Print

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

[Jekaterine]

*Snip* And the best way is to ask the majority.

Because the majority is always right ?

My apologies for *Snipping* into your post but it was to funny not to do so.

I just want it confirmed that people will support me if I use ICly any resource used by another character on the IGS or other IC arena ?

Now Sabbott I don't want you to take what I wrote above as a dig at you or what you have done. I personally wouldn't have but if you're comfortable with it then it's up to you.

The reason I'm writing the above is simple:
Quite a lot of forum shouting has been going on in order to keep the divide up when it comes to keeping creativity up through blogs etcetera.
I understand this. What fun is there after all to write about your character and his or hers doings if there's no one to appreciate it or perhaps be influenced to create masterpieces himself.

Now a link is done between an alt and a high visibility figure on the forums with a simple right click. This is used then to point out whatever.
It is then excused with "It's on an IC board then it's fair game"
[mod]Please avoid straw man arguments [/mod]

[The Cosmopolite]

So let's be clear about all this.

Someone has two different characters. They want to roleplay them as different and not connected to one another. Just that, nothing super-secret or involving any kind of subterfuge. They're just an EVE player who fancies dipping into two different aspect of RP.

The player makes some sigs for their two characters. Hosts them, naturally enough, at the same URL without really giving it much thought, and carries on RPing and enjoying themselves for a year or so, crafting through actual roleplay in channels, on IGS and in space separate identities with no connection.

And then, a clever-minded inquisitor comes along, decides to play trace the signature game on a variety of characters and finds out that these two characters must be played by the same person.

They then expose this in an 'IC' way on IGS and that player has no recourse to a defence that this was OOC information?

They're linked, IC, and there is nothing that can be done about it?

*snip*

Cosmo

[Lillith Blackheart]

"Should've been smarter in covering the tracks of your misdeed."

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say it was a misdeed, nor imply it.

[Jekaterine]

"Should've been smarter in covering the tracks of your misdeed."

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say it was a misdeed, nor imply it.

I did not mean to single you out in any way it was just the gist as I caught it by a majority. I've edited it slightly and hope that you'll comment further on my post [mod]This was not the topic under discussion, and is still a straw man[/mod]

[Jakiin]

So let's be clear about all this.

Someone has two different characters. They want to roleplay them as different and not connected to one another. Just that, nothing super-secret or involving any kind of subterfuge. They're just an EVE player who fancies dipping into two different aspect of RP.

The player makes some sigs for their two characters. Hosts them, naturally enough, at the same URL without really giving it much thought, and carries on RPing and enjoying themselves for a year or so, crafting through actual roleplay in channels, on IGS and in space separate identities with no connection.

And then, a clever-minded inquisitor comes along, decides to play trace the signature game on a variety of characters and finds out that these two characters must be played by the same person.

They then expose this in an 'IC' way on IGS and that player's characters have no recourse to a defence that this was OOC information?

They're linked, IC, and there is nothing that can be done about it?

*snipped* - quoted moderated material

Cosmo

The entire post history of Shaw within the IGS was as a supporter of the Fraction and derider of it's enemies. This is not creating a character which is unique and not connected. This is creating precisely the kind of alt that many Fractioneers have accused me of being in the past.

Furthermore, the connection was not in the signatures. It was between the signatures and a picture which effectively called Merdaneth a fat-fatty-fatkins in direct response to his 'Wheat Fraction' thread (Which I'll say for clarity that though I find funny, I do think are at least tiptoeing on the line between honest debate and simple slander. At least).

This is something that the Constantine does all the time, she's not a character known for her restraint. If JC wanted to do this, he didn't need to use an alt to do it. Unless he wasnted to give the illusion of more popular support for the Fraction.

And all of this, perhaps, might, possibly, maybe be overlooked and have Sab's actions be a grey area, [mod]A character's actions are not a justification for OOC action; do not use inflammatory or insulting language towards other players.  [/mod]

[Lillith Blackheart]

"Should've been smarter in covering the tracks of your misdeed."

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say it was a misdeed, nor imply it.

I did not mean to single you out in any way it was just the gist as I caught it by a majority. I've edited it slightly and hope that you'll comment further on my post as wheter I'm allowed to use any and all resources presented to me in an IC format or if not, which are allowed and why.

I think the rest of your post is misleading, in a way. Blogs have nothing to do with it. This is entirely encompassed within IGS, which is an IC venue. A person's blog isn't an IC venue unless they say otherwise. IGS is an IC venue and that comes from CCP. If one is going to post something on IGS, it is going to come under scrutiny from its detractors. If one does not take precautions to protect any subterfuge they are attempting to commit to properly, then they are going to get outed for it.

That's the thing about subterfuge. If you're attempting it, you'd best attempt it wholehearted. A half-assed attempt at it will get you busted, and if you get busted then you're busted and you own up to it. You can try to dodge the issue as best as able, but if you're caught, then you're caught.

And as Jakiin said it's doubly so in a case when it is done by an entity that constantly decries the behavior.

I approve of both actions, by the by, both Jade's action and Sabbott's.

effectively called Merdaneth a fat-fatty-fatkins

Which is a bold-faced lie. There is only one fat-fatty-fatkins in EVE.

[Louella Dougans]

[mod]working on this thread[/mod]

[Louella Dougans]

[mod]At least one comment has been removed from this thread already.Please be constructive. Don't post flamebait, this particular topic is sensitive at this time.[/mod]

[Z.Sinraali]

Both the claim that "Web/IP addresses exist in EVE IC, and can be used to link posters on IGS" and its negation are plausible. However, I see no way to adjudicate the truth value of either claim short of personal preference.

[Kazzzi]

[mod]Provocative, flamebait, casting nasturtiums on other players etc etc.[/mod]

[Jade Constantine]

On the straw man argument that "Jade attacks posting proxies so that its okay to use web-address stuff IC to attack jade" - I will simply say that I don't like posting proxies no. But you will note that when I condemn them I do so [mod]snip[/mod] without any [mod]snip[/mod]reference to web-addresses or IP or real world player identity or such.

Hence lets dispense with this particular strawman since it brings no value to the discussion.

I will attack an obvious proxy by suggesting X is a shill of Y, is an agent, a hireling, a propaganda puppet etc. All entirely valid IC terms (to my taste.)

And by the same virtue I would entirely happy for somebody to say IC --- "Rosamund your posting history has been consistently in support of the fraction - are you working for constantine now?" If somebody had said this before lighting the nuclear [mod]snip[/mod]web-address option and spiking the thread she might well have confirmed it.

As I have told people ooc there reason I used Rosamund to make that post is that she is roleplayed as a propagandist for hire with a penchant for lowbrow bathos.

Jade Constantine will not make that kind of post because she is the executor of the Star Fraction and directly engaging a character like Merdaneth on his level is simply demeaning.

Now the problem with that thread is people used the web-address thing as "solid IC proof" and questioned Jade by saying "did you post it" and called "Rosamund" -> Jade. Both are entirely untrue. Jade did not post that thread, and nor is Rosamund Jade. In IC terms what happened is that Jade paid Rosamund a sum of isk to have a hatchet job done on a galnet noise.

All this talk of "convictions" is simply counter to the interests of any kind of consenual roleplay here because I as a player simply do not recognize web address stuff as IC evidence and again I as a player do not recognize that Jade and Rosamund are the same characters. We can argue about this stuff but there will no agreement and the outcome will be simply more bad blood between aspects of the "rp community".
[mod]edited to remove expressions of opinion presented as fact. Please read the FAQ [/mod]

[The Cosmopolite]

[mod]*snip*[/mod]

The way to understand that statement is that, ICly, one should expect greater flak for ICly decrying a particular type of behavior and then taking part in it.

That seems comprehensible especially as you actually do think a web address underlying an image or link on IGS is content in principle and can therefore always be used to reach IC conclusions (note that in the case of signatures this is problematic because there is no way to define a signature that appears on IGS only). You position is thus that the player in my example simply has to live with the situation.

Which is one view.


However, your remarks do lead me to what I think it the fundamental confusion here: the confusion of actual RP content with data making the display of such content possible.

As far as I am concerned, web addresses are not content OOC. How they can become content IC eludes me.

This is why I think this is a quite different problem to the 'IC private journal' question. That was a debate about the use of material that everyone agrees is content. Whatever your view on it, you don't deny that an IC private journal is content. The debate there is about whether or not the content is privileged in some way and the limits of the privilege. Different debate to this one.

This is much more fundamental as a disagreement: this is an argument between people who view a class of data as content and those who view that class of data as, rather, infrastructure that points to content.

Those who think that web addresses on IGS are content – whether written out plaintext or underlying images or links seems to be neither here nor there let's notice – think that as content in an IC venue it is fine and dandy to draw IC conclusions from them. This makes sense as a concept but I think it has some unfortunate consequences.

Those who think that web addresses are not content (my own view I must say) don't see that it can be possible IC to draw conclusions from data that is simply not IC. It's not even content OOC. So by what alchemy is it is rendered content IC?


Now, Kazzzi asks me how I feel about the example I gave and asks me how it is different to Jade's RP when the character makes accusations, etc.

First, I don't see web addresses as IC content so I don't think it would be fair to reach a conclusion that the two characters of the player in my example are IC connected using the fact that there is a web address connection between the two.

I've been trying to think if I have ever used such a device IC. I cannot remember doing so and I want to say clearly that if I ever have back in the mists of time then I was wrong to do so. I am as sure as I can be that I haven't though.

I am speaking for myself, I must say, and I actually do play the game of counter-espionage quite a lot. So I am reasonably good at drawing linkages simply by virtue of practice. But I do not use OOC linkages that I come to a view about IC. I've never 'outed' any character that I have come to a near certain (sometimes ironclad certain) view about in terms of their links to another character where those links were OOC. I've never seen the point of it. I came a trifle near the knuckle recently, entirely OOCly, but caught myself in time (bad day probably) and I've also never publicly outed in an OOC venue a specific link between characters that I have divined using OOC information. I have sometimes shared information within a close circle and I feel justified in doing so because I've never seen it abused by anyone in that circle. I don't always do so though. For example, very recently I was taken aback by someone actually telling me who their (very different) RP alt was. It was nice to be trusted and I saw and see no reason to tell anyone else about that.

I would hope people may have noted that I never play the 'clonejack' game. (I find the concept faintly absurd to tell the truth.) If it's absolutely clear IC, I will speak of someone being an 'agent' of someone else (or some such rubric) but it takes a lot for me to do it. I can think of only one recent example where it was all quite clear IC what was going on. I have a dim memory of doing it a couple of times in the past where it was IC clear enough. Anyway, basically, I don't do it casually.

So that's me, people can make of it what they will.

As for Jade. Well, I analyze Jade's IC behaviour as follows:

Jade's character uses an entirely IC assessment of character behaviour coupled with any IC evidence that may exist (presence in-game in certain locations where others may be, or employment histories, or near-simultaneity of neocom activation as a pattern, or whatever it may be) and the character makes a declaration of their opinion.

As far as I know right or wrong, IC, it's all IC. People may regard it as ridiculous or unbelievable or plain irritating at their option but... well, it is all IC. My view is that this is Jade's RP as Jade Constantine.

Jade Constantine and The Cosmopolite are, it may have been noticed, entirely different characters and occasionally the characters exasperate one another. The players are less different in outlook than some people appear to imagine.

Anyway, given my view on web addresses, it's different because Jade is not using as 'evidence' something that I simply can't see as IC content – again, largely because I can't see that it is content at all.

Z.Sinraali has it right that the two positions at least make sense when stated (they're both comprehensible) and also has it right there is no adjudication here if it's really the case that people are going to differ on it.

I am genuinely somewhat taken aback that a majority of those commenting seem to think that web addresses underlying images and links on IGS, including in signatures, are IC content.

Surely it is clear that this notion is toxic to many different ways of RPing that are nothing to do with subterfuge or the like but just rely on a reasonable IC separation? Isn't it?

Cosmo

[Jade Constantine]

[mod]*snip*[/mod]

Lets face it there are only 2 previous accusations against my conduct on this issue.

1. The IC journal issue from the post Mito period (authorizing alliance members to respond to anti SF material on an IC journal)

And.

2. Authorizing the destruction of Misan's alt hauler based on incriminating evidence in our alliance channel prior to the battle of Space and Freedom IV.

I honestly can't think of another thing I have ever been accused of doing against IC/OOC divide in Eve.

[Shalee Lianne]

Noob question, but whats a clone jack?

[Kazzzi]

The surefire way to decide if the OOC/IC divide was crossed would be to simply report the post, give a reason why you believe the post is OOC and let CCP decide if they should delete it. I would like it if CCP would clarify if the forum sig and website thing is IC or not.

I did lol at the MERDE pic btw.