Print

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

[Merdaneth]

As for the Istvaan approach, it is a more convincing reason than the 'alt X is working for me', since it more closely mirrors the actual control, but it still isn't good, since Istvaan's control mechanism is an out-of-game construct. It exists only in his imagination and is thus unassailable, uncounterable and undetectable. In effect, it is a RP paint job on the metagame reality that what appear to be multiple personalities are in fact bodily extensions of the same consciousness.

In fact, maybe we should get an RP reason why there are so many people that are linked to others in undetectable and near mystical ways....

[Ammentio Oinkelmar]

If you know OOC there is a spy in your corp, but not IC, it will be extremely hard to make security decisions. Will I put my faction BS in the corp hangar where the spy has access to or not? The human brain is fairly associative in nature, your ability to make character decision is hampered by knowledge that your character doesn't have.

Maybe one could let the stats of the character to decide? If he is like alert, cautious, perhaps even paranoid, then he might be considering the risk of having a few spies around and have a low chance (like < 15%) of trusting the corp hangars, while if he is not a good property manager, doesn't believe in material wealth etc. he might have a higher likelihood of placing an expensive item down there (maybe > 80%). And if it's not obvious what he would do, maybe one could even roll dice to make the decision?

A faction BS can be lost in many ways, corp hangars is only one of the possibilities, and if one cannot afford to throw it away, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to have it around in the first place. Loosing it would only correct the original mistake.

Personally I'm more into playing alts as unrelated characters, but in the context of EVE, I can accept mind-control, identical twins, surgically modified clones, lovers etc., as plausible explanations for a mystical connection between someone's main and alts. To me the root of the problem seems to be that some players want to win the game in quantitative terms, although I'm not convinced that this is the case with regard to certain recent events.

[Inara Subaka]

Ah, but Inara, the trick here is, your try to have your characters pretend to know they don't know some information, but if the information is already there in your head, I think it is extremely hard to do so. And once the stakes get higher, it becomes harder.

If you know OOC there is a spy in your corp, but not IC, it will be extremely hard to make security decisions. Will I put my faction BS in the corp hangar where the spy has access to or not? The human brain is fairly associative in nature, your ability to make character decision is hampered by knowledge that your character doesn't have.

I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.

Agreeing that it can remain difficult not to slip up and allow OOC information affect IC decisions, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.


Point of Note: I don't see very much of what happens in EVE as being completely OOC without some 'translation' to IC. Even the crazies that troll CAOD are viewed IC, just from the portion of the capsuleer population that went nutters.

[Merdaneth]

I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.

This is not about the example, its about the principle.

Agreeing that it can remain difficult not to slip up and allow OOC information affect IC decisions, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact, I claim it is impossible to do so. You cannot remove the knowledge from you the player's mind, so you can't tell if and in what manner your character's decisions are influenced by the knowledge that you as a player have but they don't.

Would you have picked up the hints of betrayal if you hadn't know that character X was gonna betray corp Y? Should you actively try ignore some signs of betrayal because you think your character might have not picked them up, but you do now because you already knew of the impending betrayal OOC? There is simply no way to tell.

A less obtrusive example: you have characters A en B. They are playing in different parts of EVE and have no contact. Then the CEO of the corp from character A travels to the other part of EVE. You are online with character B and you look at local. You mind immediately registers a familiar name between the dozens of assorted characters: the CEO of the corp of your character A. Would you have seen the same person if he wasn't familiar to you as a player? Most likely not. Hence, you knowledge from character A is already influencing the way character B percieves the game world. They are not separate because you cannot separate your knowledge. You can merely pretend to separate it.


[

[Morwen Lagann]

Ah, but Inara, the trick here is, your try to have your characters pretend to know they don't know some information, but if the information is already there in your head, I think it is extremely hard to do so. And once the stakes get higher, it becomes harder.

If you know OOC there is a spy in your corp, but not IC, it will be extremely hard to make security decisions. Will I put my faction BS in the corp hangar where the spy has access to or not? The human brain is fairly associative in nature, your ability to make character decision is hampered by knowledge that your character doesn't have.

Why would you be putting your expensive stuff in the corp hangar in the first place anyway? You have your own hangar, which is completely invulnerable to any and all kinds of theft unless someone that isn't you gets a hold of your account details. Why would you not be using this? I can think of no logical reason to put your things into the corp hangar that even one other person has access to for any length of time, aside from one: you're in a wormhole corp and have no choice but to share an SMA/CHA at a POS in w-space.

This line of thinking applies IC as well, given the fairly prevalent selfish and/or paranoid attitudes of capsuleers with regards to their assets. Why store my expensive ships, modules and assets in a place that isn't under my complete and full control? Why give access to those assets to people I don't have control over? That makes no sense. There's no reason to put something into a corp hangar unless the intent is to donate it, or otherwise expect not to get it back.

I play as if there's at least two spies in every corp I have a character in and make my decisions accordingly, and Inara(character) is more paranoid than I(player) am. Faction BS that is mine =/= a corp hangar ship anyways.

Cosmo doctrine (bolded for reference) ftw. Same boat as Inara here - Morwen(c) is a lot more paranoid about things than Morwen(p) is, and takes steps to assuage that paranoia when it gets triggered. Like not putting anything into a corp hangar that isn't intended as a donation or only accessible to a certain limited set of trusted parties. If you or your character are naïve enough to put a faction BS or other valuables into an easily-accessible corp hangar and stuff gets stolen, it is nobody's fault but yours and/or your character's.

This is not about the example, its about the principle.

I disagree that Inara is focusing on the example and not the principle in this case. Inara is stating that he and at least one of his characters (probably more) follow the principle that if it isn't intended for corp use, it doesn't belong anywhere near a corp hangar. That has nothing to do with knowing whether there's a spy in the corp or not, IC or OOC. It has everything to do with assuming that if it isn't explicitly under your full control, it isn't secure (and even then, it's probably not completely secure), which is something that Inara(p) and Inara(c) appear to consider common sense.

[scagga]

Oh Inara, why do you make me rub my temples so?
You're frequently arguing against points I never made...

I. Player(s) controlling character(s) for the purposes of creating stories via interaction of the character(s). Is this a viable "shortened" version of the long definition of Roleplay for you? I'm going to be using this as the basis for the rest of my points, so I hope so.

No, and it would have been a good idea to check on agreement on the definition before going ahead to use it  The definition has to be unaltered (what exactly do you want to cut out?) because removal of clauses leaves loopholes for arguments to exploit. 

Can you see how this debate technique can be interpreted as reconstructing my argument to something it is not, then arguing against that misconstruction?  I can see that the lettering 'I.' referred to my definition of 'good form', while your comment was related to the definition of roleplay - could you clarify why that is?

Comparing 'Infiltration RP' to the list of poor form listings:
A. All characters are controlled by players for the purposes of creating a storyline, in a free-form RP environment (no dice or GM system), influenced by all sides... No Problem.
B. As all characters are playing their 'part' in the storyline that is being created, all characters provide a unique 'element' to the equation of the story and are being roleplayed. No Problem.
C. Reiteration and compilation of points A and B in fancy words. No Problem.

There are some problems:
A. Compared against a definition of RP that you bring in and assume is agreed upon, ignoring the problems raised by metagaming, ignoring the problems raised by poor form.
B. is a self-evident, irrelevant statement.
C. seems to be a space-filler for what could be a third point, but isn't.

Summary:
In your nicely organised A, B & C layout you've made one point, which is faulted on the following points:
1. It is using a hyper-limited unreferenced definition assumed to be acceptable and interchangeable with mine.  The nature of the definition is incomplete, allowing too many incorrect behaviours to be accepted as within the bounds of roleplaying and thus is why I find the definition unacceptable.
2. It is ignoring the confounding factors of poor form and metagaming.  Even if you make the points later on to address them, these points cannot be cogently made without addressal of those confounding factors. 

You're making the assumption that all information that I(player) knows is known by Inara(character) and MiscellaneousOther(character) that are controlled by me(player).

I'm not assuming that.  The player knows all the information that the main and alt know, which is fact.  When one is infiltrating for the other there is information that is unknowable in the mind of the player.  The conflict of interests will influence the behaviour of the other player, which means the characters are going to behave on knowledge 'they do not know'.  This is through usage of an OOC mechanic (having an alt).

See Merdaneth's point for better elucidation, I'm tired.

Example of this being incorrect: I(player) know that the EVE Gate is a wormhole to Earth(and it's civilization in the local 'cluster') that collapsed stranding people in New Eden several thousands of years ago...

It's not relevant to the infiltration scenario, much like Scagga never knew I had a pet turtle as a kid. 

But if I was infiltrating for Scagga with an alt, the knowledge I gain from my alt as a player will inevitably influence how I play Scagga, without any IC mechanism happening between the two characters for this to be done, because the people controlling them  knows more than what he can get through using solely IC methods.

When someone tells you that there is a surprise trap behind the next door you are about to walk through, you can pretend all you like, but your mind is going to expect it and you cannot reproduce the genuine behaviour you would have had without that knowledge. 

No more assuming, let's get the evidence out that you can genuinely behave the same with metagame-accumulated knowledge with your characters as you would without that knowledge.

And before you say I'm making assumptions, here is a publication that supports my argument:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0wr5121p73p3136/ 

NO inhibition may also explain the ‘‘blocking’’
phenomenon in classical conditioning. It was shown
by Kamin (60) that, if learning has occurred to a
particular conditioned stimulus, learning to a second
conditioned stimulus, presented simultaneously, will
be very inefficient. The first conditioned stimulus is
said to ‘‘block’’ the second. A simple explanation for
this is that the nuclear response elicited by the first
conditioned stimulus causes an inhibition of the
olive that prevents any association between the
second conditioned stimulus and climbing fibre
input from the eye (10).

Essentially, learning will condition your responses to known stimuli, which is probably why you won't flinch as much after you know someone is pretending to hit you when they wave their hand in front of your face.  It's a 'because of brain' reason.  One will alter how one's character reacts due to foreknowledge - that was obtained by usage of metagaming means, which makes them OOC means overall.

I also have a character in <redacted>, this character has information that would be really nice for Inara to have... but the two characters have never met, and have no reason to ever interact for that information to be transferred; because of this, Inara will (likely) never be in a situation to act on said information.

....

I know of <person> doing business with <enemy of their declared allegiance> due to OOC information, but again have very few channels in which Inara would be able to acquire that information.

These are both different scenarios.  The alt isn't being used to infiltrate for her, so there isn't the same conflict of interests.  The stakes aren't there, you aren't using an alt for your main in a conflict against another player, you are citing scenarios of 'opportunity' (which are equally metagaming, but without as high temptation). Please argue a point for the scenario we are discussing.

A. Gaining knowledge from Out-of Character information is very much metagaming... gaining knowledge from one character giving the knowledge to another character is not. Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming..

We are not just discussing infiltration = metagaming.

We are discussing that using an alt to infiltrate on behalf of your main is metagaming because of the use of OOC mechanisms (alt creation, knowledge you are playing a game, monitoring and manipulating OOC interactions) to defeat your opponent.  It goes beyond IC mechanisms that are available.

B. Infiltration is not a new set of skills in the EVE universe setting (infact it is likely comparable to throwing rocks from a castle wall in a dark/middle ages setting). Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming.

Please don't pretend I'm saying something, then argue against it and say it is going to weaken my points.  That is dishonest.  The fact that infiltration of an alt for a main is not a new set of skills in EvE has nothing to do with whether it is meta-gaming or not.  I wasn't even making that point.

C. Definitely Meta-gaming if the character is not RolePlayed as making those decisions, however irrelevant if the character is doing as they would actually behave. I(player) don't fire on people near gates in lowsec while flying a frigate because game mechanics would cause me to (likely) lose that frigate... but that doesn't make it meta-gaming simply because of that, because Inara(character) would not make the choice to attack someone near a lowsec gate while flying a frigate because of IC knowledge and choices. Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming, however I will concede that making decisions that do not fit the character's personality for the betterment of the situation based on OOC information would be Meta-Gaming.

I don't see how this statement is in any way relevant to our discussion, or even how it leads to its conclusion.  Please can you show what it is following on from, as I do not see it as something we've been discussing, nor how it can lead to a conclusion that any previous argument is invalid.

D. IC there's no acknowledgement that New Eden is a game, Inara(character) and MiscellaneousAlts(characters) do not view these situations as a game but as their existance (this is part of what roleplaying is). Point invalid for claiming infiltration is Meta-gaming.

The player is using the additional characters to win the game, not play the game, which is acknowledgement of the 'game'. 

The creation of additional characters requires investment in the game to gain an unassailable advantage.  The relation between the characters supersedes what is possible within the game mechanics between people's characters, using OOC facility of being controlled by one player.

The reality is that alts are rolled for the purpose do not behave in the 'saintly' way you describe your own, which is sounding like the argument fallacy 'the exception that disproves the rule'.  I accept to continue with my view because the evidence that the overwhelming majority of players' behaviour is consistent with it is strong, while your exception is rare.

Exception That Proves The Rule:
a specific example of Cliche Thinking. This is used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn't always work. The cliche rebuttal is that this is "the exception that proves the rule". Many people think that this cliche somehow allows you to ignore the exception, and continue using the rule.

In fact, the cliche originally did no such thing. There are two standard explanations for the original meaning.

The first is that the word "prove" meant test. That is why the military takes its equipment to a Proving Ground to test it. So, the cliche originally said that an exception tests a rule. That is, if you find an exception to a rule, the cliche is saying that the rule is being tested, and perhaps the rule will need to be discarded.

The second explanation is that the stating of an exception to a rule, proves that the rule exists. For example, suppose it was announced that "Over the holiday weekend, students do not need to be in the dorms by midnight". This announcement implies that normally students do have to be in by midnight. Here is a discussion of that explanation.

In either case, the cliche is not about waving away objections.

E. You are making an assumption based on your experience you have had and stories you have heard, when I've given facts and situations (with some details left out to preserve some information from leaking) in which your claim that all infiltration alts are extensions of the main character.

I don't have experience of performing alt infiltration for my ex-main.  I have operated alts and entered other corporations, but never for infiltration or into corporations that had anything to do with my main.  I have experienced infiltration of my corporation (real and imagined), but not by IC characters.

I also have observed infiltration after infiltration of the major RP corporations and its deleterious effects through gutter-quality form.  Aegis Militia, PIE, CVA, I've seen the effects of the infiltration, and not any RP.  Look at Istvaan's 'ic' infiltration.  Look at the recent I-Red infiltration.  Factional warfare combat in fleets was nonsensified by the presence of infiltrators. That is the character of infiltration we are talking about, which is most frequently reported. 

Once the infiltrator is in with the quaryr, their primary aim is to befriend and gain the trust of other players OOC, not IC, in order to achieve their goal. 

You can trust someone IC, but realistically I do not know of players who grant access worth exploiting until they know that the player is 'sound' OOC.  If you would like to disprove that belief please supply examples.  I would be happy for this theory to be tested.

Infiltration alts exist to serve their main.  When their function is complete, they commonly either continue to make money for their main, prepare for another mission or get sold/binned.  They are 'burned', like cards.

.

. . *got confused by relation to stranger and sex toys in the middle of the night* Moving on.

Don't move on - try to address the point I was making.  You are in a situation where there is a very strong reason to believe that someone has malintent towards you.  Would you assume that they are innocent until proven guilty and not allow that to influence your behaviour?

I'm going to put this in an extreme hyperbole: I get stabbed by someone at a bar. My opinion is that all people who carry knives at bars are going to stab someone.
Obviously, this is an opinion. One that most (sane) people would disagree with, but it would be my opinion based on my experience nonetheless.

Mischaracterisation of my point.

You are approached by someone openly carrying a knife.  You alter your behaviour because you know that you are being threatened by that.  Likewise you alter your behaviour in scenarios where you are aware that there are significant factors that would benefit you by making said alteration in behaviour. 

It is reasonable and human behaviour, and I would conjecture that you would be fearless or stupid not to behave like that.  I will not make a model that needs to account for fearless or stupid people.

Majority statistics do not carry weight (according to your words).

Incorrect. 

I said that majority opinions do not carry weight.  I did not say that probability that an action would take place based on longitudinal analysis (track record) did not carry weight. 

However, how many reproduced situations would you require to accept that it is more than anecdotal evidence? I have a sizable list to go through that shows that there's a rather large pool of Infiltration RP done with non-primary characters that is not extensions of the primary character.

Produce your list.  I listed off the top of my head some prominent examples of infiltrated corporations and alliances.  Show me how significant these 'purely IC' infiltrations that occured on behalf of someone else's main were.

I demand reproducible evidence that a majority of alt-infiltration is done on an RP level as nothing more than an extension of the main. (this paragraph is intentionally stated in the way it is for the purposes of showing how the opposite statement sounds... rather silly )

If you can counter the argument made from neuroscience/impossible to separate characters, temptation, conflict of interests, track record, usage of OOC knowledge (befriending OOC to gain IC trust), usage of OOC game mechanisms (creating a character , ooc action, to influence an IC story)...

[Mizhara]

Scagga, it's getting really tiresome to watch you argue the way people debate rather than the points themselves. Talking down to people like that is not going to get you anywhere, especially when it's all just "urdoinitrong" with different words.

[BloodBird]

Scagga, it's getting really tiresome to watch you argue the way people debate rather than the points themselves. Talking down to people like that is not going to get you anywhere, especially when it's all just "urdoinitrong" with different words.

But the problem is, he's right.

As an example, if he makes an argument, and someone alters it or cuts it down or otherwise does something that esentially creates another argument all-together or miss-interpits it, then their responce will not be against his argument and the discussion goes no-where; the answer to 'his argument' will be an answer to something he never said/meant.

I've not read much into this entire debate because I'm honestly not THAT interested nor do I have terrible ammounts of time to take part, but if people who do want to get their points across and answers to them, then mistakes like this have got to be avoided, otherwise we end up with a modded/locked flame-fest in no-time.

[Merdaneth]

I disagree that Inara is focusing on the example and not the principle in this case. Inara is stating that he and at least one of his characters (probably more) follow the principle that if it isn't intended for corp use, it doesn't belong anywhere near a corp hangar. That has nothing to do with knowing whether there's a spy in the corp or not, IC or OOC. It has everything to do with assuming that if it isn't explicitly under your full control, it isn't secure (and even then, it's probably not completely secure), which is something that Inara(p) and Inara(c) appear to consider common sense.

This is precisely why I chose a bad example. It is not about the example. Saying you "wouldn't do it anyway" makes the example bad. It is about things you would do different when you know someone is a spy and when someone isn't. As for things you don't trust a spy with, you need to come up with good examples yourself.

My point remains: its impossible to act to not know something you know. You can merely imagine how you would have acted if you didn't know, but you never know if you would have made that choice if you hadn't known (tjeez, is that a complicated sentence or what?)

You can't laugh at a joke you've already been told like you did the first time. You can't act shocked at the terrible news if you've already heard it before. Scagga's suprise example is also good.

My claim goes further. If you learn through one of your characters that your other character's CEO is going to quite EVE soon, your other character won't be able to interact naturally with him anymore because of this knowledge. Your (the player's) knowledge will taint every word the CEO says, even if your other character isn't informed yet. That is how the human mind functions.

[Inara Subaka]

A lot of disagreeing with the way I stated my debate.

I'm not going to take time to discuss the way I state things, you can either accept the words as they are typed and intended, or you can handwavium and claim they hold no relevancy. The long and short of it is we hold very different opinions of how information can be transferred between characters (the players behind said characters is irrelevant the way I play the game).

Produce your list.  I listed off the top of my head some prominent examples of infiltrated corporations and alliances.  Show me how significant these 'purely IC' infiltrations that occured on behalf of someone else's main were.

I'll pm you a current/ongoing RP infiltration situation that does not belong in public discussion. Sorry, but the specific names will be redacted due to this being an ongoing RP infiltration.

My point remains: its impossible to act to not know something you know. You can merely imagine how you would have acted if you didn't know, but you never know if you would have made that choice if you hadn't known (tjeez, is that a complicated sentence or what?)

I disagree with this due to experience with being in that situation in the past myself. A good RP infiltration is dependant on being able to act as if you(c) don't know information that you(p) do know if you(c) doesn't know the information (yeah, these sentences are very complicated ).

You can't laugh at a joke you've already been told like you did the first time. You can't act shocked at the terrible news if you've already heard it before. Scagga's suprise example is also good.

Again, I disagree. This applies both IRL and in RP. I can provide the same reaction at any time after receiving information if given the same information at a later date from someone who doesn't know that I have the information, and regularly do (another convoluted sentence, but I hope it's understandable).

My claim goes further. If you learn through one of your characters that your other character's CEO is going to quite EVE soon, your other character won't be able to interact naturally with him anymore because of this knowledge. Your (the player's) knowledge will taint every word the CEO says, even if your other character isn't informed yet. That is how the human mind functions.

Let's say, hypothetically that someone told one of my alts(c) that Ethan Verone(c) was retiring and handing over the reigns to VETO to Kyoko(c), but this information wasn't available to Inara(c)... Inara's(c) interactions with Ethan Verone(c) would have absolutely no change, at all. Now, I(p) may pull him(p) aside on vent or private convo and ask what's up, but the IC interaction would be consistent until Inara(c) was made aware of it.

Most people have the ability to separate IC and OOC knowledge and act accordingly (from my experience with various RPers in various settings/games). Example: In tabletop, I was DMing a game and the lvl4 party ran into a rust monster (most overpowered 'low-level' encounter creature in DnD); the player knew that swinging his mace at the thing would be a bad idea... but no one in the party had Knowledge (dungeneering) so their character took the swing because they(c) had no information saying it was a bad idea. Or, when we're(p) sitting around drinking beer at the table, and we(p) figure out what the DM has planned for the overall story-arc... our characters don't change the way they(c) approach the situation, even if sometimes we(p) are cringing because we know that they(c) are falling right into the story-hook.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

To Scagga,

As we move towards more structured debate, I will need to divide my posts to help the reader follow their content more easily.

On defining Roleplaying

My point is that quality of acting is not dependent on pre-set rules, but personal taste in the method of an actor, hence why Marlon Brando is loved by many and a big fat slob to others.

In order to achieve a rule-set by which to grade the performance of an actor, one would have to not only define what roleplay is, but what characteristics are defined as good form.

I think and agree that this point can best be resolved after acquisition of mutually agreed definitions of roleplay and good form, for my argument did not focus on assessing the 'quality' of the acting, but whether the acting could 'qualify' as RP.  Certain behaviours purported to be RP cannot be considered RP if the definition is to be respected.

So, moving swiftly on, I shall comment on your definition.

The problem I have with this is that you've stated a couple times that there is 'no such thing as good or bad rp', and up to this point we've been discussing what 'good form' is in roleplay. From where I'm standing, good and bad are qualitative values used to describe an individual or behavior. Now you're suggesting we're at the stage where we're defining whether people are even role-playing at all? 

For your convenience I have grabbed a definition of roleplay from dictionary.com, found
here:
role-play [rohl-pley] –verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

This definition of roleplaying is a general definition, such as the type one experiences when partaking of a simulated communications skill scenario.  It is not directed towards roleplaying games.  I would therefore suggest that it is not an appropriate definition.

But nevertheless, if you find a more appropriate definition for this feel free to contribute, but for the duration of this post I'll go on the above definition as my compass.

This is a definition that I feel is appropriate, because it frames roleplaying as a game rather than a general activity.  I have emboldened the most relevant paragraph.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2]

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the pen-and-paper RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters' actions.[3] In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used and acts as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.[4]

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, including multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and whose capabilities advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with pen-and-paper RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling.[5][6]

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games and wargames that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.[7] The term is also sometimes used to describe roleplay simulation games and exercises used in teaching, training, and academic research.

I shall await your comment on this definition before using it meaningfully for the next logical steps to take with it.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the definition you've chosen either. Allow me to break down the definition you've highlighted and explain my reasoning.

Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.

I've bolded the area in which I believe this sentence highlights the differences between a standard RPG and EVE: Online (an MMORPG). Players act out their roles in a game environment, not a narrative. A story is not being told, as we are instead making our own, and is not handled through a process of structured decision making or character development. The creators of EVE Online provide a very basic structure in the character creation process that ends the moment the player is immersed in the game world. There is no structure at this point, and the player is nearly free to choose their character's destiny within the limitations of the game. You have clearly stated several times that game constraints are not equivalent to roleplay structure, so one would have to assume there is no structure other than what we define for ourselves.

Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Clearly in EVE this is not the case. Actions are dependent either upon the limitations of the EVE game parameters, its rules, or by the consent of other players involved. There is no formal system of rules and guidelines dictating EVE's roleplay standards beyond the basic rules on chat restriction and harassment.

Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.

Which I believe is the quintessential point in the definition you've chosen, that EVE is a platform where role-playing activity is present, but is not the primary focus. This means that game mechanics are inescapably part of roleplay in EVE Online, and cannot be excluded.

This is exactly why I chose a general definition for roleplay, as the one you have described does not embody a majority of the attributes you've outlined.

And while this may be an entertaining diversion, the truth is, if we were to reach a consensus on this the end result would still be irrelevant as others may not agree with our notion of what RP is. Hence why I continue to suggest that subjective criteria cannot be a matter of objectivity.

Where I find the matter of contention is in the manner to which we define what characteristics define good form in roleplay. Who decides these characteristics, how are they decided, and how are they regarded as absolute (see 'the truth')?

On defining good form

Good form
Generally speaking, the basis that is used to define 'good form' is how closely a behaviour is in keeping with the definition and guidelines of what roleplaying is.  If a behaviour is in keeping with what roleplaying is, based on its definition, it can qualify as roleplaying.  If it [behaviour] adheres to the guidelines of roleplaying behaviour, it is good form. 

Poor form
Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliance with the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this deviant behaviour is in poor form. 
Where behaviour is not compatible with staying in compliant with what the definition of roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying'.
Where behaviour is not compatible with either the definition or the guidelines of what roleplaying is, this behaviour can be considered 'not-roleplaying',  as well as in poor form if it is intended that the behaviour be seen as roleplaying.

These are standpoints based on logic i.e.
If something does not qualify according to a definition, if can be considered as not-that-definition.
If something tries to be something that can be defined by criteria and falls short of them, it is a poor qualifier.
And a point of view that disagrees does not change that unless it can refute the logic.

Except your logic is built on a foundation of quicksand. A definition of roleplay can be defined that dictates good and poor form, but the definition at its root is the root is the matter of contention for the reasons I stated above. If you, scagga, are allowed to define what roleplay is, then what is to stop another from declaring their own definition that may run counter to yours? How do you determine who is more correct? Again, my insistence that this is a matter of preference, not a basis of fact.

A statement made by you later in this discussion suggests that you prefer a statistical majority as a basis for what is good or bad: "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."

If your basis for determining good form roleplay in EVE is NOT based on statistical majority, I would be curious to hear it, but my own position would not change regardless. I don't believe anyone, majority or minority has the authority to dictate good or poor form in roleplay, therefore, I could not accept any rule-set dictated by anyone as a basis for determining the quality of one's roleplay without accepting this as personal taste and opinion.

I did not use a statistical argument as the basis to develop my views, I used them as additional evidence that my views are true.   

My views are not based in statistics.  In the context of my statement, I referenced the fact that, while there is a wide variance in playstyles, the facts on the ground support my views and they do not support your views.  That is to say, in a given scenario in EvE, people are so likely to engage in OOC behaviour that the onus is on them prove that they aren't.

I of course agree, and I believe I have already made it explicit, that no majority or minority is granted the right to be the sole arbiter of what good or bad form is.  Anyone is free to look at the facts and assess them. 

However, there are going to be many answers people come up with, and as fair-minded people we must, putting aside our own baggage, assess each for the weight of evidence behind them.  Afterwards we then move to accept the answer that is most likely to be true.  Alternatively, answers can be spliced to absorb their various truths, becoming a hybrid answer of most evidential worth.

Personal taste and opinion has nothing to do with being correct.  Personal taste and opinion has a function to placate the ego; it does not add significant weight to what is correct and what is incorrect in a debate based on facts and definitions.  It only gives an excuse for why people prefer to do things in a suboptimal manner.

I've bolded the important part of this. You are making an assumption based on, in a given scenario in EVE, people are likely to engage in OOC behavior derived from evidence that a majority of instances you have observed the player has done so with OOC knowledge. Of course, according to you, any player using an alt for infiltration is using OOC knowledge, which pretty much assures you a 100% success rate.

If you had stated that you assumed all infiltration alts are are acting on OOC behavior based on historical statistical probability then I'd agree with you 100%. However, because you've chosen to define this as truth, and truth implies an absolute, this is the matter of contention I have with your point.

In my opinion, I believe our matter of contention lies in our interpretation of meta-gaming in general, and the relationship a player has with its characters.

I was suggesting that the notion that two characters operated by the same player is inherently meta-gaming is an error based on assumption...namely yours of players. You have made the assumption that the player will inevitably use information obtained from one character to an alternate unscrupulously for their own benefit. I would contend that because this there isn't absolute certainty of this that your position lacks reinforcement. Unless of course, you are applying statistical majority ruling? 

There is a degree of common sense that I'm asking for here.  As I have mentioned, we know quite well that EvE is a competitive game.  A player is aware of and controls every decision that their characters make.   A player has his or her objectives in EvE, and will gravitate towards an activity that they enjoy.   If the objectives of the various characters that a players plays are the same, then they are effectively the objectives of the same player.  If the alt is infiltrating for the main, the alt is achieving the objectives of the main, which are both the objective of the player.  The player is aware of and is using information within the story that they exclusively know through OOC means, i.e. usage of   This is metagaming, by definition.

 

Which is rather amusing when you think it through. A character is unable to make any decision without player control. At what point does the character, alt or main, cease to be a character and simply an embodiment of the player? If the character's attributes depend on its owner, it never truly possesses any autonomy and is therefore inherently a victim of the meta-game curse.

Specifically, I object to your assertion that it is inherent that a player will act on their OOC knowledge to 'influence' a character that they own simply because they are the controller. I do so on the basis that you simply lack the evidence to prove an individual has committed the act without admission of 'guilt'. An assumption based on similar scenarios that leans toward a probable conclusion does not guarantee an accurate reality.

More common sense - in reply to your assertion that I 'assume' that people who infiltrate their alts for their mains are playing extensions of their mains.

When you discover that someone has entered your residence without your permission late at night, wearing a disguise and carrying a sex implement, maintaining a menacing posture towards you, do you gain the impression that this person has good intentions towards you?  There is the remote possibility the person has them, but it would be considered inhumanly stupid to consider that option when the evidence to the contrary is so pressing.  Likewise, you say I assume, but I have laid out that the evidence supporting my views is strong enough to discount the exceptions.  Knocking my argument on the basis of 'assumption' is not undoing the reasons I have described that make it convincing.

As a player, accepting assumption of OOC intent as 'common sense' is a poor one at best. If there was ever an example of conflict avoidance, I'd say this one takes the cake.

Simply because my character is at odds with another character does not translate to assumption of OOC intent if they use an alt to infiltrate my corporation. I as both a player AND character, assume that my character's enemies will use any resources available to undermine my efforts, and that includes all of the implements available in the game world. I understand that my character and player are innately connected and the character cannot be separated from the player.

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.

I didn't realize that my refutation required weight in number of incidents to validate my point. As far as I'm concerned, evidence contrary to your point is sufficient in disproving it alone. Because you cannot guarantee that such an event happens unanimously, a reliable assumption otherwise cannot be made.

I am shocked and disappointed by your statement.  It is so out of keeping with your other points.

Weight is an ubiquitous factor to consider when presented with evidence.  Would you really want me to believe that you do not weigh up the strength of evidence in your everyday life?  Do you really believe that one scenario where there was variation from the expected outcome means that the rule is wrong?  Do you for instance believe that one person wrongly convicted means that an entire judicial system is flawed?

No. I believe that a man covered in blood doesn't imply he is the killer despite what the 'expected outcome' might be in similar circumstances. Give me some hard evidence and I'll be the first to cook 'em like pig in the chair. 

Call me a healthy skeptic of the 'obvious'. I believe that 'weight' of experience can lead to making smart decisions. You can call it common sense or reasonable certainty, but truth is certainly not a word I would use to describe a predictable situation. Perhaps it's simply a matter of semantics and our interpretation of the word, but I don't toss it around as freely as others.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

What's kinda funny about this is I've been in a circumstance where vital information was made aware to me as the player and I've had two characters on opposing sides that could both stand to gain from this.

In the Sansha storyline arc, Kaleigh was gaining momentum in the anti-sansha coalition while her pesky sister Nola was using her anonymity and craftiness to spread disinformation in favor of Nation. Kaleigh's introduction to the Sansha campaign wasn't just a player decision to get involved either; it was only the encouragement of her friend Seriphyn Inhonores at the time that finally pushed her to jump in. Nola's involvement was natural, as both her and Lillith were already in a pro-Sansha corporation (NeuroGEN) and were at the time trying to build resources to help destabilize CONCORD and the Empires.

The Sansha crew trusted me implicitly and accepted that my character would act in a manner that would not compromise that divide, while elements of the anti-sansha coalition, not naming names (starts with an SO and ends with ER, and probably has a T in the middle), not only tried to imply that I wasn't trustworthy (trying to justify OOC suspicions by associating similar character 'mannerisms' - hello, sisters?), and later explicitly using the knowledge that I was the controller in the hope that I would deliver that information from one character to another. They not only assumed I was meta-gaming, but I was encouraged to do so!

The characters remained separate and never met during the course of the events until Kaleigh was banished from the coalition by leaders who were suspicious. She showed up to events where I knew there were traps and surprises that Nola would have been privy to, and Nola in pursuit of her sister used locator agents to find her even when I knew where she was. I didn't have to waste time and energy finding my own characters in New Eden, and I could have acted on the knowledge I had, but I didn't. To me, what's important is when you have information that could compromise your own characters but how you act on that information dictates virtue or as some might suggest... poor form.

It's also the reason I have respect for the Sansha crew, and less for others, but that's another subject entirely. I just thought I'd share.

[scagga]

I'm going to need to summon more energy to continue.  For unrelated reasons this week I've been quite tired, delaying consideration required to construct worthy responses.

[Casiella]

Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness that wore everyone else out.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Probably due to the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness that wore everyone else out.

I'm getting a pretty clear impression from posts that people think this debate is a hindrance to the discussion.  My suggestion is either to split it from the discussion or I can edit /delete my posts.