Print

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

[Inara Subaka]

A disappointing choice.  I had provided you with a well-considered response.  I'm not trying to bury you in words.  By reading my posts you can see that I am making points and they are relevantly directed to you in this debate.

It is unfortunate that your reply is to simply restate your conclusions without addressing the arguments against them, then hand over the torch to Kaleigh.

Okay, so I'll explain my reasons for stepping out.

I view separate characters as separate entities within RP, even if their goals are sometimes inline with each other. And I will continue to do so whether the separate characters are controlled by separate players or not. Example of this is: Inara can't stand <redacted>(character) played by a person(player), however that same person(player) has another character that Inara does like, and will speak with.

You have stated that RP entities(characters) from the same player are just extensions if their goals are inline with each other (not sure your thoughts on unrelated, never met RP characters controlled by the same player; but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).

This leaves us at an impasse that is based on our fundamental approach to the character/player divide, and neither of us will convince the other to change their mind. Also note, neither of us is 'wrong', as there are examples of both within EVE-RP. So to prevent this becoming a thread of two stubborn people beating their skulls against each other (and likely slipping up with something that is impolite), I'm stepping away to let someone else try and get a perspective in.


Mostly unrelated tidbit: There are some people(players and characters) I personally can't stand OOC, but Inara likes them(characters) and goes out of her way to interact with them.

[Lyn Farel]

That is good for you if you can be so neutral that even your different chars can have disagreements and more, betray each other or each other's respective entities. Even if I doubt that it is totally the same because it is still you behind both, it is cool. I can do it too I think.

But I highly doubt that the majority of the spies are played in such a "consicous schyzophrenic way".

[BloodBird]

That is good for you if you can be so neutral that even your different chars can have disagreements and more, betray each other or each other's respective entities. Even if I doubt that it is totally the same because it is still you behind both, it is cool. I can do it too I think.

But I highly doubt that the majority of the spies are played in such a "consicous schyzophrenic way".

And that's the primary issue here, imho. Different characters who belong to the same player can RP different things and loyalties, if any (hell I do that daily) but the problem arrives when you use one to infiltrate a corp - any corp. It may be totally IC - your toon might not like it entierly - but if the toon DON'T opt out and say, inform her current emplyer/target that he/she was a spy for X or whoever, then you have basically infiltrated and ripped a corp as a player - the toon was sent to fake an ID and an entire personality for the purpose of robbing/betraying the target corp, and he/she did go through with it. Stating that it was RP is meaningless, because even if your NOT a RP'er but just a 'random guy playing EVE' then your still RP'ing this other noob who wants to help his new 'friends' and allies in this new corp.

Ask Istvaan, (sp?) for instance. He could claim a hundred times with a hundred different toons that he was (insert toon name) and that he was a noob. He might even be really, really good at faking naivety and non-knowledge about the game - in reality it was the same experienced infiltrator behind all these heists and all of them were gone through with. That person, that toon, the victims trusted was indeed their fellow pilot and comrade - up until the point he/she robbed them and/or murdered a member and left, then got biomassed.

The difference is that if my amarrian toon ends up joining another corp, anyone with access here will know who I 'really' am even if I've not told them with said toon. So in a way this adds some drama as far as meta-gaming is concerned - they might know who this toon 'really' is or what other toons I've got, but frankly, while they know this and may even trust me, who can say that I won't REALLY one day just take what I can and bail. After all, I've other toons, right? The safety-buffer here is that I care for my reputation, and have allready made it known who this toon is. It will burn me anyway if i did. If I never told anyone and lied when the subject came up, then robbed people? No burn to my older toons. No-one will know that it was me, and they will definitly not care evne if I wrote it off as a 'secret blooder plan to fuck the Empire over' or whatever. I seriously don't think even half is Istvaan's victims know who really robbed them, unless he informed them ofc. And none of the toons he used to do so is important. Thus there is no consequence, and in this game, consequences for actions is seriously needed.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Let's dance.

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.

First and foremost, my usage of 'chastise' was not intended to give a positive or negative connotation; It is a severe criticism lacking in tone. It is a word in itself, and how people perceive it to be is up to the individual to decide. It is clear that you believe I was painting your position as a negative criticism when in truth I see it as a matter of personal judgement. It is your opinion and I respect it, but I haven't taken any personal offense to this. If you wish to call your opinion constructive criticism, I am willing to accept this. 

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.

I would say this is one of the most significant problems humanity has to overcome between individuals and groups in general, so it's no surprise there will be misinterpretation over this medium. However, I believe that as long as we maintain a positive attitude and discuss areas of contention, then misunderstandings can be clarified.

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.

I believe this touches the heart of the debate and where I diverge from your viewpoint. Acting is not a science and there is no truth; it is a matter of subjectivity and ones personal tastes that dictate preference. Marlon Brando may be a beloved hit actor with millions of fans, but that doesn't make it a fact that he is 'good'.

Your analogy of ship fits can be proven as an ineffective damage dealing vessel with tech 2 mining lasers through testing in the environment that will most likely yield unanimous results, whereas an infiltration alt's values are unknown variables with a proven impact in the game...your secrets are taken, your enemy has your assets, they know your plans, etc.. While the alt's attributes are unknowns, since we cannot establish their motivations (unless declared), what IS known is the consequences of said actions, which have a profound impact on the game world around you. In my opinion, casting 'constructive criticism' on alt infiltration of rp as poor form without knowing the motivations of the Alt or the effort that was placed into the character is an assumption of 'poor form', and an unfair one at that.

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.

... You are an odd character. You specifically requested I find quotes from you that supported my perspective, and I supplied it, and now you've twisted it to imply that I'm quoting you in isolation. I had no intention of quoting your entire posts at length simply to display your perspective in entirety.

SO, here we go:

Infiltration is a plausible activity, but the flaw here lies with alts.  While it is fine to have alts and go IC with each of them, I think that it is poor form to use more than one character as major players in the same storyline i.e., you gain an unfair amount of control over factors in the story.

So in that sense, let me give an example I am familiar with... no let's just say corporation x and corporation y.  If someone in corporation x wants to infiltrate corporation y, he rolls up a character, bob, with the express raison d'etre of infiltrating corporation y.  Once the role of bob is complete, bob might be reprocessed, or just relegated to OOC activities.   I view this as at variance with good form in RP.

Realistically, there is never the option that bob will become a double-agent or gain sympathy for his target.  Bob is just skin baggaged over a different IC character, who controls all of his decisions to be unwaveringly in his/her interests.  Bob has nothing to gain from this job, he's a true slave.  I view this as at variance with good form in RP.

Linked, for your satisfaction, and bolded to display your assertions, and underlined to show your example.

I will refute this point by stating simply that you are not capable of predicting Bob's player. Bob's player may gain sympathy for this corporation and in turn allow his alt to become a double agent or gain sympathy for the corporation he is trying to infiltrate. I believe the error in your assertion that roleplay with player involvement is at 'variance with good form in RP' is inherently flawed in that the player has a key influence on the character involved.

My 'evidence' is that I had several such individuals in past corporations admit they joined my corporation to rob me, only later reveal they did not want to because they liked what I had to offer.

Let me give you another example - you arrange a duel with someone, but they have an alt repping them or secretly giving them gang bonuses.  Sure, it can be done, but is it good form?

If you need to resort to adding another character under your control to a storyline, you are extending your control beyond what is available to your character as ingame tools.  Another example - What would your view be if someone logged an alt or two and tried to railroad the way a conversation with you was going to go, or engineered actions (diplomatic/conversation) with the alts to get what their main wanted?  Again, it can be done, but is it good form? 

Linked for posterity.

So Multiplicity was a bad movie? *frownie face*

In all seriousness, as serious as I can be about this, relating social engineering a conversation through multiple personalities to remote repping/gang bonusing a duel may be a fair comparison, but RP isn't about fairness, and good form isn't fair rp.

You have asserted that ALT infiltration is a meta-gaming tactic several times throughout this thread. Meta-gaming, to me, is when another player attempts to take an action on behalf of your character without your consent. For example, "I punch you in the face, and you cry like a bitch." In this example, I have no control over my character's behavior and I'm forced to either 'accept' his perspective on the matter or hand-wave/ignore it. The matter of contention that I see in this perspective, based on my interpretation of meta-gaming, is that even with an alt a player can only 'coerce' another player into action, not force it. An alt can't force a CEO to give them secrets or hangar access, only influence and gain trust of this corporation. The only action that an alt forces characters to do is accept the fact they were stolen from (in one form or another), and this isn't much different than forcing a character to acknowledge they were blown up in space by a gate camp or podded at an asteroid belt. These are realities of game play mechanics that have to be reckoned with by characters in-game.

If my perspective of your vision of meta-gaming diverges from how you view it, then I am confident you'll correct me.

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.

Unless you have acquired intimate knowledge from the player with proof that they have performed an act of infiltration with an ALT with OOC motivations, then it's simply conjecture.

On the concept of good and bad form in RP

If 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. 

I'll tell you what my philosophy is: Opinions are assholes and everyone's got one. An artist can receive numerous accolades from their peers and earn millions of dollars for the work they do, but in the end whether I like them or not is a matter of taste. In my years interacting with characters throughout EVE, I have encountered many individuals that LOTS of people enjoyed spending time with that I had no interest in, and visa versa. Mensas can be diagnosed through testing to be smart people but they still make dumb mistakes like the rest of us. A degree does not make you smart. Labels and perspectives of truth do not MAKE TRUTH. So While I applaud your endeavor to pursue such a lofty goal, you will never find me willing to accept your brand of opinion as truth, no matter how you diagnose it, unless it is convincing and changes my perspective or already falls in line with it.

Even meta-gaming in the manner that I discussed earlier ("I punch you in the face and you cry like a bitch"), a practice that I personally loathe, is a behavior that I let pass with roleplay partners that I trust and know will not take it to the extreme. ("Angie swings as hard as she can and connects with the right side of your jaw.") I accept it or react in a way that is appropriate for the situation, so I don't see practices in the roleplay environment to be constants. Some are acceptable in certain situations, not so much in others. But that's MY opinion.

So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm into conflict avoidance. Hand-waving OOC happenings in the game world kinda feels like conflict avoidance to me.

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.

I would hope so. Of course, it's not necessarily my goal to change your opinion. My purpose in this debate is to present my perspective, and perhaps in the process change some (not just yours) minds? If it happens, fantastic, otherwise, I don't expect a consensus on the matter.

...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.

Well obviously in the practical sense you certainly can brand an action OOC if your heart desires, but the declaration in itself is not guaranteed to convince a public that sees the matter as an IC situation.

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.

You are certainly capable of hand-waving/ignoring any mention of said act indefinitely from multiple sources, or reacting to it without compromising your own position on the matter. For instance, say alt 1 infiltrates your corporation and reveals that you are Sansha Sympathizers to the public. Corporations X & Y declare war on you and destroy your ships and force all but you to leave your corporation. When the public asks why this is done, they point to a document which was acquired by OOC means proving your sympathies with Nation. They demand that you acknowledge your Sansha ties to the public. Now, clearly your character is working for the Sansha, and everyone knows it through OOC means. Is it really possible to continue functioning as a character pretending none of this happened, simply because an OOC alt impacted you? Is that really RP in poor form?

Again, I encourage you to correct me on this because this may just be a matter of misunderstanding, but from what I gather this is a definite possibility.

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.

Oh absolutely. In my opinion, not based on fact or truth, I believe hand-waving or ignoring OOC activity is poor form. I think part of the challenge in roleplay in general is interacting in a world that is not entirely in-character, and trying to interpret it in a way that works for me. That's my opinion, and I have NO TROUBLE sharing my opinion. 

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.

I think there is merit in attempting to uncover strategies for role-players to engage one another, but I think it's important not to mislabel it as 'the truth' as opposed to scaggan brand of roleplay.

[scagga]

Another high quality post, kaleigh.  Thank you.  Same procedure as last time - but I'm getting the impression that a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points as it seems we're missing each other's meaning every now and again.

[Bacchanalian]

a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points

I personally find that verbs help to deliver the message more effectively than simple blobs of adjectives and nouns, personally. 

(please don't ban me)

[scagga]

a verbal conversation may be more efficient and more effective at discussing certain points

I personally find that verbs help to deliver the message more effectively than simple blobs of adjectives and nouns, personally. 

(please don't ban me)

Like the perrigen falls region description

[scagga]

I view separate characters as separate entities within RP, even if their goals are sometimes inline with each other. And I will continue to do so whether the separate characters are controlled by separate players or not.

This statement is made as if it seems that I am trying to change your mind, rather than challenging the reasons for why you believe what you believe. 

You have stated that RP entities(characters) from the same player are just extensions if their goals are inline with each other (not sure your thoughts on unrelated, never met RP characters controlled by the same player; but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).

This leaves us at an impasse.....

That's not true, there appears to be a variance with what I am saying and what has been imputed.  An alt is an extension of the main character if its purpose is to serve the interests of the main.  You have written 'goals are inline', which means something quite different, and I will illustrate this further.

It is quite possible to play two Amarr loyalists who both hate minmatar.  However, if one is used by the other to infiltrate, there is no internal dialogue with varied information between the characters.  Both characters are effectively making their choices with the pooled knowledge of one player.  To suggest such saintly character in the player that they would reliably not use 'unknowable' information to assist the infiltrator is unrealistic in my view.  The overwhelming majority of infiltrators are playing to win against their enemy, using the creation of another character as a tool to assist their main, not for an enhanced IC experience.

So to prevent this becoming a thread of two stubborn people beating their skulls against each other (and likely slipping up with something that is impolite), I'm stepping away to let someone else try and get a perspective in.

I strongly doubt we are stubborn people or just arguing nonsense.  The problem I see that prolongs the debate is that the arguments that I am making are not being refuted, so I cannot be satisfied with your replies. 

[Mizhara]

Your arguments amount to little more than personal opinion. They have been answered repeatedly with other viewpoints and opinions, quite satisfactory in fact. If this is not enough for you, then there's very little to discuss, is there? I'm afraid your opinions aren't necessarily facts nor 'truth'. They're your opinion... and not agreed with universally.

Is there really more to this?

[Lyn Farel]

Well then, why not answering to them by something else than "I still don't see what is the problem". I am honestly trying to find where are the counter arguments (especially on my stance to the destructive power on the RP community), but the only thing I can find is this.

Ah yes, the Darwinian argument. Sure, though it still does not change my point. It is destructive anyhow.

[scagga]

Your arguments amount to little more than personal opinion. They have been answered repeatedly with other viewpoints and opinions, quite satisfactory in fact. If this is not enough for you, then there's very little to discuss, is there? I'm afraid your opinions aren't necessarily facts nor 'truth'. They're your opinion... and not agreed with universally.

Is there really more to this?

My friend, you are mistaken, the arguments have not been addressed.  By yourself in particular - none.  Your posting record would suggest that you think that producing an opposite view is sufficient to refute an argument.  That is not the case, you have to actually engage and undo the logic that upholds it in order to refute it.

[Mizhara]

Yeah yeah, sure. My deepest and most sincere apologies for not bothering to quotefest for five pages just to refute plain statements that never had any support underneath them except your own opinions. You keep saying "Alts are mere extensions of the main." You don't back that up, you don't support it, you just state it and expect it to be taken as some sort of godgiven truth. I am of a different opinion, since... well, you know, I'm a roleplayer and thus capable of playing a role.

They're different opinions. You have nothing to support your own arguments, beyond opinion. The same applies to my own statements here.

Lyn: Harmful to the community requires a definition of 'community' I don't adhere to. We're not one singular community that would live happily ever after, dancing in a field of green and singing Viva la Vida Loca if it hadn't been for those pesky people daring to play the game. There's at least a hundred different camps within the 'community' and they're at each other's throats at all times. That some people will get pissed at each other and start using the block button or whatever is a given, no matter what. In fact, I've witnessed dozens of such events, if not more, in the time I've played Eve and they never had to be infiltration related.

You want to know how many infiltration related 'bad blood' scenarios there are out there? I don't know, to be quite honest, because they're few and far between. Infiltration isn't some sort of massive 'scourge on the RP community' nor does it do anywhere near as much damage as a single RPer going "lol" in OoC at someone else. I don't consider a few OoC bad feelings between a few individuals to be harmful to the community at all... because we've never been capable of peaceful coexistence to begin with.

If people find themselves at odds because of infiltration, then it's a damn nice boon for the 'community' because that means incompatible people are distancing themselves from each other and get to (in time) live happily ever after with people they just might be compatible with.

[Jade Constantine]

Yeah yeah, sure. My deepest and most sincere apologies for not bothering to quotefest for five pages just to refute plain statements that never had any support underneath them except your own opinions.

Strangely enough I've been finding it an interesting discussion and for what its worth am happy to register my support to some of the positions that Scagga has been arguing. I don't think its accurate for you to characterize his statements as lacking all external agreement.

You keep saying "Alts are mere extensions of the main." You don't back that up, you don't support it, you just state it and expect it to be taken as some sort of godgiven truth. I am of a different opinion, since... well, you know, I'm a roleplayer and thus capable of playing a role.

In other forms of roleplay that are quite close to Eve Online in many ways (mass participation LARP for example) there is the convention that one doesn't have "alts" - the player has one character only at any one time and thus avoids all this nonsense. Corruption when it occurs (and believe me it does!) is when players also semi/npc and cross boundaries of influence-peddling and mutual support in the setting. But I think its fair to say if you came from that background the concept of multiple alts all supporting each other's schemes would look a little bit suss. Scagga's conviction that all alts are extensions of the main is a valid position to take whether you agree with it or not.

They're different opinions. You have nothing to support your own arguments, beyond opinion. The same applies to my own statements here.

Very true.

Lyn: Harmful to the community requires a definition of 'community' I don't adhere to. We're not one singular community that would live happily ever after, dancing in a field of green and singing Viva la Vida Loca if it hadn't been for those pesky people daring to play the game. There's at least a hundred different camps within the 'community' and they're at each other's throats at all times.

Unfortunate but also true. I'd definitely prefer it if people could be decent to each other ooc at least - but differences in expectation and standards on a range of issues do tend to sabotage this hope.

You want to know how many infiltration related 'bad blood' scenarios there are out there? I don't know, to be quite honest, because they're few and far between. Infiltration isn't some sort of massive 'scourge on the RP community' nor does it do anywhere near as much damage as a single RPer going "lol" in OoC at someone else. I don't consider a few OoC bad feelings between a few individuals to be harmful to the community at all... because we've never been capable of peaceful coexistence to begin with.

I tend to disagree actually. The infilitration ic/ooc alty mcaltyson (and his cat alt) stuff does create quite bad feelings when it happens and can lead to a lot of argument and complaints. I mean you and I had our run-ins over disagreements of alt use and ic separation back in the day and you weren't even the one doing the corp thefting!

If people find themselves at odds because of infiltration, then it's a damn nice boon for the 'community' because that means incompatible people are distancing themselves from each other and get to (in time) live happily ever after with people they just might be compatible with.

Well not really since its a single shard game and the people who don't like infilitration by alt are usually specifically-targetted by those that do simply because their tears are sweeter and howls of complaint more musical to the ears. Eve is a bit cruel like that.

[scagga]

This is going to be very long, so I've split my reply into parts.

(1/2)

I believe that as long as we maintain a positive attitude and discuss areas of contention, then misunderstandings can be clarified.

Splendid, I look forward to continued good quality debate.

I believe this touches the heart of the debate and where I diverge from your viewpoint. Acting is not a science and there is no truth; it is a matter of subjectivity and ones personal tastes that dictate preference. Marlon Brando may be a beloved hit actor with millions of fans, but that doesn't make it a fact that he is 'good'.

Roleplaying in EvE is acting within the bounds of certain rules.  If an activity is subject to rules and it can be objectively perceived as to whether those rules are being followed it can be analysed in a scientific manner.  Therefore it can be objectively stated as to whether a form of acting is within the bounds of what roleplaying is.

If we still disagree at this point I suggest we agree on a definition of what roleplaying is before we proceed.

I agree with the Marlon Brando analogy, but I do not see how proving that argument you introduce here links in / adds strength to the point we were discussing.

Your analogy of ship fits can be proven as an ineffective damage dealing vessel with tech 2 mining lasers through testing in the environment that will most likely yield unanimous results, whereas an infiltration alt's values are unknown variables with a proven impact in the game...your secrets are taken, your enemy has your assets, they know your plans, etc.. While the alt's attributes are unknowns, since we cannot establish their motivations (unless declared), what IS known is the consequences of said actions, which have a profound impact on the game world around you. In my opinion, casting 'constructive criticism' on alt infiltration of rp as poor form without knowing the motivations of the Alt or the effort that was placed into the character is an assumption of 'poor form', and an unfair one at that.

I disagree with your analytical approach on alts.  It goes down the route of justifying means through ends and ends through means.  They are irrelevant if we are looking at comparing an activity against what RP is defined as.

Looking at your example - the true motivations of the alt are known to the player playing the alt and the player playing the main, the person 'hiring' him.  This is a constant in all scenarios of alt infiltration on behalf of a main, and it is this constant that issue has been taken with.

... You are an odd character. You specifically requested I find quotes from you that supported my perspective, and I supplied it, and now you've twisted it to imply that I'm quoting you in isolation. I had no intention of quoting your entire posts at length simply to display your perspective in entirety.

I have not twisted your words.  You can see for yourself that you only quoted the concluding / summary remarks in my posts that did not provide a rationale or context for the viewpoints you wished to show.  For the reader, such (effective) cherry-picking does not demonstrate what your reply is trying to refute, and can make my own arguments look artificially weak as they are incompletely represented.

I will refute this point by stating simply that you are not capable of predicting Bob's player. Bob's player may gain sympathy for this corporation and in turn allow his alt to become a double agent or gain sympathy for the corporation he is trying to infiltrate.

I refute your refutation with a statement from reality - the track record of this infiltration style supports my arguments.   EvE's design and establishment encourage unscrupulous behaviour, and it benefits them. 

Using OOCly acquired information by infiltration with your alt to gain advantage in an IC conflict is something therefore that will be expected if it happens.  It may not happen every time, but the reality is that it will happen in the overwhelming majority of cases - in fact the only cases I have heard that it hasn't happened in have been raised in this thread. 

It is a metagaming (OOC) tactic for reasons explained (not yet refuted) and therefore cannot be compatible with good form in RP.

I believe the error in your assertion that roleplay with player involvement is at 'variance with good form in RP' is inherently flawed in that the player has a key influence on the character involved.

I don't understand what you mean when you say, 'roleplay with player involvement'.  It doesn't seem to follow, as if I was making an argument for roleplay without player involvement 

My 'evidence' is that I had several such individuals in past corporations admit they joined my corporation to rob me, only later reveal they did not want to because they liked what I had to offer.

Anecdotal evidence.  Do you think that your experiences would happen to the majority of people?  Strong evidence is reproduceable.

So Multiplicity was a bad movie? *frownie face*

I haven't watched it, but checking the summary, I would think Being John Malkovich is more applicable.

In all seriousness, as serious as I can be about this, relating social engineering a conversation through multiple personalities to remote repping/gang bonusing a duel may be a fair comparison, but RP isn't about fairness, and good form isn't fair rp.

This isn't about fairness.  The rules of RP as I interpret them (we are quite surely going to have to define RP) do not imply fairness.  I am categorically stating that the behaviour is poor form because it is at variance with the norms of what RP is.  If I were making an argument for fairness I'd be extending this argument so far we'd never get anywhere.

Part 2 coming up...

[Jade Constantine]

Ask Istvaan, (sp?) for instance. He could claim a hundred times with a hundred different toons that he was (insert toon name) and that he was a noob. He might even be really, really good at faking naivety and non-knowledge about the game - in reality it was the same experienced infiltrator behind all these heists and all of them were gone through with. That person, that toon, the victims trusted was indeed their fellow pilot and comrade - up until the point he/she robbed them and/or murdered a member and left, then got biomassed.

I actually respect Istvaans take on this stuff quite a lot and it ticks the boxes for me ic and ooc. As far as I recall his rationale was that all his characters were clonejacks (literally mind-controlled) by the central intelligence of his main. Its an approach to the roleplay that doesn't pretend these are different personalities and allows enemies to assess a spiderweb network of agents leading back to the core that is quite imaginative and *ahem* realistic in the setting.

I find that rationale far easier to deal with than listening to a player telling me they can be trusted to play two (or more) entirely different personalities with no loyalties or interests in common because they (the player) is such a great roleplayer and expert with the ic/ooc divide.