There appears to me, as an outsider as I am not involved with any off the Groups, a lot of animosity here.
A few mistakes appear to have been made of both sides of the argument.
The main crux from the antagonists is that:
a) The membership of ZA within this Group.
Some people, within this Community, are very unforgiving and have long memories. Once you are tarnished it will stay with you forever. If you happen to be in the right Groups then they do 'forget your transgressions' whether large or small.
b) That the moved from being Red Hessians to HF in a blink of an eye.
I can see some peoples point InRP with this but yet again some of the antagonists have admitted they really don't care about RP as long as they, personally, are having fun. Some people, within this Community, are Purists and everything within the Game has to exactly right and heaven forbid it should you get anything wrong. (and before I get slated I am not saying either is wrong but that it is out there and so these posts occur)
c) That they made a mistake and assumed, incorrectly, that HF had died.
The Official Faction had died but a few people either are trying to resurrect it again or have kept on playing their HF Characters even though the Faction has a whole has died due to lack of inactivity. This does happen with other ex-Official Factions. It would be grown up if both sides, HF and DW sat and talked to each other (even if with a 3rd Party to act as a Mediator) and see if they can work out the issues and play together in this Game.
I witnesses the other day 3 HF Tagged Ships shooting the DW's Base. This was also after I saw a LN Dread shooting it with the HF just sat there watching. It wasn't until the Dread jumped back into Magellan did the HF follow and initiate an attack on it. (and before the usual 'provide SSs or it didn't happen' brigade come out, why should I lie? It is a Game and I gain nothing out of this post but trying to be fair, so why should I lie?).
d) The building of a Base next to the JH to Magellan (leads people, rightly or wrongly, to jump to conclusions that their intention is what ZA did to O-74).
This could be resolved by an agreement by DW not to build any Weapon Platforms on this Base. Then that problem would no longer be an issue. I am sure if both sides could agree on this it would smooth things out some.
On the Defendant's side.
a) They feel that they are personally being attacked. Having read the posts, even I can see where they get the idea from. Criticism can be constructive or destructive. I won't point out which ones are which as this causes more problems, but those with 'cool heads' can see. If the the Criticism came in from everybody as 'Hey guys I see where you are trying to go with this but that is wrong because a,b.c.d etc and have you thought about this and this.
Instead it comes over as 'Oh! look another idiotic post, can't you guys think for yourselves? Can't wait until the next mistake you make so I can jump on you again! This is a rather destructive criticism as it is not helpful and can be construed as an attack. The surprising thing is that the people who post this kind of reply honestly believe they are giving constructive criticism (maybe I am wrong on this score and they are just trying to get a reaction so they can then say 'hey! I told you how stupid you are as you don't listen to me!)
b) Antagonising/baiting certain members so that they react and jump in before they engage brain and see what it is, in reality.
This allows the people then to jump in and say 'look we told you so' and 'a leopard never changes it spots'.
I would expect better of the Community for 1) doing it and 2) allowing for it to happen.
Conclusion:
Some people in this Community like to crucify those for making mistakes or not fitting in with their ideas.
They all like to give their criticisms. The criticisms are generally palatable if they are constructive but aren't if they are destructive.
They like to give their suggestions but with so many suggestions where do you go? The Devs/Admins, over the years, have tried this and they still get slated for their mistakes.
At the end of the day:
YOU CAN PLEASE SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME BUT NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
No matter what you do, somebody will find fault with it.
I find also that some people will only partly read posts and assume they know what is being said. It is Human Nature, really, to read something and not really understand what is being said. This generally leads to a lot of arguments because:
i KNOW YOU BELIEVE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE/SAID.
BUT I AM NOT SURE, YOU REALISE THAT WHAT YOU READ/HEARD, ISN'T WHAT I MEANT.
When people have a dislike for others they will interpret what they read/hear, generally, in the least possible light. This happens in all walks of life from the greatest of people to the lesser mortals.
'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
