A Neutral's Blog

No, HoT is right. The mentality that motivates OOC action is in-game gain like getting revenge on people for !@#$ from 2008 in the case he refers to. It has to be disincentivized as a tool advance in-game grudges and whatnot if you want it to stop and the only way to do it is by in-game action. If people aren't willing to impose sanctions on alliances that perform such things, then no amount of handwringing will matter. Most people who are tied to them have knowingly enabled it by reinforcing their ability to do it. A culture that is intolerant to abuse will not allow alliances who practice it to remain in powerful positions.

Like it or not, but OOC cultural cache has a lot of pull in the politics and so long as it does, people are willing to uphold relationships that don't make sense without it.

Your right that the majority of players in most alliances don't follow what happens IC or even read what's on the OWF.

If things happen OOC that's another step entirely and almost always something IRC because the moderators can control it here. Even less people pay attention to what happens off the forum.

Thus regardless of what people do, don't "punish" people who have nothing to do with OOC attacks by bringing the "solution" against more than the offender. If anything happens to in-game, keep it to the offender only.

Simply put, the game staff has no jurisdiction over what happens off game and away from these forums

good joke

I can say no all day long, and it does nothing.

I can say no all day long, and it does nothing.

Basically this. It's not like we've been quiet on the issue.

People do it because there's a percieved in-game advantage to it, similar to why politicians like to point out affairs, personality flaws, wasteful personal spending, etc on opposition politicians. Logically, it shouldn't have anything to do with how things work, but psychologically it can be powerful.

That incident did cause significant in-game damage to Ragnarok, far more than it should have.

On the other side, OOC can be used 'positively', like an alliance leader may buy a game for another alliance leader, and this OOC friendship affects IC friendship. We can't really say no to that either.

If things happen OOC that's another step entirely and almost always something IRC because the moderators can control it here.

exactly: nobody is going to say anything on the forums, they'll do the harassment on IRC because they cant get in trouble for it(unless it's in #cybernations)

You don't even need to form an aggressive coalition to "attack" MK on some romantic fantasy of being the heroic warrior. All it takes is to just tell yourselves and your allies that your in-game mass will not be used to support OOC, IRL atrocities. Just stand up and say no, refuse to be a lemming to MK's will. Just sit on the sidelines and watch. MK's direct allies probably won't, but the people coming in on treaty chains are just as important. Tell your allies that you want to sit this one out, and offer them rebuilding funds post war. Explain that you morally object to MK's actions. Just say no.

It's the first time HoT has said something correct in about three or four years. No need to reprimand him.

Like it or not, but OOC cultural cache has a lot of pull in the politics and so long as it does, people are willing to uphold relationships that don't make sense without it.

Isn't that kind of my point? OOC cultural aspects can (and should) influence what's acceptable or not in the game, and people may also be unwilling to uphold relationships, if they're unacceptable for OOC reasons.

Simply put, the game staff has no jurisdiction over what happens off game and away from these forums

good joke

Do you mean that they have jurisdiction on off-game stuff? Do you know what "jurisdiction" means?

I can say no all day long, and it does nothing.

What you do isn't nothing.

If things happen OOC that's another step entirely and almost always something IRC because the moderators can control it here.

exactly: nobody is going to say anything on the forums, they'll do the harassment on IRC because they cant get in trouble for it(unless it's in #cybernations)

Seen from another angle, that situation works in favour of my vision: this place is an haven where OOC offenders are forced to shut up or to play by the rules of civility. That's a powerful weapon in the cultural battle to "occupy" this medium to defend one's vision. Occupy CN ITT!

<SNIP> All it takes is to just tell yourselves and your allies that your in-game mass will not be used to support OOC, IRL atrocities. Just stand up and say no <SNIP>. Just say no.

Save for the references to the MK, we're starting to agree here.

(I don't deny that there are OOC offenders that play this game as MK members; I don't deny that the RL virtual community which, more or less, takes shape as the MK alliance in this game, does little to nothing to adverse or even just to dissociate them from OOC abuse; I deny that they're the only ones and I strongly deny that all of them are OOC offenders, or more responsible that any other bystander for any OOC offence.)

It's the first time HoT has said something correct in about three or four years. No need to reprimand him.

I disagree with the place he decided to discuss that, and I partially disagree with his vision (see above), but I respect what he cites as his OOC motives.

It all boils down to what people are willing to tolerate and overlook for ingame considerations. While an alliance might not wish to associate itself with people who indulge in OOC attacks, there would also be an alliance which will convince itself that since it is OOC it has no bearing on the ingame stuff. More so if they see a possible ebenefit in the association with the entity in question.

What HOT is doing here is making an appeal to the supposed inherent decency in humans. Which we have seen to be easily pushed to the background alongside the conscience and the idea of fair play, on a routine basis. The thought that someone would actually give up something that benefits them over a moral matter, is laudable, but it is also laughable. I have yet to see anyone make a value call and disadvantage themselves, specially if the others are still sitting pretty and not making similar value calls. Nobody likes being the first and most likely [from what they perceive] the only one to break ranks with a strong group and possibly damage everything they have worked for, for so long, whether it be power, security for their members or just the right to go riding roughshod over everyone else. Then there is the entire thing about being willing to overlook character defects in those one considers to be friends.

No, this place is not ever going to be free of protection/support/encouragement that is available for the people who get their jollies harassing others beyond the pale.