Because of what Tiberious just said.
Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?
I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.
Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
He's basically not been reading a word people have said over the course of the
entire thread. The first mention of "banning slaves" was in my
original post, and was explicitly stated
as an opinion, not a rule (emphasis added)...
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters.
... well after the point where I had also
clearly stated the policy was that while slaves
are allowed in the channel, any cockups on their part will result in their Holders being punished just as harshly.
"Holders will suffer the same consequences as their slaves, should the slaves cause trouble and earn the ire of the moderators on the Summit." This one's new, but also self-explanatory. I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs about 'capsuleer slaves', but if you're a Holder, you are responsible for your slaves' behavior. If a slave earns themself a mute or a ban, that punishment will be carried over to the Holder as well. Want to avoid it? If you're going to insist on having slave characters connecting to the Summit, make sure they stay on their best behavior and don't cause trouble.*
Now to actually respond to your post, piece by piece just to make sure we get through it:
We might not be speaking about the same things.
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't at this point: I and most of the other people posting in the thread are talking about reality, and you and a few people you managed to distract are off in la-la land because you didn't actually read my original post and went completely off the rocker over something I didn't actually write.
You are eluding my actual points while stating the obvious.
It is
extremely difficult to elude something that you don't know is there. If I'm "eluding" your points, maybe you should try putting them on the surface of your posts instead of hiding them under ten meters of off-kilter tangential nonsense that's based on something
I didn't say.
I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.
I think Mal/Raze/Azdan's post
here pretty clearly explains why people say you argue for the sake of arguing, and gives a pretty clear example of you not reading what was in the post you responded to - or, if I'm going to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt there, a clear example of you reading what was in the post and then responding in a fashion that pretty blatantly implies you didn't. I would also note that while his post is attributed primarily to your character, I personally see extremely similar behavior in your own OOC posting.
I was not refering to people playing slaves, I was refering to the clear rule written on the summit motd, which is "NO PARADING OF SLAVES".
Kindly check your goddamn facts before claiming shit like that. This has
never been in the MOTD. The only "policy" that is explicitly in the MOTD is "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
Sorry, I just disagree and will continue to strongly voice against that kind of things. If this is IC (and since it is written in the motd, it is), then I will voice against it IC.
Again, check your facts before claiming something that isn't true, is. It isn't in the MOTD and
never has been. You are confusing "things moderators highly suggest not doing because it almost always eventually leads to moderator action" for actual hardcoded rules.
But since I know it also comes from OOC bleeding and misconceptions, I also disapprove OOCly. I do not care if you want to ban BDSM slaves or whatever comes here, and the slavers parading them. It does not make a lot of sense IC, but it certainly does OOCly. But when I see people like Leopold (or other slavers that actually are not playing the nice slavers like Esna, Nico, etc) with slaves in the background like you will find voluvals on Matari flesh, slavers that are directly targeted by this rule, I have to admit that it pisses me off.
If you still think that it doesn't make sense IC, then you're still not listening to a word anyone's said on the subject. The channel is moderated both IC and OOC, preferably IC when possible. There is more than enough IC justification for this particular "rule", and the people who are "directly targeted" by it are the people who shit up the channel with stupid drama with the behavior the policy is intended to curb. And as it clearly hasn't sunk into your head yet, many Amarrian RPers have voiced support for the policy
in and out of character.
Yes, I think that channel has had a tendancy to fall into the politically correct syndrome recently, and yes, I spend at least a little time watching what happens here. I may not do it as much as yourself, but it does not mean that my opinion is irrelevant too. Yes, I still do think that this channel has lost its neutrality over the time, and has become somewhat segregationist in is principles. It is still tolerable de facto, but on paper, it is not to my eyes.
It is far better to be politically correct and throw the drama-llamas, attention-whores and other troublemakers out the airlock, than have all of the decent people constantly complaining about and fleeing the channel because of them.
You clearly don't spend enough time watching, or at the right times of day. And while that doesn't make your opinion
irrelevant, your opinion is still based on a lot of false claims that make its relevance questionable at best.
You sound like you think that I think mods are not doing their job, when they actually do, and also, congrats for that, you have all my support. You will also note that most of my points in my previous posts where not specifically adressed to you, moderators, but to some of the previous posts with which I totally disagree with.
You very clearly managed to somehow delude yourself and a bunch of other people into thinking we were doing or saying things that we actually aren't, so it's not that much of a stretch.
And finally, on rules vs mod discretion : just tell them to gtfo, who care if they complain ? That is your channel, not theirs. I want draconian, but not draconian bureaucrat. Some guidelines are fine, and probably better, though.
It also goes the same way with me, if I bother you enough (and it is definitly not a big deal, unlike it may seem), same thing : tell me to stfu, it is your channel, your rules, your ethics.
I will openly admit that the temptation is there, and I guarantee I am not the only person who feels that way.
Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.
If this is the backhanded accusation of moderator bias that it reads as, my response to you, were I not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, would be something that would make a stereotypical Gallentean mother go dashing for her kid's ears.
Author
Topic: Loosening the straps (ooooh). (Read 28734 times)