Print

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

[Mister Screwball]

New Eden Assembly
((Channel Name: New Eden Assembly))

• Sansha's Nation sympathizers are not permitted to enter the Assembly, at any time, due to hostile threats and the current conflicts that are ensuing.

is this a forever ban or is it temporary?

[Benjamin Shepherd]

New Eden Assembly
((Channel Name: New Eden Assembly))

• Sansha's Nation sympathizers are not permitted to enter the Assembly, at any time, due to hostile threats and the current conflicts that are ensuing.

is this a forever ban or is it temporary?

This is an in-character decision made by Shepherd due to the recent attacks and the current hostile behavior that Nation maintains. If the attacks end, or somehow Nation becomes less hostile, then the ban will be lifted.

[/list]

[Silver Night]

How do you define who is a supporter of the Nation?

[Benjamin Shepherd]

How do you define who is a supporter of the Nation?

Characters that Shepherd has seen on other public forums (The Summit, IGS) that ICly speak proudly of Nation and support their efforts. Allowing them would create tensions and hostility with other characters who oppose Nation.

It's all dynamic, so if CCP decided that the Federation were to engage in a large-scale war with the State, extra care would be taken to keep the Assembly safe from the hostilities.

[Silver Night]

Characters that Shepherd has seen on other public forums (The Summit, IGS) that ICly speak proudly of Nation and support their efforts. Allowing them would create tensions and hostility with other characters who oppose Nation.

So the moderation is IC?

I mean, for example, Silver is a supporter of the a resurgent 'utopian' Nation, but not a supporter of their currents actions. I would hazard that he wouldn't be banned, while someone like Lilith's character would?

It's all dynamic, so if CCP decided that the Federation were to engage in a large-scale war with the State, extra care would be taken to keep the Assembly safe from the hostilities.

By banning one of the sides? If so, which one?

[Benjamin Shepherd]

The Assembly promotes peaceful debates and discussions. A character that didn't support those rules would not speak in the Assembly until they got their act together. Nation supporters who don't support the attacks could enter, but would be under careful scrutiny because of said attacks. I reworded the rules to reflect this.

Wartime actions between factions would not result in a ban, but the moderator in charge of a debate involving either faction would make sure that one side wasn't saying "We are going to destroy your empire, you're pathetic", etc. Diplomacy is the keyword.

[Silver Night]

There is a recognized difference between pirate and Empire factions, then?

Also, what about, for example, Minmatar RP corps that take a lot of offensive action (Terrorist/Freedom fighter) - or even the ones, like Du'uma Fiisi, that simply define themselves as terrorists?

Or adversaries of main factions who might take military action and are not pirates - militant Intaki separatists, that kind of thing?

[Benjamin Shepherd]

From Shepherd's eyes, Nation's previous actions resulted in all of the empires banding together to eliminate the threat. Pirates who use force to achieve problems relating to them, and not to all of humanity, are different. Nation advocates a large philosophical and ideological change that involves billions of people in the universe changing their view about human cloning and capsule technology. A separatist faction advocates for independence from a part of society.

I see what you mean about this though, so it'll take some time before things can be refined completely. Again, all of this can be altered with IC interactions in the Assembly and with basic RP, so come on in and make your case!

[Silver Night]

So, would an enthusiastically pro-reclaiming (Reclaiming-as-slavery) Amarr be banned?

Is it going to be a case-by-case kind of thing?

[Benjamin Shepherd]

So, would an enthusiastically pro-reclaiming (Reclaiming-as-slavery) Amarr be banned?

Is it going to be a case-by-case kind of thing?

If that Amarrian were to present his views in a logical manner, then no banning would occur. I hate that word because it makes it seem as if things my character doesn't like are to be banished forever, but it is there just to make everything calm, cool, and collected. Things will heat up, but not in the sense that a gun will do to the head of an enemy.

The moderator that is there during a debate will watch over it. I am considering whether it would be best to let the moderator ask questions that each side wishes to ask to the other, or let the two groups discuss it themselves.

[Silver Night]

The Sansha who can lay out a case for the attacks in a logical way is a no-go, though?

As far as format, you can probably find some good formats, for holding structured discussion or debates, online.

[Benjamin Shepherd]

The Sansha supporters who aren't involved in the attacks and can support the attacks can make their case. The Sansha suppporters that actively attack and support them can't.

I may introduce options for players to vote on issues in a democratic way in regards to what the Assembly does and how it acts. (i.e. - If the majority of players vote for a new rule, it'll be formed and refined by consensus.)

[Silver Night]

I'm struggling to see the basic difference between the Nation supporter who participates in the attacks, but can make a logical case (however flawed) for them, and the member of an Amarr RP corp who is a proponent of a violent reclaiming and acts as such (attacking people, etc) but can still conduct a discussion in a reasonable manner.

OFC, since the moderation is to be IC, it can just be 'the people who run the place think the Sanshas are evil'. That's perfectly legit.

[Benjamin Shepherd]

I'm struggling to see the basic difference between the Nation supporter who participates in the attacks, but can make a logical case (however flawed) for them, and the member of an Amarr RP corp who is a proponent of a violent reclaiming and acts as such (attacking people, etc) but can still conduct a discussion in a reasonable manner.

OFC, since the moderation is to be IC, it can just be 'the people who run the place think the Sanshas are evil'. That's perfectly legit.

Touche.

After thinking about it, it wouldn't be fair to one side of roleplayers to be restricted in that sense, if it's objectivity I'm trying to bring. The audience and debaters will determine the overall opinion of who is right / wrong / even. The thread will be updated.

[Silver Night]

With sufficiently clear guidelines, and good moderation, I think you can probably foster the sort of environment you would like (and have a place that is differentiated in tone and content from The Summit) without specifically excluding certain groups.


It will probably take a lot of hands-on moderation, at least at first, though.