Print

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

[Seriphyn]

Ah, well then.

[Khloe]

I bet they'd have more fun at an amusement park anyway.

[Gottii]

I can assure you, it happens just about every time I log her in to the Summit ... much like it happens every time my IRL friends bring their pre-teen kids to a restaurant. Adults in an adult venue are often unwelcoming of unexpected children, in my experience.

This.  Its supposed to be a Summitt.  At the very least it should be an open communication frequency between capsuleers (i.e. mercenaries, industrialists, radicals, terrorists, merchants, murders, and everything else that entails)  If a child walked into the U.N. Assembly, or into a Blackwater board meeting, at the very least people are going to stop talking and wonder what in the world a child is doing there. 

In fact, IMO no child played as a child would actually really want to be in such a meeting.  Its likely quite boring through their eyes.  Kids want to do kid things, not talk about what is a reasonable POCO tariff to set for allies.

And really I have no problem with a blanket ban on slaves in the channel, for purely realism reasons.  By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society.   Its hard to do so with my main for obvious reasons, but if a slave started trying to talk to say my Caldari trading alt, he would likely sniff and say "thats nice, may I speak to an actual person with some standing please?". 

Capsuleers are the wealthy, the powerful, the decadent, the corrupt, the movers and shakers of the world.  Those kind of people dont talk to the help.

More to the point, if the players of those slave characters wish their characters to have rights, be included into wider society and be treated fairly, they literally should not be playing slaves. 

And yes, someone confusing a BDSM "slavery" with actual, no kidding slavery is kinda like saying if a young woman says "oh yes daddy" while wearing a catholic schoolgirl outfit she picked up as a surprise anniversary present she must think youre her actual biological father.  Utterly different things, not even in the same ballpark.

Real slavery doesnt have safe words.

[Safai]

Gotti is making so much sense right now.

[Makkal]

By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society. 

That's not the definition of slavery.

The entire point of Amarrian slavery is that they're supposedly saving the soul of that individual. You don't see the Amarr attempting to save the souls of dogs or wheelbarrow spokes. Given that it's a theocracy, the Amarrian concept of person-hood likely doesn't revolve around 'natural rights' but whether something has a soul or not.

[Gottii]

By definition a slave is not a person in the eyes of their respective society. 

That's not the definition of slavery.

The entire point of Amarrian slavery is that they're supposedly saving the soul of that individual. You don't see the Amarr attempting to save the souls of dogs or wheelbarrow spokes. Given that it's a theocracy, the Amarrian concept of person-hood likely doesn't revolve around 'natural rights' but whether something has a soul or not.

If history teaches anything about the merger of slavery and religion, its that slaveholders are perfectly okay believing their slaves can have a soul but still not be a legally defined person. (see New World slavery, Islamic jihads, etc) 

The same arguments used by the Amarrians ("we're saving their souls, and giving them eternal life, Heaven and civilization as a reward for their toil!") has been used by oodles of slavers in the past, from European slave traders to the Islamic jihads to just about every aggressive evangelical religion you can think of. 

For example, in the pre-Civil War American South black slaves were known for their piety and devotion to the Church and to the concept of Christ.  White preachers, even slaveholding ones, recognized them as human beings possessing of a soul that needed saving.  That was never in doubt from the very beginning of slavery in the U.S., its one of the excuses used when slavery started.  Many white Christians admired their black Christian slaves, and were a bit humbled by their example. (Christianity, like many religions, actually holds up well when its members are persecuted or oppressed)

Didnt mean black slaves were "persons" as defined by U.S. law or society.  Having a soul didnt mean you still couldnt be considered property.  ( see Dred Scott decision)   Its an odd concept to the modern Western ear, but simply having a soul didnt make you a legally recognized "person".

So, to be blunt, I think I have a better grasp on the definition of slavery than you do.

[Lyn Farel]

And all amarrians are supposed to fit exactly to that kind of views ? I may be wrong but I have the feeling that you are actually telling us that it can't be different than your RL references.

[Gottii]

And all amarrians are supposed to fit exactly to that kind of views ? I may be wrong but I have the feeling that you are actually telling us that it can't be different than your RL references.

No, Im just saying that a slave isnt a person as far as the Empire is concerned.  Theyre slaves, that is to say, property. 

Eventually, theyre freed after a certain number of generations, become citizens in the Empire. 

But theyre not legal "persons" until that time.  They cant sign contracts or the like.  Again, they're property, not persons.   Thats what a slave is.  The definition of a person is "A human being regarded as an individual."  A slave is a human being viewed as property, not someone with individual autonomy. 

Makkal seemed to think that there is no way someone could be viewed as having a soul but not actual be a legally recognized person.  Im saying history says thats wrong, and in fact its been the norm for a lot of slave owning societies, especially ones with religious justifications for slavery.  PF seems to indicate thats how the Empire works.  Thats what im saying. 

[Lyn Farel]

PF indicates ?

I think you are confusing the legal status of being a "person" in the Empire and being a "person" in a moral sense, especially, having a soul. It is not a hazard that Amarrians always talk about "reclaiming souls". Or confusing the legal status of citizen with the legal status of a person, an individual.

What I am saying is that nothing in PF seems to speak clearly about that added to the fact that this is a big cluster. I wouldnt be surprised to see your view on the matter applied in some territories while other views exist somewhere else.

I am kindof a partisan of "If it is not clearly stated in PF, then it is up to the players until CCP decides to state otherwise, BUT only CCP and the PF have the right to create something that applies  to their lore as a WHOLE, a globality". This is why I am not a fan of people telling me OOC that all Caldari care about taking back their homeworld, or that slavery in a legal sense is like this or that in the Empire since it is something they made out of their mind, and that can conflict pretty easily with someone else's interpretation. It is brilliant RP material ICly, but not OOCly, it is just absurd.

Interpretations are fine as long as we use them locally ("in my clan, these are our traditions but yours can differ", vs "in the Republic, these are the traditions and stfu"). This is why as much as I find the work done on napanii or amarrad quite impressive, I am always embarassed when I see factional RP blocs taking them as THE Caldari language, or THE Amarrian language. It equates to enforcing YOUR view, or the view of a GROUP of players over the others.

So, I think it is fine to have discussions over how things might be here or there, as long as people do not start to enforce it over others (ala yourdoingitwrong). And here, unless I misunderstood, you use a rule (the global ban of all slaves) of the Summit to enforce your views through it.

[Saede Riordan]

If I may?

I believe it comes down to this: The summit, despite being set up ICly like it is a nest of communications screens and interfaces, is mechanically really just a chat channel. If it was actually all the screens and interfaces it is supposed to be IC, then it would be fine if a slave or a servant or someone walked across the camera occasionally or whatever. However, it is not, it is a chat channel. Because it is a chat channel, the only time most people have anything at all happen in the background is when they want it to be something that other characters notice and remark on. The only way that people know the cup of tea in the pilot's hand came from a slave is if the player, OOCly specifically and consciously uses the word slave to describe the person who just handed them the tea. This is why background slaves can still cause problems. Because the only reason at all to note on them, and therefore the only way for any other players to be aware of them, is for the player to directly and consciously chose to type out that there are slaves in the background of their image.

As for slave characters:
First off, I don't like them. There is no reason at all for a capsuleer to be a slave, and like it or not, mechanically, you are in fact a capsuleer. The only reason someone could be seen as a capsuleer slave that made sense to me is if the person in question is a slave by choice, whether that's for bedroomy cybz related reasons, or IC devotion to redemption or something like that (a minmatar whose bought into the Amarr propaganda and thinks its good for them.) Even then, I really just do not like capsuleer slaves. I think they are far too often not played well, and very very often a sort of "look at me! Look at me and pay attention to me! look how edgy I am!" sort of thing. I could imagine what a good slave character would be like, but I have yet to actually see one, and frankly, despite my character being pro-slavery, I have no problem with an out and out ban on slaves in the channel. "Why is that property talking in this channel?"

And not that I think it really needed reiteration, but The Sansha crowd never really struck me as slaves, so you wouldn't even really need to have an 'except true slaves' exemption. They are more like cultists. True Slaves are part of the hivemind and don't come into the summit anyway. Mechanically, you are a capsuleer, you can't be part of that hivemind, and someone claiming that is probably only going to succeed in opening a large can of drama.

Basically, given the way that slavery RP manifests, and also given the mechanical constraints of the game, I would not be opposed to seeing it banned from the summit. If for no other reason then that I don't think a real slave character would be there anyway. There's no reason for them to be there IC. And the only OOC reason for slaves at all at this point seems to be attempted edginess. This goes past empire politics and OOC reflections of those politics, and PF discussions on how xyz would act. We don't need to know any of that to make a decision.

My vote: Outright ban slaves, both PCs, and NPCs, from the summit. If you want to explore issues of slavery ingame, there are better ways to do it.

[gmod]Sniping with really small caliber text is still sniping. -Morwen[/gmod]

[Ciarente]

The state of being a 'person' is a legal state, not a moral or ethical one. One individual can be the property of another; one human being can be the property of another; but one person cannot be the property of another.  Or, to put it another way, all human beings may be people, but not all people are persons.  And no, this is not the same as the legal state of 'citizen': one can be a person in a nation or state in which one is not a citizen. One cannot, of course, be a citizen when one is not a person; but one can certainly be a person without being a citizen. 

While the conditions of slavery may vary widely within the Empire, and there are a variety of indications in PF that it in fact does so differ, the existence of slavery is also PF. Slavery is, ipso facto, legally categorising some individuals/human beings/people as property and therefore, as not being persons. If slaves in the Amarr Empire are persons, they are by definition not slaves, which contradicts PF.

[Lyn Farel]

A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and less formally by different cultures in different times and places.

[Ava Starfire]

I have avoided this topic thus far, and have decided, as a member of the mod team, and a fairly active one at that, to weigh in.

It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.

That being said, how many characters have come into the summit as "Slaves" and are just there to shit things up? "Oh poor me, help me! I cant escape! Oh, well, I can, but my holder is so nice to me and... and... he touches me there!"

We get sick of it. The amount of drama has reached critical mass, and we are nuking it. Period. In game conflict is not drama, its story. Conflict away. Screaming "look at me, look I am a <whatever the fuck> isnt conflict, it isnt RP, its attention whoring. We are done with it. If you have an issue with it, take it up with graelyn.

In my time as a mod, i have muted someone in summit ONCE, for a blatant personal attack, for 30 minutes, and in OOC TWICE, once for a racist comment in OOC, once for a personal attack. Three times in three months. Yep, we're all tyrants. We're all out to get you and push our own agendas. I see so much RP in there that makes me vomit in my mouth a little, but I dont have to like it. Its still RP. I draw a line between RP and Drama. If that bugs you, odds are you're on the wrong side of the line.

I am always willing to talk to people, to listen to complaints, to do everything I can to NOT ban people. But, the last month, while Morwen was being "the bad guy", no one was informing me. I cannot take action on things which may be an issue if i am unaware of them. Please, tell me. I am not heavy handed, i dont throw bans and mutes around. All three of the people i have muted agreed "yep, had it coming" and one had been muted once before for the exact same thing.

RP is supposed to be fun. Its even more fun when we can forget that we're mods and just play the game too. Let us do that. Down with drama.

[Karmilla Strife]

I don't use the summit much, but personally I think I'd rather see active moderators using their best judgement to limit drama and other "toxic RP", than an ever expanding set of rules that progressively limits what characters can access the summit.

The fact that there are multiple moderators from different personal backgrounds discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed via a public forum is a good sign that it isn't some RP dictatorship enforcing their will on the rest of us. I know I've been in arguments with a couple of the mods before and I haven't been banned...

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I personally have a rule where I never ban someone for being in a legitimate argument with myself, at least.