Jump to content

A conversation that needs to be had


Shellhound
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would never work, the communtiy can't agree on most things, how would they agree on the scoring of insults?  Our skins are of different thickness.  Some people know where the line is, others can't see the line and some love nothing more than stepping over the line.

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would never work, the communtiy can't agree on most things, how would they agree on the scoring of insults? Our skins are of different thickness. Some people know where the line is, others can't see the line and some love nothing more than stepping over the line.

You say it would never work without ever trying, could it work? Possibly. Should we try? Certainly. Disagreeing with how it should be done is one thing, throwing your hands in the air and saying let them run rampant is another. Giving up before trying is as irresponsible and wrong as condoning their behavior. You don't need every person in the game to agree to it, you just need the leaders of some of the more influential alliances to agree to it, I think with a situation like this that can be accomplished.
  • Upvote 1

uHQTKq6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just being idealistic here, but I do think leaders in rose, upn, ve, tS, etc. Could set aside their differences and agree to something like this, it makes their lives easier having a set way of working out things like this and it also discourages it from happening in the first place. I think it's worth giving it a shot.

uHQTKq6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using past experience with browser game communities to form my judgement.  I see nothing special about this one that makes me think it's any different.  The majority of us, thankfully, can seperate the feelings we have about people and their characters within a game setting and that of their personal real lives.  The offending party has issued an apology, I think we have all learnt a lesson.  Lets just leave it at that and move on from this.  Those that continue to overstep the mark are naturally ostracised by the community anyway.  I don't think a scoring system will add anything.

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would be the penalties for flaming, trolling, etc? If anyone besides the mods tries to put down some punishment.....guess what, tons of folks will rage quit.....me included. I'd burn the player's nation to the ground who puts down some sort of judgement/penalty on me.

  • Upvote 1

X4EfkAB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orbis is about politics and war - both which involve a lot of lying, maneuvering, and manipulation.  Why would anyone share sensitive RL info with anyone related to that?  I keep my real name separate, I keep my real life specifics private.  I share what I don't care about.  I'm sorry that some people bring in a lot of their RL stuff into their IC persona.  That's perfectly fine, but then it's going to be used against you most likely.  Especially your RL picture, or sharing your FB, Instagram, RL picture posted to these forums, or using your RL name, etc.

 

What's not okay is using the "ZOMG OOC ATTACK" as some rock-solid, lets get the community to burn that person on a cross CB.  You share info you consider OOC, why does everyone have to abide by your definition of what OOC is?  If that's okay, then I can claim that any war is an OOC attack on me.  I can claim that people criticizing this post are OOC attacking me IRL.  I can say that someone declaring on me is doing so because they don't like me IRL and want me dead.

 

It goes both ways.

Edited by Placentica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can claim that people criticizing this post are OOC attacking me IRL. 

Your post is !@#$ and I hope you get rolled

 

 

On a more serious note, OOC/IC bullshit was reduced (in the rules, at least) back during the alpha/speedbeta reset. It's now called In-Game/Out of Game and, well, it is a far better term imo. "Character" is too subjective but "game" really isn't.

Edited by Metro

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just being idealistic here, but I do think leaders in rose, upn, ve, tS, etc. Could set aside their differences and agree to something like this, it makes their lives easier having a set way of working out things like this and it also discourages it from happening in the first place. I think it's worth giving it a shot.

While I agree that self policing can work, on one hand we let people speak however they want to, whether it be In-game or Out of Game or on another hand we limit free speech and if anyone says anything relating to someone out of game we roll them.

 

Personally I think a self policing system could definitely work, but it does not mean that it is the best option.

"what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would be the penalties for flaming, trolling, etc? If anyone besides the mods tries to put down some punishment.....guess what, tons of folks will rage quit.....me included. I'd burn the player's nation to the ground who puts down some sort of judgement/penalty on me.

We already self police as it is. There are IG repercussions for everything that you do, we as a community determine what's acceptable through politics and use the war function as a means of enforcing it. Anything that's considered "CB-worthy" is self policing. This issue is no different than any of that. 

Orbis is about politics and war - both which involve a lot of lying, maneuvering, and manipulation.  Why would anyone share sensitive RL info with anyone related to that?  I keep my real name separate, I keep my real life specifics private.  I share what I don't care about.  I'm sorry that some people bring in a lot of their RL stuff into their IC persona.  That's perfectly fine, but then it's going to be used against you most likely.  Especially your RL picture, or sharing your FB, Instagram, RL picture posted to these forums, or using your RL name, etc.

 

What's not okay is using the "ZOMG OOC ATTACK" as some rock-solid, lets get the community to burn that person on a cross CB.  You share info you consider OOC, why does everyone have to abide by your definition of what OOC is?  If that's okay, then I can claim that any war is an OOC attack on me.  I can claim that people criticizing this post are OOC attacking me IRL.  I can say that someone declaring on me is doing so because they don't like me IRL and want me dead.

 

It goes both ways.

I see your point and to a level I do agree with it, I'm not saying people should share all of their private information and we'll take care of it for them if something happens. Generally keeping your information private is the best way of handling things, but severe OOC attacks isn't something that should be tolerated just because someone opened themselves up for it and somebody decided to take the low hanging fruit. 

 

Your post is !@#$ and I hope you get rolled

 

 

On a more serious note, OOC/IC !@#$ was reduced (in the rules, at least) back during the alpha/speedbeta reset. It's now called In-Game/Out of Game and, well, it is a far better term imo. "Character" is too subjective but "game" really isn't.

Yeah, when I say OOC/IC I'm referring to IG/OOG. I've always said that due to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but generally I've meant game, not necessarily character.

 

While I agree that self policing can work, on one hand we let people speak however they want to, whether it be In-game or Out of Game or on another hand we limit free speech and if anyone says anything relating to someone out of game we roll them.

 

Personally I think a self policing system could definitely work, but it does not mean that it is the best option.

I don't think there's a need to limit it that much, like I said, most issues can be handled diplomatically and the fair majority of OOG comments and remarks are things that really don't need to be handled to begin with.

Edited by Shellhound

uHQTKq6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion only exists as a way to try and justify the current events. The "lines being crossed" argument is still not being addressed which leads me to believe that this will only be a matter of convenience to the biggest kid on the block. Trolling, flaming, and baiting are a part of the politics. I'm not keen on getting rid of the politics part of the game since it's 50% of the reason why we are here. Pfeiffer said a number of nasty OOC things about Pubstomper and you don't see me going on a social justice warrior rant. Should Pfeiffer be held accountable?

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've being talking to a group of prominent people about this OOC crisis since I myself have being a victim of OOC attacks in the past.

We came to the conclusion Orbis should host a summit on the matter and get everyone to come, not sure it will be productive but hey at least Orbis hosted one. 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've being talking to a group of prominent people about this OOC crisis since I myself have being a victim of OOC attacks in the past.

We came to the conclusion Orbis should host a summit on the matter and get everyone to come, not sure it will be productive but hey at least Orbis hosted one. 

Like I said. If you want to be selective about who is held accountable, this is nothing more than a matter of convenience. When Pfeiffer is held accountable for his comments, I will believe you guys. 

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 member from each major alliance could be elected to serve on a committee to find if someone is indeed guilty of douchebaggery or not and to what level of douchebaggery they're guilty of and enact eternal punishment based on that. 

Edited by Clarke

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 member from each major alliance could be elected to serve on a committee to find if someone is indeed guilty of douchebaggery or not and to what level of douchebaggery they're guilty of and enact eternal punishment based on that. 

Eternal punishment? That's a negative ghost rider. Internal? The reason there is a war now is because Pfeiffer didn't find Rose's internal punishment sufficient. So no. I still don't see why we aren't holding Pfeiffer to the same standards.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 member from each major alliance could be elected to serve on a committee to find if someone is indeed guilty of douchebaggery or not and to what level of douchebaggery they're guilty of and enact eternal punishment based on that. 

 

Every single alliance should be involved or none at all.  Everyone, regardless of standing in certain groups, should be held to the same account.  The real issue isn't the fact that someone was called bad names and made to feel unhappy.  It's the fact that people went out of their way to find real life information to use against someone they dislike for whatever reason.

 

Personally, I'm with the other people here that refuse to share real life details and don't really want you to share them with me either.  Too many weird people, with too much time on their hands, gather on the internet.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a "summit" is going to accomplish anything. Nor do I think a "conversation" needs to be had. If someone crosses a line then it should be dealt with by the offended party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single alliance should be involved or none at all.  Everyone, regardless of standing in certain groups, should be held to the same account.  The real issue isn't the fact that someone was called bad names and made to feel unhappy.  It's the fact that people went out of their way to find real life information to use against someone they dislike for whatever reason.

 

Personally, I'm with the other people here that refuse to share real life details and don't really want you to share them with me either.  Too many weird people, with too much time on their hands, gather on the internet.

The information that was used was posted on the OWF prior to the "ad".

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

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.