Mind you, CCP has stated that Eve's central theme is "power," so perhaps twinkery is being invited. Regardless, it's an approach I just have no interest in taking.
-
ahh i like these threads so much
Vik, HTFU
You roleplay to have fun, not to win.
In a non-consentual world like eve, this only applies to your side of the roleplaying
Everyone doesn't like losing, but when a person cheats in ensuring victory with placing the very fiber of roleplaying morals at stake, it becomes less fun for everyone. It leads to more bitter experiances, more paranoia, and less material offered for readers to understand of their characters to take in.
Wrong, it is fun for the one cheating, griefing and doing whatever acceptable roleplay they have in their point of view. The person of group of persons targeted by such actions might deem it unfair, or non-fun.
My advice, roleplay like a capsuleer would do, what do people with power and resources do? they are a bit paranoid, they protect their backs, they do good and bad, great and little.
Your char is someone thrown into a completely dark and merciless universe, if you can't survive, then go back to a planet and become a farmer.
HTFU ;)
-
ahh i like these threads so much
Vik, HTFU
You roleplay to have fun, not to win.
In a non-consentual world like eve, this only applies to your side of the roleplaying
Bruno, there is no political insult-laden, IGS-esque debate on how roleplay works. It's a universal set of rules that become applied across any medium. A genre that has existed longer than most of the players that play this game are in years.
Wrong, it is fun for the one cheating, griefing and doing whatever acceptable roleplay they have in their point of view. The person of group of persons targeted by such actions might deem it unfair, or non-fun.
My advice, roleplay like a capsuleer would do, what do people with power and resources do? they are a bit paranoid, they protect their backs, they do good and bad, great and little.
But they shouldn't break the fourth wall in order to do it, as well as create the atmosphere of stifling people from creating more detailed backgrounds and reveal blogs they wouldn't have any possible way of knowing in-character.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Roleplay - Please read even what the evecyclopedia entry says. The guidelines three quarters of the way down the page.
There's way of cheating, stealing, griefing, and what not... and pulling it off in-character. Some of it can be justified quite easily, while other things would be more of a challenge. Why cut corners on a delicate matter, and turn yourself into a pariah in the process to those you regularly roleplay with? Why make OOC drama, and further blur the lines between IC/OOC which causes more rifts? You only get more misunderstanding and emotional implosions like Soter experianced with the Maut incident.
When two opposing entities can't have a respectible and professional relationship OOC, the roleplay you get IC continues to degrade.
Your char is someone thrown into a completely dark and merciless universe, if you can't survive, then go back to a planet and become a farmer.
HTFU ;)
You just proved my point.
-
I think what Bruno was trying to say is that the very nature of Eve as a very competitive, brutal sandbox of drama makes it difficult to RP by a set of standardized and arbitrary rules. Sure, entities and persons can maintain a working OOC relationship in the interest of developing and creating RP but there are also entities and persons who have no interest in doing so since adhering to a set of arbitrary rules is anathema to them or runs contrary to how they play the game.
Certainly, it's polite to try and not be an asshole by using info disseminated OOC in an IC fashion but not everyone in Eve is polite. One can cry foul that another party is not following the pre-arranged rules or they can find methods to deal with it if and when it arises.
At the end of the day, people play the game in the manner they choose to do so and often that is going to cause friction between how others choose to play.
I'd say it's far better to just assume people are going to use what you make public against you and manage what you choose to make available.
-
I think what Bruno was trying to say is that the very nature of Eve as a very competitive, brutal sandbox of drama makes it difficult to RP by a set of standardized and arbitrary rules.
Rules about the IC / OOC divide can be a lot of things, Zag ("unrealistic" is a favorite), but "arbitrary" they most definitely are not. Using OOC knowledge IC that the character would not know is the equivalent of Hamlet reading ahead in his own play, finding out that Laertes' blade is poisoned, and consequently changing his actions to ensure that he survives the bloodbath that is the final act.
You can say, "Well, if everybody can do it, that's fair enough, right?" But it's not like there's no reason for the rule against it.
-
I'd agree Aria, a poor choice of words on my part. I'm not attempting to defend the behaviour, however it does occur. It's part of the reason why I've decided not to release any sort of fiction to the wider community until the events that have occured are long past or are not a 'secret'. Then again, I've never really held much faith in the IC/OOC divide in Eve and simply plan for the worst.
-
Actually, Aria, in my experience people's differing views about the OOC/IC divide often do amount to a fairly arbitrary, and often unilateral, drawing of the line to suit particular interests. And actually Zag, your choice of words reflected the reality quite accurately and you had no need to apologise for it.
That's the whole reason the subject is so wracked by controversy so often. There is no universally agreed standard as to what is OOC and what is IC. The various schools of thought on it may take principled positions, to be sure, but they differ and some people very definitely put out arbitrary 'rules' on the basis of which they then proceed to make moral judgements.
I have to say this topic is the one where you are most likely to see hypocrisy in action (saving the presence of everyone on this forum of course...) and I have seen people abuse the OOC/IC divide so many times it isn't funny any more. Particularly noxious are those abuses designed, I say designed to pose the dilemma to people, without their consent, of (a) observing what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and being deprived of their ability to play the game to the full or (b) disregarding what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and subsequently having opprobrium heaped on their head from all and sundry.
I say to people quite openly, the hypocrisy surrounding the OOC/IC divide is the one thing that had done much to make very many people feel it is near worthless in the game of EVE and it is very often the people who hoot and holler loudest in its defence that have done so much in the past to bring it into disrepute (saving the presence of everyone on this forum of course...) .
I'm sorry to tell you that most RPers in EVE (ie. EVERYONE THAT PLAYS EVE) couldn't give a tinker's cuss for the OOC/IC divide. Why that is, well, ludicrous notions such as putting strategically or tactically significant information into the public domain and then expecting it to be ignored because it has a given label pasted on it are at least part of it.
Cosmo
-
That's the whole reason the subject is so wracked by controversy so often. There is no universally agreed standard as to what is OOC and what is IC.
I tend to think that there is no universal standard because persons with a special interest in justifying its breach place it in controversy.
"That which your character knows, not that which you can justify your character knowing, is IC."
The edges get a bit blurry, of course, so it's usually best to just stay away from those.
The various schools of thought on it may take principled positions, to be sure, but they differ and some people very definitely put out arbitrary 'rules' on the basis of which they then proceed to make moral judgements.
"These are our standards, we think they're good ones, and we believe following them shows good judgment and good sense of fair play."
Not sure I see the problem.
I have seen people abuse the OOC/IC divide so many times it isn't funny any more. Particularly noxious are those abuses designed, I say designed to pose the dilemma to people, without their consent, of (a) observing what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and being deprived of their ability to play the game to the full or (b) disregarding what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and subsequently having opprobrium heaped on their head from all and sundry.
See, I've never understood the willingness to attribute foul motive where you can't be sure of it.
Let's set aside the smokescreen for a minute, here; I think enough time has passed that we can deal with this without acrimony.
In our own clash on this subject long ago, Cosmo, Jade and I came at the issue from such completely different angles that it was sort of funny, in a deeply sad way. I don't play this game for power; never have. Consequently, I didn't feel that there was anything remotely invalid about IC-ly saying something harsh about Star Fraction in a "private journal"; all I was doing, from my point of view, was laying out my character's thoughts for the general amusement of the masses. I wasn't acting as some sort of George Will of the fictional blogosphere; I was just offering a glimpse of Aria's thoughts and motives. Heck, to this day, what she's thinking still interests me much more than whether she's right.
I can see Jade's angle on it (I don't share it, but I can see it). What I never understood was the willingness to attribute my actions to malice.
Heck, maybe sometimes they are based in malice. But I've never really observed people to set out to cheat very often, y'know? Some will, obviously, but mostly? Mmmm ... don't think so.
Also, avoiding this kind of dilemma's pretty easy-- I don't read opponents' blogs or other "reveals". In my case, it's mostly because, over the long term, my memory for facts is better than my memory for sources. I can maintain the divide easily over the short term. Over the long, it gets a little misty, and I have occasionally caught something making the jump.
I'm sorry to tell you that most RPers in EVE (ie. EVERYONE THAT PLAYS EVE) couldn't give a tinker's cuss for the OOC/IC divide.
Mmh. Most of that population disputes CCP's assertion that they're all "roleplayers" and we're "immersionists." Regardless, the "immersionist" community is pretty insular; and a lot of the OOC info out there is useful only to another immersionist.
IE, "My character is sleeping with your character's boyfriend" is potentially combustible "immersionist" material. Posting, "We launch our invasion of AAA space Wednesday at 0500 EVT, from system XYZ-PDQ," in a public blog is ... kinda just ... dumb.
Why that is, well, ludicrous notions such as putting strategically or tactically significant information into the public domain and then expecting it to be ignored because it has a given label pasted on it are at least part of it.
We ignore it the same way and for the same reasons we ignore the content of the Eve novels, Cosmo. CCP has a habit of providing more backstory than our characters can reasonably be aware of. Are we at least agreed that it is not appropriate for our characters to know, for example, the truth behind Jamyl Sarum?
It would be strategically useful from the angle of having our characters figure out what's "really going on," but it's sort of hard to find an immersionist who'll assume such knowledge or a non-immersionist "roleplayer" who cares.
Personally, I've avoided reading the novels; I just don't want to know. And maybe that's the answer to all of this: no more publishing short stories, blogs, etc. Only, that's significantly less fun, and I have to admit that one of my reasons for not reading the novels is that they're ... well ...
... apparently just not that good.
Big temptation. Small payoff. Meh.
But it doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to write a story or a blog or whatever in which your character figures, and expect to function as something less than a billboard.
-
Zag always finds way to better explain what i was trying to say.
In a non-consentual game, you can't agree with other parties as to where does the real line between OOC/IC divide really is drawn. You can't agree in what would be acceptable RP or not acceptable RP. Even if there is an official evelopedia entry as to what people understand, not everyone will agree with the written definition.
You either answer in RP, adapt in RP, or fight back RP to what your opponents throw at you, or leave the game park.
I actually had to leave the game park once, in a emoragequit way, to finally understand just how pervasive are the non-consentual aspects of this game.
-
Err...a rule is intrinsically non-arbitrary. That's the entire point of establishing a rule, so that you don't have to rely on the capriciousness of individuals. Now, the application of a rule can be arbitrary, but the rule itself...nuh-uh. It can be injust, or ineffective, or disproportionately impactful, or any of a number of other things, but arbitrary is not one of them.
-
That's the whole reason the subject is so wracked by controversy so often. There is no universally agreed standard as to what is OOC and what is IC.
I tend to think that there is no universal standard because persons with a special interest in justifying its breach place it in controversy.
Be careful! Some might think you were showing a willingness to attribute foul motive where there is none.
But actually, that says much the same as I am saying but in a different way. My view is that it's more often the people who preach the Holy Divide who clash with one another because they're engaged in a factional war over which end of the egg should be opened at breakfast.
You can see this all the time. And sometimes it leads to people throwing up their hands and having done with the Church of the Holy Divide.
At this point, I welcome all such to the ranks of apostasy.
"That which your character knows, not that which you can justify your character knowing, is IC."
The edges get a bit blurry, of course, so it's usually best to just stay away from those.
I should say so. But you immediately demonstrate how these rules can be arbitrary. First point: how do you know what your character knows? Second point: knowing what your character knows, well, do you simply assert it? Because I think it's rather more in keeping with community RPing to justify it. Yet your definition throws justification out of the window. Why? It's, I'm sorry, just an arbitrary judgement. That's factually what it is. I say that as neutrally as possible. I don't place a moral tone on the word 'arbitrary'.
The various schools of thought on it may take principled positions, to be sure, but they differ and some people very definitely put out arbitrary 'rules' on the basis of which they then proceed to make moral judgements.
"These are our standards, we think they're good ones, and we believe following them shows good judgment and good sense of fair play."
Not sure I see the problem.
I don't see much of a problem myself. It's still arbitrary though.
I have seen people abuse the OOC/IC divide so many times it isn't funny any more. Particularly noxious are those abuses designed, I say designed to pose the dilemma to people, without their consent, of (a) observing what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and being deprived of their ability to play the game to the full or (b) disregarding what is notionally the holy OOC/IC divide and subsequently having opprobrium heaped on their head from all and sundry.
See, I've never understood the willingness to attribute foul motive where you can't be sure of it.
I've never understood the willingness of many to ignore foul motive just because it can't be proved to the standards of a court of law.
Let's set aside the smokescreen for a minute, here; I think enough time has passed that we can deal with this without acrimony.
What smokescreen that? Some willingness to attribute... you get the point by now...
In our own clash on this subject long ago, Cosmo, Jade and I came at the issue from such completely different angles that it was sort of funny, in a deeply sad way. I don't play this game for power; never have. Consequently, I didn't feel that there was anything remotely invalid about IC-ly saying something harsh about Star Fraction in a "private journal"; all I was doing, from my point of view, was laying out my character's thoughts for the general amusement of the masses. I wasn't acting as some sort of George Will of the fictional blogosphere; I was just offering a glimpse of Aria's thoughts and motives. Heck, to this day, what she's thinking still interests me much more than whether she's right.
I can see Jade's angle on it (I don't share it, but I can see it). What I never understood was the willingness to attribute my actions to malice.
Heck, maybe sometimes they are based in malice. But I've never really observed people to set out to cheat very often, y'know? Some will, obviously, but mostly? Mmmm ... don't think so.
Big confusion here, not helped by this being ancient history and over the years hijacked as an issue to portray those on one side as 'anti-RP', 'RP rapists', etc, etc. I don't recall malice being attributed to you the player. I recall your character being challenged in an IC arena as to her motives in a particular matter. Now, I know what the response is but at the end of the day the 'label' is only going to be respected if there is no suggestion that it is being abused. And this is the central core problem with the Holy Divide.
It gets abused. It is brought into disrepute in the minds of people. And then even those not actually abusing it, as you may very well not have been doing, are caught up in the maelstrom.
Periodically, we get a generational influx of new EVE RPers who all believe instinctively in the IC/OOC divide because they come from RP backgrounds where such things are, let's be honest, essentially regulated and they're immediately faced with the unregulated market in RP and RP standards that is EVE. And the whole thing erupts again.
Even though most old hands have pretty much learned to rub along knowing the various foibles of the other people involved in EVE RP there is neverending refreshment of the controversy. Something I have learned to accept as simply the way it is.
Why that is, well, ludicrous notions such as putting strategically or tactically significant information into the public domain and then expecting it to be ignored because it has a given label pasted on it are at least part of it.
We ignore it the same way and for the same reasons we ignore the content of the Eve novels, Cosmo. CCP has a habit of providing more backstory than our characters can reasonably be aware of. Are we at least agreed that it is not appropriate for our characters to know, for example, the truth behind Jamyl Sarum?
It would be strategically useful from the angle of having our characters figure out what's "really going on," but it's sort of hard to find an immersionist who'll assume such knowledge or a non-immersionist "roleplayer" who cares.
Personally, I've avoided reading the novels; I just don't want to know. And maybe that's the answer to all of this: no more publishing short stories, blogs, etc. Only, that's significantly less fun, and I have to admit that one of my reasons for not reading the novels is that they're ... well ...
I am happy to ignore some things or pretend, for IC purposes, that certain things are not in my knowledge or better to say in the knowledge of my character. I quite agree that this is important in RP. But I'm sorry to say that I don't believe this is something that can be done at the unilateral desire of others.
CCP are the arbiters of what is and isn't PF. They are the only authority we all would acknowledge as RPers. The only one. For me to ignore what they clearly intend to be private knowledge is totally different, as a case, to me ignoring what one individual has presumed, yes presumed, to label as public OOC but private IC without any consultation whatever with anyone else.
Now, for the most part I am happy to observe the Public OOC/Private IC distinction because for the most part people don't deliberately or inadvertently abuse it. They really don't.
But I make no apology for saying that if someone wants to play the nonconsensual game they'd best be prepared for the nonconsensual consequences.
So if someone involves my character in material, without my consent, and labels it Public OOC/Private IC, without my consent, they can pretty much whistle for my respect of the Holy Divide. It doesn't exist because they've embarked on the nonconsensual path by their choice.
This is the key point that people won't swallow. I know why. I can understand it. But people over-react. They think that people who refuse to observe an imposed Holy Divide won't respect any kind of IC/OOC divide. It's balderdash.
Once more: enter into nonconsensual RP with someone else's character outside of the confines of the mechanics of EVE and the official forums and you enter into a wild and unregulated world. You cannot rely on the protection of some arbitrary label round your neck. And any hue and cry about that is totally synthetic.
Cosmo
-
Err...a rule is intrinsically non-arbitrary. That's the entire point of establishing a rule, so that you don't have to rely on the capriciousness of individuals. Now, the application of a rule can be arbitrary, but the rule itself...nuh-uh. It can be injust, or ineffective, or disproportionately impactful, or any of a number of other things, but arbitrary is not one of them.
I think the notion that rules are always intrinisically non-arbitrary would be disputed by very many people. I certainly think you would find a long list of people to oppose you who had been on the wrong end of an arbitrary rule.
If a rule is established by the arbitrary choice of one party then it's simply an arbitrary rule.
Possibly you could argue that it's not, in fact, a rule. I wouldn't have difficulty with that if you wanted to define matters in that way.
Possibly you could argue a good rule is not arbitrary and again I don't think I would oppose you on principle there.
But no rules are ever arbitrary no matter how or by whom they are established? No, I'm sorry, I must differ with you on that.
Cosmo
-
At the end of the day, no matter how many times this subject came up in the past, now, or in the future. Or how long or thought out the post is at twisting semantics over a concept so simple.
The people who argue about these rules are usually the powergamers. They desire power. They desire to 'win' the RPG. To push the envelope in what they are able to do in front of their peers without them pointing their fingers in contempt. And when the said standard becomes lowered and everyone stoops to such a level, it gets pushed again so the powergamer can again have the edge against its flailing opponents.
I don't know what else to say in this as I know whatever I will say, someone else will spin such a reason to weave in and justify their own means. And its fairly dissapointing.
-
That's the whole reason the subject is so wracked by controversy so often. There is no universally agreed standard as to what is OOC and what is IC.
I tend to think that there is no universal standard because persons with a special interest in justifying its breach place it in controversy.
Be careful! Some might think you were showing a willingness to attribute foul motive where there is none.
Heh. Cute.
It doesn't take a foul motive, though, unless you consider "maintaining the ability to use all available resources to collect and protect power" a "foul motive."
It's a motive I don't share, but that doesn't make it "foul."
But actually, that says much the same as I am saying but in a different way. My view is that it's more often the people who preach the Holy Divide who clash with one another because they're engaged in a factional war over which end of the egg should be opened at breakfast.
Aren't you trivializing it rather unnecessarily? The way I roleplay affects your roleplay; the way you roleplay affects my roleplay. We're sort of all in this together, which is what makes this such a sticky issue.
I should say so. But you immediately demonstrate how these rules can be arbitrary.
Let's keep in mind that "arbitrary" does not mean "vague." It means "random" and, usually, unreasonable.
First point: how do you know what your character knows?
Can be tricky, but usually it's just a "reasonable judgment" question. You know what your character would reasonably know. (You'd be amazed how often this comes up in real laws. Negligence, for example, is based on a "reasonable person" standard.)
Second point: knowing what your character knows, well, do you simply assert it? Because I think it's rather more in keeping with community RPing to justify it. Yet your definition throws justification out of the window. Why?
If you know, factually, that your character would know it, you probably shouldn't have to "make up" a justification. How do you know New Caldari is the capital system of the Caldari State? Uh, I learned it in school. How do you know Timmy fell down the well? Frank told me. How do you know that Ushra'Khan isn't NBSI anymore? Well, they announced it.
Maybe I'm not seeing the problem you're getting at-- could you provide an example?
It's, I'm sorry, just an arbitrary judgement. That's factually what it is. I say that as neutrally as possible. I don't place a moral tone on the word 'arbitrary'.
This is one of those spots where you don't but the whole wide world does. Might I suggest "personal judgement?" Or "vague?" Or "unclear," as the situation demands?
"Arbitrary" goes a good bit beyond any of these, meaning essentially "pulled out of a hat."
I've never understood the willingness of many to ignore foul motive just because it can't be proved to the standards of a court of law.
Meh. In my experience, people are at their worst while they're standing on supposedly high principle (myself occasionally included). They rarely act with a "bwahaha" actually in mind, though maybe some mischievous snickering.
So, I tend to assume people mean well until they demonstrate otherwise.
What smokescreen that? Some willingness to attribute... you get the point by now...
Again, not malice. This is an old issue between us, and the forum rules forbid acrimonious confrontations. There's a whole stack of reasons to dance around it.
I don't recall malice being attributed to you the player.
Me, Omerta (mostly Omerta; the theory at the time was that Yuki and Kale had put me up to it) ...
... Jade's comments on Chatsubo, when I finally read them a couple years back, were kind of a revelation.
I recall your character being challenged in an IC arena as to her motives in a particular matter.
Yep. I mishandled that, or it wouldn't even have gotten through, there. The posting was a violation of IGS rules, which do (or, at least, did; haven't checked lately) respect the "holy divide"; I just misplayed my hand by responding to the challenge and thus ratifying the otherwise forbidden action.
But that's not where most of the outrage was cropping up, turns out.
It gets abused.
Maybe sometimes.
It is brought into disrepute in the minds of people.
Cosmo, I have got to ask-- where do you get your word-choice habits? You've got a very elevated manner of speech; I mean, I talk like a dictionary (well, an American dictionary), but you go way, way beyond that. Are you classically educated?
And then even those not actually abusing it, as you may very well not have been doing, are caught up in the maelstrom.
Sometimes. It seems to me like it's worth the risk.
Periodically, we get a generational influx of new EVE RPers who all believe instinctively in the IC/OOC divide because they come from RP backgrounds where such things are, let's be honest, essentially regulated and they're immediately faced with the unregulated market in RP and RP standards that is EVE. And the whole thing erupts again.
Not sure it ever dies down. I've never found it at all difficult to find other experienced "immersionists" who take the divide seriously, at least in their own actions. The arguing may end, but that doesn't mean everyone's switched sides.
I am happy to ignore some things or pretend, for IC purposes, that certain things are not in my knowledge or better to say in the knowledge of my character. I quite agree that this is important in RP. But I'm sorry to say that I don't believe this is something that can be done at the unilateral desire of others.
Mm. "Unilateral desire of others" is another one of those subtly misleading phrases-- it makes it sound like they're just saying, "And the entire last half-hour of intense roleplay is now to be considered OOC knowledge, because I just said so."
... as opposed to, say, "Hey guys. This is my in-character blog. These are my character's private thoughts, so even though this log does actually exist somewhere in Eve, please don't use its contents in-character." Then he goes and posts something unflattering about another character, who proceeds to whang him on the head with a frying pan the next time they meet in The Last Gate, following that with a wardec.
Now, that's a sort of extreme example, of course. More likely it'll be something subtle; one that gets me in trouble is when somebody tells me about their character's background in an OOC conversation, and a year and a half later I end up inadvertently using that detail for some purpose or other. See, that's bad. It is not good. I should not be doing that. It's entirely understandable and, I hope, excusable that I end up doing that, but it is bad, and as a result I've started kinda trying to avoid situations where that could happen, such as, say, looking at stuff Aria shouldn't know.
... if someone involves my character in material, without my consent, and labels it Public OOC/Private IC, without my consent, they can pretty much whistle for my respect of the Holy Divide. It doesn't exist because they've embarked on the nonconsensual path by their choice.
Terminology again. "Involves" implies that your character is, in some way, inherently entangled in it. Like, he figures in a story or something. On the other hand, if I just write something unflattering in a blog containing my character's private thoughts, how is your character really "involved?"
Sure, there's a chance of someone coming by, reading it, and developing a negative OOC impression because of it. But then, there's also no rule preventing you from going and making your own OOC blog, and writing similarly negative impressions about the perpetrator.
They think that people who refuse to observe an imposed Holy Divide won't respect any kind of IC/OOC divide. It's balderdash.
I think it's more that they think those who refuse to observe an "imposed Holy Divide" (another bit of loaded terminology) will fail to respect it when it matters. Say, upon stumbling across some truly damaging bit of strictly OOC information.
That is what's really at stake.
And any hue and cry about that is totally synthetic.
Granted, any kind of border is to some degree "synthetic," but that doesn't make it useless, bad, or lacking in a point. The failure of actors on TV to notice the missing "fourth wall" is synthetic. England as a nation state is synthetic. So is France.
An immersionist environment in a setting like Eve will, necessarily, be synthetic because we have to make it. My objection to breaches of the divide is not that it is "holy." It's that it severs suspension of disbelief, forcing this world into that world in a most obtrusive and unwelcome way.
It taints the setting, and the fact that the setting is already heavily tainted in this way doesn't make that a good thing.
My own angle on it is that what I mark as OOC, I have marked as OOC for a reason: because that info is sufficiently unobtainable that any claim to have obtained it is functionally godmoding. That is an angle with which, at last check, CCP's IGS mods agree.
The boundary is real, and I will enforce it in my own case with the tools at my disposal. The larger game is not regulated; that is true. The IGS, however, is.
-
What's to spin?
The facts are simple. This community is fractured on this question. And it's not just a simple single fracture. It's compound.
As to the concept. It's not a simple concept. It's a sophisticated concept. It may be simple to explain, in one variant or another, but its implications are very complex. You may accuse me of spin but from other people, and I don't call your motives into question, Arvo, because I think you're genuinely disappointed by how RP in EVE works when it comes to the players co-operating with one another, but from others, I have seen this argument too: the concept is simple so anyone arguing about it must be a powergamer (or worse).
However, you make an interesting remark that touches on one of the central problems when it comes to EVE. It's not a pen and paper roleplay game. It's not a storytelling roleplay game. It's not even a live roleplay game.
It's a RPWG. A roleplaying wargame.
And that is something some are in deep denial about despite everything about this game and every piece of major PF and every pronouncement from CCP pointing inexorably to the fact that this game we play is a MMORPWG.
People want to win? Of course. It's war. What else are they expected to desire?
The 'it's bad to want to win' side to the debate is really pretty hard for me to understand given the game we are playing.
I'd be with people who take that view to the hilt if this were Universalis or Talecraft forged into an MMO. But it ain't. It's EVE.
Cosmo
-
I'm gonna assume you mean 'people on the wrong end' to mean ones who have a moral claim against the results dictated by the rule. (If not, say something.) In that case, the rule is not arbitrary, but unfair. Arbitrary often leads to unfair, but they are not equivalent.
Now, the original statement that kicked this discussion off referred to the rule itself as arbitrary, not the establishment of the rule. A rule can absolutely be established arbitrarily. That doesn't make it an arbitrary rule. Arbitrary generally means subject to the whims of an individual or random chance. If the king of EVEland decrees one day that "Everyone must eat cookies at 1200 server time," then it's the arbitrary establishment of a rule. In order for the rule itself to be arbitrary, it would have to read "Everyone must eat cookies at 1200 server time, unless I say otherwise." In that case it's not even a rule at all, it's just the king deciding at 1200 server time every day whether we must eat cookies or not. (Granted, in the absence of a countermanding royal decree, the default position prevails, but in that case the king still decided to not issue it.)
Can I ask how you would formulate the rules you think are being proposed by the two sides here? Because I'm willing to bet that you're stating them differently than I would, which would probably help explain where you see arbitrariness and I don't.
-
It's a RPWG. A roleplaying wargame.
Ah! And here our differences are summed up in a nutshell.
Eve, as a game, is about a whole pile of things. It's been described as a "market simulator with a spaceship game tacked on." It's got heavy scientific and manufacturing components; it's got various salvaging operations and so on.
But, it certainly does involve a lot of fighting. Our characters are, broadly speaking, killers, virtually without exception.
But in another sense, it's also a game about individual characters and individual stories. Every single player's story has its own "main character"-- and they're not all predominantly war stories. It's a world, and every character has, or has the potential for, a story.
We're telling stories to ourselves, and to each other. And in some sense, the only way to "win Eve" is to be satisfied with whatever story you've wound up telling.
'Cause, let's face it, BoB and Goonswarm's intentions aside, you're not, repeat, not going to be able to win it all. Those of us who are immersionists have an even lower chance of that than most. By being such, we basically turn in our "major power" cards at the office.
Not absolutely. But pretty close. There has never been, and probably will never be, an immersionist BoB, AAA, or Goonswarm. We're too fractious and we simply lack the numbers.
So-- if the war is, in the end, The Game, being an immersionist is accepting a massive handicap from the outset. As such, we might as well enjoy what we have, which is to say, the stories we are telling.
-
Oh, ye gods.
I regret very much bringing this topic up - I only did so to be fair to those who knew my previous beliefs.
-
No, I'm not confusing 'unfair' and 'arbitrary'. We just disagree on this aspect of moral philosophy is what it comes down to.
A rule can absolutely be established arbitrarily. That doesn't make it an arbitrary rule.
That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.
You're adopting an approach that essentially defines rules as non-arbitrary by their very nature. That's fine but I don't think that's the type of 'rule' we are dealing with here.
Rather, laying aside the debatable case of whether a rule can ever be arbitrary, I think we're talking about a convention and I really hope we're not going to be told that conventions can never be arbitrary because otherwise the discussion is going to be between two sets of people with different languages. That is, impossible to transact.
The main reason there is an arbitrary dimension is that the exact drawing of the line is arbitrary. That drawing of the line is the rule or the convention and where the line is drawn is used to make judgements about people's play. I say that if the line if drawn in an arbitrary way those judgements are arbitrary. This is even the more so when, as is usual with this issue, the judgements are being made by the people drawing the line. It's actually almost always what happens and the line is constantly being shifted about and redrawn. If that's not arbitrary I really wonder what is.
Cosmo
-
Aria,
I know some find quote-by-quote useful to order their posts but that one takes it to a degree I can't respond to in the same way.
Your question about my word choice and am I classically educated. The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well. On the other hand, I am certainly versed in the arts and humanities to some degree. So much for that. (But incidentally, I the player know all about the history of the terminology of hysteria as I actually studied the history of medicine at one point... ;) )
Now, you say the IGS rules respect the Holy Divide. They do. But, and here is paradox, these incidents are extremely rare on IGS. They're actually fairly rare full-stop. The few that happen are blown out of all proportion because, well, let's leave it at people like to argue about this stuff for whatever reason.
I don't think the rules have been tested to anything like the degree that would be needed to divine the mod's mind on potential abuse of the Holy Divide. I don't much want it to be either. Suffice to say, I've seen OOC stuff get left on IGS enough times by mods that I somewhat doubt you can be secure in your reliance on the mods when it comes to public OOC/private OOC material and the suppression or control of contretemps over such on IGS.
On trivialization. I tell you what, and here's the tragedy for me personally, I take this issue quite seriously and I think you would find that I am one of those 'immersionists' you could trust to respect the Holy Divide, assuming you take my preferences into account as, in all courtesy, I took into account your own. I think it is has been in one sense trivialized because it has become a political football in the metagame. It's no longer really a serious issue on which people strive to reach common accord. This is rooted in ancient conflicts but, as you say, it's never really gone away and it erupts from time to time, reinforcing the sense that there's no true commonality to be found. Into that vacuum floods the arbitrary standpoints because, to function as RPers, everyone needs some sort of understanding of the IC/OOC interface.
My view is that it is a fuzzy interface and I never see any trouble from it other than is caused by a belief and an assertion that it is a line chiselled in the stone floor of the ampitheatre over which no man or woman may cross.
Another personal tragedy is that because people won't accept a fuzzy aspect to the divide, in reaction, and self-defence, some of us respond by making our position clear and simple. So, for example, I say that if my character features in the RP material of others without my consent that I reserve to myself the right to respond nonconsensually. Now, the truth is that it would be much better for me to take a fuzzy-line approach and say, 'I don't mind in general but if it starts to get clearly adversarial or used in such and such a manner, I won't be respecting your right to label it OOC information.' But there's no atmosphere of co-operation in the first place.
The general situation is summed up by the incident when one rather prominent RPer I will not name told me that to be proper RPers we had to do X, Y and Z. We weren't allowed to offer up conditions of co-operation A, B and C. No, it was all, this or you're not RPers. Why on earth should anyone put up with that?
On the wargame and storytelling. You know, I completely agree that storytelling is important but the context is that of a game of war. It can be military war, economic war, political war, whatever but, in the end, it's war. That is what EVE is all about. Would it be interesting without roleplay and storytelling? No, not particularly. I must admit, I couldn't see myself playing the game of EVE on the basis of its unvarnished game mechanics for more than 6 months if that's all there was to it. Plainly there is more but, I do think, in the end, the framework is essentially one of conflict: war. Incidentally, just because one can't win it all is not a reason to not try to win in some way that makes sense in the context of the game.
Incidentally, BoB was pretty 'immersionist' once upon a time. I kid ye not. To tell the truth, before people started thinking there was a real divide between RPers and other players of EVE, 0.0 politics and warfare in general was fairly 'immersionist'.
I could ventilate my views on the guilty when it comes to that dire change but it is probably pointless as there was an inevitability to it all as EVE grew ever larger. Still a great shame.
Cosmo
-
The main reason there is an arbitrary dimension is that the exact drawing of the line is arbitrary. That drawing of the line is the rule or the convention and where the line is drawn is used to make judgements about people's play. I say that if the line if drawn in an arbitrary way those judgements are arbitrary. This is even the more so when, as is usual with this issue, the judgements are being made by the people drawing the line. It's actually almost always what happens and the line is constantly being shifted about and redrawn. If that's not arbitrary I really wonder what is.
I have a video for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30x8VTCaOws
-
Probably fair comment but I have a better video that sums it all up.
The Terrible Secret of Space (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E0ot9iJm_k&NR=1)
Enjoy!
Cos
-
The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well.
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/
Not at all. It's a process of learning, not so much a specifics of language. It is language-based learning, but it doesn't need to be Latin and/or Greek.
-
The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well.
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/
Not at all. It's a process of learning, not so much a specifics of language. It is language-based learning, but it doesn't need to be Latin and/or Greek.
Ah well, you see, this is a terminological confusion as a classical education would to me mean an education in the classics, reading and translating from the Latin and Ancient Greek being part of such an education in the classics.
I find that is still an accepted sense of the term in common parlance in the UK. Possibly this is one of those cross-Atlantic confusions.
Cosmo
-
Actually I believe it mostly stems from a recent adjustment of the terminology itself, as 10-15 years ago classical education (though otherwise the same) did require reading the majority of latin/greek classics in their original language, and the multi-lingual aspect was to improve the classical mind.
In recent years, however, I think partly to attempt to reconfigure the rather poor schooling systems in many countries, they've adjusted it to primarily refer to the technique used in classical education, but with a more pertinent curriculum, making it more approachable to kids these days.
-
And also, for the record, as one who spent a great deal of time in high school having to read and write reports on Pliny the Elder's works in the original Latin in his Latin III class -- thank God, because you have not been introduced to a linguistic nightmare until you have tried to translate early-period Latin (or Japanese from what I hear) into English, because they could throw all the words into a container, shake them up, spill them on the table, and the sentence didn't change.
So often they did.
-
It's a matter of regret to me that I wasn't educated in Latin or Ancient Greek. Possibly more regret the latter as I am a fan of the Presocratics but there it is.
Cos
-
In all honesty you do not lose a great deal. The majority of loss is that you have an interpretation of the text that is not wholely your own, as much of the language won't directly translate. Alternatively, your interpretation would not necessarily be correct either, so six of one, half dozen of the other so to speak.
Latin is an interesting language, though. I don't remember much of it as there isn't exactly a great deal of use in being fluent in Latin, and so 16 years later I can barely remember basic declinations and conjugations. ;)
-
There is something in what you say, especially from my perspective as a philosopher*, given that reading of multiple interpretations is usual before coming to your own view.
Still, I can't help but feel it would be nice to read them in the original. Ah well.
Cos
* This is possibly where the whiff of a 'classical education' comes from, my university education was as a philosopher.
-
(http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif)
-
*may have done that on purpose*
-
Game first, roleplay second.
What that means is you're a player first and always in control, and the choice always begins with you. The character can't say or behave without your fingers making the clicks and tapping on the keyboard. It means your needs as a player come before your characters, and it also means that you as a player have to decide how you want to interact with others to achieve your optimal entertainment level.
Having expectations of others to abide by your personal standards and rules is asking for disappointment. Expect the lowest common denominator and be genuinely surprised when people raise the bar. That doesn't necessarily mean lowering your own behavior to make a point; you can't WIN an issue where one side clearly doesn't want to be flexible.
It's certainly our prerogative to decide how we handle these situations. I don't necessarily agree with it, because I know that I'm always in control of my own behavior and I decide who makes an impact on my experience were I am allowed to enforce consensual behavior (ie, who i roleplay with and whether they can impact me) . I certainly wouldn't let someone's inability to draw a respectable ic/ooc boundary to impact my goals, especially for concern about someone trying to 'besmirch' my 'reputation' (whatever the hell that is). Although that's not entirely true: even if i did have the inclination to write a blog/journal IC I wouldn't do it because of past meta-gaming experiences.
Is it 1200 yet? I'm hungry...
-
That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.
No need. I'll grant that RP rules are arbitrary if established arbitrarily. But in that case, the decision rule you propose, which as near as I can tell is more or less "RP as if your character knows everything you do" is established just as arbitrarily as its negation. (Which I happen to advocate.)
-
That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.
No need. I'll grant that RP rules are arbitrary if established arbitrarily. But in that case, the decision rule you propose, which as near as I can tell is more or less "RP as if your character knows everything you do" is established just as arbitrarily as its negation. (Which I happen to advocate.)
Quite correct regarding the equivalent arbitrariness of that rule (or indeed any other someone wants to promulgate without agreement). You'll note that I don't place any particular negative slant to these things being fairly arbitrary in this context. It's simply the way it is. It is people who think there is a universality to the Holy Divide that may not be challenged that don't like it when people say that individual drawings of where the divide lies are arbitrary.
However, I have to correct you: I have not advocated the rule you describe and I think it is a caricature of my position. It's actually the typical caricature but I'm assuming in this case the caricature is innocent and I haven't explained my position well enough.
All I've said, I think, is that if someone wants to engage in nonconsensual RP involving my character outside the confines of the game then they should be on notice that I may respond with some nonconsensual RP of my own that will not recognise labels they have unilaterally affixed to the material in question. This is a fairly narrow position compared to 'RP as if your character knows what you know' as a general rule. My broader position is that if I think as a player someone is abusing the IC/OOC divide concept then I will not necessarily respect their reliance on it to gain an abusive advantage over me. It takes quite a bit for me to conclude such abuse, I should add.
That largely theoretical position – given I haven't personally had to actually use it in anger, as it were, except arguably in one somewhat contentious case – is where I should probably leave matters as I sense repetition creeping into what I am saying in a thread that some would probably say has roamed way beyond its original remit.
I'll just end by saying what I always say in these discussions at some point: different RP standards != no RP standards. If that could be accepted and understood, really accepted and understood mind you, by everyone concerned then we wouldn't have a tenth of the disputes that have erupted over the years. Sadly I now think, after years of watching this eternal debate, that the negation of that point is ineradicable in the minds of many. Certainly, most disputes involve people acting and speaking as if they believe different RP standards = no RP standards. Talk of a 'lowest common denominator' being the source of the trouble is just, as I see it, a variation on that theme in the end.
Cosmo
-
Well I did ask for a formulation of the rule you were advocating and you didn't answer. :P So I put up the caricature to force the question.
In the end, neither that position nor its negation (or opposite, since that's obviously impossible) is held by anyone. The baseline is always "RP as if your character knew some of the things you did," with a bunch of follow-on decision rules explaining what exactly to use and what not to.
Myself, I think the "Holy Divide," as you so pointedly put it, has enough positive effects that it's worth respecting even if somebody else refuses to.
Like not starting threadnaughts all the time, for starters. :D
-
I actually am of Doyle's opinion as of the moment.
I roleplay, and I can do so frequently. I participate in the storyline.
But I, as a player, only do so because I find it fun. If I didn't find it fun, my character wouldn't be doing much of anything, would he?
Thus, i do fun things in the game. My character is then roleplayed doing those things, given certain motivations, background, context, etc. He interacts in the language and terminology of the universe. He expresses emotions, empathy, and anger in ways I, the player, do not.
However, I the player still have emotions, that shape my perception of 'fun', which in turn controls my character's actions. i steer away from things I don't view fun, like sovreignty or POS tower management. My character's motivations might simply be 'money', 'duty', or 'plans', but they're all under my control. He simply plays the tune to the rhythm I set out as the player.