Jump to content

Dear BK and NPO


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because your assessment of that character is inherently bound up with your perception of events that occurred *in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)*. You're not actually making a distinction between the worlds, you're just pulling from the things you want to carry over with you and then denying that's what you are doing for the purposes of getting some temporary oomph in your argument. It's illogical and inconsistent.

Wait, so because I knew Roq in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), I am unable to criticise Roq for his specific actions in this realm?

 

Roq will do his usual " Charles is mean to me" routine but if he acts in pretty much an identical manner in both realms then surely I'm permitted to have the same opinion on him correct?

 

Just wondering now if that also applies to Roq, does that mean he can't criticise these of us he knew from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and use the blanket (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) excuse for why NPO is getting rolled?

Edited by Night King

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), it's about Pacifica and your history in all the games you play. People that have played games that you play are well aware of how you operate and what you try to do in games you play. They have seen what happens when you get to the top position in these games. Perhaps they just don't want that to happen here.

 

It's not us, it's you.

I kinda think it's you, bro.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OWF here is far too contradictory in nature lol. Either our history in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) doesn't matter or it does.

There are two kinds of inter-game interactions that seem to be poorly distinguished in these discussions. The first is taking direct action in one game in response to events in another. The other is forming opinions based on actions taken by an entity (be it a person or alliance). The main controversy arises from the fact that the former is highly frowned upon, while the latter is utterly inescapable. And it only exacerbates the issue that there is significant grey area between the two.

 

If there's someone who screams into their phone every day on your morning commute, you're not going to like that person. So when they show up at your office one day, you're not going to want to deal with that person. Not because of any one incident, but because you know how that person acts. It's the same in any situation. People form opinions based on others' actions. And then they perform their own actions based on those opinions. That is why your (and anyone's) history in any game (or real life) can simultaneously matter and not matter at all. Your actions matter, because your behavior over time in any situation informs people of how you might behave here. But at the same time your actions do not matter, because the consequences of them elsewhere has no bearing here. It's a subtle nuance, and it's difficult to express (and easy to misconstrue), but it's not something that should be dismissed.

 

 

 

As a slightly tangential point (and this isn't necessarily directed at anyone), consider someone throwing a tantrum at a grocery store because their favorite cereal is out of stock. You're not going to want to interact with that person, and you'll take action to avoid it (go to a different checkout lane). But when that tantrum becomes a digital one from a different game, all of a sudden that becomes taboo. Or imagine that your classmate joins the game and decides to make their own alliance. So you decide to help that person out. Nobody bats an eye. But if you do the same thing for a clanmate from a different game instead of a classmate, again it becomes taboo. Why is that it is valid to form opinions and take actions based on things that happen in some places, but not others?

  • Upvote 4
RollSheepy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of inter-game interactions that seem to be poorly distinguished in these discussions. The first is taking direct action in one game in response to events in another. The other is forming opinions based on actions taken by an entity (be it a person or alliance). The main controversy arises from the fact that the former is highly frowned upon, while the latter is utterly inescapable. And it only exacerbates the issue that there is significant grey area between the two.

 

If there's someone who screams into their phone every day on your morning commute, you're not going to like that person. So when they show up at your office one day, you're not going to want to deal with that person. Not because of any one incident, but because you know how that person acts. It's the same in any situation. People form opinions based on others' actions. And then they perform their own actions based on those opinions. That is why your (and anyone's) history in any game (or real life) can simultaneously matter and not matter at all. Your actions matter, because your behavior over time in any situation informs people of how you might behave here. But at the same time your actions do not matter, because the consequences of them elsewhere has no bearing here. It's a subtle nuance, and it's difficult to express (and easy to misconstrue), but it's not something that should be dismissed.

 

 

 

As a slightly tangential point (and this isn't necessarily directed at anyone), consider someone throwing a tantrum at a grocery store because their favorite cereal is out of stock. You're not going to want to interact with that person, and you'll take action to avoid it (go to a different checkout lane). But when that tantrum becomes a digital one from a different game, all of a sudden that becomes taboo. Or imagine that your classmate joins the game and decides to make their own alliance. So you decide to help that person out. Nobody bats an eye. But if you do the same thing for a clanmate from a different game instead of a classmate, again it becomes taboo. Why is that it is valid to form opinions and take actions based on things that happen in some places, but not others?

 

Here's the problem like you said, grey area. At a certain point, it will influence the direct action in-game. e.g. "I don't want to sign a NAP with X because I feel I got a raw deal in my relationship with x in the other game(subjective) and I don't think x will uphold it, " "I wouldn't trust x for a second", or  "x would do y".  It ends up becoming a majorly influencing factor as soon as it is allowed in play.

 

The analogy I would counter with would be more like this: two people go to a different country but one arrives there much earlier. In their country of origin, they had a falling out and the one who went  earlier was in a weaker position in their country of origin and their views didn't prevail. When the other person arrives, they try to use the fact that they have arrived earlier and have a higher standing in the new community to freeze out the other person, while claiming to not allow events that occurred in their country of origin to influence their actions. The consequences of actions taken in the other are by nature carried over once judging someone based on a different context comes into play as something to base decisions off of, which will happen short of a conscious effort to avoid it(this would be the "separation of games" thing or OOC/IC distinction).

 

I would say it is only taboo because people have wanted to avoid it just being a continuation of other games and insisted on the pretense of leaving their previous baggage behind. The point many have tried to emphasized is they were looking for something different and a fresh start. The other context doesn't as it is not a carryover of another nation simulation game. There has been some emphasis on trying to distinguish in character actions from assessments of a person. If people wish to drop it and accept the full implications of such, that is fine as I've said, but then they can no longer claim they're separating the two. It is not an a la carte decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-snipping things I can't possibly be bothered to reply to when Partisan is WOTing-

 

Now we can turn to the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) thing. 

 

NG DoWs MI6

 

Both you and Roy appear in the topic making comments about the separation of the games being gone. This is coupled by militarization we notice in traditionally low mil alliances. Before your post,  Chimaera, a gov official in MI6 says "I'm sure their(Alpha)'s allies are going to have problems in the other world real soon."

 

-second snip-

 

Okay, so I want to address my posts made in that thread, because holy misguided extrapolation, Batman! Your characterization of my (extremely short) post is either intentionally misleading, or has merely grown in the telling since June, effectively.

 

My post was as follows, on the first page of the NG declaration thread:

 

 

 

And thus all pretense of separation is gone. 

 

See you on the battlefield mates.

 

As Partisan has already covered, at that early juncture, we had been provided with no (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) CB (or really no CB at all, not even a "lol we want to roll MI6"). Given the reference, it wasn't unreasonable to suspect that the DoW was a result of PnW, and I posted accusing them of crossing games accordingly. It's genuinely hilarious to me that my post is now somehow supposed to be evidence that I was announcing some intention to retaliate in PnW. It was nothing more than a "welp, I guess you can't be bothered to keep your animosity separate". While CBs were later provided, and in fact listened to by both myself and Partisan, all of that doesn't help when you're referring to a spur-of-the-moment reaction post. It was somewhat intellectually dishonest to harp on it then (because we explained our posts ad nauseam back then as well), and entirely so to keep harping on it several months later when there's little disagreement that the NG DoW was intended to get pretty much exactly the reaction it got out of us.

 

But whatever, I'm outta here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) Politics or any mention of them should be banned. Any of you idiots salty about something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) should pack up and leave and head off back to that game.

 

Stop spreading your stupid cancer here.

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I want to address my posts made in that thread, because holy misguided extrapolation, Batman! Your characterization of my (extremely short) post is either intentionally misleading, or has merely grown in the telling since June, effectively.

 

My post was as follows, on the first page of the NG declaration thread:

 

 

As Partisan has already covered, at that early juncture, we had been provided with no (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) CB (or really no CB at all, not even a "lol we want to roll MI6"). Given the reference, it wasn't unreasonable to suspect that the DoW was a result of PnW, and I posted accusing them of crossing games accordingly. It's genuinely hilarious to me that my post is now somehow supposed to be evidence that I was announcing some intention to retaliate in PnW. It was nothing more than a "welp, I guess you can't be bothered to keep your animosity separate". While CBs were later provided, and in fact listened to by both myself and Partisan, all of that doesn't help when you're referring to a spur-of-the-moment reaction post. It was somewhat intellectually dishonest to harp on it then (because we explained our posts ad nauseam back then as well), and entirely so to keep harping on it several months later when there's little disagreement that the NG DoW was intended to get pretty much exactly the reaction it got out of us.

 

But whatever, I'm outta here again.

Just going to hop in and highlight this:

 

So we now have a situation where neither Roy nor I has made a direct threat to NPO PW on the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) Forums following a crossover DoW of a party that is *not even NPO*. NPO has interjected themselves into that situation and interpreted two off-hand acknowledgement in another game directed towards a different entity as direct threats to NPO in PW. Even after explanations from both Roy and Myself, NPO has harped on for months on end about Roy and I's supposd game crossover.

 

Given that NPO's narrative has to a large degree revolved around these two comments, and given that our explanations on that particular topic have been ignored consistently, I am going to have to call a spade a spade and conclude that you are in fact, deliberately obfuscating facts and painting a crossover narrative because it allows you to absolve yourself from the responsibility of your own political failures within the PW realm through excessive self-victimization.

 

Please knock it off.

Edited by Partisan
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem like you said, grey area. At a certain point, it will influence the direct action in-game. e.g. "I don't want to sign a NAP with X because I feel I got a raw deal in my relationship with x in the other game(subjective) and I don't think x will uphold it, " "I wouldn't trust x for a second", or  "x would do y".  It ends up becoming a majorly influencing factor as soon as it is allowed in play.

 

The analogy I would counter with would be more like this: two people go to a different country but one arrives there much earlier. In their country of origin, they had a falling out and the one who went  earlier was in a weaker position in their country of origin and their views didn't prevail. When the other person arrives, they try to use the fact that they have arrived earlier and have a higher standing in the new community to freeze out the other person, while claiming to not allow events that occurred in their country of origin to influence their actions. The consequences of actions taken in the other are by nature carried over once judging someone based on a different context comes into play as something to base decisions off of, which will happen short of a conscious effort to avoid it(this would be the "separation of games" thing or OOC/IC distinction).

 

I would say it is only taboo because people have wanted to avoid it just being a continuation of other games and insisted on the pretense of leaving their previous baggage behind. The point many have tried to emphasized is they were looking for something different and a fresh start. The other context doesn't as it is not a carryover of another nation simulation game. There has been some emphasis on trying to distinguish in character actions from assessments of a person. If people wish to drop it and accept the full implications of such, that is fine as I've said, but then they can no longer claim they're separating the two. It is not an a la carte decision.

 

Something different, a fresh start might be a world where NPO and their tiresome imperial decrees are not dominant. Keeping things fresh, preventing them from gong to shit would very much involve preventing NPO from having a dominant position, or any position of any significance at all because you're so frightfully dull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something different, a fresh start might be a world where NPO and their tiresome imperial decrees are not dominant. Keeping things fresh, preventing them from gong to shit would very much involve preventing NPO from having a dominant position, or any position of any significance at all because you're so frightfully dull.

 

You mean TS hegemoney right?

  • Upvote 1

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I want to address my posts made in that thread, because holy misguided extrapolation, Batman! Your characterization of my (extremely short) post is either intentionally misleading, or has merely grown in the telling since June, effectively.

 

My post was as follows, on the first page of the NG declaration thread:

 

 

As Partisan has already covered, at that early juncture, we had been provided with no (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) CB (or really no CB at all, not even a "lol we want to roll MI6"). Given the reference, it wasn't unreasonable to suspect that the DoW was a result of PnW, and I posted accusing them of crossing games accordingly. It's genuinely hilarious to me that my post is now somehow supposed to be evidence that I was announcing some intention to retaliate in PnW. It was nothing more than a "welp, I guess you can't be bothered to keep your animosity separate". While CBs were later provided, and in fact listened to by both myself and Partisan, all of that doesn't help when you're referring to a spur-of-the-moment reaction post. It was somewhat intellectually dishonest to harp on it then (because we explained our posts ad nauseam back then as well), and entirely so to keep harping on it several months later when there's little disagreement that the NG DoW was intended to get pretty much exactly the reaction it got out of us.

 

But whatever, I'm outta here again.

 

I was just replying to Partisan's explanation of the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) events since he addressed them in a reply to someone who wasn't aware of the incident with his own side of the story. I haven't really made an independent mention of it. Your post in that context was followed up by others that could be interpreted as threatening, appearing to be a snowballing of a desire to retaliate. This was followed by callouts on this board and  then you had the reference to the NG DoW in your own DoW.

 

 

 

Just going to hop in and highlight this:

 

So we now have a situation where neither Roy nor I has made a direct threat to NPO PW on the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) Forums following a crossover DoW of a party that is *not even NPO*. NPO has interjected themselves into that situation and interpreted two off-hand acknowledgement in another game directed towards a different entity as direct threats to NPO in PW. Even after explanations from both Roy and Myself, NPO has harped on for months on end about Roy and I's supposd game crossover.

 

Given that NPO's narrative has to a large degree revolved around these two comments, and given that our explanations on that particular topic have been ignored consistently, I am going to have to call a spade a spade and conclude that you are in fact, deliberately obfuscating facts and painting a crossover narrative because it allows you to absolve yourself from the responsibility of your own political failures within the PW realm through excessive self-victimization.

 

Please knock it off.

 

The problem is, we became injected more or less right away and people started talking about it here while not only mentioning the one alliance. There's also the issue it was in a context where escalation was desired by someone in your alliance and then a military ramp up occurred. I tried to even make it clear it wasn't even an NPO thing, but it kept getting brought up. Then you DoW and even have a reference to it.

 

Actually, it hasn't.  No one would even need the comments. The timing would be enough to set off significant suspicion especially with the underlying sentiments expressed in other topics.  We don't need even this because as I said it's just one piece in a rich tapestry of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-based sentiment affecting things in PW, which will naturally cause defensiveness, which is then used against us. I also said it would just be one war if this was it, but it isn't and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) references are all over the place and the usual response "it's all in your head. If you would stop talking about it it would go away," which is nonsensical. The incident is unique as it is the only time we can see the actual leadership of one particular alliance(that has been the one stressing "separation of games" the most) not stay "above the fray." You're the one who brought it up again in a lengthy exposition to try make us look like we're misrepresenting things. I just presented the other side of how it looked.

 

 

 

 

Something different, a fresh start might be a world where NPO and their tiresome imperial decrees are not dominant. Keeping things fresh, preventing them from gong to shit would very much involve preventing NPO from having a dominant position, or any position of any significance at all because you're so frightfully dull.

 

It's not a fresh start or something different if you are directly infusing it with your prejudices from the other context. I wouldn't really say the politics, which have largely revolved around the same two core groups fighting for the past year are fresh or exciting. I'll excuse  you for being new though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) Politics or any mention of them should be banned. Any of you idiots salty about something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) should pack up and leave and head off back to that game.

 

Stop spreading your stupid cancer here.

 
While I'd be fine with the first part, it wouldn't really stop people from talking about it on IRC or whatever.  The second one would probably help out a lot more in terms of avoiding the issue, but I wouldn't even want it since the game would lose a substantial portion of its playerbase as I have been told a lot of people consider themselves "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) political bloc refugees". I would just prefer they get over it ideally or at least just own up to the fact that they are using it as a continuation of Cybernations by other means and then we can operate on honest terms.
Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean TS hegemoney right?

 

No offense to tS, but to call what they have a "hegemoney" is laughable.

 

Our coalition may be dominant at the moment, but that's as far as it goes. We beat your side in the last couple of wars and this time we demanded some cash reps. Get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't your defense of NPO treatying their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) allies in PnW something along the lines of "wow it's crazy how people retain relationships across games"?

 

It's interesting how quickly your tune changes as long as it suits the ever-spinning narrative.

Roq covered this, but my argument has never been one that pure separation is a real thing. It's been one entirely based on the hypocrisy of claiming it doesn't exist and then using it as a tool kit to make arguments with, all the while claiming to be washed in the blood of the lamb and completely innocent of doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roq covered this, but my argument has never been one that pure separation is a real thing. It's been one entirely based on the hypocrisy of claiming it doesn't exist and then using it as a tool kit to make arguments with, all the while claiming to be washed in the blood of the lamb and completely innocent of doing it.

 

I think the main point isn't that perfect separation is happening but rather than a significant majority of people actively make efforts to try to separate.

 

Recent events inflamed both sides and have significantly blurred lines but hopefully we can return to a culture of "at least we can try" in regards to separation of politics.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'd be fine with the first part, it wouldn't really stop people from talking about it on IRC or whatever.  The second one would probably help out a lot more in terms of avoiding the issue, but I wouldn't even want it since the game would lose a substantial portion of its playerbase as I have been told a lot of people consider themselves "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) political bloc refugees". I would just prefer they get over it ideally or at least just own up to the fact that they are using it as a continuation of Cybernations by other means and then we can operate on honest terms.

 

You're not getting it, Roq. The term you use, "refugees", even implies that those people wanted to get the hell out of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and didn't want any more to do with it. If we wanted the same stagnant boring crap as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), we'd have stayed in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

 

I can't necessarily speak for all of my spheremates here, but I think most of them would agree that we wanted to build something new and different and interesting here. Certainly, that was one of the largest motivating factors behind the establishment of tS. We could have been a PnW port of MI6 very easily, but consciously chose not to be. 

 

I've been over this whole (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) situation since July, and have only bothered to post about it because you've chosen to use it as some weird sort of justification. As Manthrax said upthread, it will die if you let it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been over this whole (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) situation since July, and have only bothered to post about it because you've chosen to use it as some weird sort of justification. As Manthrax said upthread, it will die if you let it.

 

As a rider to that. It won't die instantly. My post on the topic probably came across as dismissive. It was, but deliberately. It's not fair, but it'll take a bit for the erosion of that perception to happen, and it's something that, in my opinion, it doesn't do you much good to try and engage directly. Instead, demonstrate the irrelevance of those issues by deed, and the rest will fall into place. We still have people (very few, at this point) pointing to our own (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) roots as if they mean anything almost 2 years into not being that. This is annoying on the face of it, but not really a big deal because anyone who knows us knows all the differences. But if every time it had happened in the last 2 years I said that people were bringing those issues here to this game on a public forum and tried to call out the people who were doing it, it would have endured far, far more, imo.

 

So yeah. Like I said. You're shooting yourself in the foot. That would be my honest advice, if you are really concerned about the unfairness of this issue.

 

If you're just trying to use it as part of a victim narrative, my honest advice would instead just be "quit it." :P

Edited by Manthrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not getting it, Roq. The term you use, "refugees", even implies that those people wanted to get the hell out of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and didn't want any more to do with it. If we wanted the same stagnant boring crap as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), we'd have stayed in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

 

I can't necessarily speak for all of my spheremates here, but I think most of them would agree that we wanted to build something new and different and interesting here. Certainly, that was one of the largest motivating factors behind the establishment of tS. We could have been a PnW port of MI6 very easily, but consciously chose not to be. 

 

I've been over this whole (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) situation since July, and have only bothered to post about it because you've chosen to use it as some weird sort of justification. As Manthrax said upthread, it will die if you let it.

 

No it doesn't. Refugees often want to settle scores with the people where they came from if they have a chance. I'm not going to go over all the historical examples of this. Well, you have it now. 

 

I'm just not seeing it being the case. A different name is good and all, but it just looks basically, "let's make sure to dominate here since we couldn't quite do it there." Note this isn't exclusive to tS, but spherewide in terms of a lot of the former/current (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) elements.

 

The problem, Roy, is it's not true. It won't die. When people bring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) up in virtually every context where some sort of comparison can be applied, it's not going to die. The issue I have with you and Partisan is you wash your hands of it despite it being done so pervasively at least publicly; I don't know what the inner thinking is. This war had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and it constantly got brought up throughout it.

 

 

 

 

As a rider to that. It won't die instantly. My post on the topic probably came across as dismissive. It was, but deliberately. It's not fair, but it'll take a bit for the erosion of that perception to happen, and it's something that, in my opinion, it doesn't do you much good to try and engage directly. Instead, demonstrate the irrelevance of those issues by deed, and the rest will fall into place. We still have people (very few, at this point) pointing to our own (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) roots as if they mean anything almost 2 years into not being that. This is annoying on the face of it, but not really a big deal because anyone who knows us knows all the differences. But if every time it had happened in the last 2 years I said that people were bringing those issues here to this game on a public forum and tried to call out the people who were doing it, it would have endured far, far more, imo.

 

So yeah. Like I said. You're shooting yourself in the foot. That would be my honest advice, if you are really concerned about the unfairness of this issue.

 

If you're just trying to use it as part of a victim narrative, my honest advice would instead just be "quit it."  :P

 

 

Let's be real here. A thing Partisan used against NPO was its radio silence. We did not address it for a very long time. It was hardly engaged and yet still happened. Hell, even after the last war, we did radio silence and there was more and more.

 

Comparing your roots or even VE's isn't really realistic because NPO is uniquely polarizing. Virtually no one on either side had a negative predisposition to tS when you arrived. People on the non-tS side even included people from your (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) roots like abbas who were in positions of power.   

 

 

edit: with that said, I would favor a rule against invoking other nationsims.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point isn't that perfect separation is happening but rather than a significant majority of people actively make efforts to try to separate.

 

Recent events inflamed both sides and have significantly blurred lines but hopefully we can return to a culture of "at least we can try" in regards to separation of politics.

There are two kinds of inter-game interactions that seem to be poorly distinguished in these discussions. The first is taking direct action in one game in response to events in another. The other is forming opinions based on actions taken by an entity (be it a person or alliance). The main controversy arises from the fact that the former is highly frowned upon, while the latter is utterly inescapable. And it only exacerbates the issue that there is significant grey area between the two.

 

If there's someone who screams into their phone every day on your morning commute, you're not going to like that person. So when they show up at your office one day, you're not going to want to deal with that person. Not because of any one incident, but because you know how that person acts. It's the same in any situation. People form opinions based on others' actions. And then they perform their own actions based on those opinions. That is why your (and anyone's) history in any game (or real life) can simultaneously matter and not matter at all. Your actions matter, because your behavior over time in any situation informs people of how you might behave here. But at the same time your actions do not matter, because the consequences of them elsewhere has no bearing here. It's a subtle nuance, and it's difficult to express (and easy to misconstrue), but it's not something that should be dismissed.

 

 

 

As a slightly tangential point (and this isn't necessarily directed at anyone), consider someone throwing a tantrum at a grocery store because their favorite cereal is out of stock. You're not going to want to interact with that person, and you'll take action to avoid it (go to a different checkout lane). But when that tantrum becomes a digital one from a different game, all of a sudden that becomes taboo. Or imagine that your classmate joins the game and decides to make their own alliance. So you decide to help that person out. Nobody bats an eye. But if you do the same thing for a clanmate from a different game instead of a classmate, again it becomes taboo. Why is that it is valid to form opinions and take actions based on things that happen in some places, but not others?

I think y'all both have the right idea.

 

There's holding onto OOG (out of game) assessments of people's or alliance's character and culture, and that's in many ways impossible to avoid.  Even though it's humanely impossible, I think people should try to at least be neutral and dispassionate about it.

 

And there's holding onto in-game grudges, rivalries, or alliances from other games.

 

By OOG, I mean attempting to be dispassionate.  I might respect an opponent's competence or intelligence, and think an ally is incompetent, outside of the game, while still maintaining in-game support or opposition to them.

 

Obviously, there's a lot of grey area.  If you've had a good or bad experience with a person or an alliance in another game, that's likely to color your perception of them in a positive or negative way in the OOG way.  It's hard to completely let go of grudges or friendships.

 

Personally, I've had mixed dealings with and feelings about NPO in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and tried to give them a clean slate in this game for the purpose of cross-game separation, and supported TKR allying with them, and I think most people in TKR who play(ed) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) did as well.  Admittedly, I didn't give Roq a clean slate, because of my distaste for him that is fueled in part by grudges (ironically some of it stems from when we were allies in a war against NPO.)

 

I don't think it's a surprise to many people that know NPO from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that they have recruited a relatively large player base, have a very centrally planned economy, and have a certain self-important attitude.  And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be similar.

 

It's very difficult, probably impossible, to keep things out like thinking that someone is a good or bad leader, or from recognizing common traits between crossover alliances.  At the end of the day, most of us don't change our personalities when we play these games so they will stay the same across different games.  I think when it comes to most players and most alliances, most people have relatively neutral out of game attitudes that would allow them to either be friends or enemies in a different game, depending on the circumstances.  But at the end of the day sometimes you get along with some people and don't get along with others, based on personality that doesn't change much from game to game.

 

Personally, with the exception of public disputes with Roquentin, most of my relationships with and assessments of people from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) who play P&W is positive.  I'm very loyal to and very friendly with Infinite Citadel for instance.  To a large degree our relationship in this game is just an extension of our relationship in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), because we built a high level of trust and respect for each other in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).  We have similar views about how these games should be played and I really like his style, so I'm very likely to trust his judgement of an alliance or join an alliance he is government in.  Likewise, there are several people in tS and VE (many now in Grumpy Old Bastards) who I originally know and like on a personal level from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which makes me more inclined to ally them in P&W.

 

But I do think it's very important to at least try to avoid letting rivalries and treatise cross over.  Especially trying to get revenge on people in P&W for actions in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), or vice versa.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just not seeing it being the case. A different name is good and all, but it just looks basically, "let's make sure to dominate here since we couldn't quite do it there." Note this isn't exclusive to tS, but spherewide in terms of a lot of the former/current (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) elements.

 

Screw it, I'll bite.

 

We have a different membership composition (MI6 was a source of membership, but so was Sparta, IRON, and quite a few other AAs), a different leadership structure as well as leadership, a different set of allies (certainly when we started - now we have a healthy mix between PnW "originals" and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-rooted alliances, because it's kind of tough these days to *not* be allied to one :P), a different play style as well as theme. What else could you possibly want from us to demonstrate that we don't "just want to make sure we dominate here"? Risky attacks that could backfire politically? Done that. Large political pivots without a lot of cover? Done that. Fight in large-scale conflicts without treaty cover? Done that too. Reach out to former enemies? Done that, been rebuffed several times.

 

This sentiment keeps persisting and clearly I have no idea how to clear it, since everything we do just leads to people (yourself included) doubling down on the meme that "tS/HegemOOny is salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and wants to kick our ass here".

 

So tell me. If you don't have an answer, then drop that whole line of argument because it's clearly bunk if there's literally nothing we could do in your eyes to prove that we (writ large) don't care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Individual members might care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Doesn't matter, them's the perks of being a dictatorship :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.