Superimposed IC

[D34th]

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1307673515' post='2728363']
There are many, many, many good examples of "might makes right" in CN. This is not one of those examples. So you're saying you are so against this term that if R&R didn't have allies you would go to war with her over it? No, you're just trying to score IC points... in an OOC forum (which is ironic, considering the thing you seem to be against is a perceived violation of the IC/OOC line)

Anyways... In this case you have Keve, who was ousted by the members of UINE and R&R for personally screwing up and causing his alliance to not follow through on its commitments: This was done by Keve the player, not Keve the RP'd ruler of whateverthehellhisnationnameis - and do not try to tell me he was RPing an incompetent alliance leader. That is dumb. There are certain things people RP in CN, even at the alliance leadership level - gross incompetence is rarely one of them. So R&R took action against the player and the ruler - as it was both the player and the ruler who caused the issue - in a non-permanent fashion. Sounds fine to me.
[/quote]

Enlighten me where I mentioned R&R here please?

[Hereno]

I voted OOC for OOC, but that's not really representative of much. I mean as long as you're not banning someone from the game over some dumb IC grudge, terms like beer reviews and writing stories could really be considered OOC... but those are awesome. And of course we had the EZI/PZI thread where most people agreed that there are cases where they could be used justly. It really depends on the situation more than anything else.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307660355' post='2728201']
Your reasoning amounts to saying that, since a certain player is (allegedly) bad at something, it's OK to limit all his future characters from doing that certain something: I don't see how you can equate it to a coup and it's certainly an OOC term (incidentally, you don't contemplate the possibility that people learn from their mistakes, but this is another issue anyway).[/quote]

No, what I said was that Keve69 was ineffective at getting reparations paid to RnR, so RnR would have invested interest in getting those reparations paid off. If you remember correctly, everything on the Alliance Politics forum is considered IC (and not OOC). So it's just as much IC as it is OOC for RnR to mandate that Keve69 be stripped from government (and not even permanently).

[quote]There's also a very clear and exact distinction between IC and OOC: IC is what applies to characters, OOC is what applies to players.[/quote]

And for people whose characters are the same as their real life person? IC and OOC is blended the moment it is translated into the game's politics (ala the Alliance forums, which are considered IC as aforementioned). The same goes for World Affairs, which is considered IC. People largely seem to forget that these forums are differentiated by IC and OOC, meaning a separation between the two.

[quote]The common ground is just that a lot of "content" is transferred into the game "as is" because we can't invent everything - for example, we all communicate in English which is a RL language - but the two realms remain separate.[/quote]

If they share common ground, then they are not dichotomous, clear-cut, and distinct.

Honestly, the way I impose my OOC persona on my IC persona is limited I suppose. A lot of the stuff I "support" ICly I would not support OOCly, for instance.

[Xiphosis]

When an OOC personality manifests itself in IC actions over repeated rerolls and the like, then yes, it makes perfect sense to write terms that reflect it.

/Reality not idealism.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Xiphosis

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307670408' post='2728310']
There is no IC/OOC divide. Preventing someone from doing something "IC" prevents them from playing the game in the way they want to. An OOC restriction/punishment will always have some sort of IC effect. Aside from substituting 'planet' for 'game' in two CNF forums there is no "IC."
[/quote]
This is a poor mentality to have, and a wholly untrue statement. There is a strict divide, between IC and OOC, between the game and not the game. People absolutely must respect the difference.

Terms like what R&R gave are wrong because it's a restriction outside of the confines of the game, it's an attempt to control not a character within the game in the context of the game, but an attempt to control how someone should be allowed to play the game, which is to say, restricting their free will as a player. There are certain functions a player has outside of the context of the game, such as joining, rerolling, and quitting the game. They have a right to these options, that should remain unrestricted.

I make an exception only in the case of retribution for certain OOC acts, such as hacking a forum.

[White Chocolate]

OOC terms are always wrong. For that matter, I'm often surprised at what IC "terms" alliances will accept as well. Surrender (aka: admitting one lost the war), a reasonable time frame of staying out of the war (aka: duration - maybe plus 6 months NAP) and reps are as far as it should go. Everything else is taking the game WAY to serious.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1307667744' post='2728284']
It's a bit late to complain about the blurring of the IC/OOC line. It hasn't existed for a very long time now.
[/quote]


Nailed it.

[Banksy]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307676447' post='2728403']
This is a poor mentality to have, and a wholly untrue statement. There is a strict divide, between IC and OOC, between the game and not the game. People absolutely must respect the difference.[/quote]
This is the sort of position we've come to expect from people like you tbh. That your (I'm saying your in general terms here, there are other high profile offenders) bizarre rants in Alliance politics and the other "IC" forum (I forget its name) are somehow excusable because it's your detached "IC" opinion. An "OOC/IC divide" is an excuse for people to do stupid things, and then claim it was just an "IC" action later. It's like an institutionalised cop-out.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307670408' post='2728310']
There is no IC/OOC divide. Preventing someone from doing something "IC" prevents them from playing the game in the way they want to. An OOC restriction/punishment will always have some sort of IC effect. Aside from substituting 'planet' for 'game' in two CNF forums there is no "IC."
[/quote]

This is actually a good point. Yeah, I guess, in a sense, you're right. If someone acts like an alcoholic IC, he's likely to be an alcoholic OOC. If someone claims to not be wearing pants in IRC or Skype, he's not wearing any pants OOC either.

One problem with roleplaying games is that a player can only roleplay a character who is as intelligent and charismatic as the player is. Since intelligence/charisma are the defining factor of a player's success in CN and people are in this game to win, they end up 'roleplaying' up to their potential. Those who purposely play dumber than usual are often trolls and they get their IP logged as a troll and banned from multiple alliances.

The OOC-IC division serves to keep people from attacking others outside the game. But from my experience with roleplaying games, it doesn't work that way... most people suck at the OOC/IC division and take it very personally when their in-game character is destroyed. I'd personally want the flexibility to disband alliances or force them into a year's worth of reps, and then be able to invite the people in those alliances to my wedding, but that's just not going to happen.


So, yeah, I guess from this perspective, it makes sense to ban people's rerolls from positions of power or alliances. I'm just hoping it's not a slippery slope into bringing back EZI again.

[Alterego]

This is at least the second leader banned since karma.

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307675159' post='2728386']
So it's just as much IC as it is OOC for RnR to mandate that Keve69 be stripped from government [b](and not even permanently). [/b]
[/quote]

While he has not been banned permanently from government as a whole, R&R has permanently banned him from a [b]specific[/b] government role:

[quote]1. The immediate expulsion of keve69 from government, a declaration on the OWF with the new government and a statement he is no longer in charge of UINE. Keve may return to government after the remaining terms are completed, [b]Keve69 (or his altenative name should he ever decide to reroll) is no longer allowed to be the sole leader of UINE.[/b][/quote]

So while he is free to return to UINE as a minister, the term does prevent him from ever returning as the emperor.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1307667744' post='2728284']It's a bit late to complain about the blurring of the IC/OOC line. It hasn't existed for a very long time now.[/quote]
They say it's better late than never!
Seriously, it's too late when you can't do anything about it anymore. If people always accepted whatever they're used to, regardless of the possibility of doing something about it, nothing would ever change. Quite the opposite is true: things keep evolving and it's never too late to try influence them.
This thread is anyway just about discussing a situation and collecting opinions (hopefully improving some people's knowledge about the issue); it's not meant to obtain any kind of "result".

(Incidentally, I've been uninterruptedly preaching the separation of IC and OOC since (at least) September 2008 ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=34171"]ref[/url]). You can say that I am failing but not that I am late.)



[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307670408' post='2728310']There is no IC/OOC divide. Preventing someone from doing something "IC" prevents them from playing the game in the way they want to. An OOC restriction/punishment will always have some sort of IC effect. Aside from substituting 'planet' for 'game' in two CNF forums there is no "IC."[/quote]
When a player create a character s/he has to accept that that character will have to live within a set of "hard" (admin/Mods-driven) and "soft" (player/community-driven) rules: this is just obvious and it doesn't mean that the "make believe" world of the game and the real life of the players are the same thing; otherwise there would be no "real" games at all (not only CN, but any game) and the very noun "game" would be effectively meaningless.
Granted, there are people incapable to separate their character from their real persona (see for example [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102533&view=findpost&p=2728516"]MrMuz's post[/url] on that), but does that mean that they should feel justified in letting loose their IC-caused OOC grudges and to affect other players' capability to keep the stories of their different characters independent one from the other?
The point of this discussion is whether players should or not exploit the game mechanics to extend their soft rules to other players. Ultimately it's a matter of opportunity.
I think it's opportune that players are free to have fun with a brand new character if they're not satisfied with their current one, and I think that other players don't have the authority to prevent them from doing so.



[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1307673515' post='2728363']Anyways... In this case you have Keve, who was ousted by the members of UINE and R&R for personally screwing up and causing his alliance to not follow through on its commitments: This was done by Keve the player, not Keve the RP'd ruler of whateverthehellhisnationnameis - and do not try to tell me he was RPing an incompetent alliance leader. That is dumb. There are certain things people RP in CN, even at the alliance leadership level - gross incompetence is rarely one of them. So R&R took action against the player and the ruler - as it was both the player and the ruler who caused the issue - in a non-permanent fashion. Sounds fine to me.[/quote]
Sorry but the player that plays Keve69 had no commitment to UINE and/or R&R. Players are not entitled to demand anything from other players just because they happen to have better scores in the game. Keve69 [i]the character[/i] had that commitment and you can't attach it to the player.
Now let's imagine that the same player creates a new Ruler, let's call it "John Eck".
A. John is accepted in UINE, he becomes government and then autocrat there, having his career supported by Keve69's partisans that keep telling around "hey it's Keve let's help him in getting back what he was robbed of". Would he be a new character? "Probably" not.
B. John is accepted in UINE, he works for the alliance displaying competency and commitment. UINE decides (with whatever internal procedure they have) that they need an autocrat and that John Eck is the best person for the role. Would he be a new character? I think he would.
Is it possible from outside UINE to tell A from B? Again probably not (or not that easily), there's a lot of grey there. Which IMHO means that the fairness towards the player should be privileged and no term to prevent A should be adopted, as it would risk to unfairly damage a player which is honestly in a B-type situation.
As [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102533&view=findpost&p=2728546"]Vladisvok Destino pointed out[/url], by the way, that part of those terms is permanent.



[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1307674825' post='2728384']I voted OOC for OOC, but that's not really representative of much. I mean as long as you're not banning someone from the game over some dumb IC grudge, terms like beer reviews and writing stories could really be considered OOC... but those are awesome.[/quote]
Well you [i]can[/i] role-play beer and writing stories and they're not really clearly OOC terms as long as they are not unreasonably demanding (e.g. huge essays or other high impact requirements).



[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307675159' post='2728386']If you remember correctly, everything on the Alliance Politics forum is considered IC (and not OOC).[/quote]
Everything in Alliance Announcements [i]should[/i] be IC, but it often isn't (and in fact we have reports of "OOC in IC" all the time - that part of the UINE-R&R terms [i][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102510"]included[/url][/i]). There's no guarantee that something is IC just because it's in AA.



[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1307675270' post='2728389']When an OOC personality manifests itself in IC actions over repeated rerolls and the like, then yes, it makes perfect sense to write terms that reflect it.

/Reality not idealism.[/quote]
I agree with this point of view as long as one keeps repeating that same pattern.



[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307693147' post='2728507']This is the sort of position we've come to expect from people like you tbh. That your (I'm saying your in general terms here, there are other high profile offenders) bizarre rants in Alliance politics and the other "IC" forum (I forget its name) are somehow excusable because it's your detached "IC" opinion. An "OOC/IC divide" is an excuse for people to do stupid things, and then claim it was just an "IC" action later. It's like an institutionalised cop-out.[/quote]
The (alleged) misuse/unfair exploiting of a distinction doesn't invalid the distinction itself.



[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1307696378' post='2728516']The OOC-IC division serves to keep people from attacking others outside the game. But from my experience with roleplaying games, it doesn't work that way... most people suck at the OOC/IC division and take it very personally when their in-game character is destroyed. I'd personally want the flexibility to disband alliances or force them into a year's worth of reps, and then be able to invite the people in those alliances to my wedding, but that's just not going to happen.


So, yeah, I guess from this perspective, it makes sense to ban people's rerolls from positions of power or alliances. I'm just hoping it's not a slippery slope into bringing back EZI again.[/quote]
You would like that IC actions didn't compromise your OOC relationship (which I'd too would like) and at the same time you advocate for IC actions to (OOC-ly) limit players' options? Do you think that [i]that[/i] would improve OOC relationships?



[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1307703738' post='2728543']This is at least the second leader banned since karma.[/quote]
The first being?

[MrMuz]

Hmm... it is complicated.

There are IC->OOC->IC situations.. rerolls, OOC conversations revealing IC secret info. There was an interesting situation where one guy grabbed CN logs off google cache, but was warned because Google wasn't part of the game, even though that's where he got the info. In those cases, it may be punished IC even though it's stepped past the OOC line.

Keve being kicked out of the alliance is a complicated case, because an alliance doesn't just exist within the OWF and in the game. Your IC CN identity is known by your IP/hostmask rather than your CN nation.

However, I wouldn't want IC hatred to leak OOC. As much as I don't like a lot of people IC here, I wouldn't say something so horrible as "I hoped the earthquake [in hated person's area] killed him". No punishment should be dealt OOC, and there shouldn't be OOC consequences, even if it's just hard feelings. But I guess "I'll join your team in (other game) but I hope you never play CN again" is a perfectly fine reaction.

Edited June 10, 2011 by MrMuz

[nippy]

Some of you fools seriously deserve OOC beatings.

In all honesty, yeah...OOC terms like EZI are bleh.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307693147' post='2728507']
This is the sort of position we've come to expect from people like you tbh. That your (I'm saying your in general terms here, there are other high profile offenders) bizarre rants in Alliance politics and the other "IC" forum (I forget its name) are somehow excusable because it's your detached "IC" opinion. An "OOC/IC divide" is an excuse for people to do stupid things, and then claim it was just an "IC" action later. It's like an institutionalised cop-out.
[/quote]
The opposite allows people to attack me as a person based on whatever silly ramblings I say when I am in character.

Yes, it allows me to act a different way than I am in real life - Oh my god, that's why they call it "Role Play!" Imagine that, role play lets me do things detached from who I really am.

There cannot be a debate on this, because as per the rules, the forum staff, and the game itself, there [i]is[/i] a divide between IC and OOC. Stating that you don't respect that is stating that you don't respect a part of the game itself.

I have a right to play a character other than myself in IC forums, and to not be treated differently OOC based on my IC performance. Not that the OOC harassment I get bothers me much, but it's the principle of the matter. It's not a failing on my end, it's a failing on the end of those who don't respect how this game is constructed.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307715417' post='2728603']
<<pompous bs about the sanctity of the IC/OOC divide and the inherent rights of the player, etc, etc>>
[/quote]

You know what, I can recognize that you honestly believe that in CN the character is a 100% separate entity from the player and no amount of posting from anyone is going to sway you in that belief. Back in 2007 when there was still a lot of RP going on at the OWF/Alliance level I would have agreed with you. Now? With the IC/OOC line spread so thin that the difference between an IC and OOC post is basically whether or not you refer to this whole mess as a game or as planetbob? I think we've strayed to far to leave a nice clean break between someones "IC" persona and the personality/thoughts of the person behind the keyboard. But thats me.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Cobalt

[ShouAS]

You know, in the terms it says "sole leader" so Keve is free to return and lead UINE again if he/they want, however he is forced to have a 2nd in command at the least. So while yes it does stop him from being a dictator.

So it can be called an IC term, since the same person rerolling and going for the same position would be considered the same character.

But in general OOC terms are either just something silly, like write a essay. Or are things like EZI I do disagree with them.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='King Srqt' timestamp='1307634995' post='2727914']
I am usually against any type of OOC terms but in this case I can see the justification. Not putting that term in would allow UINE an OOC loophole to get Keve69 back in power which in my opinon is an underhanded tactic that should be prevented.

If Keve69 were to reroll without telling anyone and earn his way back into a sole leadership position without leveraging his old identity then I do not believe he or his alliance should be persecuted for a term violation but if he were to leverage his Keve69 identity to get a new character into leadership then I do believe it would be ok to view it a s a term violation.

(voted other)
[/quote]
This sums it up for me. If Keve were to reroll under a new name but continue playing as though he were Keve, it wouldn't be a new character at all, and so I don't think it would be OOC to say he can't be the leader. If, on the other hand, he were to start completely fresh as a new character, it would be very much OOC. I've no idea how R&R plans to enforce these terms and so I can't really know which way they're intended.

-Bama

[Holy Empire of Halin]

OOC terms should be used for IC actions. Some are just plain annoying and too involved IC that they need a wake up call every once a while.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Holy Empire of Halin

[ty345]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1307735329' post='2728756']
This sums it up for me. If Keve were to reroll under a new name but continue playing as though he were Keve, it wouldn't be a new character at all, and so I don't think it would be OOC to say he can't be the leader. If, on the other hand, he were to start completely fresh as a new character, it would be very much OOC. I've no idea how R&R plans to enforce these terms and so I can't really know which way they're intended.

-Bama
[/quote]
If he rerolled and acted as a completely new character, then it would be impossible for us to enforce the term in a sense. So it's kind of a self-sorting system whether it's IC or OOC.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='ty345' timestamp='1307739535' post='2728786']
If he rerolled and acted as a completely new character, then it would be impossible for us to enforce the term in a sense. So it's kind of a self-sorting system whether it's IC or OOC.
[/quote]
No, it can and has been done by IP tracking. Like I said though, I've no idea how y'all intend that term, so I will refrain from judging it as OOC.

-Bama

[jerdge]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1307742425' post='2728812']No, it can and has been done by IP tracking. Like I said though, I've no idea how y'all intend that term, so I will refrain from judging it as OOC.[/quote]
Yes, it deserves to be mentioned that the specific case might end up being handled quite differently from the term as it's written. Like always my ramblings are not much about the actual "case of study" and more about the "theory" behind it.

On an unrelated note, [url=http://img.fsgatelands.com/images/q86pr0fq7tmvvystqxyq.jpg]that XX signature[/url] is... WOW.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307715417' post='2728603']
Everything in Alliance Announcements [i]should[/i] be IC, but it often isn't (and in fact we have reports of "OOC in IC" all the time - that part of the UINE-R&R terms [i][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102510"]included[/url][/i]). There's no guarantee that something is IC just because it's in AA.[/quote]

An Alliance Announcement (so a treaty announcement, for instance) is IC. Alliance decisions, made on OOC forums, affect and influence IC actions. The two are not distinct.

[jerdge]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307746695' post='2728841']An Alliance Announcement (so a treaty announcement, for instance) is IC. Alliance decisions, made on OOC forums, affect and influence IC actions. The two are not distinct.[/quote]
I'm not sure that what you quoted has really to do with your reply. Furthermore, I can affect you and still be distinct from you.

[Bob Janova]

OOC terms (and yes, applying terms to rerolls is OOC) should be kept out of the game. There are very few exceptions and I'd hope that the people who deserved those would get banned anyway.