'Most' of the players don't give a frak. The small minority of players that have a vested interest in continuing this shadow boxing match on the IGS want to defend their already well-established RP statements regarding the validity of these Capsuleers.
And my character comes in half way through to voice a dissenting opinion. For a moment I was wondering why the response was so unified, so complete. Then I cross-referenced all the names, and noticed their statements on the IGS. It would tarnish their character's reputations to admit they were dealing with frauds.
I continue interacting because I enjoy it, not because I'm so desperately worried about my character saving face.
The more you hurl pejorative and alarmist imagery on this whole ordeal or try to pin petty motives on others, the more you reveal your purposes, btw.
That leaves us the issue of OOC vs. IC, as it often comes down to. It seems highly probable that because accepting a differing view point regarding the "politicians" would tarnish their respective characters track records, they will deny the opposition and ignore it. If this opposition is brought up on secondary lines of communication, they will simply attack the person who offers said roleplay opportunity.
Which I find about 100 times more acceptable than your doing the exact same thing OOCly (attacking others by presuming self-serving motives on those who RP as if the politicians are who they say they are).
How did you reach this "higly probable" conclusion? To me it seems a lot more like a contrived accustion with zero evidence being used to discredit others. It is an ad hominem/poisoning the well tactic.
It is a steaming pile of hypocrisy to boo-hoo about being personally attacked while smearing entire groups of people with idle conjecture about motives
"For the sake of RP" is a phrase uttered to justify a great many things. But it breaks every concept of immersion for me to try to accept that the chairpeople of all the major political parties had to somehow hack their way into the capsuleer databases through the Capsuleer Graduate programs of various schools, and couldn't even acquire basic recognition of their official nature from any governmental source.
I find it more immersion-breaking to find every inconsistency in data displays because the game is limited in the ability to portray certain archetypes and call as much attention to it as possible than to take the options of play along or ignore.
I'm sorry, but if you loudly declare your opposition to a concept, then decide to participate anyways doing as much possible ICly to bring about the very thing you warned against, drawing more attention to the very immersion-breaking elements you stated were your primary issue with it, it is hard to figure out what you want besides to inject piss and vinegar.
So lets find out if this is really your belief applied consistently or just another case of someone being a gadfly. Do you denounce people writing up planet descriptions, but glazing over the fact that many of them have atmospheres and gravity levels that are not capable of supporting human life? Or, on the other hand, do you think it is okay to just skip a few obscure lines in order to add a little to the tapestry?
Continuing on this line of in character analysis, when these same individuals undertake extremely high-profile debates on the Intergalactic Summit, stirring antipathy between allied organizations, such a thing becomes a strategic threat and must be dealt with immediately.
It is a strategic threat to a democracy to allow vigorous debate?
I thought that was the basis of their strength?
There's also a huge difference between finding disagreement with one political party's views and turning your back on the entire Federation. I seriously doubt anyone has ICly undergone a major shift in allegiances becaues of Chairman Octirant or the others.
Author
Topic: Gallente politicians on IGS? (Read 17456 times)