Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

That some Gallente swear by Fortune?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.  (Read 13609 times)

The Cosmopolite

  • Lord of Misrule
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
    • eve-chatsubo OOC Forums
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #15 on: 30 Aug 2010, 11:03 »

People shouldn't speak for me and it should be amply clear, OOC, that this is nothing to do with the Star Fraction.

Cosmo

Kazzzi

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #16 on: 30 Aug 2010, 12:25 »

That convo took place in an OOC channel? Then as far as I'm concerned IC it never took place. I shall ignore the IGS thread after I report it for OOC content. I would do the same no matter who was involved.

As far as the IC/OOC divide in general, it is everyone's own personal choice if they decide they want to be able to use whatever petty means possible to 'win at RP'. Perhaps one day when people realize how lame this is, we can once again have mainstream mutual RP between enemy factions.
« Last Edit: 30 Aug 2010, 12:37 by Kazzzi »
Logged

Silver Night

  • Admin
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2250
  • Elitist Oldtimer
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #17 on: 30 Aug 2010, 12:42 »

[admin]Removed a post. Please keep in mind that bringing a flame from another board and responding to it here is still responding to a flame, and against the rules. Reposting a flame and saying 'I'm going to ignore this flame' is not ignoring it.[/admin]

Alexander Rykis

  • Guest
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #18 on: 30 Aug 2010, 13:35 »

Honestly, this type of inconsistency is a contributor of why I bailed when I did.

Some say I was right, some say I was wrong. The simple fact is, that I wasn't ready to make this official and had therefore not consulted with SF leadership to get a green light. It is the entire reason the first conversation was IC (when I was running EJECT) and the second conversation was OOC (when I was with SF). I wanted to make sure the client was still interested, etc before I brought it up to Jade and friends.

Regardless of how the corp exited the alliance, this action is why I had to leave SF and is why I got pissed. If there is no differentiation between OOC and IC, then why have OOC at all? I mean there's no point if it can all be treated as IC. I mean, when I first started doing this, I was told that your character has no knowledge of OOC conversations or actions and to RP according to either is a form of godmodding.

Honestly, this situation was a form of bear baiting, because people just wanted to take a shot at the alliance and I. The obvious bending of the rules is shown by the fact that there was both an IC and an OOC conversation regarding the exact same thing, yet the OOC one was chosen as the one to post... probably because I was in SF at the time of the conversation.

This is all I am saying on the matter. I hope you are all incredibly pleased with yourselves.
Logged

Ulphus

  • Bitter dried flower
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #19 on: 30 Aug 2010, 15:21 »

That convo took place in an OOC channel? Then as far as I'm concerned IC it never took place. I shall ignore the IGS thread after I report it for OOC content. I would do the same no matter who was involved.

Yes and no. If there is an OOC conversation that leads to an in-game agreement, then even if the actual discussion was OOC, presumably there was an IC conversation to achieve the same end, even if it's hand-waved.

I'm thinking of an OOC conversation where two pilots arranged to Hank someone  even though they didn't hold an IC version of that conversation, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that it happened
Logged
Adult to 4y.o "Your shoes are on the wrong feet"
Long pause
4y.o to adult, in plaintive voice "I don't have any other feet!"

Valdezi

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • Stories by me
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #20 on: 30 Aug 2010, 18:20 »

This is all I am saying on the matter. I hope you are all incredibly pleased with yourselves.

Dude, nothing that happened was personal. You tried to screw my alliance over and I'm not taking it personally.

Ixiris beat you this time, but take it in your character's stride and work out a way to have vengeance. I haven't commented on it on IGS, because IC, Mammal feels it's beneath him.
« Last Edit: 30 Aug 2010, 20:03 by Mammal Tafren »
Logged

Kazzzi

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #21 on: 30 Aug 2010, 19:36 »

Ulphus. I believe what is said in OOC-only channels should stay in OOC-only channels. If there is a major issue with what is said, it can be dealt with OOC instead of breaking immersion. If there is an OOC conversation that leads to an in-game agreement, the IC convo would likely be private and expression of your knowledge of the convo may be metagaming. If you are directly involved in the situation and want the actual convo to be IC available, it's your fault if you don't have an IC convo in the first place. If you are indirectly involved, there are other more creative options instead of OOC convo log hearsay.

After checking the IGS thread in the op again, I believe in this case, CCP Zymurgist has taken appropriate action. To me, it doesn't matter who is involved or what the content is, OOC channels are 'sacred'. People shouldn't have to have their guard up in OOC channels.
Logged

Saede Riordan

  • Immoral Compass
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2656
  • Through the distorted lens I found a cure
    • All the cool hippies have tumblr
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #22 on: 30 Aug 2010, 19:56 »

this wasn't an OOC channel, this was a private convo, and as I said before:

Quote from: myself, from before
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.

This doesn't mean using knowledge our character's wouldn't have access to, I disagree with that, and I'm not going to pull up stuff like that if there's no way Nikita would know it but in cases like this, there is no reason our characters wouldn't have access to this.

Honestly, this should have just been kept IC to begin with. Whenever people try to do the whole 'lite' rp thing like this, it causes these issues, because stuff happens OOC that affects IC stuff, and when people try to bring it up IC, we get...well...this.
Logged
Personal Blog//Character Blog
A ship in harbour is safe, but that's not what ships are built for.

Ulphus

  • Bitter dried flower
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #23 on: 30 Aug 2010, 20:29 »

I have no strong opinions on the particular issue, but I'll try to describe a situation, and what I think is reasonable. 

Albert and Bob are having an OOC discussion about the mechanics of Concordokken. After talking for sometime, Al suggests they go suicide gank a hulk, and they do and get popped. 

Someone asks Bob IC why he got concordokkened, and he says IC that Al suggested it. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do, even though there was no explicitly IC conversation for that. 

Assuming that the characters had a similar discussion to the players, and that's why the character was motivated to perform the actions seems more reasonable to assuming that they both just randomly decided to suicide-gank someone without discussion. If Albert complains that the discussion wasn't IC, and that it's unreasonable to blame him for suggesting it, then I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy. 

I think the line is crossed when something is actually done. If Albert and Bob never actually do the ganking, then I would think it unreasonable to claim IC that Albert is a suicide ganker, without discussing it with p(Albert).

If Albert and Bob buy disposable ships and move them into position, but don't actually do a gank yet, then I'd still think it's reasonable to think there had been an IC discussion that might have happened "off-screen"    

That said, I wouldn't do that without talking to the person in question. I have explicitly asked after an OOC conversation "Can we assume that that bit happened in character?" and I respect the other persons preferences. 

Does that seem more reasonable Kazzzi?
Logged
Adult to 4y.o "Your shoes are on the wrong feet"
Long pause
4y.o to adult, in plaintive voice "I don't have any other feet!"

Lillith Blackheart

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #24 on: 30 Aug 2010, 21:27 »

Ixiris

...suddenly it is all in perspective.
Logged

deMangler

  • Clonejack
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #25 on: 31 Aug 2010, 00:49 »

Coming from a perspective of one who has had no previous RP experience with any of the players here, and who has no experiential knowledge of the situation that prompted this thread - here is my outsiders view.

In my 30 plus years of playing RPG's my experience has been that the groups where the players understood and respected the IC/Ooc divide were the best ones.
E.G., two players, one playing a thief and another playing an honest party leader could discuss how thiefy boy had or would do something vile and secret but IC the honest character would know nothing about this and could not act as if influenced by his OOC knowledge without an IC reason or experience that had tipped him off.
Or two players could plot any kind of scheme OOC, but unless they explicitly stated 'ok, out chars talked about this here and then', or actually RP'd it then they could not later have claimed to have done so.

If this divide were to be violated then that would be regarded as cheating and if it continued then the player would no longer be invited to play with the group.
As a player I found the groups always ran better and were less stressful and more immersive if the other players understood this and the DM enforced it.
As a DM I always made this clear and things ran better because of this.

However.... I had enormous difficulty finding any kind of on-line group with the same appreciation - for some reason the line has always been very much more blurred and RP just seems to fall apart because of this.
EVE is now the only RPG I play, and I only still play it because I can just, IC, assume that anyone who makes any reference to OOC stuff outside OOC channels is just insane. Thus is my immersion maintained.
Ideally OOC is totally free and people should be able to plan provisional plots, express things thier chars might do, and well anything, without any fear of someone taking that IC.
The reality is that different people come to EVE with very different views on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, definitions of terms, general play, and so on.
I just try to learn how to play with the people I meet as I go along, aware of the dangers of my preconceptions of others.
I definately find that it pays to never speak OOC in chat unless I prefix it with OOC/ or something and if later someone is saying my char said or intended this or that I could say, "You are either mistaken, or you are, basically, cheating by using OOC info to enhance the knowledge of one of your chars"
I guess this is one reason why I am in a two man corp where both the people are me....  :roll:


 
Logged
IC -: LS-RP
-------------------
OOC -:

lallara zhuul

  • Now with rainbows and butterflies.
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #26 on: 31 Aug 2010, 01:01 »

IC/OOC divide is a gentlemans agreement and a handicap.

Most of the people in EVE do not enjoy handicaps or act in a way that could be considered gentlemanly.
Logged

Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

Alexander Rykis

  • Guest
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #27 on: 31 Aug 2010, 01:29 »

This is all I am saying on the matter. I hope you are all incredibly pleased with yourselves.

Dude, nothing that happened was personal. You tried to screw my alliance over and I'm not taking it personally.

Ixiris beat you this time, but take it in your character's stride and work out a way to have vengeance. I haven't commented on it on IGS, because IC, Mammal feels it's beneath him.

What I am taking personal is the release of information that shouldn't have been released that led to my having to remove my corp from Star Fraction ranks.

Nothing had happened yet, but mainly because of the shit storm that followed, I had to leave and essentially left me with nowhere else to go. The fact that the person had an IC chat log and an OOC chat log referring to the same event, but the person went with the OOC one shows it was personal, because the OOC log was when I was with SF. Otherwise, there's no reason not to publish the IC log.
Logged

Valdezi

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • Stories by me
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #28 on: 31 Aug 2010, 01:59 »

What I am taking personal is the release of information that shouldn't have been released that led to my having to remove my corp from Star Fraction ranks.

Nothing had happened yet, but mainly because of the shit storm that followed, I had to leave and essentially left me with nowhere else to go. The fact that the person had an IC chat log and an OOC chat log referring to the same event, but the person went with the OOC one shows it was personal, because the OOC log was when I was with SF. Otherwise, there's no reason not to publish the IC log.

Yeah, that probably sucks for your character and stuff, but don't think we're all against you OOC. Lots of people hate SF, IC and OOC, so that has more to do with the reaction than anything else.

Logged

Ken

  • Will Rule for Food
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1261
  • Must Love Robots
Re: The dreaded IC/OoC divide, and in-game actions.
« Reply #29 on: 31 Aug 2010, 02:01 »

They say you consent to PvP in EVE when you undock.

I say you consent to metagaming when you sign up for an account.  Nothing is truly OOC if it has to do with what happens in the client.  This is why many corps have stringent admission and opsec policies and why you can never truly trust anything in New Eden.  It's part of the charm.  I think it requires you to think and act IC more than you usually might and perhaps even enriches the RP environment and reinforces the grim atmosphere of high stakes corporate/military competition in EVE.

As for the spark that lit this fire...  So you tried a gambit and it failed.  Okay.  That stinks, Alex.



Happens all the time.

Enjoy your soda.  Buy another and please play again.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5