That's more or less what I have done since the first time I started to post on the summit, several years ago. Not to the same excesses/scale, definitly not, but when I noticed recently that a lot of IC attacks were merely veiled OOC snipes, and this more and more, I just got weary of it. Nothing more, really.
I would say Lyn is a very effective debater in an IC context and I think in her application of logic and construction of arguments she can be very difficult to rebuke. However, sometimes it has to be asked is the goal of conducting an IC debate an argument to be able to stick a QED at the end of it or is it promote the expression of character thought and opinions? In this, I mean I've had on many occasions the chance to create ironclad, logically consistent arguments but if you look at some of the arguments made by my characters there are often gaps left open in the rhetoric because I'm not so much interested in "winning" a debate but rather in allowing a conversation to develop by conceding points and leaving openings for others to explore.
I think what some may have an issue with Lyn is not so much that she's a solid debater who values the application of logic to a discussion, but rather since she tends to follow thoughts to their conclusion it can give rise to situations where an opponent is forced IC into a corner because they cannot defend a position due to a lack of available information and/or PF. An example of this might be say, religion and God in the Empire, theoretically the Theology Council no doubt spends a lot of time doing research into canon law, the scriptures and rhetoric to counter, "Unbelievers", but players themselves do not have access to that information and thus can be trapped into positions that can be indefensible whilst also trying to maintain an "Orthodox" opinion of the Amarr religion.
This can cause frustration for other players that might be expressed as thinly veiled OOC because there's little else they can do given the information and resources at hand. I think there's a reason Socrates was given hemlock, not because of blasphemy against the Gods, but rather because his peers must have gotten tired of being the victims of reductio ad absurdam. Much the same applies I think to IC debates: One can take the purely logical and reasoned approach or one can try and view things from the other side and seek to frame arguments that are still consistent but also allow for a degree of scope for others not to get forced into a corner due to a lack of available resources to defend their IC opinions.
My thoughts anyway, and yes, I still love Lyn.
