[RHA] Reputation Adjusted

[Hokan]

NOTE: Whenever I say 'you' I'm referring to the GM team. Not you specifically Champ

I am not involved in the roleplay around the Freeport involved, nor Zoners broadly, nor am I involved with the destroyed player base, or indeed the [RHA]. To my knowledge, none of the GMs involved in the decision are, either. We recuse ourselves and abstain from discussion when we are involved in the factions at play, where practical, to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest.

I believed that to be the case, but I wasn't trying to make that accusation.

Mixing roleplay with server administration is when GMs might approve their own SRP, or use access privileges to advantage themselves somehow, like repsheet modification on their characters - abuse of power stuff. I do not believe that this obligation has been violated.

While I see what angle you are coming from here, specifically with the repsheets as it relates to this situation. All changes of this nature that I have observed have been through OF player requests for that change, sometimes even mutual requests for the change. If the GMs take action following instruction of player/story requests, then this would be the function of server administration. This particular case, as you even said yourself is not one of those circumstances. As no OF instruction was given.

@Kalhmera that is correct, this is not an FR5. This was not an action sponsored by any Zoner factions, so your diplomacy with them, as normally negotiated between player factions, is not at play. Official factions are not the be-all and end-all of what is reasonable.

This is not a sanction for a rule violation. But, the faction did en masse break the documented roleplay laws of the Zoners of Freeport whichever-it-is, and not even a little one, but the big and very old NFZ one. The one that meant that some Freeports had fields put around them to tell players they were entering an NFZ. And it just doesn't quite seem right that nothing happens when the Freeport was used as a base, and the laws broken, in pursuit of the destruction of a POB that aligned itself with that station. So with that in mind, the Zoners are mad at you. How long will this be the case? For a while. Is it permanent? Definitely not. Does it have any bearing on or indication of future canon story lines, events or diplomacy? Absolutely not. I'm hoping you'll see this as a logical, roleplay-preserving step, rather than taking offence to it. The alternative is that there are no consequences for it, which seems lacking.

If this is not requested by the Zoners, nor RHA. Then this isn't a conventional function of administration. It is GMs enforcing RP consequences based on their own volition as they are doing it without direction to do so. Which is an area I believe obligation 3 may have been supposed to cover, since it can become highly abuse-able once this Pandora's box is opened.

I'll post the obligation again, for those who may be doing the injustice of skimming the conversation.
3. Not to mix server roleplaying with server administration in any way.

Suggesting that there is some absolute separation as there should be for church and state neglects that there is an intersection of adminstration and roleplay at large, because this is a roleplay server. Considerations for the roleplay involved in situations must be considered when making decisions. That analysis and judgement at the intersection of the server's roleplay and server administration is how SRPs, player requests, faction requests and most things are assessed. Every GM is also a player, with characters and roleplay, and obviously we cannot exclude people from being GMs on that basis.

This administration you are referring to here, is the actions you undertake as GMs a result of various player made requests. In that sense, you're being directed by players to make a decision on a requested change. The players here are wanting you to facilitate their own roleplay. In this case, you're cutting out the player element in the function of administration, and instead taking it upon yourself to enforce consequences of roleplay. As I highlighted in bold in one of the previous quotes.

Breaking the emergency glass and bringing out 0.0 for this would be unwarranted and extreme, given that I do not believe there was such a malice or intentional circumvention of the rules, and that in my view, a punishment in accordance with 0.0 would have been excessive. I reject your assertion that this action is otherwise acting outside of our obligations, which I would quote here if you had not already provided them.

This is interestingly what I believed to be the actual reason for this action is. You didn't want to be heavy handed, but believed something ought to happen. However, in the effort to seek a consequence I believe you may have inadvertently crossed into territory that the GMs weren't not supposed to be in. I hope what I've said so far is clear enough for you to understand my point.