Print

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

[Vieve]

Huh.

Not one person's ever given me crap about my starting school, or whether or not that starting school was accurate.  Weird.

You have my attention and curiosity :9.

Eh?  I wasn't aware that not getting grief about one's IG academic background was anything unusual.

[orange]

As to the location of your characters' education - the School/System that the game mechanics placed your character in at the beginning can still be the license issuing organization/location.

Except it isn't, and you can't force me to operate otherwise.

See this is the inherent hypocrisy in your position.  You demand that I not infringe upon you and expect that such a demand justifies you dictating my character's attributes because they could potentially impact you in any way at any point in the future.

I am not forcing you to do anything.  I attempted to reconcile the in-game fact that your character started there with your desire to have different schooling.

It is clear that there is not a common basis for RP.  It appears that in-game action and fact are not as important story for some.  For others in-game action (and information) are of more importance.

Guess we just can't play together unless we are shooting at each other.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

I am not forcing you to do anything.  I attempted to reconcile the in-game fact that your character started there with your desire to have different schooling.

For the love of god, stop reading extra meaning into my words, people.

I did not say you are forcing me, all I said was that you can't (as in IF you were to attempt to do so).

Syyl'ara is a descendant of Syndicate exiles and was trained for and made a capsuleer in the State.  She has never set foot on that station ICly, did not recieve a license from it, and has never at any point in her entire life been a Federation citizen to begin with.

Have you seriously never once in any RP you've ever engaged in considered some of your actions in PvE or other static/scripted content to be discontiguous with your IC persona?  How do you ICly explain killing the same named enemy NPC pilots in some of the missions over and over again?  Do you not ever bend a pointless triviality for the sake of suspending your disbelief (that wasn't someone named "Kruul", just another random violent guy with a ship)?  What impacting difference upon your RP or gameplay experience could my graduating from place x or being trained as part of program y possibly have on you?

If I put an IC post up describing some experiences as a part of that program, should I expect to have people showing up in it going on and on about "the CONCORD database says bla-bla-bla"?

Because CCP does not allow a person to roll an Intaki character and have them graduate from a Caldari institution, I should not be allowed to portray such a character?

I didn't facilitate her father being set up as a patsey by Serpentis or her managing to get her substance-abusing mother from Syndicate to relatives in the State through in-game actions, so are those invalidated, too?

It is clear that there is not a common basis for RP.  It appears that in-game action and fact are not as important story for some.  For others in-game action (and information) are of more importance.

They are both important, without either the quality would diminish.  There is plenty of common basis for RP, you simply choose to highlight, expand, and exaggerate the disagreements while ignoring that any two average people probably agree on 98%+ of the lore and setting.

But I'm not surprised to see the debate framed as a question of which is "more" important.  Because we all know, the most important damned thing about playing a game for fun and enjoying roleplay is that everyone acknowledges your superior viewpoints.  We certainly shouldn't ever judge something on its own merits with an eye towards whether it is a net positive or not, no no no, we have to establish a rank/pecking order/comparative value system and jockey for position.

Guess we just can't play together unless we are shooting at each other.

Because we disagree on where she was educated?

Wow.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

Eh?  I wasn't aware that not getting grief about one's IG academic background was anything unusual.

I meant as in I'd like to know more details if you're willing to share them :9.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I can respect an honest attempt at trying something new and interesting from a fresh perspective, but I'm not particularly fond of the idea of non-capsule player characters grandstanding on Galnet. The credibility of a character is put at greater risk when their influence impacts a larger audience.

As players (and roleplayers) there is a level of acceptance when it comes to the creativity of our peers insofar as they do not contradict our own fantasy world. When a player makes a character that impacts themselves, ala relative or minor plot device for interaction, people are generally accepting of this because it will most likely have little to no impact on their own roleplay.  When another player creates an elected official or some sort of authority figure, making opinions and generally impacting the game sphere beyond their own world, you have conflict situations where people question the credibility of the character. 

Granted, there's nothing much any of us can do when this happens. Generally, when some nutcase makes absurd claims the community reacts largely negatively. A player can make all sorts of claims on behalf of their characters, but its ultimately the opinion of the people that choose to interact with them that dictate how credible they are.

I've had my share of interaction with players and characters that I didn't necessarily agree with on their vision, but I always felt I was able provide consistency in my own character's responses to them rather than simply inflecting my OWN negative viewpoint through the character. I think that's a subtle but important distinction.

[orange]

We get to pick and choose what actions are IC and what aren't?  Does the CN, LDPS, or LDC standing my character built up killing  "Kruul"s matter IC?  Or can it be ignored as unimportant if I or you choose? At what point are in-game actions IC and when are they not?

If a character is running missions for the CN because they built a huge standing with them and claims to be a Guristas supporter, is it IC or are should it just be ignored as OOC?

Can I claim a character to be in one part of the cluster when finder agents and the active clone are in another?

As for missions where the "villians" repeat, "Dread Pirate Roberts"?  or capsuleer targets? escape pods?

Because we disagree on where she was educated?

Wow.

Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC.  This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.

It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.

We certainly shouldn't ever judge something on its own merits with an eye towards whether it is a net positive or not

Is having what appears to be a single player, playing multiple heads of NPC political parties a net positive or not?

I think it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimatizing such characters provides avenues for abuse I would rather not see.

I think it would be more interesting if it was a group of players, playing characters claiming to support a particular platform/party and not claiming to be leaders of NPC entities, represented those positions.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

Here's the thing.

As far as I can tell these people are not supposed to be politicians per-se. They are high ranking flunkies in the respective parties. Spin doctors in modern parlance. If they express opinions that are later shown to be non-canon for their organisations then they can be fired and replaced. This has, in fact, happened many times in reality to real spin doctors. So what is the problem?

As to why they are showing as capsuleers? They have filed the relevant paperwork with CONCORD to have access to the IGS, but the only way CONCORD has to hold that information in it's records is to show them as pilots and their organisations as corporations. Yes, this is a rationalisation of observed fact but given the nature of large bureaucracies does this seem unreasonable?

So how does any of this break immersion?

Whoever is doing this is trying to reflect the multi-faceted and fractious nature of Gallente political life and seems to be doing so quite well. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be encouraged.

Now my alliance-mate Elsebeth thinks otherwise but I'm inclined to disagree.

[Alain Colcer]

Whoever is doing this is trying to reflect the multi-faceted and fractious nature of Gallente political life and seems to be doing so quite well. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be encouraged.

Regardless if the culprit behind the non-podder politician affair is doing the right thing or not according to "our" vision of whats the right way to RP, the above deserves to be emphasized.

No one has before attempted to spark discussion from the different points of view each political party within the Federation, that in itself is an accomplishment.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

We get to pick and choose what actions are IC and what aren't?  Does the CN, LDPS, or LDC standing my character built up killing  "Kruul"s matter IC?  Or can it be ignored as unimportant if I or you choose? At what point are in-game actions IC and when are they not?

Sometimes the player wants to just play a damn game for a little bit, I can't fathom reading this thread what would make a person want to take a break from RP and all the constraints and limitations that come with it (in the form of other people pressuring you to behave as they expect).

If a character is running missions for the CN because they built a huge standing with them and claims to be a Guristas supporter, is it IC or are should it just be ignored as OOC?

Can I claim a character to be in one part of the cluster when finder agents and the active clone are in another?

Can I simultaneously run missions while also RPing in one of the social channels "in the flesh"?

These questions are up to each individual person to answer for themselves.  You keep missing the fundamental point that just because you operate a certain way that does not make it the "proper" way.  Like in an interpersonal relationship, if the two people's boundaries of comfort are different, it may not work out romantically.  However, they can still remain friends and interact with each other and neither person's ideal relationship image is the objectively "correct" one.

As for missions where the "villians" repeat, "Dread Pirate Roberts"?  or capsuleer targets? escape pods?

Do you have any official word from CCP on if these are the case or would this be you filling in the blanks with whatever disbelief-suspension mechanism works best for you (while simultaneously denouncing others doing so)?

Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC.  This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.

Who gets to determine where that line is?

So claiming IC authority or influence is bad, but claiming OOC authority or influence over what other people do with their leisure time is perfectly valid?

It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.

I specifically remarked about PvE and static/repeated content not always being taken as having strict continuity with your character, not activities that were a result of two RPers engaging in spontaneous interaction.

I'm not sure how you explain a criminal organization dutifully reporting to the most powerful law-enforcement institution in the cluster its instantaneously updated ranking of your status with them.

There's also plenty of legitimate angles like a Gurista infiltrator/double-agent to the State or even just an elusive outspoken dissident (clearly, more appropriate to some of the factions than others).

I shot anything that wasn't the big 4 before I got into the lore and developed a character and am still patching up Mordu's despite being aligned with them ICly.  Should I have sat spinning in the station until I had my concept finalized and read every scrap of lore?  Should I have capitulated to the unyielding and almighty standings chart once I had discovered a character bio I latched onto (or, as we all know in RP, latched onto me :9) and made a humble sacrifice upon the altar of the RP gods to abandon that idea?  Do you think I'm the only one who has stumbled across this dilemma?

For these and a myriad of other reasons, I consider standings as not always having continuity with IC portrayal and to some degree, even question the validity of seeing them as IC knowledge (but I don't assert it as a superior imperative that others must adopt).

My solution that allows everyone to go forward on that issue: I don't call others out on standings and when called out on it, simply reply something like "I'm amused you place such faith in CONCORD intelligence" and its likely it would only be brought up as one form of red herring fallacy or another which would also get pointed out with a nudge to return to the substance of the topic :9.

Is having what appears to be a single player, playing multiple heads of NPC political parties a net positive or not?

I've had a lot of interesting interaction, it has added to my enjoyment.  For the most part, I don't think anyone has really changed their political orientation as a result of this nor felt any mechanical impact from it whatsoever.

So yes, hugely positive.

Here's the kicker, if it isn't positive for you, stop participating.  We don't need weeks on end of post after post making up doomsday scenarios that "might happen" and vilifying each other with negative adjectives.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent and legitimatizing such characters provides avenues for abuse I would rather not see.

"He who trades a little freedom for a little security loses both and deserves neither".

If you are so gripped with fear of a negative RP experience resulting from getting involved that you'd demand others conform their behavior to alleviate those fears, then I'd suggest the better solution is, again: don't participate.

Lets look at the alternative.  If we really apply your standard equally across all situations, then your proposed "if it can potentially go wrong, it should be unacceptable" means literally just everyone cancel your accounts right now because you can't do anything but spin in station and chat in OOC channels.

I'm not paying $15/mo for a prettier version of YIM and I'm not paying $15/mo for people who have said we appear to be so irreconcilably far from each other in philosophy that they can't see any interaction between us other than conflict to direct how I should conduct myself in a leisure activity.

I think it would be more interesting if it was a group of players, playing characters claiming to support a particular platform/party and not claiming to be leaders of NPC entities, represented those positions.

Key words: "I think".  Beyond that, the "more interesting" one will be entirely case-by-case and depend on how well it is pulled off.  It would be a false dichotomy to suggest that all <your example> are in all cases better than all <what we're arguing about> just on principle.

So you're suggesting there exists an absolutely objective superiority of one method over the other -regardless of all other variables- on an issue of subjective preference?

So go organize that, build something of your own instead of knocking down what others have made.

If you really think your idea is the "more interesting" way, then run with it and show us...put your money where your mouth is.

Just be prepared for some gadfly to come along and make a post about how your method could potentially turn out badly and unravel the entire RP fabric of the setting and impact their gameplay experience and that such a possibility compels you to cease/modify said activity so that it conforms to their preferences.  Hey, fair is fair, right?  Never mind the fact they won't show or demonstrate one actual example of such actually having happened, the mere reference to the possibility is justification for launching a campaign against the idea as seen here.

Now that's a dangerous precedent to set.  It is literally the same (fallacious) logic-construct/rationale used for "preemptive war".  No real evidence needed, a lot of amplified fear-mongering and labeling sadly seems to remove the need for it.

Finally, just for the record, I'd likely join in on your Fed RP ideas once I saw them in action so I'm open to RP with you other than conflict despite our differences of opinion on this issue :9.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

I've had my share of interaction with players and characters that I didn't necessarily agree with on their vision, but I always felt I was able provide consistency in my own character's responses to them rather than simply inflecting my OWN negative viewpoint through the character. I think that's a subtle but important distinction.

Your words, I want them :9.

By far, the bigger concern for me with this discussion has been the lack of IC/OOC separation I've witnessed than some theoretical "maybe something bad will happen and boy you'll be sorry then" scenario.

[orange]

1) I have not been participating in the IC conversations, aside for one comment early on.  I have read them, but I have not responded to them in anyway.

2) I have built discussions of State politics between established characters in public channels.  See the Heiian Society and some of its events.  Very public disagreement about a year ago between John Revenant (Liberal) and Dex Nederland (Patriot) as to where State supporters should put their efforts.  I think I have put my money where my mouth is, but you may believe otherwise.

3) As for IC/OOC separation, IC Dex Nederland greatly enjoys discredit being brought upon Jules Soter.  Dex consider Jules to be an enemy of Lai Dai and the State.  If Jules is marginalized by whatever means, Dex would either not care or celebrate it.  OOC I have stated my position.

Because we disagree on what is IC and OOC.  This is one of the biggest problems we have as a community, coming to a common definition of the "line" between IC and OOC.

Who gets to determine where that line is?

So claiming IC authority or influence is bad, but claiming OOC authority or influence over what other people do with their leisure time is perfectly valid?

It would seem wise in this case to avoid any interaction that is not directly governed by game mechanics and even then one party may decide it was an OOC action and thus does not have an impact on their character.

It is really cute of you to conflate issues to discredit me.

I specifically asked about PvE and static/repeated content, not activities that were a result of two RPers engaging in spontaneous interaction.  But please, go on distorting my position and trying to paint me as a god-moder.

No one, but individual players must recognize when our perspectives do not match and therefore choose minimize play with each other.

I do not think I argued for any OOC authority or influence.  I stated that we as a community continual struggle with coming to a common definition of the line between IC/OCC.  It repeatedly comes up as a root issue in discussions, be it connecting two unrelated characters to the same player via shared storage or the IC/OOC nature of mission running.

Please stop reading extra meaning into my words.

If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC?  Is that up to Bill's player?

[Syylara/Yaansu]

1) I have not been participating in the IC conversations, aside for one comment early on.  I have read them, but I have not responded to them in anyway.

2) I have built discussions of State politics between established characters in public channels.  See the Heiian Society and some of its events.  Very public disagreement about a year ago between John Revenant (Liberal) and Dex Nederland (Patriot) as to where State supporters should put their efforts.  I think I have put my money where my mouth is, but you may believe otherwise.

3) As for IC/OOC separation, IC Dex Nederland greatly enjoys discredit being brought upon Jules Soter.  Dex consider Jules to be an enemy of Lai Dai and the State.  If Jules is marginalized by whatever means, Dex would either not care or celebrate it.  OOC I have stated my position.

I appreciate the clarifications, I'm not above admitting ignorance on IC history :9.  My rhetoric meant to simply suggest that you find a more positive direction to channel all of this energy into than tearing something someone else is building down.

No one, but individual players must recognize when our perspectives do not match and therefore choose minimize play with each other.

The biggest mismatch I can't seem to understand...is why you think our distance is like a mile-wide chasm when it feels to me more like a trickle of a creek.  We probably agree on 99.9999% of things as far as the lore and what would feel respectfully appropriate to the setting.

I do not think I argued for any OOC authority or influence.  I stated that we as a community continual struggle with coming to a common definition of the line between IC/OCC.  It repeatedly comes up as a root issue in discussions, be it connecting two unrelated characters to the same player via shared storage or the IC/OOC nature of mission running.

After ~20 years of online RP, I can't state it any more clearly than this: There will never be a "common definition of the line between IC/OOC".

The root issue of the discussion is not where the line is, the root issue of the discussion is "do we assert a superior prerogative upon everyone or do we accept different people have different preferences and work towards finding ways to interact with mutual benefit".

If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC?  Is that up to Bill's player?

It took me about 16 milliseconds to come up with "one of them happened while Bill's player was asleep or at work because chances are the exact time of day it occurred at is never going to make one ounce of difference to anyone's RP".

Now, since you avoided my question by repeating it back to me, would you like to try answering it this time?

(I did some de-clawing on my prev post, btw :9)

[orange]

If a character, Bill, is "in the flesh" at an event half-way across the cluster and missioning at the same time and gets suicide-ganked, what is IC?  Is that up to Bill's player?

It took me about 16 milliseconds to come up with "one of them happened while Bill's player was asleep or at work because chances are the exact time of day it occurred at is never going to make one ounce of difference to anyone's RP".

Now, since you avoided my question by repeating it back to me, would you like to try answering it this time?

My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh. 

It is clear your answer differs.

*Mobile devices today allow users to attend an event and send communications, make purchase orders, and check on your sales orders without leaving the event.

[Casiella]

Alternate explanation that some players use: holoprojectors. Personally, I only RPed that way once and didn't like it. If I want to go someplace I'll fly there, but YMMV.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

My simple answer is no. Characters should not be able to conduct in-space business (whatever that is and different than market/mail/presence*) and attend an event in the flesh.

Even though what time it happened at really has absolutely no impact upon you whatsoever, you would advocate that another player place this restriction upon themselves (because I'm desperately hoping you don't also advocate an enforcement mechanism)?

Alternate explanation that some players use: holoprojectors. Personally, I only RPed that way once and didn't like it. If I want to go someplace I'll fly there, but YMMV.

We were on specifically in-the-flesh, but you're one step ahead of me, in a way :9.

for the person uncomfortable with being two places at once, holos.  For the player who has no problem with it, I don't see any way for it to impact anyone else.  For this reason, I've been sitting here shaking my head wondering, "why would someone even have an opinion on what decisions another person should make to begin with".  Then I remember I'm absolutely surrounded every day by examples of this in areas of life which carry much greater significance.