Print

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

[Victoria Stecker]

For me, the Summit is the big problem. Maybe it's because I'm used to much more faction-heavy games, but in my opinion there should be no global "neutral" channel. I'd rather there be separate faction channels (or at least alliance channels, like Empire+State and Federation+Republic), in order to foster more factional pride and loyalty. Neutral people would then have to deliberately work on building relations between multiple faction communities, rather than having neutrality being the "default" state.

Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.

Back on the topic:
I've kinda avoided this discussion because it pulls me in two different directions. Three, actually.

Direction one: Seeing people who should consider each other enemies being polite and even friendly and hanging out together doesn't make sense, breaks immersion, etc. For example, remember back to the old Mercy's Keep, where basically anyone who wasn't a blood raider was welcome to come and have a cup of tea. Or, perhaps less jarring, places like The Last Gate and The Skyhook where people would meet, but at least that was neutral ground.

Direction two: We're capusleers. Our experience of the galaxy, seeing the different parts of the cluster, etc, makes us more open minded. Our effective immortality makes us willing to sit down with our enemy, perhaps make the effort to convert them or at least understand them better, because we know it'd be silly to try to kill them. So why not have tea or raise a drink together?

Counterpoint to Direction two: This is not a friendly game of chess or a soccer match. These are your enemies. These are people who make a living killing your people. Unless you have no care for the lives of baseliners (always a possibility) then you should strongly dislike these people and not want to fraternize with them.

Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?

Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?

All of these have merit.

[Lyn Farel]

I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.

You have got to be joking?

No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?

I don't want to call out specific people for that kind of thing, you'll have to take my word for it. It is common.  I feel a lot of people who have been lurking in there for years will agree, but maybe they won't.

I more than agree, but everyone knows how biased I can feel over the echo chambers sprouting in there anyway.

That's where the animosity comes from. The rules are here to prevent one kind of animosity, but not all kinds.

One of the most standout incidents of this for me was when Avahr came into the channel, with hundreds of "skadis". Despite the fact that the Nation is an enemy of each of the empires, that they go around invading space, abducting people indiscriminately, and enslaving them in a way that even the Amarr despise, people were joking with Avahr like he was everyone's friend. Then Samira comments about how there was nothing "cute" about it and that the Nation was obviously breeding those cats to run experiments on, and people tell her off for being a funkiller. Hell, Samira gets told off all the time in general for her being reserved and hostile around enemies and refusing to travel to enemy territory. I've even gotten OOC flak for it. I just don't get it.

That is exactly what happens constantly here. It's the very definition of echo chambers mixed up with geek social fallacies.

I don't mind however, since it's IC, and very realistic. So realistic that it matches perfectly well with the OOC sister channel.

For me, the Summit is the problem. Maybe it's because I'm used to much more faction-heavy games, but in my opinion there should be no global "neutral" channel. I'd rather there be separate faction channels (or at least alliance channels, like Empire+State and Federation+Republic), in order to foster more factional pride and loyalty. Neutral people would then have to deliberately work on building relations between multiple faction communities, rather than having neutrality being the "default" state.

I couldn't disagree more. The more walls you put between factions, the more stale and superficial RP becomes. It's actually good to have public venues that act as and end in themselves to what happens in more private, factionned channels. It allows character to discharge all of the RP grey matter they have developped in their more private/factionned channels. If they are not here, it just eventually vanishes in the air like a damp squib. And it evnetually fails to create new compost for new PR grey matter. It's like having a conversation alone. It dies quickly.

I speak from experience here.

[Samira Kernher]

Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.

That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.

Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?

Because when you're friendly with your enemy, it makes it harder to fight them. It makes you more willing to offer them mercy, allowing them to go on with fighting your faction, makes it easier to make deals with them, and it makes it more likely that you will share classified information with them. There's a reason most governments/militaries make it a point to strongly oppose any fraternization with the enemy. It makes it much more difficult for soldiers to do their job if they actually care about the people on the other side. Demonizing the enemy makes it much easier to make war on them.

In Samira's case, she's been raised to view the other nations through a very negative lens, which is why she's in favor of total war--she's convinced that it's absolutely necessary and that the Empire will win in any conflict. The more positive interaction with the enemy that she has, the less supportive she'll be of total war. By viewing others as "the enemy", she maintains the state of mind necessary to support more aggressive actions (of course, she's not consciously aware of this; it was hammered into her during her upbringing).

It's basic propaganda. Though I assume most people feel that capsuleers have enough education and freedom to be above being influenced by it.

Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?

Counterpoint: Immersion can equal fun. If I'm not being immersed, I'm not having fun, personally.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

If someone does feel that being in the Summit breaks their immersion and that this is worse than the merits of being there, there's a simple rule to follow: Don't be in the Summit.

Capsuleers aren't governments, nor are they militiaries, nor part of any of the two (unless they found their own). So, whether or not there are rules against fraternization is entirely up to the corp one is in.

Also, there are many examples of military forces fraternizing the hell out with their 'enemies' and none the less killing one another cordially. In the middle ages that was quite common amongst nobles, who felt more close to other nobles anyway than the simple people in their respective countries. Meeting before the fight, having tea together, talking about the rules on the field, not agreeing or agreeing on rules, parting, killing each other, winner and looser are found out, fraternizing goes on: All by the code of chivalry.

This went on onto the arrival of modern warfare: And I think the habit of demonizing the enemy was mainly started because the common soldier was a simple guy, not someone who had learned from day one that he should be nice to the uncle from england, unless on the battlefield, where he should kill him, of course, for King and Country! In WWI the pilots were doing that as well, seeing themselves as the last knights, having no problem with 'fraternizing with and killing the enemy' virtually at the same time. The christmas truces were nothing anyone was shot for in WWI by their own military either.

I think even in WWII in northern africa english and german soldiers were meeting to play football against one another while at war, when opportunity was there. Only the US did push for a strict non-fraternization policy in WWII afaik.

Anti-fraternization policies are a modern phnomenon, mainly and even in modern times they weren't as tightly upheld as one might think. I see no reason why it should be upheld that stricly under those capsuleers that chose - for one reason or the other - not to be employed by their respective factions military forces.

Also, if someone plays EVE and doesn't find enough conflict, then, well, I think they are just searching for it with closed eyes. <,<

[Publius Valerius]

If someone does feel that being in the Summit breaks their immersion and that this is worse than the merits of being there, there's a simple rule to follow: Don't be in the Summit.

Capsuleers aren't governments, nor are they militiaries, nor part of any of the two (unless they found their own). So, whether or not there are rules against fraternization is entirely up to the corp one is in.

Also, there are many examples of military forces fraternizing the hell out with their 'enemies' and none the less killing one another cordially. In the middle ages that was quite common amongst nobles, who felt more close to other nobles anyway than the simple people in their respective countries. Meeting before the fight, having tea together, talking about the rules on the field, not agreeing or agreeing on rules, parting, killing each other, winner and looser are found out, fraternizing goes on: All by the code of chivalry.

This went on onto the arrival of modern warfare: And I think the habit of demonizing the enemy was mainly started because the common soldier was a simple guy, not someone who had learned from day one that he should be nice to the uncle from england, unless on the battlefield, where he should kill him, of course, for King and Country! In WWI the pilots were doing that as well, seeing themselves as the last knights, having no problem with 'fraternizing with and killing the enemy' virtually at the same time. The christmas truces were nothing anyone was shot for in WWI by their own military either.

I think even in WWII in northern africa english and german soldiers were meeting to play football against one another while at war, when opportunity was there. Only the US did push for a strict non-fraternization policy in WWII afaik.

Anti-fraternization policies are a modern phnomenon, mainly and even in modern times they weren't as tightly upheld as one might think. I see no reason why it should be upheld that stricly under those capsuleers that chose - for one reason or the other - not to be employed by their respective factions military forces.

Also, if someone plays EVE and doesn't find enough conflict, then, well, I think they are just searching for it with closed eyes. <,<

Another example would be the Christmas truce. But in the same time you have also the being of heavy propaganda apparatus; mainly the British. It was the birth of the germans as the huns; or kingkong which trys to rape the virgin "Europe".

But first (a small but): Funny thing is the noobish answer of the imperial german site, prussian site; as they just tried to counter with the true. Like long boring charts, how many wars england had pre-wwI and was the military spending of prussia and german vs the other countrys etc... just to show that the old saying "So schnell schießen die Preußen nicht"/"We, prussians, are not that quick on the trigger." was still true. FUNNY THING IS, all those number were true. The brits were actually more militaristic, had spend more money (a fleet cost a lot of cash ) and had a ruthless body-count in the boer wars. Here comes the small but in: Nobody cares, about the true (even german soldiers hadnt read those long boring charts)* Those german poster were so prussians and full of numbers, that they havent show emotions. AND EMOTIONS WINS ALWAYS OVER REASON (Publius is to lazy to link to Mithtra own comment).

Examples:
http://i.imgur.com/ms0YC.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zGjzXD-87Hg/TqV7-BEm9cI/AAAAAAAAA-Q/qFN7aQyhxXc/s1600/us_army_wwi_propaganda_recruitment_poster_german_monster.jpg

Second bigger BUT. I dont think it is a historical thingy. I mean, that the middle ages were nice and the modern warfare is somehow worse. Actually you can see on the case of the old greeks (see melos; or a better example is Alexander f*** up of Theben), that the were really brutal. So I dont think, you cant to make a makro assumption... to be more precisely: Past better (more "code of chivalry") -> Present worse (less "code of chivalry"). I think, the code is more dependent on the actual situation:
Like fight to the dead(1) or a Kabinettskrieg(2) or even less, a fight for a third or fourth ally, which dont touch your own sovereignty or survival(3).
So I would say, that the "code of chivalry" is more likely, or lets say more in use in situation which are more in realm of (2) or (3). As for the ww1 you have brought a great example about the pilots. I think, their behavior was carried by the idea of the noble war (as you rightful mention). Actually you can say, that in the being of war all parties (germany, england etc..) had the feeling of a (2) style of war (maybe one of the reason why so many left happy their homes. Even most intellectuals during that time supported the war. All in the believe it would be a short war. It would be a typ (2) war.). But I wouldnt say, it has change during the history; I would say the code is dependent on the type of war. But just my 50 cents.

Summary:
Point 1: Code can just survive in with reason. (Edit: Sorry wasnt my point. I have shot over the ball park ). Emotions will kill the code of chivalry .
Point 2: More endanger of survival and/or more war of extermination you have -> less code you have. 



_____________________________
As for the Summit and the EVE setting would speak; that the current wars are all limited wars. So more type (2) setting. So RP in a type of code would make sense and could work. A thing, which could stay in a way, would be the emotions. For example: Pro-Slavery/Anti-Slavery, in this type of dialogue; I could think, that a code would be have it hard to survive in "The Summit" and outside of it. 




*This is one of the reasons why the german propaganda wend overboard on the ww2.

P.S. I know ...again a way to long post  .

[Victoria Stecker]

Counterpoint: There are faction channels. They don't tend to be terribly active, and frequently lack the critical mass of players needed to sustain an active RP environment. The Summit, by allowing everyone in, means that there's almost always someone around to talk to.

That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.

Counterpoint to the Counterpoint: Counterception. I don't have to hate the Gallente to be loyal to the State. I don't have to hate the Minmatar to fight in defense of the Empire. I don't have to hate the soldier on the other side of the battle line in order to kill him; because I don't hate him, why can't we be friendly when the possibility of killing each other is removed?

Because when you're friendly with your enemy, it makes it harder to fight them. It makes you more willing to offer them mercy, allowing them to go on with fighting your faction, makes it easier to make deals with them, and it makes it more likely that you will share classified information with them. There's a reason most governments/militaries make it a point to strongly oppose any fraternization with the enemy. It makes it much more difficult for soldiers to do their job if they actually care about the people on the other side. Demonizing the enemy makes it much easier to make war on them.

Counterception: We must go deeper!
Demonizing the enemy makes it easier to kill them. But is that necessary? If we're at war, and you're trying to kill me, the fact that you are trying to kill me/my friend/my people is all the motivation I need to kill you back. Demonizing and dehumanizing are only necessary if you want to make sure your soldiers are willing to kill when it isn't necessary.

Add in the fact that, as capsuleers, we are mass fucking murderers. We have killed by the untold thousands without batting an eye. We already consider life to be so cheap that I don't think we really need to demonize our enemy to begin with.

In Samira's case, she's been raised to view the other nations through a very negative lens, which is why she's in favor of total war--she's convinced that it's absolutely necessary and that the Empire will win in any conflict. The more positive interaction with the enemy that she has, the less supportive she'll be of total war. By viewing others as "the enemy", she maintains the state of mind necessary to support more aggressive actions (of course, she's not consciously aware of this; it was hammered into her during her upbringing).

It's basic propaganda. Though I assume most people feel that capsuleers have enough education and freedom to be above being influenced by it.

I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?

Direction three: Fuck immersion, I play EVE to have fun. And if I like chatting with someone, telling jokes, going on RP dates, even ERP, why the fuck am I going to let "immersion" get between me and enjoying myself?

Counterpoint: Immersion can equal fun. If I'm not being immersed, I'm not having fun, personally.

Run out of Counter Puns: Immersion may be (often is) important for some people to have fun. For others, it may not be, or it may even be an impediment because of the screwed up and often contradictory world that EVE is. Or people may have basic understandings of the universe which differ, meaning that what's immersive for one group may break the immersion of another. I don't really know of a good way to reconcile this except to write off IC people breaking your immersion as psychotic/demented and avoid close RP with them. There are people whose RP style doesn't mesh with mine or rubs me the wrong way. As a result, I simply avoid RP with them.

[Natalcya Katla]

Hostility is a social dysfuction, anyway. Those who won't fraternize peacefully with their fellow human beings must, for their own and everybody else's good, have their behavior adjusted through means of cybernetic upgrades until they will. 

[Samira Kernher]

I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?

For me personally, it's about the amount. I don't mind some people fraternizing, that's expected. I just don't like when that's the majority. Makes it seem like there isn't actually a war going on at all.

[Natalcya Katla]

Katla is Astropolitan, anyway. She'll fraternize with just about anyone except the Intaki-centric RP crowd like ILF. Or anyone who is overly romantic about planetside life, although I don't see that around all that often. Actually, she'd still probably talk to them, but in an icy way.

Ruby probably wouldn't talk to people she knew were Angel or Serpentis loyal, but that's really it.

[Ché Biko]

[..]write off IC people breaking your immersion as psychotic/demented[..]

I'm surprised that a comment like this was not made earlier than page 3.

[Norrin Ellis]

Can someone else back me up here with what I'm trying to explain?

Synthia is, or seems to be, a Rogue-Drone derived AI, controlling a human-shaped robot. She is a Sani Sabik. She is also an absolute monarch. She is also a True Amarr.

These things should be offensive to every major culture in EVE. Absolute Monarchy should irritate Gallente freedom ideals. Sani Sabik irritates Amarr ideals. She is True Amarr, which irritates most Minmatar people. She is also an unholy soulless abomination whose very existance blasphemes against humanity. Which should irritate just about everyone.

And yet, people say "hi Synthia, how are you today?" and are generally friendly.

There are those of us who say, "Yep.  Those things are bad, but until Synthia directly affects my personal interests, I'm not going to make a fuss."  That mentality, of course, shouldn't be common to people who claim allegiance to just about anything; some of us simply don't claim such allegiances or take strong positions.

[Karmilla Strife]

That's why I recommended going with alliance channels instead. Empire+State and Federation+Republic would have enough people for the critical mass necessary.

Just wanted to comment on this bit. I tried it once, it did not work well. Militant Amarrian does not mesh well with Caldari culture. I'm sure the opposite would be the case, but it seems Amarrians suddenly get less pushy about religion when the non-believer is an ally. In any case, props to the Caldari RPers for sticking to their guns with poor Jaiji me.

[Laerise [PIE]]

I've never seen Summit go all super huggy.

You have got to be joking?

No. I'm not. It's friendly at times, it's civil at times, and it can be very hostile at times. Can you point out an incident you considered 'huggy?' Logs, etc?

I don't want to call out specific people for that kind of thing, you'll have to take my word for it. It is common.  I feel a lot of people who have been lurking in there for years will agree, but maybe they won't.

I do.

[Lyn Farel]

I think this is an important point. For some characters, it makes plenty of sense to view every enemy with animosity. For some, perhaps it doesn't. Should it necessarily be immersion-breaking for capsuleers to behave differently?

For me personally, it's about the amount. I don't mind some people fraternizing, that's expected. I just don't like when that's the majority. Makes it seem like there isn't actually a war going on at all.

Honestly most factionned militants fighting in the war I know are not really doing that kind of thing. The people hugglefesting are not really aligned, most of the time. They speak and act like teenagers.

[Lithium Flower]

IMHO down with this blasphemy.
Go back to blowing each other ships in the name of Great Cthulhu!