Print

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

[Casiella]

Yeah, the YMMV was there on purpose. I tend to side with orange (and, frankly, Soter) in my own approach: I know how I prefer to approach immersion, but alternate approaches by others don't really get me worked up. And sometimes I go with commonly-accepted exceptions (e.g. bloodlines not currently allowable for players, like Thukker).

That's pretty much my approach here. For the poll purposes, I chose "like but won't participate". I'm glad to see people having fun without resorting to the extreme god-moding Mary Sue-ism that drives nearly all of us crazy, but I'd personally avoid it myself.

TL;DR: "YMMV" works for most things in RP. <3

[Vieve]

TL;DR: "YMMV" works for most things in RP. <3

[orange]

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)?

I would advocate players have their characters be in a single place (x,y,z) at any specific time (t).

If it becomes pertinent, I may point out what I view as an inconsistency between what the character is saying and what the character is/has done.

If the other player does not view it as an inconsistency then they have decided as such and it is for those watching to decide what position they favor.

[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)?

I would advocate players have their characters be in a single place (x,y,z) at any specific time (t).

If it becomes pertinent, I may point out what I view as an inconsistency between what the character is saying and what the character is/has done.

If the other player does not view it as an inconsistency then they have decided as such and it is for those watching to decide what position they favor.

[mod]Personal attack[/mod].

Whether or not that pilot was at the event in question is not something the RP community gets to take a poll on.  That's the "Sekrit RP counsil" kind of RP community and that's been 100x more poisonous to communities in my experience than people minding their own business.  Since most things involving a large group of people inevitably end up being a popularity contest and not a rational look at the issue, letting the community decide what is or isn't true about my character is not something I'm remotely comfortable with.

[mod]Personal attack[/mod]

Edit: my final thoughts for fear of doing that endless repetition of the same points thing (probably way too late for that :9).  I just feel that as long as it remains something that if you just don't click on it then it isn't going to affect you, let it go.  Everyone reading it knows they are shells that can't do anything but bloviate, they are foils for people to springboard off of.  Since there's a field of them, there's hooks all around for people to agree with or pick a fight with.  The door has been wide open for folks RPing hard-liners to chew on the sociocrats and progs, Syyl has agreed with, disagreed with, and found some new common ground on issues with the Unionist, etc.

The forces that shape the ever-changing landscape of strategic-political affiliations are not going to be appreciably dictated by props that everyone knows are props, they will change because resources and facilities change.  They change as a result of the imposed scarcities and need for survival, not because of chest-thumping on forums.  There is no more threat to your day-to-day experience from these characters potentially stepping out of line than Crazed Pilot's outbursts.

However, in the spirit of trying to continue in a positive direction, I've heard the Heiian channel mentioned a few times and hope they don't mind an Intaki citizen of the State poking in for a lurk now and then :9.

I'm going to take my own advice now, put my own "money where my mouth is" and finish some stuff that goes in the content parts of the forum and let go of the rabble-rabbling.

[Elsebeth Rhiannon]

Someone above asked about what are the negative consequences of someone playing a non-capsuleer politician on IGS.

This is a bit of a difficult matter to explain, but I think it is in the core of how to make massively multiplayer games work for players together, so I'd like to try and answer that.

When you make RP about something that is local to your character (my clan has this custom that we X; the town I grew up in used to have a mayor who thought Y, etc), you do not restrict other people's world or the way they RP, because they can actually interact with you by saying "Really? That's interesting. Where *I* grew up, I do not think *anyone* did X/Y", and you can go on to discuss that and invent more things without having to establish what is "true" in the universe in general.

But when a player invents something that is true in the world in general - a high-up in a political party that everyone of a particular faction knows, or invents a custom that all people of a particular tribe are supposed to know of, or tries to pose themselves as a CONCORD official, or any such thing - and another RPer wants the facts to be different, they can no longer improvise together. The one who did not start it can no longer claim that their interpretation of facts (Sebiestor customs, or Gallente political parties, or whatever) is equally valid, but they are left with 1) accepting to play a minority, 2) contradicting and questioning the first player's words IC, 3) ignoring the whole thing OOC, or 4) contesting it OOC.

So the negative consequence is that it limits the way others can play, without their consent. You try to establish truth about the world as what you think the world is like, and everyone is forced to either ignore your RP or to play it your way.

I am not saying you cannot do that. But myself, I strongly prefer it when player-invented stuff is such that it is completely believable that my character has never heard of it, so that I can decide which way I want to take it without creating "splinters" of the world, where in one splinter one thing is true (e.g. "it is the custom of all Sebiestor to X") and in another something else is true. This, because in the long run it allows me to interact smoothly with a lot of people.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

The thing is Elsebeth. These characters are essentially advisors and publicists. Not politicians themselves.

Such people have made remarks in reality that have afterward gotten them fired when their party discovers what they have said and/or political opponents use their words to embarass their employers.

So if an "official" of this sort mis-speaks the easy IC thing is to challenge that view as being a proper representation of their party's doctrine. If you are convincing enough maybe you get a bit of roleplay about them resigning in disgrace.

[Elsebeth Rhiannon]

People seem to be interpreting me as saying that since these people are politicians, no one can disagree with them IC. That is not what I am saying; of course you can. You can also ICly disagree with someone who says that all Sebiestors share a particular custom ("WTF are you talking about? I haven't ever heard of such a thing, and neither has anyone I've spoken to?" - easy, done).

The problem is not that you cannot disagree, but that when you do, if the player who originally played the politician (or the Seb custom) intended it to be "true" in the world, you not only end up ICly disagreeing, you end up also saying "your RP is wrong" by the disagreement. Not everyone wants this - e.g. there has been OOC disagreements about whether it is ok for Julianus Soter to ICly question the legitimacy of these characters when he thinks the facts might not check.

If you instead limit "world facts" you invent in your IC disagreements to smaller scale (customs of your clan instead of the tribe, say), you do not need to go into that, but both interpretations can co-exist.