Print

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

[Streya]

Hello everyone. I was reading over the IGS and came across the hotly-debated theology threads. While I am not here to discuss that particularly sticky mess, I did find something that I feel warrants posting and discussion here: the in-character use of Earth-related proper nouns.

I came across a post by Valerie Valate that highlights the core of the issue:

Not even close.

So far we've had people just making up Scriptures, and making up theorems.

Go on, who is Bayes that your theorem is named after.

Or is it just another thing you've made up ?

or wait, no, I have it. It's things from "Earth" again, isn't it ?

Heh.

While I'm not here to discuss the validity or invalidity of any particular theorem, I do find this issue to be a impedance to constructive roleplay. The core of the problem arises in using proper nouns that relate to real life academic figures on Earth. Many theorems and scientific breakthroughs are named after the minds that discovered them, so how do we reference to them while in-character? We play in a science fiction universe, after all, and in my opnion making no mention of such theories and breakthroughs would be a severe hindrance to sci-fi roleplay.

In the case of this particular example post above, I have to wonder if there were alternatives to poking the fourth wall. Clever roleplayers have gotten around this issue with other theorems and laws by using other titles of the particular idea. For example, many roleplayers are hesistant to speak of "Occam's Razor" in-character, but use "law of parsimony" instead because it makes no reference to any real-life figure (in this case, Occam). In the case of Baye's Theorem, however, there is no such alternative title to use. And yet its validity as a theorem for use in debate still stands. So how are we to reference to it?

This highlights an overall question of how we interpret words we post in the English language on an internet spaceships forums while in-character. Do our characters read the words literally and any reference to a proper noun is thus taken literally? Do we sit back OOC and simply "translate" the titles of theories and ideas which use proper nouns into an in-universe equivalent, so that our character may digest them? I tend to prefer the latter method, as it keeps perfectly good roleplay from devolving into name-calling. It also prevents the debasement of a perfectly valid in-character discussion on the grounds that it contains the string "Baye's Theorem" rather than something else that doesn't use the man's name.

I find simply sneering at the other character and saying "lolEarth" is rather unfriendly and not in line with recent hopes to build a more friendly community. I would understand such a position if there were a way to express the titles of abstract ideas in a way that doesn't reference to real-life figures, but in this case there's not. Why, then, poke fun at the mention of a particular proper noun when it couldn't be helped?

One particular solution in regards to language that I really liked is actually found in another universe: the Halo universe. In Halo, a long-dead and ancient race of people known as the Forerunner left behind information consoles that interact with the mind of the person using the console. Sound familiar? While these consoles were able to translate most Forerunner words into English, a few words wouldn't have a direct translation. And so, interacting with the user's mind, the device puts in a sort of "placeholder" word that takes into account the language and culture of the user.

When reading things in-character, the above is how I generally approach the use of proper nouns that may reference to Earth. Of course, if one is directly referencing to a person or thing on Earth, then by all means question it. But when referencing to ideas and theories, I believe we should be more liberal in how we interpret titles that use the names of philosophers and scientists from real life. In this way we can avoid blocking other people's roleplay and have constructive interactions that develop our characters.

Thoughts?

[Sepherim]

First, I believe that attacking a post for using the current scientific name of a thing is, certainly, proving you lack in valid arguments to use.

But, in any case, I actually see no problem in keeping those names. Afterall, for the centuries since Occam announced his theory we still call it "Occam's razor". Probably, people of the future would still call it so, even if they no longer remember who is Occam, and it would eventually reach EVE's time in such a form even if all knowledge of the medieval philosopher is lost in time and space.

There is a second approach if you want to avoid entering this line, which I used somewhere in IGS recently (don't remember where, sorry): to not reference the actual person in IC and add an OOC brief foot-note to do the reference so all can understand it.

[Streya]

It's quite possible, Sepherim, though one of the first things to go after the collapse of the EVE Gate was scientific knowledge and the like. For example, while in real life the word "boson" is a combination of the names "Bose" and "Einstein", the actual word itself in the EVE universe was likely lost when mankind descended from spacefaring status to beating each other over the head with rocks. That being said, I have yet to see anyone challenge the use of words such as "boson" while speaking in-character simply because it has been so heavily incorporated into the English language. The word has taken on a meaning of its own, distinct from the identities of the scientists after which the class of particles was named. The same cannot be said of other, less widely-known scientific and mathematical discoveries such as Bayes' Theorem.

So in the end I go in with the mindset that while we (the players) type words in the English language on the IGS, our characters are reading those words in their native language and with appropriate cultural/setting translations. If someone wants to nitpick at references to real-life figures, then they can ask CCP to rename the following in-game items:

*All of the 'Ohm' meta capacitor batteries
*Fourier Transform Tracking Program (meta Tracking Enhancer)
*Alumel-Wired Sensor Augmentation (meta Sensor Booster, "Alumel" is both an alloy and a trademarked product in real life)
*Nosferatu modules, named after a character in an old real-life horror film

And so on and so forth. Point is, nitpicking at the use of proper nouns that relate to real life when conveying abstract ideas that themselves have no relation to that person/place/etc seems a bit extreme when there are plenty examples of this going on in the item database.

[Aria Jenneth]

Agreed. Nobody in Eve is speaking English.

Ergo ...

I reserve the right to use the word "quisling" (a name that became literally synonymous with "traitor," to the point where autocorrect won't try to capitalize it) when it applies, and presume that it has its usual meaning.

However ...

While I may refer to the second law of thermodynamics, I will not be mentioning whose law it is; nor will I describe anybody's scheme, in-character, as Machiavellian, even if it is.

In general ...

Avoidable proper nouns = probably bad form. Unavoidable or little-known ones = presume universe-appropriate equivalent is what character is actually using. This is never going to be perfect, but to achieve that lofty goal we'd have to come up with the Eve equivalent of The Klingon Dictionary at least four times over, and all become fluent.

... And then invent culturally and historically-appropriate jargon.

[Synthia]

It's not improv-blocking, to call out insertions of RL things, inserted to try and force a win because the opposition can't see a way to use the IC material.

This thread is just dressing up a "Valerie is doing it wrong", and the reason you think Valerie is doing it wrong, is because you are upset at having your RL insertions called on.

So, no.

It is unconstructive RP, when you insert the old testament to attack your opponent with.
It is unconstructive RP, to insert other RL things, to attack your opponent with.

Your corporation was set up as "trolls", so as far as I can see, it is somewhat deceitful to then complain about being called on it.

You say we should be nice, and accepting of everyone's attempts to use RL things to "win" an IC thing. Why should we ? Are you paying our subscriptions ? Do we use your internet connection ? Is there some reason that we should submit to your whims ?

[Bong-cha Jones]

I dunno.  Bayes Theorem describes a set of relationships expressed in math.  It's not really the same as saying 'Leviticus is part of the Amarrian Scriptures'. 

[Jev North]

On the other hand, yoinking random bits of Old Testament and presenting them as Amarrian beliefs was below the belt, so I can empathize with Synthia feeling a bit cornered there.

I think the debate is sufficiently toxic now that it might be a good idea for for everyone to take a step back, grab some air and sunshine, know what I mean?

[Myyona]

I try to avoid nouns that refers to scientific methods or philosophies as much as possible.

In your attempt to appear clever by using such noun, you often end up using it in a wrong context or interpretation. Also, it has a tendency muddle up the conversation if others not are familiar with the noun. Of course, it is also an old forum warrior trick that does not lead to good RP under any circumstances.

[BloodBird]

As far as I'm concerned, this entire point is moot and somewhat irrelevant.

NO-ONE in EVE speak english. Or spanish, german, japanese, hindu, vietnamese, french, greek or whatever you want to use. The forum's rules demand the use of english however, for obvious reasons and still, not one person in the EVE universe speaks this language.

So why is it here at all? Easy: It's here because WE AS PLAYERS need a unified language to use for our communications. English then, is nothing more or less than what all our individual translators generate when reading texts on the IGS and elsewhere.

A character posts in Amarrian, to him this reads as english. My character reads this post through the auto-translated filter and reads it in Intaki. Intaki reads as english to my toon. Thus everyone is equalized on the IGS and in private conversation.

In this case, arguing about proper use of english terms in an IC form becomes  a pit of slime because in many ways it violently breaks down the fourth wall.

WHY are these character arguing about terms that should be a non-issue thanks to translators? Don't this Amarrian woman see the Caldari used by the other guy as proper Amarrian in her translator? Why the heck not? Did she turn it off and try to read the thing herself? Is her translator broken or faulty? Why... you know I'm running out of even unlikely explanations here. There is no real reason to do this kind of thing really.

If people want to, for instance, replace 'Stockholm syndrome' with some sort of in-universe equal and insert it flawlessly into a description of the issue and post that IC, I see no problem because we all realize what the proper term is, and how clever it was to alter it into an in-universe equal. Until someone else describes the same things using a different word ofc, but that can be excused by there being many terms for the same condition. (I chose this as an example because I recall it being done once to good effect, but don't recall who did it.)

Making up alternative describers to conditions like the above is one thing and can have great effect on someone's RP by 'spicing it up' with in-universe terms, adding to immersion. Arguing proper use of language when it basically becomes an argument over english has the opposite effect.

As an aside: The above example is why I frown on the use of terms like 'quisling' or 'judas' to describe someone as a traitor. There are plenty of other terms one can use, or you can make up your own and perhaps ((OOC it)) with a short explanation for what you mean, unless you manage to seamlessly add it into the message itself. That their names were to live on tens of thousands of years into the future and several dark ages later is utterly absurd. Again, make up a new term. Better yet, make several. The Federation might even make two from recent events. Eturrer, and Noir. The Caldari State has at least one, N-something (can't recall the spelling.) and it should not be hard to find equals for the Minmatar and Amarr either.

Also, on a completely separate note (no derailment intended) the use of Quisling is groan-inducing to me just as the term Benedict Arnold is. Why the hell should we go around glorifying our traitors by making their names the equal of the deeds they made? Quisling is never again going to become a usable name in Norway, but I see no reason to keep glorifying the man behind it, not after he was shot, not 68 years after his death, and not a few hundred years later either. The American independence war ended how long ago, and people still use that term? Let our traitors become relegated to the foot-notes in history that they earned and leave it at that.


*EDIT* I also agree that pulling stuff out of thin air to present as Scripture is a kick in the gut, but we have gone over that in another tread...

[Synthia]

From the start, CTCS has been about interpreting what can be found ingame or in PF. Example.
We have received recognition for it. Not just from players. Example.

So then, when arguing about doing people's RP a disservice, or "blocking", or promoting constructive RP, why don't you take that into account, and come up with counter-arguments based on things that you find ingame?
Instead of all the RL insertions that do nothing except to destroy RP that respects the game world ?

[Saede Riordan]

On the other hand, yoinking random bits of Old Testament and presenting them as Amarrian beliefs was below the belt, so I can empathize with Synthia feeling a bit cornered there.

I think the debate is sufficiently toxic now that it might be a good idea for for everyone to take a step back, grab some air and sunshine, know what I mean?

I already did actually after two people told me that it wasn't going anywhere.

That said. I am not stitcher I never used arguments that the Amarr religion was the old testament.

From the start, CTCS has been about interpreting what can be found ingame or in PF. Example.
We have received recognition for it. Not just from players. Example.

So then, when arguing about doing people's RP a disservice, or "blocking", or promoting constructive RP, why don't you take that into account, and come up with counter-arguments based on things that you find ingame?
Instead of all the RL insertions that do nothing except to destroy RP that respects the game world ?

Wombats.

[Synthia]

Wombats aren't used as a tool to win arguments.

[Streya]

Please keep the discussion on-topic people. Regardless of where you stand on the "insert IRL Bible verses into Amarr religion here" issue, that is not what is being discussed in this thread.

At any rate, Synthia, I can see where you're coming from with that. The problem arises in that we're not talking about historical events or physical things. If a character claimed, in-universe, that something existed or something in the past happened when it did not, then by all means it is absolutely fine to call it out and say "Wait, you're just making that up". The problem with applying that mindset to various scientific and mathematical laws is this: It is clear that such laws have been discovered in the EVE universe because it's a science fiction MMO with all kinds of technology rooted in, well, science. Not a single warp core was built using rain-dances and chants to the sky wizards, after all. The humans of the EVE universe clearly have a grasping on engineering and physics (one can see this plainly by looking at R&D agents' research fields), and also clearly have a grasp of the laws of logic (you can see this in their advanced computing technology, which does rely on formal logic). In short, saying someone is dragging stuff from real-life into the in-game universe when they reference Bayes' Theorem is quite a bit like saying the same if someone talks about inertia.

Of course a character is going to use formal logical theorems in a formal logic debate. I don't think that's the player cackling evilly, saying "I WILL WIN THIS DEBATE!" as much as it is the character sticking true to their traits. It's not really even god-modey, as you (the player) can always study logic and philosophy yourself and have your character (who has been studying theology and philosophy anyway for quite some time) come up with an appropriate response. If anything, in my opinion at least, it is more god-modey to demand science-heavy characters to not make any reference to actual scientific and mathematical laws. How would you feel if people demanded your character stop making reference to Righteousness and the like?

[Saede Riordan]

Wombats aren't used as a tool to win arguments.

How stupid do people think I am? Did you really think I was trying to win that argument? The only way I could win that argument would have been if Nicoletta Mithra the player wanted leave the Amarr bloc, and if she did, my character likely would have convinced her to do so already. I'm just debating her because its been fun RP and its been an intellectually stimulating activity for myself as a player. I'm not even an atheist OOC.

Look, I get that CTCS doesn't like me and you guys think your RP is better then mine. You're allowed to not like me, I'm glad you have fun being passive aggressive and taking potshots at my spelling.

[ 2012.12.19 17:15:32 ] Valerie Valate > who is Shakur ?

But can you please stop viewing me as completely dim and assuming the very worst of my every action?

[Silver Night]

[mod]Locked for the moment until the thread can be reviewed.[/mod]