CNRPA, Defining Collaboration...

[Captain Enema]

This isn't a thread designed to launch a huge argument. It's a thread designed to reach a community agreement on what we consider collaboration to be and how it should "ideally" work. 

 

I've heard people thinking that collaboration means you can't be made to rp something you don't want to be. There is no peace mode in CnRPA, which leads me to think many of you have a very different definition of collaboration.

 

I see it like this, we all upon occasion end up rping something we don't want to rp. It's our responsibility to rp with each other respectfully and to move the story along the best we can even if we don't like it. I see collaboration as a personal responsibility to work with others even if they are trying to kick our faces off. 

 

Again, there is no safe mode in CNRPA.

 

However, it brings me to my next point, collaboration works both ways. The winner must be respectful, if not more respectful to those losing. They must also be open to the notion that the rp is going to continue after the immediate conclusion and further accept that they could end up taking a turn in the loser's seat in the future.

 

That's my definition of collaboration. 

 

What's yours?

 

Btw, any self-victimizers and cry babies seeking to use this thread to try and drown us in another river of tears needs to shut their mouths and soldier on. This thread isn't your grandstand. If you need a grandstand go rp one somewhere.

 

 

 

[Yerushalayim]

To me, collaboration's always been about OOCly working with the other player. If I'm fighting Rudy, my form of collaboration is providing the GMs with anything shady I'm doing, and providing him with any information he needs and would have access to about my stuff. And if he really wants to avoid a war, OOCly, I'll tell him my conditions so he can RP out a resolution. On the flip side, he tells me how he's fortifying, what his guys are doing/are armed with, and answers questions that I have that help me write my posts (e.g.: If I'm attacking one of his outposts, it helps for me to know what they're defended by). The collaboration is in keeping the RP running smoothly, not in ensuring that no one takes a loss.

[Captain Enema]

To me, collaboration's always been about OOCly working with the other player. If I'm fighting Rudy, my form of collaboration is providing the GMs with anything shady I'm doing, and providing him with any information he needs and would have access to about my stuff. And if he really wants to avoid a war, OOCly, I'll tell him my conditions so he can RP out a resolution. On the flip side, he tells me how he's fortifying, what his guys are doing/are armed with, and answers questions that I have that help me write my posts (e.g.: If I'm attacking one of his outposts, it helps for me to know what they're defended by). The collaboration is in keeping the RP running smoothly, not in ensuring that no one takes a loss.

 

so much this right there.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I want to take losses, but I often see people reaching for more than they are actually capable of and their definition of collaboration involves extravagant claims to capabilities they simply don't have in an attempt to grab land and avoid them. I want to work with people to make a fight fair, but I've been around a long time in CN and CNRP I've done my time as a small power, I would like my turn shaping the world limits and to be a genuine threat to world peace :P

Because it's fun to rp a good, properly done world war and fight war stories. I've done it before. Just not here.. and not just yet. The potential is here.. the writing ability definitely is here.. and I think the attitudes are starting to turn in the right direction.

But if every world war is a curb stomp.. and every great power is humbled with bare effort, where's the joy?

My idea of a good world war, literally takes rl months to resolve a month in which there is little to no bickering where people write about how their citizens and soldiers cope with the unique situations we have generated for them. Where suffering becomes real and palpable and our characters rise from two dimensional figures into something a novelist might be proud of.

How do we get people like the unkillable soldier, if we don't have a few grand campaigns to make such a noble patriot even viable? I mean, that guy's a legend, seriously.. amazing. We will never get to have amazing characters like this gentleman was in real life if our conflicts aren't somewhat realistically portrayed.

 

I realize not everyone likes fighting wars, but I would love to collaborate with those that do on a good one. And my definition of collaboration is that, just like in reality, "No one wins in a war." The wounds don't magically heal. They shouldn't, it does dis-service to pretend they do to any human being who has suffered in the course of true conflict. Only diplomacy and trade reap real positive gains for humanity. Collaboration on national interaction needs to be somewhat realistic, and keep what the real costs would be of our nations in mind if they were real nations.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex