+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Official Player Factions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+---- Forum: Liberty (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=71)
+----- Forum: [LN] (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=715)
+----- Thread: Liberty Navy [LN] Feedback Thread (/showthread.php?tid=11128)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Jihadjoe - 07-24-2015
(07-24-2015, 02:12 AM)Mímir Wrote: Well that of course depends on the scope of the inquiry. There are biological markers, behavior attributed to hormones etc. that are independent of culture or creed. Emotional structures that we are all - in our capacity as human beings - submitted to and shaped by.
And those biological and hormonal tendancies find resonance in a purely cultural phenomenon (like the behaviour expected of a high ranking naval officer) how?
The point is, cultural expectation and cultural modes of behaviour are not stable... More, they are highly subjective, relative to one another, the upbringing and cultural exposure of the observer, and all the predjudices formed as a result. They are also not always followed.
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Mímir - 07-24-2015
Well, I merely used the role of a mother or father to point out how roles are containers, but containers with rules. That does in no way interfere with individuality and variation, although the range of possible actions by the individual is limited by those rules. As a parent, I couldn't go on a three month binge drinking quest and remain a parent - either authorities would take away my child or it would die, much like a general cannot attack the institutions he or she has sworn to protect and still remain a general. It goes against duty. These are extreme examples, but I hope you can see how there are confines and limits associated with these roles, yet those confines and limits do in no way rule out individuality. Hence the cardboard thing isn't really applicable.
Now if you look at military and military ranks, they are containers with rules as well. A general is a (cultural) position, not a person. A position within a hierarchy with strict confines and regulations that governs the person holding that seat of power - much in the same way that the biology of parenthood governs the actions of the person that is the father or the mother. There is a clear-cut power relation between parent and child, just like there is a clear-cut power relation between the general and his subordinates. They are both positions within structures with their own logics, albeit one is biological and the other is socio-cultural, and they are both constituted by their distance or relation to other positions within the same system (parent-child, general-subordinate - there could be no parent without a child, just like there can be no general without subordinates etc.).
Naturally there are a lot of things that sets 'parent' apart from 'general' (and obviously the cultural apart from the biological), but for this very narrow purpose, I think the example works alright. In hindsight I should have said 'boss' or something similar to avoid the confusion, but we are not exactly writing a uni paper here, so forgive me for not choosing a simpler and more clear example. There are however plenty to choose from.
The point is there are rules attached to any position within any social structure, and in the case of the military those rules are very explicit.
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Sarawr!? - 07-24-2015
"If you don't want to have to kill or capture every bad guy in the country, you have to reintegrate those who are willing to be reconciled and become part of the solution instead of a continued part of the problem. And then, above all, the resources."
David Petraeus,
Commander, US MNF Iraq, USF Afghanistan. (And also a few different airborne/infantry units as well.)
Sounds an aaaaawful lot like what Rachel was trying to do, if you ask me. What do I know though, right?
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Mímir - 07-24-2015
Well that might be what Rachel was trying to do, but here's what she said (to the terrorist):
"In fact, the Privatization of the vast majority of Liberty's police forces in space, and on our planets is something of great concern to me [...] I've seen firsthand the negative effects that Corporate Influence can have on the average Libertonian, and on government[...]If the Navy actually held power over the government, as you seem to be insinuating, I'd absolutely disband any privatized police forces existing within Liberty, and have their assets nationalized so that they could be held accountable to the people."
How on earth does that in any way or shape sound similar to:
"If you don't want to have to kill or capture every bad guy in the country, you have to reintegrate those who are willing to be reconciled and become part of the solution instead of a continued part of the problem. And then, above all, the resources"
Petraeus makes no notion of his personal opinion. He is stating that "if you don't want to..." and goes on with a formal analysis that is pretty much common sense backed by every scholar in the field. He says nothing about what he wants. He doesn't say "I don't want to". He makes no mention of the US and it's faulty institutions, he is solely talking about "the bad guys" and how the good guys should handle them. The difference is so vast.
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Sarawr!? - 07-24-2015
"Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar. And still there are things worth fighting for."
Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander US Central Command.
"I may have made my reputation as a general in the Army, and I'm very proud of that. But I've always felt that I was more than one-dimensional. I'd like to think I'm a caring human being."
Norman Schwarzkopf.
"I hate war. Absolutely, I hate war."
Norman Schwarzkopf.
The point I'm making is that, no in fact, real Generals are not cardboard cut-outs who march in lockstep with policy 100% of the time, that didn't make them any less capable, or any less loyal, and the same applies to Rachel.
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Jihadjoe - 07-24-2015
(07-24-2015, 02:33 AM)Mímir Wrote: The point is there are rules attached to any position within any social structure, and in the case of the military those rules are very explicit.
And they change over time. If we look at the Napoleonic era of warfare, an officer bought their commission. Duels between officers on the same side as one another happened - even if frowned upon. These were the cultural expectations. To be an officer, one had to be of a certain social class, and ready to uphold one's honour as a gentleman. Additionally, a great many officers were also politicians.
Some of these notions (notably buying commissions and dueling) have long since passed into being considered vaguely ridiculous. That was a mere 200 years ago - There has been a massive cultural shift in that time. With freelancer, we're looking at a cultural mode of existing which is 900+ years in the future.
Additionally, there are numerous examples of military leaders in the current era who have broken with the contemporary cultural norms and have made highly outspoken statements. To state that any cultural rule is stable and always adhered to, is a ridiculous claim.
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Mímir - 07-24-2015
I find it hard to believe he said those things while in service. If you have the references handy, can I check the date?
Oliver North is a right-winged radio talkshow host now with opinions on just about everything. A lot of other retired military officers are part of the opinion-making process, but that is after retirement. I never questioned that for a moment.
EDIT: Joe, you are absolutely right that those roles and positions and thus the structure is fluid and changes over time. That's real life. But if we do not base our shared fiction on those familiar structures (I'll have you know that Vanilla Freelancer in most points share exact cultural traits with contemporary-ish society), then everything is up to debate. Why doesn't military align with pirates? Why doesn't traders buddy up with terrorists? Why call it 'navy', 'military', 'officer', 'admiral' if the meaning is something entirely different from our contemporary understanding? If everything is up in the air, is an admiral just a random word with no meaning attached at all? Is everything relative, and if so how on earth is that conducive to social story crafting? How is it even possible to perform social roleplay if there's no shared basis or understanding? And if new meaning is to be attached, is it up to the official faction players to do so at a whim? When I roleplay my Liberty Navy character, can I totally disregard an admirals order on the basis that "an admiral is something else 900 years out in the future"?
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Sarawr!? - 07-24-2015
(07-24-2015, 02:50 AM)Mímir Wrote: Well that might be what Rachel was trying to do, but here's what she said (to the terrorist):
"In fact, the Privatization of the vast majority of Liberty's police forces in space, and on our planets is something of great concern to me [...] I've seen firsthand the negative effects that Corporate Influence can have on the average Libertonian, and on government[...]If the Navy actually held power over the government, as you seem to be insinuating, I'd absolutely disband any privatized police forces existing within Liberty, and have their assets nationalized so that they could be held accountable to the people."
How on earth does that in any way or shape sound similar to:
"If you don't want to have to kill or capture every bad guy in the country, you have to reintegrate those who are willing to be reconciled and become part of the solution instead of a continued part of the problem. And then, above all, the resources"
Petraeus makes no notion of his personal opinion. He is stating that "if you don't want to..." and goes on with a formal analysis that is pretty much common sense backed by every scholar in the field. He says nothing about what he wants. He doesn't say "I don't want to". He makes no mention of the US and it's faulty institutions, he is solely talking about "the bad guys". The difference is so vast.
So again, you're refusing to look at the entire message and choosing only to take one portion of it and remove the context in which it was said. In which case, this conversation is pointless.
OH, and if you think there's no mention of "imperfect governments" or other even more unpleasant terms and the suchlike in reconciliation talks between local tribal leaders/terrorist militias and US/Coalition troops, you're dead wrong.
Do you really think you'd be able to convince people taken to violent extremism to just give that up, if you absolutely refused to see eye to eye with them on some level?
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Jonas Valent - 07-24-2015
(07-23-2015, 01:40 AM)Captain_Nemo Wrote: This is a total joke
There is not a single military service on this entire planet that would allow an Admiral to speak their mind publicly and still remain at their post.
If the Navy wanted to maintain credibility they should have demoted the admiral, there is nothing preventing the player behind the character from creating a new Admiral to reflect their position within the Liberty Navy.
Punishment would be handed out and far less people would be upset; however the path the Liberty Navy (and by extension the Liberty Government) has taken tells me that the Liberty Government is nothing more than a joke that exists to only benefit those "in the know"
It is a joke. For the longest time there was a" Secret Conspiracy Power Rulers chat" made up of some people in LibGov where the decisions were made because that was the only way to prevent other LibGov members from having a real say. I'm sad to say for a time I was in the chat and besides me there was nothing but [LN] members including ones that weren't even in LibGov. The arrogance of [LN] has always existed but it's only in the past few months where it's gotten ridiculous. Besides the blatant ooRP hate the have shown towards certain groups they mistakenly believe that they control the direction of Liberty.
This is a group that because of ooRP dislike drove one of the most active factions off the server by ILLEGALLY destroying a junker POB. Yet who stood up to them when they tried to kill another, LPI the same faction that Admiral Baker feels should be dismantled. Citizens of Liberty remember who stands up for you when others pile on the ooRP hate. Remember La Mona!
RE: Liberty Navy [LN] - Mímir - 07-24-2015
(07-24-2015, 03:03 AM)Sarawr!? Wrote: So again, you're refusing to look at the entire message and choosing only to take one portion of it and remove the context in which it was said. In which case, this conversation is pointless.
Wut? I read the entire message, what did I leave out? You wanted me to paste your entire roleplay posts in here? I think we can all read, we all know the context, so I highlighted the important. I even clearly marked where I have trimmed the quotes to make them more manageable, what more do you want?
I am well aware that most of the rest of the transmission is in no way problematic - that's why there's no need to highlight those parts. I can if you want me to, but please don't say crap like "this conversation is pointless" and cop-out because I didn't present the unproblematic parts of the transmission.
(07-24-2015, 03:03 AM)Sarawr!? Wrote: OH, and if you think there's no mention of "imperfect governments" or other even more unpleasant terms and the suchlike in reconciliation talks between local tribal leaders/terrorist militias and US/Coalition troops, you're dead wrong.
I am definitely not ruling out that I could be dead wrong, but you need to back a bold statement like that up by evidence.
(07-24-2015, 03:03 AM)Sarawr!? Wrote: Do you really think you'd be able to convince people taken to violent extremism to just give that up, if you absolutely refused to see eye to eye with them on some level?
I believe you cannot convince people that have taken up violent extremism to give it up, not with words at any rate. I am quite sure that political violent extremism has got a lot more to do with material factors than words, but that's another discussion. But if you think a nice lunch date with Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Tony Blair and George W. Bush would have fixed all the problems if only Bush and Blair had been soft and understanding enough in their approach and dialogue, I reserve the right to think that you are dead wrong
