The hangings issue was an ancillary topic. Your character can say whatever you want to say in public. But mycharacter can say whatever he wants to say in public, also. Without any definitive evidence or proof forming the basis of said statements, it becomes a game of dueling banjos. There's no meaning to any of it because none of it has any substance behind it. That was the purpose of my character's response and my discussion with you OOC, and those quotes. I had grown frustrated with the whole IGS deal.
As an example, your character can say that Tibus Heth liked action figures as a young child, and my character might counter he used a fusion-powered pogo stick, and never played with dolls. Because we have no PF regarding Tibus Heth's childhood, there's no way to evaluate who is right or who is wrong. Saying that because I claim a different IC position than your character, I'm OOC trying to undermine your roleplay, is silly. This applies in general, as well. A person holding different IC viewpoints and positions isn't undermining a player. It's a character-character interaction.
As an ancillary topic, body-snatching humans from planets is all well and good. You will face in-character consequences for it. Amarrians see that all the time. However, claiming legal legitimacy to do so, attaching yourself to a NPC organization for which there is extremely limited information about. . . and indeed, it is implied that all operations of said NPC organization would be highly classified, discrete, and secret anyway, seems to strain belief, OOC and IC. That causes the present set of disputes between myself and Seriphyn, but it's an example of a larger problem roleplayers can have when dealing with NPC organzations, like the Dominations, or a megacorporation. I think it's an object lesson/discussion we should assess to improve our RP into the future.
Bringing that back to the purpose of this thread, there will be discussions about what is good RP procedure because of interactions with NPC organizations, and what breaches plausibility/believability. Discussions of that nature necessarily need to occur out of character. However, like any rational discussion between human beings, taking a different side to an issue does not necessarily imply there is a form of antipathy or animosity. Perhaps momentary frustration can occur. But raising an issue of RP procedure discussion to a personal dispute is pretty absurd, in my opinion.
Some people may try to strong-arm a player's character into a niche, saying that they can't RP their characters a certain way. That is not a valid approach. However, observing what their character is, and formulating in-character responses towards or against said character, or conducting OOC discussions regarding plausibility, are entirely valid approaches, and indeed, are vital if roleplay is to survive.
Author
Topic: When RP is not RP (Read 6809 times)