Print

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

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The problem, is when the Evelopedia says something like "The Caldari acted first", instead of something like "After provocations by both the Gallente and Caldari".

When "The Caldari Shot First", then every Caldari character that expresses the opinion that the Gallente started it, is told IC and OOC that they're ignorant, and should "read the history books". This is despite there being very valid reasons for any Caldari character, born and raised in the State, to believe that the Gallente started it.
Any Gallente character that proposes any kind of peace settlement, is also told IC and OOC how "wrong" they are.

There's a small portion of the playerbase that behaves like this, but they're quite vocal about it.

So, because a small poriton of the playerbase behave like that and are quite vocal about it, it's a problem to cite EVElopedia? Don't you think that those that simply want to tell the other side that they are wrong were incapable of doing so without EVElopedia?

[Anslol]

Just for my own information in regards to the mentioned Caldari/Gallente aggression;

Who historically struck first anyway? I mean if the lore we have available to us, that is uneditable by players, states the Gallente struck first or the Caldari threw the first punch, shouldn't that be what we go off of? Shouldn't that be what the Evelopedia says?

But wait! Each Empire could write their own history! Surely this means that there is no IC definitive proof? Well...we're still capsuleers. We have access to stuff others don't. To me, Evelopedia is a CONCORD run database for egger use that isn't readily available to others. In the end, WE might know what happened, but the general population will be told otherwise by their respective governments.

So, to me, I think it's fine to use the Evelopedia ICly, as it can be explained pretty well why we would know certain factoids, but others would not.

[lallara zhuul]

Do you think that CONCORD allows its participants free access to all unedited historical data of all the empires?

Especially if those historical details are part of the religious foundation of the Empire, in other words the Scriptures?

Would any nation give access to data that could be used against them in a propaganda war, ever?

It is the victors that write the history books, and sure as hell the victors make sure that stuff that can bite them in the ass is not given to their enemies.

EVElopedia cannot be treated as an IC source, in PnP terms it is more of a GMs guide to New Eden than something accessible to players themselves. Even in PnP worldbooks there is loads of information that is used to create the background and the theme of the worlds that is never accessible to the players themselves.

All the clanbooks of oWoD are like that, all the worldbooks of DnD are like that, even the Glorantha books are like that, even Silmarillion has loads of information that the people of Middle Earth will have not a single clue about.

Why would it not be so in EVE?

[Anslol]

Do you think that CONCORD allows its participants free access to all unedited historical data of all the empires?

Especially if those historical details are part of the religious foundation of the Empire, in other words the Scriptures?

Would any nation give access to data that could be used against them in a propaganda war, ever?

It is the victors that write the history books, and sure as hell the victors make sure that stuff that can bite them in the ass is not given to their enemies.

EVElopedia cannot be treated as an IC source, in PnP terms it is more of a GMs guide to New Eden than something accessible to players themselves. Even in PnP worldbooks there is loads of information that is used to create the background and the theme of the worlds that is never accessible to the players themselves.

All the clanbooks of oWoD are like that, all the worldbooks of DnD are like that, even the Glorantha books are like that, even Silmarillion has loads of information that the people of Middle Earth will have not a single clue about.

Why would it not be so in EVE?

To your first two questions, I say yes. It's CONCORD's job to be on top of everything and anything involving the four empires, plain and simple. CONCORD employees have shown that they are not devoted to their home empires, but the cluster as a whole. If the prior was the case, CONCORD would have failed a very long time ago.

As for Eggers in say, the Empire, they can simply denounce the document as false, since it is not from the Church nor Amarr Certified. They've no reason to concern themselves with secular falsehoods.

The reason I'm even bothering to defend this position is because Eve is not like other RPGs. It is not a table top game, there is no GM manual, there is no DM, this is not Middle Earth. Eve is inherently different by all counts. It is an absolute sandbox. There is nothing to say that said sandbox would not have an IC database for the top class people that are the capsuleers.

Besides, how could CONCORD ever act on...well ANYTHING in their peace keeping efforts if they didn't know each Empire through and through. They have to. Again, it's their JOB.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Honestly, if the Caldari shot first by EVElopedia (I think that's not how it's stated there), why shouldn't they say that they did? They'd just have to say that they had damn good reasons to do so.

(Like. "Of course we shot first. The Gallente had a vastly larger military and made no secret out of their plans to bombard homeworld.")

[Anslol]

Honestly, if the Caldari shot first by EVElopedia (I think that's not how it's stated there), why shouldn't they say that they did? They'd just have to say that they had damn good reasons to do so.

(Like. "Of course we shot first. The Gallente had a vastly larger military and made no secret out of their plans to bombard homeworld.")

Yep, this. I RP Gallente and even I think the Caldari were justified in defending themselves. Maybe not Nouevolle Rouvenour but, those were terrorists, not the Caldari Navy or other governmental group.

So the Caldari could say "historically yes, we shot first. And we had all the reason to do so." It's a very Caldari thing imo. Defending those you are loyal to from outside threat and ensuring the people as a whole survive, no matter the cost.

[Lyn Farel]

Uh, well, there is not free access to everyone. Most PF/Canon articles are CCP moderated (meaning only them have access).

[Merdaneth]

Ok, let me put it like this:

If you are playing a table-top game, and during an IC discussion between your character and the character of the other player, the other player suddenly pulls a sourcebook out of his backpack and has his character say to yours 'you are wrong, look, it says right here that I'm right' while pointing at the relevant page of the sourcebook.

I would think that is poor RP at best, and a horrible crossing of IC and OOC boundaries at worst.

Of course the sourcebook is 'right', insofar the gamemaster decided that is the common point of origin for his world. But using that literally as character knowledge, I can't imagine nobody having a problem with that.

I have no problem in the character using the knowledge from the sourcebook, as long as he referred to an IC source, a source which can be questioned to normal IC means. But I don't think a 'pulling the sourcebook' trick will do any kind of IC discussion much favor. What my approach is in such cases is send the relevant player a mail OOC informing him of said content and have the player decide if he wants anything to do with that content.

As said before, even with the same sourcebook in hands, one can still disagree about the meaning of the content, even if the content itself isn't in question.

[Merdaneth]

Just for my own information in regards to the mentioned Caldari/Gallente aggression;

Who historically struck first anyway? I mean if the lore we have available to us, that is uneditable by players, states the Gallente struck first or the Caldari threw the first punch, shouldn't that be what we go off of? Shouldn't that be what the Evelopedia says?

Is there such a thing as an unbiased and unedited report of history? I don't think so. I would claim that is impossible, since all observers are biased and lack full knowledge.

This whole issue is still based on a one-truth perspective. History is catalogue full of truths that have been revised or rethought at one point or another.

What we could go on is that the Evelopedia lore (insofar as it doesn't concern secret subjects) is a popular or perhaps common way to view events, but certainly not 'the truth'. In fact, the common perception might actually be far from the truth.

The beauty of RP and history comes to the fore when players will actually discuss what is true and what isn't. This was recently exemplified by the search for the body of Jamyl, since history has been rewritten since her return. Did she really die, didn't she die? What is our proof? If some older EVE player who was present at her supposed death claims he saw the body, can I believe him, or is he really trying to push his own agenda. *That* is the spice of RP, not presenting a list of unquestionable factoids about the history of EVE.

[Safai]

Ok, let me put it like this:

If you are playing a table-top game, and during an IC discussion between your character and the character of the other player, the other player suddenly pulls a sourcebook out of his backpack and has his character say to yours 'you are wrong, look, it says right here that I'm right' while pointing at the relevant page of the sourcebook.

I would think that is poor RP at best, and a horrible crossing of IC and OOC boundaries at worst.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

So, let's say that you're playing a game of Vampire: The Maskerade and your character is just talking about how Caine met Lilith first and what happened between the two and how that story is known with the char of another player. Suddenly the other player pulls the Book of Nod out of his backpack (which his char has with him as well) and his character says to yours 'you are wrong, look, it says right here that I'm right' while pointing at the relevant page of the sourcebook, while the character does so, obviously, as well, as you can infer.

I don't see why that is "is poor RP at best, and a horrible crossing of IC and OOC boundaries at worst."

Simply because a sourcebook is involved doesn't mean that there is bad/poor RP or crossing of IC/OOC boundaries involved.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The beauty of RP and history comes to the fore when players will actually discuss what is true and what isn't. This was recently exemplified by the search for the body of Jamyl, since history has been rewritten since her return. Did she really die, didn't she die? What is our proof? If some older EVE player who was present at her supposed death claims he saw the body, can I believe him, or is he really trying to push his own agenda. *That* is the spice of RP, not presenting a list of unquestionable factoids about the history of EVE.

And it all depends on facts: That Jamyl is empress, that cloning is possible, that there is the doctrine of sacred flesh and that it is interpreted by the TC to implicate a ban on cloning of said flesh, that Shathol Syn is practiced in the Empire, that the Empire has an Emperor, etc. pp. All these things aren't merely 'popular or perhaps common ways to view events'.

To make an analogy, spice without meat is little sustenance. You need the meat as well, Merdaneth.

And as you yourself said, it's not that the facts of EVE can't be interpreted or discussed. I don't want to spend my time with debating whether these facts are true or not, but rather with the meaning of the facts. I always said that EVElopedia leaves plenty of wiggle space. I'd rather take up the chance of using up that wiggle space, rather than just ignoring it and go for the "shit on the PF and shit on what our chars are supposed to know/what knowledge is available to them" attitude.

Why do I need to debate whether the Amarr exterminated a Ni-Kunni city of vile human-sacrificing cultists if I want to play Amarr, rather than pointing out that those people exterminated were vile human-sacrificing cultist who deserved what was coming to them? Why do I need to be able to claim all was plushy between the Amarr and all the Ni-Kunni from the beginning?

I don't see the need for that.

[ArtOfLight]

Just for my own information in regards to the mentioned Caldari/Gallente aggression;

Who historically struck first anyway?

To answer your question for you, the Caldari fired the first shots but the "aggression" can easily be argued as having started from either side. In brief:

• The Caldari are forced (by circumstance) to join the founding of the Federation. Timeline Gallente Spin: "By circumstance? Are you suggesting that we, who had been peaceful cooperators with you up this point, would have 'conquered' you if you refused to form the Federation with us? Can you prove that claim?" Caldari Spin: "We were placed into a precarious position by the more numerous and expansive Gallente, when the Federation was being formed, we were in the middle of it and to opt out would have placed us surrounded by a potentially hostile nation."
  
• The Caldari begin building secret deep-space autonomous outposts without Federal consent or knowledge. Timeline Gallente Spin: "The Caldari breached the trust between our people and violated their agreements with the Federation. These outposts could have been used for anything, including storage for eventual hostile action." Caldari Spin: "These were necessary to secure Caldari continuation in the event of continued oppression and belittlement by the Federal government. A lack of representation in the Senate and gradual removal of our "rights" demanded that we create for ourselves a contingency plan."
  
• The deepspace outposts are (inevitably) discovered by the Federation. Timeline
  
• The Caldari secede from the Federation and blockade all system stargates they created
• The Federation enters internal discussions for a peaceful resolution
• Caldari terrorist group assaults Nouvelle Rouvenoir
• Gallente retaliate on Caldari Prime
• Caldari flee Caldari Prime and strengthen the borders of their new "State"

I can provide "spins" to nearly every one of those points from both sides if you want them, but the point is that it can clearly be argued from either angle that either party "struck first" unless you're talking strictly in "fired the first shots" in which case it was most certainly the Caldari.

(Also, I stopped linking the Timeline, but every point above is found there)

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Thanks, Art, for this great post, that is illustrating why EVElopedia doesn't do any harm to debate and discussion inside and between various factions.

There is really no debate necessary whether the Caldari joined the founding of the Federation, whether they began to build their secret outposts and that those were subsequently discovered by the Federation or any other event in this chain.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the broad assessment that "the Caldari" most certainly fired the first shot, as the CEP denounced the Nouvelle Rouvenoir attack. So, yes, it was a Caldari terrorist group, but the first act of war between the Federation and the Caldari State was the bombardment of Caldari Prime.

But that's even more beautiful, as it leaves, again, more than enough room for debate without the need to question whether the Templis Dragonaurs attacked and destroyed said city or whether the Federation bombarded Caldari Prime or not.

[ArtOfLight]

Agreed, Mithra.