Print

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

[Arvo Katsuya]

Don't you all get it yet?

Oh, its just a grand scheme to get more of us to hate Jade, and to read the shenanigans they come up with. I believe this whole proxy thing was intentional, and everyone is eatting it up alive. Just so more of the word 'hypocrite' can be droned out. So as long as someone posts, its attention... even bad attention is still attention.

The problem is, we (as in the RP community as a whole) let it happen. We let there be seven threads involving Star Fraction and company dominate the front page of the IGS, and discourage the rest of the community who wants nothing to do with that part of the community, to look elsewhere for RP. The IGS - The InterGalactic Summit - is supposed to be a medium of diplomacy. For many of us, would we allow it realistically IC'ly to turn it into a playground for insults, accusations, and one-ups? And this will continue to happen on EVE until people simply stop caring about it.

Or else, we let the drama bleed into this very board, whose very existance was to create an enviroment to escape it and promote a more amicable one. And much like the very lesson that is to be learned from the current event is self-awareness of one's surroundings... this should also extend to how we present ourselves with this situation.

We move on.

(Note: I do understand the need for drama in roleplay. It's very necessary, as is conflict. However, there is a difference between the IC drama, and the raging OOC kind. Be mindful of differentiating the two.)

[The Cosmopolite]

Ah.

Thank you, Jakiin, that seems straightforward. So it's not a principle, for Jakiin, that web addresses underlying images or links on IGS are considered IC.

Rather, the IC/OOC divide can be crossed at will depending on past IC actions of given characters and crucially Jakiin is the judge of that. In this case, Jakiin judges that it is acceptable based on what he has outlined.

At least this is what Jakiin seems to be saying. Perhaps I am wrong but if not Jakiin at least would probably give the player in my example an arbitrary get out based on his view of that player's characters. It's a point of view. An unusual one though. So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologise. I am not sure what else it means though.


Others seem to be saying that it is a principle that web addresses on IGS are considered to be IC (including those that appear in signatures).
Additionally, they are saying, it seems to me, that when web addresses on IGS connect two or more characters together it is an IC fact and can be used to draw IC conclusions.
Additionally, they appear to also be saying that comparison of materials held at web addresses on IGS that connect characters can be used to draw IC conclusions about those characters.

All this seems to follow from the view that the web addresses themselves are IC. My difficulty is that I don't understand why the web addresses are IC just because they underly images and links on IGS.

All that is required to make web links comprehensible IC is the IC recognition that a web link is a link. It is not necessary, IC, to understand the encoding of the link.

Many here seem to be claiming that they do understand, IC, the encoding of the link and that this encoding is legitimate IC knowledge.

That has consequences. And while Jakiin is entitled to what I take to be his view (subject to correction), I think that either this is legitimate IC knowledge in all cases (in which case the player in my example has no defence) or in none (in which case the player in my example can count on the support of other RPers to ignore the breach of the IC/OOC divide).

Otherwise, it's all arbitrary and we're left with precisely no IC/OOC divide in this area.

I have to say I am still amazed that I am apparently seeing this said.

Cosmo

PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.

[mod]Please construct your own points, and if you are unclear about someone else's point ask for clarification. Don't create posts that make assumptions about what other people think. Please review the FAQ.Covering by saying things like 'subject to correction' or 'I don't know what else to understand' doesn't excuse this kind of posting.[/mod]

[Lillith Blackheart]

PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.

You're misrepresenting my statements. My statements are that when the venue is dedicated IC, such as IGS, then it is not crossing the IC/OOC divide. It is using a strictly IC venue's content IC. Alternatively, it is not using it OOC. Jade's actions are no reason for someone to take offense at Jade in an OOC manner since his actions were entirely IC.

Hence why I approve of both behaviors.

The way to understand that statement is that, ICly, one should expect greater flak for ICly decrying a particular type of behavior and then taking part in it.

[mod]Referenced moderated post.[/mod]

[Jakiin]

Ah.

Thank you, Jakiin, that seems straightforward. So it's not a principle, for Jakiin, that web addresses underlying images or links on IGS are considered IC.

Rather, the IC/OOC divide can be crossed at will depending on past IC actions of given characters and crucially Jakiin is the judge of that. In this case, Jakiin judges that it is acceptable based on what he has outlined.

At least this is what Jakiin seems to be saying. Perhaps I am wrong but if not Jakiin at least would probably give the player in my example an arbitrary get out based on his view of that player's characters. It's a point of view. An unusual one though. So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologise. I am not sure what else it means though.

Another thing I might be saying with this is 'Don't try to sell it like Shaw was an independent character'. Of course that's only if someone interprets your post as attempting to do so, which is of course a matter of opinion.

But yes, in general I feel that if someone relies a lot on declaring some of their detractors spineless insect proxies as use in public relations they should be cautious when using proxies themselves. Or, optimally, not use them at all

Additionally, I have said previously in this thread that I do believe galnet would operate much like the internet. For instance, file hosting. An image, quite simply, must reside somewhere, whether that be on private or public servers.

 Wherever possible, we've tried to mirror OOC necessities with IC explanations. I don't live in a seperate timezone, I set a different sleep cycle. I don't have a job, I have planetside affairs. I'm not logging off, I'm disconnecting/exiting my pod. We've even linked these to things that aren't necessary but exist nonetheless. Such as alts. False IDs, clonejacks, these things are common. We all acknowledge IC that these originally OOC things exist. JC is, certainly, no exception. So we accept there are false persons running around.

So why would an exception be made to file hosting? This is what you're apparently telling us: That we should ignore the fact the images are shared on the same private server, despite the fact that image hosting and private servers would bothmost certainly exist in the EVE IC universe. I'm sorry, but I don't actually see a reason for that.[/quote]

Many here seem to be claiming that they do understand, IC, the encoding of the link and that this encoding is legitimate IC knowledge.

Would that be the unstated IC and non-existent OOC encoding we're apparently supposed to assume exists unless told otherwise?

That has consequences. And while Jakiin is entitled to what I take to be his view (subject to correction), I think that either this is legitimate IC knowledge in all cases (in which case the player in my example has no defence) or in none (in which case the player in my example can count on the support of other RPers to ignore the breach of the IC/OOC divide).

Otherwise, it's all arbitrary and we're left with precisely no IC/OOC divide in this area.

I have to say I am still amazed that I am apparently seeing this said.

No defence aside from registering on a public image hosting server, no.


And really? How does this lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide amaze you in ways that JC's lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide do not?


[mod]References moderated material. Usually I would just snip, but I didn't feel comfortable trying to find a place to seperate. Please feel free to repost constructively. This goes for everyone else who was moderated as well.[/mod]

[Silver Night]

[admin]I don't generally like to use *snip* style moderation, and where possible I haven't. There were places where I have used it (the quotes in this post) because the rest of a given post was constructive and contributed to the discussion. If you prefer for your post in its entirety to be removed, let me know. Similarly, if your post was removed, but you feel there were constructive elements, please feel free to re-word it to be within the guidelines and re-post.[/admin]

...

Ironically because this is obviously an area where my take on the IC/OOC divide is more purist than members of Backstage.

...

Quite ironic that this is an area where SF has higher(different) standards than you guys.

[mod]Please avoid over-generalizations. Statements of superiority are inflammatory.[/mod]

...

It's about covering one's tracks, otherwise why not just use your primary?

You often rail on people about proxies and whatnot, how are your standards higher, exactly, that you will charge most any new player that dissents against the Fraction as being proxies with little evidence, but someone with actual evidence of a proxy for the faction is doing something wrong?

It strikes me that you're mostly upset that you got caught for being careless in covering your tracks effectively.

[mod]Avoid assigning motivations to other members.[/mod]

That's what you're all saying. I just want to be clear about it.

I kind of *shrug* to be perfectly honest but if that's how you all want it, I guess that's how you all want it.

As for the wider logical consequences of what is now being said: that details of webhosting, comparison of webhosted materials and webhosting addresses linked OOC to characters can be used to draw IC conclusions... well, I am amazed.

[mod]Please avoid over-generalization. Please also avoid straw men. Noone likes words being put in their mouths. [/mod]

[Ciarente]

Besides, some things are just too good to pass up. When someone rants against something and then does that same thing, bending the IC/OOC divide a little is acceptable I think.

[mod] Aspersion cast on another player, flame-bait and/or trolling. Just don't.  [/mod]

[Ciarente]

Obviously the backstage people think what you did is okay.

[mod]Please avoid over-generalization, tarring-with-same-brush etc, as it's inflammatory and unhelpful.[/mod]

[Ciarente]

 I been roleplaying on MMO's since 96 /  Ultima online & even before that on table tops... & never once had someone do that...

[mod]Please read the FAQ [/mod]

[Ciarente]

It could be argued then that every Blog/Twitter/Facebook/what have you that I can trace through a poster on the IGS is fair game.

Myrhial for example has a blog. Lovely I can use that. I can also use all those succulent links to other blogs on the right hand side to form connections and use those posts IC should I want to.
It says private on something. Well it's right there in front of my face, that's not very private.

If it was private then it should've been hidden better.

I'm sure that by now you get my point.

[mod]Please avoid straw man arguments[/mod]

[Ciarente]

as wheter I'm allowed to use any and all resources presented to me in an IC format or if not, which are allowed and why.

[mod]This was not the topic under discussion, and is still a straw man[/mod]

[Ciarente]

but Constantine has for so long and so vehemently declared proxies the tools of cowards, maggots, etc. etc. etc., combined with JC's infamous willingness to blrr the IC/OOC divide, that it's damned hard to accept that we should let this propaganda-alt usage go past when the fact there's 'clonejacks' running around is a well accepted IC fact.

[mod]A character's actions are not a justification for OOC action; do not use inflammatory or insulting language towards other players.  [/mod]

[Ciarente]

Someone has two different characters. They want to roleplay them as different and not connected to one another. Just that, nothing super-secret or involving any kind of subterfuge. They're just an EVE player who fancies dipping into two different aspect of RP.

The player makes some sigs for their two characters. Hosts them, naturally enough, at the same URL without really giving it much thought, and carries on RPing and enjoying themselves for a year or so, crafting through actual roleplay in channels, on IGS and in space separate identities with no connection.

And then, a clever-minded inquisitor comes along, decides to play trace the signature game on a variety of characters and finds out that these two characters must be played by the same person.

They then expose this in an 'IC' way on IGS and that player's characters have no recourse to a defence that this was OOC information?

They're linked, IC, and there is nothing that can be done about it?

How do you honestly feel about this Cosmo? What is your opinion? Do you feel this situation is different than when Jade accuses others of being posting proxys? Why or why not?

[mod]Provocative, flamebait, casting nasturtiums on other players etc etc. [/mod]

[Ciarente]

entirely IC and

kind of OOC-tainted

[mod]Opinion presented as fact. Please read the FAQ [/mod]

[Silver Night]

PS. I note that, apparently Lillith also thinks that IC behaviour has a bearing on whether or not an IC/OOC divide is observed. Again, I don't know how else to understand: 'And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.' – other than as a claim that IC behaviour can modify the drawing of the IC/OOC divide. What else can it mean? Perhaps I'll be told but it's a very strange concept.

You're misrepresenting my statements.

I think it is better to say that I misinterpreted them and you have now explained them further, correcting my interpretation:

[mod]Referenced moderated material[/mod]

 And really? How does this lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide amaze you in ways that JC's lack of respect for the IC/OOC divide do not?

Ironically its becoming rather apparent that I seem to have a greater respect for the IC/OOC divide in Eve Roleplay than many others (especially on the issue of ooc web host addresses).

[mod]References modded material. Claims of superiority inflammatory and non-constructive.[/mod]

[Silver Night]

[admin]Thread cleaned vigorously. Please review the Mission Statement, Rules and FAQ if you aren't clear on the posting behavior expected on Backstage.[/admin]