Print

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

[Boma Airaken]

Based on Silvers wishes in the other subfaction discussion thread, and my newfound ability to not be a total asshole 24/7, I though I would bring it up on this new and most majestic board.

To those who interacted with me when I was trying to pull it off, and those that were members, I have a question. Why did it fail so miserably and/or met with so much resistance?

I am taking a look at RP all over again, after a hiatus, and am pretty aware of my shortcomings, but I would like to hear from you, the community, why it was so opposed and such a failure. Just me being annoying? State loyalists outnumbering me a million to one? Bad leadership? Don't pull your punches people. I am nowhere near as reactionary anymore, and would like to hear the truth.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I'd just like to note that I have no idea what you or your character's 'game plan' was for this Achuran Independence Movement, but I'll just make some commentary based on what I've experienced when interacting with similar movements (namely the Intaki one).

I think that in order to sway popular opinion about an independence movement, some key elements have to be related to the audience in order to garner support. Such as:
- A clear description of the negative impact this culture and their people have in remaining with said empire.
- Defining tangible benefits to independence that outweigh the enormous risks to approaching autonomy. (ie. what's to stop the State from sending the superfleet in and crushing your civilization the moment they suggest 'independence'?)
- A plan to handle pragmatic issues like security and government autonomy once the empire is shrugged off.
- A clear reason for making the topic public and who you're trying to garner sympathy from, because you won't likely get it from State loyalists.
- Some demonstration that your organization is actively doing something rather than just talking about it. Other than making the community aware, how can they contribute?
- Why should a general public of capsuleers care about the plight of Saisio? (Save the whales anybody? xD)

This could apply to any freedom movement- a clearly thought out plan with good reasons for this movement to exist. The rest just takes dedication and perseverence.

[Kohiko Sun]

I remember this and thought it was interesting when you were doing it, but Ko had a different opinion. I've never interacted with you OOC, so there's nothing I can say there. Instead, I'll give you the IC point-of-view of this liberal loyalist Achur. (Yes, she may be in a Matari loyalist alliance, but it's because of her loyalty to the State.)

Why? - Evelopedia makes me see the Achur Way as a philosophy blending science and spirituality to understand the totality of existence through personal experience. (I slap in a healthy dose of other Taoist concepts, stir it in with the EVE setting, and call it 'techno-zen' because I'm lazy, but this isn't the time for that.) Achur have a habit of studying something from every possible angle. I think many would very much like to know why, so it can be understood how this would affect their place in the universe. Telling other Achur they should declare independence would probably need very compelling reasoning based on the Way to make them upset the current balance as a whole. Ko saw many statements that Achura should break away, but she never saw any explained purpose behind it.

History - The Achur have already fought one war of independence. They joined the State just in time to fight against the Federation. As far as Ko's concerned, the Achur have committed to the State with their blood. The possibility of pouring more blood onto it to erase that price is a horrible thought; insulting the ancestors and dishonoring everything they did is just as unthinkable.

Loyalty - This stirs in the stew with the other points. Not the lockstep of the die-hard loyalists and Provists, but the ideal of strength through submission to the whole, heiian, is going to be the major challenge to any sort of independence movement. The Celestial Imperative isn't a rejection of loyalty to the State; it's more of a, "If you want something done right, do it yourself," group. That fits with how the social rules in the State work. (Who'd want to see one of their religious artifacts in the hands of SuVee? :p )

Without a very good why to offset the history, loyalty, and disruption to Balance, Ko called it needless troublemaking better fit for a Gallente than an Achur.

[Akikio L]

Hey Boma 

I think FW made it even harder for the Achura independence idea to get through. People just see the big "epic" war between State and Federation. In YTZ we had all sorts of interesting discussions and formed some form of consensus about the Achura history and position within the State but people outside probably never saw our view. As seen already in this thread people view Achura as an integral part of the State while I just go WUT?!. My view is still that the Achura are not quite equal members of the State but more or less owned by corporate interests, maybe dating back to when the Caldari state expanded secretly and ran into the Achura in Saisio. Suvee gobbled up most of the real estate in system and so they became part of the State. Achur people didn't start to leave their homeworld until recent years so I'm not sure I see why or how they would have taken part in the initial Caldari-Gallente war. Saisio is far away from Fed space so the war probably didn't affect them much at all directly.

The counter argument to "But the State would just crush the Achura anyway" I guess is, "hey, it's a game about spaceships shooting at eachother, it's fun" and we as capsuleers are sort of untouchable for the star nations so we can be the poster boys and girls for an idea that lots of planetside people support but can't really do anything about. 

[Kohiko Sun]

/tangent
Sorry.

Achur people didn't start to leave their homeworld until recent years so I'm not sure I see why or how they would have taken part in the initial Caldari-Gallente war.

Intensely spiritual, Achur pilots have only recently taken to the stars, driven in large part by a desire to unlock the secrets of the universe.

Bolded to show where I made the distinction and went on to conclude their participation.

I'd love to have a thread/discussion with people about their own spins on Achur. It'd be nice to see where other people have taken it. Someone (other than me <.< ) make one, please?

/end tangent

[Vincent Pryce]

In some depths of the lore it is noted that Achura were a part of the Federation, but broke off from with the State for some reason or another something to do with the the community centric orientation of the Caldari. I will see if I can dig it up at some point unless someone beats me to it (feel free).

[orange]

So...

I think it is because State/Corporate loyalist are not numerous enough for any segment of them to actually care about a group of Achur nationalist, let alone pursue in-game conflict with them.

Taking LDIS/Lai Dai as an example... Achur nationalist could actually be seen a good thing, a thorn in SuVee's side.  The same could be said of Ishukone.

Just some thoughts.

[GoGo Yubari]

The Intaki movement was ridiculed, spat upon and ignored (all this both IC and OOC) at the outset. To some extent it still is. If the Intaki RPers had stopped because of that, we wouldn't be in this wonderful mess that we are in now.

So, my one word answer: perseverance.

[lallara zhuul]

I have to agree with GoGo to a point.

In some respects in EVE the validity of your roleplay is equated to the length of time that such type of roleplay has been around in New Eden, I do not know where the invisible line is, but it is definitely more than six months of waving your flag around in public that people will see that it is not just a fad.

[Boma Airaken]

All excellent replies! Keep them coming. As far as the perseverance issue, while I totally agree, it needs to be fun to persevere. This is what killed my motivation to be totally honest. But seriously, I would like to hear alot more from the people that opposed it. One of my hopes is that this thread will provide good info for future people picking up a subfaction/off the wall method of RP.

[Casiella]

I can't speak to whether you're a jerk, since I don't know you, but I'm going to work on the assumption that that's not the problem and, like nearly everyone else I've ever met, you have your positives and negatives.

One thing that has always inspired me in online communities, particularly roleplay in MMOGs, is that question of perseverance. Looking at the same thing from a slightly different angle, you might call it a clear vision. Players like to see leaders who know what they're trying to build and keep at it. They might have periods of less activity, for example, but they come back to try to build upon what they've done before and keep working at that core concept to match their vision. We have some of that here -- look at IzzyChan, for example, or Revan.

I don't want to speak to the various controversies that follow various individuals, but to that idea that people will latch on to something if you stick with it and make your concept very clear. "Democracy" and "taking the membership's views into account" work great in terms of specifics, but the idea that unifies your group has to come from you.

[GoGo Yubari]

Indeed. As Lallara suggests, in Eve having lasted long enough with some idea is a kind of badge of approval. Because we don't have GMs (as RPers do in say table-top environments) who can validate your RP by saying "no, that's just not possible" or "yep, that's totally cool", we're instead judged by our peers and the mechanism for that on the negative is disapproval of various kinds. Of course we actually do kind of have GMs in the form of CCP and the Holy Grail of the most unorthodox RP is often ultimately being recognized by them.

Certainly, the clearer your vision (as per Casiella post above) and frankly the better your PR/leadership, the easier the task will be for you, but there will probably still be motivation-crippling critique being levelled at you.

Not to toot my horn, but while I certainly couldn't articulate this to the extent I can now back then, I somehow knew this on an unconscious level back when I introduced the first glimmers of Intaki separatism to my own RP and the game.

One reason I found it relatively easy to go on despite the criticism was because my character was intended to receive such, to be a renegade - a pirate and an Intaki separatist instigator. Had I expected anything else, I would've been frankly out of my mind, though of course I hoped for a certain degree of acceptance and approval for my ideas.

It was always my vision to have the movement start from terrorism and to proceed towards more legitimate means, knowing also that I could not do it myself or even be part of it all the way - and I have ICly confided this to various people during the initial years. It was necessary to start with terror to raise awareness of the issue, but it was also quite certain that myself or any of the terrorists who came afterward (such as the very laborious and necessary Intaki Union) would not be the ones building a more legitimate part of the movement having been soiled by the taint of our past actions. The legitimate phase of the movement can be said to have already started some time ago however, as evidenced currently by Saxon Hawke and the ILF (and having its roots in the Placid Reborn).

So, while it may not be impossible to start a similar movement as a more legitimate and less violent affair, I do believe it to be more difficult to maintain motivation and especially to recruit. Also, frankly, PvP prowess is respected in this game. I rarely recruited for my pirates on the basis of Intaki separatism (perhaps on a few isolated occasions) and I dare say it would've been very difficult to raise any significant numbers. My actions however likely made it easier (though not easy!) for those who followed-up and carried the ball further.

And yes, I did say years. Hence, perseverance.

[Saxon Hawke]

GoGo has hit most of the points that I would have had she not gotten to this thread first, but being her following act seems to be my lot in life.

In all seriousness, you do need to do a little homework on the nature of revolution if this is the kind of RP you want to do. I studied political science in college and whether she knew it or not, GoGo really did hit the nail on the head.

In most revolutionary movements, the first wave erupts out of anger and frustration. It lashes out violently at the established order and things get bloody. Because people generally don't want to kill their countrymen, a second (and less extreme) group will emerge and offer a compromise. If a compromise can be reached, then things are settled and life goes back to normal. If it can't, well, then it's back to killing your countrymen.

Right now, the ILF is that second group offering the compromise. Saxon is, at heart, a peaceful man so he's not going to give up on a non-violent solution until he feels there is no other option. However, there are those in my organization (and others outside it) that feel the time to give up on peace has passed.

The realization you have to have is that starting a revolution is like swimming upstream. In snake infested waters. While people throw rocks at you. It's not easy and won't make you popular. Some people like things the way they are and will work to stop you. Others don't care either way and won't do anything to help you.

The first step is to develop a clear purpose and goal, even if it cannot be achieved in the terms of game mechanics. I hate it when people say, "Well unless CCP makes a lot of changes, that's never going to happen." So what? Saxon doesn't know about CCP. He sees a change that he feels needs to be made and he's going to work toward it. Having a mission statement will let people know what your about and keeps your pilots focused.

One secret of my success was to start by recruiting from outside the established RP community. I recruited pilots who were as young as 5 minutes old. These pilots had no skill, no isk and no idea what the hell they were doing. Why would I do this?

Because they were like lumps of clay and I could mold them into the role players I needed them to be. Sure I had to babysit them and answer lots of stupid questions. The dropout rate was high and at times the future looked bleak.

The end result, however, was that many of my senior pilots haven't known anything other than loyalty to the ILF and its cause. It is at the core of their character. That is very powerful and is a bond a lot deeper than someone who comes to a cause after their RP is established.

As far as how long it takes, I can tell you that in the first six months, the ILF was completely dismissed by about everyone as a fad. The only ones who even gave us any recognition were the existing Intaki RP groups.

After a year, the Pro-Fed groups began to recognize us, but were still largely dismissive. Because we were never particularly large and never had a huge armada of combat pilots, we still weren't taken very seriously by most people.

After two years, we got some CCP lovin' in the way of news articles about our Intaki relief effort and the shipyard we built in Intaki.

Now a little more than three years into this endeavor, even most of the Pro-Feds respect what we've been able to accomplish even if they don't agree with our end goal.

[Silver Night]

I think engaging with people is key, at least if you want to build visibility and perhaps support.

You 'listen' to their objections and address them. You reference your stuff in public at every reasonable opportunity (though it can be a fine line to walk, not being obnoxious.) You allow for their points of view, but do what you can to bend them to fit with your own.

Where I think people run into trouble (sometimes intentionally, ofc. Sometimes you are just IC enemies and you aren't trying to build support from a particular person - though you shouldn't ignore your opponent's viability as a foil for your own positions) is when one side or the other says ' You're wrong, I'm right, end of discussion'.

You don't leave wiggle room, people are either going to be an enemy, or (particularly when you aren't that 'heavy weight') go 'meh' and move on. Enemies are fine, people deciding you aren't relevant to them because they can't find interesting ways to interact are less alright.

[Ulphus]

Where I think people run into trouble (sometimes intentionally, ofc. Sometimes you are just IC enemies and you aren't trying to build support from a particular person - though you shouldn't ignore your opponent's viability as a foil for your own positions) is when one side or the other says ' You're wrong, I'm right, end of discussion'.

You don't leave wiggle room, people are either going to be an enemy, or (particularly when you aren't that 'heavy weight') go 'meh' and move on. Enemies are fine, people deciding you aren't relevant to them because they can't find interesting ways to interact are less alright.

I agree with this a lot. I went through a phase of visiting people's hangouts and saying Hi and trying to engage with them to figure out if there could be interesting RP.

Some of them were basically so psychotic that Ulf had to leave, and couldn't really bring himself to go back.

Some of them were as Silver says, so .... lacking in wiggle room, that conversations couldn't be had. They didn't have reasons for their positions, they just had positions.

And some of them we prepared to justify their position, and talk about it, and query my own without being insulting about it. I talked to these people for quite a while.

The odd thing about it was that the people who I thought would be most likely to be friendly (due to faction and politics) were the ones that were least approachable, and the ones I thought would be most inimicable were the ones that were prepared to engage.

I think that being able to explain logically and rationally (even if your premisses are controversial) why your position is correct is a very useful tool in recruiting and politics. If you resort to saying "Just Because!" then people can't argue with you. If you have reasons, then they can, and when they're arguing with you, they're recognising your existence, even if they disagree with it.