Print

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

[Mizhara]

EDIT: The post I linked to got deleted, but the thread remained. In short, Artemis97 (our favorite goon) posted an OoC post saying the OP's chatlog was done OoC and was thus inadmissible.


There's a thousand different discussions on the matter, and a thousand different opinions... but once again it rears it's ugly head in a certain IGS post/thread.

Now, the question becomes, is our favorite goon right? Should a conversation/mail like that be disregarded as 'inadmissible' because it's not started IC? Or is it on the other hand just used as an excuse as in 'Oh, I'll say this OoC and perform the actions OoC and thus you can't blame me IC'? There's ample reasons to consider both to be the case.

Personally, I've always been a firm believer in the IC/OoC divide. That discussions that are OoC should not be considered IC, nor the other way around. One should theoretically not affect the other. That is... in a perfect world. We don't live in that, as far as I'm concerned. The world is too stupid for that, and so are the people in it. Of course, describing it somewhat differently, I'm simply saying that as long as there's so many differences of opinion you can't really trust in the IC/OoC divide.

Now, in this particular case, I'd be leaning towards that it's not an acceptable use of the IC/OoC divide. If you do something either in space, or in this case plans some kind of infiltration, sabotage or anything else... any kind of action that actually affects others in this game... that is and should be taken as In Character if you find out about it. I am sure as hell that our favorite goon finding logs of me talking about an infiltration of Star Fraction (or simply his corporation) and such would act upon said information. As he should.

While I am all for separating IC and OoC, and have even engaged in discussing the various potential actions and consequences of actions with my character's enemies in order to at least attempt achieving a satisfying resolution for everyone, or to avoid fucking too hard with another person's character, that's not the case here.

So I lay it out before you people. Are you of the opinion that this chatlog should be 'inadmissible' in an IC environment? It's a planned attack of infiltration and sabotage on an in-game entity. An attack by a player, on a player (or players) with the intent to cause in-game harm. How the hell is that not In Character? If it's not In Character... don't do it.

Besides, I thought Star Fraction was all for 'everything in-game is IC'.

Of course, that's just my opinion here. Backstage! Stand on the brink of the dreaded divide! Gaze upon this horrific entity and know terror, despair and resignation as it keeps confounding us all! In short, let's get the same old shit debate going once more. It's apparently not resolved yet.

[Milo Caman]

As far as I'm concerned, OOC actions, (Although not chat) have quite a lot of bearing on IC stuff in this game. Being able to 'walk your talk' is a key part of reputation in this game. You wouldn't score an OOC victory in space and then totally ignore it IC would you?

Claiming that something like this is 'OOC' and therefore 'not relevant' simply isn't a valid argument in this game. There's an IC-OOC divide, sure, but it doesn't cover Actions or plans ingame, even failed ones.

[Alexander Rykis]

The way I handle things is to talk things out OOC and if you have an agreement and a mutual understanding, to have these conversations IC to make it official.

That entire conversation was OOC because we had spoke before and I was following up.

Also, the Stillwater thing was completely OOC and was held in Stillwater's OOC public channel. This was done OOC because I really wasn't serious about any of it, I had logged on to sell some assets off and decided to fuck around.

The simple fact is that people are falling back on using OOC information and chatlogs in attempts to burn myself and my character IC and this is completely unacceptable. There are rules that are not being adhered to and it is wrong.

As for SF and the IC thing... Jade and Cosmo see no difference between OOC and IC when it comes to the game, personally. I, however, do and so does most of  the community. CCP rules also spell out a clear dividing line.

[Alexander Rykis]

He simply chose to post the OOC conversation because the IC one we had previously doesn't implicate him in a negative way, so he's picking and choosing what he claims as IC as it is convenient.

I never denied the conversation took place, only that posting OOC logs as IC evidence is not allowed.

[Milo Caman]

Also, the Stillwater thing was completely OOC and was held in Stillwater's OOC public channel. This was done OOC because I really wasn't serious about any of it, I had logged on to sell some assets off and decided to fuck around.

Even if that's true, people think otherwise, and it made you look rather incompetent. You might consider dropping that particular bone.

The simple fact is that people are falling back on using OOC information and chatlogs in attempts to burn myself and my character IC and this is completely unacceptable. There are rules that are not being adhered to and it is wrong.

People tend to make up their minds about you based on past actions and comments. There's not very much you can do about this. Telling the very people doing this that they're attempting to 'burn' you isn't going to make it any better. Also: what rules? It's EVE

I never denied the conversation took place, only that posting OOC logs as IC evidence is not allowed.

Who enforces/decides this now?

[Valdezi]

Being that this was an attempt to screw with my corp's operations... I'll keep it civil.

I have to agree with Mizhara on this one. If the conversation was had here, then I wouldn't use it in game. However, it was had in game, it was IC.

You can even see when Alba Miri switches to OOC - when she switches to double brackets, which suggests, as far as she was concerned, it was IC.

Nothing personal against Rykis, I just think... well, you don't say anything to anyone you're not prepared to have repeated. Especially in EVE.

[Alexander Rykis]

The conversation I posted was two days before bro.

The conversation posted in OP was OOC and shouldn't be admitted as evidence.

All I'm saying is that there was an IC conversation and an OOC conversation. The OOC one implicated the character less and was therefore chosen as the log to be used as evidence. I have no quarrel with the situation coming to light, even though it was agreed it wouldn't, but I do have an issue with the using of OOC logs as IC evidence.

[Valdezi]

Did you have it in game?

If yes, then I disagree.

But we're not going to get anywhere arguing about it. It's happened now, and you're going to have to figure out what your character does next.

The beauty of role-play.

The lesson, I guess, is stay in character when talking with people you don't know. That way, theres no IC/OOC difficulties like this.

[Alexander Rykis]

Well how about this...

I wasn't actually going to do this myself, I was going to have another member of the RP community actually do this for me and I just increase the price and take a cut for being the middle man. This conversation was held completely OOC. So does this give me free reign to post this as IC evidence?

[Milo Caman]

I wasn't actually going to do this myself, I was going to have another member of the RP community actually do this for me and I just increase the price and take a cut for being the middle man. This conversation was held completely OOC. So does this give me free reign to post this as IC evidence?

Yes, yes it does.

[Alexander Rykis]

I see

[Saede Riordan]

I play "hard" RP as often as possible, that is, if I can do it IC, I do it IC, Local, fleet, corp mails, etc. I also don't do what Alex is doing and fudge around and come to terms OOC. I deal with things like that IC, and therefore, rarely have issues like this, the OOC stuff that remains is firmly on the other side of the divide, and I don't have to worry about it.

But.


But we have people like Alex, a lot of people in fact. They want to hammer out deals and do all the srsbizniz OOC, and then just go IC to announce it. This, in my mind creates issues, big grey areas, "my corp is joining the alliance, but I have no IC reason to go with them," or "I tried to engage in corporate espionage and then tried to dodge the bullet by discussing everything  OOC."

Frankly, this stuff affects our characters, it doesn't negatively affect others roleplay if taken with a grain of salt, and therefore, its fair game to use it.

To be fair, I don't think this should be an issue at all, because if this was all just handled IC in the first place, it'd be no issue. But I know, people don't like to do that, so I'm forced to fudge the OOC divide to account for it.

[Julianus Soter]

Conversations and material that are released via the appropriate methods, such as here, are totally admissable as IC material if they impact our characters in any significant fashion. It's a line of causality. Would this plot, if brought to fruition, had a major impact? Yes. Therefore, it is essential for the parties affected to release and defuse the plot before it could be launched along a different vector. The material being in a different style of speech is irrelevant.

Causality, as always, is key. Does the OOC convo intend to have IC consequences? IC consequences being, RP relationships, game mechanic operations/impacts, and suchlike. If so, then we move to the question of acquiring the OOC convo details. In this case, Alex's contact betrayed him and transferred the logs out of her own IC conscience. Boom, proper procedure, and no real metagaming involved, merely in-character interactions.

What's the problem, again?

[Silver Night]

[admin]First, on a quick read-through, I haven't really seen any problem with this thread so far, and I appreciate everyone keeping civil. Being able to have this sort of discussion in a meaningful and substantive way is the sort of thing this board aspires to.I just want to mention that this is the sort of thread that goes pear-shaped very easily, as it is both a controversial issue, and in this case there are references to specific, again controversial, events. Mods will be keeping an eye, and I hope everyone will keep in mind the rules and FAQ. [/admin]

[Casiella]

Without speaking to the particular event that triggered this discussion, the line between IC and OOC in EVE has always seemed a little fuzzy to me. This largely comes from the fact that we play in a gaming subculture that includes metagaming as a major tactic.

Generally, I treat my in-game discussions about the game as IC as possible. Patch notes, not so much, but player actions, almost definitely. Evanda said it best: when invited to come RP, her response was, "I am roleplaying."