Print

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

[Vikarion]

It becomes even more annoying when these people start to really care about their personal political views on the eve world so much that it is damn easy to tell when it is the player that is speaking, and more, that it gets quite obvious that the player himself is implying to you, the other player, and not even your character, that you are doing it wrong and that your understanding of the PF is just shit.

OOC bigotry sugarcoated with IC, as I said above.

Edit : this also goes pair with so called RPers RPing not for the sake of RPing, but to win the argument. A lot of people are just there (especially on the IGS) in the same kind of testosterone contest that is so ingrained in Eve everywhere where people think they are proving something - or I don't know what exactly - by winning the argument by whatever mean necessary. Who cares after all ? That is the character that may be losing the argument, not the player, so who the hell cares ? It might actually bring interesting cases where a character might change his/her mind or suddenly have a lot of doubts, or whatever.

Incidentally, I should be perfectly clear: I hold virtually no viewpoints in common with my character save an appreciation for capitalism. 

Anyway, I think that a character who changes his mind - or, perhaps, doesn't know it - can be interesting and fun, but changing views is something you want to use sparingly in your character's story. If you don't deeply invest in one position or another, and discover reasons for holding that position, then a change of mind isn't really noteworthy, and you actually end up devaluing any position you (your character, rather) does hold. Why is this position better than the last?

[Lyn Farel]

Oh yes of course, not to say that one has to change his/her mind everytime either. It was just an example.

[orange]

The Federal Defense Union and State Protectorate ranks at least provide political rhetoric from the opening of the Gallente-Caldari War.  To me, they indicate the new Gallente President at the time's intent was to wipe out the Caldari.  Maybe that isn't what happened, but the rhetoric puts it in that light.

But I have to ask, why shouldn't Caldari characters portray the exodus and bombardment as a horrible thing as something approaching genocide?  The event happened hundreds of years in the past and is what created the modern State - why wouldn't the Caldari continue to portray the Gallente as oppressive, murders?

Is someone here saying that our characters shouldn't be lying or making up false claims? Does PF indicate somewhere that this perfectly normal mode of human behaviour is missing from New Eden?

I mean, there exists people in RL who do this a lot, we have to deal with it and it adds a certain edge to the character of the person making the claims. It's not like we have to believe everything someone says, but we can, if we think that for some particular reason our characters would be inclined to believe in the claim.

Oh no, characters can lie and spread delusions: I don't think (And I certainly hope against)  any Amarrian RPers see their characters' view on slavery as anything more sympathetic than 'well intentioned but misguided' at best. And of course as anyone who has been the public face of a corporation will tell you, bare-faced lies come with the job.

But I doubt that when Hilato Talkori's player was writing about provist crimes he was thinking "Oh Hilato, you devious little liar you!" And why should I give him that benefit of the doubt? He never presented it other than a straight accusation, without any OOC wink-and-nudge that he is IC lying. The reality is that without any indication otherwise, without any OOC declarations we know of, and without any precedence of this being a known but repeated lie/delusion amongst certain factions, there is no reason to think that his thread is anything but yet another attempt to make the 'other side' worse. And to the surprise of no one, we have several characters (Some of whom are, and are played by, intelligent, respectable people) stepping in and throwing their support behind this man and his campaign against the provists, not because his campaign is based on anything so irrelevant as evidence, but because they are also enemies with the provists. So more mud is thrown, the lines in the sand that have long since been dug to the depth of ditches get a little closer to their dream of being full-fledged canyons, and I can't help but wonder what vote I missed where we all decided this was fun.

Don't leave holes in accusations and make them seem plausible.   Claiming that thousands of CreoDron employees have died in a freak drone accident in Placid sounds all well and good until someone asks you want system and you realize CreoDron does not have any PC accessible stations in Placid.  Suddenly the author and those interacting are scrabbling to figure out where and why CreoDron was even in Placid.

When someone steps up to provide a "news item" or starting point for RP, they are GMing in a world filled with information written by others.  Not only that, but our words will be the basis for others RP/stories and we will lose control of them.   I was recently pointed to an example of this, involving LDIS.  I do not remember ever talking to Roc about it or saying "ya, LDIS would build "Infinity Cities" on tons of planets."

So, can we lie?  Sure, but be good at it!  Create well thought out lies/stories,  the part where we scratch our heads and go "I dunno" should be a small part of the story.

If I am want to talk about a growing NPC presence in 4TH's space, I am actually going to talk about NPC's setting up liaison offices in stations or forward teams looking at at possible revenue streams.   I am not going to talk about them building a station in I-MGAB.

[BloodBird]

That's just the thing - Caldari characters invested in the situation can definitely claim the whole event was an attempt to remove the Caldari people from the face of the cluster, and nearly always when they get the chance, they do. That's to be expected, and I do expect them to do that based on their agendas and viewpoints.

The problem I'm annoyed with is that when they go "herpa, you tried to kill us all, derpa" the counter-argument seem to have died off completely in favor of "yeah we did, I'm sorry" (sad face). There is no arguing anymore. Just a claim by X that's not verified by PF, that automatically seem to be agreed on by Y, Z and all others with no opposition, even if there is fully legit opposition and debate to be had. A PF-fueled argument of unclear events has turned into a IC jab that none care to argue against.

As for the militia rank quotes, that's another annoyance I've got. Besides the whole fact that the statements of those ranks don't have to reflect what was actually done - the president quote is from the super-national fascist president, who most definitely had wet dreams of killing all Caldari - it's down-right INSULTING to me as a player that the Amarr get IC faith-based quotes and sayings, the Minmatar get inspirational, defiant sayings and remarks, the Caldari get defiant, 'we won't give in ever' statements, and the Fed gets that sad collection of super-national shit from an era of government that's considered the lowest point in the Fed's history by most PF sources and players supporting the Fed.

I mean WTF CCP? Do you honestly have so little info on one of your own fictional in-game groups you had to resort to this sad tripe for their ranks? During 100 years of war, no-one made any statements that were somewhat heroic, defensive in nature, or at least not an agressive call for mass-murder? A Caldari, Amarr or Minmatar player gets a new rank and goes "yay inspiration", a Fed player gets one and - with the sole exception of number 1 and 2 - its more "kill them all rawrrawrrawrrawr". Again, fuck you. You could have done so much better.

The ranks don't prove anything conclusive either way. The president wanted them dead, that's old news. The rest are aggressive or pathetic statements from individuals and indicate the attitude of most of the idiots in power at the time. None of them, besides the count-down timer for the bombings, indicate any actions made - ergo what was done according to the 3 war chronicles counts, the ranks give an indication for what they wanted to do.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Couple of completely unsupported guesses I'll throw out:

1, CCP was sourcing a bunch of quotes from the earliest starts of respective conflicts. The genocidal Federation government was the government in power at that point, so they got sourced.

2, CCP may have felt that while the darker aspects of some other factions are self-evident, the Federation's shadier portions were not so evident, and needed to be highlighted in a location easily accessible to the FWers.

[Vikarion]

Couple of completely unsupported guesses I'll throw out:

1, CCP was sourcing a bunch of quotes from the earliest starts of respective conflicts. The genocidal Federation government was the government in power at that point, so they got sourced.

2, CCP may have felt that while the darker aspects of some other factions are self-evident, the Federation's shadier portions were not so evident, and needed to be highlighted in a location easily accessible to the FWers.

There's also the fact that Eve is supposed to be a somewhat dystopian, gritty world. But, honestly, besides the actions of the Federation towards the Caldari, are there any major instances of the Gallente being unsavory? Not many, if any.

[Esna Pitoojee]

There are some instances - the Gal epic arc, for instance, points toward both slave trade with the Amarr and the darker side of the Gallente hyper-hedonism, while there's also the whole thing about how the Gallente exiled the Intaki for showing any sympathy for the Caldari).

But, honestly, these are more obscure bits of lore to the non-RP community, and I think CCP was really looking to try to give the FWers an idea of what the war was about.

[Jakiin]

There are some instances - the Gal epic arc, for instance, points toward both slave trade with the Amarr and the darker side of the Gallente hyper-hedonism, while there's also the whole thing about how the Gallente exiled the Intaki for showing any sympathy for the Caldari).

But, honestly, these are more obscure bits of lore to the non-RP community, and I think CCP was really looking to try to give the FWers an idea of what the war was about.

I will respectfully ask that this line of discussion end. Not because I dislike it (I find it very interesting) and not because I'm worried about it derailing the thread (That topic seems to be done anyway), but because unless someone else beats me to it I plan on making an entire thread dedicated to this subject within the next 48 hours, and dammit don't say all the interesting things before then!   

[Esna Pitoojee]

Bwahahaha, fair enough Jak. My apologies. 

(Just an FYI - if you can find a mod who's willing, threads can actually be literally split/posts moved, so if you want to have a section moved to the new thread...)

[Yoshito Sanders]

Just another note on the Caldari-Gallente quotes... They seem, for a large part, to be a back and forth with each other, where the rank descriptions are mostly responses to one another.

[Bastian Valoron]

The Federal Defense Union and State Protectorate ranks at least provide political rhetoric from the opening of the Gallente-Caldari War.  To me, they indicate the new Gallente President at the time's intent was to wipe out the Caldari.  Maybe that isn't what happened, but the rhetoric puts it in that light.

But I have to ask, why shouldn't Caldari characters portray the exodus and bombardment as a horrible thing as something approaching genocide?  The event happened hundreds of years in the past and is what created the modern State - why wouldn't the Caldari continue to portray the Gallente as oppressive, murders?

I think this line of rhetoric makes perfect sense for Caldari characters. Federation loyalists certainly have counter arguments for these accusations, and any revelation of an OOC truth would kill all the RP which spins from this source. Hopefully no one will ever get the idea to publish a book which reveals how things "really" are.

Don't leave holes in accusations and make them seem plausible. Claiming that thousands of CreoDron employees have died in a freak drone accident in Placid sounds all well and good until someone asks you want system and you realize CreoDron does not have any PC accessible stations in Placid.  Suddenly the author and those interacting are scrabbling to figure out where and why CreoDron was even in Placid.

When someone steps up to provide a "news item" or starting point for RP, they are GMing in a world filled with information written by others.  Not only that, but our words will be the basis for others RP/stories and we will lose control of them.   I was recently pointed to an example of this, involving LDIS.  I do not remember ever talking to Roc about it or saying "ya, LDIS would build "Infinity Cities" on tons of planets."

So, can we lie?  Sure, but be good at it!  Create well thought out lies/stories,  the part where we scratch our heads and go "I dunno" should be a small part of the story.

If I am want to talk about a growing NPC presence in 4TH's space, I am actually going to talk about NPC's setting up liaison offices in stations or forward teams looking at at possible revenue streams.   I am not going to talk about them building a station in I-MGAB.

I personally prefer made-up claims which are difficult or impossible to fact-check. Examples include things like conspiracies, sensational news, opinion polls and shifts in opinion landscape, failed projects, psychological claims, religious revelations, predictions, expert views, or something a crazy person might cook up. As long as nothing prevents the claims to be half-truths or completely fabricated, the opposition will have a lot of freedom in formulating a counter argument, and I don't see why there would be a reason for complaints.

Regardless of how many stations CreoDron has in Placid, a claim like "thousands of CreoDron employees have died in an accident" would not be in the news in real-life if it wasn't fact-checked, and it might also hurt the views of CreoDron loyalists on their favourite company. In this case, one could say that we are god-modding a bit here, but then again these kind of accidents are bound to happen sometimes and we'd need a damn good explanation if they were completely non-existent. So, since it's plausible and doesn't seem to have any far-reaching consequences, I would probably still keep playing along.

[Seriphyn]

I really don't think CCP have enough political scientists in their ranks to realistically portray this sort of thing in three dimensions. There isn't even any details about how the U-Nats got into power anyway. From the quotes, it looks like they switched Presidents in a day. Doesn't look like the fascists were popularly elected at all.

[Publius Valerius]

I really don't think CCP have enough political scientists in their ranks to realistically portray this sort of thing in three dimensions. There isn't even any details about how the U-Nats got into power anyway. From the quotes, it looks like they switched Presidents in a day. Doesn't look like the fascists were popularly elected at all.

They had one in form of TonyG; but I dont know what his specialisation was. I think, he was closer to sociology I would guess, he makes in the fanfest vids on youtube allot of Macro-Macro statements. But if CCP needs one... in my Corp is one friend with the specialisation in international relations and his name is Neo-Realism.^^ (no joke) Im more the NPÖ-guy (Public choice). Even if is isnt my domain, maybe I can help... Is the question: "How can I portray a right wing shift in the Fed?" I would say that is a hard one because the old schoolers like: Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba The Civic Culture wouldnt work, because I think, the Fed had during this time most likely a good mix out of the three (parochial, subject, participant).
And Lepsts Political Man the sociology of politics and his theory "the more developed a country is, the more likely it is that a democracy develops." doesnt really help. So-... how we stand in the old school stuff?... I would most likely go with Walt Rostow.... he his more open, which means in his modell is it like in Almond/Verbas the cc possible that even I high develop state can become a dictatorship. He has just small examples in his modell were he just describe how can a nation derail... like Algeria or Afghanistan (in the 50s and 60s), In his modell is that the case: If for a long time the economic growth is below the population growth (it is simplified version form me, more precisly he has actually a function with some more economic variables.... but just to give an idea.... you can take his model and add it to Gunnar Heinsohns model. So that you have Rostow plus Hainsohn.. which gives a possible and rational anwser, why can even a develop nation become not a democracy.