Jump to content

There Is No IC/OOC Split, Change My Mind


BrythonLexi
 Share

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

Hi. Call me a dirty centrist or whatever but pretty sure I embody the total antithesis of what this post claims. 

How's the view up there? You FENCE SITTER. 

  • Haha 4

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

And what I've figured out is that this is an artificial dichotomy.  There is no truely In Character experience that wholly separates itself from the person's Out Of Character political beliefs

IC: Standard PnW FA & Shooting the Sh**
OOC: Rose FA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said:

As one of the loudest proponents of the split, allow me to get involved. For the sake of keeping things clear: This response is fully OOC.

 

Let's start with this. As literally anyone in t$ or anyone who knows me outside of the game can confirm- I'm an extreme leftist. I'd leak some of the politics chats from t$ to "prove" it but frankly I can't be arsed because the claim is so innately outrageous it doesn't warrant the time and effort. 

 

Let's look into why the split exists in the first place. We all have to play characters to genuinely enjoy this game. Do you really think Partisan is as eccentric, wild, and outspoken IRL as he is IC? Do you think that I actually stand by my "old people are bad", "all communists deserve punishment", etc rhetoric IRL? Do you think @Denison dresses up in a half-assed crusader halloween outfit everyday and goes around to call people weak and cowardly? If you do, re-evaluate a bit. The internet's an escape - games like this even moreso. It's an excuse to put IRL junk aside and be someone you're not. It's no different from if I were to go play DND with some friends, or jump on Gmod for some StarWarsRP. It's something you use to separate from your IRL self for a minute, because let's be frank, the world's in a shitty spot and we need something to go to to get away from it. 

 

Let's point out a prominent example of where this can quickly go wrong, especially when certain people are attempting to cross that line and use it for something else. Again, a reminder that since this is an OOC post from me. Also a pre-emptive I'm not here for sympathy or other bullshit, I'm just wanting to make sure this sort of attitude doesn't permeate and ruin a community. From January to right at the start of April, I was dealing with a situation where members of the game were insinuating t$ was a !@#$/!@#$ sympathizing alliance. I dropped character for this, as I believed it (and still believe it to be) a dangerous accusation to make. During this time, I was dealing with helping my mother and my grandfather deal with my grandmother, who'd been in the hospital for most of 2020 and had, in December, been put on hospice care and given a few months to live. I tried to use this game as an escape from the day to day I was dealing with, only to find out I was being accused of being a !@#$ because I was indirectly tied to a group of, let's be frank, trolls. So, to clarify, one of the few escapes I had at the time (thanks to COVID ruling out a lot of other ones), was being actively ruined because of the accusations that were being pushed. Eventually I got screenshots of these and to top it off, it seemed to be an attempt at getting some IC gain (the person leading the accusations was attempting to get a prot of an ally to join them and drop their current protector). I had a few friends involved in the situation that believed the accusations, which lead to us, obviously, drifting apart.

 

In March, logs of/from the main accuser dropped. I read through the logs a few times before, justifiably in my opinion, getting pretty pissed off. I had lost more than a couple people I'd considered friends over the accusations, as well as had to deal with getting questioned about IRL morals by IC folks. A week later, my grandmother passed. I was dealing with the loss of a few friends, my grandmother, and trying my damndest to keep my shit together for my family that needed me. All that shit at once was, frankly, bad for my health and ridiculously stressful. If it weren't for a few folks (you know who you are, and I appreciate y'all a lot), I probably would've completely dipped out of the game with one last "go !@#$ yourself, Orbis". 

 

Dropping the OOC/IC line helps nothing. Get rid of the blatant racists, homophobes, etc, but when you drop it entirely you will  inevitably make a bad call and cause undue stress and harm to a community and/or person. The game is just that - a game. Let's keep it that way. Let moderation handle the bullshit. Witch hunting does nothing good for the game. Frankly, if this kinda stuff doesn't stop, it'll lead to the death of the game. And you'll be the only ones to blame. OOC over. Adam out. 

Granted, I wasn’t around for the whole thing - but when I came back on the tail end of the situation you’re referring to, your account is different from what I had been told. So I appreciate the additional context from your end. It is a good example for people to understand that there may be more going on than what others realize.

IC and OOC should be kept separately, and it’s a good point you’re making to utilize moderation as the way to handle those kinds of situations in order to keep from unneeded BS/misunderstandings from transpiring from folks in the community. (<- Speaking from firsthand experience)

I think the community as a whole needs to take a step back and check ourselves on how we are approaching this game/others. As stated, this is a game and should be treated as such.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I can say "I'm going to wreck your shit, UnitedCommander!" and everyone will know I'm talking about their nation and that's IC.

Can I say UnitedCommander is a little Gnome lover STRICTLY IC?

For those of you who dont get the joke, watch the Jacking of Jazz Court Case;)

4 hours ago, Adrienne said:

It may surprise you to hear this but an alliance with 180+ members has a wide variance in thought regarding both political interest/engagement and belief.

Can Confirm, look at their poll comments!
image.thumb.png.ad88a239924530d8ecd17b90523370cd.png
https://www.knightsradiant.pw/topic/9302-of-politics/

  • Upvote 1

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

That's @Zed, isn't it?

 

There may be multiple people in t$ with this view.

By may be multiple people, I mean there are probably are multiple people.

Pic unrelated.

 

pw03kw9a7nf41.jpg

 

  • Haha 4

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Young Guilo said:

My nation theme is Roman/Pirate. I'm neither a pirate nor a 1700 year old Italian man.

Unfortunately

5 hours ago, Adrienne said:

And if I were to give TKR an average political leaning based on what I see of my fellow members, it would be very different than the one you gave.

People who really like the stormlight archives?

1 hour ago, Divinum said:

Just speaking for the Syndicate, we have Conservatives, Liberals, Centrists, Communists, Feudalists, advocates of a Catholic confessional state, and at least one Latino White Supremacist. You can't assign beliefs to a whole alliance.

I'm scared but intrigued.

 

Also, what does my nation say about me?

I have just spent nearly half an hour trying to figure out how to quote messages from multiple pages. Pain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zed said:

pw03kw9a7nf41.jpg

🤮 Why would you choose either of those Houses.

Bourbon or Savoie is a much better pick.

34 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:

Unfortunately

People who really like the stormlight archives?

I'm scared but intrigued.

 

Also, what does my nation say about me?

I have just spent nearly half an hour trying to figure out how to quote messages from multiple pages. Pain.

your name sounds vikingy therefore you like vikings!

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

BG/WTF - Two sides of the same Anarchist coin. WTF is slower, like if Catalonia won the war and had peace, the other is fast and decisive, like the Zapatista and Makhnos of their wars. Bottom left corner.

image.png.476ed7f3da4f108f2c1c1db8364f0689.png
image.png.a69f4f832e01fe447ac4de4b2791aefa.png

Unjust Hierarchies = Found 😎
(I mean seriously, the Leader title of BG is "Blankie Boss", 🥴 )

  • Upvote 1

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

My nation theme indicates I'm a South American liberal bourgeois Republican revolutionary. OOC I describe my views as being akin to Jacobin Keynesian democratic socialism.

In English?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 9:44 AM, BrythonLexi said:

Alright, I've been thinking.  I've been thinking about the huge value that Orbis as a whole places on the split between In Character and Out of Character - especially after NPOLT.  And what I've figured out is that this is an artificial dichotomy.  There is no truely In Character experience that wholly separates itself from the person's Out Of Character political beliefs.

Would you really expect a non-leftist to join United Socialist Nations or Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics?  Would you expect a non-Muslim to join United Ummah?  Or would you expect someone who doesn't like capitalism even a little to join The Syndicate / The Enterprise, or The Company?

Let's even look outside alliances.  When you created your nation, what did you go for?  Me?  I went for an anarchist commune because I am an anarcho-communist.  While I am sure there are unicorns (there always are) who are, say, American Republicans who made a nation LARPing as a Neoliberal nation, that is almost certainly not the case for the vast majority of people playing Politics & War.  It's a game where people tend to make themselves as a nation - and that includes their OOC politics.

"But when we mean OOC we mean how GOONS made people eat dog food!" Nope.  No you don't, let's be real here.  It's completely okay to discuss someone's political beliefs when you completely agree with them - but as soon as it's a disagreement, the cry about OOC is cried and all debate is closed down.  Y'know the people who complain about new leftist alliances because "communism sucks"?  It's certainly not because they hate communism in real life or something. [Although I will concede about the generic names, hence my specificity with reasoning.]

This false distinction between OOC and IC politics has gone on too long, and makes no rational sense upon further scrutiny.  It is merely used as a weapon to shut off debates you don't like - and it is making actual political discussion a stigma outside your safe space - kinda a bad thing in a game called Politics & War.

TL;DR Your Orbis nation and alliance reflect your OOC politics.  It is folly to say otherwise - this split between OOC and IC politics is completely artificial and useless.

This is complete nonsense.  You completely misunderstand what people mean when they say "Don't take IC stuff personally in an OOC way."  This isn't Nation States where there is an in-game United Nations and you get to debate policy and law; this is a wargame, and any politics is just flavoring here.  Every nation has cities with the same 20 buildings; whether I role play as Democratic or Republican, if you attack me I'd better have some planes and tanks or stuff or I'm going to get beiged.  We could both be Democrats, or Communists but if I'm in Alliance 1 and you're in Alliance 2, and they are at war then you are attacking me, end of story.  If we're in the same alliance but I'm a Democrat and you're a Communist, I am still coming to your aid if you need a counter.  

Now, some people do take IC stuff in an OOC way; maybe they got whomped on in a war, people were a !@#$ to them, and now they nurse a grudge.  But that's nothing to do with politics and instead it is just the human need to go for a rematch or 'best 2 out of 3.'  Play any war game long enough and you are going to accrue allies and enemies on the map, but most of these people still all go to the same Orbis radio shows and voice chats.  No one plays a game like this for the wars or the politics: those who stay do stay because they like or are amused by the people they've met.  

I can't tell if you're mean-spirited by nature or just deliberately misunderstanding stuff to be mean, but either way, cut the crap and grow up.  I don't know you, but if people are telling you to differentiate between IC and OOC, they mean stop being a sore loser; it's nothing to do with politics or war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 9:44 AM, BrythonLexi said:

Or would you expect someone who doesn't like capitalism even a little to join The Syndicate / The Enterprise, or The Company?

 

There's like a whole dozen of us. Syndi left wing contingent stronk

 

Pablo doesn't count

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Suyash Adhikari said:

🤮 Why would you choose either of those Houses.

Bourbon or Savoie is a much better pick.

 

Well since you asked...

The short answer is that the United States as a nation is chiefly founded more on English or German (bear with me here, yes Ostrichreich is not “Germany”) heritage, and not of Romance heritage.

The House of Savoy, as more of an Italian set of rulers, has the weakest of these claims that you list. It is worth pointing out that Jacobite succession did pass through them in the 19th century, but that claim now resides under the House of Wittelsbach, who themselves as good Bavarian Catholics are probably a better American choice as opposed to the more Italian Savoy.

That said, Bourbons have a few decent claims to a Catholic American throne. If it were not for the French (and Spanish who also have Bourbons and Dutch), the USA would likely not have had the resources and power to defeat the British in the American Revolution. The United States through territorial expansion, whether actually done or imagined, often went through French/Spanish colonial possessions. The USA had a provision in the Articles of Confederation for Canada to freely join the compact, but in reality they meant Quebec as a branch to the French-Canadians now under British rule who might want to get out. The USA also probably should have annexed the entirety of Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but there were fears among Northern WASPs that such an annexation would break the balance of the USA as a land for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and also give too much territory south of the Missouri Compromise line for slave states to expand their holdings (even if much of Northern Mexico is not really suitable for plantation-style chattel slavery and Mexico had banned slavery). But those territories won in the Mexican Cession, and in the Louisiana and Florida acquisitions, were very much in line with historical Bourbon lands, and a displaced Bourbon could rule over a monarchy in the USA as a nod to their help in the American Revolution.

Speaking of Mexico, it is not hard to see how Hapsburgs fit into a North American context there. They are probably the most prominent Catholic monarchs of the period who ruled over a multiethnic and multicultural land, which would be a benefit to governing the USA. It is also worth noting that German has been put up before as a national language, and the only American President to not speak English as a first language spoke a language formerly ruled by them (Martin Van Buren’s Dutch). There were many waves of German-speaking migrations to the USA as well. It is not the dominant British and Irish cultural heritage, but it is an intriguing one in the American context. If you are choosing a royal house based purely off of commitment to the Catholic faith against the scourges of Protestantism, you would not do much better.

Perhaps if Mary I had lived longer, or had a child, then the Stuarts would be mostly irrelevant. England was reverting the Protestant reforms undertaken by Henry VIII under her reign, and they were actually making a lot of progress at restoring the Catholic faith to the first nation founded with the blessing of a Pope. The Province of Maryland was founded during some efforts at Catholic restoration in Britain about 80 years later as a haven for English Catholics, and it might be entirely possible that the English would have restored Catholicism as a major faith prior to the Glorious Revolution. Of course, Maryland was settled by other groups which drowned out its Catholicism a bit, and in the years following the downfall of the Stuarts Anti-Catholic sentiments became very baked into the English-speaking world. Yes, for example J.R.R. Tolkien was bitterly disappointed that his friend C.S. Lewis became a Christian in the Church of England as opposed to his Roman Catholic faith, but for the most part Catholics were quite alienated in the British Isles (also no doubt harmed by the British Monarch being the Head of the Church of England and expressly forbidden from being Catholic, and the nonconformism that such a status against that). My own personal sympathies are that this is the most likely path for an American Catholic Monarchy, although perhaps by that time the foundation of the USA as a land of religious freedom (but not always tolerance, and not always freedom in specific colonies) the ship would be a bit far gone unless some major changes occurred; indeed only a pitiful few signers and representatives to important early American documents were Catholic, and they were almost all from Maryland.

The USA is really the first, and perhaps greatest, experiment of what a Western nation looks like without having a Catholic heritage or infrastructure. It may have assimilated many formerly Catholic lands in its territorial expansion, but Catholics in general feel a sense that they do not belong in the USA; although this has perhaps lessened after Vatican II as changes to liturgical and doctrinal practice have led Catholics to look more like Protestants in the USA (perhaps aided by other cultural changes such as the racist heritage of abortion becoming an issue that Protestants starting caring about in the aftermath of Roe v Wade, but this is a different story). But as the largest single religious entity in the US (sure if you add all the Protestants up they are larger, good luck getting them to agree), there certainly is something to say about such a possibility if Americans ever installed a proper Monarch.

  • Like 1

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zed said:

 

Well since you asked...

The short answer is that the United States as a nation is chiefly founded more on English or German (bear with me here, yes Ostrichreich is not “Germany”) heritage, and not of Romance heritage.

The House of Savoy, as more of an Italian set of rulers, has the weakest of these claims that you list. It is worth pointing out that Jacobite succession did pass through them in the 19th century, but that claim now resides under the House of Wittelsbach, who themselves as good Bavarian Catholics are probably a better American choice as opposed to the more Italian Savoy.

That said, Bourbons have a few decent claims to a Catholic American throne. If it were not for the French (and Spanish who also have Bourbons and Dutch), the USA would likely not have had the resources and power to defeat the British in the American Revolution. The United States through territorial expansion, whether actually done or imagined, often went through French/Spanish colonial possessions. The USA had a provision in the Articles of Confederation for Canada to freely join the compact, but in reality they meant Quebec as a branch to the French-Canadians now under British rule who might want to get out. The USA also probably should have annexed the entirety of Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but there were fears among Northern WASPs that such an annexation would break the balance of the USA as a land for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and also give too much territory south of the Missouri Compromise line for slave states to expand their holdings (even if much of Northern Mexico is not really suitable for plantation-style chattel slavery and Mexico had banned slavery). But those territories won in the Mexican Cession, and in the Louisiana and Florida acquisitions, were very much in line with historical Bourbon lands, and a displaced Bourbon could rule over a monarchy in the USA as a nod to their help in the American Revolution.

Speaking of Mexico, it is not hard to see how Hapsburgs fit into a North American context there. They are probably the most prominent Catholic monarchs of the period who ruled over a multiethnic and multicultural land, which would be a benefit to governing the USA. It is also worth noting that German has been put up before as a national language, and the only American President to not speak English as a first language spoke a language formerly ruled by them (Martin Van Buren’s Dutch). There were many waves of German-speaking migrations to the USA as well. It is not the dominant British and Irish cultural heritage, but it is an intriguing one in the American context. If you are choosing a royal house based purely off of commitment to the Catholic faith against the scourges of Protestantism, you would not do much better.

Perhaps if Mary I had lived longer, or had a child, then the Stuarts would be mostly irrelevant. England was reverting the Protestant reforms undertaken by Henry VIII under her reign, and they were actually making a lot of progress at restoring the Catholic faith to the first nation founded with the blessing of a Pope. The Province of Maryland was founded during some efforts at Catholic restoration in Britain about 80 years later as a haven for English Catholics, and it might be entirely possible that the English would have restored Catholicism as a major faith prior to the Glorious Revolution. Of course, Maryland was settled by other groups which drowned out its Catholicism a bit, and in the years following the downfall of the Stuarts Anti-Catholic sentiments became very baked into the English-speaking world. Yes, for example J.R.R. Tolkien was bitterly disappointed that his friend C.S. Lewis became a Christian in the Church of England as opposed to his Roman Catholic faith, but for the most part Catholics were quite alienated in the British Isles (also no doubt harmed by the British Monarch being the Head of the Church of England and expressly forbidden from being Catholic, and the nonconformism that such a status against that). My own personal sympathies are that this is the most likely path for an American Catholic Monarchy, although perhaps by that time the foundation of the USA as a land of religious freedom (but not always tolerance, and not always freedom in specific colonies) the ship would be a bit far gone unless some major changes occurred; indeed only a pitiful few signers and representatives to important early American documents were Catholic, and they were almost all from Maryland.

The USA is really the first, and perhaps greatest, experiment of what a Western nation looks like without having a Catholic heritage or infrastructure. It may have assimilated many formerly Catholic lands in its territorial expansion, but Catholics in general feel a sense that they do not belong in the USA; although this has perhaps lessened after Vatican II as changes to liturgical and doctrinal practice have led Catholics to look more like Protestants in the USA (perhaps aided by other cultural changes such as the racist heritage of abortion becoming an issue that Protestants starting caring about in the aftermath of Roe v Wade, but this is a different story). But as the largest single religious entity in the US (sure if you add all the Protestants up they are larger, good luck getting them to agree), there certainly is something to say about such a possibility if Americans ever installed a proper Monarch.

Did you just copy and paste someone's essay from the old TOP application process? I still remember mine having something to do with the history of the early Roman Catholic Church. Bit of a common theme here I think...🤔

Edited by Charles Bolivar

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Did you just copy and paste someone's essay from the old TOP application process? I still remember mine having something to do with the history of the early Roman Catholic Church. Bit of a common theme here I think...🤔

 

This work is original to this forum, but I can attempt to cite some sources if you really want.

And yes, my old question about the history of the Papacy is still legendary to this day, among others. It is too bad I do not make the Juniors in The Enterprise answer some of them; maybe I ought to start that up again.

  • Upvote 1

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zed said:

 

This work is original to this forum, but I can attempt to cite some sources if you really want.

And yes, my old question about the history of the Papacy is still legendary to this day, among others. It is too bad I do not make the Juniors in The Enterprise answer some of them; maybe I ought to start that up again.

Harvard please.

And I dare say the days where applicants will write out 1000 words for entry have long since passed. Heck, how many AAa still even use forums?

  • Haha 1

Untitled.png

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.