*Cracks fingers* A fresh day, with a fresh mind to construct a worthy reply.
I highlighted the areas in bold the areas were you misspelled my name here, and for your assistance, I have corrected it for you.
An unintended oversight on my part, Kaleigh. My apologies.
There are many other posts similar to this. To chastise, in the context to which I am using the word, is as a 'severe criticism'. You are dictating, through your opinion, that such methods are not within the boundaries of 'good form'. If this isn't a criticism, I don't know what is...
're: Chastise and objective argumentation'Kaleigh, with the definitions that are available, the usage of 'Chastise' is an inappropriate hyperbole.
Such a label, if accepted, is a broad-brush mis-painting of the tone of my posts. Mislabelling is a common forum tactic but I am not going to even suggest that you are consciously doing so. However, you know as well as I that if I do not correct this mislabel, it is a premise that can be used to further attack my positions.
Even 'criticism' is an inappropriate word, because of the way you are using it. There are many senses of the word 'criticism' and some would put my posts in a good light. The way you use it implies that you view my words as 'negative criticism'.
(a relevant wiki link for your perusal and enjoyment).I am not negatively criticising people; telling them that they or their practises are faulty or that they are lesser people for engaging in them, or that others should not engage in them. I am not trying to spread disapproval of their views and I am not calling them invalid. In my view there is no 'wrong' or 'right' way to play EvE. If that was what I was saying I would be closer to accepting your words.
If you want to use the term 'criticism', in a debate of such import, it is important to use it in its correct meaning. The correct usage is to imply 'logical' criticism or 'constructive' criticism.
Through this discussion, using the conventions of what RP is, one can objectively assess methods of playing EvE and see how they correlate with what is good and bad RP form. It isn't my opinion, it is an objective assessment based on the definition of what things are. I don't care if someone thinks a square is a triangle. The fact is that a triangle is a triangle and your (generic 'you') opinion and hurt feelings by me politely pointing that out do not change that.
An analogy. It is like a discussion of ship fits, i.e. which are best for what purpose. It is fair to comment that a ship armed solely with mining lasers (tech II!) is probably not a good damage dealer to other ships. That isn't criticism, is it? It is a statement of fact. It would be criticism in the sense that you are using it if I said that the person who suggested such an idea was mentally deficient for coming up with it.
If we are to have a good quality debate it is important that we agree on the definitions of words, otherwise there lies the risk of people bandying them about with different understandings of their meaning, which is not conducive towards an outcome that is mutually understood.
Again, the quotes above clearly indicate that any collusion between ones own characters, in your words, becomes metagaming and poor form. The other half of my statement was in response to those who feel alts are not, as you say, good form because they have no character motivation to infiltrate a corporation that your 'main' character may also want. I was merely stating that such assumptions are circumstantial at best since they are not aware of said alts' motivations.
Your evidence is selective. I have substantiated the conclusions that I have produced in this thread, which you are quoting in isolation. I have given theoretical, logical and example-based evidence to support them. I have not seen my evidence refuted with any counter-evidence, including in your post here.
If you wish to suggest that my conclusions are 'assumptions' you need to address the evidence supporting them first, if we are having a debate rather than an argument.
The irony is that you have made an assumption in the same sentence that you stated that I was making assumptions, emboldened for your reference.
Again, this wasn't directed towards you, however, I would say that poor form is an implication, or discouragement of said behavior on the basis that it does not fit into your perspective of what proper roleplay is, and in meaning is almost synonymous.
On the concept of good and bad form in RPIf RP can be praised for its values it can be recognised for the absence of them. That is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact.
The problem I see is that the 'all-pleasers'/'conflict-avoiders' philosophy you and many others appear to espouse. The reason many hold this view is possibly a result of the apocalyptic forum wars of our predecessors. It suggests the view that RP can be looked at as art, like an art gallery owner who will accept someone's filthily unmade bed as art.
This is a hypocritical view, because we do, in our minds, have the ability to say 'well that was great RP'. Bullshit my friend. If you can say something is good/great, then there has to be bad, even relatively. That is logic. To oversimplify, there is bad art in the world and this is reflected in how much it can be sold for.
With the platform for the polite society as provided by Backstage, we can do away with this necessary evil and honestly discuss the issues related to RP without the artificial chains and fetters imposed upon debate on such topics because of the failings of other people.
Even if this debate doesn't change any minds, that is immaterial in my view. My aim in this thread is the search for truth. I have already learned a lot from this debate and the reason I bother to post is because I care about the subject matter and can see much more opportunity for broadening my perspective.
Furthermore there is the possibility that someone might refute my arguments, which will lead me to reconsider my position.
...no one can declare an act or behavior an action roleplay or not except the individual making the action.
Where does this
assumption come from? In a roleplaying game if you break through the IC walls you can be considered ejected from the IC game and your actions can be negated. The fact that you 'can' do that immediately invalidates your statement. Please elucidate further if you meant something more abstract.
Declaring an activity as roleplay/OOC does not negate the action occurred, and if the infiltrator decides to make it part of their roleplay, your options are limited to 'accepting the action happened in character' or simply ignoring/denying the event ever happened. This may become difficult when other individuals outside of those who accepted your interpretation (assuming you ignore it) approach you about the subject and you're forced to hand-wave it.
There's nothing wrong with 'hand-waving' OOC actions. I view it as a necessary evil to preserve enjoyment of the IC game and integrity of the IC actions that have taken place. e.g. don't expect me to give you a meaningfully considered IC response if you approach me about people advertising isk for $$$ in Jita.
It looks like your own 'judgements' on what good and bad form in RP is are coming out my dear, which is making this very amusing.So unless the basis of your debate is academic in purpose, and not intended to reach a practical outcome, I fail to see what the purpose is in trying to reach a consensus on the subject.
The purpose of the debate in my view is the search for truth. I put my own views under the spotlight at least as much as my fellow debater. A consensus is not a necessary outcome, definitely not a necessary outcome if it requires us to disregard certain truths in order to achieve it. I don't care about what other people think if I know through thorough analysis of the facts that they are wrong.
Author
Topic: Infiltration as RP (Read 26671 times)