The Republic Of Liberty - Feedback and Reminder Thread

[Czechmate]

Yes, I saw as extremely biased when the government took my 13-21 score in a respawn event, outside of house space where you cannot even do roleplay consequences, to try force an entire faction to be FR5d without a single piece of evidence or roleplay or answer when asked for evidence. And then people proceeded to bully our members with this nonsense based on that biased failed oorp difference of opinion about PvP in a respawn event outside of house space they brought into roleplay. For literally over year and a half, some still do.

We also saw biased that government didn't allow 1st rep in because of personal dislike despite us being the number one most active faction in Liberty for a while now and many non OFs, not even on tracker reps being in and voting.

You will say you dislike us, we are low quality, and going 13-21 lost a 100-161 score event, but that stuff should not be your call, GOVS shouldn't act and make sweeping big moves against people's characters in roleplay because of oorp reasons and dislikes.

We also had the feeling requests for licences etc. Have been denied because it was "us" more likely than if e.g. a gov member would apply.


Stuff like this will now be prevented, we know that licence denials, attempts to oust a player from an ID for oorp reasons will be stopped before they go out.

What if this stuff you are saying won't change, because staff will agree that having Liberty Insurgency capital ships for Liberty Navy is stupid. And as per current rules, unofficial factions are not invited to government. Even though LibGov allowed in people who are smart enough to be in LibGov.

And I honestly don't know what event score has to do with anything, it was during my absence from Discovery, so if you would be so kind as to provide some background and links to that, it would be appreciated.

Context: Insurgency respawn event in Vespucci. I was then part of 46th, leading all roleplay and logging of Liberty when it came to going after the insurgency in RP for a long time.

I wanted 46th to win the rewards portion so I was going after kills recklessly, ending up with 13-21 K : D Score. Liberty lost with 100:160 score in the end. 46th proceeded to kick me for this, fair enough, I tried to make 46th win but it made them look bad, we didn't agree on
how to play the game, factions can have oorp disagreements on how to play the game, which happens all the time, and people part ways.

The thing was, this was a story event. The story premise was that Delaware went YOLO in recklessly not waiting for Ohio as canon character Brandt was cocky Insurgency hater glory seeker. My character lead the campaign. It was outside of house spacewhere roleplay consequences cannot be applied.

What gov did is they took this oorp disagreement and did this
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...sciplinary
and then proceeded to not show any evidence or reply, send an FR5 to staff against the entire first armada based on this. There are people still bullying my faction because of that post that would never be approved now to come out. It's same stuff as happened between Bretonia and Liberty, same stuff as to why reps of some non ofs were allowed in and some weren't, why licences seemed to be favourable to people who gov liked.

Other houses
There have been huge lapses before. There was a time when in Rheinland random players made a new non-OF RM, kicked [RM] lead out for inactivity and proceeded to give themselves votes.

I think we all know what happened in Bretonia - illegal sieges, oorp crap with Liberty, power-gaming. Gallia had its own issues I don't have to talk about here

[Saronsen]

send an FR5 to staff against the entire first armada based on this.

objectively wrong, it was just towards your character.
not that FR5s matter since you can just replace your super mega admiral with another name
your character van leer was the one getting bureaucracy'd, not you.
separate roleplay from reality please.
it gets on everyones nerves when you cant perceive them as different things

also id like to see any of this bullying you claim there to be

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[Karst]

Seeing how staff will be "supervising" everything governments do, I would like to know if there were incidents observed by players, or staff, that have been unfair or illogical that would warrant this shift from player-oriented government to staff-controlled. Thank you to those that can come forward and point out if we made any grave mistakes in our journey.

There have been a large number of issues over the years. Instances in which faction leaders were excluded because of disputes with a government. Instances in which house governments were de facto run by people who were not faction leaders. Decision-making with sometimes questionable outcomes potentially being decided by people with grudges who shouldn't even have been in the position, in a manner that we had no way of tracing the process of.
I've seen these issues first-hand in the Rheinland government, in which we launched a literal coup d'êtat after a power grab by RM, and staff had to get involved when they refused to work with us after.

To be clear, the governments will be staff supervised, not staff controlled. Staff aren't going to interfere with "regular business" the governments do. We just want to make sure that every faction's voices are heard, and we don't have uninvolved players pulling the strings in the background, using governments as their own personal tools.

---

[SnakThree]

Seeing how staff will be "supervising" everything governments do, I would like to know if there were incidents observed by players, or staff, that have been unfair or illogical that would warrant this shift from player-oriented government to staff-controlled. Thank you to those that can come forward and point out if we made any grave mistakes in our journey.

There have been a large number of issues over the years. Instances in which faction leaders were excluded because of disputes with a government. Instances in which house governments were de facto run by people who were not faction leaders. Decision-making with sometimes questionable outcomes potentially being decided by people with grudges who shouldn't even have been in the position, in a manner that we had no way of tracing the process of.
I've seen these issues first-hand in the Rheinland government, in which we launched a literal coup d'êtat after a power grab by RM, and staff had to get involved when they refused to work with us after.

To be clear, the governments will be staff supervised, not staff controlled. Staff aren't going to interfere with "regular business" the governments do. We just want to make sure that every faction's voices are heard, and we don't have uninvolved players pulling the strings in the background, using governments as their own personal tools.

You could have asked to have Staff rep in LibGov server to see if we are problematic. Going 0-100 really fast here. And what's the issue if LibGov is made of more unofficial players than official leaders? 14 people with 14 opinions is better than 4 when it comes to making decision based on majority of votes. I might have time for LibGov the most, because I don't actively play in official faction, but that doesn't make me less beneficial to LibGov. Especially when I am constantly drilling people to vote, to change laws, to improve things and overall be more pleasant people to be around and interact.

---

[SnakThree]

@SnakThree - what's particularly ironic about your opposition to the gov changes is how you've been observed blocking out reps you didn't want in the past. I can recall the last episode of this being with IC and Hokan unless I'm mistaken.

I can also recall you being perfectly willing to actively conspire with KuGov to effectively split Kepler in half and try annexing it in the past, which I even spoke to you about over discord and voiced my disapproval as a regional unlawful. You were less than receptive to compromise though.

Would you be willing to own up to this track record as loudly as you voice your criticisms?

Found our conversation, from 2020 September. Imagine trying to misrepresent "willing to actively conspire with KuGov" accusation. Is this a low-effort attempt to skew reality and to slander someone in such petty way?

SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:05 PM
Any constructive feedback to make LibGov better?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:13 PM
A good start for any player gov to be less horrible to interact with, would be if they weren't constantly trying to annex their surrounding IWs. The Independent Worlds are called Independent for good reason, and this is a classification all the Houses acknowledge. The problem most people face with player govs is that they usually try to minmax benefits for themselves but pile on consequences for opponents.
I don't mean to state that situations like Bering should be ignored, however. Bering was an instance where I feel Liberty should have acted a lot earlier even. But it can be pretty painful being a faction like the Zoners in the IWs.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:15 PM
What about Magellan and Universal base there?
Cortez with OSC Planet?
Galileo is obviously independent
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:15 PM
Magellan with the Universal base is not something I like, originally it used to have an IMG base which made sense.
Cortez with the OSC Planet is a fair setting considering the Liberty Navy used to be unable to really do anything about the Rogue presence in the system.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:16 PM
What about minmaxing you meant?
POBs?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:19 PM
By minmaxing I essentially mean that House Govs will make laws as per whatever's most beneficial to them at the time. So for e.g even with the Nu discovery Liberty is very quick to just claim everything in the system. This isn't honestly the Govs fault since it was the intention of the team for Liberty to grow into the system, but I do feel like it could have been more gradual than simply announcing everything belonged to Liberty. Again, that's more of a developmental failure.

Another example is the reason behind why the Outworlder IFF even exists, because people are quite certain that even if a splinter group disowned by the Zoners, so much as flicks Liberty's nose under the Zoner IFF, then every Zoner installation in and around Liberty is under threat of retaliation.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:20 PM
So far that seems like nothing LibGov is at fault over.
Claiming a system that you built into seems appropriate
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:21 PM
It's the fact that player govs typically have no restraint.
And go from 0 to 100 immediately.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:21 PM
And Zoner fears... Well that's just ooRP fear from people who isn't suppose to have a say over such matters
As in, Zoners are always going far away from houses, and Nu just happens to be "Liberty's" system
They have their whole Omicrons, except the newly discovered one
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:22 PM
The Zoners do try to go away from the Houses, which is why the IWs are populated by such elements. But the IWs don't feel independent at all, because the Houses still exert influence over them substantially.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:23 PM
That happens because houses have assets there.
Galileo is great example how houses don't give a shit about it at all.
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:25 PM
It would be nice if the Houses played it so that the IWs really were IWs, and that trying to take control of them or do things there always entails a risk of diplomatic tension.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:25 PM
But again, houses have assets there since vanila
With exception of Magellan which is now new thinf
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:26 PM
Yes but you wouldn't find warship patrols across the border.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:26 PM
Or would you find anyone capable to seriously fight against houses, right?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:26 PM
What do you mean by that?
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:27 PM
Warships or not, even IW lanes are designated by local navy IFFs
And houses have assets there hus making sense to exert some level of law enforcement
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:28 PM
Houses can exert some semblance of enforcement in the IWs by using third parties that do not carry such diplomatic weight.
That's why the Bounty Hunters were so popular, they could operate across borders and in the IWs without fear of any diplomatic fallout.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:28 PM
I am confused why would houses be afraid of diplomatic weight
Cortez and Magellan are between allies
Kepler and Galileo are useless.
Bering is now one-sided on Liberty
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:29 PM
It was set up that way so that the IWs could be truly Independent to a healthy extent.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:29 PM
Hudson has Liberty's olanet
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:29 PM
Discovery has done a lot of stuff to undermine that.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:29 PM
Vanila was like that to begin with
Cortez. Vanilam
Hudson. I think vanilla too
Bering is the only IW system with such a major change
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:30 PM
Hudson is a potential example of how such a diplomatic fallout could occur.
With a Liberty colony along the border with Rheinland.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:31 PM
Okay, so what is the problem them
We aren't choking anyone out of IW systems.
Laws are there to be kept by lawfuls. Is that bad?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:32 PM
There should be some aspect of restraint applied to how lawfuls can operate in the IWs.
Atm they can just treat them like House systems.
Normally, if Hackers were doing something closer to the Kusari gate in Galileo, Liberty wouldn't be able to just cross over and touch them.
But as per the current setup they can, and they can do so with warships.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:33 PM
Would Kusari care if Liberty shot Hackers though?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:33 PM
It just looks odd, and it seems like something which wouldn't happen.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:33 PM
It's not in Shikoku so what's the issue?
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:33 PM
Galileo is Independent and should be kept void of any military presence to keep the peace, sending a force in causes tension and suspicion.
That's why it looks odd.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:34 PM
Dunno. Seems like good deal for Kusari if Libert lawfuls go there to shoot hostiles.
They don't risk their own assets
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:34 PM
That's the probem with player govs, they will minmax arrangements like that.
When traditionally this would not happen given what I already stated.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:34 PM
Dunno then.
Seems like your frustration stems from your idealistic view on how things should happen and you just pour it out on me when you feel like it
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:35 PM
If that's what you'd like to believe, sure.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:36 PM
That's what you have shown me so far.
Like talking about FR5s
Reeves — 09/15/2020 3:36 PM
Sure.
SnakThree — 09/15/2020 3:36 PM
And when I call it bullshit you go on to insult ms
There hasn't been talk on FR5ing anyone on such scale.
Maybe the last talk was that Bretonia cap pilot as LN ID.
That's it.
FR5 is factions' stuff.
Not LibGov.
We don't hold strings over LPI when they do their stuff with fining people with their own FR5 threat
If you have grievance with that, talk to them.
Notice how that IMG shit went down, we simply outlawed their officials after getting permission from GMs.
And if you think that house should not react to their corporations being shot down by independent organisation, then that's just completely shutting down any plausible roleplay consequences

---

[Saronsen]

I can also recall you being perfectly willing to actively conspire with KuGov

the only conspiracy involving kusari since late 2019 was me wanting to shoot them (and everyone else) with =LSF= then not caring a week later
id be more than happy to invite you to libgov so you can see us bitching about stupid things/read our archives
but i suppose the reality would be less interesting to you than whatever people imagine up about libgov.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[Reeves]

Is this a low-effort attempt to skew reality and to slander someone in such petty way?

Lmao.

Thanks for the logs, I wasn't able to dig that up on my end. You're proving my point though, especially the one line where you outright state it's a good deal for both Houses to just set aside tension from patrolling the border if it means cracking down on unlawfuls. Which was the exact thing I was expressing my dislike for in that conversation.

You're the archetypical representation of why the new system is necessary. Again, thank you for the logs, I really needed to be reminded how bad things used to be so I can properly appreciate how far we've come.

---

[Saronsen]

Thanks for the logs, I wasn't able to dig that up on my end. You're proving my point though, especially the one line where you outright state it's a good deal for both Houses to just set aside tension from patrolling the border if it means cracking down on unlawfuls. Which was the exact thing I was expressing my dislike for in that conversation.

youre conflating with what hes saying with wanting to crack down on players
its that houses, in any realistic setting, should want to work together to crack down on pirates.
we all know about how you feel about the independent worlds and how you think houses should be impotent to the point of not functioning even within their borders, yes, thank you.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=202684
Time left: (Permanent)

[Emperor Tekagi]

Amusingly they never reached out to us at all. Seems your conversation did what you hoped for, Reeves.

[SnakThree]

Is this a low-effort attempt to skew reality and to slander someone in such petty way?

Lmao.

Thanks for the logs, I wasn't able to dig that up on my end. You're proving my point though, especially the one line where you outright state it's a good deal for both Houses to just set aside tension from patrolling the border if it means cracking down on unlawfuls. Which was the exact thing I was expressing my dislike for in that conversation.

You're the archetypical representation of why the new system is necessary. Again, thank you for the logs, I really needed to be reminded how bad things used to be so I can properly appreciate how far we've come.

Imagine you liking independent worlds, lawful players not liking that they can't be controlled in the slightest and taking on personal mission to count that as LibGov being horrible for wanting to patrol those systems and enforce laws (which is allowed since introductions of ID permissions, with exception of POBs which most people plopped left and right with no regards towards anything).

My opinion is one singular opinion between 14 people in LibGov. LibGov is great example how different people come together, vote on things and 51% of votes means it is done, whether the other half likes it or not.

You are cherry picking things to suit you based on personal discussions we had. That's great representation of you being archetypal misrepresentator to suit your needs, and going after the person, not the process.

I never claim that I don't make mistakes. And at no point have I claimed LibGov is perfect. But we certainly do our best to be fair and have biggest number of representatives that staff essentially want to filter out.

So far you only prove that you have zero understanding how LibGov actually operates and are barking at the wrong issue.

Amusingly they never reached out to us at all. Seems your conversation did what you hoped for, Reeves.

That's because the whole conversation was theoretical but Reeves is taking it for granted as if personal thoughts are actionable and set in stone to happen.

---