If someone calls you or your organisation a liar. What do you do? What if they don't allow you due time to prepare your evidence? What if they jump to assumptions? What do you do? I am quite interested to know. Since the reasonable response would be to tell that person to off and tell them to get some proper evidence or at least retract said statement until such time as they have allowed you the right to defend yourself. Is it unreasonable to defend oneself and to be given time to defend oneself?
"You are lying, Herr Congressman. The false details you sent us about the engagement are obviously an attempt to mask your motives, I dare say that I am highly doubting that there was a Wild attack or even original refugee ships to begin with, since we have literally no evidence of either. As opposed to that, all we see is slave liners packed with refugees from numerous sources, thus it is more than possible that you simply put those people into vessels of a class which you knew would be targeted by the Kusarians and flew up to Kusari-monitored space.
What you basically did was provoking the Kusarians into attacking that convoy, refugees or slaves, Junkers or Rheinland citizens, irrelevant. You had so many alternatives, so many choices and so many obvious, deliberate mistakes you easily could have avoided if you wanted to. You threw away the lives of thousands of people to what end?"
That statement is pure slander. How the frek a proper investigation team, led by government officials could come to this within two frekking days is beyond me. If I was faced with a statement like that, you can be sure that I would do something about it. What is so difficult to understand that what I have stated in the communications channel in response to The Major's statement is actually defense and not a threat?? It is also perfectly acceptable Role-Play.
I really want to see THE HAGUE conducting investigations of mass-murder, which like our case, did happen. And then calling the people who lost family members and relatives liars?? And all of this after just two days. Come on seriously. Please in future. Wait at least one frekking week before calling people liars. It adds to decent Role-play.
This is a role play situation. Deal with it in role play. If you can't carry on with playing your character or defending his stance among such circumstances, no one is asking you to do so.
This is a game, this is not real life. Why should we stall the investigation if we have all the needed evidence to piece everything together? Obviously we're not working with an entire division of bureaucrats in reality, for them there may be a need for more time, but we are in fact half dozen of real life people discussing something in a limited sphere, which are game mechanics and server rules.
Your character feels insulted? By all means, he has the right to do so. Feel free to voice it in-character, with the limited tools he or we have available. Just don't be surprised if people iRP take offense in what you said iRP.
You're feeling personally insulted? Your mindset is wrong about the whole situation then and you have no right to derail a role play scenario with OORP terms since no one here is actually after the Congress. We're people playing a game among boundaries, something like a deck of cards.
Please don't resort to taking this situation out of character when no one of the RM is doing so.
I think you missed my point. I am not insulted personally. My character was because you insulted his leader and his organisation. I did stick in RP. With this post, I am trying to provide a realistic situation within today's parameters to describe my character's role-play, that is all. I am not looking for an OORP fight. I merely wanted the understanding that you know it was all in role-play. Since your statement shows that, I guess my mission was solved.
Also, I don't understand how you can finish a fair investigation without hearing the other side. Natural law, audi et alteram partem and all that. That was all my character was asking for. My character found reason to disagree with your character because he went straight to calling Mr Crow a liar. Without waiting for his evidence. That is where his disagreement lies. It is why my character felt insulted.
Now, whatever other plans for role-play over this issue aside. Are you going to, I don't know, try and kill my character for speaking his mind, or is the matter settled? In other words. Is an supposed insult enough reason to allow other players to kill one another? Now remember, this isn't two pirates. It is a semi-lawful character in disagreement with a lawful faction.
I assumed you may have taken the situation personally due to your slightly hostile usage of words. I guess I was mistaken, forgive me.
Why the conclusion was said so prematurely is due to three reasons. I won't state two of them until the situation is resolved (since anyone could use it for metagaming purposes), but one was that the Admiral wanted to put pressure on the Junkers, seeing that no evidence has been forwarded while the opposing side had plenty of it.
As you can see by following the thread: The investigation is not officially over and we are in fact listening to the other side, even if we claim that we don't.
As for what we'll be doing with your character, you will see in role play or not at all.
Nah, I used the flagrant words because I was frustrated over the issue at hand. However, I was not insulted by it. Also, the Admiral called Mr Crow a liar. He didn't ask for the Junkers to speed up their research gathering or even realise that they had just lost over 7000 people and might need slightly longer than the killers to get their evidence in order. You realise that not waiting for the mourning of family members to subside and simply telling them that they are liars, will cause said family members to get highly angry at you. And because I find that perfectly acceptable role-play, I can now say that my character indeed acted right.
I simply don't understand the jump to calling Mr Crow a liar. You can say that Kusari and other forces had already collected all their evidence but that doesn't answer the question. That doesn't make Mr Crow a liar. You cannot say you are waiting for the other side to have their say if you call them a liar. To call someone a liar means you have already made up your mind.
Basically, if you said," Mr Crow, I think you are lying. Please bring me evidence to prove I am wrong."
I could live with it. But you called him a flat out liar. Am I being unreasonable with my view here? I really don't think I am.
Here's the funny thing. I believe I've already stated that I have no problem whatsoever having my character called a liar. Under the circumstances I kind of expect it. So why is this discussion still going on?
The only reason it is still on going is so that I know how your RP works. If someone called me a liar without proof, I would be upset. Therefore I acted as such. I was told that Mr Crow doesn't mind being called a liar and I tried to post in the communications channel the reason for my character's out burst so that no one thought it was out of play. To calm the situation down, so to speak.
Mr Zealot came along, deleted said post at which point I PMed him and asked if I could post it in the Feedback Thread. He said I could. And hence, here I am. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I think the debate The Major and I were having was actually quite civil, bar my first post. I would like to keep it that way. I really don't expect him to change. I would just like a proper answer. His seem incredibly vague to me.
I am quite new to the game, so try to bear with me. I haven't gone out of my way to troll anyone. I went through all the proper channels. I simply want to understand a few things in order so that next time things actually go the way you guys want them to go. If you don't allow me to understand the RP, how do you expect me to abide by it? The only way I can do that is by questioning and by using certain real-life scenarios.
As stated previously, I am not looking for an OORP fight, nor I am looking for The Major to change his RP. I am merely showing why I disagree with it. Is that not exactly what a Feedback Thread is all about?
I don't quite understand what question you exactly want answered but here is my final say on the matter, OOC:
As I previously said, if you're disagreeing with my role play, you're free to voice it in-character. Characters just like real people, make mistakes or false assumptions, that may be only seen as a mistake indeed for some individuals. It may have been a premature conclusion, it may have been a false assumption, there may be bias, there may be snake-headed aliens running the oil business, but either is yet to be proven and proving it is a process you'll have to make in-character, since it is an in-character situation.
What my character did in role play should stay on the plane of role play and no assumptions should be made, explained or contradicted out of role play, as far as I'm concerned since no mistakes have been made out of role play that should be explained out of role play. An investigation can be done in two days if there is enough evidence, it may be inaccurate or perfectly correct, same way someone being called a liar can be correct or incorrect, but neither is concluded so far and will not be concluded out of the scenario where it takes place, and that is a parallel universe, one we role play.
By the way, though I realize my actions largely represent the RM, this is in fact the faction feedback thread, and not the Admiral Voelkel feedback thread. Please keep that in mind.
![[Image: tycusdekker.png]](http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1935/tycusdekker.png)
![[Image: 13121_s.gif]](http://signavatar.com/13121_s.gif)
