Print

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

[Julianus Soter]

After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.

Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.

What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.

Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.

Except there isn't any pro-gallente federation alliance forming. And we're-gonna-murder-you-all on an OOC thread won't be productive to those ends, won't it?

[Hamish Grayson]

Yes, shame on Saxon for offering to RP with anyone who forms an Gallente alliance.

[Julianus Soter]

The RP would exist with him coming back to the game or not. As far as I can tell, the ILF still exists. However, taking an antagonistic stance against an organization that doesn't even exist in an OOC thread is unlikely to engender many possible individuals that wish to form an alliance to jump to the fray.

Unless I have something wrong about the whole "I'm gonna be the big bad villain, watch out" declaration he made, I dunno.

[Lyn Farel]

However, taking an antagonistic stance against an organization that doesn't even exist in an OOC thread is unlikely to engender many possible individuals that wish to form an alliance to jump to the fray.

Actually I do think it would be quite the opposite. A RP alliance does not start or collapse because of enemies, it collapses because of a lack of RP interaction imo. Enemies = interaction = motivations = source of dynamism.

[Julianus Soter]

Not in my experience for the past four years.

Any organization crumbles because of a lack of internal direction. Substituting 'omgzorz enemies are here' for that self-direction is a misguided form of leadership that  merely staves off the inevitable failcascade, and might even accelerate it.

[Arkady Sadik]

Not in my experience for the past four years.

I guess experiences in the past four years differ.

Any organization crumbles because of a lack of internal direction. Substituting 'omgzorz enemies are here' for that self-direction is a misguided form of leadership that  merely staves off the inevitable failcascade, and might even accelerate it.

An integral part of leadership is motivation. To motivate, you need a purpose. "These guys need blowing up" is a pretty good purpose in a PvP game like EVE.

I actually think you agree. For example, in a recent discussion you mentioned that you can't abstain from piracy because your overriding concern as a CEO is to give your players things to do - I suspect Lyn means exactly the same thing (at least this is how I understood her).

[Julianus Soter]

Bringing up in character diplomatic commentary for an out of character debate? Very classy, Arkady.

And I believe your characterization of my statements is quite false.

Piracy isn't what we do. We have positive sec statuses, all of us (minus one or two who are between -0.0 and -3.0, in case you intend to dig through our corporate roster in an effort to contest this point).

Why do I even bother debating on this forum, anyway?

[Arkady Sadik]

Bringing up in character diplomatic commentary for an out of character debate?

Huh?

First, I thought talking about "your players" and the Veto nashville summer camp would indicate that the mail is not IC, but I seem to have been wrong.

Second, if it was IC, what does that change? Is it somehow not valid anymore? This is not about piracy or what is or is not piracy. The point Lyn raised was that having enemies is useful for an alliance in EVE, and I think you do agree with that point.

[Julianus Soter]

Ahhhh, digging into the veto summercamp thread. I though we were going back to the Mikkel Lybecker discussions when electus set Moira to negative standing from blue.

The cited statement is still entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Lyn Farel]

@_@

The point Lyn raised was that having enemies is useful for an alliance in EVE, and I think you do agree with that point.

Yes..

[Julianus Soter]

Allow me to put my original statement in this thread into more blunt terms.

If you set up a strawman enemy for your corporation, to 'motivate them' to participate in fleet operations, you're insulting the intelligence of your players. The people that aren't just going to follow your every single command out of slavish devotion and loyality are going to get up and leave because they think it's BS. And rightly so!

Instead, in order for a corporation to thrive and grow, you must have higher goals, unifying principles, that cause people to place trust in the premise of the corporation. The rest of it, comradeship, friendship, community, organization, corporate success, follows from that.

We see PVP in eve as a enjoyable game mechanic. I'm not even bothering to look up my statements in the Summercamp thread, because I'm pretty sure me addressing what I said there isn't going to convince you, Arkady, so whatever.

The point is, pvp in eve is a constant. Piracy under the most strict terms is an activity done to grief the playerbase of eve in order to extract some kind of monetary concessions from them. That is not what we deal in. However, we will engage in pvp whenever possible.

Is this the same as applauding efforts for the creation of strawman enemies? No, absolutely not. Strawman enemies are still terrible for a sustainable community, for the reasons pointed out earlier.

And even if Saxon Hawke isn't going to be a strawman enemy, then he's simply declaring the OOC intention to cause ruin and destruction to whatever alliance that does grow up out of an interest in Federation roleplay. One of the two possibilities has to be the case here with that kind of vague threatening statement.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

A couple points:

1) I think Julia has a good point; having an enemy isn't a primary motivator for success to an alliance. After all, your members have to feel confident they can win (or at least endure the conflict) the war, and if everyone's getting curb stomped and station-camped you're going to lose people. Internal cooperation and a sense of unity is a much stronger bond that can keep a group together, even through difficult times. PVP is a great way to 'strengthen' that bond, and keep boredom from taking hold, but is not a place-holder for goals.

2) NONE of you are going to MAKE a Gallente alliance, so why are you all arguing about this so much?

[Arkady Sadik]

If you set up a strawman enemy for your corporation

What exactly is a "strawman enemy"?

I mean, we're roleplaying internet spaceships captains and blow up pixels, what exactly is not a "strawman" about any enemy there? I would go as far as to say that if you are fighting "real" enemies in EVE, you're taking this game too seriously.

And this is what I understood Saxon's post to be: "Hi guys, if you are forming a Federation alliance, you will have someone to fight". Not as OOC hostility, but as an IC enemy.

One of the best things that happened to EM in its history was the war with PIE. We were IC enemies and had very good OOC relations. It changed the alliance, it made us grow, and we learned a lot there. I'm not sure our pilots, who still talk with glee about that time, felt their intelligence insulted there.

[Syagrius]

Most of the points raised here have merit. There have been several attempts to form Federation based RP corporations lately.  Two that come to mind are Federal Robotics and Advent.  Both well planned, expertly done, but experiencing varying degrees of success.  What John has done with I-Red is an absolute wonder, but that pattern may not work when overlaid onto “Federation Libertarianism”.  Perhaps the answer is as simple as “From Many One”.   There are some folks working on the problem.  Keep the ideas coming. 

[Saxon Hawke]

Wow. Spend a few days away for the weekend and I miss out on a whole thread tangent that could possibly have been averted.

First, let me say I never said the ILF would be annihilating anyone. Saxon's return this week will be a return to a kinder, gentler secessionist movement. We will provide a foil, a counter point for pro-Federation RP, but wiping people out isn't what we do.

Next, I'm certainly not offering the ILF up as some sacrificial strawman. We've been able to outwit and outlast too many opponents to be called a strawman.

And finally, my OOC post was made in the OOC Summit. I thought that this was the place for OOC discussions about RP ideas. If I'm wrong on this point, can someone point me to the right place?