Print

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

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Newsflash: The Emergency Militia War Powers Act was more or less an act of preventing war, rather than the start of a war. I know, there are people who'd like to see New Eden burn, but I think that won't happen ever. There will be limited zones of conflict 'proxy wars' between militias, but I honestly think there won't be more. EVE isn't really about war between factions, the conflict it's driven by is another one. One can dislike it, but I think it's pretty impossible to change that. If you want all out war, go to 0.0, join the Goons or whomever and enjoy the show.

As to what you said, Publius: I never said it was in any way 'better' or 'less brutal' in the middle ages, nor would I claim thus - it just worked differently. I hardly see how in the case of being able to gruesome things to your uncle and afterwards drinking tea with his wife on the one hand and simply dehumanizing other humans to shoot them without remorse on the other one is somehow 'better'. vOv I don't think it's a matter of reason vs emotion, it's a matter of cultural imprinting: The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so, but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real. It's a question of different emotional conditionings.

[Publius Valerius]

Newsflash: The Emergency Militia War Powers Act was more or less an act of preventing war, rather than the start of a war. I know, there are people who'd like to see New Eden burn, but I think that won't happen ever. There will be limited zones of conflict 'proxy wars' between militias, but I honestly think there won't be more. EVE isn't really about war between factions, the conflict it's driven by is another one. One can dislike it, but I think it's pretty impossible to change that. If you want all out war, go to 0.0, join the Goons or whomever and enjoy the show.

As to what you said, Publius: I never said it was in any way 'better' or 'less brutal' in the middle ages, nor would I claim thus - it just worked differently. I hardly see how in the case of being able to gruesome things to your uncle and afterwards drinking tea with his wife on the one hand and simply dehumanizing other humans to shoot them without remorse on the other one is somehow 'better'. vOv I don't think it's a matter of reason vs emotion, it's a matter of cultural imprinting: The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so, but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real. It's a question of different emotional conditionings.

And thats what I dont think. As can be seen in the chrismas truce. The "plebs" as you call it, had the same thinking and attitude as the officer-corps of the army (Yes, you read right army  . All airforces were born out of the army. During the first world war no faction had his own independent air force as we know it today. There was just army and navy.).  So the idea, that army officer in the air (pilot) can understand, he has more in commen with the guy on the other side and the army officer which is on the ground, or the so call "plebs" soldier,  cant understand that he as more in commen with the guy on the other side is a little tasty.... Of not really arrgg bad.

You will always if you split people and their tools come very fast in a Tony Gish corner. What I mean with it?
See on the: "but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde(1)" If you say so you will always find yourself on the question end.... why can "they felt they had more in common with x", but not not other Individuals? It is a very bad explanation.... 

The next thing is: "they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real"(2). Even if I say your point one would be true. Lets say: "Officer in the air" felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air, than the plebs or the political avantgarde. I dont understand how you come to your point two? "because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real" If I take one for true; I would come to many outcomes. So, you would have to explain to me: Why, when one is true, is leads to point two (and nothing else)?



As for the first part.... about the limited war.... That was also a point which I have try to say earlier  . 


Minior thingy.... I meant code of chivalry vs. emotion ...ehm not reason vs. emotion. Reason plays in another (more hardcore  ) ballpark. But I after rereading... I see how the mistake had crept in. So I have over read: "The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so," As this was never my point. My point was earlier, that in a emotion setting, or attitude if you like, the code of chivalry cant survive. So I would say... that in the officer corps and by the soldiers ("plebs") pre-ww1 and in the early stage of the war 14/15... was a code of chivalry possible.... in all parts (officers, soldiers, sergeants etc...).... see christmas truce. But in the moment emotions crepes in (hate to the enemy, propaganda)... (or the war becomes more a type (1) war); then you will find that code of chivalry isnt possible (as for the army officers in the air (pilots), does it means... that this hatred and emotions come maybe later or not at all. But jsut my 50 cents).


Edit: I change now... my point two in the summary... it was wrong: Point 1: Code can just survive in with reason. (Edit: Sorry wasnt my point. I have shot over the ball park ). Emotions will kill the code of chivalry .

[Sepherim]

I think there is another side to it that has to be added: hypocrisy. Fraternizing with enemies can be done for many reasons, not only conflict. Old-Seph went to lots of Blood Raider parties, was a common patron in Le Maison and pirate channels and bars, etc. He even got named influential pod pilot on three occasions by his enemies (Revan and her yearly lists) and had friendly nicknames like "the old man" (which is a compliment in the Empire, and was Naphtalia's nickname for Seph). Etc. And he had perfect hypocritical reasons to be there: he was a spy, and by doing so he was collecting information on all those subjects and individuals (he warned CVA and PIE of a war Revan/Jade were going to start before they did, for example).

And there's also another side of the coin: people don't need to hate each other to kill each other. New-seph respects deeply every other human being (except Raiders and some specific persons), which even extends to the Nation to some degree (though he doesn't consider them trully human anymore). This doesn't mean he doesn't shoot them if they enter his space or are in the war theater, because that is duty. Thus, he doesn't kill out of hatred, but out of honor. And honor doesn't say you can't be polite to the enemy while outside the war field.

All that said, there is indeed a good amount of hugfest from time to time. Specially when people are RPing childlishly and/or speaking about their favorite meal or how nice their vacations were. Sometimes, the Summit just turns into "all friends gathered together for party", but I guess the best choice when that happens is either to try to change the mood (complicated) or just wait for it to finish.

[Natalcya Katla]

Capsuleers constitute a social elite, and social elites tend to fraternize within themselves, even across fronts. It's been the case with nobility, it's been the case with career officers, it's been the case with celebrities, it's been the case with artists and performers, it's been the case with rich people in general, and there is no reason it should not be the case with capsuleers, too. Simply being capsuleers provides more than enough common ground to stand on, and any adherence to an idea of "gentleman's warfare" just builds on what is already there. It makes sense for individual capsuleers to feel bothered or self-conscious about being part of such an elite, or to resent those who take fraternization "too far" - but I, for one, don't find the phenomenon itself to be immersion breaking at all.

[Publius Valerius]

Capsuleers constitute a social elite, and social elites tend to fraternize within themselves, even across fronts. It's been the case with nobility, it's been the case with career officers, it's been the case with celebrities, it's been the case with artists and performers, it's been the case with rich people in general, and there is no reason it should not be the case with capsuleers, too. Simply being capsuleers provides more than enough common ground to stand on, and any adherence to an idea of "gentleman's warfare" just builds on what is already there. It makes sense for individual capsuleers to feel bothered or self-conscious about being part of such an elite, or to resent those who take fraternization "too far" - but I, for one, don't find the phenomenon itself to be immersion breaking at all.

Ehm I dont know  .....

You can also add... drunk neck-bearded Irish and drunk neck-bearded Scots (Publius is to lazy to link Breaveheart scene were they meet in the center of the battle field).... You can also add to the "fraterniztion group" more (not just Capsuleers, nobility, career officers, celebrities, artists, performers and rich people) ...you can add drunk sailor x and drunk sailor y  ..... Or forget the sailor profession... drunk guy x with the profession (z) meets drunk guy y with the profession (z) (and both start how much they hate profession (z)... just as an example  Not to be take seriously  ). In the end, the list would go on and on.... and all would also have a reason to be a "gentleman" or not...

I think... it is time again for a Terry Pratchett book 

[Laria Raven]

I've been thinking about this some. And there's a couple of things:

• Steering a course between repetitive "Slavery Bad!" "You don't understand!" sniping and overly buddybuddy stuff is difficult.
• People who maintain a strong faction position, who maybe even are "villains", or at least anti-heroes, deserve lots of credit.
• Having said that, that's not the only option, and it should not be the case that strong faction position = good RPer, weak faction position = bad RPer.
• There's a worrying tendency to write off RPers whose characters do things that appear to be bad, rather than engage IC. I think that's a little understandable, but it is problematic. I'll give a fictional example:
  {The Summit}
  Anita T. Staunchfed: Freedom is our core value.
  Basil T. Federationmember: Well, maybe the Minmatar don't deserve freedom.
  {Immediately on OOC}
  Anita T. Staunchfed eyerolls. The crazies are out in the summit today!
  {Somewhere else}
  Basil T. Federationmember player . o O ( What the hell do I have to do before someone confronts Basil? Start randomly uplifting people? )
• The "funkiller" thing is annoying. If it's an IC response, fine. If a player kvetches OOCly about it... I think it's a situation where there is a fundamental mismatch. But I don't think it's right to assume that you're going to get that OOC response until you do.
• It is reasonable for who (or what) someone is to get a weaker response than what they do.

Confession time, though: I had a moment in Summit RP recently when I messed this up - Laria was being all "I are tough insensitive pirate no really" and Pieter T metaphorically smacked her upside the head (yay!), and I had her shut up, which I think was the wrong decision. I find Summit RP difficult, but that's maybe a topic for a different thread.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

And thats what I dont think. As can be seen in the chrismas truce. The "plebs" as you call it, had the same thinking and attitude as the officer-corps of the army (Yes, you read right army  . All airforces were born out of the army. During the first world war no faction had his own independent air force as we know it today. There was just army and navy.).  So the idea, that army officer in the air (pilot) can understand, he has more in commen with the guy on the other side and the army officer which is on the ground, or the so call "plebs" soldier,  cant understand that he as more in commen with the guy on the other side is a little tasty.... Of not really arrgg bad.

Not what I said: I'm quite sure it wasn't a thing if reason for the common soldier either, but it was the holdiay spirit and the emotion transported by that that lead to the christmas truce. Point is: It's not about reason to begin with.

So, you would have to explain to me: Why, when one is true, is leads to point two (and nothing else)?,

<,< I didn't make an inference there, Publius. I didn't say, because they felt to have more in common with the other pilots they shot at them. I said they felt they had more in common with the opposing pilots and felt it was their duty to shoot them. So, I don't have to explain an inference I never talked about.

Minior thingy.... I meant code of chivalry vs. emotion ...ehm not reason vs. emotion. Reason plays in another (more hardcore  ) ballpark. But I after rereading... I see how the mistake had crept in. So I have over read: "The pilots of WWI weren't doing what they were because they knew numbers and it was rational to do so," As this was never my point. My point was earlier, that in a emotion setting, or attitude if you like, the code of chivalry cant survive. So I would say... that in the officer corps and by the soldiers ("plebs") pre-ww1 and in the early stage of the war 14/15... was a code of chivalry possible.... in all parts (officers, soldiers, sergeants etc...).... see christmas truce. But in the moment emotions crepes in (hate to the enemy, propaganda)... (or the war becomes more a type (1) war); then you will find that code of chivalry isnt possible (as for the army officers in the air (pilots), does it means... that this hatred and emotions come maybe later or not at all. But jsut my 50 cents).

In emotional settings codes of chivalry survived, because they are emotional. vOv You make up a false dichotomy between codes and chivalry and emotion.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I don't think inregard to fraternization vs not fraternizing with 'the enemy' there is no objective right and wrong in RP. Apparently a lot of capsuleers do fraternize with what one could see as their 'enemy'. Well, that's how it is and there is nothing wrong with it. Whether or not there are good reasons for capsuleers to fraternize with their 'enemies' (or what others perceive as who should be their enemy) doesn't really matter: It's a fact that capsuleers fraternize with these people a lot and, yes, they get away with it, mostly.

I think some people simply have to get over it. One won't change this reality by complaining about it.

[Morwen Lagann]

Sepherim basically expanded on my (probably excessively) snarky point earlier in the thread.

One of the best reasons to "fraternize" with the "enemy" is intel-gathering, especially among capsuleers who like socializing.

Because it is astoundingly rare that one of them understands the concept of opsec.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Sepherim basically expanded on my (probably excessively) snarky point earlier in the thread.

One of the best reasons to "fraternize" with the "enemy" is intel-gathering, especially among capsuleers who like socializing.

Because it is astoundingly rare that one of them understands the concept of opsec.

True that. But it's even much more fun if you meet someone who does and fraternizes with other for the exact same reason!

[Louella Dougans]

bought apples off that cart before, haven't we ?

Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.

[Vieve]

bought apples off that cart before, haven't we ?

Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.

Or one can sing and dance about things that are completely unrelated to moving a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere.   

[Silas Vitalia]

It's less the fraternization and more my having a hard time loading enough handwavium ammunition to believe some of these people would have ever made it through capsuleer training, or ever be entrusted with more than a nerf bat as a weapon.

Sometimes the behavior makes me think some people wouldn't have clearance to park a short bus let alone some of the most dangerous equipment in the cluster.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

Here's the thing.

Our characters can destroy each other's equipment and clones for years on end. None of that will change things. Maybe now and then an enemy will get tired and move away, but attitudes don't change.

The only sure way to victory is winning over opposed characters to your point of view. You don't win over people by insulting them or ranting at them. So there is a good reason for civil discussion with an enemy.

[Sepherim]

Opsec and RP being a bit incompatible - e.g. if one wishes to move a large amount of questionable things in/out of somewhere, then it gets done without a big song and dance about it, and no interference from opposing RPers.

Actually not, spying is quite possible in EVE, even without the use of alts, forum infiltration/hacking or other venues of accessing privileged information outside the RP. It requires a massive amount of time, contacts, reputation, position, and analysis of all given data, but it is quite possible to do it. Actually, one of the reasons I didn't come back with old-seph is that I don't have the time now required for it, but it's inmensily fun and possible none the less.