Print

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

[Lasairiona]

Personally, I don't understand why it was removed? Wasn't that the premise of the thread? To say what you would do with certain characters? No one was even named specifically.

[Silver Night]

Yes, saying what you would do with someone's character is the premise - the problem is when you do that in a way that violates the rules. In particular, the implication of the post was very clearly that the groups mentioned weren't RPing 'right' because they fraternize with 'enemy' characters.

[Lasairiona]

I didn't get that. Maybe I read it wrong. I just thought it was saying that you would have the person RP straight to the point of what the character stood for, if you get what I mean?

[BloodBird]

Norrin's issue is that a lot of characters seem to say one thing and do another, in the sense that if they claim to stand for X and oppose Y but still party/positively interact with those who support Y the point of opposing Y seems lost entirely, and he would have then change this.

Basically, he said (in a round-about way) that they were doing it wrong, and that is frowned on on these boards.

[Ember Vykos]

I think what people miss is that there's "you're doing it wrong" and then there's "no really, you're fucking doing it wrong"

Norrins post is in the latter category, and I think that's possibly worth discussing. It's something that always confused me about a lot of RPers (and yes I think I've been quilty of it a little), but while sure we can all be civil why do we have to be friends?

[Lasairiona]

I kinda agree with Ember. Perhaps the original post of the thread could be made clearer?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now, what's the difference between "you're doing it wrong" and "no really, you're fucking doing it wrong"? The latter is okay, because the words "no really" and "fucking" have been added?

There is nothing stopping someone from claiming to not do x and doing x and even less is stopping someone from claiming to do x and doing y. People even can do x and y. Actually, it's quite realistic that people do all that. It's realistic that people don't behave rationally all the time and that their lists of preferences isn't rationally ordered.

I think, especially given how Norrin worded his post, by implying that everyone "aligned with some faction / ideology" does not "behave accordingly" is, in fact quite a loud 'doinitrong' and a quite one-dimensional one and unwarranted at that. I agree with Silver there.

[Anslol]

I can't agree with Ember.

The fact is that the New Eden capsuleers are, while still human, a bit more enlightened. Blind hate and fury simply because someone's DNA is different or because someone has stuff in their head would, to me, be illogical. Why would a near immortal group harbor petty hatred simply because the mortals of their faction attempt to sow it? One can be an enemy (Gallente and Caldari), but still be civil, friendly, and respectful of each other (as shown in Khross and Raithe, or even Anslo and Pieter...even though the former shows it more intelligently than the later).

Regardless, Norrin's post did seem as a subtle YDIW by passively suggesting that people who say they're anti-Sansha should treat ALL Sansha as filth without even knowing their logic behind the choice. They base the judgement on association as opposed to action. Or that ALL Amarr should treat all Minmatar like animals. Essentially, it's like saying Diana Kim's 'doin' it right' by blindly hating all Gallente. While it's funny, not EVERYONE has to do it. It'd make the game and the RP associated with it far, far less interesting.

[lallara zhuul]

Why would a near immortal group harbor petty hatred simply because the mortals of their faction attempt to sow it?

Cultural indoctrination.

They base the judgement on association as opposed to action.

Choosing to associate yourself with people that do atrocities on daily basis is an action.

Or that ALL Amarr should treat all Minmatar like animals.

Cultural indoctrination again.

Norrins' post is one of the most common peeves within the RP community which revolves around the issues of RP consistency and world building.

It is pretty much about eating a cake and keeping it.

Is the character just a tool for the player to have lols with or someone that lives by the rules of New Eden and making it act in ways that would be unwanted by the player himself?

For me, Norrins post was not just about 'urdoinitrong' it is about a deeper issue within the community that the player was fed up with to the extent that he was putting his capability to post on these forums on the line.

[Lasairiona]

Okay, I was just looking for clarification. No need for everyone to get their panties in a twist.

[Anslol]

Why would a near immortal group harbor petty hatred simply because the mortals of their faction attempt to sow it?

Cultural indoctrination.

They base the judgement on association as opposed to action.

Choosing to associate yourself with people that do atrocities on daily basis is an action.

Or that ALL Amarr should treat all Minmatar like animals.

Cultural indoctrination again.

Norrins' post is one of the most common peeves within the RP community which revolves around the issues of RP consistency and world building.

It is pretty much about eating a cake and keeping it.

Is the character just a tool for the player to have lols with or someone that lives by the rules of New Eden and making it act in ways that would be unwanted by the player himself?

For me, Norrins post was not just about 'urdoinitrong' it is about a deeper issue within the community that the player was fed up with to the extent that he was putting his capability to post on these forums on the line.

So everyone should treat their IC 'enemies' with contempt and not talk to them unless it's insulting? That doesn't world build or further stories. In my opinion, it'd get old, tiring, and detrimental. Not a very pleasant SOP for a community, RP or any. :S Just my opinion though.

[Ember Vykos]

I think, especially given how Norrin worded his post, by implying that everyone "aligned with some faction / ideology" does not "behave accordingly" is, in fact quite a loud 'doinitrong' and a quite one-dimensional one and unwarranted at that. I agree with Silver there.

It is loud, and I think it is warranted. For instance (Leo had a quote about this and I wish I could find it, but...) I'm a Matari. I'm very anti-slavery. My best friend is an Angel Cartel pirate, yesterday I went to a party hosted by PIE, but I'm still dead set against slavery.

NOTE: The above example is in no way directed at anyone. It's just what I remember from what Leo said. His version was much funnier btw.

What I'm getting at with the example though is that said character doesn't make much sense. As lallara said its a case of people wanting to eat their cake and keep it too.

One can be an enemy (Gallente and Caldari), but still be civil, friendly, and respectful of each other (as shown in Khross and Raithe, or even Anslo and Pieter...even though the former shows it more intelligently than the later).

Sure they can be and hell I'm all for that, but I dont see them becoming bffs4lyfe which seems to happen more often than not.

Regardless, Norrin's post did seem as a subtle YDIW by passively suggesting that people who say they're anti-Sansha should treat ALL Sansha as filth without even knowing their logic behind the choice.

Well yeah why not? If I had a character that was anti-Sansha I would treat all of them with at least a little contempt. Sure in public channels like the Summit I would be civil and it would be toned down, but in private or in space let it all hang out and give those damn toasters what for! 

They base the judgement on association as opposed to action

Like lallara said association is an action.

Essentially, it's like saying Diana Kim's 'doin' it right' by blindly hating all Gallente.

Honestly, she is. She made her character that way and is sticking to her guns even when it's not the popular thing to do. If that's not right I don't know what is.

Now, what's the difference between "you're doing it wrong" and "no really, you're fucking doing it wrong"? The latter is okay, because the words "no really" and "fucking" have been added?

Ya damn right. The words "no really" and "fucking" make everything okay. 

[Esna Pitoojee]

I think this thread is being a bit derailed, and although a discussion on the topic is warranted this probably isn't the place.

Getting a bit back on topic, I think the reason it was treated as a case of 'urdoinitwrong' by the mods is that - unlike objectively discussing the trope in question - the post could be interpreted as saying that he would take control of the characters explicitely to 'fix' what he saw them as doing wrong given their role. That it had to do with characters associating with 'enemies' is irrelevant - if the post had said "I would take control of the hardest-liners of X faction and make them less anal and more social", I am sure it would still have been modded.

[Ember Vykos]

I think this thread is being a bit derailed, and although a discussion on the topic is warranted this probably isn't the place.

Yeah it kinda is given the OP and it probably isn't since this is the mod discussion section, but threads evlolve discussions happen so why not have it?

Also: inb4 thread has "run its course" 

[Morwen Lagann]

There is "I might try XYZ with this character if I had the opportunity to pull their strings", and there is "I would do ABC because their player is doing it wrong".

Norrin's post very clearly fell under the latter category, and even without naming names, was very clearly directed at several specific individuals; it's important to note that for several of those people, his accusations don't actually hold water. Which would be immediately apparent if interactions outside of the Summit or similar channels were taken into account.