Print

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

[Jade Constantine]

I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.

I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.

[Rodj Blake]

Bah, doublepost

[Rodj Blake]

I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.

I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.

It's certainly not my intention to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if I've caused you any offense.  I'm sure that everyone here is capable of making up their own minds about what's happened in the past without any further back and forth between the two of us.

So I'll ask you one final time: will you agree to avoid any future mentions of proxies, clone jacks etc on the IGS?

[Saede Riordan]

I will ask you both to stop attacking me personally over my roleplay IC. I don't believe its warrented here.

I have not done the things you are accusing me of and I can't see the motive for you behaving in this way other than trying to wind me up.

Okay fine, fine, not trying to attack you personally, fine then, if its just Jade Constantine, the character that's doing this, then you the player should have no issue admitting, OOCly, that Jade the character is making unfounded accusations. Because she is. If you do have problems with this, then I think we're seeing the tip of a much deeper buried problem.

I see it come back to this:
1. IC Jade makes accusations of people being proxies/alts/cousins/minions/whatever
2. IC Shaw is used to fap over Jade's awesome
3. OOCly, someone notices they are the same person and calls them out on it IC
4. OOCly, Jade claims this is an unfounded attack on his character

I think this is all going to come down to how people see the legitimacy of 3, a lot of people have already stated that they claim this is a fair tactic, I happen to be one of them, and if something similar happened with one of my characters, I'd throw my hands up and say, fine, you caught me. But it all comes down to three.

Note: I think this is also partly an issue with people's perceptions of Jade the character. Jade the character attacks people and claims they're nothing but posting proxies on a regular basis, then is called out on doing it herself. Regardless of the context it is brought up in, I still see this as a wee bit of an issue, and have a solution,
PlayerJade: Come out OOCly, and admit that IC Jade is a hypocrite. Currently it seems like you're attempting to defend your character, which is making you look like a hypocrite. Whereas if you came out and said "my character has some issues, I accept that" people would have a lot more respect for you, and 99% of these issues would vanish.

[Jade Constantine]

If I see a character on IGS behaving like a shill, proxy, hireling, agent etc of another than I will respond as I see fit and address the issue in a fully IC manner.

I will not be using OOC website address links (and lets agree its OOC now since IGS forum moderation has decided in my favour okay?) to make my points from some belief that "conviction" / "winning at all costs" is more important than simply roleplaying naturally without all the nonsense.

Ultimately this is a matter where players must look to their own conscience and decide their play styles in ways appropriate to their personal choice and gaming morality.

[Jade Constantine]

3. OOCly, someone notices they are the same person and calls them out on it IC

I think this is all going to come down to how people see the legitimacy of 3, a lot of people have already stated that they claim this is a fair tactic, I happen to be one of them...

Yes and you are in the 73.3% majority of Backstage responders who supported this tactic. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that it is against the rules of IC posting on IGS and all reference to those links has been removed so CCP would appear to disagree with Backstage on this issue.

But it all comes down to three. PlayerJade: Come out OOCly, and admit that IC Jade is a hypocrite.

Why would I when she clearly isn't.

But even more to the point, even if she was - why would I say that OOC when 73.3% of the respondants to this thread appear to believe in using OOC link data (as defined by CCP moderation tram on IGS) to win IC arguments against rivals? This is the problem with eroding the IC/OOC divide in the way the web hosting address stuff goes - it also erodes any faith that other roleplayers will "play fairly" and simply means we all have to play our cards much closer to our chests in future.

This is an OOC forum yes, but what if some decides to use something I say here to "convict" me IC on galnet because they feel justified? You see the problem of this line of discussion in this very thread?


 

[Saede Riordan]

Why would I when she clearly isn't.

σ_σ

[Marcus Gord]

The internet is the Galnet, ICwise. If you host an image somewhere on the 'internet' and use it on the IGS, the address of that becomes part of the Galnet, since it's visible on the IGS. Killboards are quite the same, they're public combat records on the Galnet for an organisation.

When you direct someone to the SF website (If you have one, I'm not sure really) Do you call it the SF Galnet portal/site?

If using the internet and how it works for RP is breaking the IC/OOC divide, then any alliance/corp website breaks the divide too.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm not going to get into the argument over who is and isn't a hypocrite, we'd be here all year with the back and forth that comes from it.

[Jade Constantine]

The internet is the Galnet, ICwise. If you host an image somewhere on the 'internet' and use it on the IGS, the address of that becomes part of the Galnet, since it's visible on the IGS. Killboards are quite the same, they're public combat records on the Galnet for an organisation.

Neither killboard links nor direct links to ooc information are permissable on the IGS and an the CCP forum mods have made a ruling. I'm not really sure why this is taking so long to sink in.

When you direct someone to the SF website (If you have one, I'm not sure really) Do you call it the SF Galnet portal/site?If using the internet and how it works is breaking the IC/OOC divide, then any alliance/corp website breaks the divide too.

It doesn't break the divide because we give our permission for the link to stand and be associated with us. And thats the key point here. Linking to an ooc resource requires the consensual agreement between the linker and the linked. If the latter disagrees he or she may petition and the connection is void for ic purposes. (though of course people will argue even so as is happening here).

For Example. I made an error of judgement a couple of weeks ago and linked to a character transfer sale on Eve-Online in an IC thread to highlight Jade's suspicion that a Matari character had been compromised. This was link to OOC data on Eve Online - but it was ruled to be breaking the IGS rules and the link was removed. Fair enough. I can respect the decision and won't be doing that again. But you see the point I hope. If a link to ooc data ON CCP forums is out of order - so potentially is any link to an external ooc resource outside CCP's purview. On that occasion I pushed IGS rules too far and have learned from it. I hope others will learn a similar lesson from this thread.

[Marcus Gord]

Neither killboard links nor direct links to ooc information are permissable on the IGS and an the CCP forum mods have made a ruling. I'm not really sure why this is taking so long to sink in.

---

It doesn't break the divide because we give our permission for the link to stand and be associated with us. And thats the key point here. Linking to an ooc resource requires the consensual agreement between the linker and the linked. If the latter disagrees he or she may petition and the connection is void for ic purposes. (though of course people will argue even so as is happening here).

I'm aware that killboard links and direct OOC links aren't allowed, but by that ruling by CCP mods, we can see that they believe Killboards to be OOC. So we can't reference people's combat records on the IGS, it's OOC info. Of, course, CCP don't remove it, but when someone talks about combat records, we know it means killboards.

Though if you post an image to the IGS, the link is there. By posting that image, you gave the 'connection' out, through using the same host/hosting account, whatever. All it took was for someone to find it.

As for arguments, I've had enough of those in the past couple of months, I'm not looking for another one. I'm giving my opinion. Feel free to disagree

[Casiella]

I've never really looked at forum mods as the arbiters of good RP. And I certainly don't see IGS as a premier venue of any sort.

In any case, it seems like this thread has devolved into the exact sort of conversation that has driven so many people away from the IGS/Chatsubo crowd[1]. I'm not sure what purpose it serves at this point, where the conversation is "you do it too" "no I don't" "yes you do" "no I don't". Only with more words.

[1]: That's not a criticism of the Chatsubo admins any more than it is of CCP, but there's a particular group of players that comprise a large percentage of the users of both of those groups, and an even larger portion of the perception of those communities. It is to that sub-community I refer.

[Lillith Blackheart]

This thread is heavily steeped in the deepest of irony.

[Jade Constantine]

I've never really looked at forum mods as the arbiters of good RP. And I certainly don't see IGS as a premier venue of any sort.

In any case, it seems like this thread has devolved into the exact sort of conversation that has driven so many people away from the IGS/Chatsubo crowd[1]. I'm not sure what purpose it serves at this point, where the conversation is "you do it too" "no I don't" "yes you do" "no I don't". Only with more words.

[1]: That's not a criticism of the Chatsubo admins any more than it is of CCP, but there's a particular group of players that comprise a large percentage of the users of both of those groups, and an even larger portion of the perception of those communities. It is to that sub-community I refer.

The solution is simply to moderate by the guidelines here I think and have a zero tolerance approach for personal attacks so enabling plain facts and honest discussion to stand unblemished by the usual nonsense.

Regardless of your faith in IGS forum moderation a ruling has been reached - I'm happy to abide by that ruling - and since this thread was about IGS - I would think the ruling is of relevance to the people posting here.

I agree with you that silly accusations are without merit. People should simply discuss the issue at hand without trying to widen it to include past feuds/wrongs/justifications and all the other questionable detritus of our collective unwise childhood in Eve RP.

What I think would be useful now would be to discuss why people think the Backstage interpretation on valid IC roleplay on IGS is so different from the CCP IGS moderators on this issue?

1. Is it the person involved (me) ((ie varying standards based on personal preference))
2. Is there a principle of non-consensuality in referring to ooc material.
3. Is it something else?

I'm genuinely interested.

[Jade Constantine]

Though if you post an image to the IGS, the link is there. By posting that image, you gave the 'connection' out, through using the same host/hosting account, whatever. All it took was for someone to find it.

See its where we differ. By posting a picture with Rosamund I give permission for you to look at and interact with that image in the context of Rosamund owning it. I do not give you permission to connect that picture with anything else on my personal out of game webserver including any other eve material, rl work collatoral, other game images, cvs, larp stuff, other eve players sigs, etc etc etc.

I realize people WANT to join the dots and gain a conviction through "evidence" crowbarred into IC but they simply may not do it. In the first place I can simply change the image names/links to make the people doing it look ridiculous - or in the second place I can petition to have reference to these links removed since I have not given my permission for them to play a role in the IC consensus of the discussion.

Now anyone can go to CAOD of course and make their argument there and maybe use a 3rd party website dupe program to make a hue and cry that Jade and Rosamund are run by the same player - thats entirely within the eve rules of conduct.

What people cannot do is expect this stuff to stand on IGS which is held to higher standards of interaction to promote RP in Eve online.

Which is the point.

[Lillith Blackheart]

The deepest of irony.