Print

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

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Of course they would.

[Lyn Farel]

ICly, the "no slaves" rule sounds to me like a clear segregationist move against pro-slavery characters or characters that are not basically against it and use them occasionally. Half of New Eden, easily, is impregnated with slavery, even the Gallente or the Minmatar. Saying that the Summit forbids any slaves is like taking a strong political stance against a lot of individuals. It is ok since it is IC, but that's still how it sounds to me.

Well, people mistreating them in front of the camera is one thing, and that would logically end up in the IC ban of the character that did so (because we are not speaking about slavery anymore, but torture and gore). But characters being all upset and offended about slaves on a public intergalactic venue shouldnt be there in the first place. That's like being a strong anti slavery supporter and visiting the Amarr Empire nevertheless. If you can't control yourself, your journey is probably going to turn wrong pretty quickly. It would be like being against the veil IRL and still going to that international summit where you will obviously meet veiled women, and then creating drama over that because you can't control yourself and respect the culture of someone else. Being against it and having your own opinions is fine, but that does not mean that the community has to ban everything that pisses you off.

One could argue that the Summit shares CONCORD's policies in their space, which is perfectly fine, but don't forget that the Summit is a virtual place and all the characters connected are likely to be in all the possible places in New Eden. And CONCORD lets the Amarr Empire and its allies to deal with slaves in their own territory.

Of course at the end, if it is an IC decision from the creators of the Summit, then it is your total right to do so. But don't call it a neutral place then.

__

If that is an OOC based decision (and I bet it is), it is obviously based on the fact that a lot of people parading their slaves here created a lot of drama. Probably it does. As explained above ICly I just can't understand why it is people that showed their slaves that get banned instead of the characters drama-ing over it. It is part of the universe, deal with it, or stfu. To me that kind of decision sounds more like trying to put everyone in the same mould and ending up with a big, happy family. The Summit is supposed to be a place for debate and politics according to its motd, then why trying to eliminated all the things that potentially create debates ?

Now we end up trying to define a line between "good slaves" and "wrong slaves", slaves that can be accepted on the summit, and other slaves that can't. So Amarrian slaves can't be paraded on the Summit, but True Sansha slaves can ? What is the difference ? They are slaves no ? Or is it better when the master is absent or offscreen maybe ? I don't get it.

My apologies if I have been offending, but it was not my intention. It is mostly how I feel about that. In any case, do what you want. =)

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I agree with Lyn's post 100% and that is why I am not in favour of a blanket ban.  We can ban dramawhores on the basis of their being dramawhores.  We dont need to make a rule to ban them for that rule, instead.

[Kybernetes Moros]

Given that the primary explanation for a capsuleer slave, certain event actors aside and taking into account the wealth and comparitive freedom of podders, is mostly a BDSM thing, wouldn't the slaves issue end up as an intersection of the baseliner question?

[Ghost Hunter]

If the moderators would like to take the time out of their days to not only condemn the problem sources, but deal with their fall out - that is the best quality solution. It's not as simple as dealing with someone crying about being banned, however, because some people are malevolent in their intent behind these kinds of things. They enjoy being a harassment for what ever reason, and go out of their way to be a problem. Blanket bans (such as Fweddit) are useful for those who follow the mob; problem sources can find ways around it quite quickly. This is not including the amount of drama mongering that will inevitably occur in backdoor dealings as the problem source tries to convince the moderator(s) or people they 'are not a problem'.

Blanket bans are crude and exploitable, but they also have a degree of effectiveness to them as far as filtering the riff raff from the real problem sources. My Sansha True Slave clause was half in jest and half in seriousness, but if people want explanations about it I'll readily explain it.

[Esna Pitoojee]

First off, I think it needs to be said that Trues are pretty far in the back of any lists of bans we were going to effect; this is at least in part due to the fact that most of the True Slaves / True Citizens we've seen on the Summit have been portrayed in a highly uncliched, actually interesting manner. If we had as many people rolling TS alts that were some kind of cliched borg copy or something, this would be more of an issue. Thankfully, it is isn't the case.

Now a question for Lyn -

Is your post about the proposed blanket ban on all slave characters, or the existing rule/habit of banning slave or slave-owning characters who prove to be drama-filled?

[Morwen Lagann]

This particular debate is why I backed off from the blanket ban on slaves (which would NOT have included the Nation loyalists, I'll get into that in a bit), and went with the suggestion from Ava (or Tib, I thought it was Ava) that if a slave character does something meriting moderator action, both the slave and the master get the same punishment.

Lyn: In my opinion, the rule isn't a segregationist policy in the slightest, even IC. It's a move to reduce the prevalence of things that almost without fail trigger a hostile and unproductive atmosphere in the Summit that often requires moderators to step in to get people to calm down before action needs to be taken. A number of Amarrian RPers have stood up and said it made sense to keep presence of slaves on screen limited because matters of a given Amarrian household should stay within the household and as far away from the public eye as possible. What's the point in going out of your way to show that you have any in the Summit, besides deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or fapping about how much of a badass you are on camera?

The actual presence of slaves in the channel typically turns into an acid-spitting match between a spontaneous horde of white knights, and the slave who doesn't want to leave for some reason (insert bdsm references here) and/or his/her Holder. And should the slave not have an excuse for leaving and openly express a desire to, then there's more acid-spitting because of the response of the Holder. All of this results in a headache for any moderators on duty.

In short, yes, I suppose it boils down to "dramawhores will be smacked for being dramawhores" both IC and OOC. In some ways it's also a way to save everyone the headache that results when shit goes off a cliff with cinderblocks tied to its feet - if you can't put yourself into the position where you're going to instigate a dramashitstorm, you sure as hell can't complain about the backlash of said dramashitstorm. But the specific case of slaves has nothing to do with segregationism, and in fact helps the Amarrians by keeping certain outwardly negative aspects of the society out of view. They don't exactly look too kindly on people who cause trouble within their society, I doubt they'd look too kindly on people who make them look bad when they're trying to appear better than everyone else. "I don't need to prove that I'm better than you by showing off, I simply am."

Briefly regarding the toaster-lovers: I'm personally a little skeptical of most claims of players being proper True Slaves because there's literally nothing locking you into that for the rest of your time with the character. Not to mention, I question why an actual True Slave would bother wasting time with the rest of us.

Regarding servants: I don't have a problem with them, really. But why mention them explicitly if not to draw attention to their presence? And why draw attention to their presence, if not to fish for a reaction? If people are bringing you things, why wouldn't they do so while staying off-camera? It's less disruptive to the person on camera for it to be placed down nearby where they can reach over and grab it, than it is to interrupt that person in order to hand it to them. Just leave it as one of the elephants in the room. People know they're there, but if nobody brings it up, who's going to blow it out of proportion?

"If you and your behavior make the Summit community feel like it would be a better place without you, it will be."

This would be perfect, if not for the points raised in the first paragraph of Ghost's last post.  Some people get very seriously butthurt over this shit.

[Casiella]

So the mods take a person's history into account, I'm guessing? I just saw someone who certainly does cause trouble from time to time get muted for something that seemed fairly innocuous, simply because somebody complained that it was "offensive" (calling another character 'stupid').

As noted, I'm not trying to defend the offending player because, well, it's not his first time, but that's the only reasonable explanation I can imagine to mute someone just for calling somebody stupid.

[Lyn Farel]

First off, I think it needs to be said that Trues are pretty far in the back of any lists of bans we were going to effect; this is at least in part due to the fact that most of the True Slaves / True Citizens we've seen on the Summit have been portrayed in a highly uncliched, actually interesting manner. If we had as many people rolling TS alts that were some kind of cliched borg copy or something, this would be more of an issue. Thankfully, it is isn't the case.

Now a question for Lyn -

Is your post about the proposed blanket ban on all slave characters, or the existing rule/habit of banning slave or slave-owning characters who prove to be drama-filled?

For the blanket ban ofc.

If drama slavers get banned, I guess it is not because they are slavers but because they are drama whores.

Lyn: In my opinion, the rule isn't a segregationist policy in the slightest, even IC. It's a move to reduce the prevalence of things that almost without fail trigger a hostile and unproductive atmosphere in the Summit that often requires moderators to step in to get people to calm down before action needs to be taken. A number of Amarrian RPers have stood up and said it made sense to keep presence of slaves on screen limited because matters of a given Amarrian household should stay within the household and as far away from the public eye as possible. What's the point in going out of your way to show that you have any in the Summit, besides deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or fapping about how much of a badass you are on camera?

The actual presence of slaves in the channel typically turns into an acid-spitting match between a spontaneous horde of white knights, and the slave who doesn't want to leave for some reason (insert bdsm references here) and/or his/her Holder. And should the slave not have an excuse for leaving and openly express a desire to, then there's more acid-spitting because of the response of the Holder. All of this results in a headache for any moderators on duty.

In short, yes, I suppose it boils down to "dramawhores will be smacked for being dramawhores" both IC and OOC. In some ways it's also a way to save everyone the headache that results when shit goes off a cliff with cinderblocks tied to its feet - if you can't put yourself into the position where you're going to instigate a dramashitstorm, you sure as hell can't complain about the backlash of said dramashitstorm. But the specific case of slaves has nothing to do with segregationism, and in fact helps the Amarrians by keeping certain outwardly negative aspects of the society out of view. They don't exactly look too kindly on people who cause trouble within their society, I doubt they'd look too kindly on people who make them look bad when they're trying to appear better than everyone else. "I don't need to prove that I'm better than you by showing off, I simply am."

Briefly regarding the toaster-lovers: I'm personally a little skeptical of most claims of players being proper True Slaves because there's literally nothing locking you into that for the rest of your time with the character. Not to mention, I question why an actual True Slave would bother wasting time with the rest of us.

Regarding servants: I don't have a problem with them, really. But why mention them explicitly if not to draw attention to their presence? And why draw attention to their presence, if not to fish for a reaction? If people are bringing you things, why wouldn't they do so while staying off-camera? It's less disruptive to the person on camera for it to be placed down nearby where they can reach over and grab it, than it is to interrupt that person in order to hand it to them. Just leave it as one of the elephants in the room. People know they're there, but if nobody brings it up, who's going to blow it out of proportion?

ICly Lyn thinks it is segregationist, and I do think it OOCly as well. As I said above, you shun slavers because they are slavers. Which means a good part of the eve population. If this is not segregation, I do not know what it is. That is, of course, about the blanket ban of slaves and slavers.

Now then you think it is better to get rid of what causes the drama for you (the slaver), fine, but I do think that what causes the drama in most cases is not the slaver, but actually the people that always get butthurt over it. As I said above, welcome in New Eden and deal with it. If some characters can't get over it, then it might be better for them to reconsider speaking with slavers in the first place. It would be up to me, I would ban those ones instead. Reacting to a slaver because you can see slaves around, telling him how you disagree, creating a good discussion or debate over it with good RP is fine. Overeacting and being a bitch about it while actually being the drama whore here, and in the same way violating all the rules of the Summit about insulting behavior... Yes, I do not understand why it is to the slaver to gtfo and not the actual drama whore or emo character that couldnt just hold his/her tongue instead of going out all guns blazing. When you are speaking about "creating a dramashitstorm", I think that it is an usual "blame the victim" syndrome.

I find it totally normal for a slaver, or even a Holder, to have from time to time slaves bringing him a cup of tea for example, like a servant would. It also seems normal to me that we can see slaves going on their business in the background. This is part of what creates the environnement of the character in question. Some choose to materialize the environnement surrounding their characters when connecting to the summit, and I think it is part of enriching one's RP to add more flavor and depth to the universe in which they evolve. Same for servants. It is not always about drawing attention to their presence, it is like when you say that your character is sipping a glass of wine, or scratching his head, or whatever. It is about making your characters look more alive with all of their environnement.

Then of course, if some slaver starts to be provocative in an obvious way with his slaves, starting to pet them and cuddle them or doing dirty things or whatever... That is another story.

"If you and your behavior make the Summit community feel like it would be a better place without you, it will be."

This would be perfect, if not for the points raised in the first paragraph of Ghost's last post.  Some people get very seriously butthurt over this shit.

Yes, because the way Casiella said it, it brings back ideas about "ostracism by the mass". Better to be careful with such things, but of course eventually, it is our community, our channels, our rules. Deal with it, indeed.

[Matariki Rain]

I haven't been involved in any of the background to this. However...

I've been more active in The Summit of late, and it's partly because of this ruling.

It's not the case that making a space open to all is the same as making a space where all can interact. There is usually a lot in The Summit that Mata has to ignore, and not just in a "Meh", :rolleyes: or "Not my thing" way.

My first reaction to this ruling was along the lines of "Don't ban the slaves: ban the slaveholders!". After some thought, and a range of examples with and without, I've sort of come around.

Having defended open access to channels which I've then stopped playing in because I couldn't stand the consequences, I'm now open to the idea that some restrictions can actually make things work better. Whether this is one of those restrictions for The Summit is something for the Summit mods to decide.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

There is always open access (except in the one case we've had where we've nearly had to turn it off; i.e. the FWeddit debacle), so thats not going to be a problem.  We've just been much more willing to start hanging people with the rope they've been given as a result.

It was good to see you in the Summit though.  I don't think I've seen that since I started Tib.

[Lyn Farel]

I haven't been involved in any of the background to this. However...

I've been more active in The Summit of late, and it's partly because of this ruling.

It's not the case that making a space open to all is the same as making a space where all can interact. There is usually a lot in The Summit that Mata has to ignore, and not just in a "Meh", :rolleyes: or "Not my thing" way.

My first reaction to this ruling was along the lines of "Don't ban the slaves: ban the slaveholders!". After some thought, and a range of examples with and without, I've sort of come around.

Having defended open access to channels which I've then stopped playing in because I couldn't stand the consequences, I'm now open to the idea that some restrictions can actually make things work better. Whether this is one of those restrictions for The Summit is something for the Summit mods to decide. To my eyes, they are the ones spoiling the atmosphere, not provocative slavers.

I may have a different experience then. I feel that we are directing the banhammer at the wrong people. Personally, it is not slavers that I would like to see banned. I have difficulties to get into the Summit myself, more and more, precisely because of a whole different kind of roleplayers. All the emo characters that like to lurk around, and all the strawman alts that seem to pop everyday. To my eyes they are the ones spoiling the atmosphere.

[Lucian Alucard]

The Slave argument has plagued many channels too be honest. It simply comes down too whether or not the Holder and the Slave can both conduct themselves according too the channels declared and undeclared  rules of conduct. In short you wouldn't see a sane homosexual flaunt his life style at a Klan meeting,so why advertise the fact you're a slave holder in a setting that is mostly composed of Matari and their allies?

Now I will be the first person too decry Eve's lack of true hard boiled villains, but another old and tired saying that I think we should keep in mind is "Don't feed the Trolls"!  I will assume that most of us are functioning adults and that for the most part we all role play functioning adults who are experienced in dealing with a certain degree of douchebagery. So I think it's pretty safe too say that we can all tell if someone is genuinely trying too be a troll as opposed too legitimately representing their life style/belief system.

Playing a villain (which most consider Holders too be) in RP is like navigating a minefield, in some channels you can be yourself but in others your very presence may be considered trolling or being an attention seeker (Pretty sure if Hardin and Archbishop showed up in a UK or EM RP channel it wouldn't go over well), despite whatever their actions or reasons for being there are.

So I think in this case it should be something treated on a case by case basis. If we don't have people too give us something too talk about then its just a bunch of self important, opinionated, asses bunched together doing nothing but talking about the weather or gossiping like old biddies who agree with one another on everything. Aimless bitter vet rant OVER!!!

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

No, Im pretty in agreement with that.  I think we are starting to stray off topic though.  We aren't going to be banning slavers any time soon (I'm pretty sure) and are mostly focusing our attentions on dramawhores, who can come in any flavour.

Are there any other suggestions for the sorts of things that should/should not receive moderator attention, though?

[Lucian Alucard]

ME? Personally? Not of any note or seriousness. I am sorry if I derailed the topic but after reading a few of the posts that came off as a bit.....lets say enthusiastically heavy handed. I felt trying too be something resembling a moderate voice of reason was needed (which if I am compelled too do that, either I am reading things wrong or the final seal has been broken and Jesus is coming).