As to the location of your characters' education - the School/System that the game mechanics placed your character in at the beginning can still be the license issuing organization/location.
Except it isn't, and you can't force me to operate otherwise.
See this is the inherent hypocrisy in your position. You demand that I not infringe upon you and expect that such a demand justifies you dictating my character's attributes because they could potentially impact you in any way at any point in the future.
That your education took place somewhere else would not change the concept that all independent (ie player) capsuleers are issued licenses from the following schools at the following locations and that these locations must be their first point of departure when entering the Eve Universe as an independent capsuleer.
What would your IC response be to a claim otherwise? That your capsuleer has personal knowledge of how ever other capsuleer came to be? That they have personally verified the accuracy of every CONCORD entry? You'd be meta-gaming if you did that. It is again, a subjective preference issue in that I am higly irritated by pre-determined, cookie-cutter backgrounds. Same basic disagreement took place when writing up a bio for an SWTOR character (I have since lost interest in the game), with people insisting I must portray a Jedi who is part of the order because that is what my BW-written background and IG activities will limit me to.
Little if anything in their gameplay.
Now their roleplay clearly there are impacts. The ILF, in response to one of these characters, is championing for secession.
Hate to break it to you...that isn't a change. Maybe inform yourself on the existing landscape before attempting to sound like an authority on the subject.
Soter wants to prevent that and pursue the ideal Federation; faux*-nationalist are a threat to that.
Soter is no more or less capable of assuring or preventing seccesion than anyone else, neither are these political operatives. They claim to have IC power, that doesn't mean they actually do (this has got to be one of the worst cases of not being able to distinguish IC portrayals from RL).
They are not a "threat" to Soter IC or OOC, but even if they were, is EVE a game where one can be assured that no threat can ever harm you?
One of the characters have stated that Soter lacks knowledge of the Federation's system; so apparently the character you consider baseline is more informed about the Federation's system than a prominent Federal capsuleer/infomoprh!
Uh, it is rhetoric and bloviating, just because a political operative says "I am more <intangible subjective> than you" doesn't mean it is true. People hurl stuff like that at each other day in and day out, why is his different?
Who decides how to fill in these holes that exist in PF? The shell-alt whose history is unknown? Or a group of long standing characters (players) with a record of supporting the entity in question?
Appeal to Authority/popularity contests are the worst way of settling these disputes, imo.
This comes dangerously close to just being a big ego fight, now. "I am more important/approved of/well liked/have had a subcription longer, therefore my word stands for more."
Again, this has nothing to do with the actual issue, and just becomes an argument about who is "more qualfified"
My short answer is: the person who got off their OOC soapbox, dangled something out there that takes work to pull off well and opened themself up to criticism rather than the bitter old farts who demand everyone conform to their vision "because they were here first" (Appeal to Authority/Tradition). I don't actually think of people that way, just demonstrating that anyone can use divisive imagery and negative sounding adjectives to the other side.
While we may each have corners of the sandbox, there exist communities within the Sandbox. Stepping in with any characters with the purpose of speaking for NPC organizations impacts these communities.
Except nobody can demonstrate any impacts, only contriving one theoretical scenario after another or, at best, examples of behavior that take place day in and day out already.
Again, if this is where you set the bar (they
might do such-and-such), then explain to me why I can't demand for you to refrain from RP for the exact same reason?
It is truly disheartening to see people vilifying and demonizing people with different preferences while simultaneously proclaiming they are victims (or rather, that they might be victims...someday) over a computer game.
I repeat my initial call: If this isn't your thing, stay the hell out of it. Filing your disapproval and desire not to engage, then being intentionally disruptive to those who are I find the least defensible of all positions (not saying you have).
Question: are Soter and Seri's "General" ranks officially supported or ICly claimed? I honestly don't know anything about FW :9. If Soter gets to claim some powerful person in the military gave him a commission, then I am truly done with this farce of manufactured outrage. I don't care if you were in the FDU and participated in the war, that doesn't mean you were made a General if the mechanics don't allow for such (if we're applying the standard equally, that is).
Ultimately, this whole "cannon nazi vs. lore trampler" debate pops up on every RP community I've been in. Comparisons to absurd and obviously out-of-world elements always get made for even the tiniest movement outside of the rigid walls.
The only solution that ever works is for people with such inflexibly differing views to insulate from each other, because the alternative is IC bickering that is little more than thinly veiled attempts to continue the same OOC argument. It literally just devolves into "yuh-huh" and "nuh-uh".
Author
Topic: [Poll] IGS Gallente Politicians (Read 12833 times)